John Edwards for President.

[Reaganfan]

Consider strong Kerry victories in Minnesota and Michigan, Kerry's victory in Wisconsin (where Bush led by up to 10) and the closeness of Iowa and Ohio.

Since when is 3% strong?

It's really not. 5% and above is strong IMO. Remember two years ago..."OHIO'S ECONOMY IS SO TERRIBLE...BUSH CAN NOT WIN THE STATE!"

He won it. I think it will be a swing state-lean GOP if McCain is the nominee.

[Smash255]

Consider strong Kerry victories in Minnesota and Michigan, Kerry's victory in Wisconsin (where Bush led by up to 10) and the closeness of Iowa and Ohio.

Since when is 3% strong?

It's really not. 5% and above is strong IMO. Remember two years ago..."OHIO'S ECONOMY IS SO TERRIBLE...BUSH CAN NOT WIN THE STATE!"

He won it. I think it will be a swing state-lean GOP if McCain is the nominee.

You do realize that they hate Bush's guts and hate everything GOP right now don't you???

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

After 8 years of failed foreign policy, what makes you think the American people are going to want to put a "hawk" back in office?

Uh....with terrorist attacks occuring often (9/11/01, 10/02 in Bali, 3/11/04 in Spain, 7-7-05 in UK, and the thwarted 8/16/06 UK-US terror plot...Americans are gonna want a strong leader on defense.

Well, anyone who ignored this memo is incredibly weak on terrorism.

[Smash255]

After 8 years of failed foreign policy, what makes you think the American people are going to want to put a "hawk" back in office?

Uh....with terrorist attacks occuring often (9/11/01, 10/02 in Bali, 3/11/04 in Spain, 7-7-05 in UK, and the thwarted 8/16/06 UK-US terror plot...Americans are gonna want a strong leader on defense.

Strong leader doesn't exactly mean sticking to an insane war.  If anything McCain's views on Iraq and increasing troop level SEVERELY HURTS the view of him being a strong leader.

[ottermax]

It's a little too early to say that all the candidates are horrible for the Democrats, politics can change drastically in two years. They may be poor candidates right now, but the candidates could change.

I also think that Democrats are not done with the South, at least the Atlantic South. Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, even Georgia and South Carolina could begin to tilt to the left as they begin to see a movement of northern liberals southward. The change may be a little slower than in the southwest, where a quicker, and larger shift to the left is expected, but the South will likely change, but not as a whole.

[Smash255]

The fact that the democrats have such lightweights really shows that,
maybe Hillary IS the most qualified candidate for the democrats.
Obama is a two year liberal Senator who just three years ago was
an unknown state senator. Edwards even being considered a frontrunner
two years after leaving office as a one-term North Carolina Senator,
and two years after being defeated on the democratic ticket, bringing
nothing to the table at all, he is expected to pull the heavily
Republican south out in 2008? The breck girl? Come on.

Okay, let's say Edwards wins Iowa, South Carolina, and get the big mo'
against Hillary and wins the nomination. He faces off against Arizona
Senator John McCain. How does McCain's stature as a deficit hawk,
a foreign policy hawk, and a distinguished 20 year Senate career as
a maverick Republican face against Edwards' 4 year former liberal Senate
career?

I'm being honest here. McCain takes all Bush 2004 states, grabs New Hampshire,
Wisconsin, and Oregon while Edwards takes the rest. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota
and Michigan would be close. I think Florida would go atleast 5-6 pts for McCain.

So what if he's been out of office for two years?  He's spent that time doing more work for America and the world than most people that stayed in the Senate.  And yes, Edwards did not make anything in the South close nor was he picked to do so, he was brought in to help Kerry in the economically torn Midwest, which he did well.  Consider strong Kerry victories in Minnesota and Michigan, Kerry's victory in Wisconsin (where Bush led by up to 10) and the closeness of Iowa and Ohio.  There's only so much a VP candidate can do, he's not at the top of the ticket. 

I don't think being only a one-term Senator matters.  When have long Senate careers ever helped anybody?  Did Kerry win?  How about Dole?  How about Gore?  All these guys ran partly on a distinguished career in the Senate.  Not only that, most times in a Presidential election people are looking for outsiders who haven't been in Washington for a long time.  Look at how many governors have been elected throughout history. 

FDR won after being a losing VP....so what? 

