Edwards, Kerry, and Clark are the most ELECTABLE candidates.

In my humble opinion. All three have the potential needed to appeal to middle of the road voters. Of the three, I think Edwards and Clark (if he runs) have the most potential in '04. IMO an Edwards/Clark ticket would be dominant.

Dean can be painted as an obscure leftist whacko.

Liebebrman and Gephardt are too mainstream and don't energize anyone.

Graham lacks charisma and seems to be in it cuz he's from Fl. He's also quite old.

Kucinish and Sharpton are both fringe type candidates.

I really believe Edwards, Kerry and Clark are the most electable candidates we have in a national campaign.

We need a president with a liberal agenda.

Why not just elect shrub again instead of some corporate owned Democrat if thats the only choice your willing to make?

Any of them would be infinitely better than Bush*.

McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, etc.

they just have the ability to sell themselves as mainstream, unlike Dean(who I consider the only serious candidate who is unelectable due mostly to a far-left IMAGE)

I don't consider Kucinich a serious candidate, Graham can't win the nom, Leiberman can't either, and Gephardt can but probably won't because he's so unappealing to democrats, independants, and obviously republicans

As soon as Edwards gets some of those numbers when Gep and Leibermans numbers start to fizzle, the race will be between he Dean and Kerry, and it'll be between people who don't want another '72,'84, '88 and those who dismiss '72,'84, and '88

www.damnedbigdifference.org

That should tell you why, pretty succinctly!

B-)

So the big differences are why electing a democrat matter, yet when a candidate stands for those big differences he's too liberal, too left-wing, too unelectable. Which is it? Are the differences important or should there be justenoughdifference.com?

I suspect that electing a Democrat isn't your top priority. You sound like someone who's more interested in nominating a perfect liberal instead of someone who actually has a prayer of defeating Bush. That's certainly your right, of course -- it is a free country, at least for the time being. But who knows what the country will be like after a second Bush term.

As an independent voter I am far less concerened that someone carry the meaningless label of "democrat" than I am that they have the brains, experience, ideas and ability to get this country moving in a progressive direction again. Tell me it's about whether or not we elect a democrat and I tune out.

is only a subset of "ideas." Anyone can parrot talking points, be they conservative or liberal points.

I can't see where there's any real concern with brains, experience, and ability to get this country moving in a progressive direction again. At least I'm not hearing them talked about here. You should at least admit that Smirk is woefully lacking in all three (not to mention his _horrible_ ideas, if they're his and not just fed to him like pablum.) On these three qualities; any of the mentioned Democrats is way above what we have at present.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

If they don't get elected, we can kiss the liberal agenda goodbye for another 4 years and then some. At least w/ a democrat in office, the liberal agenda has a chance of getting a foothold in Washington.

It's no use just choosing a candidate on that basis, but if it's not in the equation, you should just put on the Napoleon hat and vote for Nader again.

I don't think Junior's going to be so unassailable (even with voter fraud) that we have to cower and run for the one with the most perceived chance. I actually really like Edwards on a personal level and believe him. His is a warm, positive and sensible agenda, and he has no fear to absolutely personally insult Junior. That last point is not just something at which I cackle with glee, but something I feel necessary. If he's still thought of as "good", any policy mistakes can be brushed off; it has to be shown that this wickedness is the recurring natural result of Junior's ugliness.

To me, Clark has a timid and bewildered persona. There's something caught off guard about him.

In order of electability right now, July 9th, in my fatuous opinion:

Edwards
Kerry
Dean
Kucinich
Graham
Lieberman
Gephardt
Sharpton
Moseley-Braun

In order I like them:

Edwards
Kucinich
Kerry
Dean
Graham
please go away

Why can't people understand this simple reality?

or else you're gonna get flamed

Edwards is number 1 most electable though by a healthy margin

Kerry is number 2 and Clark would probably be more than Edwards but he's not a candidate yet

...at least that's what the media will say if he becomes a front-runner.

