Endorsements - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

User Name · 03-02-2004, 12:43 PM

Whenever a presidential or other partisan candidate wins his party's nomination, his former opponents for the nomination usually endorse him, despite of their potent criticisms of the nominee during the campaign. I know that they consider their nominee to be closer to their own views than the candidate of the other party, but how can they endorse people that they ran against? Do you think this makes politicians in general seem "sleazy" because they put their party's goals in place of what they think is right? Or is this a necessary part of the process?

Seaver · 03-02-2004, 12:55 PM

They dont have to endorse them, but this IS politics.

By running they are testing what political power they have within their own party. Those that win temporarily have more power, those that lose need to cut off the flood, and by endorsing the winner they hold onto what they had before the run.

Aside from that if you support the party even in defeat you will most likely be given cushy jobs and lots of PAC funding.

Sleazy? maybe. But if your friend was in a fight wouldnt you help him? even if he maybe deserved to get his ass kicked? Doesnt matter WHY he is in the fight but the fact that you're his friend obligates you. This IMO is the same way, being funded by the party obligates you to supporting them. That and if you dont support even in defeat they will cut your funding and you're almost garanteed to lose next election race.

User Name · 03-02-2004, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
Sleazy? maybe. But if your friend was in a fight wouldnt you help him? even if he maybe deserved to get his ass kicked? Doesnt matter WHY he is in the fight but the fact that you're his friend obligates you.

That's a bit of a flawed analogy. If my friend got in a conflict as a result of winning a preceding conflict with me, I wouldn't help him. If his conflict is unrelated to mine, then yes, I would. I think politicians should be individuals, rather than tools of their parties. However, that's not realistic. But as long as I have a roof over my head and a fridge with food, I guess I'll just have to live with the sleaziness.

theusername · 03-02-2004, 05:12 PM

Comparable to sports.

During practice your trying to beat a guy out for the position you want. Now during a game against another team, if he gets the position over you, you should still root for him to do well while he's playing.

(Unless your of low moral standing and hope he does bad so you can play.)

Obviously, the primaries are "practice" for the real thing. They battle it out try to show whos better. But once the actual "game" starts (Presidential campaigns.) You root for the man/woman who won the primary so your team achieves victory.

Hopefully this makes a little sense.

ARTelevision · 03-02-2004, 05:43 PM

The ancient Arab proverb:
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is very much about how the psychology of human groups operates.

filtherton · 03-02-2004, 06:58 PM

The success of the party is more important than the individual.

maximusveritas · 03-02-2004, 09:18 PM

Most of the time, their party's goals are the same as what they think is right. The sleazy part of the endorsements is that they are usually just done to garner a possible job in the future administration.

mml · 03-02-2004, 10:16 PM

While most politicians are self-centered and self-absorbed, they are generally in it to accomplish some sort of good. They are members of a party that generally represents their beliefs and while they personally will always think they would have done better, they will work with former foes to accomplish what they perceive to be the greater good.

If they are just too pissed off (Pat Buchanan) they run as an independent.

03-02-2004, 12:43 PM	#1 (permalink)
User Name Banned Location: Urf	Endorsements Whenever a presidential or other partisan candidate wins his party's nomination, his former opponents for the nomination usually endorse him, despite of their potent criticisms of the nominee during the campaign. I know that they consider their nominee to be closer to their own views than the candidate of the other party, but how can they endorse people that they ran against? Do you think this makes politicians in general seem "sleazy" because they put their party's goals in place of what they think is right? Or is this a necessary part of the process?

03-02-2004, 12:55 PM	#2 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	They dont have to endorse them, but this IS politics. By running they are testing what political power they have within their own party. Those that win temporarily have more power, those that lose need to cut off the flood, and by endorsing the winner they hold onto what they had before the run. Aside from that if you support the party even in defeat you will most likely be given cushy jobs and lots of PAC funding. Sleazy? maybe. But if your friend was in a fight wouldnt you help him? even if he maybe deserved to get his ass kicked? Doesnt matter WHY he is in the fight but the fact that you're his friend obligates you. This IMO is the same way, being funded by the party obligates you to supporting them. That and if you dont support even in defeat they will cut your funding and you're almost garanteed to lose next election race. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

03-02-2004, 05:43 PM	#5 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	The ancient Arab proverb: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is very much about how the psychology of human groups operates. __________________ create evolution

03-02-2004, 10:16 PM	#8 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	While most politicians are self-centered and self-absorbed, they are generally in it to accomplish some sort of good. They are members of a party that generally represents their beliefs and while they personally will always think they would have done better, they will work with former foes to accomplish what they perceive to be the greater good. If they are just too pissed off (Pat Buchanan) they run as an independent. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

03-02-2004, 05:12 PM	#4 (permalink)
theusername Insane	Comparable to sports. During practice your trying to beat a guy out for the position you want. Now during a game against another team, if he gets the position over you, you should still root for him to do well while he's playing. (Unless your of low moral standing and hope he does bad so you can play.) Obviously, the primaries are "practice" for the real thing. They battle it out try to show whos better. But once the actual "game" starts (Presidential campaigns.) You root for the man/woman who won the primary so your team achieves victory. Hopefully this makes a little sense.

03-02-2004, 06:58 PM	#6 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	The success of the party is more important than the individual.

03-02-2004, 09:18 PM	#7 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Most of the time, their party's goals are the same as what they think is right. The sleazy part of the endorsements is that they are usually just done to garner a possible job in the future administration.