Presidential "Electabilty" - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

powerclown · 02-22-2007, 10:22 PM

How do you vote in regards to picking your leaders: With your mind or with your heart?
Are you more concerned with their stance on issues, or their charisma, inspiration and energy?

Quote:

Flaw System
Is electability the best way to judge presidential candidates?
by Jonathan Cohn
February 1, 2007

The reaction to Senator Barack Obama's forays into Iowa and New Hampshire last month was nothing short of spectacular. "We originally scheduled the Rolling Stones," New Hampshire Governor John Lynch quipped, "but we canceled them when we figured out that Senator Obama would sell more tickets." Still, the better Obama performed, the more one question began to dog him: Was such a young candidate, particularly an African-American one, electable? "I think he's a serious candidate, but I don't think he has great potential [to win a national election]," one skeptical New Hampshire voter told The New York Times' Adam Nagourney. "No track record, and there are too many guys ahead of him in line."

Of course, electability questions are old hat to Obama's presumptive rival, Senator Hillary Clinton. Since she first began hinting at a run for the presidency, experts and voters alike have been discussing whether she is capable of winning a national election--with mixed results, at best. "The test," longtime Iowa Democratic pol Rob Tully explained recently, "will be whether she can beat the image problem-- the perception out there [among Democrats] that she is not electable among the general electorate."

You can understand why Democratic activists, funders, and voters are dwelling on such questions. They want to win the election--and, given everything that is at stake during a presidential election, there's certainly nothing wrong with that. But will talking about electability actually lead the Democrats to nominate a candidate who is, in fact, electable? Recent experience suggests it may not.

The last time Democrats had to choose a nominee from a large field of candidates, in 2004, voters in the primaries said time and again that they had resolved to follow their minds rather than their hearts. Determined to beat President Bush any way they could, they picked the candidate who they believed stood the best chance of winning in the general election, rather than the candidate they liked best. And, with that in mind, they came up with reasons to reject almost every candidate.

Wesley Clark? He was too much of a political novice to win a general election. Howard Dean? Red staters could never stomach his left-wing extremism. John Edwards? More conservative voters might perceive him as too inexperienced, particularly on foreign policy. Dick Gephardt? Swing voters would associate him with the old, wasteful Democratic Party. Among the leading contenders, that left only John Kerry, who had no similarly glaring flaws. And that's a big reason (though, admittedly, not the only reason) he eventually became the nominee.

No doubt, the political flaws 2004 voters perceived in the other candidates were genuine. Dean's perceived extremism would indeed have been a hard sell down South; Clark really was prone to the stumbles you'd expect of a political rookie. Still, the calculation of voters was curiously one-sided--measuring candidates almost exclusively in terms of their flaws, rather than taking stock of their attributes, as well. It was if a Wall Street analyst sized up a company by examining its liabilities, while disregarding its assets. And the result was a predictably misguided conclusion.

If Kerry lacked the vulnerabilities of some of his rivals, he also lacked their skills. He couldn't win people over with charm or inspiration. And, while he had a bevy of nifty policy proposals, he had no grandiose, overarching message with which to sell them. So when the general campaign got tough, Kerry had no reservoir of public enthusiasm or support on which to draw. And, when the Republicans attacked what was supposedly his best asset--his record of heroism in Vietnam--Kerry didn't have the tools to fight back successfully.

You could plausibly argue that, in the end, Kerry did no worse than his rivals would have--that, given the state of public opinion and the effectiveness of the Republican attack machine, no Democrat could have won in 2004. (For the record, I think either Edwards or maybe even Clark could have done better.) Even so, it's hard to ignore the contrast between the logic that led Democrats to pick Kerry in 2004 and the logic that led them to pick Bill Clinton in 1992--the last time Democrats picked a successful nominee from a crowded field of contenders.

After all, Clinton in 1992 had precisely the sorts of electability problems that would have disqualified him by 2004 standards. He was the governor of a small, backwater state with a well-known history of political cronyism and corruption. And, far more important, he had a well-chronicled record of womanizing--a record that burst into the open right on the eve of the New Hampshire primary.

But when the time came for Democrats to cast their ballots, they embraced Clinton anyway--for the very simple reason that he reached them in a way other candidates didn't. For some, it was his sheer charisma. For others, it was his ability to identify with the anxiety they were feeling. And for more, it was his serious discussion of ideas that held real promise for improving their lives.

The Democrats didn't ignore electability altogether; they were certainly aware of the ways that Clinton's Southern roots and relatively conservative stances on issues like welfare would endear him to swing voters. Still, the Democrats didn't dwell on electability, either. If anything, they ended up voting with their hearts--embracing the candidate they genuinely liked the most. Their thinking was more substantive than strategic. And that led them, naturally, to choose the candidate with the greatest political potential.

In the end, Clinton survived all of the attacks on his character, not just in the campaign but much later in office, because, no matter how intense those attacks became, he always had a reservoir of natural political talent--not to mention a well-constructed political message--that he could parlay into new political support. And because he could do so, he emerged as the most popular Democratic politician of his generation.

We don't know yet which of the 2008 contenders has similar potential. It could be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or maybe John Edwards or even a relative unknown like Tom Vilsack. But one thing is certain: Thinking too hard about electability, in the way we did in 2004, is no way to find out.

Thinking about another Clinton running for President has led me to wonder about how candidates on both sides will be regarded in 2008. Hillary doesn't strike me as overly charismatic or with great vision (yet), but more along the lines of ambitious, ruthless, calculating. Whereas Obama seems to be the rockstar (for now) with all the personal charisma and magentism. Both are in a fierce struggle in the polls and press, with battlelines on just such issues being drawn. This past week we saw Hillary recently looking to tarnish Obama's rockstar image by pulling him into conventional political warfare.

Thoughts?

shakran · 02-22-2007, 11:02 PM

I don't think Clinton has a chance in hell of getting elected. Too many people dislike her, and I don't see her being able to overcome that to a sufficient degree to beat whoever the republicans put up.

Obama, on the other hand, has promise. Sure, he's young and inexperienced. But then old, experienced presidents haven't done such a hot job lately now have they? Obama's smart as hell, and whether you like him or not you have to admit, the guy can give one hell of a speech. He's got the smarts, he's got the charisma, he's got the drive. I think the man's electable, and I think the republican leadership is probably terrified at the prospect of him emerging as the frontrunner.

From what I see the best potential candidate the republicans have so far is Giuliani, and with his marital troubles and the insanity surrounding that (let's face it, it's not very seemly for a presidential candidate to have had his mistress kicked out of the mayor's mansion by his wife), I think even he will have a tough time beating Obama.

I'm encouraged by Fox News Channel's pundits as well. You know they have staffers working tirelessly day and night to dig up any dirt they can on the guy, and the BEST they could come up with was "oh my GOD he smokes Marlboros and didn't tell us! How can we trust him!"

That, plus the natural advantage the democrats will have due to the incompetence of the republicans currently in power (assuming the democratic congress doesn't screw up over the next 2 years and shows us that once in office they know how to start fixing things), will I think make the presidency very within reach of Obama.

host · 02-23-2007, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

How do you vote in regards to picking your leaders: With your mind or with your heart?
Are you more concerned with their stance on issues, or their charisma, inspiration and energy?

Thinking about another Clinton running for President has led me to wonder about how candidates on both sides will be regarded in 2008. Hillary doesn't strike me as overly charismatic or with great vision (yet), but more along the lines of ambitious, ruthless, calculating. Whereas Obama seems to be the rockstar (for now) with all the personal charisma and magentism. Both are in a fierce struggle in the polls and press, with battlelines on just such issues being drawn. This past week we saw Hillary recently looking to tarnish Obama's rockstar image by pulling him into conventional political warfare.

Thoughts?

Here's the link to the OP article:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070101&s=cohn010207

Step back to 1999 and replace the names in powerclown's last question:

Quote:

.....Thinking about another Bush running for President has led me to wonder about how candidates on both sides will be regarded in 2000. George W. doesn't strike me as overly charismatic or with great vision (yet), but more along the lines of ambitious, ruthless, calculating. Whereas Mccain seems to be the rockstar (for now) with all the personal charisma and magentism. Both are in a fierce struggle in the polls and press, with battlelines on just such issues being drawn. ....

....What is revealed about a US of A where 2 Bushes and 2 Clintons hold the presidency for 24....or possibly 28 consecutive years? We know how 18 years and one month has turned out......let us agree to end it at 20, especially considering that the 18 years of one Clinton and two Bushes, also included Quayle, Gore, and Cheney....

The last 18 years were preceded by the presidencies of JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan.... By Nov. 2008, 48 years will have passed since many suspected that JFK's father collaborated with democratic mayor Daley of Chicago to steal the '60 election from Nixon.

The 21 year old voter in the '60 election will be 69 in Nov., 2008. I think we flatter ourselves if we believe we deserve or have the ability to discern which candidate is best to lead the country. As always, we will attract and end up with the candidate that makes it through the nomination and election "process".

In recent posts, I detailed the reporting that describes how republican hopefuls navigate the "process", and how similar the campaign decisions of Reagan, George W. Bush, and now Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee have been, with regard to courting the approval of politically indispensable, southern, white evangelical leaders, with the added dimension of the approval of LaHaye founded, "secret" Council for National Policy, beginning before Reagan's second term....

None of the announced candidates of either party inspire anything in me, other than resignation to the reality that the American electorate is incapable of voting in it's own best interest.
Look at the wisdom of the democrats' decision in Nevada:

Quote:

http://www.nvdems.com/news.php?newsid=754
<img src="http://www.nvdems.com/images_news/754_1.jpg">
FOX News to Host August 2007 Democratic Debate in Reno

RENO, NEVADA AND NEW YORK - FOX News, the Nevada Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project have jointly announced that they will host a 2008 presidential debate, which is expected to attract the top Democratic contenders for President. The debate will be presented live on FOX News Channel (FNC) and FOX News Radio on August 14, 2007 in Reno.

