Should The Democrats concede?

[teke184 0]

Wouldn't McCain be like 100 years old in 2008?

 

Rudy is the best choice since he can win New York. And if he wins NY- it's over

Winning New York would be good but, in order to guarantee victory, they'd have to pick up a good chunk of the South and Midwest as well.

 

 

While those are currently VERY pro-Republican, that could change if the party's platform goes far enough to the left and the Democrats move enough to the center.

[bob_barron 0]

Winning New York gives you 31 electoral votes.

 

So that makes up any losses in the South. And Rudy could win New Jersey and PA as well easily offsetting anything

[CanadianChris 0]

Winning New York gives you 31 electoral votes.

 

So that makes up any losses in the South. And Rudy could win New Jersey and PA as well easily offsetting anything

Isn't it a wash, given that they'd probably lose Texas in the process? Rudy's way too far left to be taken seriously in the South and Midwest.

[teke184 0]

Winning New York gives you 31 electoral votes.

 

So that makes up any losses in the South. And Rudy could win New Jersey and PA as well easily offsetting anything

33 in New York is a lot, but that may not fully counteract losses in Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), North Carolina (11), South Carolina (8), Florida (27), etc.

 

 

They wouldn't lose the whole South BUT they may lose enough to cancel out the gains there and in New Jersey or Pennsylvania.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Also, a lot of people still may have reservations about electing a Catholic. I don't think they SHOULD, because the threat of the Pope ruling America is a joke, but people still may feel that way.

[Guest thebigjig]

Winning New York gives you 31 electoral votes.

 

So that makes up any losses in the South. And Rudy could win New Jersey and PA as well easily offsetting anything

Isn't it a wash, given that they'd probably lose Texas in the process? Rudy's way too far left to be taken seriously in the South and Midwest.

Rudy's actually pretty liked in the South as well as the rest of the country... it's just his opinion on gay rights that would cause many to think twice. However, he'll flip flop if the party pressures him to. He'll have to in order to secure the nomination

[Guest BDC]

I suppose the major question would be who would the Dems run? I'd like to think they'd hold onto Obama for a while, namely because he doesn't have any experience yet, but that didn't stop them with Edwards.

 

I would suggest not running Hillary, too. I've heard enough stories from people that worked in the Arkansas legislature about her that she would get slaughtered.

[bob_barron 0]

Winning New York gives you 31 electoral votes.

 

So that makes up any losses in the South. And Rudy could win New Jersey and PA as well easily offsetting anything

33 in New York is a lot, but that may not fully counteract losses in Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), North Carolina (11), South Carolina (8), Florida (27), etc.

 

 

They wouldn't lose the whole South BUT they may lose enough to cancel out the gains there and in New Jersey or Pennsylvania.

But if they don't for Rudy- who do they vote for?

 

The Democrat who will probably be pro everything else that Rudy is?

 

I think the 9/11 factor would put Rudy over the top

[CanadianChris 0]

Winning New York gives you 31 electoral votes.

 

So that makes up any losses in the South. And Rudy could win New Jersey and PA as well easily offsetting anything

33 in New York is a lot, but that may not fully counteract losses in Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), North Carolina (11), South Carolina (8), Florida (27), etc.

 

 

They wouldn't lose the whole South BUT they may lose enough to cancel out the gains there and in New Jersey or Pennsylvania.

But if they don't for Rudy- who do they vote for?

 

The Democrat who will probably be pro everything else that Rudy is?

 

I think the 9/11 factor would put Rudy over the top

The discussion is moot anyway. I doubt he'd even get past the primaries.

[Guest Banders Kennany]

I think Dog Rudy will end up edging out McCain in the primaries and pick up Good Old Thisclose Pataki as a running mate. Obama is a good suggestion for as to who might the Dems will pick, as he is definitely a Democratic star in the making and rising with the speed of a meteor. Keyes is a weak candidate, and a minority which hurts against more racial voters. He is a multi-time loser, and was a ringer brought out to kill Obama, but he was turned the tables on.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Probably our best bet

[Guest MikeSC]

I suppose the major question would be who would the Dems run? I'd like to think they'd hold onto Obama for a while, namely because he doesn't have any experience yet, but that didn't stop them with Edwards.

 

I would suggest not running Hillary, too. I've heard enough stories from people that worked in the Arkansas legislature about her that she would get slaughtered.

You could be mean and notice that Bush's margin of victory in NC was identical to what it was 4 years ago.

 

Edwards --- He Delivers!

-=Mike

[Guest Smues]

You could be mean and notice that Bush's margin of victory in NC was identical to what it was 4 years ago.

 

Edwards --- He Delivers!

  -=Mike

After working for the AP last night and taking five gajillion katrillion billion million calls from NC, I'll guess they were unmotivated to go to the polls and vote for Edwards guy because their ballot is 5 kajillion pages long.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I don't see the Republicans losing in 2008 unless they run Keyes or something.