GOP frontrunners more electable?

[Inmate Trump]

I love these types of threads. They're almost always wrong.

Every Democrat is "too liberal" and "unelectable". They they get elected and the Repubs say the same thing about candidates in the next election cycle. It's pretty funny.

To be fair, the Democrats do the exact same thing every election cycle too, in trying to paint the Republican nominee as "stupid."  Go back to every recent presidential election, every Republican candidate has been labeled stupid.

Also to be fair, the argument being made in this thread isn't that *every* Democrat is too liberal and unelectable.  The argument is that the GOP frontrunners are more electable than the Democratic frontrunners.  The Democrats actually have some great candidates this year.  Bayh and Warner were too big ones, but since they're both out, Richardson comes to mind...

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

The Democrats have lightweights as candidates, and despite the fact that McCain is calling for more troops in Iraq, he will easily win against Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. 

[Democratic Hawk]

The Democrats have lightweights as candidates, and despite the fact that McCain is calling for more troops in Iraq, he will easily win against Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. 

As of now, I don't see any Democrat beating McCain even though he is calling for more troops for Iraq. When it comes to 2008, most voters will vote for the "whole product" (i.e. Iraq will not be the be-all and end-all). Even if people don't agree with McCain on Iraq, it's not sufficient reason for them to necessarily vote against him

In the Connecticut Senate race of 2006, Lieberman won re-election despite most voters (66%) disapproving of the war in Iraq. Only those who strongly disapproved (46%) of the war broke for Lamont

A similar kind of scenario would beckon come the presidential election of 2008 if McCain is the GOP nominee

Still, and I stress that I'm talking if's here, should a pro-war Republican defeats an anti-war Democrat in 2008, the Democrats can't say they were never warned

Democrats got themselves into a myopic (i.e. short-sighted in that they couldn't see beyond Vietnam) mess back in 1972, and its possible likewise will happen in 2008 with Iraq even if Iraq was an issue that helped them regain control of Congress in 2006. Vietnam did to the Democratic Party, what the Battle of Dien Bien Phu did to the French, turned all too many of them all lily-livered or something

At this point, I actually hold Hillary Clinton in some admiration since she's, thus far, made no effort to disassociate herself for voting for the Iraq War Resolution. Democrats should rightly be criticising the prosecution of the Iraq War and coming up with better, alternative strategies for winning it

Democrats need to break from the perception that they are spineless on defense and national security - a message Evan Bayh was trying to get across. Just because Iraq is unpopular now, and even if (alas, I can't see the future) this holds come 2008, it doesn't follow that an anti-war Democrat will win the election

Still, it's early days, and much can happen in the Democratic and Republican race for the nomination, as events, at home and abroad, begin to unfold between now and then

Dave

[JSojourner]

Hell no

You wanna back that up?

McCain is an extreme whacko who has the McCain doctrine of escalating the Iraq war, which only 11% of Americans are stupid enough to support. McCain would be as bad a President as Bush, it's just up to the American people to figure that out.

McCain wants to win in Iraq.

Then his plan is a ridiculously flaccid one.  Winning -- remember, we're talking about winning -- in Iraq will require at least 250-thousand more troops. More maybe, especially if President McCain is unable to persuade Morrocans, Egyptians, Syrians and Saudis to participate in restoring order. 

Iraq was doomed from before we went in.  Many of us said so.  The devil we knew -- and a devil he was, no doubt -- has proven to be far more preferable to the devil we didn't know.  And that devil (fresh piles of tortured corpses in the streets every day) is one we are becoming well-acquainted with.  President McCain's infusion of 30,000 more troops won't put a dent in it.  But it will give the insurgency more targets.

[sethm0]

 1. Guliani is going to fold fast. He has a sleazy past, a record of flip flops and not nearly as much institutional support as McCain.

 2. Hillary is not liberal and is becoming increasingly electable. She hasn't spent a dollar of advertising money in states outside New York and she hasn't stepped foot in New Hampshire or Iowa in seven years. Just wait and see what happens in the next six months - you've literally seen nothing yet.

