Who's the Most Electable Democratic Contender?

[Pete C]

I should have said Presidential Contender.

I'd say the two best bets, among the names being mentioned, would be Richardson or Gore. Gore won the popular vote once already and I think he's perceived as a "statesman." But he claims he has no plans to run. Richardson is viewed as a moderate and a diplomat, which I think people are looking for. I think he comes across as likeable and trustworthy, and he's not from what is perceived as a liberal elite power center. Right now he doesn't have the same visibility as some of the other candidates, but things change once your hat is in the ring.

I assume Kerry is dead. Hillary Clinton is unpalatable to people across the spectrum, myself included. Obama is perceived as too green (and probably too black) for '08.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Pete C

I should have said Presidential Contender.

I'd say the two best bets, among the names being mentioned, would be Richardson or Gore.

Richardson would be very electable. That said, I'll be shocked if he gets the nomination.

Do you like him or just think he's electable? He's one of my favorite Democrats.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Richardson would be very electable. That said, I'll be shocked if he gets the nomination.

Do you like him or just think he's electable? He's one of my favorite Democrats.

In a pragmatic sense I like him. I think he has integrity, and anybody I would really want to see in the white house would be too left to be electable.

[Brian Olewnick]

I'd be happy to see Richardson as the nominee but it's hard to see happening. Maybe VP if the nominee is Eastern and has a more staunch image. (Stupid, I know, but besides being Latino, Richardson as a kind of intellectual air about him that would probably raise concerns among some voters as to his "toughness" so I think he'd need to have that image offset).

However, I still think that Hillary is very electable. Sure there's about 35-40% on the right who absolutely won't vote for her no matter what and a couple of percent on the left for opposite reason but I think she's made big inroads with what I call the Oprah vote by moderating (conservatizing), enough that she can get a lot of the 5-10% in the middle. Again, with a suitably "statemanlike" running mate, Midwest or Western version of a Biden, say, I wouldn't bet against her.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Again, with a suitably "statemanlike" running mate, Midwest or Western version of a Biden, say, I wouldn't bet against her.

I think she'd be well advised to choose a governor as a running mate.

Sure she's electable, but she's dragged down to some extent by the perception that every word she utters, every policy she supports, is a result of a political calculation. Whether that's true or not, she'll better her chances of winning, given that she's nominated if she can change that perception of her.

[Monte Smith]

I like Richardson, too. I said he would have made a good veep nominee in '04.

I don't think Gore would have a shot. Not in a million years. Love to see him run again. Kerry's toast. Biden has hairplugs and a motormouth. These guys are all class of 1988, too. You could read Richard Ben Cramer's classic What It Takes and believe it had been written next year. These guys are the old school.

Besides the old school, you have the midwestern also rans: Evan Bayh and Governor Ballsack. I've never heard of either of these guys and I read the industry papers.

Then you have the golden candidates: Hill and Borama. The kid's good, he's got charisma, everybody likes him. I like the centrist rhetoric. But what scares me is his inexperience. Four years ago I think he took my order at Wendy's. Hillary has eight years in the White House. Think about that in today's world. Eight years already on the job. That is valuable.

I vote for Hillary. Clinton/Richardson '08. I'm sure I'm glossing over the bulk of what will be a crowded field: SACEUR for POTUS Clark, Cindy Sheehan, etc etc.

[Dr Dave]

Senator Clinton can attract the Big Money (unfortunately, she also seems to spend the Big Money, based on her re-election campaign budget). Senator Obama is radiating stardust right now, but that is subject to change. A week is a long time in politics, etc. John Edwards is for real, although he has suspended his exploratory committee for a while. Evan Bayh is said to have the best campaign staff. Bill Richardson is quite possibly most qualified to be President--check out his resume--but I don't get any sense he wants the job.

And I'd vote for Al Gore in a heartbeat. But that's just me.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

And I'd vote for Al Gore in a heartbeat. But that's just me.

No dear Dr. I think there are thousands and thousands of voters who would vote for Al Gore, should he opt to step back into the swamp and run again.
Sadly, I don't think he will.
He was screwed in 2000 and may be dispirited at the whole idea.
But, if he did, he would enter the race late in the cycle and at that time, and this is just my opinion, he could bring Obama on board as his VP.
That would assume that Obama doesn't actually state his intent to run as Presidential candidate.
I think if Obama has to downgrade to VP, having stated his desire to be President, even though it would be valuable for him to be VP as a kind of appenticeship for his own run, that would hurt him.
He should, as should Gore, hang back and let the party urge both him and Gore to get out there.
That way, they'll know that at least they have a large pool of supporters before they declare their candidacy.
As it is, Obama is getting more than enough face time, without actually committing himself to the run.
By the time the actual campaign gets into high gear, the public will know much more about him than they do now that may help them get used to him.
Crazy? Maybe. But, I don't think that Ms. Clinton is electable, Richardson is a real long shot and the others are unlikely.

If it's assumed that John McCain will be the Republicans' candidate and that seems likely, if I could vote I would support a Gore / Obama ticket and think that it could actually win.

[Sandi22]

There's an online petition asking Al Gore to run. It's been online for a couple of days now. I wonder if he will?

You know it should have been Gore all along.

James Baker gave GW Bush the presidency by flipping the Supreme Court, and now I'm wondering how he'll fix it, or is it Humpty Dumpty time?

[Gary Sisco]

Whoever it is will have to be able to win the support of a very large majority of the independents who make up the other third of the voting population.

That rules out Clinton right off the bat, and Gore, too. "Obama" (where do people get these single word names as if Elvis?) will appear too green. Not enough people know enough about him. I don't think his blackness would be too much for a majority of people today. Indeed, I expect to see a black president before I see a woman and definitely before I see a Jew elected (antisemitism is in some ways a much deeper, culturally inherited, form of racism and far from only in the US).

I don't think that dim loyalists have a grasp of just how loathed a person "Hillary" is in the US.

It is the independent vote that elects people, anyone, in the US. Neither party can command more than a third from its loyalist vote.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I don't think that dim loyalists have a grasp of just how loathed a person "Hillary" is in the US.

I think you're underestimating the ability of the TV-captivated, celebrity-driven US public to embrace remodeled and (implicitly) apologetic versions of previously despised people. Clinton's done an excellent job of recasting herself as a moderate mom. People swallow that stuff like a Big Mac.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Whoever it is will have to be able to win the support of a very large majority of the independents who make up the other third of the voting population.

That rules out Clinton right off the bat

If Hillary runs against a saber-rattling McCain, she'll have a shot at those independents. It appears that McCain is going to try to get the support of the Republican conservative primary voters by running as a super-hawk. If you don't believe me read his comments on the Iraq Study Group today (front page NYT).

Obama's problem isn't his skin color. He actually has two problems.

1. Two years in the Senate is not adequate preparation for the Presidency.
2. He can only win the nomination by running well to the left of Clinton but that means staking out positions that will hurt him in the general election.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

2. He can only win the nomination by running well to the left of Clinton but that means staking out positions that will hurt him in the general election.

He can always flip-flop.

[Gary Sisco]

True, Pete. He can just spew pol talk and try to sound like whatever he thinks people want to hear that day. I think his lack of experience and newness to the nation will be a bigger factor against him than anything else.

I think Gordon may have somewhat of a point but not enough of one. For one thing, if McCain continues rattling swords, he won't be in the picture. Talking sending more troops into what's already very arguably the most unpopular war in modern US history -- there was never a time during Vietnam when so many people were opposed to the war -- isn't going to propel him anywhere except back to Arizona. People are really through with this war except for what amounts to a lunatic fringe of neocons and rightists. People want the troops out of there and Iraq's fate is increasingly irrelevant to their thinking. I saw a poll yesterday that said a whole nine percent of the people still think there can be a constructive outcome. Calling for more troops at this point is as bizarre today as Westmoreland's last request for a couple of hundred more thousand troops to "win" in Vietnam. It makes him sound lunatic or stupid, depending.

"Hillary" is not now or ever going to appeal to anywhere near the number of independents she (or anyone) needs to win the presidency. Many of those independents are more or less libertarian in that they expect fiscal conservatism, a minimum at least of American military adventurism, and a more or less liberal social policy that doesn't include caving to xian elements.

She's been in the spotlight far too long to change spots now and have it be believed by those who aren't of her party and have no loyalty to it.

