Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Gore may have been a horrible candidate but Nader drove the nails into the coffin and the country.

If it comes to that, I blame the Jews.

No, Flaggy, do NOT send me your literature...

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I've said (and still maintain) that Gore trounced Dubya in the first debate. That does not mean overall Dubya's campaign wasn't better. Gore took what should have been a walkover and made it close enough for Jeb to steal. Dubya was not as good a campaigner as his record said he was (sorry, Bill), however he was certainly better than Gore who was el stinko. The debate, which showed their relative level of intellect and knowledge, was the one time Gore was shown to be obviously the better choice to govern.

Gore may have been a horrible candidate but Nader drove the nails into the coffin and the country.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

kep has been saying otherwise for years..

gore > 43 for example.

I've said (and still maintain) that Gore trounced Dubya in the first debate. That does not mean overall Dubya's campaign wasn't better. Gore took what should have been a walkover and made it close enough for Jeb to steal. Dubya was not as good a campaigner as his record said he was (sorry, Bill), however he was certainly better than Gore who was el stinko. The debate, which showed their relative level of intellect and knowledge, was the one time Gore was shown to be obviously the better choice to govern.

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

In defense of Rover, he's ripped Gore stem to stern in the past and in fact although he liked to belittle Nader he puts the blame for that loss squarely on Gore being a monotone metronome who couldn't even take his home state.

Then I mea culpa cause he is absolutely right.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Can't think of a guy who ran a good race but lost.

I can't either. That's a really good question, though. I guess the first question is who ran a great campaign but lost? Maybe one of FDR's later opponents did; I just don't know the history well enough.

Who ran the worst campaign but still won? (Nixon '72 committed impeachable offenses -- that's tough to top in an objective sense -- but let's talk about perception at the time.) Bush Sr's campaign in 88 was bad -- the SNL skit "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy" summed it up well. Not just in that it appealed nakedly to racism but that Bush himself came across as befuddled and incoherent. Dubya in '04 was mediocre at best. They both benefitted greatly from incompetent opponents (who are oddly alike in their unphotogenic technocratic awkwardness).

This is truly terrifying because Trump is the definition of someone born to campaign but not govern, while Hillary is exactly the opposite. If America really just votes for the more entertaining persona, we are truly doomed.

[Kepler]

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)

In defense of Rover, he's ripped Gore stem to stern in the past and in fact although he likes to belittle Nader he puts the blame for that loss squarely on Gore being a monotone metronome who couldn't even take his home state.

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

And you voted for him Flaggy!

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Copy & Paste

That I can do.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

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

Bush was good for the NWO. After all, look how liberty has gone to heck.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

First the fellow RNC members fell in line in support of Trump. Next, the RNC's corporate partners are now falling in line. Looks like everyone is happy over at the RNC in getting behind Trump.

All the hullabaloo about the RNC Convention being a dumpster fire have suddenly subsided.

Which is perfect. I want to see the GOP all in on Trump. That way everybody goes down with the ship.

FTB&G, it won't be Hillary (or even Bill) doing the dirty work. It'll be her people picking Trump apart. A lot of it will be legitimate, some of it not so much but hey, that's politics.

[aparch]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

First the fellow RNC members fell in line in support of Trump. Next, the RNC's corporate partners are now falling in line. Looks like everyone is happy over at the RNC in getting behind Trump.

All the hullabaloo about the RNC Convention being a dumpster fire have suddenly subsided.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.