Reply #35: And how does this differ from elections in general? [View All]

[PurityOfEssence]

Care to tell me that? Whether you like him or not, he consistently beats the tar out of any other possible opponent. These polls have him beating Clark by more than 20 points. You need to look at what's gotten the media behind him: it's him.

Yep, those fish only swim well in water, what's that got to do with their value as fish? Um...I don't know...the water part?

The same criteria people use to decide for voting are the ones they use for polling--which is a form of voting, by the way.

As for the name recognition part, he struggled in the back of the pack for a long time before breaking out, and he did it on policy and personal appeal. Maybe he's got a bit of name recognition now, but that's just icing on the proverbial cake; his real strengths are his personality, his rhetorical skills, his life story, his voting record and his extreme intelligence. The cruel and misleading media are hardly ginning up this thing, he's got genuine appeal.

If Reagan's elections didn't teach you anything, then Clinton's should have: charisma matters. This guys got more of it than any of the others. He's also got level-headed and workable solutions to problems, and more than anything else, he's a statesman. He's not going to make flubs based on ignorance or bad temper, and he's approachable. Heads of state, educated elitist snobs and backwoods yahoos all feel some affinity for this guy; that's magic.

Your post may have some truth at its core, but those two issues don't just spring from good PR, this guy's repeatedly shown that he improves in peoples' minds as they see him. He's a media darling, and it's not just because of his looks. Exposure just improves peoples' opinion of him, and that can't be said for the other choices for VP or either of the two criminals on the other ticket.

The heart of your argument is that he's just a creation of PR, and that only "name recognition" keeps the momentum going. That's just nuts. He was never the darling of the media until he started doing well in the Primaries. He took them by surprise in Iowa, and as he picked up steam as the others floundered, he started to turn their heads. They liked what they saw, and because of that, he got some decent press. His popularity is because of him, though, not because he's some manufactured front-man.

Out of adversity, this guy pops to the surface like a cork, and that's the kind of personal buoyancy that wins elections. Why scorn this? He wins on the facile "gee he's cute" level, on the iconic "I can make it too" level, on the "I feel safe with him" level, the "gosh, that makes sense" level and passes muster no matter what scrutiny he undergoes. He also fought a very decent campaign, even when being virulently targeted with lies. He has poise and finesse unlike any of the other candidates, and this is not to be sneezed at. Why throw this away?