Which Dem as the nominee would have the best chance against McCain in 08?

[FrenchieCat]

Poll question: Which Dem as the nominee would have the best chance against McCain in 08?

realistically speaking?

I didn't leave a place for None or others because.....

http://www.nationalledger.com/scribe/archives/2005/03/
John McCain Would Handily Defeat Hillary Clinton

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Senator John McCain set the early pace for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination although 20% remain undecided. Giuliani receives the support nationwide of 25% of Republicans and Republican leaning Independents, and McCain has 21%. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice follows with 14%, and Florida Governor Jeb Bush receives 7%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senator Bill Frist, Colorado Governor Bill Owens, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Senator Rick Santorum, New York Governor George Pataki, Senator Chuck Hagel, and Senator George Allen round out the field.

Okay, so at this point it's Hillary versus Rudy. Who wins--according to the survey Rudy Giuliani would just sneak by Hillary Clinton by a 49%-47% margin.

The survey aslo notes that Rudy Giuliani would also defeat either of the two Johns. Rudi beats Edwards 49%-43%, and beats Kerry 50%-44%.

Next is the stunner. If Hillary Clinton has to face John McCain in 2008, this Marist poll shows a landslide. McCain would trounce the liberal New York Senator 54%-42%. He would also beat Kerry by 18 points and Edwards by 12 points.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Any poll that considers Hillary a frontrunner

is not a credible poll.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Are there any polls from professional polling companies

NOT showing Hillary as the frontrunner? I haven't seen any. Have you?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

11. What's a "Red Dog" Democrat?

[FrenchieCat]

15. A Red Dog Democrat is a fighter for Democratic causes and

liberal ideals.

A Red Dog takes not shit from Republicans and their Corporate media operatives.

Red Dog Democrats understands that in order to beat the Repugs, you have to call them out on their bullshit.

A Red Dog Democrat understands how to explain to Red State constituents what real family values truly represent.

A Red Dog Democrat doesn't stick his finger out into the wind to see what is politically expedient prior to taking a stance on an issue.

A Red Dog Democrat knows how to win, and it ain't by bending under GOP and media pressure.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

16. kick

[yurbud]

61. so there are about a half dozen red dogs in Washington...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. No, but ALL of these polls are total bullshit.

[FrenchieCat]

17. That is understood, and I agree with your statement....

the problem is that these polls do work on the masses and manipulate public opinion. These are the masses that end up going to the polls and voting. We can ignore the power of these polls and even call them total bullshit, but the truth of the matter is that these polls are effective at doing what they are supposed to do.

What should we do about these bullshit polls? :shrug:

Do you have a constructive solution on how we can keep these polls from influencing the voting masses? Cause calling them bullshit ain't gonna get it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. Short of taking over the MSM by force, there's really nothing we CAN do.

There's absolutely nothing you can do to prevent them from conducting and reporting on these polls, and people love to hear about them, even if they are bullshit.

You can fight it with facts like the one about Bush stomping everyone by more than 30% last time they ran these polls, but people's eyes just seem to gloss over when you do that. I unfortunately don't have any constructive criticism on the subject. I don't see any possible defense, short of firebombing. You can't legally prevent them from putting it on the air, and enough people like hearing about them to justify them doing it.

[FrenchieCat]

31. So we are back to the original point,

that a poll was taken as says so and so. I advocate that we need to look at these polls, not ignore them.... and have a conversation as to what a possible strategy could be to circumvent the negative results that we find in them for the Democratic party, i.e., plan A, Plan B, Plan C, etc.....

In this case, the poll is saying that if Hillary is our nominee and McCain or Guiliani is the GOP candidate, the GOP wins. What's our strategy to counter this poll's finding?

That's why I did this DU poll. When discussing politics and the 2008 election, we have to always place the general election first in our minds. To place a primary as more important than the actual general election is myopic, yet many Dems do this.

When voting for a primary candidate, the first question has to be...can our candidate win the GE and if so why and how? If Dems don't ask this question to themselves when determining who they might support, then winning elections will continue to elude us.

[Jai4WKC08]

49. I agree we can't ignore them

But I don't take 'em too seriously either.

Polls like this reflect ONLY name-recognition. Well, ok, there might be a little bit of anti-Kerry/Edwards-ism since the election. But even given that, Clinton is at least as well known, possibly more so. Anyone other than those three just isn't on most people's radar.

