Larry Sabato: Bill Richardson unbeatable in general election

[seasat]

VOA news did a profile on Bill Richardson today and political prognosticator Larry Sabato stated that Richardson would easily beat any Repug in the general election.

"He is unbeatable. It is amazing the Democrats haven't recognized that," says political scientist Larry Sabato. He says Richardson would make a formidable nominee in the November 2008 general election. Sabato says not only is he a proven winner in a western state, but his Hispanic roots appeal to an interest group that has growing electoral strength.
...
Sabato directs the University of Virginia's Center for Politics and adds, "Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson. He is perfectly positioned."

In taking positions on issues, Richardson has not entirely adopted either party's dogma. For example, his support of gun ownership rights appeals to western conservatives who often vote Republican. Yet, on the presence of American troops in Iraq, he has adopted the stance of his own party's left-wing core of support. He explains, "We've got, right now, 160,000 troops. And that includes the 30,000 extra with the surge . I would pull them all out."
...
Stuart Rothenberg tracks national politics as the founder of a prominent national political newsletter. He comments, "His problem is there is no obvious opening right now in the Democratic contest. Eighty-five percent of the Democrats say they're content with the field."

IMHO, the second paragraph is one key as to why Richardson hasn't moved up beyond 4th place. He doesn't really fit a set constituency within the party. He's basically running as himself instead of greatly adjusting his positions to fit a large voting block. It's one of the reasons I support him. I know what I'm buying when I vote for him and have questions about some of the other candidates who've greatly shifted their views.

He had a shot early in the race before the media narrative was set but hurt himself with poor performances in the early debates and an interview. However, he has vastly improved his performance and has won praise from former critics for recent debates, speeches, and interviews. His plan for immediate withdrawal from Iraq has lost some of it's pull because of the current media reporting and White House spin that the situation in Iraq has improved. The point still remains though that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us out now.

He needs a really good performance in this next debate and for one of the higher polling candidates to stumble to get a shot. He still remains the Democrat with the lowest "vote against" numbers in several polls and has the second lowest unfavorable rating in Rasmussen polls (Gravel is lowest but it is because of name recognition).

[KittyWampus]

1. No matter how good Richardson looks on paper- he has communication trouble

He SUCKS during the debates and IMO, would never master the counterattacks against GOP smears.

I was set to support Richardson some time ago until watching his debate performances.

Some people have a very sharp/quick wit. Richardson just doesn't have that naturally.

[DuaneBidoux]

13. And explain to me exactly how those same characteristics stopped Shurb?

He's much smarter than Shrub and he would lose no state that Kerry lost plus gain Florida and NM, two heavily hispanic states that would have put Kerry over he top.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Umm, Bill Richardson won't have the Supreme Court to appoint him

[bigdarryl]

20. so we are picking a president based on debates well Kerry won all the debates....

and look what happened

[janx]

24. Au contraire--

Richardson can be very witty indeed.

[nickgutierrez]

2. He would be a fantastic VP choice.

Unfortunately, I don't think he has the necessary charisma to carry the front end of a ticket. I don't like the fact that things like that matter, but they do.

[Mojambo]

5. I've long said he'd be a perfect fit as number 2.

He's the political equivalent of a utility player in baseball. He brings so many different attributes to a ticket that he can fill in everywhere.

And the VP slot doesn't bring with it the ridiculous charisma requirements, as you mentioned.

[bigdarryl]

19. FORGET IT HE DOESN'T WANT IT

[Lucinda]

34. I agree.

[Peregrine Took]

3. If Gore doesn't enter the race pretty soon - we defintely see Bill as our next

choice.

[Mojambo]

4. I could vote for Richardson with little reservation

But I don't really buy the author's contention that he is any more unbeatable than any other Democrat not named Hillary Clinton.

[bluestateguy]

6. He is not a good campaigner

He has the resume, the right issue positions and the right personal profile, but his campaign skills leave a lot to be desired. he makes a lot of gaffes, is often boring and policy wonky and is a mediocre debater.

Campaigns matter, especially now because the whole process takes so damn long.

[pinto]

7. I think our eventual presidential candidate will win in '08. I am supporting Richardson in primaries

Agree he would have broad appeal in a general election, has a good record as a federal player and state executive, yet has done poorly in the sound bite debates. He tends to be an understated policy guy, which isn't selling well these days. He knows the ways things work in DC, knows that negotiation is a viable tool. And is clear on our withdrawal from the Iraq debacle. I back his primary run at this point for those qualities.

If he has a break through moment or two, media wise, we may see a tighter race.

[TwilightGardener]

8. I would certainly vote for Richardson if he was the nominee--I like the guy.

I think he's very well-qualified. He's just one very concrete example of the resume not making the President. You've got to have those intangibles: charisma, Presidential looks, charm, and political cunning. Nonetheless, I'd be happy to see him in any capacity in the next administration.

