No, don't worry. I don't believe this election will be a landslide defeat for the democrats. It will be for my party -- the Republican party -- and there is not much we can do except hope for a weak nominee for the Democrats. Here's how we think (and yes, this is a Rovian ploy to get Hillary elected because she is fatally flawed candidate, or not):
Fold over the more...(wanted to be different).
So, from the perspective of a staunch conservative Republican (me) here is how your candidates lineup (because you do care and you did ask):
Policies
We Fear: John Edwards
We're Not Sure: Barack Obama
We Condone: Hillary Clinton
Defeatability (it's a word now, dammit)
On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the "most defeatable":
John Edwards: 6
I believe his nomination would bring out the conservative base more than any other nominee. His policies in every single area are very liberal and he doesn't hide this fact. That sort of bold straight-talk makes conservatives nervous because it would be a potentially lifestyle-altering POTUS. That said, his nomination would be a fight to the death and the loser of the election would require years to regain a future electorate.
Barack Obama: 9
I am going to throw out the proverbial, "he's a young, inexperienced candidate" here. But, I do not believe you can toss that to the side as nonsense. There is plenty of room for the character of Barack Obama to be molded, spun, created, etc. into something that is not favorable. I have plenty of friends who are politically-inactive Republicans who ask me, "Who is that guy and where did he come from?" That's not a question you want voters asking about your nominee because the Republican party will then have a ton of room to answer it in every way and style possible. Every slip-up will be fodder and his lack of experience paves a road of slip-ups. Personally, I am hoping for his nomination because then I believe not all hope is lost in my party. Take that as you will but I am just trying to be honest here.
Hillary Clinton: 4
Most people on my side are shocked she's even a candidate. However, that is where her electability lies. Don't get me wrong here, I personally think she'd be a horrible president and hate the thought of another President Clinton but that doesn't change the fact that she has alot going for her in terms of her husband, her "experience", her ability to wrap the MSM around her finger and the fact that she hasn't gone back on her Iraq voting record. That gives some of us conservatives hope that she understands the nature of the war we are in and wouldn't just pull our troops out for the sake of pulling the troops out. I have blogged previously about her relationship with the Reverend Graham and that will no doubt bring voters across the aisle. She has the "Clinton" charisma that makes some of us sick but still works on others. She is where the potential landslide defeat of Republicans comes in. I'm not saying she's a shoe in. I hope not. But, in terms of electability she makes people like me nervous.
I didn't mention the other candidates for obvious reasons. It's nothing personal but let's be real.
What is interesting to me is how I think when I turn the tables and put myself in the shoes of a liberal. If I were a liberal I'd want the most liberal candidate. In that case it would be John Edwards but I don't think he has the most promise of winning the election. I find this interesting because I feel the exact opposite as a conservative; meaning, the most conservative candidate would also be the most electable. The 2 sort of go hand-in-hand where I sit. Maybe it is just my partisanship getting in the way there. I don't know.
Now, the whole Kucinich/Ron Paul ticket is hilarious. I mean, talk about everyone being a loser. Kucinich would invite the Aliens from Pluto to join our planet and then Ron Paul would have them executed for not being white. It would make a great show, that's for sure. Almost like a British comedy.
Blazing Saddles meets Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind.