So who IS the most "electable"?

not who you want to win the nomination, but who has the best chance of beating that shrub-guy...

try and avoid the temptation to attempt to sway others into your candidates camp, just tell me who you think has the best chance of winning in november...

i'll start: although he's not my man in the primaries i almost think Edwards would take the southern states that the repubz will be so desperate to lay claim to...(rightly so because without them we win in a slam-dunk) thus i think he is the most "electable"

(i am officially part of the problem re: the beating to death of this term, electability...)

*ducking*
one love
spike
(DK-04)

Gooooooo Clark!!!!!!!

Why else would the repukes be so scared of him?

He's my head candidate. Kerry is my heart candidate.

What can Kerry and Edwards do?

Attack him on the war? No, they voted to support it.

Attack him on civil liberties? No, they voted for the Patriot Act.

Attack him on education? No, they supported NCLB.


Only Clark and Dean (of the top 4) can actually draw any blood. Of the two, I think Dean would do it better.

If you want to give Republicans unhappy with Bush a good reason to go to the polls and vote for him, just nominate Dean. Dean will cost us more votes than he brings in.

If Dean's the candidate, those numbers will (at least partially) reverse. Dean also has the advantage of being able to not have to answer the "I appreciate Kerry's (or Lieberman's or Edward's) support for the legislation that I've signed. I agree with their view of what's important to keep America safe and prosperous." speech from Bush . I can guarantee he'll express it in just that manner.

Dean will only "cost" us votes as long as we allow Republicans to define the arguement.

I think Edwards is capable of making the best case against Bush on domestic issues. Clark certainly had the potential of making a strong ase against Bush on foreign policy, but I haven't been very impressed with how he's run his campaign. I can't understand why Clark is surrounding himself with people like Michael Moore and George McGovern. But Edwards and Clark will play better in the South than Kerry.

Something he shouldn't have had to do. However, Michael shouldn't have made such a contravertial (but true) statement while introducing Clark. A real bummer!

there was no way it could do anything but hurt. and, boy, did it.

his backpeddling on the Moore thing was as bad as lying about the White House calling him regarding tying Hussein to 9-11.

Clark has not backpedaled on anything, from the best of my knowledge.

Regarding Moore's "deserter" comment and all the attacks he weathered on it, Clark repeatedly and consistently emphasized that it's not his concern and that Michael Moore has the right to say what he feels. Clark has consistently said that Bush's record from 30 years ago is not what brought him into this race; Bush's record of failure in the last 3 years is the problem on which the election should be focused.

I wouldn't characterize Clark as "surrounding himself with people like Michael Moore and George McGovern." I'd say that some citizens offered their endorsements and Clark accepted.

The fact that Clark is being endorsed by other outsiders makes me like him that much more.

not liberal havens like mass or vt he did have appeal to reagan democrats because of his labor and trade policies he appeals to old school conservatives (who are pissed at bush) because of his stands on patriot act and free trade he also can take shrub on with his record (i kne there were no WMDs) he also appeals to greens libertarians and reform party membersand hell even my anarchist friends who dont vote on principle said they would vote for him and plus he could real excite the base during GE but dems wont vote for him in primaries

"but dems wont vote for him in primaries"

why won't the dems vote for my man dennis kucinich anyway?

sounds like a seperate thread, huh?

hmmmmmm

A real uniform.

Military Experience equates to National Security.

Rove is running on the War.

Clark or Kerry.

A combo would be unbeatable.

I prefer Clark/Kerry prefer but Kerry/Clark would really, really be unbeatable. Also then the Media would have to start mentioning Clark and give him airtime to demolish Bush and his God Damn Bloody War!!!!

Give me the candidate of intelligence and peace anyday, rather than aging warriors harking back to their glory days while an illegal war saps the Country's strength, wealth, credibility and lives of it's young.

