Electability math: Kerry + Edwards + Dean = Clark

Kerry: Veteran and foreign affairs knowledge

Clark is a veteran AND actually won a war AND and has foreign affairs *experience*

Edwards: Southern with a nice smile and positive vision

Clark is southern, has a *great* smile and a positive vision... AND can probably carry his home state. Yes, it's mathematically *possible* to win the general election without any southern states, it's just not very likely.

Dean: Executive experience as Governor of a state with about 600,000 people.

Clark was the "chief executive" of NATO - hundreds of thousands of people (I'm not sure of the exact number), repsonsible for the whole range on of that operation - everything from potholes to policy.

If you want "electable," vote Clark!

Here ends my personal campaign commercial!

:kick:

The amount he can raise without the 45 million cap before August is not "small change," no? Why the rationalization?

they have the potential to raise it -- but are both struggling for $$$ right now.

We need every advantage we can get our hands on.

things would be a lot brighter for the party. That's for sure.

:D

M = Military experience = 10 points
D = Domestic experience = 10 points
F = Foreign policy experience = 10 points
N = National security experience = 10 points
Y = Years that person was a Democrat holding office

Clark:
M = 10
D = 0
F = 10 (?)
N = 10 (?)
Y = 1
Total = 31

Dean:
M = 0
D = 11
F = 0
N = 0
Y = 14
Total = 24

Edwards:
M = 0
D = 4
F = 1
N = 0
Y = 4
Total = 9

Kerry:
M = 10
D = 10
F = 10
N = 10
Y = 24
Total = 64

Clark having foreign policy and national security experience is based on serving in the military. As in golf, I guess it would be a gimme...

what are the requirements for awarding the 10 points?

And a "formula" is a stupid idea. I'm sorry, but it is. Elections aren't won by formulas.

**edited because I forgot to explain the "domestic" score for Clark**
**edit 2 to add executive experience (see below)**

Years as a Democrat doesn't mean squat to me as long as he holds and will fight for my "values" as a Democrat - AND CAN WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION. Allow me to steal a couple of paragraphs from Clark's stump speech:

And I'm leading this campaign the same way I led in the Army. The doors of my campaign are open to everyone. Because when we take on George Bush this fall, we want everyone to join us, no matter what your party registration says. We want Democrats. We want Independents. We want Republicans too - and we won't even make them repent. There's just too much at stake not to open our Democratic doors to all who share in our values.

That's how our party has succeeded in the past and how it will succeed in the future: by pulling together winning coalitions from across the spectrum. Coalitions of southerners and seniors, of veterans and rural Americans. That's what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did during the New Deal. And what led John F. Kennedy to victory in 1960 and Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992. And, I'm going to build on that same winning strategy in 2004 - on the same coalitions that built our great party -- to send George Bush back to that ranch in Texas.

You also have to cut the 10 points for Kerry's "foreign policy experience" in half, in my view... yes, he has KNOWLEDGE, but what has he actually DONE?

Then you have to add in regional factor of needing at LEAST a few states from the south, both as a "cushion" against vote theft, and to force Bush to spend some of his time and resources there. The south has, by my count, 179 electoral votes. That's a LOT to give up. If you add the midwest, which more often votes with the south than the Northeast or Northwest, that's another 61, for a total of 240 votes, it's too much to even *consider* conceding the majority of. So...

(added) Also, you have to give Clark some points for domestic... the bases all had schools, healthcare, and pubic services and infrastructure that were also his responsibility.

So, the new "calculus" is

M = Military experience = 10 points
D = Domestic experience = 10 points
F = Foreign policy experience = 10 points
N = National security experience = 10 points
S = South
E = Executive Experience

Clark:
M = 10
D = 5
F = 10
N = 10
S = 10
E = 10
Total = 55

Dean:
M = 0
D = 11
F = 0
N = 0
S = 0
E = 10
Total = 21

Edwards:
M = 0
D = 4
F = 1
N = 0
S = 10
E = 0
Total = 15

Kerry:
M = 10
D = 10
F = 5
N = 10
S = 0
E = 0
Total = 35

Add ten points for Dean and Clark, 0 for Edwards and Kerry, making the new scores

Clark: 55
Dean: 21
Edwards: 15
Kerry: 45

1. Clark handled the implementation of Equal Opportunity policy which deals with race and gender issues.
2. Clark handled everything from getting the funding for schools to military hospitals and VA hospitals.
3. Calling Clark the "chief executive" of NATO is shortchanging him somewhat. Clark made things happen and actually cared for his people.

