Obama/Edwards vs. McCain/Huckabee: Best case scenarios

[Leopolds Ghost]

Here's the only best case scenarios I can extrapolate.

Some general points:

For better or worse, Obama will elevate black turnout across the South but will also elevate turnout among reactionary white voters in rural states in general (especially conservative evangelicals and rural whites in the "cowboy and cotton" states). These two forces would concievably balance each other out (as in 2004) except that the Republicans will have a net disadvantage due to general disillusionment among Main Street (non-right wing evangelical) Republicans who are threatening to stay home out of dissatisfaction with Bush and the Republicans in general, throwing the race to (say) Obama. These people (call them conservative Populists) might actually switch sides and vote for Edwards, but probably would stay home for Obama. If offered McCain, they are more likely to show up and vote, but the passion is not there. If offered Huckabee atop the ticket, they are more likely to stay home (for Obama) or vote Dem (for Edwards) but the evangelicals (especially racist evangelicals who think Obama is a secret black Muslim) will conversely turn out in greater numbers, although this will in turn drive up Obama's numbers in the North, creating a solid North. So here are the BEST CASE predictions that flow from these results:

McCain/Huckabee vs. Obama/Edwards:

Basically, Obama vs. McCain would be a narrow win for Obama thanks mostly to OH and FL, which are unlikely to repeat the disasters of 00 and 04 (but if any state decides to push its vote-fraud luck on behalf of the Republicans it will be FL, not OH).

Other than that, it will be "Red State vs. Blue State" but with elevated Dem percentages in the South. McCain would pull thru in WV and VA by assembling a coalition of people who won't vote for a black man + vets who care more about foreign policy than economic issues (which Obama is less strident about). Republican turnout in the Deep South would be significantly depressed, resulting in closer than normal races there and racking up huge wins in the blue states, but I don't see Obama beating McCain anywhere in the Mid-South if Huckabee is on the ticket.

LA would go for McCain in a big way, thanks to 20-year Republican strategy of drowning New Orleans (as they have been talking and wishing about doing upon the next big storm and publically discussing sealing off the city and allowing its residents to drown or forcibly evacuate them to other states to reduce the Inner City vote, as key Bush allies in Texas openly discussed, for the past 20 years, anticipating levee breakage there, for electoral reasons. For instance, the Creole and Italian suburban jurisdictions around New Orleans are basically the home of the KKK and those jurisdictions are possibly more racist than the rural Cajun areas which are traditional Democrats OR Northern LA which is equally racist but populated by a significant black vote.)

Basically, Obama/Edwards wins this one on the strength of OH, NV -- states that didn't go last time. IA and NH might still be a toss-up or could be an easy win for Obama or Edwards -- turnout in 04 suggested it was Kerry country but it remained a tossup state, so it's hard to say.

Huckabee/McCain (or some other ticket balancing Wall Street friendly "moderate") vs. Obama/Edwards:

All of the above applies to this matchup, except that:

