Which Presidential Candidate is Most Electable?
First on his list is Senator John McCain, GOP candidate from Arizona. Stark says McCain is well known and trusted (by whom, I'm not sure), and that he has appeal to some Democrats and independents. How that's good for conservatives I can't quite figure out. McCain may not be doing so well in GOP circles, Stark says, but in a general election he's the guy with the best of chance of winning--unless Iraq falls apart.
The next one on the list I really don't understand. According to Stark's list, former Senator John Edwards comes in second in electability next Fall and his winning of the Democratic nomination would put some Republican states, like Virginia, into the questionable column for the GOP nominee. I still see Edwards as the shady trial lawyer that he is, and his extremely liberal views are not embraced by a majority of American voters.
Another GOP candidate comes in third--former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, because America's mayor pulls an Edwards for Republicans by putting New Jersey and Pennsylvania into question for Democrats. The danger, Stark warns, is that a Rudy nomination by Republicans might cause a third party social conservative candidate to enter the race, a move that could hand the White House to Democrats.
Stark has Senator Clinton and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee tied for fourth on his list, with Senator Barack Obama coming in sixth for electability to the presidency. Bringing up the tail end, Stark places Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson seventh and eighth, respectively.
I take his assessment for what it is--his opinion on the likelihood of any one candidate winning the White House next November. But what concerns me is the attitude toward "electability." My hope is that Republicans are more concerned about a candidate that best represents conservative values, and not about redefining conservativism to fit a candidate that has the best chance of winning. I can understand wanting to keep the White House after the poor showing by Republican candidates in November 2006. But I am convinced that the backlash against the GOP had as much to do with the Republican controlled Congress straying from conservative principles as it did with public dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq.
In the end, Republicans will likely support whichever candidate has the "R" after his name on the ballot. But it is important that whoever ultimately wins the GOP nomination best represents the majority of conservative voters and not the best odds of beating the Democratic candidate.
Published by Greg Reeson
I am a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal and a The Veteran's Voice. I also regularly contribute to GOPUSA and The Land of the Free. View profile
- Poll: Senate Race in Colorado Neck to Neck, so is Race for the White House In the Senate race in Colorado, there is no incumbent due to the fact that Republican Senator Wayne Allard is retiring.
- Obama or McCain on November 9, 2008: Meltdown to the White House A funny and strange way of describing the outcome of the 2008 Presidential race. A must read for those seeking the lighter sides of hell.
- Obama's Road to the White HouseAt the start of midnight on Nov. 2, 2008, the citizens of Dixville, Notch, N.H. voted in sharp contrast to four decades of voting there, as 15 out of 21 citizens leaned towards Obama.
- President Bush Invites Russian President Putin to the White HouseSatirical account of George Bush's congratulations to Vladimir Putin for his victory.
- Who Has the Best Chance of Winning Big Brother 9? Possible Spoilers!With only 4 houseguests left, this season of Big Brother is quickly coming to an end. Who has the best chance of taking home the money?
- The Keys to the White House: Hold on Democrats
- Presidential Candidate Offers Money to Student Fundraisers
- Former Muslim Raises Concerns About the Muslim Background of Presidential Candidat...
- Raising Money on the Campaign Trail Now Defining the Best Presidential Candidate
- Sarah Palin for VP: Barbie Goes to the White House
- Still Confused as to Why Bush and the White House Seem so Shocked by the Election...
- Wrong Color for the White House: Stanford AP-Yahoo Survey Finds Being Black May Co...
4 Comments
Post a CommentThere is also a group of "Republicans for Obama" and Ron Paul's fanatic supporters, so the only sure thing about these primaries is the elections are sure interesting to watch as they unfold. The thing that might upset the status quo and usual predictability of outcomes is the numbers of new college age students who are registering to vote this year. Young people are much less jaded and their ideas are not from the older generations.
The reason I think Stark may be right is people do not seem to study and research candidates. As an example "Hillary has experience and it will be great to have a strong female President". Yet if she were Martha Stewart she would be in jail. JQ Public has a poor memory (me too, but thank you for the Internet and especially You Tube users who make compilations from old news coverage, speeches and such); they forget about Bill Clinton's shady dealings as Pres and when singing Hill's praises they do not seem to consider the implications of a known corrupt First Man in the White House.
I would have to say Stark is probably correct, even tho' I know little about Edwards and McCain. I ruled both out early and did little further research on them. I also ruled Rudy out rather quickly for the same reason I do not like Bush & Hillary. The three think President means ruler, not server of the government, "of, for and by the people". If your assessment is correct, I doubt that Rudy has mass appeal among conservatives with such a ruckus being made about dressing in drag. He is not liked among New Yorkers who feel he sided with the police in brutality cases.
I have a feeling that many former(ly) "R" voters are taking a closer look at the "D" pack, this time out. In fact, one of them (Shane) even wrote about it on here. If the Mid-term elections are any indication, and the Democrats don't shoot themselves in the foot again (as they have done many times before in their choice of nominee), this is the year of the Democrats: it's theirs to lose. They certainly will have a Republican mess to clean up, after 8 years of "W'. One interesting tid-bit (limned in my article on the December 28th appearance of Obama in Davenport, Iowa) is that he was introduced by a man who was (formerly) the Oregon chair of Bob Dole's Republican run for the Presidency, and also headed Oregon Veterans for Bush in the 2000 election, backing "W" all the way. Where does he stand now? With Obama as one of his National Co-Chairmen and a former Four-Star General and Vietnam Viet (Merrill Anthony "Tony" McPeak.) When people like Tony McPeak defect to the Democrats AND begin