He's the complete package.

:toast:

To reduce John Edwards, a fighter and leader, down to "Southernern with a nice smile and positive vision" is to trivialize all that he has done -- and will do -- for this great nation.

as noted below. Yes, he has some other qualities that might make him a "fighter and a leader" but that's not the reason people are calling him "electable."

He is a lawyer; has he brought a mass murderer to justice? Has he ever even taken a pro bono case?

How many years has he spent as a teacher?

Has he ever run a school or a major training facility?

Has he ever put his career on the line to sponsor an humanitarian mission abroad, taking his case directly to the President of the United States?

Has he risked his life for the lives of Americans?

Has he negotiated a peace treaty that ended a war?

Has he successfully built and managed an international coalition to govern the peace of a country torn by war?

Has he stopped the murder of over a million Muslims?

Has he ever given testimony to Congress on education funding issues?

Has he ever been called to testify before Congress as an expert on any topic?

Did he advocate against authorizing the President to use military force against Iraq, or did he vote for it?

Does he know what factions within the Islamic states are sympathetic to the United States, and which are not?

Has he taken an active role in a company developing alternative energy technology?

Has he proposed the most progressive tax plan among all the Democratic candidates?

Has he managed an organization of over 100,000 people, running it at budget?

I'm sorry, but John Edwards' accomplishments, as impressive as they are, simply do not compare to the accomplishments of General Wesley Clark, who has done all of the things listed above--and more.

But more than that, all of General Clark's career work is directly relevant to the economic and political situation that America finds itself faced with in this election.

John Edwards has demonstrated great speaking ability and charm; he has demonstrated a competent understanding of the law and a genuine degree of care for the common man. His achievements have made a difference in the lives of dozens of individuals.

General Clark's accomplishments have far exceeded those of John Edwards, and as President, General Clark's achievements would far exceed John Edwards'. Edwards would be fortunate to have a Republican congress enact a small fraction of his agenda; in contrast, General Clark can significantly improve the economy simply by doing a high-quality, rapid job of salvaging the terrible foreign policy situation the current administration has created for us; and he doesn't need Congress's approval to do it, either.

He is a lawyer; has he brought a mass murderer to justice? Has he ever even taken a pro bono case?

How many years has he spent as a teacher?

Has he ever run a school or a major training facility?

Has he ever put his career on the line to sponsor an humanitarian mission abroad, taking his case directly to the President of the United States?

Has he risked his life for the lives of Americans?

Has he negotiated a peace treaty that ended a war?

Has he successfully built and managed an international coalition to govern the peace of a country torn by war?

Has he stopped the murder of over a million Muslims?

Has he ever given testimony to Congress on education funding issues?

Has he ever been called to testify before Congress as an expert on any topic?

Did he advocate against authorizing the President to use military force against Iraq, or did he vote for it?

Does he know what factions within the Islamic states are sympathetic to the United States, and which are not?

Has he taken an active role in a company developing alternative energy technology?

Has he proposed the most progressive tax plan among all the Democratic candidates?

Has he managed an organization of over 100,000 people, running it at budget?

I'm sorry, but John Edwards' accomplishments, as impressive as they are, simply do not compare to the accomplishments of General Wesley Clark, who has done all of the things listed above--and more.

But more than that, all of General Clark's career work is directly relevant to the economic and political situation that America finds itself faced with in this election.

John Edwards has demonstrated great speaking ability and charm; he has demonstrated a competent understanding of the law and a genuine degree of care for the common man. His achievements have made a difference in the lives of dozens of individuals.

General Clark's accomplishments have far exceeded those of John Edwards, and as President, General Clark's achievements would far exceed John Edwards'. Edwards would be fortunate to have a Republican congress enact a small fraction of his agenda; in contrast, General Clark can significantly improve the economy simply by doing a high-quality, rapid job of salvaging the terrible foreign policy situation the current administration has created for us; and he doesn't need Congress's approval to do it, either.

that on all of the above, the candidates stand on issues seems to be of no importance to "electability".

I could live with all of the above candidates (more-or-less) on issues. That's why Lieberman, Kucinich and Sharpton aren't in the list. All of them have a stand or two I disagree with, but mostly, they're pretty much in line with my views.

Proceeding from there, I have to look at which of those candidates could actually get the CHANCE to implement the policies that I (more or less) agree with them about (by winning the election). In my view, that's Clark.

Way to go! You are so right.

:thumbsup: :bounce: :thumbsup: