AKM-Agree re:GOP lock on the south. But another unfortunate "legacy" of GWB is that the Republicans are "dead" in the Northeast and West Coast. We've got to change that in '08!

Wll, gee what a shock. Perhaps each was just meant for the other.

This is interesting, but I don't think there's much reliable info here. This shows Mitt Romney getting beat almost everywhere by John Kerry. That is laughable. John Kerry beating Mitt Romney in Texas, Nebraska, and Alabama? I don't think so. If you replace Kerry with Mark Warner, the race suddenly shifts in Romney's favor, with Warner losing every southern state besides his homestate of Virginia. If Southerners have a bias against Mormons strong enough to pick Kerry over Romney, they certainly would pick Warner over Romney even moreso, seeing as how Warner is from the South, is more conservative than Kerry, and isn't the type to insult the troops' intelligence. The website, I think, puts way too much emphasis on current name recognition, doesn't consider how the MSM would damage current GOP-darlings McCain and Giuliani before election day, and just in general seems to be guessing an awful lot. I'm quite sure that some Dems (Kerry in particular) would lose to any Republican, but most Dems could beat any of our candidates given the right political climate in 2008. I would prefer a more conservative candidate than McCain or Giuliani, but I do think they are the most electable Republicans we've got. There's a conservative echo chamber that believes so many conservatives would stay home rather than vote for McCain or Rudy that any gain in independents wouldn't be enough to prevent a Dem victory, but I don't think these people understand how much crossover appeal someone like McCain or Rudy have. A lot of my family members would vote for them, even though they don't vote for any nomal Republican (as I do). Again, I'm not trying to say I prefer McCain or Rudy to a more conservative Republican alternative---I think a more conservative Republican could easily win, but I haven't seen much evidence that the anti-McCain/anti-Rudy crowd understands the American middle.

The whole exercise is a joke. John Edwards losing to McCain by 6 EVs, but getting thumped by Rudy. Doesn't pass the laugh test.

A whole lot of "...sound and fury, signifying nothing".

The race will be between McCain/Lieberman on one ticket (Republican or Independent), and Clinton/Obama on the Democratic ticket.

Pointless exercise - Newt loses every EV to John Edwards? Come on...

I think the Republicans would be insane to nominate anyone other than Rudy or McCain. The discussion we should be having is which of those would be best for the party, not whether Romney/Huckabee/Brownback should be the nominee. Anyone other than Rudy or McCain gets killed in the general. And then we have President Hillary and a Democratic Congress.

Hellary and Hussian Obame. I hurt myself laughing. I hope there is enough real stupid people to do this. I'm old, did all I could for the country, so will only see part of the destructin which has already started with Peloshi and crowd. Keep it up, you will be the ones to pay, pay and pay with more than money. The people in North Korea will be 'free' compared to you.

Scrapiron: Don't laugh at the idea of the Hillary/Obama ticket, the MSM is pulling all stops to bring that ticket to fruition. Check any Dem primary polls, it is Clinton and Obama as 1 and 2. I'm not saying thay have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the general election, but, mark my words, those two are the dalings of the media, and will get the nomination.

The only ticket that will win for Conservatives, so far, is Mitt Romney. McCain and Guiliani are not conservatives.

So the question people like myself will have to be asking, if we get as our Republican nominee is, do we prefer another non-conservative Republican running the show in the White House, or should we show the country what another Clinton White House will look like?

I might be convinced to vote for a third party if McCain or Guiliani win the Republican ticket.

Actually, Rudy and McCain are both very good on fiscal issues. Both are to the right of Bush on spending. Just look at Rudy's record in NY or McCain's record in the Senate for proof of that.

Also, both seem to have no problem using the military to pummel our enemies into submission.

And Rudy's great on taxes.

Both have endorsed good judges.

I don't see how President Hillary with a DEMOCRATIC Congress would somehow be preferable to either of these guys. If the concern is abortion or gay marriage, the president does very little regarding those issues anyway other than appoint judges.

Conservatives voting third party is the equivalent of taking their ball and going home.

As Dave points out, whoever manages to win the GOP nomination will be significantly more conservative than the Democratic winner.

Forget Hilarity!-Obama; it won't happen. She doesn't need help in IL or with the black vote. She needs to reassure the swing voters and try to pick off some marginal southern states. Figure Bredesen of Tennessee or Nelson of Florida.