> Give me the candidate of intelligence and peace

I wholly agree. Give me Wes Clark, who graduated at the top of his class from West Point and became a Rhodes Scholar studying at Oxford for 2 years; and who is on record in Congressional testimony as against going to war with Iraq.

poll out now has him ahead of AWOL beyond the margin of error

Kerry is unique to the Democratic candidates. He is the one person I would not run and here is why http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread18277.shtml#15

I personally don't care what a national poll says right now, as it's largely irrelevant to how the vote will go in November -- both because it doesn't reflect the Electoral College and because there's a long way to go until November.** Based on the current poll numbers listed, any of Clark/Edwards/Kerry would likely defeat Bush this Fall, and Clark/Edwards would likely have equally large margins over Bush if they were getting all the free press that Kerry is.

Based on what components combine in my mind to affect "electability", Wes Clark is the best candidate.


** p.s. What happens when Kerry's been in the media for a while, and his "poll numbers" sink just like they did last year?

If only he could get some buzz from the goddamned corporate media he'd be crushing the Chimp and everyone else.

Despite the media's attempt to portray Dean as some extreme leftist, he's actually more toward the center than any of the other candidates. Plus, I agree w/ all the other points made above re: Dean. What can the other candidates say about the fact that they rolled over for Bush on a whole host of important issues?

A Dean supporter and a Stones fan! :hi:

and win in a landslide. It won't even be close. A humiliating defeat for someone who richly deserves it.

agreed with you.

Besides praising all Clark's qualities & talents, the editorial said Clark will be able to attract Independents & disgruntled Republicans.

As I've said on this Forum before, we'll all vote for the Democrat. The Repukes will vote for Bush.

That leaves the "undecided" or "unaffiliated" voters, many of whom vote based on sound bites and appearance. It's not right, but it's what is.

Edwards is extremely attractive, has "charisma," speaks well and is Southern.

He's not my first choice for President, but I think he'd make the best candidate, and the most electable. He'd destroy Bush in a debate.

The Repukes have been attacking Kerry as a Liberal North easterner "just like Teddy Kennedy."

all the rest are easy pickins for the right.

around the edges, (and I don't mean Green party either--perhaps the most conservative candidate running, including Lieberman,) wet behind the ears, and a triumph of style over substance.

leader of the free world is as much a job of communicating effectively as it is establishing policy.

The guy has been an unqualified success at everything he has ever done and that includes leadership, management, the ability to communicate and to quickly come to understand complex issues.

Its the lack of a wild eyed look ans path toward the middle that will allow him to win.

As a successful lawyer and politician I would expect him to be able to do so. He can talk all day, make it sound real good, and not say a damn thing. I accept that he has a good set of brains. I simply don't think he has any vison, and operates from expediency rather than principle.

If people vote for him because they see him as measured and safe, then that's what they'll get; measured, safe, white bread, vanilla politics. There will be few fundamental changes in an Edwards administration. And maybe the majority of Americans don't want fundamental change.

While Edwards is strong on style, I don't think you are looking particularly closely at his positions if you think he's plain vanilla.

Show me another candidate who's talking about raising capital gains taxes for the wealthy, also specifically attacking the rollback on taxes on inherited wealth. That is hitting Republicans where they live.
It is a declaration of war against Republicans.

As for who is most electable - they all have their positives and negatives.

Kerry Positives: he has more gravitas, extensive resumé the military background and may be able to push the AWOL charge. To someone non-partisan he might be the most serious alternative to Bush (seem the best able to run the government). Tall. Overall seems presidential.

Negatives: He can be stiff and boring, especially his delivery style and phrasing on the stump, less so in interviews. Definitely the least charismatic of the top four candidates and to most tastes the least good looking of the top four candidates. My worst fear is that he can be too careful a campaigner (like Gore). Also, can go on about the other guy (Dean) without making the case for himself - this could happen with Bush too. They will definitely try to label him as too liberal. Has been the least vocal of the top four against Bush, though he still says his piece, (except for the regime change remark). Corny slogans like "bring it on" and corny jokes.

Edwards Positives: Charming - a great stumper and a really Democratic message that is easy to get behind. Knows how to reach people. Good looking. A smart campaigner (doesn't seem to make mistakes).
His Horatio Alger sort of bio makes a strong contrast to Bush's life of priviledge. Speaks out against Bush.
Regional appeal might help in swing states (Lousiana, Arkansas, WV, maybe even VA).

