Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Princeton beat AIU this year. Does that make them a "good" program?
Winning ≠ Good
Distinction & Difference

North Dakota won the national championship. Did they have a good season? Did they benefit from weak competition? Would they have beaten the undefeated Cornell team from 1970? WHO CARES. All people will remember is that they won. Same thing with a Presidential contest.

[busterman62]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Princeton beat AIU this year. Does that make them a "good" program?
Winning ≠ Good
Distinction & Difference

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Better ≠ Good

In the final analysis, a distinction without a difference. They don't give out style points in Presidential elections. The trick is to win more electoral votes.

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Compose key, =, /.

You wanna point out the Compose key to me on my keyboard?

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

=,/,

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

With all due respect, the campaign that ends up winning is the one with a good candidate..

kep has been saying otherwise for years..

gore > 43 for example.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

How you do not equals sign?

Compose key, =, /.

[busterman62]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

How you do not equals sign?

Copy & Paste

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Better ≠ Good

How you do not equals sign?

[busterman62]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

So the goal of running for President is not to win? Huh...

Maybe you can enlighten me on this one.

Better ≠ Good

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

You don't win if you run a chitty campaign. Good candidates understand this.

With all due respect, the campaign that ends up winning is the one with a good candidate. As I'm sure you realize, the winners get to write the history. A good example is Howard Dean. When he took over the DNC, you could hear Goopers snickering from DC to LA. Terrible choice. No experience in party building. Blah Blah Blah. After election night in 2006, their laughter was replaced by tears.

The point of running for President is to get elected. Period. Everything else is secondary. Whoever manages to do so by definition ran a good campaign and achieved what only....43? people (only counting Cleveland once) would have accomplished previously in the 225+ year history of the office. (actually may be less than that as Ford was never elected on a national ticket).

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Yes. Yes you are.

he often does.

[rufus]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

So the goal of running for President is not to win? Huh...

Maybe you can enlighten me on this one.

You don't win if you run a chitty campaign. Good candidates understand this.

[rufus]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Isn't a "good candidate" the one that wins? Or am I missing the point of all this...

No, the good candidate is the one who makes the case for why they should win.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Yes. Yes you are.

So the goal of running for President is not to win? Huh...

Maybe you can enlighten me on this one.