The New and Improved Democratic Candidate Poll

Now that the war is over and the GOP is preparing for a tough presidential campaign, which of the nine likely Democratic candidates would you most like to see win the presidency?


Cheers,

 

John Kerry

 

I'm not sure who to vote for since I haven't bothered to study all of these people.

Tentatively, I'd say Joe Lieberman, because he's a known quantity and comes across as intelligent, centrist and level headed.

But some of the others might be attractive too, if I knew more about them.

I will pass on Al Sharpton though, thanks anyway.

 

I'm strictly a Joe Lieberman guy myself; I've wanted to see him win the presidency ever since the Lewinsky scandal, and thought he outclassed both Bush and Gore by spades during the 2000 elections (the Cheney-Lieberman debates were so many miles above the Bush-Gore debates in terms of both content and civility that I wished the tickets had been reversed). John Edwards would be my #2 pick, with Howard Dean at a distant third. Kerry, Gephardt, and Sharpton strike me as way too shrill, and I'm just plain unfamiliar with Braun, Graham, and Kucinich.

I, too, am amazed at the broad support for Al Sharpton in this poll. All I can assume is that either folks misread the question--e.g., thought I meant nominee rather than president, and felt that he might be the easiest to beat--or that conservatives just plain love the guy.


Cheers,

 

Speaking from my politically conservative side, I would say they simply "like" the guy.

 

Does this mean that DegreeInfo is a microcosm of the nation at large?

 

The Reverend Al

I fall to the right, politically, of many posters on DegreeInfo.

Al Sharpton is my pick because I'm simply gleeful at the the idea of the Reverend Al debating John Kerry.

The Democratic Party will fissure if the Rev. Al chooses to pursue his quixotic campaign, to the general benefit of the peoples of the United States.

Regards,


Tony

 

Lieberman appears to be the Democrats' best bet at this time. He did not makes foolish statements regarding the war in Iraq, as did some of his colleagues (including people on this list). Lieberman came off quite well in the presidential election and has been proceeding carefully and intelligently.

Gebhardt and Moesley-Braun are so knee-jerk leftists that they are virtually unelectable in a national election. Gebhardt has said so many contradictory things in the past that all that needs to be done is for someone to do a "here's what he said then--here's what he says now" piece and Gebhardt will be eliminated.

Tony

 

My opinion is none of the above, but if I HAD to have one, then probably Joe Lieberman. He does seem to have his head on his shoulders fairly well.

I agree it would be fun to see Al Sharpton debate any of the others...

clint

 

I like Bob Grahman.

When he says he's worked 400 days along side the people, he's serious.

For some reason he feels that is important to take a day off from his political job every so often and literally worlk a common job alongside regular folk. Be's been doing this for over twenty years.

Also, he is one of the few democrats that stood his ground in regard to what America's priorities should be regarding the war on terror. The man sits on the intelligence committee, he knows that there are other groups more dangerous to the US then Hussein was.

 

It looks like your empirically accurate poll is showing that Al Sharpton will win by a landslide.

 

I think I may place my bet; I can get 1000-1 now.

 

What a sorry lot to choose from. The 2 party system has hit a new low when we have the winner of this group facing the incumbant incompetent, or incompetent incumbant. I say we start a royal lineage to rule over the masses - since I thought of it I will become king. My first royal act shall be ...

 

It's already begun. G.W. was elected on the vote in a state where his brother is ultimately responsible for overseeing the election. And then this was ratified by a court where a crucial role was played by people appointed by his father and his father's boss at the time.

Of course, there is a competing royal lineage. After the lightweights Dem's get trounced by G.W. in '04, my guess is that it will be Hillary vs. Jeb in '08. Should be interesting.

I hope the Clintons win, just so Roger will eventually get his turn as President.

 

I would speculate that by 2008 John Edwards will have become a more familiar name and be groomed as the Demo candidate. A continuation of the southern influence on American politics.

 

Here's my take on the candidates:

JOHN KERRY
Pros: Senior senator with solid foreign policy experience; credible on military issues.
Cons: Unelectable; if he gets the nomination, he will be this year's Michael Dukakis.

JOE LIEBERMAN
Pros: The "what a nice guy" factor (which can be credited for winning Bush his slim margin in 2000); my personal favorite of the current Democratic slate, by far; senior senator with solid foreign policy experience; can claim to be almost as instrumental in forming homeland security department as Bush was; political moderate with potentially decisive appeal among centrists and religious conservatives.
Cons: Except for Bob Graham, Lieberman wins the "most likely to be confused with a Republican" award. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing in the current political climate, but it limits his appeal among some liberals.
False con: The big lie of 2000--which I'm sure will be repeated in 2004--is that Lieberman's religion/ethnicity will cost him a substantial number of votes in the South. The fact that Alabama has a Jewish governor doesn't seem to slow our stereotype-friendly talking heads down at all. He might lose the South (as has every Democratic candidate since Carter), but it won't be because he's Jewish.

HOWARD DEAN
Pros: Most assertive candidate; strongest liberal credentials of any candidate with the exception of Gephardt; the best-educated candidate; wins the "most likely to be confused with Jeb Bartlett" award.
Cons: When his platform doesn't alienate moderate voters (he was the only candidate to come out dead-set against the war in Iraq), his choice of words does. I'd love to see this guy get the presidency, but it isn't going to happen.

DICK GEPHARDT
Pros: Most experienced candidate; inexplicably, much more charismatic and less shrill as a presidential candidate than he was as House majority leader (maybe he just needed a break); strongest liberal credentials of any candidate.
Cons: Partisan history can be turned against him and used to alienate moderate voters. And then there's the Al Gore factor--no, the other one, where he went from being razor-sharp in 1994 to being a stuffed shirt in 2000. If Gephardt transforms back into his old self, Bush will trounce him.

CAROL MOSLEY BRAUN
Pros: No woman has ever run on the top of a party's ticket in a national election, and that alone could bring an advantageous social dynamic to the table. Comes across as genuinely nice which, here again, is what won Bush the election in 2000.
Cons: Who are we kidding? She's the least experienced of the Democratic candidates, and not assertive enough to make up the difference.

BOB GRAHAM
Pros: The most moderate candidate; former governor and senior senator from Florida, which proves he can win that state; and like every president since Carter, he has a Southern accent.
Cons: Needs to work on his speaking skills, big-time; he talks too slowly and too indecisively.

DENNIS KUCINICH
Pros: Brings outsider status to the table; enthusiastic; and the man can speak (well, sort of).
Cons: He has "minor league" written all over him.

AL SHARPTON
Pros: Assertive as heck, and fun to listen to. If they put him opposite Pat Buchanan on Crossfire every week, it would pull a 10.0 easy. And judging by the results of this poll, he has massive appeal among Republican-leaning distance learning geeks.
Cons: Petty, shrill, and partisan. Doesn't always think before he speaks (sort of the opposite problem Bob Graham has). The scandals cut out any clout his ordination might have given him with the religious right.

JOHN EDWARDS
Pros: Young and charismatic; there's that Southern accent again; moderate; comes across as the love child of Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy, which will win him the election if he can exploit it.
Cons: He hasn't figured out how to exploit it (yet).


Cheers,

 

66% of Americans cannot name any Democratic Presidential Candidates

I saw this on the Drudge Report this morning.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/13/opinion/polls/main553730.shtml

 

Unless the economy continues to flounder and more jobs are lost G.W. should have no trouble beating anyone from that list. Although its the same climate that gave us Bill Clinton - an unknown - I cannot recall who Clinton's Democratic opponents were in the primaries (Gephart was one?). We have no Ross Perot to STEAL votes from either party. Maybe John McCain could be that person. If he entered as an Independent Bush could Lose !!!!

 

I think that's the same thing we said about Al Gore in 1999, and you know where that went. Bush is way ahead in the polls right now, but even the GOP expects that to change dramatically by election time (see the first link in this thread); if the Democratic Party nominates Lieberman or Edwards, there is a very good chance that we'll be talking about the "Bush family curse" this time two years from now.


Cheers,

 

As far as "stealing" votes goes: Remember that in 2000, the vote-stealer was Ralph Nader. If Nader had dropped out and endorsed Gore, and Gore got even half of his votes, he would have won by a decisive margin in the electoral college (and even with Nader running, Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 or so). The indication I'm getting from Greens now is that if it comes down to Bush or a Democrat, Nader (who is rumored to run again) will be under intense pressure from his own party to endorse the Democrat and get Bush out of the White House. I think Nader was gambling in 2000 that his votes wouldn't affect the outcome of the race, and of course he was wrong. It's unlikely that he'll make the same mistake twice. And even if he does, remember the Ross Perot curse--he's unlikely to get anywhere near as many votes in 2004 as he did in 2000.

But if he were to somehow pull away as many votes as he did in 2000, I'm not convinced that a suitably moderate and congenial Democratic candidate wouldn't be able to win the election anyway. It's still 16 months off; that's plenty of time for Bush to lose his halo.


Cheers,