They do not have the experience or necessarily even the qualities required to win a popularity contest on that scale.
So I’m saying we find an empty suit that is good at winning popularity contests then listen to the party leaders in the House and Senate, since they’re the ones with decades of political experience, and I was about to write “and they write the laws” then remembered it’s mostly lobbyists and think-tank employees these days writing legislation.
I’m not sure I agree with the strategy because that’s kind of what Trump is and it has not led to the Republican Congresses somehow being more effective
Except I was referring specifically to the claims that the only thing that mattered was anyone besides trump. But since you want to go back further:
Go back one more candidate and you have Obama…
We won that because Obama had charisma and people like him.
Before that Gore and Kerry, both uncharismatic but were definitely qualified in every other way, both lost.
Before that was Bill, also insanely charismatic…
So going back to 92, about 30 years:
Charismatic Dem candidates:
4/4
Uncharismatic Dem candidates:
1/5
Does this help?
Do you understand why the most important metric when picking a presidential candidate is charisma?
Quick edit:
For bonus points both Bill and Obama were criticized in their primary by political establishment and mainstream media that they were too young and didn’t have the experience…
Just a small note that Al Gore did win the election. He got ratfucked by Roger Stone et al in Florida. The governor of Florida happened to be his opponent’s brother. And Gore folded like a card table with his high road Democrat bullshit.
And Gore folded like a card table with his high road Democrat bullshit.
Gore was told by the party they didn’t have his back, so it was down to him and his campaign that had just spent all it’s money.
There 100% should have been a fight for it, although from what I recall it wasn’t 100% Gore did actually win it. There was 100% shady shit, but at least what was found out was legal shady shit.
But Gore wasnt what the DNC wanted in a candidate anyways, and they were unwilling to spend the political capital on the fight. I think the literal capital too, they may have refused to pay for the recount?
This has been looked into though:
The results: The two major conclusions here are that Gore likely would have won a hand recount of the statewide overvotes and undervotes – which he never requested – while Bush likely would have won the hand recount of undervotes ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, although by a smaller margin than the certified 537 vote difference.
So Gore could have won, but he didn’t challenge the right thing and still would have lost the recount that wasn’t completed
But if the DNC had backed him like the RNC backs their candidate (regardless of who it is) they could have challenged both and Gore would have been the candidate.
Good points. I don’t think the Republicans would have stopped the counts if they thought they were going to win. I’m firmly certain that he won, and they were tossing Gore votes during the hand count due to absolute bullshit. Remember hanging chads?
I’m firmly certain that he won, and they were tossing Gore votes during the hand count due to absolute bullshit. Remember hanging chads?
Did you read the link?
The study, released in November 2001, took place over 10 months and cost nearly $1 million. The Washington Post explained, “153 field workers spent 6,500 hours describing every dimple, chad, erasure and relevant marking. Typists entered 17.5 million pieces of information into Chicago computers.”
What makes you more confident in your opinion then what they found?
Because this is who they had working on it:
The players: A national media consortium – composed of CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Tribune Company, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, The St. Petersburg Times, and The Palm Beach Post – paid for the National Opinion Research Center, or NORC, at the University of Chicago to review 175,010 disputed Florida ballots – 61,190 undervotes and 113,820 overvotes.
And if you on your own are better than Al that, well, if you’re not already in auditing professionally then you need to be.
Exactly.
They do not have the experience or necessarily even the qualities required to win a popularity contest on that scale.
So I’m saying we find an empty suit that is good at winning popularity contests then listen to the party leaders in the House and Senate, since they’re the ones with decades of political experience, and I was about to write “and they write the laws” then remembered it’s mostly lobbyists and think-tank employees these days writing legislation.
But that’s a whole nother issue.
I’m not sure I agree with the strategy because that’s kind of what Trump is and it has not led to the Republican Congresses somehow being more effective
But it has led to Republican voters getting what they wanted. Roe v Wade is no more. We’re getting tariffs that career politicians know are harmful.
So a leftist equivalent would support Medicare For All, which is very popular with the public but unpopular with career politicians.
We can worry about that once we can consistently keep Republicans out of the White house
For the past 3 elections we’ve been told that’s all that matters and we’re 1/3
If you expand your view enough you can make any claim.
For the past 5 elections we’re 3/5. For the past 7 we’re 3/7. For the past 9 we’re 5/9.
Except I was referring specifically to the claims that the only thing that mattered was anyone besides trump. But since you want to go back further:
Go back one more candidate and you have Obama…
We won that because Obama had charisma and people like him.
Before that Gore and Kerry, both uncharismatic but were definitely qualified in every other way, both lost.
Before that was Bill, also insanely charismatic…
So going back to 92, about 30 years:
Charismatic Dem candidates:
4/4
Uncharismatic Dem candidates:
1/5
Does this help?
Do you understand why the most important metric when picking a presidential candidate is charisma?
Quick edit:
For bonus points both Bill and Obama were criticized in their primary by political establishment and mainstream media that they were too young and didn’t have the experience…
It didn’t appear to hurt them in the elections.
Just a small note that Al Gore did win the election. He got ratfucked by Roger Stone et al in Florida. The governor of Florida happened to be his opponent’s brother. And Gore folded like a card table with his high road Democrat bullshit.
Gore was told by the party they didn’t have his back, so it was down to him and his campaign that had just spent all it’s money.
There 100% should have been a fight for it, although from what I recall it wasn’t 100% Gore did actually win it. There was 100% shady shit, but at least what was found out was legal shady shit.
But Gore wasnt what the DNC wanted in a candidate anyways, and they were unwilling to spend the political capital on the fight. I think the literal capital too, they may have refused to pay for the recount?
This has been looked into though:
https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html
So Gore could have won, but he didn’t challenge the right thing and still would have lost the recount that wasn’t completed
But if the DNC had backed him like the RNC backs their candidate (regardless of who it is) they could have challenged both and Gore would have been the candidate.
Good points. I don’t think the Republicans would have stopped the counts if they thought they were going to win. I’m firmly certain that he won, and they were tossing Gore votes during the hand count due to absolute bullshit. Remember hanging chads?
Did you read the link?
What makes you more confident in your opinion then what they found?
Because this is who they had working on it:
And if you on your own are better than Al that, well, if you’re not already in auditing professionally then you need to be.