** The Solid North would be even more solidly against Huckabee (especially if McCain is not on the ticket).
** NH would go easily for Obama/Edwards while IA would be more of a toss-up, still favoring Obama/Edwards though.
** OH would go hugely for Obama/Edwards despite massive and last-ditch evangelical turnout because Main Street conservatives would stay home.
** Solid victory for Obama/Edwards in FL where evangelical base is not enough to counter Republican apathy.
** VA would become shakier ground for Huckabee than they would for McCain, with at least one of the Virginias landing in Obama column. WV would only be in play for Obama if Edwards is on the ticket however, and only because of national blue wave dissatisfaction causing rural white union voters to "come home" despite Obama's race.
** I would call VA for Obama with Hampton Roads voting Obama if McCain is not atop the ticket,
** and WV for Huckabee (narrowly) with the Evangelicals and Union activists cancelling each other out leaving the xenophobes to vote against Obama.
Suburban voters in NoVA would be put off by Huckabee and vote Obama in greater numbers, cancelling out the racist vote. If Huckabee pulls a "moderate, folksy" Reagan image he could win both states easily, Reagan style in a normal year but not this year and not against either Obama or Edwards. A split decision is possible in the Virginias.
** Huckabee atop the ticket would result in much more solid evangelical support (possubly up to 80% of people pulling the Republican lever) in the Deep South, coupled with racist turnout in states like northern LA, cancelling out black vote.
** Solid South including LA, but with lower than normal percentages thanks to Main Street Republicans staying home and blacks turning out, an unusual combination.
** ARK, TN and MO would do slightly better for Repubs with Huckabee atop the ticket. 5%-7% Dem loss in these states.
** except in NC where Obama/Edwards would ideally be able to bump up support especially among black voters. <5% Dem loss in NC.
** Western states would be much shakier for GOP with NM and NV assured for Obama/Edwards because McCain is not atop the ticket. The only Western states that are particularly enamored of Evangelicals are the Plains states which would be solid red for Huckabee. But Obama/Edwards would lose CO narrowly to Huckabee due to race vs. evangelical support (both favor Republicans despite a Dem advantage in that state) and lose by about 10% in AZ, McCain's home state.

Edwards/Obama vs. Huckabee/McCain (or some other ticket-balancing GOP "moderate")

** Edwards picks up NC and VA as a bloc (by a narrow margin) buoyed by home-state and urban voters and blacks (with no effective counter from racists as Obama is not atop the ticket). WV would follow either narrowly or comfortably for Edwards, depending on evangelical turnout in the Ohio valley. Edwards' advantage in WV is rural white union voters who have no particular allegiance to an urban "ethnic" candidate like Obama or a "Yankee" like Kerry but would consider Edwards "one of them" making VA and WV more competitive for Edwards than Obama. WV, VA, and NC for Edwards/Obama.
** TN for Edwards/Obama as they get the Harold Ford Voters AND rural populists AND urban voters across the state. Evangelicals will turn out in western TN but not enough.
** Edwards/Obama blow out in OH and FL.
** Solid North (including >5% victories in IA and WI) for Edwards/Obama, replicating Obama's huge strength in the Northern tier, plus Edwards would neutralize Huckabee in MT and do as well or better as Obama (but still lose by about 5%) in IN (due mostly to the race factor, unfortunately, + Edwards' economic message appeals more to poor rural voters).
** Edwards beats Huckabee in Colo, NV, and NM.
** McCain carries AZ and MT for Huckabee albeit at narrower margins than usual.
** If Huckabee is atop the ticket, the very-pious Plains States would still be solidly for Huckabee, but Edwards/Obama could come close in MT, and Main Street Republicans would stay home making Kansas much closer than usual.
** Huckabee would win Arkansas comfortably but no coattails in MO or TN against Edwards.
** Edwards/Obama could have a fighting chance in LA despite (or rather because of) the changes wrought by Katrina, because the racists who drowned New Orleans black voters would not be able to directly attack using the race card but would instead be drawn into a fact-based dialogue on the drowning of southern LA, so Edwards/Obama could conceivably get the traditional Huey Long coalition especially if Bobby Jindal's popularity drops. But lack of black voters excluded from the inner city and forcibly transported to gerrymandered Houston ghettoes would still be a handicap for any Democrat.
** Edwards/Obama would pile up respectable percentages of the vote in MS, ARK (despite Huckabee) and SC and win the upper south (except KY which would go for either McCain or Huckabee in a big way.)

** the only way Dems compete for KY is if Giuliani is the candidate, which could result in a true blowout for Dems as Evangelicals would stay home (and Main Street republicans are already dissatisfied and fed up with Bush cronies) and the climate would prevent Giuliani from winning a single "big state" with the exception of Florida and Virginia, two states with a lot of conservative Northeast transplants and military retirees.

Unfortunately, Giuliani (who would lose MT, WV, AZ, NM, IA, and maybe even KS, NC, IN to Edwards in a repeat of the Ford/Carter election and would not out-perform Bush in PA, NJ, FL or VA) is unlikely to win the Republican nomination.