[janx]

25. Three out of four of the intangibles you listed

are REALLY depressing. The first three, in fact.

[Adelante]

27. He has quite a lot of charm and political cunning, actually

He could still bring on a surprise, I think, because there are an awful lot of voters who find charm and presidential looks less important than a down to earth demeanor. He's got it, if enough people get to see it, and his accomplishments and experience won't hurt.

[blue sky at night]

9. personally I think if Hillary gets the nod........

we are fucked; either the repugs will win or she will and either way we are: see the above.

[mwb970]

18. Hey, this thread is about Richardson.

There are lots of anti-Hillary threads for you to post to instead of changing the subject here.

[Colobo]

10. Richardson has the potential. His problem is how he projects himself.

[Captain Hilts]

11. He and his resume are great. But he's been so inarticulate in the debates...

I was really disappointed. I think he's the best qualified candidate we've had in a long, long time.

I wish he'd pick it up. I really do. I'd like to vote for him. He was my 2nd choice after Clark.

[bklyncowgirl]

12. Do the primaries as run today favor the wrong traits in a candidate?

Debates in which the ability to frame a sound bite is more important than depth of knowledge.

Emphasis on who has the most money as opposed to who has the best ideas.

Not to mention looks uber alles.

All of this summed up and amplified by the Greek chorus of the DC press corps chatting up how well the candidate's expressed views conform to their own conventional wisdom as echoed in the cocktail parties of Washington DC.

As a result the top contenders in the Democratic field for what is really the world's biggest executive job have no experience in running ANYTHING.


Richardson's been a Governor (executive experience) a diplomat and a member of Congress. Sure, being a good debater is important but would anyone in their right mind consider the Shrub a good debater? He won (or IMHO got close enough to steal) the presidency twice. Besides, Richardson might well be quite good in one on one debates. I remember being underwhelmed by Howard Dean in the 2004 Democratic beauty contests but when he debated Ralph Nader he left poor Ralph stammering inanities like "Republicans are people too."
I wonder what Dean would have done in a one on one with George W. Bush?

If I hire a janitor I sort of want to hire someone who's been a successful janitor before or who has closely related experience and training. Why should it be any different when hiring a president? I'm supporting Richardson for that reason unless Al Gore gets in.

[seasat]

21. Your point is made here by what threads people respond most to in GDP.

I posted Richardson's policy speech on Latin America the other day. He had proposed some interesting and controversial ideas such as expanding the UN security council to include new permanent members with one being from Latin America. There was only one response other than my posts. However, when I post a thread such as this that deals with no real policy, there are over 20 responses. The threads with the most responses are usually based on electability arguments, polls, or non sequitur attacks. It's no wonder that reality television has such high ratings.

[bklyncowgirl]

43. Maybe we should view the primaries as one long reality show

Candidates engage in pointless activity followed by deeply personal soul searching (or pissing and moaning) in front of the camera.

Best of all we get to vote someone off the island every week--or since this is too important to leave to mere voters, a panel of mainstream media pundit types would do the voting.

Actually, that sounds very much like what's going on now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Reminds Me Of President Glenn And President Kerrey

You know the first man to orbit the Earth and the second Medal Of Honor winner to serve in the Senate since Reconstruction...

The professor should know better...

Reminds me of how a football team that looks good on paper doesn't perform up to par...The axiom is games are won on grass and not on paper...

Same thing with politics....

[wiseguy182]

15. he's one of the most qualified

I would agree that he is one of the most qualified: house rep, Secretary of Energy under Clinton, now two-term governor.

But also, he has the potential to flip a lot of swing states with heavy Hispanic population, including two big ones: Florida and Texas (Texas may still be a stretch) also Colorado, and obviously New Mexico.

It's a shame he is currently polling so low, should be higher.

[smalll]

16. 21st Century America may BE fat, but it'll never elect a fat President /nt

[wiseguy182]

17. swing votes

I do believe Richardson possesses a good chance at picking up a fair share of swing votes, something we could have used more of in 2000 and 2004.

I hope he at least gets a VP nod or Cabinet post.

[saltpoint]

22. Gov. Richardson would make an excellent president. He certainly is

from an entirely different school of adult problem-solving than the current president.

I'm sticking with John Edwards, but if my guy's out and Bill Richardson's in, I'd be happy to cast a vote for the man.

He brings a lot to the table, IMO. Energy adept, foreign diplomatic prowess and knowledge, obvious likability, bilingual command, and governor of a west-of-the-Mississippi state.

Not bad at all.

[janx]

23. Hi again...

:hi:

He's the best qualified, no doubt!

