If nominated, which Candidate would win the smoothest victory in the General Election?

When all the dirt is thrown and all the gamesmanship is done, which candidate do you think would win the General Election most easily?

(in alphabetical order)
Joe Biden
Wes Clark
Hillary Clinton
Chris Dodd
John Edwards
Al Gore
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson

His security will have to be massive, and even then he'll probably have several assassination attempts against him. America is still a deeply racist country.

I don't think his campaign would be smooth at all, it'd be all about survival.

they'll do it to any of our candidates - none of them are exampt.

As stupid as that is, this IS America where more people vote for the winner of a talent show than vote for the legislative leaders.

And the race issue. My sense is that most white people won't find him racially "threatening", as sorry as that sounds. He's the most "acceptable" black candidate since Powell (to folks who otherwise might be given to racist tendencies) that we're likely going to have for some time.

What is important is the candidate's ability to handle the dirt. A couple of things factor in--likability (and Obama has tons of that, maybe the most of any candidate), campaign experience (this is one place his local experience will help, but he will still be facing something he can't even imagine at the national level--and I'm sure he knows this), and the ability to shrug off insults, rather than feeling he has to answer each attack. That last one is tricky, because if you don't answer the attacks, they stick, and if you pay too much attention to them, they stick, and if you try to explain away each one, they stick and your campaign gets bogged down in fighting off attacks and people figure you must be deeply flawed and they vote for the other guy.

But don't think he will escape scandal just because he has nothing in his background. We've already seen them try to associate him with Saddam because of his name, and with Islam because of his name and the fact that he went to a school with Muslims outside of the US. They'll do more of that. They make it up. They'll find his greatest strength, and craft it into a scandal. With Gore, they attacked his honesty and his vision, with Kerry his military heroism, with Clinton, his sincerity. With Hillary, they are attacking her on one side as too liberal and on the other as too conservative.

Obama has to understand, and I'm sure he does, that the presence or absence of "dirt" in his past is completely irrelevant. Why do you think BushCo has so many bad novelists in their ranks? Because the ability to write bad fiction is paramount to the Republicans' campaign strategies.

Experience matters way more than cleanliness.

but Obama has wisely not given them significant ammo, either in his past or in this campaign--that shows political smarts, something that IMO Edwards, and to a lesser extent Hillary, have not demonstrated to the same extent. AND he's proven that he will fight back, swiftly and decisively--he did it twice with McCain, and with Hillary on that whole David Geffen spat. He's very likeable, AND just a damn good and skilled politician. That's why I think he'll go the farthest, with the least amount of friction, in the general.

You are still assuming that the attacks they make on Obama will have some basis in reality. They will make stuff up out of thin air. Obama hasn't avoided scandal by not giving them "significant ammo," they just haven't really felt the need to attack him yet. When they do, they will make it up, they won't need anything from his past to do it. The lack of dirt on Obama at the moment has zero to do with Obama, and everything to do with whether it was in the best interest of the Republicans to make stuff up.

Obama may be able to handle it, but it will come.

but it won't be an issue because he already wrote about it in his first book. Its not a scandal if he doesn't have to lie about it.

Whoever the corporations want for President will be the next President. Period.

Period.

She is WAY too polarizing. There are just too many people who would go to vote just to vote AGAINST her.

:rofl: Hoooboy! I'm sorry! :rofl: That is so rich! :rofl: Man! Good one! :rofl:

Edwards has universal appeal and some good ideas. Wish his health care program was better.

There is going to be nothing 'smooth' about the GE or the candidates that will ultimately run.

:P

but you never know what months of political assassination will do.

Next in line would be Edwards. I believe he can carry some southern states and rural areas that will be key.

As far as Obama goes, do not underestimate the residual power of bigotry. Not matter what he does, it will make the election much tougher than it appears. Think of Al Smith.

Clinton might actually win a lot of independents over and be a very strong candidate. But she also has to deal with residual bigotry. She's not nearly as warm and likeable as Bill, but if she were, she could be perceived as too feminine and not strong enough. Knowing that is probably one of the reasons she appears calculating and her policies are uncomfortably militaristic.

Of the current "Big Three", Hillary is simply unelectable while Obama and Edwards have uphill battles in the GE.

Either would be the only two to flip some red states because they could get some white male swing votes in these states.

I don't think Clinton, Obama or Edwards can do that. Maybe Richardson, as well, but the only red state he might be able to flip is his own.

Not a doubt in my mind.
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

Ruck up, General Clark and get your hat in the ring!

Just bein' contrary.

Who would make the best president? In descending order the first four are, IMO:

Al Gore
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Barack Obama

The rest being, in sort-of order:

Joe Biden
Bill Richardson
Wes Clark
Chris Dodd
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel

Who's most likely to win?

Clinton (well-oiled campaign machine)
Obama (charisma and smarts)
Edwards (charisma and campaign skills)
(Remembering that Gore isn't running and I, for one, don't think he will)

But none of it's going to be smooth. This could be the nastiest campaign in history -- and if Rudy's the 'Lican nominee, you can be sure it'll be nasty plus plus.