Remember, Lieberman was the "front-runner" early on for the same reason. You know how far that got him.

'Course, that all said, there is one reason to be more concerned, and that's because the corporate media desperately wants Clinton in the mix. Just imagine how much scandal-fodder they could wring out of her candidacy. Think what it does for their ratings. And if they can make it look like a Hillary/Condi race, all the better. Not much we can do about that. Except try to hold their feet to the fire when they leave out the more realistic choices.

I wouldn't discount that the GOP is behind a lot of the Hillary-talk too. Keeps the Clinton-haters scared and in lock-step, and believing that the Democrats are everything the GOP says we are (since they already believe the Clintons are everything the GOP says they are). I also suspect RoveCo are hoping that enough buzz will make Senator Clinton will think her prospects are stronger than they are. The Repubs would LOVE to run against her.

[Renew Deal]

5. That has to be a joke.

She's not my first choice, but she is the front runner in that group.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. There's not even a field yet.

How can you be the front runner when no one is competing?

[Renew Deal]

19. It's a valid point

But it's not the reality of the situation.

[MrModerate]

7. She's definitely out there, so I have to ask . . .

Not credible because of bad methodology or not credible because you don't want her to be the candidate?

(disclosure: I don't want her to be the candidate. I'm sure she'd lose to almost anyone, and she ain't, in my opinion, presidential timber)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. Bad methodology stemming from a general media assumption

First of all, no Presidential 08 poll can appropriately predict a front runner. People are going to wind up picking the most recognizable name in the group and not really give it much thought. It's complete and total assumption that Hillary is THE front runner simply because people really don't know who's running or what they're about. If the poll were to have been preceded by a name recognition poll, most of those candidates would've received ratings in the low teens. That's not a very good indicator as to who's actually in front at this point - and the truth is nothing can tell you that because it hasn't been determined.

On edit: As for why I single out Hillary - it's because I believe the right wing is using the specter of a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign to rake in donations. Let's face it - a ton of people already hate her and she is already used as their boogeyman. I guarantee every time her name is linked to a presidential run in the media, $50k gets sent into the RNC.

[Renew Deal]

2. Clark

And it might be one of the best races in history. They are not partisan assholes.

[Dinger]

68. I Agree

Might even be a clean campaign? (almost)
How refreshing...
I can dream can't I?

[beyurslf]

4. Yawn. McCain will be 72 by then. And Rudy is pro gay rights and pro choice

[Renew Deal]

6. I would love to see Rudy survive a puke primary.

The right wing would go nuts. They hate McCain, just imagine Guliani. He lived with two gay men while he was seperated from his wife.

[JI7]

10. i don't think many of them know about this stuff

they just view Rudy as the one who was mayor on 9/11 and got all the attention because the President got scared and hid.

but you know someone like Frist or any other conservative will use it against him. i would love to see the debates where he is asked about this. if we can get a few nutcases like keyes or bauer to run you know they will bring this up.

[karynnj]

72. More damaging is telling the press about the divorce before his wife.

I don't think that wins the married women vote.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Don't fool yourself and underestimate the GOP's will to want to win

I strongly believe, that unlike the Democrats, Republicans will do whatever it takes to win. I don't believe that McCain's age or even Rudy's stance on certain issues would stop GOP from voting for a Republican. Hell, they are currently pushing for an amendment to qualify foreign born naturalized citizens for the presidency. Last time I checked, Arnold was pro-choice and pro-gay rights as well.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. I agree with you on that one.

2004 was a good case-in-point. I know quite a few TRUE conservatives (states rights and fiscal responsibility) that still voted for Bush because they realized not voting for him meant the opposite of their agenda would be in office. Bush was better than nothing to them.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

9. and Wesley Clark would handily defeat John "insane" McCain.

:kick:

Clark/Warner - Clark/Dean - Clark/Obama - Clark/Richardson 08'

[vi5]

18. And what makes you believe that?

Don't get me wrong I'd love to see Clark run and win and trounce McCain or any republican. But what possible evidence or proof is there that Clark could beat McCain other than personal preference or gut instinct. McCain is a proven, known, national presence who whether we like him or not (I don't personally care for him) is respected by a lot of independents.

The only plus I see is that the religious right doesn't like McCain because he doesn't pander to them. But I think he could easily pick those votes up with independents who for some reason go gaga over him.

Remember, DU is not the country. It's not even CLOSE to being indicative of the rest of the country.

[FrenchieCat]

23. The question is

Who HAS THE BEST CHANCE against McCain. Not who would positively win against McCain.

It's a poll, so people are free to express who they think would be the best Dem nominee.

Those picking Clark are probably doing so because they believe that there are the most similarities between the two in terms of perception. The first perception is that McCain would be a strong leader and would be strong on defense. The second Perception is that McCain tends to do what he believes and not what is politically expedient (although I don't see him that way). McCain is considered a maverick by many, no politics as usual (although I don't attribute so much credit to McCain).

[vi5]

29. I understand...I"m still curious why so many people pick Clark..

Like I said, I don't like McCain. I think his only strength is in not actually being beholden to the religious right, but that becomes a flaw when you kneel before the rest of your party who ARE beholden to them.

I'm just curious as to why people think he would have the best chance against McCain since I just don't see it, despite liking Clark very much myself.

In the instance that McCain is the nominee, running someone who is seen similarly (assuming the perception of Clark as a maverick, military vet, no bull on economics, etc. can fully take hold), McCain is a known commodity and as we saw last time around, many people vote for the devil they know rather than the one they might not know as well.

This time around I'm convinced we will have the best chance with someone the least like the republican nominee not one who can compete on their turf. I didn't think so before November, but I definitely think it now.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Well, let me try to answer your question this way,

Dems picked Kerry in '04 because many were told that he was the most electable, But was he really?

What did that really mean--Most electable?

I don't think that Dems really waited to come up with an answer to that one. Kerry's military service was scant compared to Clark's, so that could not have been what made Kerry most electable. Kerry senate record was always going to be an issue, so that is not what made Kerry most electable. Kerry being from Massachusetts couldn't have made him most electable. Kerry's charisma didn't make him electable either (cause perception was that he lacks a bit in that department). Kerry's vote for the IWR didn't make him electable. So why was he handed that label?

I can only see that many interpreted Kerry as "Most Electable" because he appeared to be a safe choice as a veteran career politician, was supposed to be a strong closer, and appeared to have both the foreign policy and domestic experience required for the job.

Bottomline, our analysis was really shitty, and many went along with the Iowa decision that ran all of the candidates but Clark.

Many are now choosing Clark maybe because they understand better what electable means from a GE perceptive. Many may now believe more than before that Clark is sincere about his beliefs as a Democrat. Perhaps, many more now understand that Clark would have been a better vote-getter for the Dems based on what the election issues were; National Security and values. Many see Clark as one that can get the votes of Red States, Independents, and Republicans better than others potential candidates. Many see Clark as "not politics as usual". Many understand that Clark is our strongest National Security Dem who could best go toe to toe with a strong defense opponent such as McCain. Many now may better understand that the Republicans were trying to get rid of Clark during the primaries for a reason. Maybe some understand that you can't compete against an opponent if you can't match his strengths, which also happens to be the main issue of the election. Many now understand that Dems are seeing as weak on defense and you can't avoid that subject, but instead, it must be met head on. Many maybe now realize that in order to beat the Republicans, their strength must be put on the table, discredited, and then our own issues can be then placed on that same table. Some now realize that Clark is the one willing and able to cut pentagon pork and use the funds to fund Democratic programs.

Shall I go on?

[vi5]

47. No, those are all valid points....

Particularly as they related to Kerry. I myself was one of the many fooled into taking that road, which is why I'm being more open to other ideas and possibilities.

I still think Clark would face an incredibly massive uphill battle, but there is a lot that can happen in the next 3 and a half years so I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong.

[bowens43]

22. You do remember the primaries don't you?

McCain would easily defeat Clark. Clark isn't looked upon favorably by the Democratic base.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Clark isn't looked on favorably by you.

It's always better when one speaks for oneself.

Your conclusion is your own, but I don't see any backup for this statement as to it's generality. The Democratic base is made up of many factions. Dems don't all think the same, and I don't believe that Clark is disliked by as many as you think (wished?)in the Democratic base.