In making the announcement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, “This is more great news for Nevada. I'm happy FOX News will be a partner for the August presidential debate. Western issues will be a major focus of this debate in particular. With FOX News as our partner, candidates will have an opportunity to not only speak to Nevada voters, but voters across the West who will be instrumental to electing a Democratic president in 2008.”

FOX News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes added, “FOX News is proud to be a leader in coverage of the 2008 campaign season and a co-host of this important presidential debate. We look forward to working with the Nevada Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project.”

The Western Majority Project (WMP), another cosponsor of the FOX debate, is a federally registered political action committee......

Quote:

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2007_...13096716791737
Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Fox's Democrat Candidate Presidential Debate

Tom Collins
Chair, Nevada State Democrat Party

Dear Mr. Collins,

I'm very excited about your partnership with Fox News to bring us the first Democrat Candidate Presidential Debate. It may be the only truly fair and balanced debate of the whole primary season. I mean what other network is going to cut away from the debate to give us a quick investigative report into the shady nature of Majority Leader Reid's morning cocoa and doughnut purchases; certainly not CNN, not NBC, not CBS, and not ABC–OK, ABC would probably do it too, and they'd add dramatic recreations involving Osama bin Laden, Sandy Berger, and a shifty looking South American guy in a vicuna coat, but your deal isn't with ABC; it's with Fox, and by god, that's good enough.

It's going to be a fantastic debate. I imagine Brit (he's not a foreigner he just has a not-man's name) Hume will lead the interrogation. Hopefully, Bill O'Reilly will be on the panel too, and if we're lucky, John Gibson will be on hand to tell us which candidates deserve "five in the noggin" for treasonous acts against Christmas….

In any event, we're going to see a lot of great questions asked of the candidates. Questions like:

"Sen. Hussein-Osama, how do we know that you won't set off a homicide bomb at your own inauguration?"

"Gov. Richardson, isn't it true that you refer to your state by using the name of a foreign country?"

"Sen. Clinton, now that you're a lesbian, can the American people be assured that you won't murder any more boyfriends?"

"Sen. Biden, if I told you that Gov. Richardson is actually a Mexican, would you have the guts to render him to Syria?"

"Sen. Edwards, have you given up on your plans to rape the Pope?"

"Sen. Dodd, who among your competitors should be hung for treason along with Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha?"

Of course, it's easy to guess the questions. The real mystery is how Fox will refer to the candidates. Will Hume and company call them the "Democrat candidates" like they did the last time they hosted a debate, or will they refer to them as the "traitorous Democrat candidates," or better yet, the "Demislamunistofascist candidates?"......

....I'm sorry, powerclown, I can't take your thread, or the crop of candidates, or the American electorate all that seriously...

Any serious democratic candidate should have handily beaten Bush/Cheney 2004.....and Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush should never have been nominated, much less elected...

Lahaye, Council for National Policy, and Bob Jones U./South Carolina, and the fair grounds near Philadelphia. Miss., should not be launching sites for serious republican candidacies or "must have" vetting and approval destinations for past or future republican presidential hopefuls.

No other Bushes or Clintons should receive nominations to run for the presidency from any major party. The "process", the "system", and the judgment of too many potential American voters, are broken, IMO. Until all three are repaired, I do not see how the discussion that powerclown is seeking, can take place. Other "tells" that confirm that we have nothing substantial going on, are that this Bush is in the White House as a "two termer", Hillary is regarded as a "major candidate", and that the fainting spell of the late Anna Nicole's mother's lawyer, on thursday, attracted more media coverage than the Libby trial continuing jury deliberations.

"We the people" have become our own bad joke...and until we wake the "F" up, we deserve what we get !

Yakk · 02-23-2007, 06:48 AM

It doesn't matter if 49% of the population dislikes the presidential candidate. It matters if 51% like the candidate.

If 30% of the population dispises Bush, Bush can get reelected. It doesn't matter how much the hard-core right dispises Hillary. The hard-core will make up stories about any candidate. And the moment your opponents start campaigning against your candidate instead of for their candidate is the moment they screwed up.

ratbastid · 02-23-2007, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

It doesn't matter if 49% of the population dislikes the presidential candidate. It matters if 51% like the candidate.

Even that doesn't matter. What matters is that 51% of the electoral vote, chosen only by those citizens who actually vote, goes to the candidate. You've got to remember, the will of the public is far removed from the actual election results. Gore won the general majority but lost the electoral college game. Polling indicated that if turnout had been higher, he'd have taken the national majority by an even bigger number.

