[JerryLove]

Terribly qualified? Does that mean unqualified, or so very qualified, it's almost terrible! Either way, maybe you could PM and let me know why you think what you do about each "candidate"...

Poor choice of words on my part... "extremely qualified". I would have gladly voted for Powell and would probably vote for Hillary.

I disagree. People said the same thing about Clinton because of his Arkansas heritage, and about GWB because of his dubious youth.

Yes, well people from Arkansas with dubious youths were not denied the right to vote for 150 years. The racist and anti-woman (after all, women shouldn't have authority over men) sentiment is quite a bit larger than the "anti-Arkansas" group.

I disagree. She isn't electable because she's so hateful and vitriolic, and much too liberal for the general populace.

Would you care to support? Hillary has enjoyed tremendous popularity as both a first-lady and a politician.

LOL! We'll see, Jerry. If she were VP first, I think she would be electable.

I doubt it... I don't know what the 2008 climate will be, but I don't foresee that much of a change. How about we manage one of the three criteria (non-white, non-christian, non-male) before trying two.

I think Leiberman, Clinton, or Powell could get in, at least as VP.

I think your wrong, Powell is one of the most respected men in government. If he's unelectable it's because his views on abortion aren't pro-life enough to secure strong support from the conservative base to get the nomination or not be robbed by a third party candidate.

He's not as pro-life as the uber-electable Bill Clinton or current poll-winner John Kerry? That's news to me.

(see Dole and Bush Sr.'s losses)

Bush Sr. lost because his domestic policy sucked, and he was mired by participation in the Iran/Contra affair. Dole lost because Clinton was liked and Dole didn't show one iota of personality until after he lost (at which point he suddenly became very likeable).

Hillary is unelectable because she's extremely polarizing and too liberal. Being a woman might actually help her. It's also possible that she would be running against Condoleeza Rice or Kay Bailey Hutchinson so the point would be moot.

Yea, that'll happen.

When you said terribly qualified did you mean very qualified or hardly qualified?

See above.

Anyway, Rice is pretty respected, could gain moderate, minority, and women votes (demographics that would really help Republicans) and is well liked by the conservative base. She could be a high caliber candidate in the future but it looks like she might have to compete with Rudy Guiliani, Hutchinson, or McCain in the future.

Respect has nothing to do with it... George Jr has none and he got elected.

[fifsuperpod37]

Would you care to support? Hillary has enjoyed tremendous popularity as both a first-lady and a politician.

Democrats love her. Put her on the ticket and you get big Democrat turnout. She's a very clever politician. But also, put her on the ticket and the qualms conservatives have about Bush's spending, etc, go out the window as they insure she does not resume sleeping in the White House.

He's not as pro-life as the uber-electable Bill Clinton or current poll-winner John Kerry? That's news to me.

First of all, those are both Democrats. My point was that conservatives often use abortion as a litmus test and a failure by a Republican candidate could cost them votes in the conservative base necessary to win. Democrats don't have this problem but if you took a well-liked moderate democrat who was pro-life he might be popular to the general electorate but his party base would be very unsupportive.
Secondly, Mondale was beating Reagan in early polls. John Kerry is very liberal and I find it unlikely that he will last all summer and fall against Bush and Karl Rove. It will be close if jobs don't pick up but if they do I can insure that Bush stomps Kerry big.

Bush Sr. lost because his domestic policy sucked, and he was mired by participation in the Iran/Contra affair.

I don't think it was so much Iran/Contra as it was "read my lips, no new taxes" and Ross Perot. If Perot hadn't run (he got 11% of the pop. vote) and conservatives had stuck with Bush he would have pounded Clinton.

Dole lost because Clinton was liked and Dole didn't show one iota of personality until after he lost (at which point he suddenly became very likeable).

That was part of it. Another huge issue was that after a 16 year pro-life voting record, Dole thought he needed to drop this stance to be elected and Conservatives got pissed. Generally there wasn't much excitement to begin with. I think this will prove to be the case with the aloof John Kerry, who only has support because Democrats have such an intense hatred of Bush.

Yea, that'll happen.

It's been discussed. Rice is qualified and popular and Kay Bailey Hutchinson is planning to run against Gov. Rick Perry down here in Texas because it's easier to run for pres. from a governorship than from an entirely senatorial record. Elizabeth Dole is another possibility. Republican strategists have weighed the idea of running a woman against Hillary to cancel out her exclusive appeal to women.

Respect has nothing to do with it... George Jr has none and he got elected.

I mean from Democrats. Bush has tremendous respect from Republicans and some moderates. Dems think he is an evil, stupid, manipulative fiend. Colin Powell has respect from Dems and moderates. So does Guiliani. So does McCain. Condoleeza Rice is seen as very conservative but intelligent.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by Aaron Adams

I disagree. She isn't electable because she's so hateful and vitriolic, and much too liberal for the general populace.

GWB is too conservative for the general populace, yet elected he was, and very electable he is.