regardless of who you support who do you think would do best against *

[CMT]

Poll question: regardless of who you support who do you think would do best against *

So many posts say Dean can't win or Lieberman can't win or no way Dennis can pull it off or Kerry--ect--I think all of our candidates have the potential to beat * but who do you think really would have the best chance of sending his sorry ass back to Crawford?? Try to be impartial. For instance, I'm a strong Dean supporter and I think Dean could beat Bush, but overall I think Bob Graham would have the edge if only because of Florida.

[ButterflyBlood]

1. Who voted for Sharpton?

WTF?

[jenk]

10. probably a lurking freeper

.

[mumon]

15. I don't think Sharpton would be all that bad...

Heck, he can't do worse than Putsch.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. He's Tied With Lieberman

ROTFLMFAO

[quinnox]

2. It is a forgone conclusion

that Dean will win, first thing, because he always wins polls here.

But my answer was Kerry, although I think Edwards is right there, too. Either one has a great chance to win. I don't know about Graham, he is a little dull I think for the masses but I do like him as a VP.

[bookman]

3. Still undecided

I voted none of the above. I think that Clark may be an ace in the hole.

But I'm really open right now.

[cherryperry]

4. Although he is NOT my choice,

I selected Kerry. A Kerry/Graham ticket would probably win. Kerry's got the catsup ($$$$$) and Graham's got the Southern accent.

[mlawson]

5. I voted for the guy I also support.

My own senator.

[tpub]

6. I voted Kerry

one reason I'm supporting him is because I think he's the most electable one.

Kerry/Graham is my pick!

[_Wayne_]

7. Wesley Clark would clobber Bush

If Wesley Clark got fair treatment from the media-which he would-and got the fringe left-and with Dean as VP or vice-versa he would- Clark would trounce Bush 1992 Clinton-style.

[Qutzupalotl]

8. Many of them could.

I voted "other" for Clark, because that would be no contest--a ridiculous smackdown. But Dean, Kerry, Edwards could do it, and possibly Gephardt, Graham and Kucinich.

[Hamlette]

9. Clark would eat bush alive

and there would be NO way for them to do to Clark what they did to Clinton. America wouldn't stand for it and Clark is strong enough to take it.

[jenk]

11. Edwards

.

[tpub]

12. Look at Graham go!--n/t

[Blue-Jay]

13. Undecided

So I didn't vote. I'd like to say Dean or Kerry, but I see Edwards as being very "electable". Face it, America likes good-looking southern men. Dean (I hate to say) might be seen as too far to the left for many of the undecided centrists, and Kerry has a few skeletons in the closet that the GOP will surely exploit. It's a crap shoot right now. I have confidence that Dean's pro-gun stance will win a few votes in the southern states, where the increase in joblessness is becoming a major factor against the current administration.

Regardless, (and I've said this before) the winner of the Democratic primaries gets my full support. It's too early at this point to speculate.

I wish I could answer the question "Kucinich", but I don't think he has a chance. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong.

[quinnox]

14. Somewhat surprised so far...

Wow, Dean is only on top by two votes. The poll hasn't been "Deaned" yet! I still think it will happen...

[Gman]

16. The question said "regardless of who you support"

the people that voted for Dean must not have read that part. Either that or they just don't know much about elective politics and how to do it.

[WilliamPitt]

17. So essentially

You're saying everyone who voted Dean is dumb? It must piss you off to have these people be able to express their opinion. How counterproductive.

:eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. I Think If Dean Gets The Nomination He Will Have A Herculean

task of putting together the number of Electoral Votes necessary to beat Bush.

I think Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Graham would have an easier time of putting together 270 Electoral Votes.

This has nothing to do with the efficacy or lack of efficacy of Howard Dean's policies.

That being said I will support any Democrat to emerge victorious from the primaries.

I just hope this contest isn't decided before next year's NBA All Star Game.

[okieinpain]

20. man I really like dean, he has fire that I just don't see in the rest.

