Of the Dems you think would make a fine Pres, who is the most unelectable?

[mtnsnake]

Poll question: Of the Dems you think would make a fine Pres, who is the most unelectable?

Remember, you have to consider your choice to be relatively unelectable as well as being fine presidential material.

I only had room for 10 choices, so I left Al Gore out because he's supposedly not a potential candidate and because I don't know of too many posters here who think he'd be unelectable, but feel free to say his name if you disagree with that.

Of the following potential candidates, pick who you think would be the best combination of being unelectable, but of fine presidential material. In alphabetical order by last name:

[robcon]

1. Clark has never held office.

I don't think he can be elected. He's not like Eisenhower or Grant - well-known generals who were famous heroes during victorious wars. Clark is relatively unknown, IMO.

[mtnsnake]

3. I didn't vote for Clark, but I don't disagree with you

Good point.

[FrenchieCat]

37. I disagree with your conclusion....

As poster Tom Rinaldo had articulated in a post that I saved because it made a lot of sense, I will repost here his thoughts....

"People who don't like Clark (or don't prefer him) are mighty quick to say he's no Ike. And it's obviously a true statement. Even if Clark were as well known as Eisenhower was, which he isn't of course, he still wouldn't be the same guy with the same attributes.

But in many ways, Clark brings more to the table than Ike did. He's smarter, better educated, with far broader experience in government overall. He's a better public speaker who has taught himself to deal with a media that Ike never even dreamed of. He's better looking and more charismatic. He has strong liberal values. But mostly, the NATO which Clark oversaw is a far more complex beast, with far more political and diplomatic challenges, and an infrastructure of support functions for families and civilians for which Ike never had to plan, budget or administer as its commander.

None of which may be relevant. Ike could succeed as president because he was a proven leader who could manage all the many parts of government that had no counterparts in the military of his day. In that one sense, Clark is exactly the same. What he doesn't know, he can learn, because he knows how to put it all together to make an organization work to achieve its goals.

But I hear you asking: can Clark "WIN" political office if he's never had to?

Let's face it, most of Ike's politicking was done for him. He was essentially handed the nomination (it was all taken care of in backrooms back then), and the general election wasn't much tougher.

Well, all I can say is, assuming Clark runs in 2008, I guess we'll see, won't we? Until then, it's kind of a silly argument against him. Because if he can't win the nomination, there is no reason to worry. And if he can, he'll have proven himself as least as well as any other contender, because he will have beat them all." -- Tom Rinaldo
-----------
But to call Clark unelectable because he's said to be "no Ike" is ridiculous on it's face....because Warner's no Clinton, Edward's no JFK, McCain is no Reagan, etc., etc....

Most who lose the presidency in a general election had been elected before....so it appears that losers of the GE are more likely to have won and held a lesser office than not have.

[robcon]

38. I don't think Clark is unelectable because he's no Ike.

He's got an enormous disadvantage in that he's never held any elective office. He'll attract the crank voter (who voted for Perot) and some other voters.

But he has nothing to overcome the big weakness in his resume. NOTHING.

[Jai4WKC08]

41. It's not a weakness in the general election

The average voter doesn't like or trust career politicians. Not being one is one of Clark's biggest advantages.

They do like military men.

[robcon]

65. They like SOME military men.

Schwartzkopf could have built a political career, if he wanted to, after the first Iraq War.

Colin Powell, on the basis of both his military and non-elected civilian career, could have become president in '96, if he wanted it, according to polls.

I don't think Clark is anywhere near the status of those two. His military career, although accomplished, is fairly obscure. NATO commander, where he last served IMO, is not a well known position.

I think Clark would make a good vice-presidential candidate.

[uppityperson]

2. I don't think Clinton is fine, but is unelectable. Double poll here

asking 2 things, right? Who do you think would be a fine president AND who is unelectable? In that case Kucinich since I consider him amongst the finest but probably not electable.

[mtnsnake]

5. Yes, a combo. You can't vote for Clinton if you dont think she'd be a fine

president. It's who you think would be the most of the two following qualities: fine president but unelectable.

[Jai4WKC08]

42. I screwed up my vote then

I'm not gonna say who it was, because I don't like to post negative stuff about high-profile Democrats. And because it really doesn't matter anyway.

I probably should have voted for Feingold. I think he'd make a great president, assuming he lasted long enough to take office (a fear I nurture for any Dem who might win the oval office). But as a Jew, I know the country is not ready for one as president, and I very strongly suspect the Democratic party isn't ready to nominate one either. Plus he's way too short, and is twice divorced and not remarried. Strike three.

[karynnj]

4. This is crazy

I am not for Hillary, but she is surely not the least electable on this list. Neither is John Kerry, who would have won easily on a fair playing field - with an independent media and a legitimate election. Adding the "of fine presidential material" is cute.