[vi5]

30. Well the flip side is he is looked upon favorably by me....

..but I still don't think he has a good shot at winning the presidency. There are waaaaaay too many factors working against him. I could be wrong and I'll always hope to be proven wrong when I'm skeptical of dem chances at anything.

I like him. I might even vote for him in a primary. But I think he would still be a very, very tough sell. More so even than Hillary (who I most definitely DO NOT want to run and who I most definitely DO NOT care for).

[FrenchieCat]

36. You should provide the reasons for your statement

as to why you are saying what you are saying. You make points, but do not offer any details.

Why would he be a tough sell?

How would he be a harder sell than Hillary?

What factors does he have working against him?

Why wouldn't he have a good shot at winning the presidency?

Thanks.

[vi5]

48. The main liability is that he has no political experience....

That is no political experience as most people know it. Just as most people like to bitch about taxes and government while at the same time using government programs and all manner of things that utilize our tax dollars, I firmly belive that people feel the same way about "politicians". People say they don't like them and want an outsider but I don't trust that they would ever act upon their words. So while someone who is perceived (emphasis on perceived) as McCain is would appeal to people by virtue of the fact that he is a politician with political experience but who bucks the system, Clark would be perceived as someone who is completely outside the political system as america knows it (ie. governer, senator, congresperson, etc.). I'm not saying I think this is a smart way of thinking, just that I believe the reality is that many if not most americans feel that way.

Hillary is a proven commodity to people. They know where she stands and she's proven it (for better or for worse) with actual votes cast and legislation drawn.

None of what any of us are talking about can be proven or disproven. All any of us are going by is our gut and this is what my gut tells me. Again, as I responded above I'll be happy to be proven wrong. But right here and right now this is what I think.

[fujiyama]

63. I don't think

a majority of the base even had much of a chance to look at Clark - favorably or unfavorably.

He entered late and I thought it was a so so campaign.

He's improved a lot since then, especially when it comes to making political speeches. He did a great job campaigning for Kerry and other Dems.

[Texas_Kat]

20. Sorry, I'm not stunned

I like H Clinton and think she's doing a good job in New York. I also think she already knows what this poll points out. She won't win a general election in 2008.

Take a look at the math (not the emotion).

With a previous poll that stated only 60% of registered voters thought they might vote for a woman for President, she automatically loses 2 of every 5 voters. She would almost have to 'win' every single other voter in order to prevail. Not a chance. The numbers aren't there.

I've never thought of Hillary as a martyr. I think she's too pragmatic for that.

In the meantime, all the speculation will help her keep her Senate seat in NY.

Wes Clark is the ONLY viable candidate for 2008. John 'No Surrender' Kerry hasn't got a chance. JRE proved that he had more 'flash' than 'pan'.

Most of the rest of the currently discussed field are regional candidates.

Clark is the only one left who has national stature and appeals to a coalition of greens, dems, independents and disaffected republicans.

[safi0]

26. I think my Senator Feingold

Could do just as good as anyone. I don't know how he'd do in the South, but I think he could win the West Coast, North East and sweep the Industrial Midwest

[PROGRESSIVE1]

28. kick

Wesley Clark can make a large coaltion.

[Skidmore]

27. Absolutely none of them because

McCain will not head the ticket in 08--Rs will deliver the coup d'grace and finish destroying the tattered remains of his reputation by then. They'll try to run Jeb or Condi.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Possibly,

However, don't underestimate the Republicans. They are more apt to go with the flow that spells a win.

If it appears that they need McCain to win a GE, they will have McCain on the ticket. They are not the type to place the RW idealism of a Jeb Bush on their ticket as opposed to the pragmatic placement of McCain on the ticket if it means a win for them. They learned their lesson with Dole in 1996. I don't see them repeating that booboo.

With BushCo still in control of the WH and shaping current events during the elections of 2006 and 2008, understand that they will do whatever it takes to win. If that means putting a McCain or a Guiliani on the ticket, they won't hesitate. That's how I see it.

[blm]

32. Horseshit Marist Poll. Big surprise.

.

[kaitykaity]

34. McCain dirty. Who knew? (He's a Thug, that's how.)

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11074447.htm

Posted on Mon, Mar. 07, 2005
McCain group got big cable donation

SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain pressed a cable company's case for pricing changes with regulators at the same time a tax-exempt group that he co-founded solicited $200,000 in contributions from the company.

