What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Status
Not open for further replies.
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."
 
Rover said:
Something tells me its not your belly that's sore, but I'll trust you'll keep that info to yourself. :eek:

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

Gore was far superior to W

C'mon!!!! Gore invented the friggin's innernet for cryin' out loud!
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

mookie1995 said:
Gore was far superior to W

C'mon!!!! Gore invented the friggin's innernet for cryin' out loud!
Click to expand...

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. :eek:

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.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Rover said:
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. :eek:

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.
Click to expand...

when did "candidate" become "race"?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Rover said:
Not as a candidate he wasn't. Gore blew a winnable race.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

ericredaxe said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Rover said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

aparch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. ;)
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Handyman said:
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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Rover said:
Can't think of a guy who ran a good race but lost.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Kepler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then I mea culpa cause he is absolutely right.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

mookie1995 said:
kep has been saying otherwise for years..

gore > 43 for example.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Kepler said:
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.
Click to expand...
Gore may have been a horrible candidate but Nader drove the nails into the coffin and the country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top