why can't the democrats find a candidate that can win the presidential election?

Answer 1

Al Gore almost won! John Kerry was not too far. It's not that their condidates cann't win; it's just that they have bad luck!

Answer 2

Well, let's see. Democrats won in 1976, 1992, and 1996. There's a very strong possibility that if the Supreme Court hadn't illegally stopped the Florida recount (read Vincent Bugliosi's "The Betrayal Of America" for an objective look at the legalities), a Democrat would have won in 2000.

Now let's look at 2004, without even touching on what might or might not have happened in Ohio. Bush had proved early on that he wasn't a leader, and then went on to use 9/11 as an excuse to prove his dubious manhood to his father. His policies benefited only a small percentage of Americans, so in theory any Democrat should have been able to beat him. And yet we found one of the least inspiring Democrats in the country (who still, I should point out, received more votes than any losing candidate in history).

In 2008, Bush and his cronies will have shot themselves in the foot so often that a strong progressive Democrat should win.

Answer 3

specific, there have been the two Democratic and Republican primaries in 2012. while there is an incumbent President working for re-election, his occasion's primaries are frequently professional forma. there is many times no (extreme) opposition. A candidate could run unopposed in a state usual, yet that doesn't assure they're going to win the nomination. Reagan grew to become into from California, so he grew to become into possibly going to win that state's usual regardless. for this reason, his opponent(s) would possibly not have bothered working against him in that state. All federal elections are held on the same day national.

Answer 4

Well the Democrats have a policy problem and a track record that is laughable - This is why you see Lieberman and Hillary moving to the center as whitewashed moderates. ( dont be fooled though once a communist always a communist) The repubicans should be winning by far wider margins than they do but since they dont really have great leadership thats the way it goes. Ronald Reagan could have been President forever without really running or saying much.

Answer 5

The democratic leadership is leaning tooooooooo far to the left for most peoples palates. They've adopted some fringe kook agendas as their own. As have republican leadership adopted the Christian right. Neither party is in my favor, although I agree with bush's tact on terrorism I don't think fighting war in a PC fashion is the right way to handle scumbags that want to kill us.
I dislike congressional and presidential ideas about spending and immigration at this point. We need to secure our damned borders and Congress needs to quit spending money like out of control Paris Hilton wannabes.

Answer 6

This coming election they probably will due to the current image of republicans. Not only that, but the Republicans are having trouble finding a solid candidate themselves.

Answer 7

They are in a paradox. If they oppose the war, their base is happy, but most people see them as weak on defense. If they support the war, they look strong on defense, but their base is pissed. Until they can find a way out of this paradox, they are screwed.

Answer 8

Getting harder to find intelligent people willing to undergo the scrutiny that goes along with the position.

Answer 9

Because most people in the U.S. won't vote for a terrorist supporter.

Answer 10

It's aweful hard to polish dog doo doo!