Yeah, you're actual fun to argue with! :2razz:
Excellent analysis as usual, I would like to add my two cents though.
I thought Ron Paul was pretty ok. Disagreeable on a few issues for sure, but overall a decent candidate. He likely would have gotten quite a few crossover votes because he was strong on the liberal issues where Obama was lacking(civil liberties, marijuana legalization, foreign policy, etc).
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.
Uhh, it was pretty obvious that he was favored.
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.
I'm not sure I'm convinced of that. I sure hope you're right, but I think Clinton has the money and the contacts to make it happen.
Good point, however Hillary polls rather well with centrists and independents. It's the hard-lefties that she has trouble appealing to.
If she loses the whole Dem base -- which she will -- it doesn't matter.
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.
The same was thought of Ronald Reagan but he won and was later re-elected.
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.
The dynasty notion might hurt her and Bush in the general, but I don't think it will hurt either in the primary. Bill Clinton was and still is rather popular among the Democratic base. Not sure why, seeing as he and his wife both had a huge part to play in the passing of DOMA...but hey, it's party politics. :shrug:
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?
Meh, I wouldn't really discredit him based on who votes for him on an internet poll. If anything that shows he could have quite a bit of appeal in swing states. He could easily collect crossover votes while still appealing to the disenfranchised base in his party due to his strong stance against income inequality. Also, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, he could definitely pull the left-leaning libertarians like myself that usually vote Green or Libertarian.
I think he has a decent shot.
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.
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.
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.