Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradisecity
I'd have to say that i dsagree with you here a700. There have been sooooo many undecided voters in the last 2 elections, and I truly think they'd vote for likeability and all those other intangibles we havent seen in a candidate in a while.
|
The candidate needs to be likable and in the center. It's a big country, and it is not taking a hard left turn. The Dems will crash and burn if they think so. Kerry didn't run to the left. In the general election, he ran to the center as best he could. Bush was already embattled and yet Kerry still lost, but he made it close, which was surprising for a Northern liberal. The Dems will be making a serious miscalculation if they run a liberal campaign in the general election. They can govern to the left once they win, but they will not win if they campaign to the left. It would also help if the candidate is from the south, which is why I see Edwards getting at least the second spot on the ticket. Don't be surprised if he takes the top spot. If the Dems want to win, Edwards is their candidate. Issues and substance aside. He's from the south. He's likable and he's good looking. That has been the recipe for Democratic victory in a national election. The country wants change, but the change that they want is more cosmetic than anything. They want to see some new faces in Washington. They don't want another Bush or Clinton. The history of the American electorate is that they rarely vote for sweeping change. The Vietnam War did result in sweeping change in 1968, and the Vietnam War, a stagnant economy and Watergate didn't produce a sweeping change in Washington in 1972. If they run to the left, they'll run themselves off the road.