Redstate

It seems RedStaters aren't much different from "registered GOP voters" so far.  3 for Rudy, 3 for McCain, 2 for Brownback, 1 for Allen, and 1 for Huckabee.

And FWIW, "I think will make a serious bid for Iowa" does not include McCain.  He will not make any bid whatsoever for Iowa.  He will make a serious bid for the Presidency starting in NH.

it's going to be a tough call for a lot of people between "electable" (Rudy, McCain) and conservative (Brownback, etc.) candidates.  There's no candidate in the fold who conservatives can unite behind and who also doesn't look like an obvious loser in November 2008.

I am in full agreement with you.

Where is a Sanford, Bush, Pawlenty, or even an Owens.

I'm seeing a McCain v. Romney primary if nothing changes between now and 2007 (remembering the odds of nothing changing is about 0).

I always see Guliani as the front-runner for the nomination in every poll that is taken.

Eh...We'll see what happens in 2008. My first and foremost issue on the ballot the right to life, the Iraq and the economy. If Guliani wins, I won't be voting in the general election in 2008.

you first registered as "aznh2odude". You feigned disappointment at Republicans. You registered again as and carried on a sockpuppet conversation with yourself that got both those registrations banned.

Now you're back. Go away. Don't come back ever again.

I'd like to see George Allen be nominated, and will certainly vote for him if he is on the ballot as of now.

if he runs.

McCain will never, ever, ever, ever get my vote.

Bush has said No and while I think that he would be a better president than either his brother or his father, I won't vote for him because:

1. The country wont vote for another Bush right now.
   
2. I think conservatives have had enough of Bush's claiming to be conservative (Bush I wasn't socailly conservative and Bush II hasn't been fiscally conservative).

OWENS -- has had ethics issues and raised taxes.  It ain't happening with him.

SANFORD -- has said he won't run.  I'm disappointed because he was starting to be "my guy."

PALANTY -- Well, there was a very minor tax raise (or not depending on who you ask) ... he seems a bit inexperienced.

Truth be told, I'm not sure that I trust Romney to be a conservative.  If Rudy told me he'd pick strict construction judges, I'd probably jump on board.

Truth is ... I don't really like any of them right now.

I suspect that I'll get on the Romney bandwagon at some point in time and end up voting for McCain against Hillary.

Across the board.

As a former NYC resident, I know Guliani would be great when the going gets tough, but his pro-choice anti-gun values will give him a hard time.

HERE'S A BETTER PLACE FOR HIM.... US Senator from NY.  It kills two birds with one stone.  First, it gets the republicans another senator.  And, second, it will almost certainly DERAIL Hillary for a 2008 prez bid.

New Yorkers love Rudy.  He would have no problem getting a majority vote in NYC and as for the rest of the state, he would, although moderate, be the pick for republicans.  He was there for those in NYC on 9/11 and in the aftermath.  People do not forget that.

And I am surprised I have not seen people focusing on getting Hillary off the ballot by getting her out of the Senate first?!?!?  This, to me is a no-brainer.  I just hope Rudy has the common sense to see it!

No one is really attractive.  I first remove all senators from the list.  Only two have ever been elected and they were Terrible and Overrated respectively.

Rudy Giuliani - No true conservative can be elected Mayor of NYC

Mitt Romney - See Giuliani...nor Gov. of Mass

Newt Gingrich - Still a congresscritter.  Close enough. And not exactly a paragon of virtue.

George Pataki - See Giuliani and Romney......nor Gov. of NY

Haley Barbour - Wish I knew more about him.  Maybe.

Mike Huckabee - Ditto.  Though it's hard for me to take seriously someone who moonlights as a diet guru.

My dream candidate: Zell Miller.  One of the last Democrats with a concience, and he can lay the verbal smackdown too.  "Wait, he's a Senator!" you query?  Former Gov. of Georgia too.  sigh I can dream.....

As long as we're dreaming.  In lieu of I'll take Santorum.  But in reality, Brownback.

We don't want her derailed. We want her to win big in NY in '06 so she goes into '08 with a full head of steam, so she can win the primary, so she can lose the general.

It would be our worst nightmare if she wins, and there are a lot of people saying she could do it.  I'd rather have another chance to block her from the oval office than just leaving it up to the general election.  Who else would the dems run?

OK, I'm not voting, because I'm not a Republican. And it looks like there's a lot of dissatisfaction with the names on the list. So, what about Haley Barbour? Since I wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances, he might have a shot. He's surely got the experience. How well has the Mississippi rebuilding gone? It's gotta look better than Louisiana, so maybe that's a plus.

I'll buy that for a dollar.

I heard rumors in 2000 of a possible J.C. Watts VP nomination.  I think it is even less likely now 8 years since he stepped down as Congressman.  I wish he had run for Senator in 2004... or Governor in 2006... maybe next time.

Not too terribly disappointed that he didn't run in '04, since we got Coburn in there anyway.  And Istook is running for Governor in '06... if Istook wins that race, Watts may regret not running.  But he still probably has an opportunity to run for higher office, even if it's not until 2010.

Where is Tom Tancredo?

The problem is since he passed on an open Senate seat and a more-or-less open R nomination for Governor, I don't think he wants higher office.  He may change his mind but it seems unlikely that he wants to give up his rather successful private consulting practice to run for office.  That is sad as he is one of my favorite Oklahoma politicians.

This site has too many non-Republicans registered for this survey to be particularly interesting.

Still my first choice in this weak field.

so does the New Hampshire primary...

Although true that some non-Rs are on here, I'm not sure who they would "vote" for.

I also worry that too many activists assume that Rudy and McCain don't have any supporters that will stick with them in the primaries.  Until a better candidate emerges, those two will probably lead most Republican polls.

