And the so-called religious right loses more and more influence every year.
This is true, but you can't deny that social conservatives represent a big part of the GOP base. And they don't like Gingrich much more than they like McCain, Romney, or Giuliani.
Stinger said:
Fiscal conservatives and libertarians as well and even most moderates.
Moderates? Not really. Newt Gingrich made his career by appealing to the fiscally right-wing elements in his party...and unlike, say, Hillary, he hasn't made much of an effort to counter that image as a firebreathing partisan.
Stinger said:
Oh hardly. He's the kind of guy you would want to sit down and have a beer and some wings and talk history.
Heh, well most people probably don't talk history when they enjoy beer and wings. :lol:
He certainly does not seem at all charismatic to me. Certainly not compared to, say, Mitt Romney.
Stinger said:
But way too early to draw any conclusions as to who will or want be in the top slate by next fall.
You are right. These are just my early speculations; the political landscape can and probably will change before the primaries.
Stinger said:
Yes, that's called wishful thinking.
Nah, I try to be objective when assessing the odds. It just seems to me that the Democrats have several very electable candidates to choose from, whereas the Republicans have several unelectable candidates to choose from.
Personally I could live with any of the Republican candidates as president. While they wouldn't be my first choice, they all seem much, much, much better than Bush. I don't feel any particular dislike toward any of them.
Stinger said:
And compared to the Democrats best chance?
If I had to rank the serious candidates or potential serious candidates in order of electability, it would be:
1. John Edwards (He knows how to talk to people and - unfortunately - his message resonates with the voters)
2. Barack Obama (See above, only he has a little less experience.)
3. Bill Richardson (Very Bill-Clintonesque, much moreso than any other candidate running. He's smart and he's extremely qualified. While he isn't as charismatic as #1 and #2, he isn't dislikable. He's my personal choice for the Democratic nomination.)
4. Hillary Clinton (Not particularly likeable, but she's the kind of person who voters always tell pollsters that they'll never elect, then end up electing.)
5. Rudy Giuliani (He's America's mayor and his 9/11 credentials probably will go a long way. But he has a lot of skeletons in his closet and I'm not sure he could turn out his base.)
6. Al Gore (He has something to say to America now...and that's great, but it'll be better for him to do it as a non-politician. If he gets nominated, he'll face the same problems he faced against Bush in 2000.)
7. Mitt Romney (Very charismatic, but unfortunately voters will likely be turned off by his religion. He also risks being attacked from both the left and the right as a flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal. He's my personal choice for the Republican nomination.)
8. John McCain (He would've been a good candidate in 2000, but the Straight Talk Express has already left the station. I don't see any way he could possibly be elected now, given how much he's tied himself to the Iraq War.)
9. Newt Gingrich (Not particularly charismatic, his message will not appeal to voters, and he has plenty of skeletons in his closet. I highly doubt he could be elected.)
Stinger said:
Compared to Obama, their educational backgrounds are similar, Bush beats him on executive experience and leadership.
My point is that "intelligence" and "leadership" are not words that most people would use to describe George W Bush. And yet, there he is in the White House anyway.