And anyway, the last sitting member of congress to be elected president was JFK, more than forty years ago. Sitting members of congress do NOT get elected to the presidency. Otherwise, I would say Kerry is the most electable, especially with an Edwards or Graham running mate.

I don't know much about Clark.

do you really think that it would have made much of a difference if Bush had been a 6 year senator from Texas rather than governor? Any political scientist will tell you that Bush won as much independant support as he did because those people liked him as a "guy" more than they did Gore.

Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush

None of them were from northern states or liberal states(CA was center-right at the time).

None of them were liberals

None of them faced as popular a candidate as Bush is right now

Look at recent history.

Bush Jr. Clinton. Reagan. Carter.

All former governors.

In between you had two sitting vice presidents. Bush Sr and Gore.

For whatever reason, this seems to be where the odds are. Which of course makes Dean more "electable" than the others.

He also showed no balls on the Iraq war ( do you really believe he didn't know Bush was lying)...He's better than Bush but not much....

Edwards is DLC all the way...don't trust him at all....

Clark looks good so far but need more info...much more info and we don't even know if he'll run...

Dean is electable....but has a lot to prove...

Like Clinton was/is?

I don't trust that Clinton either. You know, winning two terms, he doesn't know anything about getting elected.

How specifically is Edwards DLC "all the way"?

I really, really don't understand this comment.

Kerry is better on Bush on nearly every single issue, including foreign policy and even the Iraq invasion (although I'll agree that his spinelessness and hypocrisy on this issue pissed me off).

DTH

Clark is certainly electable.

*

My brother made a coment about Kerry and that he was odd looking ! I idid know much about Dean ,however he seems so poular here that I started looking at him more ! To me he does'nt have any spark , and he has seemed to waffle on some issuses. Disappointed on his appearance on TV , I think it was Meet the Press ! I know Iam going to get flamed by saying so ,but I think we need something big to happen ,and its not going to be from any of these guys running .Its going to be when Al Gore re-enters the sceen. He is still polling higher then any of these guys ! Just imagine how united the Dem party would be right now behind a Gores bid at re-election ! Gore was right on target, with his predictions of what a bush Presendency would do to our economy !

Edwards and Kerry are the most electable. I like Gephardt too but I admit he probably is not as electable as those two. I would be happy to see either become the candidate, and I think odds are Kerry will probably be the one.

The whore media can and will portray *any* Democratic candidate negatively and Bush positively. Electability will depend on how the candidate himself comes across to people on TV.

just as they tried with Clinton. Given that, and the likelihood of a nasty backlash against * as his lies become known widely, why don't we all try the radical step of voting in the primaries for the candidate we believe in? Vote for the person whose stand on the issues you agree with. If in fact, you happen to agree most with Edwards, Kerry, or Clark, why not just say that, and present your reasons?

Any combination will be a winning ticket.(IMHO)

Any of those on the ticket would make be the most competitive.

Someone (Bombtrack?) made a point yesterday that Edwards would force the GOP to spend MUCH more $ in the South. I agree, Edwards could actually win some of the Southern states. This would leave them with less $ to spend on the other swing states in the rest of the country.

Edwards has no military experience, but Clark on thre ticket as VP would help allay those concerns.

Edwards is the anti-Shrub. They fear him most- as well they should.

Graham is in it because he thinks Bush did the wrong thing going after Iraq instead of al Queda, a logic which I think will make a lot of sense to the American people as time goes along and this whole Iraq thing unfolds.

Graham's charisma seems to work extremely well with voters, since he's won all the elections he's ever entered. He carries Florida even in the Republican gerry-mandered Cuban districts. He appeals to the "NASCAR" crowd, southern former Dems who have been voting Republican, because he talks their language and they are comfortable with him as a "working man."

As to his age--66 ain't that old, buddy, I can assure. It's time for a grown-up in the White House.