Edwards vs. Huckabee is the best case ELECTORAL scenario for Dems, as historic as a likely Obama win would be. An Obama win would probably not be publically devisive like Bush v. Kerry was, because racists will be less able to attack Obama for the same reasons they attacked Kerry (for being a "Yankee elitist" who will "coddle foreigners", i.,e. minorities). But the results of an Obama win against any opponent would be clearly red state - blue state with Dems picking up FL and OH IA and NV purely because of Bush fatigue and Republican collapse.

Edwards/Obama would blow out Huckabee, however, and lead to the collapse and possibly severing of the evangelical base from the Wall Street Republican party, because religious right wingers would be pitting themselves against economic populists (many of whom are also religious) removing both race and religion from the equation (especially with a black person on the VP ticket -- again, Obama anywhere on the ticket forces underground the usual public attacks by rural republicans accusing the Dem candidate will "coddle minorities" or whatever code words you choose, as we have seen from the adverse reaction to Mark Penn and the general public disinterest in RW racist bloggers' smear attacks on Obama.)

Edwards vs. McCain -- I'm not sure how this one would play out.

[JCMach1]

1. Obama would have little chance in FL versus McCain

[Leopolds Ghost]

2. Inspired analysis there... you don't seem to have high hopes for any Dem in FL

Or else you are merely think Floridians are racists and therefore we should nominate someone who is not black to go up against McCain.

What you're discounting is that the most heavily "southern" counties in FL are the most heavily black and black voters are not going to allow a repeat of 2000 in the present national political atmosphere. Nor does McCain have any special ties to evangelicals and Cubans. Obama/Edwards would win Orlando even if McCain won Tampa area which he most likely would.

[JCMach1]

29. I lived most of my life in Florida and I simply can't see it happening

in anything but a rout/landslide scenario...

[JCMach1]

30. I lived most of my life in Florida and I simply can't see it happening

in anything but a rout/landslide scenario...

[JCMach1]

31. I lived most of my life in Florida and I simply can't see it happening

in anything but a rout/landslide scenario...

[Leopolds Ghost]

4. BTW, why I didn't list results for Hillary

Hillary would, at best, get Kerry's percentage of the vote against Huckabee, and the electoral math would therefore
ensure another Bush-style Huckabee win on the strength of a 48% anti-Hillary vote, and Hillary v. McCain would be a
blowout in favor of McCain. If Kerry ran he'd do far better than Hillary in today's clime, if Hillary had run against
Bush in 04 we wouldn't need to be having this conversation and Bush's numbers would higher today because more people would have willingly voted for him (against Hillary) that voted for Kerry (and lost or had their vote stolen) instead.

Hillary v. Giuliani would be a fascinating political cluster-fuck. I would pay to witness it because it would destroy
the two-party system in America, which would be a positive result. Especially if Bloomberg, Nader and Paul enter the
race.

Unfortunately, the risk that either Hillary or Giuliani would come out on top is great.

If there was a "Subway Series" election and Hillary won, the result could be a late-60s situation with LBJ
presiding over an unpopular war and an increasingly radicalized left and right excluded from the electoral process.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

3. What leads you to think Edwards would ever run again as VP?

[Leopolds Ghost]

6. Because any other Veep choice for Obama would be a DLC Clinton-camp monstrosity.

A "strong vice president" in line with the Establishmen-appointed folks around
"minding" Truman (or Howard Dean), whose every effort is devoted to making promises
to major donors and interest groups behind the leaders' back (who Obama is already
beholden to thanks to Beltway neoliberal insiders on his senior staff) and generally
would be devoted to keeping the Obama candidacy "in line" with the Blue Dog agenda.

Nominating Edwards for Veep would cause the Clinton wing (and some of their
donors) to ostracize Obama as they did Kerry, which would be a good thing because
thanks to Bush, we no longer need Blue Dog voters to win elections. We can allow
the anti-populist Blue Dogs to quietly commit political suicide if Obama and Edwards
partner up and they react by cutting the purse strings as Rahm & co did to Kerry and Dean
in 04 and 06.