Of the Presidential elections since WWII, Democrats have won six and lost nine. Of the six they won, the only one without a Southerner on the ticket was 1948, with two border-state candidates. The last winner without a Southerner at the TOP was JFK in 1960. That was before most of our readers were born.

Totally agree with Dave and Jim. A true conservative wouldn't sit home or support a futile third party effort. We have to get a grip on reality, folks. "Social conservatism" never will have the support of the majority of voters.

Things have changed whether we like it or not. Many of us abhor abortion but the majority of the country just isn't ready to completely reverse Roe v. Wade. Many "pro-choice" people are very willing to restrict abortion further and have no problem supporting pro-life candidates, but the GOP can't continue to survive if we maintain the litmus test of pro-life only. I agree Rudy would be fine on judges and that's good enough for me.

As for gays, like it or not, Americans have become much more tolerant. While many certainly resent liberal judges pushing agendas, most Americans, I daresay, equally resent social conservatives preaching to us as well. I think Rudy's tolerance is closer to the public-at-large's view.

The '08 focus needs to be on terrorism, winning in Iraq, keeping taxes and spending low, and on appointing reasonably conservative judges (without sounding preachy).

jeff:

Not trying to pick a fight, just asking for a persepective from a conservative. You say one of the areas of focus is keeping taxes and spending low. Now, from a philosophical point of view I understand that. But only 1/2 of that equation has been true under republican leadership for the past 6 years. The spending has been profligate to put it mildly.

I choose not to get into the discussion about whom it is who benefits from the Bush tax cuts. I just wonder how you philosophically reconcile your view taking into account how much money is being poured into Iraq with little or no accountability for it. And there appears to be no end in sight. I personally do not believe the Democrats are going to choke off the spending for Iraq, though if there is a draw down in forces spending will decrease.

Hugh, you raise a good point. The Bush Admin. and the GOP-led Congress HAS been guilty of excessive spending during the past few years. However, I believe that the Dems would definitely be no better--they just would tax us more to cover their spending. Despite the Republican spending, however, the deficit has actually been coming down due to the increase in revenues as a result of the strong growth partly stimulated by the tax cuts.

As for Iraq, it's difficult to say at this point that the enormous amount of money (and lives) were not worth it. Getting rid of Saddam and fighting Al Qaida in Iraq and elsewhere is money well spent, and I still believe that, despite the current violence, in the end it will have been worth the price. Hope I'm right; we may not know this for many years. It's like the Cold War--were all the trillions of dollars spent developing weapons that we never used or needed worth it in the end? I'd argue that the answer was YES.

We can spend less on highway and farm bills and less on social programs (and partially privatize social security for younger workers), but I don't mind spending "prolifigately" on defense.

Hugh (with a nod to Jeff):

A number of points about our post.

Even though federal spending has been enormous, it is nowhere near historical highs, if you compare it to the GDP. (And, comparing spending as a % of GDP gives a truer picture of fiscal strength, not spending alone. After all, if you earn more, you can spend more and still be in better fiscal health.)

By that measure, the six years of the Bush administration have been relatively frugal. Under Bush, the federal spending is about 18% of GDP, compared to Clinton's 21-22% and Reagan's 24-25%.

Secondly, as I am sure you know, the fiscal problem of the US is not going to be the current discretionary spending, but the entitlements. Until the entitlements are fixed, any other spending cuts are merely rearranging the chairs on the decks of the Titanic. We may talk about low spending or spending cuts or slowing the rate of growth of spending, but every year we delay reforming SS and Medicare, we are closer to killing our economy. Entitleents will increase by over $250m this year alone, and with the oncoming retirement of the baby boomers within this decade, any other spending is moot.

Third, compared to other wars, spending on Iraq (and Afghanistan) is mere pocket change. World War II cost us 60% of GDP, Vietnam cost us 15% of GDP, and Iraq and Afghanistan together are costing us about 1% of GDP each year. By any measure, the Iraq-Afghanistan war is the cheapest war we have ever fought.

"I highly doubt a Republican winning Pennsylvania and Michigan would lose Florida."

Florida is the Retirement State. Clinton wants to nationalize health care. I could see this combination easily pushing Florida to the left.

Mitt Romney is mormon; he will not win the presidency in 2008. HRC has a very uphill battle and is unlikely to win in a national election against McCain. She would crush Romney. Think of all the states Kerry won plus IA, NM, FL, AND OH.

The GOP would be very foolish to nominate him.