John Edwards vs Mark Sanford

[opebo]

I think It would be a much bigger win for the GOP. Sanford is a much better candidate than Bush, He dosent have to worry about his family or being involved in the Iraq War. He is also a much better speaker than Bush.
Edwards is also not as god as kerry, He has a fraction of the experience, Many people think he is fake and he would lose some of the NE and would not help at all in the south.

It is ridiculous to have Oregon, Maine, or Michigan going GOP in 2008.  Here's a more realistic map:

And a best case scenario for Sanford:

[opebo]

Opebo, You first map is NOT realistic at all. As I said Kerry was MUCH better than Edwards and Sanford better than Bush. So that map would never happen.

Honestly I don't see how any other Southern Right-wing Relgious can be 'better than Bush'.  Bush had the 9/11/knee-jerk patriotism/warmongering thing going for him, and I don't see that lasting forever.  I think there will be very significant theocrat fatigue by 2008.

[opebo]

Opebo, You first map is NOT realistic at all. As I said Kerry was MUCH better than Edwards and Sanford better than Bush. So that map would never happen.

Honestly I don't see how any other Southern Right-wing Relgious can be 'better than Bush'.  Bush had the 9/11/knee-jerk patriotism/warmongering thing going for him, and I don't see that lasting forever.  I think there will be very significant theocrat fatigue by 2008.

Bush also had alot of stuff that could be used aginst him, Like Iraq, His Speaking Style, His IQ.........

Oh I think that worked to his advantage as the enormous intellectually-challenged vote went to Bush.  They thought Kerry was hoity-toity for pronouncing nuclear correctly.

And obviously Iraq also worked in Bush's favour, as the same group of people who says 'nooculer' thought it was Iraq that knocked down those buildings.