The result would be the corrupt purse string holders left out in the cold
by an ungrateful pro-Edwards electorate. You'd see a lot of conferences during
an Edwards presidency devoted to "taking back the Democratic party" by the same
sort of figures who tried to "rescue Reagan/Bush from their liberal tendencies"
in the 1980s. Only excluded DLC Dems would be the ones bitching and moaning.

Obama, on the other hand, will be treated as a latter-day Vernon Jordan by these
people (who, as we have seen, have no respect for the black electorate in general,
only for upscale blacks who are willing to repudiate "pathological" black culture)
and so he will be much more beholden to these corrupt Beltway insiders unless,
like Kerry, he picks Edwards and sends the signal to them that he is serious about
"change", which they will react to with horror because they hate any politician
who is a class traitor. Class solidarity among the secular urban elite, not race,
is key to these Beltway Dems although they'll be happy to race-bait Obama if he
and Edwards jointly attack the problem of poverty.

Thus the DLC crowd will only isolate themselves UNLESS, as is frighteningly likely,
Edwards and Obama spurn each others support (rendering all these best case scenarios
invalid) and recruit a "foreign policy moderate" as Veep, thereby making themselves
seem weak on defense (by suggesting that they somehow defer to a more hawkish Veep
instead of standing by their position on the Iraq war) AND watering down their
economic populist message (as Gore did by choosing Lieberman, a devout neocon.)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

8. I'll put it another way:

Has there ever been a VP candidate on a ticket which lost the election
who then accepts the VP position on the ticket four years later?

Or... What leads you to think Edwards himself would ever agree to run again as VP?

I keep seeing this suggestion here & I just don't see him going as VP candidate again.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. Then we'd better consign ourselves to 4 more years of insider DLC rule by the Clinton camp

Because the only thing that will sever their hold on Obama's neck is if he picks Edwards as a running mate.

The Democratic Wing of the Permanent Beltway establishment has already divvied up its personnel into the Clinton
and Obama camps to keep its options open. The remainder (everyone but the most abrasive anti-Obama types)
will be foisted on Obama as a condition of intra-party unity if and when Hillary drops out. Obama will be
even more beholden to these people than Kerry was, having no regional or Senatorial power base of his own
to fall back on when challenging these entrenched moneyed interests. In the absence of Edwards they will
essentially buy the Vice Presidency and other Cabinet offices, as they did in 1992, 1996 and 2000.

[LVZ]

7. He wouldn't - Edwards hated and resented Kerry's short leash and control

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16186985/

from MSNBC Hardball

MATTHEWS: Did you enjoy running for V.P.?

I don‘t think you did.

J. EDWARDS: No. No. No, I wasn‘t crazy about it.

MATTHEWS: Is there something about the phrase “vice president” that doesn‘t turn you on?

J. EDWARDS: No. There‘s something about not being able just freely say exactly what you think.

MATTHEWS: Were you on a short leash?

J. EDWARDS: Anybody is, running for vice president. Your job, basically, is to advocate for the presidential candidate. People vote for presidential candidates...

MATTHEWS: Were you well used by John Kerry?

J. EDWARDS: I‘ll ask—I‘m not—I‘ll let you guys talk about that.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

9. There it is.

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. Perhaps you should take up your complaint with the people who had both Kerry and Obama on a leash

The Beltway insiders who ostracised Kerry and Dean for siding with Edwards and siding with a populist/liberal message.

Clinton folks specifically ostracized Kerry for picking Edwards and running as a "tough liberal",

two adjectives that the Beltway Clinton camp insiders view as contradictory.

Kerry was silenced by these folks as much as Edwards, if you may recall (remember "Dem Strategist"?)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

14. What complaint?

If that was aimed at me, I have no complaint.
I'm just saying I see no evidence Edwards would ever run as VP again.
I hadnt even considered it because it seems so utterly unlikely.

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. If he loses primaries & Obama offers him the position, he can decline and his career will be over.

It is either Veep or HHS secretary (a thankless position under any administration dominated by conservative Clintonites).

