POTUS '08 poll, fly-over state version.

[Deep13]

This poll is premised on the following.

1. Members of Congress never win. There have been 2 members of Congress elected to the WH in the 20th century, JFK and Harding.

2. Northeast liberals with easy access to NH have an easy time in the primary but do poorly in November.

3. Elections are won or lost in the middle of the country.

4. Flyover state voters prefer a nonthreatening nonpersonality to a "rock star."

5. It is not enough to win. Once in office the new prez has to be able to govern to avoid being a Jimmy Carter or a Bush Sr.

With that in mind, whoozit gonna be?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. #1, I think, is the most critical.

Most of the other can be mitigated, to some extent. But there's no ducking a lengthy voting record. Especially one with all of the poison pills Republicans have forced us to swallow over the last decade.

[Texas_Kat]

2. Just FYI, Clark is a General... not a Major General

He outranks a "Major General" by a factor of 2. (Generals retain their rank even after retirement)

1 star -- Brigadier General -- Brigade commander
2 stars -- Major General -- Division commander
3 stars -- Lt. General -- Corps commander
4 stars -- General -- Army commander
5 stars -- General of the Army -- there are no living 5 star Generals

[lonehalf]

3. Also 6 stars

General of the Armies is a six star rank.


John Pershing is the only General to ever hold this rank.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Clark is a 4 star, which is the highest that can be awarded since

a while back.

[Deep13]

8. Guess all those Shelby Foote books confused me.

thanks

[BeccaGrim]

4. Can we add someone to it?

John Edwards and maybe Barak Obama?

[Deep13]

10. Sure, but the limiting criteria I was using for this,...

...and who knows if primary voters will agree, pretty much excludes them. Granted, Edwards is not a Senator any more, but that was his most recent political job. My other concern with him is his very limited experience in government. Sure, he did a term in the Senate and I don't want to minimize the significance of that, but just for comparison, Dubya spent just as much time as governor of TX. I think his example is a warning about candidates who might win but might not be able to govern. I realize much of this is guesswork. My concern with Obama is the same plus the rock-star problem. That will attract the base, which is important, but might alienate the center 40% who might not want a prophet (so to speak) in the WH.

[Pyrzqxgl]

31. Time in office isn't the only requirement to be President.

you have to have the will to do right by the people who elect you. You have to have the personality that appeals to voters. You have to have a group of people behind you that augment your ability to make things happen. And first and formost you have to agree with me. Now thats a Good President.

[Clark2008]

11. You could, but I don't think either is all that massively popular

in purple states.

[nickshepDEM]

5. Warner is obviously the best candidate on that list, but he's not running.

I guess Gore.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. actually I thought he was good too

but then I heard him speak.
Great resume though.

[Pyrzqxgl]

34. Warner is DLC.

[nickshepDEM]

35. Point? So was Gore, Edwards, Clinton, Kerry...

[Clark2008]

40. And other than Gore, who's since denounced the DLC platform

(even though he hasn't come out and denounced the DLC, per se), none of them have won, either.

[jefferson_dem]

7. How about the premise that general election "losers" never return to win in another year.

Historical examples of those might be just as uncommon as successful congressmembers. Only Nixon comes to mind (loses in 1960 and then wins in 1968). Yet Gore is leading the poll here so that might be an important consideration.

Yes...i realize that GORE didn't necessarily *lose* in 2000...

[Deep13]

9. Nixon was former VP, not a member of Congress.

[jefferson_dem]

12. I know that. That's not my point. Nixon won the nomination but lost the General Election in 1960.

Then he came back to win the nomination and the presidency in 1968. If i'm not mistaken, he is the ONLY one to have accomplished that lose-win scenario, in recent history at least.

If Gore runs, he will have to do the same thing - come back to win the presidency in 2008 after losing the General in 2000.

That's my point.

[Deep13]

13. that's true

And it is a problem for him that he might not be able to overcome.

[Blue_In_AK]

23. In fact, I believe Nixon was both a representative

and a senator before being vice president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon#House_and_Senate:_1946-1952

[Deep13]

28. Yes, but not when running for president.

Same with Johnson.

[Blue_In_AK]

33. Oh, sorry, I missed that distinction.

[deadmessengers]

16. Does FDR count?

FDR was a VP general election loser in 1920.