I think our system of statewide caucuses and primaries leads inevitably to this sort of gamesmanship. Ohio and New Hampshire are setting a tone for the rest of the run-up to the convention. I'm not at all convinced it's the smartest way to run an election--or that it's the way that guarantees that the best person to govern is ultimately elected. But that's politics, I guess.

Yakk · 02-23-2007, 09:03 AM

Politics and Capitalism isn't about what is best.

It is about diverting the will to power into something half useful.

In democratic capitalism, the easiest way to gain power is to either be elected (which requires convincing others that you have their best interests at heart) or figure out how to sell people stuff (which requires convincing others that what you sell them makes their lives better).

And when you gain power, you don't have to destroy the lives of those who came before.

In a dictatorship, to gain power you have to utterly destroy the existing social structure, and to defend your position you can brutally repress competators.

The goal isn't to be perfect or find the best solution. The goal is to make power-lusting people at least have to convincingly fake that they have the rest of our interests at heart. In societies that don't have that release valve, power-lusting people have to destroy society in order to gain the power they want.

The US Civil War is a wonderful example of the release valve failing -- the South, a power-lusting group, felt that it could no longer gain the power it lusted after in the framework of the USA. So it broke the union. The north felt that this violated it's own right to power, resulting in the civil war and mass destruction.

But that is a side arguement.

powerclown · 02-23-2007, 12:25 PM

Yakk I agree the the American system isn't perfect. Yet compared to the alternatives, there are none better. I agree with you when you say that democracies such as this better integrate individual ambition and personal drive for power. host, I am troubled by your alienation. It is an unfortunate commentary on our admittedly flawed political system. How about Dennis Kucinich, does he do anything for you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I'm encouraged by Fox News Channel's pundits as well. You know they have staffers working tirelessly day and night to dig up any dirt they can on the guy, and the BEST they could come up with was "oh my GOD he smokes Marlboros and didn't tell us! How can we trust him!"

Early days shakran...its gonna get nice and nasty once the Democratic nominee is confirmed. Remember former rockstar Gary Hart and his hot little chippy? Who knows what skeletons await the public eye this go-round.

It can be argued that the Democrats have assembled a field of candidates as compelling as any since John F. Kennedy ran for President in 1960. I think Barack Obama brings that kind of buzz to the party. Whether it remains unblemished come the primaries remains to be seen, as Clinton has established early she will not be letting her rivals score political points at her expense, which is probably sound. She's a real throat ripper!

This is what Clinton was responding to:

Quote:

Obama’s Big Screen Test
February 21, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
By MAUREEN DOWD

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif.

Hillary is not David Geffen’s dreamgirl.

“Whoever is the nominee is going to win, so the stakes are very high,” says Mr. Geffen, the Hollywood mogul and sultan of “Dreamgirls,” as he sits by a crackling fire beneath a Jasper Johns flag and a matched pair of de Koonings in the house that Jack Warner built (which old-time Hollywood stars joked was the house that God would have built). “Not since the Vietnam War has there been this level of disappointment in the behavior of America throughout the world, and I don’t think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is — and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? — can bring the country together.

“Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television.”

Barack Obama has made an entrance in Hollywood unmatched since Scarlett O’Hara swept into the Twelve Oaks barbecue. Instead of the Tarleton twins, the Illinois senator is flirting with the Dreamworks trio: Mr. Geffen, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, who gave him a party last night that raised $1.3 million and Hillary’s hackles.

She didn’t stand outside the gates to the Geffen mansion, where glitterati wolfed down Wolfgang Puck savories, singing the Jennifer Hudson protest anthem “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going.” But she’s not exactly Little Miss Sunshine, either. Hillary loyalists have hissed at defecting donors to remember the good old days of jumping on the Lincoln Bedroom bed.

“Hillary is livid that Obama’s getting the first big fund-raiser here,” one friend of hers said.

Who can pay attention to the Oscar battle between “The Queen” and “Dreamgirls” when you’ve got a political battle between a Queen and a Dreamboy?

Terry McAuliffe and First Groupie Bill have tried to hoard the best A.T.M. machine in politics for the Missus, but there’s some Clinton fatigue among fatigued Clinton donors, who fret that Bill will “pull the focus” and shelve his wife’s campaign.

“I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person,” Mr. Geffen says, adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they’ll wait until Hillary’s the nominee to use it. “I think they believe she’s the easiest to defeat.”

She is overproduced and overscripted. “It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t,” Mr. Geffen says. “She’s so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.”

The babble here is not about “Babel”; it’s about the battle of the billionaires. Not only have Ron Burkle and David Geffen been vying to buy The Los Angeles Times — they have been vying to raise money for competing candidates. Mr. Burkle, a supermarket magnate, is close to the Clintons, and is helping Hillary parry Barry Obama by arranging a fund-raiser for her in March, with a contribution from Mr. Spielberg.

