What the hell?
Not in a partisan context. If you had watched the Kerry-Weld debates for the Senate, you would know that Kerry is a very strong debater indeed. The issue is whether Kerry can sell class warfare light and his war record to cut into the Bush zones. At this juncture, Kerry is clearly Bush's strongest opponent. I just don't yet believe in Edwards as having the necessary elements.
People just don't vote for Senators over executive branch guys.
Has a sitting President ever lost to a Senator?
I'm not sure, but I don't think it has ever happened.
I'm not sure that a sitting Senator without prior experience as a Governor has ever won the White House, period.
Can you think of a counter example?
I guess it depends on who the opponent is and how much people are paying attention.
Kerry can project a strong and self-assured facade in debates but his arguments don't hold up under the sort of close examination we can expect during a campaign for the White House.
This man is so full of hot air, contradictions and flimsy arguments I predict Bush will kick his sorry butt in debates.
You think so. I think he's the easiest based on geography, personality, being a insider Washington guy, and temperment(not like Dean's, but has one). As for his war record, he also turned his back on the country while our guys were still there.
Clark's tough since he's unpredictable. Gep's gone, but he would have been tough. Dean still can be scary, although he may have beaten himself for being a jackass. Edwards I think would have been very tough....in 2008 or 2012.