We agree there, I was just establishing that he should not have been lumped in with the others when you were calling all the nominees bat**** insane. He was a pretty cool guy. A little iffy on the economics, but a definite change of pace from the general warhawks and civil authoritarians that make up the GOP.He had much more appeal to libertarians and, weirdly, a certain segment of lefties, than he ever did to the main GOP base. The GOP basically ignored him, including their long arm in the media, Fox. He never had a chance.
At the grassroots level he wasn't all that popular, but from a media and party leadership perspective he was definitely the token boy. Much like Clinton, he had the money and the contacts.Not really. He just wasn't actively crazy, and he was prettier than Huntsman. That was all he had going for him. And Republicans did lots and lots of moaning about him until it was inevitable that he'd win due to lack of viable opponents, at which point they did what Democrats won't, and rallied.
You just said most of the Dem base is centrists, moderates, and independents. The voters Hillary appeals to best.If she loses the whole Dem base -- which she will -- it doesn't matter.
Hear hear!Here's something I don't think people realize: liberalism is NOT unpopular. What's unpopular is Democrats. Nothing proves that more than the recent midterms (stay with me here). When it came to the actual ballots, people voted overwhelmingly for liberal policies, even while they were also voting for conservative politicians. When it came to candidates, they weren't voting on issues. They were voting on dissatisfaction with Congress, which happened to be Dem-led, so that translated into anti-Dem votes. That doesn't mean they're pro-conservative. They obviously aren't. Look how they voted on the issues.
And perhaps part of the reason Dems are having such a hard time winning anything is because they keep REJECTING liberalism. Liberalism is popular. People want liberal reform. But the Democrats just keep moving further and further right, cutting off their own voting base for the sake of pandering to the Republican noise machine that keeps calling them commies for absolutely no reason. I mean, what have the Dems done lately that's even left of center, let alone communist?
The Dems are hurting themselves by refusing to field liberal candidates.
Fair point.Yeah, and now everyone knows that he developed Alzheimer's while he was a seated president. People won't be quick to make that mistake again.
Mehhh, I can definitely see your point but that has just not translated into the general attitude I've seen from the party. Everyone is Ready for Hillary and while there are a few progressives rooting for Sanders/Warren and a few left-libertarians rooting for Webb, most seem to be lining up behind Clinton.Hillary has struggled in popularity since she first came on the scene. Bill's good will hasn't extended to her in the past, and there's no reason to believe it will now. What do you want to bet that if she gets the nomination, we'll be hearing that "baking cookies" comment on repeat from every GOP commercial for 6 months straight?
Playing center-right is bad, I agree, but he's not center-right. He's actually quite liberal on the economics. He is rather like Warren in that he is an outspoken critic of Wall Street and income inequality. Where I see him making a difference is guns/immigration for the independent cons and civil liberties/foreign policy for the libertarians.Maybe, if he's populist enough. But I think it's a bad move, if for no other reason than putting him up is an obvious play to appear more center-right, even if he really isn't. And for reasons I explained above, I think that continuing to try to play the center-right is suicide for the Democratic party.
True, true.Ultimately, when it comes to discussing what's a viable strategy, we both have to keep in mind that most of the American public won't vote like you, or like me, for that matter. So what we think is a good idea isn't necessarily what will win.
Also true.Personally, I think the Dems should play liberal. However, I don't think my kind of liberal could ever win. It will be a platform-based liberal, not a progressive, or a left-libertarian.
I won't vote in this poll since I am not trending toward a Democratic Party nominee. However, in the event that the Republicans select someone like Rand Paul, I will jump to the Democrats if they nominate Hillary or someone like Biden or Webb.
Last edited by Fiddytree; 11-28-14 at 06:57 PM.
"No religion is true, but some religion, any religion, is politically necessary. Law and morality are insufficient for the large majority of men. Obedience to the law and to the morals are insufficient for making men happy. […]Law and morality are therefore in need of being supplemented by divine rewards and punishments."
Personally, I would wish Democrats toss aside their disproportionate emphasis on young people and hone in on those who were a bit older, but I suppose that's an outsider's perspective.
Dont much care but it occurs to me that...