This is a very devisive poll.

[mtnsnake]

7. Huh? How is this divisive?

I think it's revealing, not divisive. Sorry if you take it the other way, though.

[SaveElmer]

6. Given DU's track record...

Of incorrect predictions...I would say the inverse results of this poll ought to be taken as being closer to reality...

[surfermaw]

8. Why isn't Gore listed

The announcement that Russ Feingold, was asking for universal insurance, leads me to think the ticket is going to be Gore - Feingold, remember boys and girls, Clinton's announcement of a health insurance program in my opinion is what helped him to win... therefore, wouldn't Gore be savvy on the matter... I think as I did when Clinton was running that Universal Health Coverage is the thing this nation needs and will vote for..Republicans during Clinton's9 average Joe) wanted health care as well as democrats, Fat Cat Republicans were the ones that blocked Hillary's program, which was actually Bill's program that was given to Hillary for all her hard work during the campaign.

[mtnsnake]

9. I explained it in the OP

Do you think Al Gore best fits the profile of the question posed in the poll?

[GreenArrow]

10. Kucinich, hands down

Current leader Hillary, other than breaking the gender gap, would suck. She's venal, and bereft of vision. She is, however, potentially electable.

[DURHAM D]

11. How is this helpful ? Not. eom

[mtnsnake]

16. because it can lead to better understanding of each other on this forum...

For example, from the results of this poll so far, I might deduce that people privately are giving Clinton more credit as a Democrat than what normally appears on the forum. Those particular people might just think she's so unelectable that there's no way they want to see her run. Just a guess...

[snowbear]

12. I don't think people are reading your rules-no way Fiengold is unelectable

I'll betcha anything some people are just scanning the poll & voting without reading that you're supposed to select the most "unelectable"

[jackpan1260]

17. I like Feingold a ton, he and Warner are my 08 favorites right now

but I have to admit that Feingold has a some challenges other candidates may not. A big problem is that millions of Americans vote for stupid reasons, and millions of Americans barely even think much about their vote. Being Jewish, being twice divorced, having a senate record that is much easier to distort and twist (I think that is one of the reasons senators haven't won presidential races lately) and being from a state democrats typically win. These are all going to be challenges that other candidates may not have. Personally, I think his personality and message can overcome that, but I wouldn't blame someone for thinking he is "unelectable."

[mtnsnake]

22. I think your post is a very honest one,

as are most of the votes so far in the poll. One thing that never surprises me is the honesty of people on this forum.

[Totally Committed]

27. I think those things about him, too, but think he could overcome them

with a good campaign.

TC

[bklyncowgirl]

71. I voted Feingold for the same reasons

I do think it's possible he could overcome these problems with a really good campeign and I'd sure love to see him try.

I don't have as high an opinion of Hillary Clinton's politcal skills--or judgement--as I do of her husband's so I did not vote for her.

I didn't vote for Kucinich although I believe he is a good man--maybe too good for the office ala Carter. I'm also not convinced he'd be a good administrator.

I also don't think Howard Dean belongs in this poll. Not that he wouldn't make a good president, or that he doesn't have "challenges" but because barring some big changes at DNC he ain't running.

[skipos]

13. I hope we have a good candidate who is NOT a senator and IS from

a flippable red state.

[GreenArrow]

15. Mark Warner

I don't like him, but he can win.

[jackpan1260]

18. I like Warner. I'd love to see Schweitzer get in the 08 mix

but I am not sure that is going to happen.

[Totally Committed]

29. Schweitzer is not known widely except among us politicos....

Since name recognition = donor $$$, I think he would have his work cut out for him. I don't *think* he's electable in '08.

TC

[Totally Committed]

30. I disagree. Warner is Dukakis without the charisma...

He's 8 shades of beige and did I mention he has no charisma? Unelectable. Totally.

TC

[GreenArrow]

33. we'll see soon enough

He's Southern, he's a Governor, he's bland...what more could anyone ask for.

[Awsi Dooger]

49. IMO that's lousy handicapping

Warner is unelectable but Feingold can overcome everything? Talk about the world in reverse.

In an open race, charisma and personal qualities are not as vital as when trying to bump an incumbent. We should have been worried about lack of charisma three years ago, and nominated Edwards instead of Kerry. It's simple for me to write that now because I was posting it at the time.

I remember posting "John Kerry is just good enough to get you beat' in early '03. In '09 or later I don't want the same frustration, that our primary voters don't know what the hell they're doing. Please nominate Warner.

[liberalitch]

66. When I worked on his campaign here is Va.....

I found quite the opposite.

Very charismatic and (obviously, as we won) quite electable.

IN FACT quite possibly the next POTUS.

[snowbear]

25. Skipos, hmm.. A candidate who is not a senator.. who can flip red states?

You wouldn't happen to have this guy on your list of potentials, would you?



