2008 May Have "Virginia v. Va." or "NY v. NY" or "Mass. vs. Mass."

[liberalpragmatist]

It's unlikely, but not totally inconceivable that in 2008 both the Republican and Democratic nominees could be from the same state.

If it's Mark Warner (D) v. George Allen (R) it's two Virginians in the running.

If it's Hillary Clinton vs. Giuliani it's two New Yorkers.

If it's John Kerry v. Mitt Romney (R) it's two Massachusetts-ers (?)

And if Al Gore runs and wins the nod, it could be Al Gore (D) v. Bill Frist (D).

How often has this happened in the past? The only example I can think of is Roosevelt v. Dewey (1944), in which both candidates hailed from New York.

[autorank]

1. liberalpragmatist, Clever post. Need more of that. But Arkansas is key!

CLARK IN 2008 Who cares where his opponent if from. It's time to get a fighter with an intellect as our candidate.

I'm watching "Battle of Algiers" on Sundance. By 2008, we'll have our own version about Iraq. The PNAC crowd will be toast and no candidate can run successfully having endorsed the war (are you listening you intellectually dishonest clowns: McCain, Kerry, Edwards, H. Clinton, Frist, Hagel, Guilanni). Fugedaboutit, any war supporters are toast.

[ThorsHammer]

2. Interesting take, I agree

I don't wish for things to get worse there by any means (ideally, I'd like to see a stable govt. and us pull out), but it could very well be a Viet Nam type struggle that goes on for a while. I hope things get better asap, but unfortunately don't think they will *IF* things stay bad, any candidate with a (D) by his/her name will win in a rout.

[autorank]

4. Nice username! Here is how I see it.

The public needs an excuse to turn massively on *. Something very basic, as in Greek tragedy basic. At the right moment, those with real power (i.e., mega $$$'s) will "sanction" a devastating story about *'s betrayal of our soldiers. Take your pick: bogus mortality/injury statistics; depleted uranium/vaccine toxicity; blatant fraud with N. Bush involved somehow. They'll think up something and all of a sudden the press will hop on it, the people will be "shocked" that they have supported such a fool, and they will naturally want to blame the fool for "betraying them." This is about the best outcome since it will get us out, save American lives. The alternative is truly frightening.

[Ediacara]

3. In 92 Bush and Perot were both from Texas

Even though Bush is really from Maine or Connecticut or something, like you said in 1944 both Dewey and FDR were from New York, in 1940 both Wilkie and FDR were from New York, in 1920 both Harding and Cox were from Ohio, in 1904 both Roosevelt and Parker were from New York, in 188 and 1892 Cleveland and Harrison were both from New York, and I can't get info from before that, sorry.