Talk Elections

What do you think? How John Edwards would have succeeded against Bush? I consider that he would have done a little better especially among working class and women, probably would have picked up Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico.

About women and Bush. My mom vote mostly greens (but is centrist moderate in our standarts) here in Finland, but it seems that she is very delighted about Bush as person.

I strongly agree. With Edwards, dem would be in the withe house for next 8 years (and 16 with Obama after). We have chosen the wrong man...

Edwards isn't popular. He is just as liberal as Kerry is, and he proved to be a drag on this ticket. Kerry should have chosen Gephardt or Clark, now obvious to most people. Clark would have given him more foreign policy credibility, Gephardt would have given him more of a union appeal. Bush actually did well with a lot of unions this year.

Hey you're from Belgium not from the USA! I think you affiliate yourself as American democrat a little too stronly.

On reflection Gephardt or Clark would probably have beaten Bush by a solid margin.
Edwards would probably have (just) edged it.

But to be fair to Kerry he didn't actually do *badly*... it's still only a narrow win for Bush.
Certainly a credible preformance... and had his advisors and analysts not been so ing stupid and quit fight 2000 all over again, I think he could have won it.

Oh well...

The House results (ignore Texas) are reason to smile though... 2006 will be very, very interesting.

And Santorum must be shaking in his boots... always a nice thought, that...
---
Just heard that turnout was up by about 10 Million. Not as much as hoped for.

And why is that?  Because Kerry won Penn. by 120K?  Massive turnout in central PA made the state closer than it should have been.

i dont quite understand the democrats love affair with john edwards.  looking at the returns, he didnt really help kerry much last night.

the democrats said that edwards and his silly populism was going to help in nc, va, wv and oh.  turns out the voters rebuked that outdated message.

Actually because Hoeffel came shockingly close to knocking off Specter

11% is close.  What is a blowout then?
42% of the vote is not impressive.

True, but most of the time he was polling lower than that. He did better than I expected him to do (but as I wanted Specter to win this was kinda worrying).

I exaggerated (everyone else is doing it. Why not me? ahahaha...) I should have said "if Hoeffel runs in 2006 Santorum could be in trouble".

Too much coffee is bad for thinking

Fair enough:) I had a litre of booze last night and six cups of coffee this morning.  This election nearly killed me.  Santorum gets out his base though and in off election years (non-Pres. elections) Philly doesn't come out as much.  W/O big Philly turnout Penn. is a pretty conservative state,

I think that John Edwards could have possibly done better than Kerry (who - yes- didn't do badly at all against an incumbent), but during his speech last night, it just hit me how robotic he is.  Anybody notice that he's only got one body movement - the arms-extended thumbs up?

True, but Evangelical turnout will be lower in 2006. Santorum v Hoeffel could be very close.

Guess it depends how the next 2 years go

I think there were one person in the democratic primary who could have won this: Joe Lieberman. His faith in God and the "war on terror" would have put him over the top.

Edwards would have been character assasinated just as Kerry. Dean, Gephardt and Clark all would have been crushed.

I tend to agree.  I think Lieberman would have been the best candidate for the general election; it's just that anybody who shows too much sense on the issues can't get past the Democratic primary voters.

Lieberman would have been in a good position to take moderate undecided voters, and Bush would not have been the only choice for those concerned about national security.  He also may have made a big difference with the Jewish vote in a state like Florida.

Back in the days when the nominees were decided by the party bosses in smoke filled rooms (that's how Harry Truman became Roosevelt's VP and ultimately president), Lieberman may well have been the pick.

I thought Gephardt might have done OK because of his quasi-southern roots and his greater strength on national security issues than Democrats usually show.

I think Edwards would have lost to Bush, and Dean would have gotten the stuffing (substitute for a cruder word) knocked out of him by Bush.  Now the Republicans need to nominate somebody who can beat the s**t out of Hillary in 2008.