I didn't know New Hampshire had a blanket primary.

One would think that's a good reason to deny it primacy, if so.

Tancredo himself has admitted that he's not really a serious candidate and he doesn't think he'll win the nomination.  I think he primarily just wants to put the issue of immigration on the table and force the other GOP candidates to face the issue rather than duck it.  It seems his mission is either to torpedo the establishment candidates who are pro-immigration, or else force the GOP to nominate a candidate who, while not as extreme as Tancredo on the issue, might be on the wrong side of an issue (from a political perspective; Tancredo's position on immigration makes the most sense, but who knows how many American voters share it?) in a general election.

Right now seems a lot like the runup to 1992 was for the Democrats, when Bush 41 looked unbeatable and most prominent Democrats decided to wait until 1996.  Since the current electoral process forces candidates to declare their intentions almost two years in advance, though, the political winds can change a lot between the time candidates are deciding whether or not to run and the actual general election.  2008 will present a much different political landscape than 2005, yet potential candidates are basically having to measure the political winds of 2005 when deciding whether or not to run in 2008.

Look out after the 2006 elections, though.  I think that a landslide reelection win for either Sanford or Pawlenty (or another conservative GOP governor) could make them rethink the White House.  After all, consider the political situations of Pawlenty and especially Sanford.  Both cannot win more than two terms as Governor, and in Sanford's case, there is no obvious office for him to run for after the governorship since South Carolina just elected new GOP Senators two and four years ago, respectively.  Pawlenty could run for the Senate in 2012 (way down the road) if Democrats hold Dayton's seat this year, but that's about it.

Owens's White House aspirations were unfortunately torpedoed by his marital problems.  And America probably won't want another Bush in the White House in 2008.

Watts' only chance I believe to recieve the nomination of Vice President on anyone's ticket is if Newt Gingrich is nominated as President.

He's the only candidate that actually has a direct relationship with Watts, considering the GOPAC connection.

The PAC that Newt popularized and made powerful during his chairmanship, GOPAC, is now run by JC Watts.

Also Watts was brought into congress by Newt in 1994.

Watts would also complete the Washington outsider approach Newt is trying to make in his Presidential bid.

Gingrich/Watts 08 really does sound great, doesn't it?

The big four (Bush, Owens, Pawlenty, and Sanford) all are incredible candidates who would be able to balance the fiscal and social wings of the party.  Their records are all without any major flaws.

If there's one thing I obsess about, it's gubernatorial fiscal policy and these guys are the elite.

However, none of them will run.  Every one of them has ruled it out without a doubt.

Which is why Republicans will have to settle for a lesser Big Four (alphabetical):

Gingrich, Guiliani, McCain, Romney

McCain and Rudy are the questionable conservatives (for opposite reasons).

Gingrich and Romney are the questionable electables (again, for opposite reasons).

Barbour has handled the Katrina disaster remarkably.

But the recovery is going to take a long time, and it certainly won't be complete in 2008.  If Barbour decides to leave Mississippi while it's still in shambles for the White House, I cannot support that, and I don't think he'd do that either.

Barbour cares too much for what's happened to his homestate to leave it in shambles for political ambitions.

At least that's how I feel.

He became a potential candidate to raise the issue of immigration, and has done a very good job at it.  However, he has said that he will only run if no other candidate adopts a tougher illegal immigration stance.  That shows that he can't be very serious about a run.

So who would he endorse in 2008?

Among the possible candidates rumored to have interest in the 2008 race, only former House speaker Newt Gingrich - who wrote in a recent report for the Center for Immigration Studies that immigrants' dual citizenship posed an "insidious challenge" - has come the closest to being satisfactorily strong on the issue, Tancredo said.

Tancredo Preps Campaign book, Praises Gingrich

I just wrote a diary about the lack of governors in the 2008 race.

Barbour's problem, other than the Katrina cleanup (which he should not abandon), is that he must face Mississippi voters in 2007 rather than 2006.  This puts him in the odd position of having to face Mississippi voters for reelection while simultaneously gearing up for the primaries.

Gingrich I think is in the unenviable position of being unable to win the primaries or the general election, having a past unattractive to traditionalists on the right, and a press that hates him on the left.

Only 50 people have voted.  A poll of 50 votes should never be considered too accurate or exact, but it can reinforce a vague sense of what 2008 will be:

A race featuring three known politicians that will demand attention (Rudy, McCain, and Newt) and a few others that still need to earn the respect and trust of the voters (Romney, Brownback, and Allen).

My guess is that Romney breaks out of the lower three and makes a move into the upper three while Allen falls out of consideration and Brownback maintains an unchanging relatively small percentage of support.

Not sure what will happen in the upper three, but I can see a dedicated McCain crowd that should earn at least 20% of the vote in a primary regardless of how he plays the tax issue.

I also foresee McCain failing to articulate his plans on taxes considering his stance against the Bush tax cuts.  I have a feeling he's going to try and convince voters that a tax hike on the rich is a good thing.

Based on how well Rudy fixes his positions on social issues, he could go from anywhere between early dropout to clear frontrunner.  Newt's success I think hinges on Rudy's ability to appeal to the socons.  If Rudy fails and bails out, I believe his votes will mostly go to Newt with the rest going to Romney.

Romney's success hinges on Newt's ability to replenish his image (something that he will be given incredible help from Fox News considering his friendship with Rupert and nearly all of the anchors as a fox news analyst.) and get all the former Rudy voters on board.

There is no way to intelligently debate how voters will react to a Newt candidacy in 2008, however I would like to point out that Newt has been doing a great job so far in Iowa and New Hampshire gaining support.