Did Mr. Spielberg get in trouble with the Clintons for helping Senator Obama? “Yes,” Mr. Geffen replies, slyly. Can Obambi stand up to Clinton Inc.? “I hope so,” he says, “because that machine is going to be very unpleasant and unattractive and effective.”

Once, David Geffen and Bill Clinton were tight as ticks. Mr. Geffen helped raise some $18 million for Bill and slept in the Lincoln Bedroom twice. Bill chilled at Chateau Geffen. Now, the Dreamworks co-chairman calls the former president “a reckless guy” who “gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country.”

They fell out in 2000, when Mr. Clinton gave a pardon to Marc Rich after rebuffing Mr. Geffen’s request for one for Leonard Peltier. “Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice?” Mr. Geffen says. “Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

The mogul knows it’s easy to mock Hollywood — “people with Priuses and private planes” — and agrees with George Clooney that it’s probably not helpful for stars to campaign for candidates, given the caricatures of Hollywood.

I ask what he will say if he ever runs into Bill Clinton again. “ ‘Hi,’ ” he replies. And will he be upset if Hillary wins and he never gets to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom again?

“No,” he says with a puckish smile. “It’s not as nice as my bedroom.”

Her reply:

Quote:

Clinton Camp to Obama: Cut Ties & Return Cash After Top Booster's Vicious Attacks

As Obama rails against "slash & burn" politics, his top Hollywood fundraiser - David Geffen - personally attacks Hillary & her family

Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson issued the following statement today demanding that Barack Obama disavow personal attacks that his campaign finance chair made against Senator Clinton in this morning's New York Times:

"While Senator Obama was denouncing slash and burn politics yesterday, his campaign's finance chair was viciously and personally attacking Senator Clinton and her husband.

"If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money.

"While Democrats should engage in a vigorous debate on the issues, there is no place in our party or our politics for the kind of personal insults made by Senator Obama's principal fundraiser.

LOL, she wants him to return the money....so she can have it!

The_Jazz · 02-23-2007, 12:34 PM

Interesting development - Vilsack just quit the race. He's bitching about the money it takes. It's a valid argument to an extent.

I still maintain that we won't see any real campaign reform in my lifetime.

Willravel · 02-23-2007, 12:45 PM

I try to vote for the person that will least f**k up the country and the world, which usually lands me in in Libertarian or more often Green territory. I try to study their record and look for patterns of policy, who their friends are, when and if they've caved to private interests, especially if those interests are against the interests of their constituents, and if they've shown balls when faced against the evils of politics.

ASU2003 · 02-24-2007, 06:47 PM

I also vote for who will be the best leader of the US and will take the country in a positive direction.

It has nothing to do with my opinions on certain issues, but instead what their term in office will do to the nation

powerclown · 02-25-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Interesting development - Vilsack just quit the race. He's bitching about the money it takes. It's a valid argument to an extent.

I still maintain that we won't see any real campaign reform in my lifetime.

I have a feeling more candidates will be dropping out for the same reason. Vilsack seemed a good enough guy, though lacking in experience somewhat. I admire the fact he was a self-made guy who overcame some rough times to achieve much. He was an orphan who grew up in a dysfunctional family with an ambivalent and alcoholic mother.

Not overly charismatic or dynamic was Vilsack. Whereas Obama draws the money to himself through charm and intellect, intellect alone couldn't save Vilsack. So while issues are important, so is charm it seems.

I agree about your take on campaign finance reform. As long as advertising remains relevant to an election, soft money will rule.

Astrocloud · 02-25-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

How do you vote in regards to picking your leaders: With your mind or with your heart?
Are you more concerned with their stance on issues, or their charisma, inspiration and energy?

None of the above. It's always the lesser of all the evils.

host · 02-25-2007, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrocloud

None of the above. It's always the lesser of all the evils.

....by the way.....Astrocloud, it's nice to see you active here at tfp again, after a long hiatus.....welcome back !

powerclown · 02-25-2007, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrocloud

None of the above. It's always the lesser of all the evils.

Are you saying you don't believe there is a candidate worthy of your vote? Past, present or future?

loquitur · 02-26-2007, 05:49 AM

Willravel, you may be interested to know that I voted for Harry Browne for President in 2000. Fat lot of good it did me.

"Electability" to me is a trap. I remember in April 2004 at my law school reunion speaking with a friend I hadn't seen since law school who is a die-hard lefty. I told her that I thought the Democratic party is making a big mistake nominating John Kerry, and that perceived electability is not the best way to choose a candidate - Kerry had all the charm of a tree stump and a fairly sordid history of attacking the US military that was going to come home to roost during the campaign, and all the medals in the world wouldn't save him. Not to pat myself on the back but it turned out I was right that time. Kerry got all the anti-Bush votes and the traditional Democratic votes, but couldn't get anyone excited about voting for him, which is why he lost - a less calculating, more genuine and more likable candidate probably could have won. Kerry got the nomination because the primary voters perceived that since he was a war hero he was inoculated against national-security criticism, which is wrong - George McGovern was a war hero too. FDR was not but no one ever questioned his national security chops. There was a serious misreading of the national mood by the Democratic primary electorate in 2004.

