[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.

[CharlesWayneCT]

We shouldn’t run a red/blue campaign, but we shouldn’t run a blue/blue campaign either. That’s a defeatist campaign, a “if you can’t beat them, join them” campaign.

Why is it that Rudy doesn’t suffer from the “republican” backlash? Because he’s not seen as republican right now, so people will say they’d vote for him.

When Rudy is the “republican” candidate, and there is a single opposing “democrat” candidate, Rudy will lose any state that would be falling to democrats. He has no message to inspire people to come vote for him, just an aura of inevitability.