Find » Opinion/Editorial » Which Presidential Candidate is Mos...

Which Presidential Candidate is Most Electable?

By Greg Reeson, published Dec 28, 2007
Published Content: 236  Total Views: 60,568  Favorited By: 19 CPs
Embed:  
Rating: 3.7 of 5
Writing on RealClearPolitics.com today, Steven Stark offers his assessment, based on historical trends and individual appeal, of each major presidential candidate's chances at winning the White House next November. Of course, the assessment is hypothetical, based on the assumption that each candidate would secure his or her party's nomination.

First on his list is Senator John McCain, GOP candidate from Arizona. Stark says McCain is well known and trusted (by whom, I'm not sure), and that he has appeal to some Democrats and independents. How that's good for conservatives I can't quite figure out. McCain may not be doing so well in GOP circles, Stark says, but in a general election he's the guy with the best of chance of winning--unless Iraq falls apart.

The next one on the list I really don't understand. According to Stark's list, former Senator John Edwards comes in second in electability next Fall and his winning of the Democratic nomination would put some Republican states, like Virginia, into the questionable column for the GOP nominee. I still see Edwards as the shady trial lawyer that he is, and his extremely liberal views are not embraced by a majority of American voters.

Another GOP candidate comes in third--former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, because America's mayor pulls an Edwards for Republicans by putting New Jersey and Pennsylvania into question for Democrats. The danger, Stark warns, is that a Rudy nomination by Republicans might cause a third party social conservative candidate to enter the race, a move that could hand the White House to Democrats.

Stark has Senator Clinton and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee tied for fourth on his list, with Senator Barack Obama coming in sixth for electability to the presidency. Bringing up the tail end, Stark places Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson seventh and eighth, respectively.

Comments
Comments 1 - 4 of 4
 
 
There is also a group of "Republicans for Obama" and Ron Paul's fanatic supporters, so the only sure thing about these primaries is the elections are sure interesting to watch as they unfold. The thing that might upset the status quo and usual predictability of outcomes is the numbers of new college age students who are registering to vote this year. Young people are much less jaded and their ideas are not from the older generations.

Posted on 12/29/2007 at 11:12:40 PM

 
The reason I think Stark may be right is people do not seem to study and research candidates. As an example "Hillary has experience and it will be great to have a strong female President". Yet if she were Martha Stewart she would be in jail. JQ Public has a poor memory (me too, but thank you for the Internet and especially You Tube users who make compilations from old news coverage, speeches and such); they forget about Bill Clinton's shady dealings as Pres and when singing Hill's praises they do not seem to consider the implications of a known corrupt First Man in the White House.

Posted on 12/29/2007 at 11:12:18 PM

 
I would have to say Stark is probably correct, even tho' I know little about Edwards and McCain. I ruled both out early and did little further research on them. I also ruled Rudy out rather quickly for the same reason I do not like Bush & Hillary. The three think President means ruler, not server of the government, "of, for and by the people". If your assessment is correct, I doubt that Rudy has mass appeal among conservatives with such a ruckus being made about dressing in drag. He is not liked among New Yorkers who feel he sided with the police in brutality cases.

Posted on 12/29/2007 at 11:12:40 PM

 
I have a feeling that many former(ly) "R" voters are taking a closer look at the "D" pack, this time out. In fact, one of them (Shane) even wrote about it on here. If the Mid-term elections are any indication, and the Democrats don't shoot themselves in the foot again (as they have done many times before in their choice of nominee), this is the year of the Democrats: it's theirs to lose. They certainly will have a Republican mess to clean up, after 8 years of "W'. One interesting tid-bit (limned in my article on the December 28th appearance of Obama in Davenport, Iowa) is that he was introduced by a man who was (formerly) the Oregon chair of Bob Dole's Republican run for the Presidency, and also headed Oregon Veterans for Bush in the 2000 election, backing "W" all the way. Where does he stand now? With Obama as one of his National Co-Chairmen and a former Four-Star General and Vietnam Viet (Merrill Anthony "Tony" McPeak.) When people like Tony McPeak defect to the Democrats AND begin

Posted on 12/29/2007 at 2:12:56 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Comments 1 - 4 of 4
 
Advertisment