He can push Obama to the left and remain in line for the presidency in a year when Dems have a virtual lock
on the presidency if they don't fuck up (as they most assuredly will, by NOT having a populist like Edwards
somewhere on the ticket.)

Or he can allow an anti-populist to either win (in a chaotic Hillary vs. and unpopular Repubican election
where everybody hates both candidates, or a Hillary vs. Huckabee blowout resulting in a new Reagan era
headed by Huckabee in which Edwards and his policy preferences are relegated to a historical footnote and
the Democratic party is destroyed from within) or undermine the Obama campaign, again from within (the
Hillary camp will force Obama to choose between complete domination by the Brezinskis and MacAuliffes,
who Obama has no apparent hostility towards, or face ostracism by big Democratic money in the general
election as Kerry did.) The only way to elect a non-DLC candidate is to partner Obama with a popular
populist who is not tied with the Clinton money machine. This will offset the loss of inside the
Beltway support with concomitant recognition that Obama is NOT running as an inside the beltway candidate.
Otherwise, he will be run as a Manchurian candidate for the conservative Clinton machine (divorced from
the Clinton family) to regain power. I'm not exaggerating, these people WILL attempt to bring Obama to
heel. Edwards as Veep would be in a position to tell these people to go to hell. Given how poorly
and impolitely they treated Kerry when he nominated Edwards, the conservative Dems will surely react
with fanaticism and continued racial smears against Obama if he chooses Edwards as a running mate,
which will only drive a wedge between Obama/American voters and the DLC. which is a good thing and
further consolidate Obama's support among voters who hate Beltway neoliberal elitists. Edwards can,
of course, say "screw that, I can do more good in private life, I'm sure Obama won't be beholden to
any special interests" knowing that his political career would be over for good if he's not on the ticket.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

19. Maybe he'll run as VP if you send him your posts.

I know if I were him I'd run for VP after reading them.

[Yukari Yakumo]

5. Obama will have little chance in the South if Huckabee is anywhere on the Repuke ticket.

The South will tough enough as is. Perhaps it would be better to focus on another region.

That said, Edwards as VP isn't exactly a good idea.

Hate to say this, but Huckabee would mop the floor with Edwards.

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. Again, you guys seem to think Dems have little chance in the general, and that Obama can't win.

Edwards would destroy Huckabee.

Edwards is the only candidate who would definitely pick up Southern states.

However, Obama would produce massive black turnout in the South. Are you aware that more blacks live in the South than
in the north? The figure is even higher per capita. The only "Union" states with a Black population (percentage-wise)
that competes with the South are Maryland, Michigan, and New York.

This is not a "mobilized Republican voting bloc" year. If Huckabee is the nominee, the Main Street business republicans stay home. They are sick of Bush and these are not people who are fans of their black neighbors by any means but they are not eager to vote to continue the Bush legacy. If McCain or Giuliani is the nominee, many evangelicals stay home and have even less to vote for, since they are the only Bush supporters left and they feel used by the Republican party.

Obama or Edwards would get the Kerry/Gore vote as a STARTING point in 2008.

[sendero]

15. Bull...

... Huckabee is not a threat, McCain is. The evangelicals make a lot of noise, but they are not a majority, even in the south.

If Huckabee gets to the general, he will have a lot of explaining to do. His skeletons won't even fit in one closet.

[cali]

10. prognosticating 10 months our

is impossible. Even polls at this point of dem candidates v repuke candidates are nothing but the most fleeting of snapshots. It's clear you put a lot of thought into this, but it's still too early to try and figure out what match ups would make the most sense.

[Leopolds Ghost]

16. No, it's quite easy and definitive, we're talking best case scenarios.

Meaning there's no way the Democrats do better than this (unless Giuliani is the nominee).

