• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rate the Democratic Contenders you would like to be the Nominee

C

chowderhead

Platinum Member
I am curious to see who you think would make the strongest/weakest Democratic nominee.
Please rank them according to your preferences. For Republicans, I guess this would mean, who of the serious contenders would you think GWB and Karl Rove would love to face in November.
Right now this would be my preference

Clark
Edwards
Dean
Gephardt
Kerry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
Liberman

I really like Clark and Edwards. Dean can win if he would stop saying all those stupid things.
Clark, I think, would make the strongest candidate - I mean he is running as a progressive 4-Star General
:Q
 
I really like what I see in Wes Clark. He strikes me as a true leader, who will be able to motivate and inspire people from the office of the President.

I am not sure in what order I would place the remaining candidates. I guess the only serious ones are Gephart, Dean, Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman. Let's see...

1. Clark
2. Kerry
3. Dean
4. Edwards
5. Gephart
6. Lieberman
 
Weakest to strongest against Bush
Braun
Sharpton
Kucinich
Lieberman
Kerry
Edwards
Dean
Clark
Gephardt

Weakest to strongest against themselves
Braun
Kucinich
Sharpton
Edwards
Lieberman
Kerry
Clark
Gephardt
Dean

Worst for America if they actually beat Bush(worst to least bad)
Kucinich
Sharpton
Gephardt
Dean
Braun
Lieberman
Edwards
Clark
Kerry

Any other rankings you'd like my opinion on?

CkG
 
So does anyone like Clark who is not a Republican? That guy seems to be trying to scare me more than Bush. That says a lot. I have to think about this and read up some more on a lot of the candidates, but right now I am pretty sure Clark would be at the bottom of my list.
 
I like Clark. I think he has the intelligence to fix problems Bush's lack thereof leaves behind 😉
I like Dean more though, because he is experienced governor, and not an ideologue. I also like Dean's fiscally responsible stand, and his confrontational manner, which is needed to take on the spending-out-of-control GOP congress.
 
As a Libertarian, Kucinich in my opinion on the weakest candidate by far. He would be utterly annihilated in the general election if he got the (D) nod. As for strongest candidate against Bush, I think either Edwards or Lieberman would be the toughest competition for Bush. Lieberman has name-recognition from the prior contest and a pretty reasonable pragmatic and centrist record. Edwards' strengths are a "fresh-face" appeal, that he's maintained a reasonably upbeat campaign so far, and has some fairly well-fleshed out policy positions.

As for the other serious contenders, Dean would be hobbled in the general election by his tax stance and reputation for putting his foot in his mouth. Gephardt is a protectionist butt-boy of the unions. Clark is a chameleon who hasn't decided on what he believes yet, and his prior and continuing flip-flops will kill him. Kerry is self-destructing and won't figure out how to put the wheels back on before he's out of the race.
 
ok, I decided on an order:

from best to worst:
Braun
Kucinich
Dean
Edwards
Lieberman
Kerry
Gephart
Sharpton
Clark

Electability issues (meaning chance of winning vs. Bush) move Braun and Kucinich down on the list though.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
As a Libertarian, Kucinich in my opinion on the weakest candidate by far. He would be utterly annihilated in the general election if he got the (D) nod. As for strongest candidate against Bush, I think either Edwards or Lieberman would be the toughest competition for Bush. Lieberman has name-recognition from the prior contest and a pretty reasonable pragmatic and centrist record. Edwards' strengths are a "fresh-face" appeal, that he's maintained a reasonably upbeat campaign so far, and has some fairly well-fleshed out policy positions.

As for the other serious contenders, Dean would be hobbled in the general election by his tax stance and reputation for putting his foot in his mouth. Gephardt is a protectionist butt-boy of the unions. Clark is a chameleon who hasn't decided on what he believes yet, and his prior and continuing flip-flops will kill him. Kerry is self-destructing and won't figure out how to put the wheels back on before he's out of the race.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thats pretty much how I see it.
 
Best to worst:
Edwards
Kerry
Clark
Dean
etc.

I can see any of those four winning against Bush, but I think the top 3 (Edwards, Kerry and Clark) have better chances than Dean. Edwards (and to a lesser extent Clark) has a chance to win some southern states that Kerry and Dean won't be able to touch, while Kerry and Clark have oodles more military experience than Bush.
 
Edwards
Kerry
Clark
Dean

I like them in this order, but have to say that Kerry and/or Dean stand better chances in my opinion to unseat Bush. Clark would either be great, or a disaster, as would Dean. I can't see it any other way for those two.
 
if I had a gun to my head and had to pick one of them to be president, it would be Kerry.

I hope Dean gets the nom though, he will be ridicously easy for Bush to beat.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
As a Libertarian, Kucinich in my opinion on the weakest candidate by far. He would be utterly annihilated in the general election if he got the (D) nod. As for strongest candidate against Bush, I think either Edwards or Lieberman would be the toughest competition for Bush. Lieberman has name-recognition from the prior contest and a pretty reasonable pragmatic and centrist record. Edwards' strengths are a "fresh-face" appeal, that he's maintained a reasonably upbeat campaign so far, and has some fairly well-fleshed out policy positions.

As for the other serious contenders, Dean would be hobbled in the general election by his tax stance and reputation for putting his foot in his mouth. Gephardt is a protectionist butt-boy of the unions. Clark is a chameleon who hasn't decided on what he believes yet, and his prior and continuing flip-flops will kill him. Kerry is self-destructing and won't figure out how to put the wheels back on before he's out of the race.
Click to expand...

I believe you are mistaken about Clark. There is no flip-flop on any of the issues, regardless of what CNN or the NYT may have you believe (see this video). And he has well defined positions on pretty much all the issues - I invite you to check out Clark's site for more info (direct link to issues).

But please, show me where I am wrong.
 
I believe you are mistaken about Clark. There is no flip-flop on any of the issues, regardless of what CNN or the NYT may have you believe (see this video). And he has well defined positions on pretty much all the issues - I invite you to check out Clark's site for more info (direct link to issues).
Click to expand...

What makes you think that I give a sh!t ? That's Clark's rep, and I don't really care if it's deserved or not, and neither will the vast majority of Americans. You are smoking some serious crack to think that i'm going to waste my time reading Clark's website. Just because you like Clark and are an apologist for him, don't think that the rest of us have an obligation to like him also or have the slightest desire to try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top