Negative: Will be labelled a lightweight, low on experience, especially relating to the military. They will attempt to demonize his record as a trial lawyer, but this will probably fail because his record will be a plus. They will try to call him "just like Clinton." This will be polarizing, not necessarily all negative, could backfire.

Clark Positives: Perfect resumé. Might appeal to Republicans or Military - some new voters - and not polarizing. Speaks strongly against Bush. Southern origins may help, esp in Arkansas, also maybe VA. Not as Southern in style as Edwards - may not be as good in Lousiana. Can claim that he has the experience to fix what Bush has broken, internationally.

Negative: I don't think he has internalized what it means to be a Democrat - sort of missing the from the gutt part of the domestic message - so has difficulty closing the sale. Has more charisma than Kerry but less than either Edwards or Dean. Has had a rocky start as a campaigner/stumper, but shows potential (which is better than a comparison to someone who has been around and hasn't learned).

Dean: Has great charisma - reaches people. Sticks it to Bush. Talks about balancing the budget and the deficits - a great general election issue. NRA record - a plus in the GE. Machismo.

Negative: the anti-War message - a real General Election killer. Civil Unions - not quite as big a negative but problematic. Also - his high negative approval ratings relate to his antagonistic intraparty message (change the Dem party) which means you have to dislike the establishment Dems to like Dean - so will need retooling, some Dem healing, for the GE.


Ideally - I wish I could meld Edwards and Clark into a perfect candidate - with both the domestic and the international side covered - barring that, a ticket of these two is the best bet, IMO.

Bottom line: There are no perfect candidates. Best to worst: Edwards, Clark, Dean, Kerry.

I fear I won't do it the justice it deserves, because you clearly put a lot of time and thought into it. I just don't agree with you on Edwards; I guess I'm one of the ones who sees him as a lightweight. I really dislike most of his positions on social/crime issues. I don't like his position on America's place in the world; he's OK with us being an empire so long as we're a kinder, gentler empire. I don't believe we should be an empire. I dislike his position on the War on terror, and the invasion and occupation of Iraq, where he continues to attempt to justify what is fundamentally unjustifiable, which may win him votes, but which is a very safe, and extremely calculated position. I can't really argue with your positives/negatives on him, since I think they are fairly accurate. I simply don't like the guy; in a visceral sort of way, I inherently mistrust him. I don't find him honest or charming, though I realize that many do. Charm typically sets off alarm bells for me. I don't necessarily think his lack of experience is an innately bad thing, but I do think it will work against him.

I think it may be Kerry's quality of "boringness" that will actually appeal to the most voters, who will see it as stability, safety, and common sensical.

I prefer Kucinich, but I recognize there is no way he is going to be nominated, and Kerry to me is the best of a bad lot. I could see Edwards as VP, but again, since winning seems to be the only qualification that matters, Clark may be a better choice.

I think it is a shame the media labelled his as unelectable so early - a self fullfilling prophecy.

Believe me, there are some real hard core liberals in the South - and I think Edwards is one of those (that's the "feel" I get off him) so I trust him - think he's the real deal. Southern candidates get used to brushing certain issues under the rug. It's not that they aren't in agreement with the more vocal candidates (liberal on the inside) - it's more about getting elected - they know what will wash and that you have to get elected to make changes.

Kerry - I basically like him but think he won't wear well over that six month period. I think the stupid fluffy stuff ends up counting for a lot with many General Election voters. Also, I have to admit I have a big problem with inherited wealth - and I think he loses on not being able to make this case in the GE against Bush.

I will strongly support any of the Dems come the GE. None of them are perfect.

Hey, I have nothing in particular against him but Edwards was on the wrong side of many of those votes, too. That will make a difference to quite a few Dems unless he explains his votes...

thats why he's electable. Can't swim against some tides.

Dems willl not walk away from that "D" lever over any of that because they know there are too many far more important things to consider.

Time to focus on whats really important now.

for unpopular Dem principles than pipular Republican ones.