Help from McCain, who argues for ridding politics of big money, included giving the CEO of Cablevision Systems Corp. the opportunity to testify before his Senate committee, writing a letter of support to the Federal Communication Commission and asking other cable companies to support so-called a la carte pricing.

Cablevision is the nation's eighth largest cable provider, serving about 3 million customers in the New York area.

...more

[FrenchieCat]

37. Good!

That needs to go into Archive, for our GE WarRoom, just in case.

And by the way, I do hope that Democrats will have a kickass WarRoom in place and ready to go for the 2006 and the 2008 election. We have been damn weak in this area. This is a key campaign necessity that needs new blood and some real creativity.

I would suggest that many bloggers would be better qualified to handle a WarRoom than would some of these highly paid full of shit Dem consultants.

That's something that we should work on; getting the good doctor Deanr to set up a WarRoom in the virtual world, and actually making candidates read the shit found there. That would be Sweeeeet and effective as all hell!

[kaitykaity]

40. Dean's letting us interview him Friday.

Tell him that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1646901

[FrenchieCat]

46. Thanks!

[karynnj]

73. Keating 5

Savings & Loan scandal that McCain was involved with. (but he's clean and straight talking. - Kerry at the same time was fighting corupt banking. perception needs to meet reality)

[Maine-ah]

38. Clark

I don't know why anyone is bothering w/the whole Hillary thing. There is no way that a woman is going to win. In the future, but not now. I am not trying to be sexist, just honest, (being I'm a female) but this country is still being run by rich old white men. And until that changes, there will never be a woman as president and that includes kindasleezy rice.

[Guaranteed]

39. If they run McCain, we have to run Hillary.

We won't have a choice.

[FrenchieCat]

51. how come?

[cosmokramer]

55. If we run Hilary, we will lose...and we DO have a choice.

[Guaranteed]

57. I hate Hillary. I think we will lose if we run her, no matter what.

I don't WANT to run her.

But, if they run McCain, she's our best shot because of her name recognition and political presence. She's the only one we have who'd even have the slightest chance against him.

[IndianaGreen]

58. On the contrary, I think Hillary will beat any Republican in 2008

The real question remains, why would we want someone like Hillary to be the nominee, much less the President?

[saltpoint]

41. The popularity of Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani --

-- reflect name recognition and celebrity vibe, and not political viability.

The Republican "base" is appalled by Giuliani because he is pro-Choice and pro-civil unions, etc. They salute and respect his "toughness" when the Trade Towers went down but he's a one-hit wonder & isn't going anywhere in the Republican Party from this point on.

Hillary Clinton won't have to worry about losing to John McCain in the general election because she's going to get her right-leaning hindend kicked in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary by Edwards, Bayh, and Feingold, and maybe others.

You can't finish 4th or lower in Iowa and last long as a fund-raising viable candidate for the party's nomination.

[fujiyama]

64. I agree

I think her seat is virtually safe. I even think she'll beat Guiliani in a statewide race at this point. Two points is nothing and shows that Guiliani isn't quite the wonder boy in NY itself. Granted in a presidential race, she'd get her ass kicked though.

She'll win by a bigger margin than she did in '00. It looks like Dems will also take the governor's seat - looking like Spitzer will win easilly.

[saltpoint]

67. Hi, fujiyama. Good news about Spitzer --

-- and it would be just fine with me if a Democrat sat in the governor's chair in NY.

More power to E. Spitzer!

[karynnj]

71. Not against Guliani

-He told the press he was divorcing his wife before he told her
-After he separated from his wife, he lived with 2 gay friends - nothing wrong and no one in NYC cared, but how will this play in homophobic parts of the country.
-At a NYC annual function which I think raised money for charity, Guilani as part of the entertainment was in drag. Good NYC fun, the pictures will not help in Bible belt primaries.

[WI_DEM]

42. We know who will win every poll on DU

but it would be interesting if they put a wider array of candidates in the real sample ballots.

[ZootSuitGringo]

43. Many in the real world don't know Gen. Clark,

But many on Du do. Maybe that's the difference.

Clark needs some exposure, if you ask me.

[WI_DEM]

44. maybe so.

[faithfulcitizen]

74. i totally agree with you there....

but if he gets it, there's no stoppin him. ;)

[LittleClarkie]

52. That's why I'm somewhat heartened by who came in SECOND

Hee hee!

[Clark Bar]

45. "Which Dem as the nominee would have the best chance against McCain in '08

Clark is my man as he was in 2004.

[Jai4WKC08]

50. Poll results FYI

The article Frenchie links to contained a link to a .pdf file. I hate .pdf files. But I was able to find the results in html, in case anyone is curious:


Question Wording: If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are:

Democrats February 2005

Hillary Clinton ...... 39%
John Kerry .......... 21%
John Edwards ...... 15%
Joe Biden ............. 5%
Wesley Clark ......... 4%
Russ Feingold ........ 2%
Bill Richardson ....... 2%
Evan Bayh ............ 1%
Mark Warner ......... 1%
Tom Vilsack ........ <1%
Undecided .......... 10%

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/usapolls/hc050308.htm

There are some other interesting questions and results at the link. For example, some 87% of Republicans think their party is "headed in the right direction." Yeah, I know some of that is a function of their having "won" the last election. But still, when you consider the opposition, even among Repubs, to the war, the deficit, proposed changes to SS, it's sort of mind-boggling that such a high percentage think they're headed in the right direction. Well, no one here ever said Repubs don't put great stock in winning.

Fwiw, 56% of Democrats thought our party is headed in the right direction.

I also thought it was interesting that 52% of independents thought the Democrats are headed in the WRONG direction, but 56% of them thought the Republicans are too. Since those are both majorities, there MUST be some overlap. Makes ya kind of wonder what direction they're looking for.

[joeprogressive]

53. However, a majority of Americans think US headed in the wrong direction

Go figure.

[Wabbajack]

54. All due respect

but Wes Clark has never won ANYTHING other than the Oklahoma primary by narrow margin.

[derby378]

56. And we have certain DLC 527s to thank for that

They helped torpedo Dean in Iowa and New Hampshire, thus giving Kerry extra momentum.

[ZootSuitGringo]

60. Is that crying I hear?

[ZootSuitGringo]

59. "with all due respect"

Clark won a fucking war, and that's what election 2008 will be.

CHECKMATE!

[fujiyama]

62. Clark

but we'd still lose.

McCain's still popular among many moderates and even self described liberals, for whatever reason.

Even the whoring for Bush didn't turn them off from him.

He has what seems like almost a cult of personality. People think he's some kind of political rock star or God (same goes with Powell). It's not the same as it is with our DU allegiences with Dean or Clark or whomever. My guess is a majority of the public could never tell who Clark even is, but more could identify who McCain is.

McCain has broad support out there. He'd be very formidable.

That said, I don't think he'll get the nomination. He seems to have made up with Bush, but I think there's still some animosity. I don't think he's the establishment choice.

[SLJ1992]

65. Support Kerry 08 Wristbands

We just found a great website http://www.supportkerry08.com . They are selling Support Kerry 08 wristbands and bumper stickers for just $1.00. They are awesome! Let's push this movement and let's see people on every street corner wearing these just like the Lance Armstrong band. KERRY '08!

[itzamirakul]

66. I don't like any of them

right along now....

Bill Clinton is breaking my heart being such good friends with the Bushes. It's like he is just plain shitting in our faces.

[gasperc]

69. this assumes McCain can get the nomination

alot of independents and dems were able to vote for McCain in the 2000 primaries that won't exist in 2008. The hard right totally controls the party. Gulianni is not Bush and his backtracking to appeal to conservatives won't work, he might get the vice nod though.

[karynnj]

70. If Kerry were against him, McCain's own book would argue against him

In McCain's book, he describes the Pow/MIA work that he and Kerry (and all the other Senate Vets worked on. Kerry, by McCain's description comes across as unbelievably patient and very good at creating a plan that let them reach a unanimous decision. Kerry also succeeded in keeping McCain from blowing up - for which McCain thanks him.

McCain's temper against the very cool Kerry would not be an advantage. Kerry when angry simply seems to get more articulate and eloquent.

Remember the 18 point lead is after a recent loss preceded by a smear campaign. McCain has gotten largely positive press. He would come into a general election at least somewhat damaged by a primary. If Kerry is the candidate, it will be because he was able to resolve and put away to at least some degree the swift boat nonsense and done something creative and positive over the next 3 years. If this doesn't happen, he won't be the candidate - so the match up is moot.