I have a friend who was until recently on the DNC. He told me that when it comes to this subject the rest of the party leadership appears to be more or less insane because they are so disconnected with what "ordinary" people (imagine the arrogance to even formulate such a term) think. They simply don't understand that people don't like her (ultraimportant in American politics) and don't trust her, either.

For my own part, I have to say that it amazes me that neither party has spent any time grooming upcoming leadership. The repugs apparently have no talent to fall back on that's not Reagan-Bush era people (elderly, all, now) (the neocons being permanently out of the picture). The dims apparently can't come up with anyone that it isn't Clinton-Gore era.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Whoever it is will have to be able to win the support of a very large majority of the independents who make up the other third of the voting population.

Speaking of same, last night the wife and I celebrated our sixth wedding anniversary at a schmancy restaurant called the Serbian Crown in Great Falls, VA. Who comes in and sits at the very next table but Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb). The Senate had wrapped up for the year and here's Hagel out at a tony restaurant not with some despicable K Street type, but his young son. Two dudes out for a steak. It was quite sweet. Kinda ruined the anniversary dinner, however, because all I could think about was C-Span.

[Brian Olewnick]

And that doesn't get you hot?

[LennyH]

I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss Gore's chances.

He got more than half the popular vote last time and I don't see why the people who voted for him before wouldn't again. And the whipped puppies who voted for Nader in 2000 won't make the same mistake twice.

He doesn't have the disadvantages of Hillary or Obama. If he runs, I think he'll win.

[Gary Sisco]

Cool, Monte. Sometimes people get to see their human side.

There's a (miraculous to have survived) little theater in Montpelier, VT, that shows independent films. One time Rehnquist and his wife were sitting only a few rows away, two of maybe 20 people in the place, just being humans. Looking back, it was an interesting way of seeing him. At the time, it was a major distraction because, well, ..... Some things shouldn't be said.

One great thing about the little state of Vermont is that it's pols are always seen on the same kind of citizenly level as other people. I stood in line for concerts and movies many times with governors and so forth. Once I got to tell a state Supreme just exactly what I thought about his most recent decision because we were standing in the cash out line at the supermarket. Long forgotten now, but Jim Jeffords, when first elected to Congress, lived in a camper on a pickup truck in DC because his family didn't want to move to DC and live there. So he lived in his truck for a couple of terms and showered and dressed in his office suite. Pat Leahy and I don't like each other much at all but he was well acquainted with my folks because they were both American Legion honchos. So, if I communicate with him, I get a real response. Things like that give me more faith in democracy as an idea than the powerful seem to have. Which isn't much these days, considering how little opposition has greeted an executive branch that's stepped entirely outside of the Constitution, knowingly.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

And that doesn't get you hot?

At my dad's 80th birthday party at Auberge Chez Francois in Great Falls, VA this past October, I recognized former US solicitor general Ted Olson by the back of his head. That's how much C-Span I watch. I can recognize the back of talking heads. My wife is so lucky.

[Gary Sisco]

Most people see Gore now as a guy from Palookaville, is why. He was a contender. But he ain't anymore. That's the simplest answer. That and that the popular vote and a metrocard gets him a ride on the bus in the absence of electoral college votes.

I'd never consider voting for him for two reasons. The least important: Like most pols, he spoke much more honestly and forthrightly about his political ideas *after* he was in power than he did while in it. The most important: He wasn't defeated by Bush; he surrendered. Outside of Florida, which is the thing people remember, there were more than four million contested votes in other states, which became moot the moment he conceded. No one will ever know now because the ballots don't exist to count or examine but many people have won a presidency with lesser margins than four million. I will never forgive him for not fighting it out. He revealed himself as a wimp when it mattered. I'll not vote for a guy who's already revealed himself a wimp when it most mattered.

He's a has been to all but dim loyalists. And for good reason.

[Gary Sisco]

Brian -- re tv and so forth. Not to be impolite but yack yack. Previous to the last elections everyone was going on and on about how the power of incumbency would be enough to keep one party rule.

Clearly the people thought otherwise and there was no huge increase in the number of dims in the population, nor were they voting for dims so much as punishing repugs.

The dims are going to have to draft some new talent and become something other than not-repugs. That'll keep them busy enough for a while, I think.