This is the best case scenario and only if the Dems don't fuck up (as they surely will, especially under the guidance of the Mark Penn / McAuliffe / Shrum wing of the party who will continue to control things in a brokered Obama primary outcome, resulting in the post-convention Obama campaign being run by ALL of Clinton's old people instead of half of them. This will be the converse of what happened to Kerry, who was partially ostracized by the DLC precisely because he chose Edwards. Obama currently has half of the Permanent Beltway Insiders from the Clinton days, and Clinton has half, and the two are divided purely by personal positioning, NOT ideology. They are each betting that Hillary will either win or lose, not out of any animosity towards the DLC policies of the Clinton years which they support. but either way the Permanent neocon/neoliberal establishment will attempt to remain in control of policy even IF Edwards is chosen as veep.)

[cali]

17. Pride goeth before a fall.

No political analys worth her/his salt would endorse your guess work- and that's precicely what it is. And this post is even sillier. Here's why: At this point, Penn will be completely unviable as a political guru at the end of Clinton's run. You can't even get the past down accurately. No one should trust you with your 8 ball predictions.

Edwards was waaay DLC in 2004. Kerry? Not so much. I can't believe you didn't even know that.

And Edwards will not be chosen as Obama's veep- he offers zip to a ticket for Obama. And it's unlikely he'd accept.

Obama needs someone with more experience than Edwards has on the ticket.

[Leopolds Ghost]

20. So basically you don't like Edwards and that is your reasoning.

Edwards was percieved to be more popular than Kerry on economic issues EVEN in 2004.

The fact that he was "muzzled" actually helped him since Kerry had been ostracized
by the Clinton Camp for picking an economic populist. This is one of the reasons
Kerry lost the election. The Clintons would not have minded Edwards "non-muzzled"
defending the Iraq War vote which being part of the liberal Kerry campaign forced him
to come around against. The Clintons or any insider Dem of 2004 would have sent
Edwards out as an advocate of their foreign policy which was at the time pro-war.

Both Kerry and Edwards (and Gore) had been ostracized from the DLC for abandoning
their prescribed "inclusive" socially liberal / economically conservative model
for victory relying on continually growing (it was assumed) secular upper middle
class "base" thanks to the assumed virtues of the Clinton economy which (it was
assumed) would "grow" the secular suburban upper class to the point where they
would out-vote the (equally detested by Beltway insiders) rural and urban poor.

The DLC and the Clinton camps attacked Gore, Kerry and especially Edwards for going
"off the reservation" to a populist message and sought to both monkey-wrench their campaigns
and take credit for their defeat!

[Leopolds Ghost]

22. Carville, Mark Penn and Shrum will remain major political insiders even if they aren't paid to win.

Because they aren't paid to win.

They pay them to place or show, thus ensuring liberal business interests have a "niche" in an
ultra-conservative twisted parliamentary system that is the Reagan/Bush era (which we seem to
be stuck in).

The neoliberals (DLC and the "Dem Strategists" will continue to pimp Democratic defeats
as proof that their candidate didn't move far enough to the right. They will use money
connections (which folks like Mark Penn have lots of) to monkey-wrench major donors (as
in 2004 when Kerry and Edwards went off the DLC reservation) to candidates who embarass them
in the primaries, and then act ungracious when those candidates win or lose by narrow margins
(as in 2006 when Carville and the rest besieged and attempted to emasculate Howard Dean
precisely because his success made them look bad). They will then get paid by conservative
think tanks like the orwellian Carnegie Endowment for International Peace to explain to
policymakers why the Democratic Party must never again move to the left. And an Obama
administration will have to cater to them to get anything done on Capitol Hill because
of their ties to the Blue Dogs allowing them to logroll every bill in favor of business
interests, thereby ensuring those businesses donate to "sure thing" Dem candidates in
the next election, enabling them to have even more power. That is their MO. Or we can
allow them to self-destruct by lashing out against Obama as they did to Howard Dean.
But this will only happen if Obama wants to marginalize Vichy Dems. Edwards seems to
want to marginalize Vichy Dems, so I don't see any way to keep Vichy Dems out of control
of an Obama campaign after Hillary drops out unless another anti-Hillary is on the ticket
such as Edwards. (Hillary herself would probably be more liberal were it not for her
complete ties to people such as Mark Penn.)