Now I'll contradict myself: the best Dem candidate is Bill Richardson. He has actually run something (state of NM) and has foreign policy experience too. He oozes gravitas. And he's Hispanic. Why isn't he getting more attention?

The_Jazz · 02-26-2007, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Now I'll contradict myself: the best Dem candidate is Bill Richardson. He has actually run something (state of NM) and has foreign policy experience too. He oozes gravitas. And he's Hispanic. Why isn't he getting more attention?

First, let me just agree that Richardson is my favorite candidate. I think he should be President, and I said that in 2004 as well. I hoped that Kerry would draft him as VP, but it obviously didn't happen.

That said, Richardson has two very big problems right now - corruption and women. There's a big investigation of his NM administration, and it's not looking good. Basically he's getting tagged for the same things Blagoevich is in IL. He's also a notorious womanizer, which is going to be hard overcome in the borderline states, even if he does get an automatic 5% bump from the Hispanic vote.

loquitur · 02-26-2007, 06:17 AM

womanizing is a disqualification? shee-it......... after Clinton you'd think people would just ignore that stuff. Heck, in France it's expected that powerful men will womanize.

The_Jazz · 02-26-2007, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

womanizing is a disqualification? shee-it......... after Clinton you'd think people would just ignore that stuff. Heck, in France it's expected that powerful men will womanize.

Note: Ohio = not France

Yakk · 02-26-2007, 07:42 AM

My claim is it doesn't matter if it is the best. The goal of the game isn't to pick the best president or congress critter. The goal is to make a game for the power-hungry to play, and increase the incentives for the power-hungry to benefit the rest of us and hurt us less.

From that perspective, things look different. The problem with the presidential electoral college isn't that it doesn't follow the popular vote, it is that entire chunks of the country don't matter (vote-wise) to a president of a particular stripe.

Some of those areas matter money-wise, but money isn't the same as votes.

Astrocloud · 02-26-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Are you saying you don't believe there is a candidate worthy of your vote? Past, present or future?

No candidate has ever agreed with my opinion 100% -therefore to vote for any candidate is an act of compromise (on my part). So I vote AGAINST candidates who I believe are against my position.

It's not easy, because I am 'joining a cause' to fight a greater evil but I think a lot of people do it.

loquitur · 02-26-2007, 09:37 AM

there hasn't yet been a perfect candidate. Generally, I try to vote for the candidate who agrees with me on the things I care most about in that particular election. If there isn't one, I vote for the one likely to do the least harm.

powerclown · 02-26-2007, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrocloud

No candidate has ever agreed with my opinion 100% -therefore to vote for any candidate is an act of compromise (on my part). So I vote AGAINST candidates who I believe are against my position.

It's not easy, because I am 'joining a cause' to fight a greater evil but I think a lot of people do it.

I see what your saying...yet I wonder if there were elections were you voted for someone you genuinely liked. You give the impression that most of the time your vote went to someone who was more the opposite of the opposition, rather than someone you could vote for outright based upon their own merits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

there hasn't yet been a perfect candidate. Generally, I try to vote for the candidate who agrees with me on the things I care most about in that particular election. If there isn't one, I vote for the one likely to do the least harm.

The key phrase for me in how I vote is, as you say, how candidates stand on issues of that particular election. Changing needs for changing times. About Richardson, he reminds me of a democratic McCain: always looking for a camera to preen into. I once saw Richardson at a Tyson fight here in Detroit. He was sitting ringside, chatting with a pair of rather hot, impeccably dressed ladies sitting directly on either side of him the entire night. If he was married back then, he sure wasn't acting like it.

Here's an electability issue dealing with campaign funding that I found somewhat disturbing. Bill Clinton, a former POTUS, fundraising for his office-seeking spouse. This seems to me shady at best. I'm all for trying to gain a financial advantage over your opponent in these matters, but a former POTUS seems to me to be in a unique position relative to obtaining campaign dollars. Might we, in effect, be possibly re-electing a former President to a 3rd term?

Quote:

Bill Hosting Elite Fundraising Dinners For Clinton Campaign -- Sans Hillary
By Greg Sargent | bio

A top supporter of Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign tells Election Central that former President Bill Clinton is hosting a series of private gatherings of elite donors designed to bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop for his wife's President campaign.

And here's the unusual thing about these big-ticket events: Hillary isn't at them. The main attraction is the former President -- Bill, Bill, and only Bill.

The unusual fundraising tactic reflects the bizarre circumstances that were sure to attend the candidacy of the spouse of a former President. Hillary has to be the first candidate with a spouse who's at least as potent a fundraising draw as the candidate herself -- an odd turn of events that leaves her free to campaign or raise money on her own while her spouse hosts private big-ticket events that don't require her presence as the main attraction.