I'm NOT calling Edwards a Repub. He's my 2nd or 3rd choice. I'm just saying that I'd rather he stood up to the Repubs on these vores, even if he couldn't win.

he's on the side of the majority. It wouldn't shock me to find him on the side of the majority in virtually every position he takes. And I would be equally unshocked to find him change his positions if the majority were to change its.

more than I can say about the other serious contenders. Unless you consider Lieberman one.

He has principles and he makes his descisions based on them. Thats why his platform does not have to change.

He is in touch with America, he's in touch with me.

THIS is something to crow about?

Actually, that's exactly my issue with him (and the rest). None of them have the balls to say the screwed up. The first one who does is my #2 vote.

so there goes Dean and Clark right off the bat.

America disagrees with you and America elects it's electors who elect it's president.

...and decides to take a pass on politicians that vote to get re-elected instead of voting responsibly.

when it counted. Not only did he vote for the Iraq resolution, he voted AGAINST every amendment Democrats proposed to restrict Bush's war power. That's 100% unacceptable.

Oh, and I consider it hypocritical (another flaw) when Edwards bashes the same Partiot Act for which he voted.

but its not hypocritical for Clark to praise Bush and company for the world to see and hear but deny it for Democratic comsumption ?

Glass houses...

Contrary to the wishes of many posters here, Democrats are telling us, quite clearly, who is the best candidate to beat Bush......

Would that be the people in two states, or the "people" of the DLC?

The punditry and Media has made up the publics mind starting 2 weeks before the Iowa caucuses with all the focus on "electibility" and Kerry's uptick in the polls at the expense of Dean. Suddenly, the magical "electibility" quotient was the factor Dems's were supposed to look at in selecting a President, not "who is the best man for the job" as the deciding factor.

What we have going on is a Media assassination of one candidate (Dean) and the marginalization of another (Clark) over this supposed Kerry juggernaut.

I don't buy it. Dean and Clark are the most electable. Kerry will be Rove-fodder once they paint him as a "Ted Kennedy-Democrat" given the antipathy the Kennedy name has in parts of the country.

The numbers don't lie. This is among registered voters, too.

When the 562 likely voters were asked for their choice from a Bush v. Kerry race, 53 percent of those picked Kerry, and 46 percent favored Bush.

When that same group was asked to pick between Edwards and Bush, the numbers were 49 percent for Edwards and 48 percent for Bush. With a Bush/Clark face-off, Bush was favored by 50 percent of those surveyed and Clark, 47 percent.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/elec04.poll.prez/index.html

He's our best Bush-basher.

Your "Kerry v Bush" poll analysis ignores the real, known, quantified effects of media coverage on public perception. Or are you going to argue that the multi-billion-dollar advertising industry has no effect on consumers' product selection?

As I like to say:

Winning this election is not about firing up the base and it's not about pandering to the middle. It's not about winning the Midwest or the South, although Edwards can do that. The people who will decide this election aren 't single issue voters and they don't listen to the pundits. The votes we need to win this election are in the hands of people who are looking for a message to believe in and a person they can trust. They want someone that can lift this country up and give them hope for the future. They're looking for real solutions to their problems. They're looking for a President that will make them proud to be Americans again. They will find John Edwards.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/01/19_edwards.html

and delegates. That one is the most electable.

delegates....

Kerry is also a liberal, and is kicking the crap out of Bush in the polls. What more could we want?

Yeah, nothing like 2 corporate whore parties completely removing the will of the American people from the political process :eyes:

popular second choice. only detested by a suspicious few. Edwards will be ready in 2008 - not yet, tho.

Having said that....come to the Kucinich Camp!

That's exacly what I've been thinking. Clark can hit the ground running right now. He's got the executive leadership and modern military experience that will deflate any Republican fear-mongering about changing boats in the middle of the river ("ongoing war" theme). Edwards will gain exposure and White House/executive experience as a strong VP, helping lead the fight against poverty.

Edwards would then be an undeniably strong Presidential candidate in 2008 (should Clark feel he's accomplished his goals in his first term) or 2012.

Is the only one who I would say, right now, can definitely beat Bush.

I think all of them have a chance. The longer the primaries last, the longer that they can keep getting the Dem message out without officially campaigning against Bush. This is a good thing.