He is least offensive to the people right of center

And he'll gather some disgruntled Republicans along the way to carry Florida.

.

Not necessarily the order in which I prefer them, but this is the order for who I think would have the easiest election. Just felt like writing, feel free to read a shorter post. :)

Clinton has the most forceful charisma, and, as we see after each of the debates, when people see her, they are more impressed by her. Combine that with the money she pulls in, the experience she has at campaigning at the national level, and the connections she has built over the years, and she would have the easiest election. Arguments that she is unelectable have now been proved wrong, obviously.

Gore, if he got in the race and won, would be next, for all the same reasons. I'd put him below Clinton at the moment only because Clinton has such a head start, and because Gore has an odd equalizing tendency when campaigning, that makes him seek averages rather than going for the jugular. That may not make sense, but I don't know how to explain it. Plus, when Gore begins campaigning, he will lose the support of some of those who have canonized him as a saint, since he will have to actually campaign as a politician.

Clark. If he could manage to sound strong on the military and the struggle against "terrorism" while righteously angry about the Iraq invasion, and if he could display a breadth of knowledge and consistency on the other issues, he could annihilate the Republicans. He would look the least like a politician, and I think that would work, given the anger of the nation at politicians.

Richardson, I think, also has experience at campaigning, and has an impressive resume to make people feel comfortable that he can do the job. Since I think 2008 will be a year when people are looking for reasons to not vote Republican, I think Richardson would give them enough reasons. He'd have to win the nomination, first. Time for him to dig out those Polaroids...

Obama could breeze through the general, or could wind up looking inexperienced and weak. He's hard to read, but since he has no experience with a national campaign, and only a few years experience with anything other than local politics, he's going to have to ace the exam, so to speak. He might be able to do it, but the post is about who would have the easiest time, and I think he would have less room for error than those above him (on my list).

Edwards--it's hard for me to be objective on him. I started out in 2004 not liking him because his attacks on us opponents of the invasion were too vicious. I liked him later, as he began to campaign for Kerry and I thought he'd had a sincere conversion. I started this year liking him personally, but feeling he had nowhere near enough experience or ability for me to support him. The more I've watched him this year, though, the less I want to see him as the nominee. Accurate or not, he just seems, to me, more and more smug, which means more and more phony. There are times I adore him, but increasingly he seems too insincere to me, especially on his Iraq position. I can tell none of his supporters feel this, so I can't tell if the nation in general will feel it. If so, he'd have a lot of trouble winning. If not, he'd have a decent shot. Although, his falling numbers in the polls imply to me that he is losing others, as well.

Biden--about like Edwards. I don't trust his sincerity, much more than I don't trust Edwards's, and I don't think he's nearly as intelligent as others seem to think. I like his experience, but even there, I think he talks a good game more than he plays it. If people see him the way I do, he'd have trouble. If people see him the way the media portrays him, he could win, but not easily. His best chance would come from increased tensions in Iran or elsewhere, because he does have a way of inspiring confidence in him. He sounds like he knows what he's doing.

Below this, I think we are unlikely to win.

Dodd--He can't even get Democrats excited, I think he'd have a hard time winning. And I like him. Maybe a VP for someone.

Kucinich--I don't think he could win the general even if he got the nomination. He's shown no signs at any point in his political career that make me think he can "climb the ladder." He's been a Representative for a decade, he was a mayor. He's used neither position to climb to a higher office, and has not even climbed significantly in responsibility in the House. He's like someone who's good at riding a bike who one day decides to enter a race. He might have a lot of natural ability, but he's done nothing to develop it, and would not compete with those who have trained all their lives.

Gravel--He'd lose if the Republican candidate committed suicide after getting caught torturing bunnies.

:rofl:

thanks!

followed by:
Al Gore
Al Gore
Al Gore
Al Gore
Al Gore
Al Gore
Al Gore
Al Gore
Al Gore

:woohoo:

Even if I think Al Gore would probably make the better President.

Clark would be the most competitive candidate across all 50 States.

The Republican candidate would be on defense the whole campaign.

A Clark-Obama ticket looks almost unbeatable to me.

Sorry if my pro-Gore buddies think I am a traitor to the cause ...

If Gore does jump in - I will be behind him all the way! :)

All these democrats who say they will not vote for her in any circumstances are either a. full of shit and when confronted with the possibility of another republican will vote for her, or b. assholes who would rather pull another Nader job and deliver the whitehouse to the republicans.

has always struck me as a true godsend to our Party. And in 2006, countless Democratic candidates running for office in Republican leaning districts recognized that about Wes Clark, making him the most in demand National Democrat to campaign in Repbulican districts across the entire nation. Clark was the only National Democrat that Jon Tester wanted to appear with in Montana for example.

Republicans continue to turn up the heat about Iran, forcing weak kneed Democrats to fall in line with their hawkish comments about that nation less they be thought of as "weak on National Security". General Clark is the one Democrat best qualified to turn that argument around against the Republicans in November of 2008, and he certainly will not be intimidated by them into compliance with further strategic blunders out of some deep seated fear of "seeming weak".