About McCain.  Reiterating my point, a long Senate career almost never helps.  After 8 years of failed foreign policy, what makes you think the American people are going to want to put a "hawk" back in office?  And I don't think we can call McCain a maverick anymore, he dropped that a long time ago, and it has shown in his unwavering support for George W. since the 2004 election.  I don't think any Democrat opposing him has to do much  more than cite the fact McCain wants MORE troops in Iraq to pull in at LEAST 40% of the vote.  And in Edwards' case, being a bit liberal has helped him.  He would undoubtedly have the Democratic base in his hands, as well as a good portion of the populist vote that has gone to Bush in recent elections.  Not going to say that McCain wouldn't eventually win, but saying McCain is almost unbeatable is ridiculous. 

Now to the states you mentioned:

New Hampshire - this state is going the way of the rest of New England.  A Democratic governor, two Dem House members, and recently on the national level, a 2 pt victory for liberal John Kerry in a Bush win.  This is not a GOP stronghold anymore, nor does it lean GOP anymore.  If a Republican wins here, consider it over, Edwards would easily take it in a close contest. 

Wisconsin - no way would McCain win here over a populist.  If Bush couldn't pull this off in 2004, I doubt Edwards would lose it against anybody.  His message fits the state perfectly. 

Oregon - McCain would have to get rural Oregon to outvote the heavily liberal/Democratic Portland area, something that has not been done in over 20 years.  Don't count on it. 

Ohio - Edwards would win Ohio....and easily. 

Pennsylvania - have you looked and the trends in PA?  The Philly 'burbs are moving sharply towards the Democrats, and Edwards would nullify the GOP trend in the Pittsburgh area.  This is anywhere from a 5 to 8 pt Edwards victory, even in a tight race. 

Minnesota - it could be close, but I really doubt it.  Edwards plays well in the Midwest. 

Michigan - This could be an interesting one, McCain has always seemed to be popular here.  I think Edwards wins by 2-3. 

Florida - Edwards v. McCain?  Dead heat.  No way to tell.  I'd predict McCain by <1%

Anyhoo, my prediction for a Edwards/McCain matchup? 

Edwards 306
McCain 232

I just think Edwards is a fresher face, despite being the VP in 2004, and wins because of it.  His populist message resonates especially in the Midwest, and don't think for a minute that 8 years of an unpopular GOP administration is not going to hurt McCain.  PV is closer than EV, but Edwards pulls it out 50-49. 

very strong analysis

[Rob]

Uh....with terrorist attacks occuring often (9/11/01, 10/02 in Bali, 3/11/04 in Spain, 7-7-05 in UK, and the thwarted 8/16/06 UK-US terror plot...Americans are gonna want a strong leader on defense.

I never understood this line of argument- it's so counterintuitive. Lots of terrorist attacks happen under Republican rule, so... the Republicans are keeping us safe?

[Smash255]

It's a little too early to say that all the candidates are horrible for the Democrats, politics can change drastically in two years. They may be poor candidates right now, but the candidates could change.

I also think that Democrats are not done with the South, at least the Atlantic South. Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, even Georgia and South Carolina could begin to tilt to the left as they begin to see a movement of northern liberals southward. The change may be a little slower than in the southwest, where a quicker, and larger shift to the left is expected, but the South will likely change, but not as a whole.

Not so sure about S.C & Georgia (though I think the Charlotte burbs in S.C (York County) will become less republican) with that being said not enough to change S.C much & might be offset by other parts of the state.

VA & NC are different, especially VA.  The change is no question happening in VA.  Northern VA is absolutely FLYING leftward and that trend is likely to continue.  Even suburban Richmond which is still very GOP friendly, isn't nearly as strong as it once was for the GOP.  Their are some GOP gains in SW VA, ex Dem strongholds, but the population differences from the Dem trending areas FAR outweigh the population of the GOP trending areas in the state.  VA is probably on the outskirts for the Dems in 08 (minus Warner on the ticket, then its theirs), but a 50/50 election in 2012 it has a good chance to go Dem, and is pretty much a tossup.

NC is a bit further down the road than that, but is making a slow Dem trend.  The Charlotte area is growing rapidly, many from northeast, especially New York transplants (my family is likely moving down there within the next couple years and I might as well) .  The growth this area will see from the northeast especially the socially liberal NYC suburbs such as Long Island and Westchester will make the area & the state more Democratic (especially because the ultra socially conservative Republicans down there will scare the hell out of any Independent from up her)  Other parts of the state such as the tri-cities region as well as Greensboro have been moving Dem as well.  Their are other portions of the state moving GOP which limits the speed of the change, but their is some movement, which could possibly make the state competitive down the road (though not as soon as VA)

[ottermax]

It's a little too early to say that all the candidates are horrible for the Democrats, politics can change drastically in two years. They may be poor candidates right now, but the candidates could change.