[jefferson_dem]

17. Well, actually FDR 1920 does not fit into this scenario.

I was referring to top-of-the-ticket nominees who go down in defeat only to fight on another day. As you mention, FDR was Cox's VP running mate.

Interestingly, Nixon may serve as a fine historical model for Gore. Former VP loses his bid for the presidency BUT returns to be "vindicated" (yes, it's tough to think about tricky dick in those terms) after eight years of *ambitious* governing by the other party.

[Radical Activist]

26. Jackson of Tennessee did it and Grover Cleveland.

But it obviously doesn't happen very often.

[skipos]

14. I like these choices. The more non-senators from flippable red states, the better.

I am going to go with SCHWEITZER. Anyone who likes him should sign the draft Schweizter link in my signature.

[Deep13]

15. Saw him briefly on Colbert.

Seems promising.

I see you have Ohio's own Kathleen Sebelius as an avatar. Her father, you probably know, was the governor of Ohio. Some say the road to the WH runs right through this state.

[Pithy Cherub]

18. Clark's rank is wrong. He is General

which is the highest rank (today ... no 5 stars), not Major General which is below.

Wes gets my vote, always.:patriot:

[Deep13]

20. Yes, someone pointed that out.

[TransitJohn]

19. Other

Wyoming Gov Dave Freudenthal would have a good shot, but there is no way he'll run.

[Infinite Hope]

21. Edwards is a serious candidate and ought to be on the list.

But it's your poll so whatever you desire. I voted for Gore.

[Deep13]

22. See post #4 and response.

I know Edwards has a lot of admirers, but he did not see to fit the criteria that I guessed might be important in the middle of the country.

[Radical Activist]

24. I disagree with #4

A person can be a rock star. They must also be down-to-earth and not act like they're smarter and better than everyone else. That turns people off. That is one reason Kerry and other New Englanders won't do well. It plays into the culture war.

Obama is a rock star but he also act like a modest midwesterner. People like that.

[Radical Activist]

25. You contradict yourself in #1.

Do Congressmen never get elected of have there been two in the last century? Only one General who has never held office got elected President in the last century, so why not say Generals NEVER get elected and kick Clark off the list? A Congressman is more likely to get elected President than a General, so you have no ground to stand on with #1.

I think you came up with some bogus criteria with no real substance behind them to exlude certain candidates you don't like.

And no one who ever says the phrase "flyoer states" will ever be elected President.

[Deep13]

30. I am aware of two general officers who ran for president in the 20th...

...century, Ike and Al Haig. Haig ('84) was never a serious candidate. So the only serious candidate who ran in the 20th cent. and was a general won and won big. Plus, in the 19th cent. there was Grant, Taylor and Jackson (a Col., I know) and maybe a few more Civil War vets I forgot about.

Senators and other members of Congress have run in large numbers. Few survive the nomination process. The few that do hardly ever win. Let's see, we got Kerry '04, Dole '96, McGovern '72, JFK won-barely in '60. Was Stevenson a senator? I forget. These, of course are just nominees, not serious candidates. Then we can add Gephardt twice, Dole another time, Kemp in 88, Edwards, Gore in 88, Glenn in 84, Hollings in '84, McCain in 00, Kennedy in 80. You get the point.

Not that it is going to matter next time around, but sitting VPs have a pretty poor record too. Only Bush Sr in the last 100 years.

The problem is people already know who these national figures are. They cannot define themselves.

Obviously no candidate will use the term "fly-over state." Duh.

[Radical Activist]

36. You still had to go to the 19th century to find a second example.

If you want to go that far I can bring up Lincoln and Garfield getting elected after serving in Congress. Regardless of who was considered a serious candidate, the fact is that your statement about Congressmen never getting elected was false and there have been more men elected President from Congress than from a military position.
Not to mention that most of the Generals elected were already celebrated war heroes, which is not the case with Clark. He has a fine record but he was not a significant national celebrity before he ran for President in the way that Grant and Ike were.

Criteria #1 and #4 on your list may suit the candidate or candidates you like best, but I don't think they have any real relevance as to who is electable.

