[CharlesWayneCT]

No, his point is bunk. Why do we need “more states in play”? Does he expect to lose the existing red states? Why do we need to win more states than we did before?

Sure, it’s nice to think about winning more states, and it would be great if we did.

But if I’m living in a solid Red state, damned if I understand why I should support a guy who appeals to New Jersey on a philosophical level, at the expense of what I care about.

Let’s run the RIGHT person with the RIGHT philosophy. And then, let’s let HIM or HER make the appeal to the blue states. We’ll get them by convincing conservative voters in those states, and previous non-voters in those states, that it’s worth their effort to come out and vote.

I’d rather attract a million new conservatives to the polls, than win by attracting a million democrats to vote for my candidate because he appeals to them philosophically.

[meg88]

Rudy would throw states into play that we haven’t dreamed of getting while keeping the base close.

[HostileTerritory]

Why do we need to win more states than we did before?

Because the national environment has shifted against us to the degree that a Republican running a 2000/2004 red vs. blue campaign will lose Ohio and Iowa in 2008 and probably Colorado and New Mexico as well.

I think Fred Thompson deserves a chance to run and show his stuff, but I have to say the profile of the kind southern gentlemen who is tough on social issues but sounds nice is played out and won't play well outside the solid south. Thompson is appealing for the same reasons Bush was appealing in 2000 but we really need a different approach. Obama or Edwards (I don't count Hillary as a possibility) will sweep the Midwest and probably Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico if we run a candidate whose appeal is strongest in the south.

[oceanview]

Because we likely cannot win Ohio in 2008 - and I include Rudy in that comment. That’s why.

so, we have to look elsewhere.