We may be able to win with a number of candidates in 2008. Wes Clark is our best chance to win us the mandate that we need.

with Obama as VP

I believe that the strongest in neutering the Republican chosen would be WES CLARK....in particular on the Iraq/terrorism/national security/Foreign relations issue which whether we like it or not, will be the most decisive issue for the next election, and the calling card for most of the GOP candidates.

Also, I believe that it will be the independents, once again, who will determine the outcome of a General election in 2008. Clark would be strongest with independents who want strong national security and are tired of politicians, and politics as usual.

Clark has the gift of saying what some don't want to always hear but being able to do so in a way that can persuade. He is not seen as a "Liberal" by the more moderate/conservative voters, and is not seen as a "conservative" by the more liberal wing of the U.S. In other words, he could be a "stealth" candidate.......in that whatever he says is balanced out by his 34 years of service.

In addition, Clark appears "strong" and I don't believe that he can be made to look weak based on his experience (won a war quickly and also negotiated a lasting peace). None of the GOP candidates hold a candle to Clark in the area that they are trying to look "strong" on. Clark is simply too knowledgable in the Foreign policy area, and has been right too many times. Romney, Giuliani, and even McCain will look like mere boys next to Clark explaining National Security....plus he's southern, they are not.

And so in essence, Clark not only has stronger bonifides in exactly what this election will be about, is a stealth in terms of all of the other issues, but he's also a non-politician and a non-panderer. He comes across as genuine in his love of country, and has a humble demeanor and roots that would be seen as authentic.

and unlike other candidates, he would rally voters as a relatively unknown who has stood up for his beliefs at personal cost time and time again always with the motto of "Duty, honor and country". He would be the change that America seeks without going into unknown territory.....and a parallel as to what folks wanted back during election 1952; a real leader who could end an unpopular war and bring integrity back to a nation divided.

Clark's biggest problem? The media. He would have to hit them hard each time they attempted to discredit him. That would be his biggest fight.......but one that I have more than just faith that he could win...as a determined General out to save his country; of that I have no doubt! :patriot:

Edwards/Obama ticket. Edwards has a powerful message and is a great speaker. Obama needs the experience and would be also powerful. At this point, that is where I am landing. Of course, if Al Gore chooses to run he's got my vote (again). He could run with a successful woman governor, perhaps Kathy Sibelius from Kansas. It would be a beautiful thing.

Sebelius recently signed on to. That's been a source of irritation for a lot of folks who support her in Kansas, myself included.

I'm sure everyone on the prospective vp list would have done something that Gore would find an irritant. While I appreciate the seriousness of the plant you described I really don't see it overcoming what might be a great ticket.

I'm terrified we're going to end up with President Fred.

And I think Gore is really the only one who has a strategy that will be successful in countering the corrupt tactics of the MSM and the GOP while exposing Freddie-boy to the American people. JMO.

nearly any Democrat could win the general election. Clinton, Obama, Edwards could certainly win. Gore would win as well but not in the landslide that many here think. Biden, Dodd and Richardson would have a tough fight but could come out on top given how sick most of the country is of republicans.
Clark though would have the smoothest victory in the General election. He'd win in a real landslide and would bring along big enough margins in the House & Senate that the remaining republicans couldn't block everything that needs to get done to fix the mess Bush has left us.

:toast:

Oh wait, that was last time's correct answer and it turned out to be wrong. Maybe we should stop worrying about who we guess other people might vote for and finally support someone we truly want to vote for.

as of last week's poll he is the only Dem to beat all the republicans.

Its pretty simple when you think about. I am very confident that Clark would not disappoint the base as our President :)

I think Clark would have the easier time. That aside, my dream ticket is Gore/Clark for the next two elections, then Clark/? in 2016.

A self-proclaimed liberal who will bring in Independents and moderate Republics in numbers none of the others would. Strong enough on FP he doesn't have to act and talk tough. Experienced in diplomacy and familiar to and respected by foreign leaders. Progressive domestic agenda, and the only one (besides Kucinich) who is for single-payer health insurance. What more could we ask for in a leader?

No matter who the nominee is, they'll be dragged through the mud by Corporate Press/GOP noise machine. Clark supporters have debunked every single lie they threw up against him last time, and have the truth and facts (with reference links) available to help him fight back.

Added bonus, he'll be a benefit to down ticket races and we'll pick up a more substantial majority in the house and senate. Win, win, win.

1st Obama
2nd Gore
3rd Edwards
4th Richardson
5th Biden
6th Clinton

He is the only candidate that could go head to head with these repukes.

He has more foreign policy experience than all of them, with the exception of McCain.

He is not afraid to say what is on his mind. And would never let them walk all over him.

The repukes couldn't tell their sheeple that Biden will burn their bibles; or that he doesn't support the troops. He has many letters/emails from troops thanking him for how hard he fought to get them MRAPVs.

And R's are already co-sponsoring his plan to get out of Iraq.

now before you start bashing Biden -
the question was about the GENERAL election; not the primary.