Take it from someone who considered a Newt 08 ticket crazy just a few months ago, I've been following the guy and listening to his speeches, reading the news about him, watching him on fox news and I'm convinced.  Newt is on the right track to repair his image and seems to be on the fast track to do just that.  I can sum it up like this: He is likeable now.

His 21st Century Contract for America has been recieved incredibly well, and with current unrest within in Republican party with their Republican controlled government, there really is only one Republican who can legitimately say that he can re-take the party.

Oh and... really...

If theres anyone who could pull this off, it would be Newt Gingrich.  You know simple logic doesn't work with Newt.  The way I see it is that there is no one in America who knows better what Newt Gingrich's problems are than Newt Gingrich, and he wouldn't be flirting with this race if he didn't know how to fix them.

...and would make an excellent POTUS.

He will be in for the fight of his life in 2006.

If he survives, he just might run in 2008. His presidential ambitions are the worst kept secret in Minnesota.

or the political capital or money to mount a serious campaign.  It would just hurt his image in Minnesota.

However, he should remain at the top of any Vice Presidential list.  Pawlenty as Vice President makes a lot of sense for every candidate except for Romney, who may not want to have a Governor/Governor ticket.

....couldn't beat hillary in new york.  maybe in 2000, but hillary is entrenched now, and is actually very popular upstate.

i just hope you guys don't nominate mccain. it bring cheer to my heart every time i see a republican attack mccain.  he is the only republican i am afraid of.

...is my dream candidate.  The only question is whether the Dems will get 70 or 80 percent of the Latino vote over the next generation after a Tancredo presidency.

And i'm sure you thought Kerry had a great chance of beating Bush in 2004.

Because of course, Bush Lied...

i wouldn't say i thought kerry had a "great" shot of beating bush, but i thought he could have beaten him.  they day before the election, i though kerry was going to win ohio.  i was wrong.

and you are right, mabye i am wrong that guiliani could beat hillary in new york.  i just don't see it.  having an R next to your name is not good for politicians in NY right now.

as for 2008, i wouldn't argue that no republican could win besides mccain.  no way.  i just like the dems chances against anyone but mccain.  i think we could beat mccain, but if he gets the nomination (assuming a decent economy and a decent iraq situation) then he is the favorite.  would i say that haley barbour is the favorite?  not a chance.

That Republicans control the White House and Congress, right?

That a Republican has won the White House in 2000 and 2004.

That the economy is surging* and that Iraq just held an election where nearly 80% of its citizens voted.

And that polls show that Hillary is not viewed favorably.  That Warner, Bayh, and Feingold are all political nobodys (equivalent to Barbour, Allen, and Brownback).  That Edwards came off only as incompetent as a Vice Presidential candidate, and that Kerry was a terrible wooden candidate himself.

I can understand not being pessimistic about 2008, pessimism doesn't win elections, but being optimistic about 2008?  That's a bit of a stretch, the same kind of stretch that made you think Kerry had a great chance against Bush in 04.

*= Look, when it comes to judging how well the economy is doing, the GDP is the best way to measure.  You may want to bring up various other statistics, but then we're debating something different.  When dealing with THE ECONOMY, your dealing with the GDP.

I get it.  It's the GDP that matters.  Unfortunately you most voters dont' carry a handy GDP-omometer with them.  I agree that GDP growth is the best objective measure of the economy's performance.  But that doesn't mean it is the best "objective" measure of a voter's sentiments toward the economy.  People generally care more about their jobs, their stocks, their health premiums, etc.  No?

In any case, I personally don't care about Iraq today or the economy today.  (politically speaking)  The situation in 2008 is what matters.  Maybe the economy will be roaring.  Maybe not.  Who knows?  My personal feeling is that eventually these massive deficits are going to rear their ugly head.  But who knows.

Yes I am confident that if the Republicans nominate the true face of their party (say, Sam Brownback or George Allen) then we will win.  If you nominate a "compassionate" conservative like McCain or Guiliani then all bets are off.

...I vaguely recall noticing that tom foley is no longer speaker.  But Republicans are kidding themselves if they believe they have a lock on Washington.  Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and at best won FL by a few hundred votes.  In 2004 Bush won by 3 percentage points, which ain't exactly a blowout for a wartime President, going against an inept Senator.  You may recall that a Democrat (whose name I forget) won the two previous elections.  So that means the Dem nominee has won the most votes in 3 of 4 Presidential elections.  Doesn't sound like the GOP has a lock on the White House to me>

The Republican majorities in both chambers are not huge.  

Bush is the true face of the party, and he won in 2000 and 2004.  He ran as a conservative, he may have used the tag compassionate conservative in 2000, but his stances on issues were conservative.  And his actions proved himself to be a conservative in 2004.

Bush won both times.

Across America, conservatives ran for office, and Republicans increased their majority in Washington.

I would say its more factually accurate to say that if DEMOCRATS nominate the true face of their party (say anyone that defends or shares an opinion held by Howard Dean) then Republicans will win.  If you nominate a "pro-America" liberal like ... do any exist anymore?, then all bets are off.

Bring it on.

Nominate Brownback.  Or Allen.  Or Barbour.  Or Newt.  That would be the best ticket: Newt and Sam Brownback.  

But you won't do it.  Y'all know he wouldn't win.

It'll be McCain.  You guys talk a big conservative talk, but when it comes down to it, you'll nominate McCain because he is viewed as less conservative by Americans (I'm not sure that is true, but that is the perception).

My point wasn't to say that Republicans have a lock on Washington.

It's to say that any Democrat that believes that they have the ADVANTAGE in 2008 is kidding themself.

You personally said that if Republicans nominate anyone other than McCain, then Democrats have the advantage.

I would say thats as foolish as saying Kerry had a great chance in 2004.

