2008 Candidates Of The Week #1

[AuH2O]

That's an easy one. Clark is worthless and proved it. Guiliani is a good candidate in general but too liberal to win the primary. He also has some baggage and isn't young.

Chance matchup happens: <1%
Chance Guiliani would win: ~95%

[AuH2O]

Clark is a TERRIBLE candidate. And I mean terrible. Trust me, I could care less as I don't like either, but Clark has no chance in hell of being elected President of the US... he would lose to Guiliani by 20% (my guess is Guiliani would take all 50 states), he would lose to anyone with the slightest inclincation to seek the GOP nomination. He would probably lose to Orrin Hatch.

[AuH2O]

nick- maybe you don't get this, but I REALLY dislike RINOs like Guiliani- actually I didn't vote for Bush because I don't like him either. So, if I hate someone, how can I be biased in their favor?

I'm telling you honestly, my opinion is that Clark is a truly terrible candidate... he was a loose cannon with no experience that had no clue what he was doing... his record as a General wasn't even good. He can't win the South, period, end of story, or anywhere else for that matter.

Now, if Moore runs as a 3rd Party? That makes it more interesting, but Guiliani wins in a ~1968 situation.

[AuH2O]

I just am not constricted by the last couple elections, which have featured mediocre candidates and close results.

Plenty of elections are not close. More importantly for our speculation, many POSSIBLE matchups would not be close at all.

There are Republicans that I think would be horrible, i.e. Newt. But the reason I say Clark would get killed by Guiliani has nothing to do with who is a Republican and who is a Democrat, since in reality Guiliani isn't a Republican and Clark was before he ran for President!!!

But, also consider that a Democrat last got 50% of the vote in 1976, and then it was like 50.08. So Democrats have shown no real ability to win big- without major 3rd party intervention. Republicans have had a number of big wins, with '72, '80, '84, and '88, and the loss in '76 was very close, and Clinton was held to 43% in 1992.

So, until I see otherwise, I have to think Democrats are not really capable of a huge blowout win, but that Republicans are. Now of course Hillary would slaughter Don King, but I'm talking about matchups with at least some basis in reality.

Everyone is biased, but the only candidate I think I'm particularly biased in favor of is Sanford, because he is an alum of my college and it would be great for the school if he won, and he's a good guy with good politics. Otherwise, why do I care? Is Bush stopping illegal immigration? Is Bush cutting the budget? The House GOP is holding the line against even worse measures by the Senate and White House, but even that is not enough.

So anyways, feel free to disagree with me, point out ways I'm wrong, etc., but please keep in mind I'm not really a partisan hack... not a member of the RNC, not a Bush voter EVER, not a $$ donor. I did some work in the 2002 elections in SC, not too much in 2004.

[AuH2O]

Republican and Clark was before he ran for President!!!

He was never a Republican.  He openly admits to voting for Republicans in the past, but he was never a registered Republican or directly affiliated with the party in anyway.

Thats weird that you wouldnt vote for Bush in an election as close as this one.  Im sure he was a lesser evil to you than Kerry?  Who did you vote for?

Constitution. The point is that I'd rather have a clearly identified enemy than an enemy pretending to be a friend. And I knew VA wouldn't be close, so I guess it wasn't a major decision.

And by your definition of Clark, I'm not a Republican either. That was my point on partisanship... I may well be wrong, I've been wrong before (though not nearly as often as I've been right), but it's not because I just say Republicans will win no matter what. I think more of Hillary's chances than most Democrats. Just because I think Clark would self-immolate a thousand times over the course of a general election doesn't mean I'm biased. He did say he would "beat the sh**t" out of Bush during primary season...

[AuH2O]

"beat the sh**t" out of Bush during primary season...

Hey, at least he was being honest.  I like that (LOL). However, I will admit he is a little bit of a loose cannon, but Im sure he has learned alot and matured some since his first campaign.

Other than Sanford, who are you warming up to as the 2008 Republican nominee?  Or should I say... Keeping an eye on?

I am interested in Pawlenty but haven't really seen him speak. Huckabee is not your ideal Presidential candidate in some ways but he's done some really good things in Arkansas... and in his personal life, he was diagnosed with diabetes so he lost 100 lbs, getting rid of the disease. Health is a big problem of course in the US and he's made that a priority, along with building high-tech infastructure.

Allen and Romney are OK, but Sanford and Pawlenty seem to have the edge in terms of politics and electability-- which is rare. A lot of time left though... Kyl could be an interesting candidate.