Who would be the better candidate for presidency in 2008 and why?
It's really hard to find current information, but here is this from USA Today, Posted 8/8/2005:
I'd say the Republicans have less candidates to consider, and even less now with Frist removed--and Jeb wouldn't get enough votes to win. It is more wide open for the Dems.
McCain and Giuliani are the only serious candidates you listed.
To be honest, I'd consider Clinton's campaign to be similiar to George Bush's campaign. The only reason she's a serious contender is because of who she is related to. Jeb Bush falls under the same category - he's a solid governor, but not great. If one of the Bushes had to run, he would have been the better choice, but he really hasn't done enough to separate himself from all the other solid, but not great governors.
If there's going to be a dark horse, look for a governor to move to the forefront. Governors usually have an advantage over Senators since both governor and president is an executive position and governors don't have as easy of a track record to review as Senators do (Giuliani has this advantage, as well, having been mayor of the country's largest city during 9/11). Either Mark Warner, Bill Richardson, or Janet Napolitano would be a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. Huckaby would be a credible Republican governor to suddenly move up the rankings, as well.
Of those, McCain would probabally be the best President (though I accidentally voted Guliani, who would probabally be the second best), but you left out so many great contenders.
Republicans include Chuck Hagel, Mitt Romney, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabe
Democrats include Mark Warner, Bill Richardson, Evan Bayh and Joe Biden. Maybe even Eliot Spitzer, though he'll probabally abstain from running until at least 2012, if a Republican gets elected.
I did leave out some other candidates; I see now that the majority is pretty clearly defined.
Gingrich and Biden :yuck:
Actually, while I almost never agree with Biden, I still can't help but like listening to him. He'd be a tough candidate.
I don't like Frist that much, either, but he would have been a good candidate before this last year in the Senate. His chances took a serious hit when McCain stole unofficial leadership of the Senate from him.
With more time I found a better, more recent source with different polls and lists. For example:
For more - http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm
America's 5 Best Governors
Posted Sunday, Nov. 13, 2005
For more - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/a...ml?internalid=AOT_h_11-14-2005_americas_5_bes
Janet Napolitano is a great Governor, but I don’t see her as a president—not enough experience or charisma/presence. Speaking of which, I believe Hillary is a good politician with merit, and if anything her name is what hurts her. The conservatives dislike her, and the liberals see her as too polarizing to win—too bad. Howard Dean is a behind the scenes kind of guy, so I don’t see him running--he's not on any lists. We’ll be talking about Barrack Obama somewhere down the road.
As for Jeb, the Bush dynasty is over (it better be). After Terri Shiavo, then flipping on stem cell research, Frist took a serious hit with the recent investigation. I feel McCain is just doing his job and not trying to undermine anyone. After all, he has stood by Bush many times even though it wasn’t deserved. But McCain won’t get votes from Dems. Chuck Hagel would get more votes from the left--even more than Giuliani. Giuliani will need to get a message other than 9-11 if he plans to campaign seriously.
No more Governors, please. They lack too much national, and more importantly, international (foreign policy) experience.
I'd vote for Mccain before Hagel. I think I'd vote for McCain before Hillary.
Hagel used to be CEO for one of the electronic voting machine companies. He didn't disclose that, he left the company, he ran for senator - and won although he was the underdog.
Sorry - here's the reference:
ES & S is one of the notorious electronic voting machine vendors.
When I said "great contenders," I didn't necessarily mean people who would be good presidents, just people who would garner support and be fun to see in the competition. Though what's so bad about Biden?
Yeah, well, no one's perfect...:uhh:
I will bet anyone that none of the following candidates will become President.
Kerry lost to George W. Bush. There is no way the Republicans will chose someone who could be more hated in 2008 than Bush was in 2004, and thus, no chance Kerry could get enough anti-Republican votes to win.
Edwards just has no chance to get elected. The hard-liners will be going for Clinton in the primaries, then there will be like 5 other moderates who haven't already lost and who have far more experience. Plus, Evan Bayh is about as good-looking as John Edwards, so that takes that advantage away.
Vilsack has the word sack in his name.
Feingold is Jewish. Try to win Ohio with a Jew.
Rice is a black woman. She has many other flaws, but that is more than enough to do her in. If the Democrats chose someone like Mark Warner or Evan Bayh, and the Republicans chose Rice, they could get a better win than Johnson had in '64, maybe even better than Reagan.
Gingrich would be so insane that he could actually allow for Hillary to win. I don't think Hillary could really win, but Gingrich is one of the candidates that might allow for her to win.
Pataki has no reason to get the nomination. Between Guliani, McCain, and maybe Hagel, there will be more than enough great moderate candidates for people to choose from. Beyond that, Pataki really is a horrible governor. The way he's tried to centralize power in NY is appaling really, he's taken over full power to write the Budget, totally circumventing the state legislature. That's just the first thing that comes to mind really, his administration is quite full of stuff like that.
Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Even though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (or whatever they're technically called) publicly denounced polygamy, there's no way that notion will be shaken from people's minds. Polygamy is apparently worse to most people than Homosexuality is, so Romney is shot.
I really think all the people in the poll suck. Especially Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Giuliani, and Howard Dean.
Why does John Edwards suck? He's certainly got the charisma/southern thing going for him.
I'd like to see Dean or Clark run again. And McCain.
Barack Obama is the closest modern second coming of JFK. But, he'll need to wait for Hillary to get her turn.
Obama has the JFK charisma, with more brains(no cheap pun intended.) He's distanced himself sufficiently from the whacky extreme left. When he sells what he's selling, though he does so convincingly, it is his character that comes through--to the point, in the current desert of same, he could convince some -- including me-- that, though I might disagree with him, I could be persuaded to support him, responding to character over political issues. His character and intelligence is disarming. His character and intelligence could convince some--including some like me who consider themselves soemwhere to the right of Attila the Hun-- to yield to his issues. That is the JFK charisma, and that is what Obama's got, unlike anybody else in the current stable of Democratic or GOP hopefuls.
As for the GOP, Rudy doesn't bear much scrutiny; as soon as the world with its massive array of microscopes gets a load of his deeply hidden main squeeze, she is going to make Tessy Heinz look like a political asset, and fairly or not, that is going to cast serious questions about Rudy's character.
I've also weighed my fellow tribesmen, and know full well that Obama doesn't have a prayer, so my anonymous assessment of him is totally moot.
So he's southern, charismatic and good-looking. What, besides those two things, are good about him?
As of right now, I'd vote for Giuliani and Huckaby first and second. Giuliani for turning the crime-ridden, sh*thole New York of the Ghostbusters movies into what we see today (granted, an economic boom helped him) and Huckaby simply for never failing to impress me every time I see him speak, both for what he says and how he says it. Of course, I don't know that much about either man, but this is as of right now. About the only democrats I honestly admire right now might be Barbara Boxer and Gavin Newsome for actually having some balls, but I disagree with both on a great deal and, besides, I have a better shot at being elected (closer to 2036 than 2008, but still).
Nothing! He is inexperienced in politics and should not run for President.
(Someone said he was bad. I'd like to know why. That was the basis for my comment.)
As far as your Q, I'd say he focuses on issues that are domestically important. He is involved with poverty issues. He has buried a child. Those two facts alone lead me to believe that he has integrity and character. As far as poverty, he has enough experience with "nuance" to understand that there are some people who will have difficulty rising out of poverty, and others who will easily rise out of it given the opportunity.
So - why is he a bad choice? I'm still waiting on that one.
Separate names with a comma.