[cali]

25. Conspiratorial gobbledy gook

with no foundation.

And not even well written nonsense.

[Leopolds Ghost]

27. I cited examples of their past history. Has even one of them become unemployable in Washington?

Has the media stopped listening to even one of them? No, and neither has the party,
because (and here's the key thing) moneyed interests are quick to agree with their
prognostications at every turn. Defeat is seen as better than retreat in the direction
of liberalism. And if you hadn't noticed, Mark Penn was in complete control of Clinton's
campaign until a few days ago, is still a senior FOB, and the FOBs will do the exact
same thing Kerry and Edwards said they did in 2004 (namely, insist that the campaign
tack to the right in the general or else withhold their support as the CLinton camp
did in 2000 after Gore went populist and again in 2004 after Kerry selected Edwards.)

Remember the Clintons hired almost every Dem who now has Executive Branch credentials...

there are no Wise Old Party Leaders who were not part of the Clinton Admin or the
even more conservative Blue Dogs in Congress who represented the main opposition,
if you can call it that, to Gingrich and his gang.

It's a situational thing. There's only been one Dem president in recent history
(past 25 years) so there is a definite network of party insiders mostly structured
around the Clinton administration and they are disciplined about whom they work for
just like the Bush cronies. They will flock to Obama en masse if he agrees to play
ball when it comes to enacting a "responsible agenda" i.e. not doing any thing that
would repudiate Clinton policies on trade, welfare, foreign policy, coddling the
Bush family, or the like.

[BlueManDude]

21. McCain isn't beatable and he'd never pick Huckabee...

and Edwards will not accept or be chosen for Veep.

I'll put it to you this way - McCain will have a legitimate shot at winning Mass which shows you how good a GE candidate he'll be. McCain will pick someone not currently in office, Colin Powell for instance as his running mate. He's not going to have Mike Huckabee as his VP for 8 years.

If McCain is their nominee he's the next president.

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. Not a single Mass county voted Republican in 2004. One in VT and two in ME.

You should say "BUT ON THE BRIGHT SIDE, he wouldn't pick Huckabee" because picking Huckabee would actually increase McCain's chances.

McCain/Huckabee would be the perfect GOP ticket and in the current unfavorable climate for Republicans,
coupled with McCain's aging health and greater identification with the policies of the Bush administration
(which Republicans would surely hold him to) I think McCain/Huckabee would result in another 50-50 election
netting them Bush's 04 percentage of the vote (when Bush was a God among Wall Street, neocons and Evangelicals alike).

Only the mobilized Dems and Dem-leaning independents who hated Bush voted against Bush in 04, it was a very polarized election. McCain should do better than Bush, but most of the people who voted Kerry will vote for Edwards or Obama, these people would have voted for McCain 8 years ago, NOT after 8 years of Bush.

And the outcome I think would be a wash -- same Red-state vs. Blue state electoral breakdown as usual. So McCain would probably win the same way Bush won, by taking Florida where he has a good shot.

[Bucky]

24. I hate it when you're right

I don't think McCain is as strong as he'd've been in 2000. But he's clearly their strongest candidate. Personally I'm encouraged by Republican approval of Romney's debate performance. It shows how out of touch Republicans are.

[cali]

26. Bwahahaha

If you believe that, you've strayed so far from reality you're views on everything are suspect.

McCain has about as much chance of winning any state in NE, as I do at winning the lottery.

[BlueManDude]

32. McCain will definitely win NH and Maine in November.

and he'll be close in Mass.

Gore lost NH for cripes sake. It's always close there.

Reagan won Mass 2 times believe it not.

[Sparkly]

28. I disagree (and hope I'm right)

I think a lot of Republicans dislike McCain enough to vote 3rd party or stay home.

[Critters2]

33. Huckabee won't be on the ticket, if Cheney has to shoot him himself.

The Repub leadership does NOT want Huckabee on the ticket. The last thing they want is a grassroots movement telling the neo-cons what to do.