Republicans: who are you afraid of?
 

I hear all kinds of stuff about which candidates might beat bush. This issue is viewed from two distinct sides. On the one hand, Democrats are very interested in who is "electable," or who is able to win in the general election. Republicans on the other hand, consider who might be the easiest to beat. They take is rather less seriously, but I still wanted to hear from some of the right leaning folk around here about what they think.

A lot of what I hear is rooted in ideology. For example, the most liberal candidate is the best opponent for Bush because liberal values are wrong and people will vote against them. On the flip side, moderate candidates like Lieberman or Edwards are viewed as somewhat more dangerous because they are less liberal, or more like Bush.

In much the same way, my center left bretheren would rather see a Tom Delay run against Clinton than a John McCain.

So, there's a gimmie. The most liberal candidate is the ideal opponent. What are some other ideal matchups for Bush, and why?

I'm not real worried about these toads, I don't think there's one among them that can beat Georgie boy.

Not a republican though, conservative independant.

Out of those who are still viable candidates I would say Edwards is probably the one capable of being most difficult to beat in an election but he doesn't seem to be capable of winning enough delegates to make the big show. Kerry seems to be the favorite at this point and I would imagine that is making a lot of people on the Republican side have big big smiles on their faces. Kerry's voting record in the Senate will crucify him without even requiring a lot of push from the Republican party.

As unlikely as i think it is to happen, I tend to think Lieberman would be the biggest threat.

a. He would certainly get all the votes from the left
b. He'd probably get a few from the right as well (from those that are sick of bush's spending).

Any other opponent is going to be almost straight up liberal vs. conservative. Suprisingly, I think Dean i'm worried about the least. He's just too much of a dick to be president. I like Edwards too. I wouldn't vote for him, but Edwards and Lieberman are without a doubt the most likeable of the bunch.

GWB

GWB has been taking the conservative vote for granted, trying to court swing voters and make the republican party a true majority party the democrats won't be able to counter. If he does to much of this the base will wash their hands of it and it could backfire.

Liberman could have been a big threat but his issue flipflopping when he joined with Gore made me lose a lot of respect for him. Most democrats seem to hate him, part is that Liberman is more of a moderate Republican then a democrat, but I think there is some angst left over about the 2000 election they can't get past as well. Add to the fact that he is Jewish, which won't sit well with a large number of voters in some parts of the country, and he never had a prayer from the start. Its really to bad, I think if you strip the party retoric away from Liberman, he is a nice guy.

I would have to investigate Edwards a bit more but I think I could actually vote for these two.

I suspect it's going to take an external event to derail Bush's re-election. Faltering economy (spike in inflation, interest rates, or unemployment and a shrinking GDP), increased resistance in Iraq or Afghanistan, a new attack by Al Qaeda here in the US, etc.

I was afraid of Edwards until I did some research a bit. Now I just loath him personally. He is a truely disgusting man. I'd vote for Dean before I voted for Edwards, and comming from me thats saying a lot :rolleyes:

I'm really only basing my opinion on him so far on several interviews I've seen him do so that could very well be the truth. Digging in a little may make me change my mind totally. As it stands I wouldn't vote for him over Bush, so I haven't bothered to do any of the digging.

They're plenty scared of Hillary, IMHO. :)

Ustwo- what makes Edwards a disgusting man? He's a lawyer?

Anytime the bitch is mentioned in anything approaching seriousness in politics everyone should be afraid - very afraid.

Its the type of lawyer he is. Remeber the following quote is from the canidate, not the other John Edwards....

He made millions in bogus malpractice cases where his main weapon was manipulating emotions.

um... isn't that what lawyers DO???

Alright LD, i want to hear this. what makes her not serious?
To liberal for you? perhaps a little leftover hatred for Bill?
I've looked at her voting recored, and it's solidly liberal.
What makes her so vile to you?

Explain how this doesn't make him MORE qualified to be president.

If being qualified to be president means lying to people in order to take money from innocent people for your own gain, it makes me wonder what you would look for in a president.

Well, since lawyers often have to stretch the truth for a living anyway, how is doing your job well a bad quality in a president? Name one president who didn't lie. If anything he's proven that he won't let ethics get in the way of doing his job.

Ther is 'stretching' the truth, and then there is hitting the truth from behind, kicking it with a steel toed boot, taking its wallet, and pissing on it. By the time Edwards is done with the truth its ready for the ICU.

I do find it amusing how some people love to say Bush lied, yet then are saying being a liar is no big deal and in fact makes you a better president.