Big talk has won us the White House, Senate, and House of Represenatives.

Again, you are in denial.  But you're marginally right with Brownback, I have repeatedly said that Brownback is too controversial of a candidate to win a general election.  Allen?  He isn't even conservative, let alone too conservative...

And who are you?  Tony Montana?  Nobody messes with Hoowaard Dean!

Bring it on.

I see that you watched the President's speech tonight, and have taken it to heart. Yes, it is good that you not give in to defeatism and despair. Besides, it's no fun routing you guys if all you're going to do is whine about it.

I like your spunk, and I look forward to hearing the lamentations of your women.

The last Dem to win with more than a plurality was 30 years ago: Carter in '76 with 51%.  Clinton had 42% in '92, and 47% in '96.  

There's a case to be made that without a conservative third party to cipher votes from the GOP candidate, the Dems may not have a chance to win for quite some time.

...will nominate whomever we have to, to keep "you guys" out of power.

You seem knowledgeable.  What's your take on my original question.   Guliani for US Senate in 2006 to derail Hillary's quest to be the POTUS in 2008?

VADemocrat (before he sent this thread off somewhere else) thought that Guliani had no chance to beat Hillary.  Fortunately, he did not grow up there like I did.  I know Guliani can beat her.  The question I pose to you is, would the strategy work to derail Hillary?  My only problem is that I do not think Guliani would want to step aside for the party's sake.

(write-in poll option):

Mike Pence

Related? Probably, most U.S. Pence / Pentz / Benz are.

I like 2thmover comment on Guliani for NY Senator.

Rudi is a socially liberal republican that can win NY but not the nation.

I do not believe his conservative stripes are substantial enough to garner support in the primary from the base.

Newt has the elder statesman and intelligent speaking ability to take the lead for President.

His Conservative Bona fides are certainly sufficient.

Or does this group think he has too much old baggage.

I think he would do great.  Your thoughts?

I know this is addressed on the thread you link, but I figured I might as well introduce this here. And the question is whether the country is ready to vote for a Southern conservative--a label that might have as much perjorative content as Massachusetts liberal. I don't think Bush is a good precedent--as a West Texan, he's not really Southern, and besides that, his Texaness always seems to be something of a put-on. Let's face it, his roots are Northeast Yale Hillary Establishment.

Clinton, on the other hand, never had a real "Southern" problem. Wildly popular among blacks, it just wasn't an issue.

On the other hand, I presume Barbour had to get at least some number of black votes to win in Mississippi. Even if it was say 20 percent of the black vote, that could defuse at least some of the uneasiness Northerners might have about a Mississippi conservative.

His wife is the problem. She hates politics and wants him to make big bucks to support his six kids.

It's more of a "base region" dynamic.  That is to say, when a party --- either party --- picks a candidate from a state or region that is deep red or dark blue, that candidate has likely always crafted his campaign messages to an audience whose center of political gravity is significantly to the left or right of the nation as a whole.  When the Dems go to Massachusetts to find a nominee, they are fielding a liberal Democrat who has never had to learn how to sell liberalism to purple-state or red-state voters.  Similarly, I imagine Bush's victories would've been much larger both times had he been better at selling conservatism to purple voters in the midwest.

Now, Democrats have shown with Clinton that you can field a liberal candidate from the other party's base region and win a big victory.  Republicans have yet to try this in the modern political era: fielding a conservative from a blue state.  You could argue that we did this with Reagan, but I would disagree, as the nation had not yet polarized regionally during Reagan's time.  

I've heard similar things.  But I wouldn't call it "a problem."  If I were in charge of six kids, I think I'd prefer some decent cash over the life of a politician's wife.  Hopefully as the kids grow up, he can re-enter at least in an appointed way if not elected.

I'd say AL and MS might have a hard time shaking an image that was the mirror opposite of MA and NY.  However, the South (including KT, OK) has 105 million Americans while the Northeast has 54 million.  In electoral votes, its about 200 - 75 (approx.).  So a Southerner isn't as risky as a Northeasterner in that sense.

As to the point on black voters, Barbour got 20% of blacks.  In MS and AL, the vote is generally almost entirely on racial lines.  Although the 2002 exit polls were busted (and never released), here is the 2004 results for Prez in MS:

Overall:

Bush-Kerry: 60-40

White Voters:

Bush-Kerry: 85-14

Black Voters:

Bush-Kerry: 10-90

FWIW, the President got 3% of the black vote in 2000 in MS and 10% in 2004.  Nevertheless, 85% of the white vote is an astounding advantage for a candidate in a state where white voters make up 2/3rds of voters.

I must admit I don't know a whole lot about Allen, so I read every scrap of info about him, and this article http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/12/17/74819/381 worried me.  Immigration control is very important to me, and it seems he's a bit squishy.

Thoughts?  I'm honestly interested in why you would vote for him.

... hurt Barbour?

He was a very effective spokesman as RNC chair, and has ample experience selling conservatism from a national stage.

He's now added the critical "effectiveness as an executive during a major crisis" entry to his resumé.

At any rate, I don't think there's a chance he'll run, but if he does, he shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because he hails from a deep red state.

Since only Newt was listed of those three, that's who I voted for.

I don't think we'll know anything for certain about Condi's intentions until 2007 at the earliest.

Regardless of how bad McCain is (and I agree its bad), he'll still get my vote in the general election over any democrat.

While I agree with Tancredo quite a bit on immigration, I would never vote for him in a primary and he would have no chance in a general election.

Make him Secretary of Homeland Security maybe, but nothing more.

I like him where he is ... keeping the issue at the forefront.

"I doubt Barbour got 20% of blacks"

Ben Stein?

Diane FineSTEIN?

Who the heck is stein...