I don't understand the lefty charges, but you never know how the sheeple will re-act, are they smart enough to look past the lies.

[Design8edGrouch]

21. Clark but there are bigger issues

I think Clark is the most likely to win against Bush--he is articulate, wise, and has a powerful presence on camera. TV journalists are unable to keep up with him or lay him low. Besides, that he would have major appeal to a nation that has become sick with fear after 9/11.
Now, having keyed my opinion there are two things that I have not seen mentioned in any of the discussion threads.
First, at this point it is way too early to get all hot and bothered about Dean verses Clark verses Kerry verses ET. Al. At this point we need every one of the declared and undeclared candidates out there speaking the truth. The more truth spoken by all the candidates the more likely truth will finally be heard.
Second, the person most likely to stop this evil administration, is the one who confronts every lie, half-truth and misdirection with the facts as quickly as possible. If the candidate only has a gut-feeling that Bush or the press has bent the truth, he must say something like "I think that you mispoke." And at the first possible opportunity, our candidate must set the record straight. This is something that Democrats historically have not been good at, allowing those who lie for a living to get away with their lies. And we all know that the more often a lie is repeated the more likely it will be believed.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi Design8edGrouch!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[maine_raptor]

22. I would suggest that to expand the choices.

Add All Gore, Wes Clark to the mix and redo the poll.

[CMT]

23. I know but at this point I just included the announced candidates

and the column which says "none of the above/someone else".

[maine_raptor]

24. Right, that why I voted there CMT, but

just wondering if there should be a re-taking at some future, further point to be named later (Eh, General..wink, wink)

But thanks for post the poll anyways CMT :thumbsup:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Sharpton and Lieberman Are Still Neck And Neck

Sharpton-Lieberman

That's the ticket...

Al and Joe


Memories of the way we were.

[inthecorneroverhere]

26. Wesley Clark

My "other" was a vote for Wesley Clark, either as the Democrat (running on a centrist platform), or running on a conservative type of platform as a third-party candidate (to split the *puke vote).

[tpub]

27. third-party...interesting

I was wondering earlier today (I think the Salon article started it) if there could be a third-party candidate who would take votes away from Bush...

The Repub masses don't seem all that happy with him right now...

[CMT]

28. kick

eom

[TahitiNut]

30. Clark is Rorschach

Clark benefits from not having a legislative record. Thus, people who support his potential candidacy find themselves with virtually nothing on his record to defend -- the tough choices others have had to make. Some see this as an advantage in a political climate of attack and mischaracterization. In principle, I do not. I personally look for people (like Wellstone) able to hold firmly and uncompromisingly to their core political and ethical principles while still working with a diverse range of interests to forge legislation that's equitable and responsible, favoring no narrow interests to the exclusion of others.

IMHO, there's little question that Clark has, like virtually every announced candidate, an exemplary set of personal character attributes. He's demonstrably brilliant (Rhodes scholar), accomplished (General and NATO commander), and charismatic. Much of his support seems to be cultic rather than pragmatic or principled. Nonetheless, he has no track record in elected office. Representing a diverse constituency is clearly a challenge, one that Clark has not met. Experience playing political hardball is just not on Clark's resume. He exacerbates this lack of experience by not even declaring his own political affilation. Reading the "tea leaves," we presume he's a Democrat. Yet Clark doesn't even step up to the plate and make this stance. It doessn't seem to me that such reticence is what we need today.

I believe the most significant vulnerability of any Democrat is the demonstrated inability of the 'left' (the Democratic Party in particular) to effectively counter the Mighty Wurlitzer of lies, mischaracterizations, and personal attacks. This campaign autism seems multifaceted -- from a reticence to "go negative" even in defense against negative attacks to compromised core ideologies. It's the latter that I believe most evident. No matter what vitriol is spewed from the Reich, there alwys seem to be at least a few prominent elected Democrats who align themselves with that position. Miller and Nelson come immediately to mind. There's no indication that Clark has any "free pass" when it comes to this.