According to the Hillary backer who spoke to Election Central, the former President is being offered up for private, low-key affairs attended by fewer people than the galas hosted by Hillary herself. Invitations to these gatherings aren't typically emailed out well in advance; they tend to be offered by phone on short notice when President Clinton's schedule permits, the source says.

It's well known that the former President has been sending out fundraising emails on his wife's behalf and is co-hosting a big splashy fundraising gala with his wife on March 18. But the smaller, private events for elite donors where Bill is the sole attraction seem to have passed under the radar.

According to our source, what typically happens is that Hillary's staffers call several of her top fundraisers and ask them if they can pull together a few hundred thousand dollars' worth of guests for an intimate gathering with President Clinton.

"Her gathering are meant to raise maximum dollars in front of maximum crowds," the Hillary backer tells us. "His are much smaller, but the threshold amount of money to attract him is around $300,000. He's a major fundraising vehicle for her. It's a way of attracting significant additional money at smaller events where people can have intimate conversations with the former President."

Clinton spokesman Jay Carson confirmed that the former President was conducting the events but was unable to say whether they were attracting such dollar amounts.

The top Hillary backer added: "They'll call her fundraisers and say, `If you can bring together contributions in the $300,000 vicinity, and we can find an opening in President Clinton's calendar, then we can put something together.' Or they'll say, `I've got the President on this or that date for an hour and a half -- can you raise $300,000 for it?'"

Right now the Clinton campaign is working hard to come in with a big dollar amount when the next filing comes due -- something the campaign will try to tout as another sign of her strength.

Camp Hillary's unusual fundraising technique is yet another sign that this Presidential campaign is perhaps the strangest and potentially most history-making in decades. "It's interesting," our source muses. "They have not one but two major stars that can act as the main attraction."

Plus: new Zogby Poll on the general election:

* Giuliani 47%, Clinton 40%
* McCain 47%, Clinton 39%
* Clinton 45%, Romney 35%
* Obama 46%, Giuliani 40%
* Obama 44%, McCain 40%
* Obama 51%, Romney 29%
* Giuliani 46%, Edwards 40%
* McCain 47%, Edwards 38%
* Edwards 47%, Romney 32%

Our first Black POTUS?

loquitur · 03-05-2007, 12:04 PM

Meantime, I see a lot of the leftie blogosphere and press trying to figure out why Giuliani is so popular with the Republican electorate. Roger Simon had an interesting theory: he says that the Republican electorate doesn't think it will ever win the culture wars, but they do think the do or die issue is national security, so they're going for the guy they think they can trust most with it. <A HREF="http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2007/03/rudy_and_the_so.php">Here is a link to his blog post</A>. Simon, for those who don't know, is a social liberal and national security hawk.

dc_dux · 03-05-2007, 04:39 PM

Im not really surprised by Giuliana's numbers...it goes with the name recognition and the single identification issue as "America's mayor" after 9/11. The question is whether he can hold those numbers. His speech at the CPAC meeting was interesing....it started with thunderous applause and, after he articulated his differences with the more conservative audience, it ended with much less enthusiasm.

I am more surprised by how McCain is tanking and Romney's makeover as a conservative is taking hold.

02-23-2007, 06:48 AM	#4 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	It doesn't matter if 49% of the population dislikes the presidential candidate. It matters if 51% like the candidate. If 30% of the population dispises Bush, Bush can get reelected. It doesn't matter how much the hard-core right dispises Hillary. The hard-core will make up stories about any candidate. And the moment your opponents start campaigning against your candidate instead of for their candidate is the moment they screwed up. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

02-23-2007, 09:03 AM	#6 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Politics and Capitalism isn't about what is best. It is about diverting the will to power into something half useful. In democratic capitalism, the easiest way to gain power is to either be elected (which requires convincing others that you have their best interests at heart) or figure out how to sell people stuff (which requires convincing others that what you sell them makes their lives better). And when you gain power, you don't have to destroy the lives of those who came before. In a dictatorship, to gain power you have to utterly destroy the existing social structure, and to defend your position you can brutally repress competators. The goal isn't to be perfect or find the best solution. The goal is to make power-lusting people at least have to convincingly fake that they have the rest of our interests at heart. In societies that don't have that release valve, power-lusting people have to destroy society in order to gain the power they want. The US Civil War is a wonderful example of the release valve failing -- the South, a power-lusting group, felt that it could no longer gain the power it lusted after in the framework of the USA. So it broke the union. The north felt that this violated it's own right to power, resulting in the civil war and mass destruction. But that is a side arguement. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

02-23-2007, 12:34 PM	#8 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Interesting development - Vilsack just quit the race. He's bitching about the money it takes. It's a valid argument to an extent. I still maintain that we won't see any real campaign reform in my lifetime. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-26-2007, 06:17 AM	#17 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	womanizing is a disqualification? shee-it......... after Clinton you'd think people would just ignore that stuff. Heck, in France it's <i>expected</i> that powerful men will womanize.