Personally I think that Rudy could beat Hillary.  But I don't think that's an ideal situation for the GOP or for Rudy.  Rudy is a great great leader, but in order to win in NY, he would have to remain pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and anti-gun in order to win.

He would become a thorn in the GOP's side, sort of like Senators Lincoln Chaffee or Susan Collins but worse because he'd get much more press time.

The only way Rudy could take advantage of his political capital without hurting the GOP is to run outside of New York, where he could evolve his positions on social issues a la the federalism argument.  It's White House or bust for Rudy.

...you root for the "easily beatable" Hillary at your own peril. She's smart, experienced in the public eye, scandal-proof (at this point), she has the smartest political tactician in the country by her side, she'd galvanize suburban women in ways we don't fully understand yet. I know it's not the conventional wisdom, but Warner, an inexperienced, massively untelegenic guy, seems like a much easier beat to me.

Mike Pence is certainly the guy we should be pushing for.A lot of the political junkies tend to forget how important a role CONSERVATISM will play in the 08 race.NOt lip service to conservatism but real conservatism.I think 08 Republican voters will reject politics as usual and go for a conservative Statesman.Clearly,if you put Pence on the same stage with any of the previously mentioned candidates Pence will easily blow them out of thew water.Rush mentioned only Allen and Pence as 08 contenders,most of us realize Allen is a fraud so that really just leaves Pence.

...pro-choice or pro-gay rights because he had to be. He's those things because he is. The best Republicans can hope for from him is a promise to let states make up their own minds without federal interference. While I think it's at least possible that pro-life people would accept that on some level, the anti-gay rights people would be in for a rude surprise the first time the Guiliani Justice Department declined to appeal a 9th Circuit Court decision requiring federal recognition of a gay marriage in, say, California.

It's actually worse than that if you look at 1976 more closely.

Yes, 1976 was the last time that a Dem earned a majority of the popular vote. But Jimmy's total was 50.08%! Hardly a crushing victory against Gerald Ford for gosh sakes!

You have to go all the way back to 1964 to find a resounding victory for the Dems in the popular vote.

...to describe Hillary Clinton is scandal proof. That women should have spent time in both state and federal prison for the things she has done.

You don't think that all of that would be brought up again if she runs for POTUS?

They sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese in return for campaign contributions for gosh sakes!!! I think that may be mentioned a couple of times during the campaign.

I too have been following Newt and I must say every time I see him speak I  again have faith that there is a true conservative out there that has a chance to show America just how wrong the left is and be tactful while doing it.

StevenK, go back and look at the two ballot measures (Referenda C&D) that Owens supported on Nov. 1st and get back to me on him being in the elite class of fiscally conservative governors.  I'm not going into details, but suffice to say he is no longer the CO GOP's Golden Boy, and I'm fairly certain Norquist would like to have his head on a platter.

You're her campaign wet dream. If conservatives spend the campaign recycling tired, old, over-the-top anti-Clinton stuff, Hillary will win easily.

She's completely inoculated against old stuff, and it's very hard to believe there's new stuff to be had.

None of this should be mistaken for support of the Senator; I'm just saying that I think it's crazy to think she's easy to beat.

First of all, he's great.  But I think Pence is more effective staying in Congress.  He is the personification of the anti-establishment lawmaker and I believe he can accomplish a lot in the House and help Republicans get back to legislating based on core principles, i.e. conservatism.  

As for Allen, I don't think he is a fraud.  There is so much negativity about him here, most of which is unjustified in my opinion.  He IS Conservative.  Many of us may not agree with all his views but that doesn't mean he is a phony.  

He's definitely more personable than anyone else mentioned, and he's an old hand in politics (he wrote speeches for Richard Nixon, after all).  Plus if you've read anything he's written, there's no doubt he's a conservative.

I doubt there's one chance in a thousand he'd actually run, but while we're dreaming, why not?

1976 is a weird election for practical purposes, as you had a rather liberal (pro-choice!) Republican in Gerald Ford as the incumbent.  And Carter was regarded as a relatively conservative Democrat.  Will Democrats win 10 of the 11 states of the old Confederacy again?  I highly doubt it.

is what the GOP is all about; often it seems like Democrats are just making a statement to their various interest groups by nominating somebody (see: Mondale, Walter.)  That means that occasionally the GOP sacrifices conservatism a bit in order to win an election.  The GOP has its own interest groups, for sure, but the GOP interest groups tend to realize that winning the election is more important than having a candidate who caters to their needs who loses the election, which really serves no purpose.

The problem with Southern GOP governors is that a lot of them have staked their success to the Confederate flag (see: Haley Barbour and Sonny Perdue, who might not have been elected without it.)  How exactly do you sell a candidate like that in, say, Ohio?  Even in states like Kansas and Oklahoma that's a tough sell for the GOP.  (Bush never had to deal with a Confederate flag issue because Texans' symbol of regional pride is the Lone Star flag.  For whites in Mississippi and Alabama, the Confederate battle flag serves that purpose.)  And don't think that the Democrats would hesitate to bring that up.  Nothing would fire up their base like "that symbol of hatred" that Barbour and Perdue (rightfully so, but that's a different issue) protected the rights of citizens to wave.

Although I have one quibble with youre characterization.

"protected the rights of citizens to wave."

No one was trying to stop their citizens from waving the flag.  The debates were generally centered around whether they should fly above the state capital where some citizens (entirely within their right) see the flag as one of bigotry, not Southern pride.

who pardoned Nixon. While it was the right thing to do, it probably cost Ford the Presidency. Imagine that.

Though I suspect that many Democrats would prefer that they not be able to display it at all.  There was a big stink over a restaurateur in South Carolina flying the Confederate flag on private property a couple of years ago.  Also, I'm pretty sure the University of Mississippi barred its fans from waving the flag during football games a few years ago.

but... Hillary is already the biggest thorn in our side.  And she's only a Senator, AND she's fixing to be a bigger thorn in all of our sides.

I'd rather see Rudy in NY where, even as a moderate, he is an improvement over the status quo AND he removes Hillary from the prez race.  If she can't win in liberal NY, how can she come back two years later with her tail between her leg trying to take a much more conservative electorate?

A Romney/Giuliani ticket.  Romney since he did quite well as a solid conservative (on fiscal issue and for his stand against gay marriage) in one of the bluest states in the country.

I want Giuliani as VP.  I know people might not like some of his positions, but when the brown stuff hit the fan, he held things together.

...large amounts of cash money to watch Romney debate Newt Gingrich. It's the lions vs. the christians all over again, with Romney, playing against type, as the christian.

I researched the ballot measures Referenda C & D very intensely.  You can too at www.coloradobudget.com.  TABOR was being killed in Colorado by the Gallagher Ammendment and Ammendment 23, Owens needed to do something about it.  As a result, Referendum C was created to give the governor a little more room to create a better system.  Referendum D was questionable, and something I didn't support.

I won't include more details in order to try and not hijack the thread, but I highly advise you to go to the website and research your position more in depth.

Steven, considering I'm Republican, I work for a FisCon, I live in CO, and I actually have a grasp of what was really going on, I'll tell you flat out that yes, reforms needed to happen.  However, Owens sold out his party by agreeing to this.  

The ratchet affect was certainly causing some problems, but you are right: Gallagher and Amendment 23 were, and remain, massive problems.  So answer me this:  How did passing C solve either of those problems?  

It didn't.

Owens endorsed a 500 million-dollar tax incrase over 5 years (C) in addition to the extra 2 billion D would have borrowed (fortunately that lost by about 2%).

Make no mistake, there wasn't one R in the state that was denying there were (are still) some serious issues that need to be addressed.  But by and large the fiscal conservatives in this state feel sold out by a Governor more concerned about his legacy then with coming up with a plan that addressed the real issues.  Beauprez got called out by the base for not being vocal enough in his opposition to C&D, seemingly because he had earned Owens' endorsement as the GOP nominee to replace him and didn't want to burn that bridge.  

Owens is finished.

Tally up another reluctant vote for McCain.

What are the chances I'd be speaking to a Colorado citizen?  Understand my skepticsm.

However, your decision to call Referendum C a tax increase is where we must split.

Referendum C provided for a temporary, five-year "timeout" from TABOR limit, thus  allowing state government to keep and spend the revenues from existing taxes - there is no tax increase.

Considering how Colorado was bankrupt and the ratchet effect, combined with the growing spending as a result of Ammendment 23 forced Colorado to come up with some cash.  Instead of calling for a tax increase, Owens called for taking back some of the tax refund, 3 Billion over Five years.

Owens proved himself to me in the last six years as governor and as one of the leaders creating TABOR in the first place.  He has also proven himself to be an incredibly charismatic, well spoken, and very intelligent person.  That is why I continue to list him among the top four (when all things are considered, he's still elite).  Regardless we're debating the candidacy of a non-candidate, pretty irrelevent.

And I too would love to know why you would vote for him.

Please, any reason.  It doesn't even need to make sense, just any reason.

Wow earlier Gingrich was 5th with about 10 percent, now he's in the lead with 20 percent.  Where did all the Gingrich fans come from?

Yes, Newt's surge began early this evening and is still ongoing.  Most new votes are going for Newt and to a lesser extent, Giuliani.  Allen, Newt, and Brownback were tied for third for most of today.  Newt and Allen have now surpassed Brownback.  Rudy and McCain are now virtually tied.  And Newt jumped into the lead, past both of them.

I'm not sure what the order will be, but it looks like Newt, McCain, Rudy, and Allen will be going on to the next round.  Things could still change though.  I'm not calling the race for another day or two.  So keep voting, but only once, of course :)

or just GDP?

And is the real inflation number tallied into the real GDP number?

Nope.

Exactly what issue is Allen conservative on?

And since a lot of the Allen bashing has been done by myself, what has been said about Allen that is unjustified?

Romney is the best bet in my opinion.  The man has NO baggage.  The man is the strongest social and fiscal conservative in the bunch after Brownback.  He has impeccable credentials (VERY successful business man, proven turnaround expert and did it in MA, top of the class Harvard law and MBA, very charismatic, talks and looks like a President).  

Once people get to know him, which won't be until a few months before the primary, I think he'll poll as high as McCain and Giuliani in polls.  He is a governor and doesn't have a Senate record to attack, and has the appearance of moderate but is every bit a social conservative as Bush and a passionate social conservative.

He is President Bush but actually academically and logically brilliant, pursuasive and articulate speaker.  

The Conventional Wisdom is he won't run. I have a feeling he may be thinking about it more than most think he is.

And every stadium, public or private, has regulations regarding banners and other forms of expression.

I gotta go with StevenK on this.  The TABOR situation in C.O. was a pretty tough deal, and it's hard to fault him for doing what he did.

Owens, in my mind, would without a doubt be the best candidate.  

I'll never vote for Giuliani.  If anything has demonstrated itself through example, it is that a position that needs the trust of the citizens it serves absolutely requires character and integrity of the man to fill it.  Despite all Bush's shortcomings, he has those two qualities, which is why I voted for him.  Guiliani doesn't.  Anyone who leaves his wife for a mistress doesn't have it, so that rules out both Giuliani and Gingrich, really --- although at least Gingrich had the character to step down from Speaker after his affair.

Romney has some promise, but it makes me uncomfortable that he seems to have been getting more conservative only in the last 3 years.