HRC has too much baggage and no charisma
Webb is running for vp
Biden is an idiot
Sanders is too much of a communist
Leaves Saquagea Warren who only a donkey can take seriously.
Got anyone else ? Maybe one with any sort of credibility ?
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination
With more than a year to go before the primaries, the polls above mean little except to show where things stand now. But the nomination seems to be Hillary's to lose if she wants it baring some unforeseen happening or event. The favorite to win the Democratic nominations by about 9-1 odds has to be Hillary at this point in time.
But who would I like to win? I think Hillary, Webb or Biden would reach across the aisle and try to work with the other side, so any of those three would be fine with me. Sanders is way out of touch with my political views and ideology, but I respect his honesty. A politician being honest is about as rare as water on the sun. I would be fine with him also. Warren, O'Malley and Cuomo are as far out of touch as Sanders without the honesty. Enough said.
Now if they held the Georgia Democratic Primary today and I was to vote in it, I would vote for Webb and if he wasn't around for whatever reason, then Hillary followed by Biden.
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
I have never voted Democrat in a presidential election before. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2008 and Gary Johnson in 2012. With that being said, I would definitely vote Democrat if they put up either Jim Webb or Bernie Sanders.
No -- I said there's enough of them for it to make a difference. And a LOT of those independents are actually liberals who left the party because the Dems aren't actually liberal anymore.You just said most of the Dem base is centrists, moderates, and independents. The voters Hillary appeals to best.
The centrists are impossible to predict. They're all over the place. Any candidate will get at least some of them.
The moderates? Well, look. It's really unlikely anyone in the GOP field is going to appeal to most moderates. Plus, they're a minority within a minority. The Dems need to stop worrying so much about them, and focus on actually being Democrats -- something they haven't done for at least 20 years.
Like Romney, I see no enthusiasm for her in life, or on DP, or from within her party. The moaning of "dynasty!" has already begun, and she hasn't even decided if she's going to run yet.Mehhh, I can definitely see your point but that has just not translated into the general attitude I've seen from the party. Everyone is Ready for Hillary and while there are a few progressives rooting for Sanders/Warren and a few left-libertarians rooting for Webb, most seem to be lining up behind Clinton.
Yeah, but we're talking about Democrats. His gun stances are losing propositions right out of the gate, and so are at least some of his immigration stances. Appealing to libertarians is a completely foolish thing to do. For every libertarian they gain, they're going to lose 2 Democrats, because they have virtually no stances in common apart from gay marriage. So what good does that do them? Guns alone won't be enough to sway libertarians. His fiscal policy will switch most of them right off. If he wants them, he's going to have to give up twice as many Democrats. That's foolish.Playing center-right is bad, I agree, but he's not center-right. He's actually quite liberal on the economics. He is rather like Warren in that he is an outspoken critic of Wall Street and income inequality. Where I see him making a difference is guns/immigration for the independent cons and civil liberties/foreign policy for the libertarians.
Looking a little closer at him, he's also going to have some problems with women and gays based on some prior votes and work he did (some decades ago, and some rescinded, but that won't stop them). Most Dems won't point this out because they're running as "Republican Lite," but if there's a real liberal in the field, you can bet they're going to hammer on it as hard as the day is long, and it's going to cost him even more Dems.
If there is even one real liberal in the race, Webb is toast.
Do I think that's entirely legit? No. But that's what's going to happen, because that's the American public, and that's American politics.
You might like something -- and I might too, in some cases -- but that doesn't mean it's a viable strategy in a national, remember?
I can conceive of a halfway viable strategy for Webb, but I can also conceive of much better candidates who have a much better chance of actually winning, without costing Democrats their own people and forcing them to make up the difference by trying to sway people from some other party.
If Dems want to win, they need to stop trying to appeal to cons or libertarians or whatever else, and just appeal to Dems. The fact that they don't is why they lose so much.
Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 11-28-14 at 07:26 PM.
Most Dems these days plot to the right on a political compass. Forget "extremes" -- they've moved so far away from liberal that it's almost like they're trying to grab RINO's instead of their own party.
The Democrats' problem is that they don't appeal to anyone.