--?

[Totally Committed]

14. I said Hillary...

I DON'T think she'd amke a fine President, but she is, by far, the most unelectable on that list. WHY???? Because the other side wants her so badly. They are trying to convince the average Democrat she is the ONLY electable Democrat, when exactly the opposite is true. Remember, with Republicans --

WAR IS PEACE

NIGHT IS DAY

UP IS DOWN

and...

HILLARY IS ELECTABLE.

Don't believe it!

TC

[mtnsnake]

20. If you don't think she'd make a fine pres then you shouldnt have voted her

as your choice.

Now follow the rules next time! (j/k) :evilgrin:

[Totally Committed]

21. If I followed the rules, I would have voted Kusinich.

He would make a fine, fine POTUS, but I feel is unelectable at this time.

And, he is a man of peace.

TC

[John Q. Citizen]

19. I chose Hillery. But perhaps I should have chosen Barak.

America has so far never chosen a women or a person with high meletonan skin to be president. Neither the Democratic Party nor the Repos have ever chosen a woman or a dark skinned person to even run as their nominee.

Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, according to sociologist.

Back in the 70's Virginia Slims cigarette company invested big money in doing market reasearch (focus groups) to learn how to promote thier products to women. One of their more interesting findings was that more men would vote for a women for president than would women. Since women make up a slightly larger percentage of the electorate than men, this explains perhaps why we have had no women as a major party nominees.

And of course racism is alive and well in the US.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. As I **think** I understand your poll, I voted for Kucinich

I think he best represents Democratic values (pretty much equally with Clark, Dean, Feingold, and Kerry), but is the least electable.

I think he would make a great American president, too.

[mtnsnake]

24. Yup, you do understand it

I agree with what you said about Kucinich, too, especially what you said about him best representing Democratic values.

[Totally Committed]

26. And, in case you haven't seen his wife....

she would definitely be one of our most beautiful First Ladies! She is gorgeous!

And, I agree with you... Dennis would be a fine POTUS!

TC

[mtnsnake]

32. Picture please?

Enquiring minds would like to know!

[Totally Committed]

34. Isn't she beautiful?

Elizabeth Harper and Dennis Kusinich on their wedding day

TC

[mtnsnake]

35. Ooooh La La!!!

:toast:

[Stinky The Clown]

39. She's very pretty ..... not as pretty as .......

.... Sparkly, but pretty nonetheless.

Signed:
Stinky, the **smart** clown :)

[Totally Committed]

40. Sparkly IS beautiful...

inside and out. I have to agree with you.

TC

[mike923]

28. Senators by nature are unelectable....

Hopefully we don't repeat mistakes made in the past.

[SteppingRazor]

36. Not only that, but the Senate is so tight that...

Democratic senators should stay where they are, especially if they're from states that have Republican governors. We need every Dem. senator we can get in the fight for a majority.

[karynnj]

72. That would only affect Bayh and Dodd

Biden is from DE, which has a Dem governor, Clinton is from NY, which will have a Dem Governor, Feingold is from Wisconsin which has a Dem governor.

Kerry cannot run for both Senate and President unless MA changes the rules - which they likely wouldn't. If they did, MA may have a Dem governor, but it doesn't matter as they changed the law in anticipation of 2004, so the new Senator would be picked by a special election. All possibilities end up with a Demaocrat.

[Telly Savalas]

61. I know. JFK was a dud.

[AJH032]

31. Kucinich, no doubt n/t

[Quantess]

43. I would love to see a woman prez

but H. Clinton can't win. There is too much animosity for her. Dems have a mixed opinion of her. Moderates might be swayed by the conservatives who will undoubtedly swiftboat her. They will try to say that it wasn't actually Clinton's penis to blame; everything was actually Hillary's fault. (Somehow, they would concoct a story)

[Placebo]

44. A majority actually think Hillary is more un-electable than KUCINICH!

Oh, that's rich. That's f'n hilarious.

And that tells you all you need to know about the validity of this poll. :rofl:

[Jai4WKC08]

46. Very few voters know anything about Kucinich

I strongly suspect the Repub noise machine would tear him apart. But I don't know that for a fact. And I don't know who'd be running against him, and what sort of campaign he could run against whoever it might turn out to be. There is an element of doubt, albeit a slim one.

But a very large majority already know Hillary Clinton, or think they do -- their minds are made up about her past association, her character and so forth. There is very little she can do to change what people already believe, and it pretty much wouldn't matter who the Repubs run. She is almost guaranteed to lose.

That said, I didn't vote for either one of them as least electable.

[Placebo]

52. "She is almost guaranteed to lose."

No more guaranteed than any of the other candidates being tossed around, except those totally un-electable like Kucinich.