The Democrats are nuts if they overlook Graham. He's highly competitve with Bush from many angles. See Face The Nation May 11, 2003, the post-Graham interview discussion:

SCHIEFFER: So does this help him? Who does he hurt if you were looking at it just from a political observer's point of view?

TUMULTY (Time Magazine): Oh, who doesn't he hurt? We, in fact, in the magazine this week, to quote an unnamed operative of another campaign saying he's the Swiss Army knife of the Democratic field because no matter how you open him, he hurts somebody. He cuts into Joe Lieberman's ability to raise money in Florida. John Edwards is no longer the only Southerner in the race. Howard Dean's not the only governor. And he also has, as I said, this vote on the Iraq war that the other contenders don't.

And read what he has to say about electability:

http://kucinich.us/electable.htm

And like yours they don't mean much as personal opinions. If you have positive evidence to support your claim give it. For example, tell me about fund-raising, statements of support from unions or other organizations.

Your post is a personal assertion without ANY positive evidence.

Moreover, your negative statements are unsubstantiated, so why not raise this above the middle-school level and give us some evidence to support the negatives...

Finally, you have left out Mosley-Braun and you have failed to mention several others who, like the fence sitting Clark, haven't bothered to step up, yet.

If you are having trouble finding "others" look at the fantasy poll on democrats.com.

Any 3 of those get the nomination we win big.

He's a Massachusetts liberal. And there aren't enough Vietnam war medals in the world to cover up that fact.

In addition, Kerry strikes me as the candidate most likely to get Gored by the press.

in the primaries. But, nationally? No way. Kerry will be "Gored" and "Dukakised" at the same time.

That's why I support the draft Clark movement. I think Clark is more electable than any of the current candidates. If I felt that any of the current guys were electable nationally, I wouldn't be wasting my time with Clark.

if they run an agressive campaign against Bush. Dean is certainly as electable as Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, and the rest.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

imho

I mean, anyone who thinks that we will win the White House in '04 with Kucinich, Graham, Lieberman, Gephardt or Dean has their head up their ass and doesn't know how mainstream politicking works.

you. I find it endlessly amusing that some people are willing to blithely trip blindfolded out onto a limb 6 months before the first meaningful political gathering and more than a year before elections. It's a hoary cliche that this is a lifetime in politics. Think, Foxy, think. Anything can happen. Bush could- and this is not so farfetched- be deep in a dark hole by then, in which case, most of those currently running, plus Clark and whoever else leaps in, could defeat him.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm supporting Dean. Just decided last week. And one of the reasons why? The masterful campaign. He's defining the dem race. At this point I think it's fun to make predictions, but totally useless. Too many variables and we haven't a clue as to what some of them mignt be.

Finally, try writing something just a bit more interesting than:

I mean, anyone who thinks that we will win the White House in '04 with Kucinich, Graham, Lieberman, Gephardt or Dean has their head up their ass and doesn't know how mainstream politicking works.

Cheers, Clar

...middle of the road voters. Edwards does have alot of charisma, too.

So yeah, maybe.

"Dean can be painted as an obscure leftist whacko"

Dean can be painted as obscure? By whom? Someone that has been in cave for last six months?

Leftist whacko? Leftist? Dean is a centrist. Look at his record as Governor of Vermont. Repukes and certain Democrats would love to have all believe that he is all leftist, but they have less that pure reasons for doing so.

Dean can beat on Bush like a drum. And will.

Man, you people really need to get your talking points down.

....is hes running to the left in the primarys, to pick up the more lefty antiwar crowd.,,who are willing to overlook Deans middle-of-the-road record so they can "vote against the DLC" or "vote against the war enablers".

In a crowded field this could win him the nomination.

But hes going to have to reposition himself as a centerist come the general election if he does win the nomination, becuase the GOP has arleady singaled they are going to paint him as "too liberal".

Dean supporters rationalize this by saying "who cares what the GOP thinks or does?".

Well, its not like the Democratic Party is operating in an electoral vaccume where the other side can be ignored and they are not competing for votes.

