Won’t the other forty nine states complain if we don’t let them have an election too?
Just out of curiosity, what sort of candidate would you vote for?
They might, but New Yorkers will just show them this. 
Doesn’t everybody know that New York has a monopoly on disasters?
One serious limiting factor here is that in the end, they’ve got to run somebody, and there are no obvious candidates in sight that will get the fundies motivated to gather the signatures to get the candidate on the ballot in enough states to make a difference.
I know Old Broder writes columns about Unity '08 at the drop of a hat, but I don’t see that it’s got a wider constituency than him and a few like-minded pundits. In this instance, it isn’t that people don’t think a third party can make a difference: it’s that they aren’t even looking for this particular difference. We’ve already got a centrist party that bends over backwards to be accommodating to the GOP.
I may be wrong about Edwards, [it could be someone else] but I STILL don’t think Hillary will get the nomination.
Come the first primary I honestly believe shes going to fall flat on her face just like Dean did. This is just a theory, though.
A third party candidate is extremely likely, in my opinion, on the Republican side.
I thought they were using Diebold machines there, so your vote wouldn’t count anyway. 
It’ll probably be Hillary scraping by the narrowest of margins, unless we get lucky and aliens show up and begin vaporizing everything. 
(Go Bug Eyed Monsters!)
That’s only if Kucinich gets the nomination.
Regards,
Shodan
This is exactly what I was going to type. I’m glad I read the responses first.
The Edwards/Richardson ticket beats the tar out of Giuliani/Liebermann.
Democrats win 300 House Seats and expand the Senate majority to 60/40.
I’d like to know how some of you can predict the Dems will lose seats in the Senate but retain control, when the majority is razor-thin right now.
I have said for months that Edwards is the most electable candidate the Democrats have…but he won’t get the nomination.
Romney and Giuliani will have themselves cut in half vertically and the pieces sewed together to make two new people. The Romniani/Giuney ticket will run on the platform “Cake good. Terrorists bad” and win every state except California, that notorious bastion of cake-hating.
Edwards wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote to Rudy. Red-faced Dems everywhere quietly scrape the “Re-elect Gore” bumper stickers off their cars.
Dems: Hillary wins in a walk. She is never seriously challenged. She continues to win over a lot of Democrats who weren’t too keen on her to begin with. The rhetoric against her never dies down, but it looks increasingly ridiculous as the year goes on. She picks Richardson as her running mate.
Pubs: Rudy implodes hard at the last minute, Dean-style, as his corrupt past catches up with him. Romney is there to pick up the pieces and gets the nomination, though he fails to excite much of anybody. Huckabee makes a strong showing in the primary and get the VP nod; as more people see Huckabee, they wonder aloud why the ticket isn’t reversed.
General: Hillary by a mile. She runs the table of swing states.
You left out the part about Edwards only winning the electoral vote by a skin-of-the-teeth win in one state where there turn out to be a ton of voting irregularities - thousands of Rudy supporters denied the right to vote, misleading ballots where Rudy supporters thought they were voting for Rudy but were really voting for Stephen Colbert, and all the rest of that fun stuff.
If that happens, of course, I’ll be a good sport and add a “turnabout is fair play” bumper sticker to my “Re-Elect Gore” bumper sticker.
The flaw in this reasoning is that the Dem front-runner is always going to poll less well. There’s a natural disadvantage to the position. That person is always going to draw the majority of the GOP’s attacks and there are always some people who will persuaded by those. There’s your ‘electability’ issue.
I predict a third-party candidacy strong enough to affect the outcome of the election. (Probably to the benefit of the Democrats.)
A subway election between New York candidates Rudy and Hillary would make that a certainty.
This simply will not happen. Any Republicans who are frustrated that Rudy or Romney are not conservative enough will hold their nose and vote for them anyway…especially if Hillary is the opponent. This perceived frustration is also the primary reason that Huckabee is a logical VP candidate.
Anyone on the right with even a grain of political sense will remember the lesson of 2000 when Nadar cost Gore the White House.
I’m not thinking of a challenge from the religious right. I’m thinking more of a challenge from, say, Unity '08. (Wiki article.)
If the Unity '08 candidate gets a spot in the debates, he could draw off a significant number of votes. And right now I’m thinking those votes would be more likely to come from disaffected Republicans, or from independents usually inclined to vote Republican.
I stand by my prediction.
The Democrats are running smart campaigns while the Republicans are facing an ideological divide. Surprising, because usually it’s the other way around.
All three of the major Democratic hopefuls have avoided alienating the supporters of their rivals and none of the minor candidates seems likely to play spoiler. If they can maintain this, then the eventual nominee will have the major advantage of being able to quickly unite their own party behind them and concentrate of facing off against the Republican nominee.
At this point, there’s no Republican candidate who will be able to do the same. Whichever of them gets the nomination is going to have to put some work into building bridges within his own party.