Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-10975360-20131014124545/@comment-32656-20131124154816

Anderson was more liberal than Reagan, not Carter. Man was a card-carrying Republican, even. That Reagan;s numbers in the next election went up by slightly ore than Anderson;s total speaks volumes, too.

If Ford can come that close with the Nixon stigma, Reagan can win fairly easily without it. You're right about the next one, however - Kennedy would have toasted him when the economy cratered.

There is no worthwhile comparison you could make between JFK and Reagan, imo. That his numbers went up more than just the addition of Anderson's numbers - and getting those supporters added to his as well - indicates that is was "in spite of" nothing.

He's only really in front of him the last few weeks, Sam. And that's a paper advantage, as I've indicated before - not a real one.

As the sitting VP, barring a Clinton run, Biden has a built-in advantage, and would have the President's support. He'd likely ace the primaries, despite the number of challengers which would come out of the woodwork.

Clinton really was not the "frontrunner" in 2008, either. Her and Obama were more or less tied in national polls.

You overstate the number of centrists, IATG.

It has been estimated that around 40% of the electorate will basically stick with each party unless something happens.

Looking at Quinnipiac polls, IATG, you're horribly wrong about their numbers. Not one of those matches any poll they have done. Of that bunch, only Christie polls anywhere remotely near Clinton.

Yes, both Virginia and Florida are becoming more Democratic, especially Virginia.

Disagree about Christie and the center. If he runs there and stays there, he'll do fine. Romney's supporters would go to him, as well as the ones that went to Huntsman and Pawlenty early on, and possibly some from Gingrich's camp.

I figure, they've got one more moderate candidate in them. Should he lose, however... bet on a hard right in 2020.