02-26-2007, 07:42 AM	#19 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	My claim is it doesn't matter if it is the best. The goal of the game isn't to pick the best president or congress critter. The goal is to make a game for the power-hungry to play, and increase the incentives for the power-hungry to benefit the rest of us and hurt us less. From that perspective, things look different. The problem with the presidential electoral college isn't that it doesn't follow the popular vote, it is that entire chunks of the country don't matter (vote-wise) to a president of a particular stripe. Some of those areas matter money-wise, but money isn't the same as votes. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

02-22-2007, 11:02 PM	#2 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	I don't think Clinton has a chance in hell of getting elected. Too many people dislike her, and I don't see her being able to overcome that to a sufficient degree to beat whoever the republicans put up. Obama, on the other hand, has promise. Sure, he's young and inexperienced. But then old, experienced presidents haven't done such a hot job lately now have they? Obama's smart as hell, and whether you like him or not you have to admit, the guy can give one hell of a speech. He's got the smarts, he's got the charisma, he's got the drive. I think the man's electable, and I think the republican leadership is probably terrified at the prospect of him emerging as the frontrunner. From what I see the best potential candidate the republicans have so far is Giuliani, and with his marital troubles and the insanity surrounding that (let's face it, it's not very seemly for a presidential candidate to have had his mistress kicked out of the mayor's mansion by his wife), I think even he will have a tough time beating Obama. I'm encouraged by Fox News Channel's pundits as well. You know they have staffers working tirelessly day and night to dig up any dirt they can on the guy, and the BEST they could come up with was "oh my GOD he smokes Marlboros and didn't tell us! How can we trust him!" That, plus the natural advantage the democrats will have due to the incompetence of the republicans currently in power (assuming the democratic congress doesn't screw up over the next 2 years and shows us that once in office they know how to start fixing things), will I think make the presidency very within reach of Obama.

02-23-2007, 12:45 PM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I try to vote for the person that will least f**k up the country and the world, which usually lands me in in Libertarian or more often Green territory. I try to study their record and look for patterns of policy, who their friends are, when and if they've caved to private interests, especially if those interests are against the interests of their constituents, and if they've shown balls when faced against the evils of politics.

02-24-2007, 06:47 PM	#10 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I also vote for who will be the best leader of the US and will take the country in a positive direction. It has nothing to do with my opinions on certain issues, but instead what their term in office will do to the nation

02-26-2007, 05:49 AM	#15 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Willravel, you may be interested to know that I voted for Harry Browne for President in 2000. Fat lot of good it did me. "Electability" to me is a trap. I remember in April 2004 at my law school reunion speaking with a friend I hadn't seen since law school who is a die-hard lefty. I told her that I thought the Democratic party is making a big mistake nominating John Kerry, and that perceived electability is not the best way to choose a candidate - Kerry had all the charm of a tree stump and a fairly sordid history of attacking the US military that was going to come home to roost during the campaign, and all the medals in the world wouldn't save him. Not to pat myself on the back but it turned out I was right that time. Kerry got all the anti-Bush votes and the traditional Democratic votes, but couldn't get anyone excited about voting for him, which is why he lost - a less calculating, more genuine and more likable candidate probably could have won. Kerry got the nomination because the primary voters perceived that since he was a war hero he was inoculated against national-security criticism, which is wrong - George McGovern was a war hero too. FDR was not but no one ever questioned his national security chops. There was a serious misreading of the national mood by the Democratic primary electorate in 2004. Now I'll contradict myself: the best Dem candidate is Bill Richardson. He has actually run something (state of NM) and has foreign policy experience too. He oozes gravitas. And he's Hispanic. Why isn't he getting more attention?

02-26-2007, 09:37 AM	#21 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	there hasn't yet been a perfect candidate. Generally, I try to vote for the candidate who agrees with me on the things I care most about in that particular election. If there isn't one, I vote for the one likely to do the least harm.

03-05-2007, 12:04 PM	#23 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Meantime, I see a lot of the leftie blogosphere and press trying to figure out why Giuliani is so popular with the Republican electorate. Roger Simon had an interesting theory: he says that the Republican electorate doesn't think it will ever win the culture wars, but they do think the do or die issue is national security, so they're going for the guy they think they can trust most with it. <A HREF="http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2007/03/rudy_and_the_so.php">Here is a link to his blog post</A>. Simon, for those who don't know, is a social liberal and national security hawk.

03-05-2007, 04:39 PM	#24 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Im not really surprised by Giuliana's numbers...it goes with the name recognition and the single identification issue as "America's mayor" after 9/11. The question is whether he can hold those numbers. His speech at the CPAC meeting was interesing....it started with thunderous applause and, after he articulated his differences with the more conservative audience, it ended with much less enthusiasm. I am more surprised by how McCain is tanking and Romney's makeover as a conservative is taking hold. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire