Perfect President

[5280]

Will there ever be a candidate that runs for President in the future that appeals or reflects to everybody on the political spectrum  (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents)?  Could it be possible for them to win all 50 states and DC?

[Free Palestine]

I don't think that could ever happen unless you had some sort of great national tragedy or World War III or something.

[後援会]

Impossible.

Hell, just look at us. Do you think you could name a single person more than even half of this forum would be happy with as President?

There ain't no more James Monroes.

[Statesman]

There is no era of good feelings on the horizon. There may be candidates that win 35-40 states against weak opposition. But no 50-state + DC sweeps, even with a World War III (provided elections are still ongoing under those circumstances).

[morgieb]

Nixon and Reagan got 49, but that's the maximum IMO.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

There ain't no more James Monroes.

Bad analogy. First, Madison ran basically unopposed. Second, it's impossible to compare elections back there and nowdays.

[NHI]

Anything's possible, but the polarization of America will need to lessen, and a truly post-partisan figure will need to emerge.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Not gonna happen.

[Lincoln Republican]

Even in 1936 in the depths of the Great Depression when the nation rallied around President FDR, as he was leading the nation effectively through this crisis, and there were rumblings of war abroad, he did not win every state.

So I would say chances of a candidate sweeping all states and DC are virtually impossible.

[Del Tachi]

If for some reason the South becomes majority Black, the Midwest/Great Plains trends significantly to the left due to energy/agricultural issues, and Hispanics continue their rise in the West then I guess a really strong Democratic incumbent could win a 50 state + DC sweep against a no-name, ultraradical, underperforming GOP opponent. 

[Donerail]

We will never have someone who appeals to everybody; however, I think we could have someone who appeals to nobody, making their opponent appeal to everybody. IE: President Barack Obama (D) vs Rep. Todd Akin (R).

[後援会]

We will never have someone who appeals to everybody; however, I think we could have someone who appeals to nobody, making their opponent appeal to everybody. IE: President Barack Obama (D) vs Rep. Todd Akin (R).

See, Akin is probably going to lose his race, but he'll still pull 40% or so of the vote. Which is enough to win a few states on a presidential level. We need someone thoroughly unacceptable to members of both parties. I nominate Ron Paul.

[Donerail]

We will never have someone who appeals to everybody; however, I think we could have someone who appeals to nobody, making their opponent appeal to everybody. IE: President Barack Obama (D) vs Rep. Todd Akin (R).

See, Akin is probably going to lose his race, but he'll still pull 40% or so of the vote. Which is enough to win a few states on a presidential level. We need someone thoroughly unacceptable to members of both parties. I nominate Ron Paul.

Except Paul is thoroughly acceptable to members of both parties, simply not the party establishment.

[後援会]

Except Paul is thoroughly acceptable to members of both parties, simply not the party establishment.

Ahaha, what. Polling has shown that is clearly not the case. For one, a horde of Democrats are not going to crossover to Paul. Even Democrats who have a favorable opinion are not going to vote for their own guy (unless he is thoroughly unacceptable, which is very unlikely). And even 1/3rd of Republicans crossing over (and very depressed Republican turnout), should probably give a mainstream Democrat a landslide victory. Plus, independent voters will probably to turn away because there's literally so much dirt on RP. The only reason his favorability is even that high is because nobody in the GOP primary bothered attacking RP because he had no chance of winning.

A popular Democrat (think Bill Clinton circa 1996), has a decent shot of winning every state over RP. Though it's not a certainty. I do suppose it's possible one of those libertarian-leaning, heavily Republican states (Wyoming?) to narrowly vote for Paul.

[Donerail]

Except Paul is thoroughly acceptable to members of both parties, simply not the party establishment.

Ahaha, what. Polling has shown that is clearly not the case. For one, a horde of Democrats are not going to crossover to Paul. Even Democrats who have a favorable opinion are not going to vote for their own guy (unless he is thoroughly unacceptable, which is very unlikely). And even 1/3rd of Republicans crossing over (and very depressed Republican turnout), should probably give a mainstream Democrat a landslide victory. Plus, independent voters will probably to turn away because there's literally so much dirt on RP. The only reason his favorability is even that high is because nobody in the GOP primary bothered attacking RP because he had no chance of winning.

A popular Democrat (think Bill Clinton circa 1996), has a decent shot of winning every state over RP. Though it's not a certainty. I do suppose it's possible one of those libertarian-leaning, heavily Republican states (Wyoming?) to narrowly vote for Paul.

Polling has shown that this very clearly is the case. If he is the Republican candidate, Republicans will vote for him, and Democrats who actually care about things like drug policy reform and a sane foreign policy would possibly cross over, and independents certainly would (and you discount independents for no reason whatsoever). Paul could win at least 12 states, bare minimum.

[後援会]

As said, polling probably overstates Ron Paul's position because nobody actually attacks Ron Paul. It's like punching a daruma. There's no point. Really, there'd be so many attack ads flying around. Not to mention that whoever is the non-Ron Paul candidate will probably get drowned in huge amounts of donations and will probably have billions of dollars to play those ads.

[Donerail]

As said, polling probably overstates Ron Paul's position because nobody actually attacks Ron Paul. It's like punching a daruma. There's no point. Really, there'd be so many attack ads flying around. Not to mention that whoever is the non-Ron Paul candidate will probably get drowned in huge amounts of donations and will probably have billions of dollars to play those ads.

Proving that libertarianism wouldn't actually benefit large corporations like so many claim?

[後援会]

As said, polling probably overstates Ron Paul's position because nobody actually attacks Ron Paul. It's like punching a daruma. There's no point. Really, there'd be so many attack ads flying around. Not to mention that whoever is the non-Ron Paul candidate will probably get drowned in huge amounts of donations and will probably have billions of dollars to play those ads.

Proving that libertarianism wouldn't actually benefit large corporations like so many claim?

Hey, I agree completely. Though it'd because I think Ron Paul's brand of libertarianism, if implemented, would harm most people and organizations, most large corporations also included.