Brownback looks pretty good, but

a) he's a senator

b) he's too comfortable with "temporary guest workers"

Pawlenty is getting some good circulation in the rumor mill, but it would be hard for me to support him.  He's a governor, which is a good thing, but he backed down on school choice when challenged by the teachers' union(s) and just doesn't seem to be made of stern enough stuff.

Failing Owens running, Brownback looks like he might be my guy.

we'll have to agree to disagree.  I fail to see how anyone who labels themselves a fiscal conservative can say there is no tax increase when the government keeps money that would otherwise end up in your pocket.  And if you understand the 5 year timeout from the ratchet effect, you'll also notice that after the 5 years is up, the new revenue ceiling will be the highest revenue limit from those preceeding 5 years...which is going to be another tax increase.

But you are right.  He must be charismatic and well-spoken.  Especially with women who aren't his wife.

To call it something other involves more spin than Pawlenty's health impact fee on cigarettes.

There were much better ways to fix the ratchet effect without raising taxes nearly as much.

Am I to believe, from your statement, that you do not beleve Allen is a Conservative?  Is he a RINO?  That is silly.  A better question to you would be, how is he not a conservative?  But since you asked the question I will answer.

1. He is fiscally conservative.  He voted for the tax cuts, never expressing any resignation to do so.  He was also one of twelve! Republicans to bote for Coburn's bill to defund the Bridge to Nowhere that Nobody Will Use.  He is consistently one of the highest rated senators by Club for Growth.
   
2.  Supports drilling in ANWR

3.Has been a leader on the issue of Internet taxes, authoring the Internet Tax Non-Discriimination Act last year.

4.  Supports conservative or Originalist appointments to federal courts.
   
5.  Despite public comments that are vague at worst on abortion, heconsistently votes pro-life.  NARAL and Planned Parenthood give him 0% ratings annually.

I am, by no means, suggesting that he is the most conservative of the potential candidates but he is a conservative nonetheless.

There's a good article on Allen in the Nov. 7 issue of National Review if anyone's interested.  I think it might be helpful to some to see what he's like.

Well, my first choice would be Rice, but since she is refusing to run I'll have to go with Romney.  Although I do have a soft spot for Newt.

Why Romney?  Well, policy-wise I am both a solid fiscal and social conservative- although I arrive at those positions from a more libertarian philosophy than most here.

McCain is the best combo available, with both fiscal and social conservative positions.  However, he is not a team player.  I might have been able to overlook that, but the Campiagn Finance "Reform" agenda is such athamea to my libertarian philosophy that I can't swallow it, or a President McCain.

Frist looks good, but he has been just too ineffective as majority leader for me to place my trust in him as a standard bearer.

Brownback, perhaps unfairly, has become a lightning rod for the media as an extremist.  If the choice is between marching off a cliff or abandoning my principles, I'll march off the cliff, but I would prefer to win while keeping my principles.  So Brownback is not for me.  (Also, I'm not sure about his fiscal credentials).

Allen is too squishy on social issues.

Now you may ask, is not Romney squishy on social issues?  My answer is: No.

True, Romney is more "moderate" on social issues than I am.  However, he is not a squish.  Most so-called "social moderates" are really squishies who cut and run when ever the liberal social agenda is pushed.  They won't even stand up for the "moderate" position they claim to have.

Not with Romney.  He may draw the line out further than I would, but once you cross that line you got a fight on your hands.  Take stem cells for example.  Romney agreed to a compromise allowing the use of "excess" embryos from fertility clinics for research, (arguing that they would be destroyed anyway), but then the dems demanded that scientists be allowed to create embryos soley for the purpose of research.  Romney reared up on his hind legs and announced his utter opposition to the measure.  A squish would have hemed and hawed and then "reluctantly" gone along.  Not Romney.

Then there is the gay marriage issue.  Let us thank God (I mean it literaly, so it is not blasphamy) that Romney is Governor of Mass. because otherwise we'd have thousands of gay couples heading to Mass. to get married so that they could come back to their home states and use the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution to overthrow local prohibitions against gay marriage.  Romney stopped that cold.  I don't know a single Democrat who would have done that.  I can't even think of many self proclaimed "moderate" Republicans who would have done such a thing.

I guess I'm saying that to me, the proof is in the pudding, and I feel that Romney has proven himself enough on this issue that his... fuzzy talk, doesn't disqualify him.  Now the big issue is the Supreme Court, and who would Romney nominate.  Now maybe he won't nominate the judge I'd choose (Janice R. Brown) instead we'll get another Roberts, and that is good enough for me.

My last comment in favor of Romney is that he would help put Michigan in play.  (Especially if we could get a Rice/Romney or Romney/Rice ticket).  Since we have the South, the Inter-Mountain West, and the Plains States, the Dems need Michigan.  A Rice/Romney ticket would tip Michigan from Dem-leaning swing state to a Repub-leaning swing state.

Newt is the wildcard.  Yes, he has all those personal issues, which is why I didn't pick him.  However, Newt is an idea man.  If the election became about Newt's ideas instead of his person... he could win.

I fear Hitlary.

My only issue with Newt was his comment a few months ago saying that the GOP needs to get away from social issues.

Those issues are still important to me so it makes me wonder if I could count on him on the judges issue.

I honestly don't know enough about Romney to form a good opinion. The fact that he is governor of MA makes me suspicious.

Can anyone from MA enlighten me as to how he got elected if he is even remotely conservative? Was he popular before he ran for governor?

but who is the poor sucker who voted for Pataki?

Was that a joke?

I hope;)

Look at an electoral map of the US. There are 28-31 states that Billary has almost no chance of winning.