I also think that Democrats are not done with the South, at least the Atlantic South. Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, even Georgia and South Carolina could begin to tilt to the left as they begin to see a movement of northern liberals southward. The change may be a little slower than in the southwest, where a quicker, and larger shift to the left is expected, but the South will likely change, but not as a whole.

Not so sure about S.C & Georgia (though I think the Charlotte burbs in S.C (York County) will become less republican) with that being said not enough to change S.C much & might be offset by other parts of the state.

VA & NC are different, especially VA.  The change is no question happening in VA.  Northern VA is absolutely FLYING leftward and that trend is likely to continue.  Even suburban Richmond which is still very GOP friendly, isn't nearly as strong as it once was for the GOP.  Their are some GOP gains in SW VA, ex Dem strongholds, but the population differences from the Dem trending areas FAR outweigh the population of the GOP trending areas in the state.  VA is probably on the outskirts for the Dems in 08 (minus Warner on the ticket, then its theirs), but a 50/50 election in 2012 it has a good chance to go Dem, and is pretty much a tossup.

NC is a bit further down the road than that, but is making a slow Dem trend.  The Charlotte area is growing rapidly, many from northeast, especially New York transplants (my family is likely moving down there within the next couple years and I might as well) .  The growth this area will see from the northeast especially the socially liberal NYC suburbs such as Long Island and Westchester will make the area & the state more Democratic (especially because the ultra socially conservative Republicans down there will scare the hell out of any Independent from up her)  Other parts of the state such as the tri-cities region as well as Greensboro have been moving Dem as well.  Their are other portions of the state moving GOP which limits the speed of the change, but their is some movement, which could possibly make the state competitive down the road (though not as soon as VA)

I agree with you, Georgia and SC don't seem to be moving leftward, but I'm basing this off of the movement of America's population. Recently, I read a USA Today article while I was in San Diego about the census estimates. The census estimates show that the Atlantic Southeast is gainly rapidly along with the Southwest, so I'm assuming all of these people are coming from the liberal areas that are losing people in the NE and Midwest. The article also said that immigration was increasing in the Atlantic SE, which also tends to help make places more liberal.

As I said, these states are moving much slower to the left than in the Southwest, but they should move that way with time, if these trends continue.

[SPC]

McCain's "foreign policy hawk" status will kill him if he continues to support increasing troops levels.  The war is over.  We lost.  Let's get out and stop senselessly putting our troops in danger.  Maybe then we can try to clean up the mess in Afghanistan that this distraction has caused.

How can we lose a civil war that we are not even in? We are merely providing the Iraqi state with military foreign aid to unsuccessfully help maintain law and order.

[Gustaf]

Wow...this was like an entire thread of almost endless nonsense. People get so angry over these things that they stop thinking. Kudos to Hockeydude (cause that IS you, right?) for making an honest attempt at discussion though.

None of the candidates are stellar and none (of the frontrunners) are completely horrible. It's a long way out and there is no way to predict the exact outcome. Of course we Democrats are going to hope that the anti-Bush sentiment and all that bears out and delivers 2008. But then again, Republicans entertained similar hopes after 2004, didn't they? And Democrats had almost the exact same expectations (though more warranted now) after 2000. In my mind McCain remains the strongest out of all the running candidates in a general election. He's still holding his ground in match-ups, even after the clobbering the GOP recieved in 2006. And I doubt Edwards has it in him, as much as I like him. I would expect a McCain v Edwards race to be fairly close, but ultimately I'd bet on McCain.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Wow...this was like an entire thread of almost endless nonsense. People get so angry over these things that they stop thinking. Kudos to Hockeydude (cause that IS you, right?) for making an honest attempt at discussion though.

None of the candidates are stellar and none (of the frontrunners) are completely horrible. It's a long way out and there is no way to predict the exact outcome. Of course we Democrats are going to hope that the anti-Bush sentiment and all that bears out and delivers 2008. But then again, Republicans entertained similar hopes after 2004, didn't they? And Democrats had almost the exact same expectations (though more warranted now) after 2000. In my mind McCain remains the strongest out of all the running candidates in a general election. He's still holding his ground in match-ups, even after the clobbering the GOP recieved in 2006. And I doubt Edwards has it in him, as much as I like him. I would expect a McCain v Edwards race to be fairly close, but ultimately I'd bet on McCain.

Ya, that would be me.  And I agree, I think most of us are intelligent enough to have a real discussion over things like this.