"(insert candidate here) appeals to a wide variety of people!!"

[vi5]

I keep reading and hearing this about any number of candidates and I have to say that at this stage of the game this strikes me as total crapola. The fact is that if this were true of any of our candidates, then that person (any of them) would be solidly in the 30's or 40's in the poll match ups against Bush.

I realize this is mostly because of the 9 person race and also the lack of hardcore media coverage of each of the candidates. And at some point the statement above will hold true of whatever candidate gets elected, mostly by default of bush having pissed off a "wide variety of people". But at this point saying that just seems super naive, no matter which of our 9 guys you are saying it about. Each one of them at this point appeals to some faction of the dem base, from unions, to moderate centrists, to minorities, to peacenicks, or whatever. But I can't think of any of the candidates that at this point has an appeal to what would be called a "wide variety" of people or whatever you want to call it. Maybe it's semantics but to me a wide variety of people would mean at least a sizable chunk of a number of different demographics. I honestly can't think of one candidate at this point in the race who fits that bill. Although I'm sure I'll get more than a few "No, no no...you don't understand. My republican brother and his teamster best friend and that guys african american girlfriend and her pacifist father all really really reeeeeeally love (insert candidate here)!!!" responses to this.

[blondeatlast]

1. "My republican brother and his teamster best friend and that

guys african american girlfriend and her pacifist father all really really reeeeeeally love (bushit)!!!"

So true, vi5, so true.

Thanks.

[Bombtrack]

2. Edwards and Gephardt

are the 2 serious candidates who have actually had to bust there ass for most of there lives and come from families that have done the same.

[vi5]

3. Did you even read this thread?

I mean honestly when did anyone post anything about whether or not any of the candidates had to work or whether their families did?

It always amuses me when things like this happen.

[Bombtrack]

5. I did read the thread

and I also have 3 years of political science(1 yr in highschool and 2 as college minor) and 2 of public policy analysis(major) under my belt

being able to relate to voters is one of the most important factors in appeal.

[Bombtrack]

4. Edwards has the most appeal based on every kind of wisdom

First of all his appeal in a third of third of the country is more than any northern or big city candidate(which includes the four front-runners) just because he is southern.

Unlike the other southernor, Graham, he is completely self-made, and for every embarrassing failure Bush had, Edwards had a huge success.

He has a daughter in college and 2 pre-kindegardners which helps with his appeal to a broader spectrum of parents than any other candidate.

He is the democrat, like Clinton, which least exacerbates our negatives with independants. He's for civil rights, civil liberties, smaller government(a 10 percent cut in fed workforce), less entitlement/spending to get out of deficits shifting tax burden off middle class. Most realistic healthcare plan, middle class tax cut.

Illiminates security gap. Possibly wins back female gender gap.

It's wishful thinking to beleive anyone, except maybe Graham, is more broadly appealing

[chaska]

6. He's not in the race yet

But Clark is the man.

I am working on the draft Clark campaign (don't tune out yet). In our group we have a lot of diversity. We have self-described conservatives and even a few Repubs working to get this *liberal* candidate to run. I can sense the liberals turning off. Let me assure you we have a lot of hard left people in our group - I include myself in that. I have looked at the man objectively, and I think he is the best man to be president of this country. I think our biggest problem once he declares (which appears very likely) in September, as a Dem (his son has outed him) will be to win over the peace activists. Here's a surprise: I am one. I am an active member of my local peace group. I have participated in many actions against the Iraq war. I believe that a real military man like Clark (as opposed to playing one on TV like Bush) will be very reluctant to involve us in a war. He knows the horrors of war an will not be one to put our troops in harm's way lightly. He has made statements that support this.

And if you doubt the man's liberal cred you owe it to yourself to check him out. Google will turn up plenty.

I mean no offense to any of the other candidates by this post. I hope you all will be as respectful of my candidate as I am of your's (benign neglect would please me no end <G>).

United, we stand. Divided, we lose to Bush.

[tjdee]

7. "I'll vote for him" doesn't mean he appeals to you.

I think there's a difference. In the general, most Dems will vote for the Dem. That doesn't mean the candidate appeals (see: Gore).

An appealing candidate is one who will get people invested in his campaign. A widely appealing candidate captures the attention of as many groups as possible, and is obviously preferable to a hold your nose vote.

There are compelling reasons why at this time we can conclude that Lieberman will not be appealing to party activists, for example. Or that we can conclude Gephardt is appealing to unionists, based on his record, his past, and what he's saying today. This is not to say that there are some unknowns.

I'm not really sure why you think that this is an unknown variable??

Maybe because many DUers will just say their candidate has the widest appeal? I guess in that case you have to look at what they're using to make that assumption and decide whether you agree or not.