2007-12-28 07:52:35 · 35 answers · asked by tom the plumber 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Only if he gave the other candidates a ride in his Caddy.
2007-12-28 07:58:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Ted Kennedy could not even beat Jimmy Carter in 1980 when the country was a mess. Outside of his home state he is considered a joke at best, a murderer by most. Whatever good Kennedy once did, has long been lost by the caricature that he has become.
2007-12-28 07:56:44 · answer #2 · answered by psycmikev 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Remember John Kerry and the Swift Boat people? What happened at Chappaquiddick is a true story, so Kennedy wouldn't stand a chance. I'm a Democrat and I don't know how he keeps getting re-elected to the Senate. I guess people would rather have him in Washington than driving in Massachusetts.
2007-12-28 08:01:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hell No! Because the whole Kennedy family was immoral, self serving, pathological liars whom had at that point in time what the people of this country was focused on attaining for their selves and looked up to the ones who had it and that was money. The inheritance that that whole clan left this world when they dropped dead was "The complete lack of good values!
2007-12-28 08:00:20 · answer #4 · answered by Tina Zecca 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Kennedy is a prime examply of what is wrong with Congress. Too many useless people staying way past their prime.
He has been in office almost as long as Fidel castro, and looks just as aged.
2007-12-28 08:18:08 · answer #5 · answered by Barry auh2o 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I doubt it, although he did give Jimmy Carter a run for his money in the 1980 Democratic primary. Although his showing there may indicate that he had put Chappaquiddick behind him in enough voters' minds (and many of today's voters weren't even born then), the fact that he's older now than Ronald Reagan was when he was elected to his SECOND term would work against him.
2007-12-28 08:06:04 · answer #6 · answered by aida 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
exciting theory, yet barring the Undertaker has a significant harm, i think of Taker is desperate for an prolonged identify reign that ought to take him ubtil next years wrestlemania the place he ought to lose his first tournament and the identify and definitely retire. yet I heard rumors that Kennedy is going to feud with HHH who likely stands out as the champ come WM and taker to feud with Batista or enormous Daddy V
2016-10-20 05:02:55 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ron Paul has a better chance!
He's tried and failed in the past. Teddy is a dinosaur and is totally our of touch! I can't believe he keeps getting reelected to the Senate!
2007-12-28 07:56:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I believe that with right campaign team it is possible. Even if his personal life has been public, along with all his mistakes and misfortune. Keep in mind he is a "kennedy", american royalty(or at least the closest thing we have to it). Not to mention the huge impact he has had on our(and our parents) generations legacy.
2007-12-28 08:15:42 · answer #9 · answered by John F 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Plumber. That's funny. It's what we called a freshly qualed pilot in a squadron, a plumber.
Kennedy would have to answer questions that he would rather stay unasked and have to explain situations better forgotten. Plus, his age and health would be as much of an issue as anything else..
2007-12-28 07:58:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. Ted Kennedy is better where he is. He is a very effective senator. I think the primary reason he wouldn't win is because he works so hard for social programs to help the disenfranchised. That isn't popular with people who want to keep all their money and yours too. Note: I haven't even touched on the scandals.
2007-12-28 07:58:22 · answer #11 · answered by CarbonDated 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