The *Semi-Official* Electability Poll--Make Your Choice

[SeveneightyWhoa]

I don't know how often this type of poll is done, but..
Who of the following is most electable vs. George W Bush?
Obviously all four can--and will--win, but who will have the least problem doing it?

[DjTj]

1. Edwards is the most electable.

There are so many Democrats that are angry at George Bush that the blue states will be a piece of cake. We need to win the red states and Edwards is best positioned to do that.

The South and Midwest have been hit hard by the economy due to the economic and trade policies of the Bush administration, and Edwards connects best with these voters.

Being a son of the South, the social conservatives are most comfortable voting for Edwards. He proved this in South Carolina and in the exit polls that show him performing the best among Independents and Republicans.

Edwards fits the populist mold of Clinton and Reagan who unseated incumbent Presidents. He fits the mold of John Kennedy, who overcame stigmas of youth, inexperience, and Catholicism by inspiring and charming Americans to beat a two-term VP. He even fits the mold of George W. Bush, who overcame allegations of drug use and limited intelligence by connecting with the regular American to beat a two-term VP.

Only one incumbent Republican Senator was defeated in 1998. The man that did it? John Edwards. If you need a man to take out an incumbent President, Edwards is your man. He is the most electable by far.

[Beaker]

3. John Edwards has only won one general election...he's a 1-term senator.

so where is all this "electibility" talk coming from? and if it's true, why isn't he running for re-election to his U.S. Senate seat?(from what I understand, he would have had a problem retaining it, had he run).

[DjTj]

4. John F. Kennedy was also a 1-term Senator.

The point is that Edwards did it as a Democrat in the South.

Maybe he's not running for reelection in the Senate because he has a very good shot at the White House. Don't believe the right-wing propoganda coming out of North Carolina.

[Beaker]

5. Dead WRONG.

John F. Kennedy was re-elected to his Senate seat two years before his run for the presidency...plus he had been elected to Congress, and re-elected twice for that position, before becoming Senator.

to compare Edwards' political career to JFK is ludicrous. JFK had no less than 5 elections to office under his belt, to Edwards' 1.

He's too wet behind the ears to be my president.

[The Magistrate]

2. Gen. Clark

Remains to my view the candidate with the best chance to prevail in the general election against the criminals of the '00 Coup.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[corporatewhore]

6. an anti patriot act anti free trade cannidate we could get oldschool

conservatives to join with us on this they really hate bush for it

[lams712]

7. THEY ALL ARE....

....(except Al Sharpton).

[Awsi Dooger]

8. No one is ideal, but Edwards is by far our best November hope

First of all, these posts that critique Edwards or anyone else as a lightweight are amazingly ignorant. Any candidate who earns a major party nomination is granted stature and respect, surviving months of scrutiny in every region of the country. Republicans will attack our candidate as flawed, not unworthy. Anything else would be a hysterical waste of time and cash.

The other side elected Reagan, Bush and Arnold, yet we're worried about political depth and longevity?

A multi-term popular governor in an unlikely but winnable high populus state would be ideal. Otherwise:

* Dean: too short, too regional, too negative, too hyper, too easily morphed into a cartoon figure. He needs to save his most remarkable speech for an early night at the national convention, emphasizing to his supporters that none of the passion and contributions will mean a thing unless every single one unites behind our nominee, presumably John Kerry.

* I admire Clark tremendously, but the brilliance of his academic and military backgrounds simply does not translate on the stump. Politically, IMO he is vulnerable everywhere and special nowhere. Wonderfully telegenic. I'm wondering if he dashed VP hopes with a somewhat lackluster campaign. Too many conflicting statements and a reluctance to admit as much.

* Kerry: height is a tremendous asset, never emphasized enough here. The military background and heroism are overstated. For a decade+ I've looked at too many studies on voting trends to think vets, and white males in general, will do anything but default Republican. Obvious regional concerns, and a voting record that will be twisted beyond recognition. Can he sharpen his longwinded speeches and come across as more of a regular guy? If not, even the states we are taking for granted will be in jeopardy.

* Edwards: charisma + looks + speaking ability + optimism + talent = teflon, margin for error, and therefore our best chance. I'm not afraid to ignore every major issue and Edwards' related stance, because that's precisely what the critical swing and independent voters will do. Trust me, I host apolotical voters to watch debates and that is the mindset. They're shopping for an ideal next door neighbor or big brother type, not policy wonk. The gender gap with John Edwards atop the ticket would force Bush to capture more than his 2000 percentages among hispanics and seniors, unlikely.