Most "ordinary" people are very far from looking back on the Clinton years as some kind of golden age. Many would rather not look back on them at all.

And there would be the lingering question, given the Clinton's marriage, if such it can be called (they seem to be as opportunistic and principleless in their personal lives as they are in their public), of Bill Clinton's roll in a Hillary Clinton presidency. This isn't idle chatter. Having the both of them back in the White House isn't way up on a lot of wish lists in the US, let's face it. We can joke all we want about blow jobs and so forth, and do so correctly, but the fact is that all of that was one very minor example of the basic dishonesty of the Clintons.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

...but the fact is that all of that was one very minor example of the basic dishonesty of the Clintons.

Anybody contending that you think isn't basically dishonest?

Yrs sincerely, Dim Loyalist.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

True, Pete. He can just spew pol talk and try to sound like whatever he thinks people want to hear that day. I think his lack of experience and newness to the nation will be a bigger factor against him than anything else.

I think Gordon may have somewhat of a point but not enough of one. For one thing, if McCain continues rattling swords, he won't be in the picture. Talking sending more troops into what's already very arguably the most unpopular war in modern US history -- there was never a time during Vietnam when so many people were opposed to the war -- isn't going to propel him anywhere except back to Arizona.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think his Iraq stand could get him the Republican nomination but would weaken him in the general election.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Brian -- re tv and so forth. Not to be impolite but yack yack. Previous to the last elections everyone was going on and on about how the power of incumbency would be enough to keep one party rule.

Dunno. In the weeks leading up to the election, I didn't see a single analyst, liberal or conservative, who thought the Reps were going to retain the House. And most thought they'd lose the Seante too.

I'm just talking about image. And clearly, Hillary's spent the last few years trying to make herself more palatable to "mainstream" America. I think she's done pretty well on that front.

[LennyH]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

He's a has been to all but dim loyalists....

Ouch, Gary. That almost sounds condescending .

I'll agree with some of your criticisms of Gore except I'm not sure what he could have done in 2000 after the Supreme court decision. He did admit defeat too easily, no question, but I believe most who voted for him place the blame elsewhere.

Based on what's happened the last 6 years, do you really think people are holding a grudge about this? I think they'll still want the guy they think should have won in the first place. But he'd have to come out swinging this time to overcome the wimp factor. It goes against his nature, but I think he's capable.

I'm still waiting for a better candidate for the nomination. Hillary, Obama, Edwards? No, no and no. All have more baggage than Gore, IMO.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

At the time, it was a major distraction because, well, ..... Some things shouldn't be said.

You probably would have got in trouble if you had lit a match.

[graypencil]

This might be somewhat off the wall, but:

After hearing him speak quite intelligently upon the various diplomatic world problems facing us ( on the last Bill Maher sho ), I would suggest Richard Dreyfuss as a dark horse possibility.

He has name and face recognition, and is obviously quite intelligent ( seeing as how he's just take a couple years sabbatical from films to get an advanced degree in civics at Oxford ), is obviously a quite literate and convincing speaker. Not having a political background is a plus in his case, becuase I feel he wouldn't be subject to the entrenched politicos and their own rice bowls.

and obviously, he wouldn't be the first movie actor to become president ..

[Pete C]

For a second I thought Dreyfuss was Canadian, but I think I'm confusing him with Duddy Kravitz.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by graypencil

This might be somewhat off the wall, but:

After hearing him speak quite intelligently upon the various diplomatic world problems facing us ( on the last Bill Maher sho ), I would suggest Richard Dreyfuss as a dark horse possibility.

He has name and face recognition, and is obviously quite intelligent ( seeing as how he's just take a couple years sabbatical from films to get an advanced degree in civics at Oxford ), is obviously a quite literate and convincing speaker. Not having a political background is a plus in his case, becuase I feel he wouldn't be subject to the entrenched politicos and their own rice bowls.

and obviously, he wouldn't be the first movie actor to become president ..

Maybe two years ago, Richard Dreyfuss had a debate at the Oxford Union with Grover Norquist. In Jaws, Dreyfuss was not actually eaten by the shark. At the Union, he was.

[Pete C]

In honor of his presidential bid, TCM is showing American Graffiti and The Goodbye Girl back-to-back tonight.