Dean has a tough act here...he has to appeal to his base to win the nom, while not shooting himself in the foot when it comes to the general election.

And, I promise you that just like Bush went to the right for the primaries and moderated for the general, Dean will do the same thing. I worry that many of the others won't be able to do that, since they haven't built up as much trust with the Democratic base as Dean has.

Dean used to be a centrist. But considering how far to the left he's run, I doubt he'll be able to scramble his way back to the center again in the unlikely event he wins the nomination. He's branded himself as a liberal and that's a label that's going to stick with him to the bitter end.

Remember that a day is like a lifetime in today's politics.

If any one of these runninng for the Dem ticket had even 1/2 the politicial skills of President Clinton ,I would be feeling alot more positive about 2004 ! Someone like Clinton doesnt roll around often enough ! He had a unique way of getting his point accross and making people feel comfortable around him. Just like a Micheal Jordan in Basketball, these type of naturals ,only come around once or twice in a life time ! I wish we had a 1/2 dozen "Clinton like " on our side ! Whenever I hear one of these talking heads on TV saying that Americans had Clinton fatigue, I just laugh. If you remember Clintons leaving office, was getting more coverage then chimps taking office ! he was in the 70% poularity range ! DRAFT GORE 2004 !

Look, this is a tough election for a lot of folks. All of us are agreed that * must go, it's just a question of how to get there. I am fairly comfortable with the politics of both Dean and Kerry, and I "like" both of them.

As many have pointed out, it's WAY too early to make reasonable predictions. However, my informal marketing survey among my friends and coworkers who are either in the middle or on the left doesn't bode well for Dean in a general election. Those who have actually heard of him are unimpressed with being the governor of Vermont (as someone said, you mean "the other half of New Hampshire") or caught his unfortunate MTP performance. A lot can change, but this really concerns me in the electability category.

I'm still hoping for a Clark candidacy to hear more of what he has to say. My "survey" has yet to elicit a negative response about him, which is pretty interesting. More people were familiar with him than Dean, and a couple of people thought that it was a major positive that he had no political history. I didn't tell him that it is highly doubtful that you get to be a 4-star general without being a good politician!

If he announces, we can see during primary season how well he holds up as a campaigner. Right now, I'm still in the intrigued category.

Clinton had scores of connections throughout the Democratic Party. Clinton was liked by other Dems.

Dean is not, and attacking other Dems is not going to make them like Dean.

Read this speech:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=138

****snip***

Our economy, our people, and our nation have been undermined by the crony capitalists who believe that success is all about working the angles, working the phones, and rigging the game, instead of hard work, innovation and frugality.

And these manipulators find comfort in an Administration which, through its own example, seems to embrace that ethic. We will never turn this country around until we put our economy and our government back in line with our values.

While most in this room and business people across this nation work hard every day and play by the rules, too many have not. They have debased your hard work and created doubts that must be addressed if our economy is once again to prosper.

And you can bet that that the Republican Party's attack plan. It DOES NOT MATTER who we run as they all will be painted as "leftist whackos".

Dean has the momentum, atm, so he's the one getting the "leftist whacko" smears (anti-Iraq war). If Kerry got the momentum, then Kerry (Dukakis's Lt. Governor from "Taxachusetts") will be painted as a "leftist whacko". Edwards (that do-gooder trial lawyer) will be painted as a "leftist whacko" if he gets momentum.

Clark would make a very good Vice President, IMHO, but he's never campaigned for anything in his life. That's a big negative when to run for president you must campaign for 15 straight months. I think he has some time to practise before the VP is picked though. But when will he start?

Graham would also make a great VP and would help in the electorial collage, although he would knock us out of a Senate seat if he won the VP.

We could run Bush himself and Republicans would paint him as a "leftist whacko". (Read FreakRepuke, they call him "too liberal" all the time.)

