electability vs performance poll

[nageov3t]

see poll.

amongst the front runners (and Richardson, who I threw in just so I'd have even numbers), who do you think is most electable and who do you think would do the best job?

I know I'm going to take heat for this, but on the D side, I still really feel like Clinton would do the best job. I think that the Clinton machine would hit the ground running and avoid the mistakes they made the first time around. of course, that's pretty meaningless if you disagree with their core agenda, but I'm mostly on board with it.

but the nonstop republican campaign against Hillary all summer and fall, combined with some reading I've done into evangelical groups and divisions, convinced me that Obama is probably the more electable D.

I can't really comment on the R ticket, though. I'm too much of a McCain fanboy to see things clearly

but speaking of McCain... this probably isn't worth a new thread, but OMFG, RCP has him in the national lead, finally knocking Rudy out of first place.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c.../national-primary.html

 

[manowar821]

People LOVE Obama.....

That makes me

 

[Pabster]

Very interesting results in the 'Who Is Most Electable' for Democrats.

And I agree 100%. :laugh:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

From what I think the "average" American (meaning the dominate tendency is), Hillary will have the most effective machine on the Dem side. I think she'll put on a good show and lose, because when push comes to shove people don't like or trust her, and while health care is an issue, a health care system run by the kinds of people who brought you Iraq is a non starter. People want health care, but not THAT kind, at least when all votes are tallied. What else does she offer? Well she's female and if you want a woman in the WH because she's a woman, then she's a no brainer. That isn't enough for America though. In the end she will lose.

If she wins she'll probably get everything she wants because she'll have Congress behind her who will write her a blank check just as the Reps did for Bush.

Obama is someone I personally like, so I admit I have a bias. I think his "weakness" of not being a long time insider is precisely what many want. In their perverted perspective, the Beltway insiders are critical because he isn't entirely one of "them" yet. People don't really want a "good old boy" anymore. Obama is someone more people can vote for than Hillary and still sleep well at night. Can he do a good job? Probably. It's intelligence and the ability to work with others that get things done, and of all candidates on both sides I see him alone as having both qualities.

The other Dems have little chance, so I'll pass.


On the Rep side things are worse, because none stand out and Bush is baggage. Only hard core supporters can come away feeling that the last two terms left us better off than before.

First thing to consider is that the Dems are likely to gain power in Congress this time around. That means that ANY Rep is going to have a hard time getting anything done at all. The "nice" thing about that is while Congress and the WH are fighting each other they will leave us alone. While that's not how the system is supposed to work, more junk has been passed by Congress than anything beneficial. I don't see that improving much.

What the Reps need is a leader who has intelligence, personality, the ability to define an agenda that benefits the majority rather than pander to groups. What the country really needs is someone who can reasonably looked at as trustworthy and honest. We're not likely to get that from either side, with the mentioned exception of Obama. Of course he could be faking it too. Who can tell?

Huckabee has a chance everywhere but the Northeast and the left coast. Rudy has a shot elsewhere. Between the two I would pick Huckabee, but then remember I would pick Hillary over Rudy. Huckabee isn't a social liberal, and that appeals to many (PN notwitstanding). Rudy has a strong presence, and that may get him somewhere. McCain? Maybe, but I don't think so. The others are IMO non starters.

Paul? Not a chance. If he does well at all, he may have an influence on the platform, but even then that's doubtful.

Forgot Romney. All depends on how he does in NH. He must beat Rudy.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
What the Reps need is a leader who has intelligence, personality, the ability to define an agenda that benefits the majority rather than pander to groups.

And we already have him. Fred Thompson. :thumbsup:

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
What the Reps need is a leader who has intelligence, personality, the ability to define an agenda that benefits the majority rather than pander to groups.

And we already have him. Fred Thompson. :thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

Unfortunately he will probably not get the nomination.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
What the Reps need is a leader who has intelligence, personality, the ability to define an agenda that benefits the majority rather than pander to groups.

And we already have him. Fred Thompson. :thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

Unfortunately he will probably not get the nomination.

what's the difference between Fred Thompson and a decomposing orange?

the orange would probably win Florida.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: loki8481
what's the difference between Fred Thompson and a decomposing orange?

the orange would probably win Florida.

Hi Bill Richardson! :laugh:

We need some comic relief. :thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
What the Reps need is a leader who has intelligence, personality, the ability to define an agenda that benefits the majority rather than pander to groups.

And we already have him. Fred Thompson. :thumbsup:

I thought you were supporting Obama? Did Fox roll out their punches on him already?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I thought you were supporting Obama? Did Fox roll out their punches on him already?

I'm supporting Fred Thompson, but I'm realistic enough to realize he's likely not going anywhere. He's much closer to my beliefs than Obama; On the other hand, without Thompson, I can't see myself voting for the Republican nominee. And I see Obama as a real "Agent Of Change" which appeals to me very much. I just wish he'd drop the UHC talk, but it's understandable that he has to have it to appease the hard left.