Really, my take on electibility is that it's more based on the campaign the candidate runs opposed to the candidate themselves. If you can make a guy look good, then he looks good...and people will vote for him. Sure, there are factors about the candidates themselves that can hinder them, especially in Sharpton's case (unfortunately, American voters wouldn't elect both a liberal and African-American president), but those can be fairly easily covered up with a good campaign. Of course, that's only my opinion.

But to answer your question more directly, I think they're all as equally electable. Except, unfortunately, in Sharpton's case. Which really is too bad, because he would make a tres excellente president.

You guessed it.

I am beginning to think that a Kerry/Edwards ticket would have the best chance.

i think i agree with Piperay...

He is on message, he connects with the ordinary voters who will decide this election, and he does not suffer from the ethical clouds currently hanging over the front-runner. John edwards can keep the blue states blue, and turn some red states blue, too.

Wes Clark! Since the Republicans control the SC, the Whitehouse, the senate and house of rep, I'd say they are pretty good at sizing up the competition.

Clark's military/leadership/foreign diplomacy experience puts him ahead, in my mind; plus Southern roots will help with swing voters across swing states.

you is. Otherwise they're all electable, because they are all on the ballot. :hi:

eom

He's the one polling the highest numbers against Bush, winning the last 2 primaries, and polling ahead in 5 of the 7 primaries to be held tomorrow.

KUCINICH, of course!!

An honest man, with no skeletons in his closet.

His military background and lack of history as a Democrat would be the best to appeal to Republicans. And he will get most (but not all)of the ABB crowd, which would be most Democrats. If electability was my only criteria, I would be backing Clark over Dean. But since I believe that Dean (when he is not being sabotaged by his own party) is electable, he is my preferred choice.

And he'd make a damn good president.

Without a doubt

Not!

Dean is.

Kerry looks too rich....
Clark looks too republican lite...
Edwards can be smeared with ambulance chasing...

Worst they can smear Dean with is the "scream", a non-issue.

The existence of Bush in the White House should be sufficient to motivate base Democratic voters. We need a Democratic candidate that can attract swing voters in swing states.

> Worst they can smear Dean with is the "scream", a non-issue.

Actually, one of his biggest weaknesses is national defense (no experience). And the Republican Mean Machine will attempt to smear him on his medical waiver from serving in Vietnam (and skiing instead). Hey, I'm a Dean fan (he was my fav last year until someone else entered the race), but the absence of national security credentials *will* be a show-stopper for voters.

Edwards isn't electable; he couldn't turn his momentum out of Iowa into beating Clark in NH, and he simply doesn't have enough foreign OR domestic policy experience. His voting record in Congress, what little he has, will not help him against Bush.

If Kerry were the electable one, he would have been the front-runner all this past year. The only reason he wasn't is because many, many Democrats were worried that he wouldn't be able to beat Bush; he is too establishment Democrat to draw the independent vote, and he will get mired in the divisive politics that Bush and Rove excel at.

Dean is, I am sorry to say, not going to stage a comeback. Going from front-runner to skipping seven states is not something Dean can recover from--especially for a character issue, which is what his scream has become.

Clark has relevant experience, is hard for the Bush/Rove camp to attack, and doesn't have a history in the recent divisiveness, from Reagan to now. He voted for Reagan AND Clinton; he has a real chance of bringing us back together as a nation. Independents, who are more socially liberal than Republicans and more focused on economics and international politics, will love Clark.

Clark is the most electable Democrat we've had in quite some time. His only problem is that he can't get any coverage, because he isn't beholden to any special interests. The media have strong ties to both Kerry and Bush, but none to Clark.

You want to rock the boat? You want a progressive agenda in the White House? You want a candidate that isn't beholden to special interests? Vote Clark.

Kucinich, of course.

Everyone I talk to who is familiar with his record admires him. Many have bought the media line that Kucinich is unelectable, but in a contest against Bush they would vote for DK in a heartbeat.

Universal health care = electable

Excellent labor record = electable

Integrity = electable

Opposed Iraq war from the start = electable

Tuition-free education = electable

Amazing public speaker = electable

Media description of Kucinich as unelectable = brainwashing

Ah prarie shit; he'll do it!

Larious!!