The fact is that we Dems aren't going to be able to "sneak" some candidate by the population. That candidate has to get folks motivated to get our POV and the vote out. That candidate is going to have to raise enough money to run TV and radio ads to get our POV out. That candidate is going to have to relentlessly scour the nation giving speeches and motivating folks to help out. This is going to be a real knock down, drag 'em out, battle. So, dig in.

I think ALL of the Dem candidates are electable (except Sharpton and Braun, possibly Lieberman (still too many idiots not willing to vote for a non-white/non Christian)).

Electability basically depends on the campaign that candidates run in the GENERAL election.

Remember, before the Eagleton mess, McGovern was within about 4 points of Nixon.

In 1988, Dukakis had a 17 point lead in the polls after the Democratic convention, but screwed it up by first taking a vacation after the convention and then not responding to Republican attacks.

In 1964, LBJ ran on one of the most liberal platforms in history and won. Paul Wellstone got elected and reelected.

It's all in the candidates ability to portray their message effectively.

Personally, I think Dean is the best person for the job.

There are two races: to win the nomination and to win the election. Those candidates who put on a set of clothes to win the nomination will have a hard time undressing and putting on a more electable suit of clothes to win the election. The "right" kind of campaign is a campaign that TODAY is running to beat GWB.

Whether or not you like Dean, you have to say he is running a campaign to win the nomination. The GOP does not have to label him. He is labeling himself in order to get the nomination. So if he gets the nomination, what's he going to do? Say hey that was not the real me? The real me is a centrist? It'll be too late.

There are a couple of campaigns that are taking the long term view. The post listed two of them, Edwards and Kerry. It's hard to put Clark in any camp right right now. But if that's what the post meant, I agree that those two are the most electable. Add in other factors, like demographics and charisma and you can wheddle it down to one.

Please show me where Dean has painted himself as a "leftist" or "liberal." Don't tell me that "he gives that impression" or whatever, show me quotes from his speeches or his web site or his op-ed columns or his interviews where here's attempted to portray himself as the left-wing candidate. I've been watching him for over six months, I've read just about everything he's written and said, and I simply don't see it.

He has some views that are popular with liberals (same-sex unions, against the Iraq invasion). He has some views that are popular with the GOP (gun control a states' issue). I don't see where he has attempted to align himself with any particluar position on the left-right continuum. He says what he believes, take it or leave it.

He has said that he represents "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party," a phrase he borrowed from Wellstone. Now, the fact that Wellstone was definitely a "liberal" in the classical sense has caused some to surmise that Dean is trying to be Wellstone because he's using his phrase. Pooh, say I. It's just a good phrase, that points out the difference between someone like Dean, whose positions reflect time-tested core Democratic ideals, and someone like Gephardt or Lieberman, whose positions reflect the wants and needs of the GOP.

Will Dean be painted as a "liberal whacko" by the vomiting heads of the radical right wing media? Well, DUUUUHHHH!!! They'll paint Lieberman that way too. Get a clue.

And I find it interesting that everyone is so certain about who is "electable." Was it that long ago that Clinton was declared absolutely UNELECTABLE by the puditocracy, or are you guys just too young to remember? He was a long shot, a dark horse, the unknown inexperienced ex-governor of a small, rural backwater state, and a flaming pinko liberal besides. Absolutely unelectable. Well.

To be electable, you have to fire up people to get out and work for your election. People have to be passionate about you as a candidate, because if the Dem base and the swing voters are in a "maybe I'll vote today, or maybe not" kind of mood come November '04, monkey boy will win.

So far, the only guy I see out there who's getting the sort of populist response in terms of money and real grassroots effort that looks anything like "electability" is Howard Dean. Go to his meetups, or to one of his rallies, or talk to his supporters. People are EXCITED that he is running. THAT is electability.

IMHO

the Rove machine is too well-oiled, too well funded and too vicious for candidates that are not willing to consistently fight back and be ready to take the offensive. I see Clark and Kerry as "electable" in this sense.