I take that back, replace amusing with sad, and it really describes how I feel.

vs bush, i'd say a kerry/edwards ticket is the most effective.

as an aside to this issue, the only democrat of this current crop that i'd ever vote for would be lieberman. i wouldn't in this coming election, but i have a lot of respect for him.

I'm not trying to say that lying is a-okay so cheer up, okay:). I'm just saying that lawyers lie to win cases for their clients(hello johnny cochran), who then pay them a lot of money. What has what's-his-nuts done that most any other lawyer wouldn't do in his place?

Lets play replace the word, shall we?
Replace Innocent People with Tax payer since tax payers are as a group innocent aren't they?
Replace gain with fame since fame in the history books is something every president seeks to gain, regardless of political affiliation.

Now lets read it again:
"If being qualified to be president means lying to people in order to take money from innocent tax payers for your own fame, it makes me wonder what you would look for in a president."

Yea, it's reading like our current admistration now:rolleyes:

See that is why Edwards is more qualified than Bush to be president. Bush is a shitty liar and he got he hand caught in the WMD cookie jar. Edwards, an experienced liar by your statements, would have done a better job of lieing and not gotten caught in a blatant lie. The US wouldn't have lost global political capital and the US would be in a better position right now.

Being a liar is a requirement for being president, being good and not getting caught just makes you more qualified.

*lost my idealism, if found please return*

I'll let you know if I find it.

Where's the lie? I mean, this is the kind of courtroom drama we see weekly on Law and Order.

Nice imagery :rolleyes:

Whaa?? :hmm:

I'm betting Giuliani runs in 2008. If that happens she's going to be completely destroyed, probably cry too.

I think we are more scared for what would happen to this country if she were to become president, we aren't so much scared of the woman herself.

I'm beginning to think that Lieberman is the ONLY conservative in this race. That includes our bastion of Compassionate conservatism GWB.

I mean...hell...He's only two or three programs away from "BEING" Hillary (universal healthcare and maybe fully-funded federal preschool would do it).

I wonder how it could be any worse than the current knucklehead.

Have we talked about HRC enough?

The simple answer is this: any legitimate candidate in the field (Clark, Edwards, Lieberman (although he's done for), Kerry, and probably Dean) is able to beat Bush. Edwards will get called a money-grubbing trial lawyer, Kerry a northeastern liberal snob, Clark an inexperienced politician who's running as an opportunist (not sure what the standard line on Clark is, though he did step on a few shoes at the Pentagon).

They all had disadvantages, but for my money, my party had better put John Edwards somewhere on the ticket. Sure, he was a trial lawyer, but he'll spin it as fighting back against big corporations. It fits neatly into his rhetoric. Ya know, the whole fight for the little guy "two americas" bit. He sounds good on tv. He looks good on tv, and he has a certain amount of likability. People like to vote based on qualifications or policies, but they often end up picking people they seem to like or trust.

The key battle for Bush in 04 is the trust factor. People will vote this guy back in because they trust him to protect america. Oddly enough, he beats democrats in the category of "protecting america" or "making america strong," but loses in the category of "foreign policy" taken more generally. Lies do matter, but if it seems that Bush lied with good intentions, and he's "trying to do a good job," people might say, hey, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. The standard of proof is not what the CIA says, but what the president believes.

And I'm rambling, but here's one last thing to consider.

Kerry has a solid military record to back him up. It's objectively true. The man's a bonafide war hero. But, will his aristocratic appearance (both physically and otherwise) and his liberal tendencies make him appear weak? Do they cancel eachother out?

Edwards. No national security cred. But, he has a small town background. He's likable and down to earth. In spite of never serving, can he connect to Americans on a level where they trust him to do right for them? If he does that, people will get what they want, which is to feel safe. We hope.

Guliani would make TFproject close down the titty board.

good luck with that.

Why aren't the democrats trying to elect the BEST man to run the country? They are too occupied about figuring out who could beat Bush. Anyone wonder why they are going to lose?

We are trying to elect the best guy to run the country. Most of the candidates are good. Kerry would make a fine president, Edwards would make a fine president, and the same with Clark. Since most Dems think that way, what does our ultimate decision come down to? In a word, winning. Hypothetically, even if Clark would be a better president than Edwards, we had better nominate Edwards since he is more likely to win. It's kind of a game theory thing:

Option one (the ideal candidate):

You have a 25% chance of gaining $50, and a 75% chance of losing $25

or Option two (the electable candidate):

You have a 55% chance of gaining $35, and a 45% chance of losing $25.

See, you go with option 2. That's what democrats are doing, and it makes perfect sense.