 3. Don't underestimate Obama either.

 3. McCain's movement to the right is losing him a lot of independent credibility. His age and health are becoming an issue. Fewer than 1 in 3 Americans support his Iraq plan and that number will go even lower after it doesn't work. The more people learn about McCain's positions, the less they will like him

 4. Bill Clinton ran in '92 on a platform that included national health care, internationalist foreign policy, higher taxes, and support for affirmative action. Don't tell me a liberal can't win an election in America.

[Deano963]

The fact is that every Republican nominee since 1980 has been whacko, even if they're sometimes only 99.99% whacko.

Every Democratic nominee since 1912 has been a whacko.

Yeh FDR was a nutjob.

I love these types of threads. They're almost always wrong.

Every Democrat is "too liberal" and "unelectable". They they get elected and the Repubs say the same thing about candidates in the next election cycle. It's pretty funny.

When was the last time a liberal Democrat got elected president? 

 

1996.

Update: Scratch that. I forgot about Al Gore. So the answer is 2000.

[Rob]

Bill Clinton ran in '92 on a platform that included national health care, internationalist foreign policy, higher taxes, and support for affirmative action. Don't tell me a liberal can't win an election in America.

He also executed a retarded guy to show that he was tough on crime. Clinton was no liberal.

1996.

I agree with you, but Clinton was rather right-wing. DOMA and welfare reform were putrid (off topic, but my opinion of Bob Casey went waaay up when I read that he would have opposed the latter).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This thread reminds me of all the nonsense about how Mark Kennedy was a much stronger candidate than any of the DFL candidates.

[JSojourner]

I don't think Bill Clinton qualified as a liberal...ever.  Gore, I suppose maybe.  Maybe.  But he was more center-left in 2000.  Now, perhaps he's more mainstream left.

John Kerry, Fritz Mondale and Mike Dukakis were classic, mainstream liberals.  Darn good ones, too.  Not sure about Dukakis, but Mondale or Kerry would have made outstanding Presidents.

I don't know what kind of President George McGovern would have made, but I sure wish I had been old enough to vote for him.  He is still someone I have tremendous respect for. 

And Bobby Kennedy?  Well, I rather suspect we'd have been out of Vietnam by 1970 and we'd have had a lot of the important social and racial discussions then that we are just now starting to have. 

[cp]

'Electability' is a complex term. There's a lot that goes into it.

Giuliani could be seen as downright unelectable if geographical/social divisions are given precedence. There is little affection for socially liberal Italians from Brooklyn in the Deep South or where there's a large Evangelical vote. A Democrat who seems genuine about his/her religious faith would blow Guiliani away.

McCain, by contrast, is popular in all parts of the country as well as with social/religious conservatives (to a certain degree). But demographically speaking, he's at a disadvantage. He's got no appeal among people under 35 (who aren't Republicans). He's unpopular with Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians and despite having high "shares our values" numbers, he's inseparably associated with the elitism of recent Republican lawmakers.

A McCain nomination would essentially be an admission by the Republicans that they're the party of middle-aged, rich, white men. They'd lose any chance they had to expand the base of the party into the areas they'd need to secure future victories.

[Reaganfan]

He's got no appeal among people under 35 (who aren't Republicans)

Untrue, I for a fact know a couple of democrats my around my age (18 years old) who are not only supporting McCain if he gets to the general, but are crossing to push for him in the GOP primary. I hope he becomes President. He's got the modern day common sense appeal, but has the old wise leadership qualities.

[Smash255]

McCain's views on Iraq really hurt his cahnces right there.

Giuliani, if he were to somehow make it past a GOP Primary, it would be very likely a brutal bloody primary with a large part of the GOP based enraged about his social views, and a 3rd Party conservative candidate would be likely

Romney, Kerry was tarred and feathered for his so called flip flops.  Romney, who the hell knows what he stands for.  He has flipped & flopped much more than Kerry ever did.