[wiseguy182]

26. governor/senator

If the old addage that governors win presidential elections and senators typically don't holds true, then Richardson could be our best choice. Of course, there have been a few exceptions to that rule, but pretty few and far between. I guess it's because people think that governors are kind of like the presidents of their states, and in that sense more qualified than senators.

If there's one republican gaining momentum, it's Huckabee, one of the few governors on the GOP side. I doubt he'll win, but could get a VP nod. If we put up two senators (again) like we did in 00 and 04, and they have, say Romney and Huckabee, it could spell bad news.

[Stop Cornyn]

28. Unbeatable in a general election? Hell yeah! General election for US Senator from New Mexico!!!!!!!!

[Rowdyboy]

30. Its hard to explain why he's gotten so little traction.....He is probably the best qualified

of our candidates and the most electible. Unfortunately, he really isn't a great "candidate" or debater and he doesn't have the enormous finacial advantages of Clinton or Obama but-witht he right scenario, he could emerge as the ABC candidate (Anybody But Clinton).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Obama's And Edwards' Campaigns Would Have To Implode Too And That's Not Remotely Realistic

But yeah, it's (theoretically) possible..

[Rowdyboy]

32. Actually I disagree with you on this.....Neither Obama nor Edwards is performing

up to expectations right now and Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are infamous for slapping down front runners and elevating nobodies. An upset 2nd by Richardson, Biden or Dodd wouldn't surprise me in the least. And a 2nd in Iowa is a big time ticket to national fame.

Sure, either Clinton, Obama or Edwards is LIKELY to be the nominee but Democrats can surprise you when you least expect it. It wouldn't be the first time.

[janx]

33. Richardson just needs to relax a little more in front of cameras.

He has no problem doing this in New Mexico, but in the interviews I've seen of him elsewhere, he looks nervous and serious.

[Rowdyboy]

35. He really tends to look stiff and uncomfortable.... When he's at ease he really

comes across well so I've been disappointed by his debate performances so far. Still, he has the background and substance-he just needs a break.

[janx]

36. I know! He's normally instantly likeable and at ease!

His experience and policy positions are exactly in line with what people on the DU boards seem to want, but they can't get past the image factor--probably because Bill needs to chill a bit!

When's the next debate?

[Rowdyboy]

37. Its very soon, sometime in early November I think, but Richardson needs

more than one debate. Somehow he needs to catch on fast, to blow everyone away by finishing 3rd in Iowa. That would give him enough publicity to have a small chance of overcoming the institutional problems facing a real outsider like Richardson. Clinton has such powerful institutional support, and Obama has so much money, Edwards is so well known that its hard to see how Bill can steal the spotlight long enough to win the nomination. He could do it but the odds are truely slim.

[janx]

38. I can't support Clinton or Edwards (IWR), and I like Obama

the best personally, but Obama's campaign has screwed up of late and he doesn't have as much experience as Richardson does.

[Rowdyboy]

39. I would happily support ANYONE to get those thugs out of the White House

Its a sickness, but I don't care, just get them out.

[Larynx Oblation]

41. The Anti-Biotic

is not just anyone. Those vile, odious, scum of the Earth criminals are being tossed out come November 2008.
We have to be careful of who we put into the big howzen. Just because he or she is a Dem, does not make them immune from carrying the same disease.

[Rowdyboy]

42. You're quite right but I offer one caveat......The worst Democrat I ever met stank less than....

the finest Republican. Dems certain carry their own personal cooties, but nothing like the filth infesting government today.

[Larynx Oblation]

44. Caveat In-Turn

I hear what you are saying Rowdyboy. But as long as we have corporate money in the pockets of Dem's we will never see a true representative for the people. There are a few candidates in the pool that do not own their collective souls.
Those are the ones I support, regardless!

Any so called media in this country that supports a candidate and claims it to be a front runner only say's this, he or she is a butt-puppet of corporate Amerika who will tow the line.

The only way for this nation to return to forever is through revolution. A revolution against the Plutocracy that we are living under.
Capitalism without restraints is an enemy of the people. I have been ready to rumble for some time now, but the sofa of lethargy that sits in so many living-rooms has delivered us the un-bearable situation we are in.
It will take a radical endeavor, to say the least. An endeavor few are willing to risk and partake.

"Bow down to the one you serve, your going to get what you deserve!" NIN

[wiseguy182]

40. swing states

Richardson's likely ability to flip some swing states is very important and can't be ignored. At this point, I have doubts that Hillary or Edwards could flip swing states. But Richardson has great potential in this area. And we are going to need to some flips. We have to get back New Mexico (which Richards should win easily in) and Iowa for starters, keep New Hampshire, and then flip at least one other for a win. I fear Hillary may be too polarizing and Edwards has already displayed he can't flip states, the only state we flipped last time out was New Hampshire, which has been trending Dem anyways.