[Deep13]

39. For another general who actually ran.

If only two ran in the whole 20th cent., then the success rate is pretty high. Anyway, I'm not sure Clark has the political finess necessary to pull it off. Two years ago (or three, really) he was pretty direct and it seemed to bite him in the ass. Unfortunately, there is an art to telling people the truth, but only so much of it as they can handle. In living memory of nearly everyone, exactly one member of Congress was elected and that was JFK. There were folks who had been members of Congress but went on to do other things, like becoming vice president. Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Truman were not sitting in Congress when they became president.

Let's turn the analysis around. Here is the list of presidents and their prior jobs since WW2.

Bush Jr.-governor
Clinton-governor
Bush Sr.- vice pres.-election
Reagan- governor
Carter- governor
Ford- vice pres.-succession
Nixon- vice pres (out since 1961)
Johnson- vice pres-succession
JFK- senator
Ike- general
Truman- vice pres-succession
FDR- governor

See any patterns here? Here's another observation. Except for FDR and Ike, none of these guys was the country's enthusiastic choice. There were most people's least objectionable. My experience is that is how people decide things. That works against the "rock stars." Seems like the best two ways of being president are either being a well-heeled governor who manages to avoid any real scandals while in office or becoming VP and waiting for the pres. to quit or die.

[Radical Activist]

27. The Midwest and South like populists.

That's more important than most of what's on your list. That makes Edwards and maybe Gore good choices. Most of the names on your list haven't shown they qualify in that regard.

[Deep13]

32. Give 'em some time. nt

[Clark2008]

42. Edwards is not that well-liked in the South.

He probably wouldn't have won re-election to the Senate in North Carolina ("Senator Gone" is what they called him) and he doesn't have that ruggedness that Southern and mid-Western voters like. He can have the accent all he wants, but that doesn't mean that white Southerners and mid-Westerners see him as strong enough.

And, they don't consider multi-millionaire "ambulance chasers," populists (media words, not mine).

Yes - you may reside down here, but step out of the cities for a minute and you'll see what I'm talking about. The way to flip a red/purple state is to get the rural vote. Think Jon Tester and Jim Webb for a continuance of my point. Who is more like Tester and Webb? Edwards? Or Clark or Gore? Think really hard about that.

Couple that with the pattern of anti-Senator sentiment and maybe you'll understand what others have been trying to point out throughout this thread.

[Radical Activist]

37. Given #5, shouldn't we remove little-known Governors from your list?

Wouldn't someone with experience and support in Washington be better suited to pass their agenda than an obscure Governor with no close ties in DC? That was Carter's problem. It sounds like Obama and Edwards are better suited to that than several of the Governors you list.

[Deep13]

43. You may be right about that.

I guess I am being a little optimistic in finding ways to expand our majority in '08. I figure someone out west will have broad appeal in barely red states. Who woddah thought Montana would go blue? Or Virginia? What really hurts these not-well-know types is the fundraising disadvantage. HRC raised $35 million for a practically uncontested Senate race. Jesus Christ, how does one compete with that?

I personally think Carter's problem was unique to him. Clinton governed pretty well (though it took about two years for him to seem confident). So did FDR and Reagan (for all the good it did us). On the other hand, if you didn't think Dubya was a disaster, you wouldn't be posting on this website. I agree that Senators are far better suited to be president than state officials, but that suitability does not seem to help them on election day.

[zulchzulu]

38. Exsqueeze me, but Kerry is not on the list...hence a wanker poll

The premises are a tad wacked too. Flyover state votes don't want nonthreatening personality types...where did you pull that idea out of?

[Deep13]

41. 50 years of history.

JFK, FDR and, um, hmmm. The only other North-Easterner was Bush Sr who was pretending to be a Texan.

Kerry is finished as far as national ambition goes. It is amazing he did as well as he did in '04. If Bush wasn't such a fuck-up, it would not have been close. Frankly, I think the reason we did so well this year is because Kerry was not at the head of our ticket.

[zulchzulu]

45. That is only your opinion...

From my vantage point, Kerry will run in 2008 and at least do very well once people start seeing who is the most qualified to run for President.

If you think Kerry's national ambition is finished, you'll be proven wrong. Again, my opinion...we'll see.

[Deep13]

46. Well, it's all prognostication.

Time will tell.

[Deep13]

44. Okay, what's wrong with Richardson? no votes for him

I remember complaints about Richardson as a possible VP candidate in 04. What don't people like about him.