That's 28-31 in the hole before the election even begins.

Do you really think that Hillary Clinton could capture enough of the toss-ups states to get to 270?

No Way Jose

If the GOP nominee is John McCain, he probably wins 436-102.

If the GOP nominee is Rudy, he probably wins 409-129.

The only way the Billary returns to the White House is if we nominate someone other than those two (who are actually running) like George Allen, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, etc...

That ballot is so confusing.

I'd rather not have a President whose marital vows should read:

"Till 10-15 years from now when you get sick and I find a younger woman do us part."

Hillary may well get the Dem nomination, but will have major problems as she is well-known and highly unattractive to major, crucial sections of the electorate.

Her ongoing positioning as a moderate will be seriously (and I think devastatingly) challenged in a national campaign - people will be reminded of who she is at her core: a hard, calculating, highly political (and at times gratingly shrill in the mold of Dean) feminist.  Those qualities have very limited appeal.  She continues to lack the smoothness and political skills of her husband, although she does have access to his strategy, experience, advice, and support network.

In all, at this time I do not see how she could win the general election.  I think the Dems only hope is for Republicans to field a weak, unattractive candidate or one that runs an incompetent, gaffe-filled campaign (i.e., Kerry, Dole, etc.).

Hillary might be somewhat formidable, but 2008 should be the Republicans to lose regardless, if Dems' ongoing political deafness and lack of direction continues.

From what I understand, Mass. has a tradition of electing Republican Governors to serve as a counter-weight to the 85% Democrat legeslature.

Furthermore, Romney had prevously run for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994 and gave Ted Kennedy the closest race in a decade.  This means he had name recognition.

Then Romney went west to Salt Lake to take over the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics.  With the success of the Olympics he got a reputation as a good man for turnaround projects.  He also gained experience with anti-terrorism security issues.

The specifics of the race as I understand was that Mass. faced a $2 billion deficit and Romney promised to balance the budget without tax increases.  The other big issue was Abortion with Romney's opponent urging that Mass. parental consent laws regarding abortion should be liberalized.  Romney promised a "truce" in the Abortion debate- basicaly a cease fire in place- no changing the laws either direction.

Some have complained that his budget cuts forced local communities to take up the slack and raise property taxes, but the sales and income taxs are unchanged.

I think he also campaigned for merit pay for teachers.

I know he changed Mass. bilingual program to one year English immersion programs.

Of course, I don't live in Mass. so I might not have a full understanding, but from what I do know he appears to be the best in the available field.

You dems always say that.  You say, "If you nominate a real republican (conservative) you will lose, but a moderate republican can win for the GOP".

Let's check facts.  Even though Bush called his brand of conservatism "compassionate" he was considered the conservative to McCain's moderation.  Remember the Carolinas' primaries in particular.  Bush trounced McCain, then went on to defeat Gore and Kerry.

Bush one was a moderate.  He got trounced by Clinton.  Dole was seen as a "deal maker" and not a true conservative.  He got trounced by Clinton.  Clinton by the way was a moderate dem who ran and co-founded the DLC.  Not a liberal at all.

Then my favorite.  Unashamed conservative Reagan.  First he destroyed Carter (who claimed to be a southern dem, but acted liberal).  He then DECIMATED openly liberal Mondale.  Indeed, Reagan carried every state but Minn. running as the ultra-right wing man.

Please don't lecture the GOP on who to nominate.  Unless you pass this test.  I'll even provide the answers.

1.  Name an openly and proud liberal (in the mold of a Kerry or Mondale) that your party has elected in recent history.
   
2.  Name an openly conservative GOP candidate who has lost.

Standing by...

Since the GOP will never nominate a pro-choice candidate, Giuliani is a non-factor. Senators are historically non-factors, so the safest bet is this race will come down to Governors. Of those who are in a viable position to launch a bid, Huckabee is far and away the strongest. Here's where you can learn more about him:

www.mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com

BSR

Or at least a Pataki.

....to 281 electoral votes without trying very hard:

Arz, Ark, Cal, Col, Cnct, Del, DC, Fla, Haw, Ill, Iowa, Md, Mass, Minn, NJ, NM, NY, Ore, Pa, RI, Ver and Wash.

I'm not saying all of those are a lock, but none of them is what you'd call a long reach for the Senator, either. I'm giving her Arizona, but not Nevada, and Florida, but not Ohio or Michigan.

The point is, an outcome very similar to 2000 gives her a victory, and fairly similar to 2004 and she can also win.

In order to get a good idea of what 2008 will look like, I think it would be wise to not be too strict on who you let go on to part 2.

Really I just want to see how Romney will play out in part 2, because he really is a 'compromise' candidate, and with Barbour and Huckabee dropping out, Mitt could be more competitive.

It's not that I voted for him, I voted for Newt, but I'm curious to see how Mitt would fare in a more realistic smaller field.

I know that would be a six way part deux but I think it's worth it.

Also another interesting possibility is to add to this poll is to create two Giuliani choices, one being "Pro-Choice Rudy Giuliani" and the other "Federalist Rudy Giuliani".  Just an idea.

I think Brownback would be an issue .. Romney ... just not sure.

I'm starting to think that Romney/Rice would be a killer team.

Rice would solidify the South as at least some blacks would cross over to vote for her.  Romney would pull votes in at least Michigan and maybe some of the surrounding states.  He would, by virtue of being a Morman, drive up conservative turnout in Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and New Mexico.  He would probably win Massachuesetts and would drag in New Hampshire and perhaps Maine.

I could see a Romney/Rice combo pulling in 400+ electoral votes.

but the eletorate won't.

If shes's the candidate, she likely would get the big liberal states, but after that each election has it's own dynamic.

We'll discuss again in Nov 2008.