The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Just be patient. It'll be Richardson v. Huckabee.

No way...Sun Belt Governors almost never win the Whitehouse

You have to be a US Senator or you have no chance

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

...What's really pissing me off is that most Democrats seem to be once again falling into, "But which one's more electable in the general election" debate. Yeah, 'cause that strategy worked out great in '00 and '04

I see nothing wrong with picking someone bases on how electable they are... But you first need to have a firm grasp of what makes a candidate electable, and pick the right one. IMO, this is what the DNG failed to do in the last 2 elections.

The Dems went with Gore on '00 because he was the incumbent VP. Kerry? Well... I think they were trying to go with who they thought was more electable, but ended up with the blandest candidate.

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Just be patient. It'll be Richardson v. Huckabee.

I'd be in Heaven!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by JWBear

The Dems went with Gore on '00 because he was the incumbent VP. Kerry? Well... I think they were trying to go with who they thought was more electable, but ended up with the blandest candidate.

As I see it, all the talk of "most electable candidate" does is result in the blandest candidate. It's the only logical conclusion to that thinking, which has the ironic twist of making them eminently unelectable.

My philosohpy is, vote for who I think is going to make the best President, let the rest sort itself out.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

As I see it, all the talk of "most electable candidate" does is result in the blandest candidate. It's the only logical conclusion to that thinking, which has the ironic twist of making them eminently unelectable.

My philosohpy is, vote for who I think is going to make the best President, let the rest sort itself out.

I disagree. Someone can be charismatic, an effective leader, and be very much electable.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by JWBear

I disagree. Someone can be charismatic, an effective leader, and be very much electable.

And yet the last two primaries where the Democrats focused on "who's the most electable," we got Al Gore and John Kerry.

The most electable candidate is going to be the one that has the qualities to be the best President. "Electability" is a byproduct of other attributes ("charisma" and "effective leadership" being just two in a long list), NOT an innate quality that one can select for. I think it's party-suicide to keep "electability" at the forefront of reasons to vote for someone in a primary because, as has been shown, that causes the electorate to lean towards the blandest, "least offensive" candidate, rather than the best.

Talk of "electability" never has anything to do with a candidate's actual quality as a candidate, but how people are guessing they are going to be received by moderate voters. I say stop guessing and start voting for who is actually a charismatic, effective leader with good ideas and a plan to put some of them into action. Hillary is not that person, she's a politician whose goal is to be elected, not to lead.

[scaeagles]

You are definitely standing fast with your prediction, JW. I could live with Richardson vs Huckabee.

GD, I oft struggle with the electable vs principled. It's almost like playing political "Deal or no deal". You get an offer that's OK and a sure thing, but you can get greedy and get burned, getting almost nothing.

[BarTopDancer]

Hillary against any republican scares the crap out of me.

I think Obama would be better than Hillary. I don't think his lack of experience will be a bad thing - I think he will think outside the box on a lot of issues rather than doing what is already done for the sake of that's just how it is.

Unfortunately I don't think most of this country is ready for a woman or an African American man to be president - and another Republican will be elected. Just hope that whoever that is doesn't destroy the country any more than it already is.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Just hope that whoever that is doesn't destroy the country any more than it already is.

This countries stength lies with those who don't look to Washington for the answers

[wendybeth]

I agree with BTD, but I would change the wording from 'not ready' to 'not willing'- I find it absurd that a country that claims to promote civil and gender rights is so damned reluctant to actually vote for anyone but a white, upper class male to the Presidency. I mean- just look at India, Pakistan, Britain and all the other countries that have had a female PM or President. Sure, you run the risk of the occasional Thatcher, but not every woman is perfect.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Hillary against any republican scares the crap out of me.

I think Obama would be better than Hillary. I don't think his lack of experience will be a bad thing - I think he will think outside the box on a lot of issues rather than doing what is already done for the sake of that's just how it is.

Unfortunately I don't think most of this country is ready for a woman or an African American man to be president - and another Republican will be elected. Just hope that whoever that is doesn't destroy the country any more than it already is.

I disagree... Hillary against any Republican scares me because I think the Democrats WILL win the White House this year. But I would prefer it to be Obama. Obama would appeal more to fed-up Republicans than Hillary, who they pretty much hate. Nothing to do with her being a woman, and everything to do with her being... well, herself.