Clinton is not nearly as liberal as some make her out to be, her voting record isn't all that liberal.  left of center?  Yes, but a mainline Democrat. 

Obama, might not have the experience, but that is made up for in substance and style.  He is a once and a lifetime type of candidate.

Edwards is a strong candidate as well, didn't delver what some thought he would in 04 as a VP, but that might have to do with the bore at the top of the ticket than anything else.

[JSojourner]

He's got no appeal among people under 35 (who aren't Republicans)

Untrue, I for a fact know a couple of democrats my around my age (18 years old) who are not only supporting McCain if he gets to the general, but are crossing to push for him in the GOP primary. I hope he becomes President. He's got the modern day common sense appeal, but has the old wise leadership qualities.

Thank you.  Even though I won't be supporting McCain, I like him.  I'm no longer under 35, but when I was (only 6 years ago), McCain was a hero of mine.  He still is.

I think several of his ideas are wrong-headed and misguided.  I find myself particularly grieved at his recent "kiss and make up" with the Theocrats.  But still, America could do a hell of a lot worse that John McCain.

I will mainly work against him because his idea to pour more men and women into the death-mill that Iraq has become is just flat wrong.

[Democratic Hawk]

Untrue, I for a fact know a couple of democrats my around my age (18 years old) who are not only supporting McCain if he gets to the general, but are crossing to push for him in the GOP primary. I hope he becomes President. He's got the modern day common sense appeal, but has the old wise leadership qualities.

It's a shame those McCain qualities mattered little back in the Republican primaries of 2000

Dave

[Gustaf]

Iraq will hurt McCain if it's still an issue in 2008. We don't really know whether that will be the case. Also, Edwards won't be able to use Iraq that much because he doesn't really have any credibility when it comes to foreign policy. An Edwards campaign would probably focus more on domestic issues.

[Smash255]

Iraq will hurt McCain if it's still an issue in 2008. We don't really know whether that will be the case. Also, Edwards won't be able to use Iraq that much because he doesn't really have any credibility when it comes to foreign policy. An Edwards campaign would probably focus more on domestic issues.

Look at the absolute disaster in Iraq, thats not going to go away within the next year and a half.  Edwards might not have the experience in foreign policy, but his position on Iraq is FAR more in tune with the public than McCain's position

[SPC]

The fact is that every Republican nominee since 1980 has been whacko, even if they're sometimes only 99.99% whacko.

Every Democratic nominee since 1912 has been a whacko.

Yeh FDR was a nutjob.

Glad someone agrees with me

[cp]

He's got no appeal among people under 35 (who aren't Republicans)

Untrue, I for a fact know a couple of democrats my around my age (18 years old) who are not only supporting McCain if he gets to the general, but are crossing to push for him in the GOP primary. I hope he becomes President. He's got the modern day common sense appeal, but has the old wise leadership qualities.

With all due respect to your vast network of political allies and powerbrokers in the grassroots youth movement of the U.S., McCain's strength as a candidate isn't drawn from his association with or popularity among young people.

McCain is the honourable gentleman of Republican politics. He's the party elder who's been everywhere and seen it all. He's the one people think of when they think 'experience' or 'seasoned politician'.

It is these same qualities, however, that translate into 'old' and 'out of touch' for those who don't have a love affair with him (which many Republicans do, often to their detriment, as it precludes an honest look at his qualities and capabilities as a candidate and a leader).

McCain isn't helping himself with the issue orientation he's pursuing either. Lately, the stories about McCain have been his cozying up to the Religious Right and talking tough about Iraq. These issues break down quite nicely along age lines. Under 35s, by and large, care less about the social issues dear to the Religious Right and are less likely to support continued or increased involvement in Iraq than their generational ancestors.

My point is that McCain is not the dream candidate that many people believe him to be. I think it's worth noticing that Republicans tend to divide between McCain and Giuliani in roughly even numbers. To me, this indicates that neither candidate is now, or ever will be, a runaway hit with the voters.