[Solon]

55. No offense, but you live in Chicago...

Why not go to a red state, like mine, right next door, and figure out how the HELL Hillary would be electable here or in any southern or midwestern state. Without those, forget the presidency, an interesting contrast is this, many here don't really care that she's a woman, that isn't so much the issue. The issue is more of personality, women around here don't like her because she didn't kick Bill to the curb, and guys just straight up don't like her. Hell, she would be lucky to carry St. Louis and Kansas City, and both went for Gore and Kerry the last two elections, think about that a moment.

[John Q. Citizen]

48. Undoubtably Hilery is more unelectable than Kucinich. Please

see post #19

[Placebo]

51. Rubbish.

Your reasoning is totally backwards.

[John Q. Citizen]

62. Saying it doesn't make it so, friend. Please explain why you feel my

reasoning is totally backwards. If you can, that is.

[Totally Committed]

53. Unelectable is unelectable...

saying one candidate is "more unelectable" is like saying a woman is "more pregnant than another women. You either ARE pregnant or you aren't. Same with electable.

I am sad that Dennis falls into that category, but grateful Hillary does.

TC

[Jai4WKC08]

58. I'd be a lot more grateful HRC is unelectable

If I were convinced she isn't nominatable.

[John Q. Citizen]

63. That's a good point. N/T

[Totally Committed]

67. Wow... you said a MOUTHFUL!

I'm terrified this Party will nominate her because her campaign is already practically an unstoppable juggernaut of DLC $$$ and DLC Corporate influence. Plus there are those who see Hillary as "Billary", which is an unfair advantage, as far as I'm concerned.

You are spot on, Jai. Hillary will just be another LOSER, and we can't afford that.

TC

[LWolf]

45. Other. None of the Above.

I don't believe any candidate that would make a good rep is "unelectable." I think use of the term "unelectable" is a propaganda technique consciously employed to keep the status quo in power, to maintain mediocrity, and, since 2000, propagate humiliatingly unethical practices. In addition to, of course, using a sham of Democracy to manipulate voters and deny them who, and what, they really want.

[wiley]

50. Spot on!

[MH1]

57. Bingo!

I was going to say "they're ALL 'unelectable' " but my reason is the same as yours.

Any one of them will be "unelectable" if we don't find a better way to manage media and get the truth out about our candidate. And oh yeah, stop stabbing them in the back.

I don't necessarily think that every one on that list would make a "fine" prez, but I'd take any one of them over the current disaster.

[AtomicKitten]

47. Dennis Kucinich.

I wish people would take the 10 seconds it takes to actually read the OP. The vote indicates more people actually find Hillary fine presidential material, and we who inhabit these message boards know that can't possibly be an accurate vote.

Dennis Kucinich is a fine man and would make an excellent president - but that would only occur in a parallel universe. America has been trained to exhibit a pavlovian knee-jerk rejection of men of peace.

[mtnsnake]

59. The high Hillary vote does surprise me, but if so many people are not

reading the OP as you imply, then how do you explain such a high number of votes for Dennis Kucinich? I think the high number for Kucinich, which I feel is accurate, actually proves that people did read the OP..unless..JUST the ones who voted for Hillary didn't read it, lol.

Anyway, assuming they did read it and go by the rules, then maybe many of the Hillary "haters" on this forum don't really hate her as much as they seem to but are so worried about her "unelectability" that they exagerrate their contempt for her as a coverup for their worries about her unelectability. Just speculating of course. ;)

[AtomicKitten]

60. wait a minute ,...

I think the Hillary-haters voted wrong in a knee-jerk fashion without reading the OP, but then again maybe they really secretly love her and just didn't realize it until they voted and THEN read the OP.

Now I'm really confused.

The answer is Dennis Kucinich. :)

[Totally Committed]

68. I fully admit to doing JUST that...

not "knee-jerk", but because I take AANY advantage to vote against her these days as it feels GOOD. She is absolutely WRONG for this Party at this moment in time. I wanted to vote against her and I did. So, sue me! :)

TC

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

54. ...

[Spirochete]

56. Kucinich

or Conyers, on both counts.

[ndcohn]

64. i chose hillary

i think she would make a very good president, and i'm not sure if she is nearly as electable

[boolean]

69. Well Kucinich looks like an elf

And we can't have that!

[Totally Committed]

70. Truly... who cares what he looks like????

He'd be a fine President! Too bad he'll never get our nomination. (A lot of good people never will.) It's a real shame.

TC

[schmuls]

73. I want to vote for Feingold for president, but unfortunately some

ignoramuses around the world would make a big deal out of the fact that he is Jewish.

[Totally Committed]

74. And the Values Voters will be all twisted up over his two divorces... /eom

TC

[lojasmo]

75. Kucinich is the only one who qualifies for BOTH requisites. EOM