Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

[aparch]

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

Woo! Successfully failing at running for President for 34 years running!

Ignoring the fact that I'm not even eligible until next year.

[Handyman]

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.

Funny you say this yet you never say Al Gore was a bad candidate...it is always someone else to blame for his lack of ability to inspire people to vote for him. (even in his home state)

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

The better candidate always wins



Mookie's belly still hurts from laughing that one off

Woo hoo hoo

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Funny you say this yet you never say Al Gore was a bad candidate...it is always someone else to blame for his lack of ability to inspire people to vote for him. (even in his home state)

I've never said Al Gore was a bad candidate? Did they have a Sanders rally next door to your house and you got a contact high?

Oddly enough, but probably because he ended up being the worst President in living memory, people forget that GWB was a far better campaigner than he gets credit for. He certainly rallied the base as well as being non-threatening enough for the 10% of people in the middle to give him the benefit of the doubt. Problem for the GOP is their base is now too small to carry them in a Presidential election, and they keep nominating stiff and loons who turn off the 10% in the middle.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

The better candidate always wins



Mookie's belly still hurts from laughing that one off

Woo hoo hoo

Something tells me its not your belly that's sore, but I'll trust you'll keep that info to yourself.

For fun, name me the last time a better candidate lost a Presidential race. I'm talking the general election.

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Clinton: "I will be the nominee" "That is already done... there is no way I won't be."

[mookie1995]

Something tells me its not your belly that's sore, but I'll trust you'll keep that info to yourself.

For fun, name me the last time a better candidate lost a Presidential race. I'm talking the general election.

Gore was far superior to W

C'mon!!!! Gore invented the friggin's innernet for cryin' out loud!

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Gore was far superior to W

C'mon!!!! Gore invented the friggin's innernet for cryin' out loud!

Not as a candidate he wasn't. Gore blew a winnable race. He may have been smarter than Bush, but so was Kerry and I don't know too many people who think he ran a better race.

Can't think of a guy who ran a good race but lost. Best you can say is the losers in '84, '96, and '08 had zero chance of changing the outcome of those races due to forces beyond their control.

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Not as a candidate he wasn't. Gore blew a winnable race. He may have been smarter than Bush, but so was Kerry and I don't know too many people who think he ran a better race.

Can't think of a guy who ran a good race but lost. Best you can say is the losers in '84, '96, and '08 had zero chance of changing the outcome of those races due to forces beyond their control.

when did "candidate" become "race"?

[ericredaxe]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Not as a candidate he wasn't. Gore blew a winnable race.

This is my exact point.

Set aside your opinion on policy etc, do you really think Hillary is a good candidate? One that is unlikely to blow a winnable race? Or if you really think about it, does she remind you more of an Al Gore or Martha Coakley type of candidate?

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Not as a candidate he wasn't. Gore blew a winnable race.

Interesting to see you finally admit it wasn't all "Little Ralphie Nader's" fault.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

This is my exact point.

Set aside your opinion on policy etc, do you really think Hillary is a good candidate? One that is unlikely to blow a winnable race? Or if you really think about it, does she remind you more of an Al Gore or Martha Coakley type of candidate?

Somewhere in between. Hillary's campaign is cold blooded, frustrating but on target. This is unlike 2008 when her campaign was incompetent. She's never going to be an inspirational JFK/Obama type candidate, so she's not trying to be. That's the right way to go. Furthermore, she's making a play not to try to out-crazy Trump which is not possible (although Sanders would give him a run for his money) any more than you can out promise Bernie but to represent sane people. Hillary 2008 would have fallen into that trap. Hillary 2016 has learned some lessons.

So, what makes Hillary a bad candidate in people's eyes? I have no idea. Sanders was NEVER going to concede this race even though its been over at least since New York, if not earlier. Sensing there's nothing they could do about that, they wisely decided not to set up any particular state as a knockout blow. Pundits don't determine the nomination. Delegates do. Yes it would be nice if she called out Sanders as being a senile bitter crank with a God complex. However for the sake of party unity you have to grit your teeth. Correctly, and frustratingly, they have done that. People like Gore and Coakley couldn't walk two steps without tripping over their own feet. Hillary doesn't give me that impression at all.

So, how good a candidate she'll make is TBD. I'm guessing the Clintons and their surrogates (a lot of vets from the Obama team) destroy Donald Trump, worse than what was made of Mittens Romney. All she need do is portray and image of competence and moderation, and she takes the left and the center, leaving Trump with the far right.

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Interesting to see you finally admit it wasn't all "Little Ralphie Nader's" fault.

How dare you...must have been a Sanders rally by you too

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

So, how good a candidate she'll make is TBD. I'm guessing the Clintons and their surrogates (a lot of vets from the Obama team) destroy Donald Trump, worse than what was made of Mittens Romney. All she need do is portray and image of competence and moderation, and she takes the left and the center, leaving Trump with the far right.

I think her campaign has to be careful about trashing him too much. Hillary could end up looking like as big of a bully as Trump is, if her strategists overdo it on the personal attacks. They need to focus on the stuff that really, really makes him a terrible choice for POTUS. Pick your battles carefully, as it were.

[rufus]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

kep has been saying otherwise for years..

gore > 43 for example.

Better qualified, maybe. Better for the country, sure. But ran a chitty campaign, therefore, not a good candidate.