I think the reason John Kerry did ok against Bush is that he appeared somewhat strong and had a good mantra, and for a while, a believable war hero aura.  John Edwards may seem nice, but he can easily turn Al Gore-mean.  At the same time, he seems like such a wuss.  I'm sorry, but Bush would have made Edwards his b!t*h if he ran against him.  The whole trial lawyer thing would have turned against him as well.  I also think they would have continued to portray Edwards as a pretty boy.  Most people would rather have a strong leader than a girlie man in office.  John Edwards also has a very liberal record in the Senate.  Edwards, like Kerry would have nowhere to run away from the L-word Senate record, no war service to disguise it.  The dad-was-a-mill-worker thing could have gotten old too.  Although being a southern might have helped him some, but I doubt it, if Al Gore couldn't win TN or AR in 2000.

Edwards turned out to be a dud.  Got slaughtered in his home state and throughout the South.

Pretty boy is finished.

 I think Edwards would have goten the same as Kerry, Mabey he would have won Iowa, But he would have lost New Hampshire. I think Clark would have had the best shot.

I tend to think Clark would have done the best of all the Democratic candidates, as long as he didn't say something completely embarrassing.  But Edwards would have done a little better than Kerry too.  He probably wouldn't have won any states in the South, but he could have won Iowa and Ohio.

Gephardt and Lieberman wouldn't have been very good nominees.  Lieberman wasn't willing to criticize Bush on the war at all, and would have suppresses turnout among the true believers.  Gephardt would have been just as wishy-washy as Kerry on the war, and he has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no national electoral appeal.

Clark seemed to have skeletons in his closet.  I supported him during the primaries, but I think he would have had a scandal or two in the general election which would have killed him.

Clark is a little too wishy-washy.  But I must say I wouldn't mind having him as my president, especially considering the other dem choices...Sharpton, Kucinich, Edwards, Braun, Kerry, Gephardt, Dean...lol.  Lieberman maybe, but al-qaida would attack us like crazy, cause isn't Lieberman a Jew??

Yeah, he had little things that would have hurt him.  Like the time he ordered the British to start WWIII.  That might have hurt him a bit.

World War III.  Say what?!?

you are right... but, you know, I have observed the american elections for the beginning of the dem  primaries processus and with the time, I was identified to the dem party.

Yes, his NATO record (and pending criminal court lawsuit) would have been all over the media and in the commercials.  Nice guy, but he would have been raked over the "public opinion" coals.

I agree wholeheartedly!

Edwards would not have won his home state in a Senate re-election campaign nor a presidential campaign. As VP on the Democratic ticket he failed to carry NC and his hometown of Robbins. He is extemely unpopular in NC due to his lack of representation in the Senate. As a Presidential candidate he may have done better than Kerry against Pres. Bush in the Midwest, but he would have fared no better in NC nor the South.

During the Serbian operation, Russian troops occupied the Pristina Airport.  Clark, without orders, ordered the Britsh forces to take it from them, by force. 

The UK Commander Gen. Michael Jackson (that name is an odd coincidence), refused, on the grounds that the government had to order an attack on non-combant foreign troops.  Clark, enraged called Jackson's superiors in London.  They backed up Jackson.  Then Clark called the Pentagon, who also supported Jackson.  Soon after, Clark "retired."

While prehaps not starting WWIII, the action does reflect on Clark's judgment.

I'll modify that slightly.  Clark was told that his command early several days before this incident.  There were appearently problems within his command. 

See. Clark is not dovish. He would have been the right man to lead war on terror. Action now questions later!

About Lieberman. He would have got most Jewish votes, yes. But he is too moderate for far-left liberals. Nader would have got much more votes if Lieberman had been a candidate.

Edwards v. Bush
Edwards--298EV (49.75%)
Bush--240EV (49.00%)

()

Gephardt v. Bush
Gephardt--329EV (51%)
Bush--209EV (48%)
()

Clark v. Bush
Clark--238EV (47.5%)
Bush--300EV (50.5%)
()

Dean v. Bush
Dean--194EV (47%)
Bush--344EV (52%)
()

Leiberman v. Bush
Leiberman--329EV (49.5%)
Bush--209EV (47.5%)
Third Party--3%
()

Why would Lieberman win Virginia, and Gephardt Arkansas?