Reply #60: Response [View All]

[drummo]

I am not sure what you want me to say, what do you think makes Clark so unelectable, escpecially compared to a Kerry or Hillary?

No I don't say that he is unelectable, not the least becuse it's impossible to tell what the plebs will want in 2008.
I just wanted to know what makes you think that Clark would run so well among indies.

Sure, technically. But to many voters, there are people who seem like non-politicians, even if they are technically politicians. I think Jimmy Carter had a pleasing non-politician vibe to many who voted for him in 1976.

I understand. But after Clark's dance around the IWR ("I probably would have voted for it" then "I would have voted no on that resolution") he lost that non-politician aura.

My only point is that 20 million people voted for a guy with no experience. I know some of those people voted for him BECAUSE he had no experience.

Yes but 20 million votes are not enough to win the election.

Because when you pull some brush, act tough and simply SAY that you are tough on terrorism like Bush did, that is credible enough in the eyes of most Americans.

It's not that simply.
1.Bush was a Rep. For most idiots in the country that alone made him more credible on nas.sec.
than if he had been a Dem. It was clear during the 2000 campaign, as well.

2.Bush mixed his war on terra heavily with religion, racism and nationalism. The unspoken message was: I am pro-white, anti-Islam and a bigger-than-you patriot.
Most people would never admit that that's what they were seeking after 9/11.
But they are liars. It was all about those three things.
Clark is not perceived as anti-Muslim or pro-white. And he is not nationalist. And for that reason he would not be perceived as someone who would "kick the ass of those Muslim radicals".

3.9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Therefore he and only he had the opportunity to build a "tough on terra" image -- not the least by using 9/11 over and over again as a justification for his actions and words.

If Bush started windsurfing and downhill skiing in pastel outfits while Kerry pulled brush on his ranch, I really think many people would have trusted Kerry to be tougher on terror.

No way.

If the Swift Boat Vets for "Truth" didn't exist, or if Kerry would have handled it better, I think Kerry would have won more votes.

But they existed and they convinced a lot of people that Kerry was full of crap.
That was my point. Over and over again the Reps destroyed Vietnam veterans and the plebs bought their story. McCain, Gore, Cleland, Kerry.

I agree, image matters. And I think Clark would have that image as average voters got to know him.

I think you overestimate the intelligence of the average voter.
Clark comes across as soft and tolerant. The plebs want someone tough and intolerant.
Now maybe that's changing and will change even more by 2008.
But today someone who doesn't come across as an agressive hateful religious dumbass
cannot expect to be seen as a "tough on terrorism" guy.
Except Giuliani -- but that's because of 9/11. And McCain because he
is perceived as a sort of legendary figure (a total bullshit but people are stupid). And because they are Reps.

They would. Just as Dems and Reps cried "draft dodger" about Bush and Clinton. They still got elected because nothing was as extreme as the SBVT. Are there skeletons in Clark's closet as bad as the SBVT? Not that I know of.

Clinton was elected under very special circumstances : economy down in the toilet + Perot + Rep screw up at their convention
Bush was not elected in 2000 and he was elected in 2004 because of the "war on terra" and the gay marriage paranoia.

Gore made the mistake of barely campaigning in his home state.

No, he made a mistake to waste the time and money he wasted there.
TN was a lost cause from the beginning. It had a Rep governor and two Rep Senators.
Like in Utah or Wyoming. It had become the ultimate Clinton hater state full of fundamentalists.
Gore could not afford to spend more time and money there, anyway. Remember he was outspent by Bush 2-1. Gore needed the money in states where he had a chance to win.
And it's not really his homestate, anyway.

He should have worked hard and won New Hampshire too. Nader voters shouldn't have split the ticket (I think they learned that lesson).

Again, don't forget Gore had a limited budget and limited time.
He was campaiging around the clock, he was not spleeping for 4 days before election day. (No kidding.)
But he had to go to places where he had the most chance to win. Remember that Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Oregon were extermely close,as well. If Gore had gone to NH more often he couldn't have gone to those other states. And then even if he had won NH he might very well have lost NM or Iowa and then he would have lost without Florida.

Nader gave NH to Bush. Look at the 2000 and 2004 results. Kerry could win NH because Naderites changed their mind and voter for the Dem after 4 years of Bush's nightmare.


I think Gore was a bit stiff.

So what? What does being stiff have to do with the presidency?

Dems got lazy after 8 years of Clinton, and weren't fired up to come out and vote for Gore in droves.

I agree with that.

I am not hoping for a candidate to appeal to everyone, just swing a few middle of the road types. People who aren't DUers or Freepers or people who even think that hard before voting. That's all we need.

That's true but the question is whether those "in the middle" are less insane than the Freepers.
Based on the last election result I have doubts.

And so did Gore in most people's eyes.

Actually the last poll I saw on this issue showed that about 50% believed Bush "won" only because of technicalities. That's hardly proof that most think Gore lost the election fair and square. But certainly everyone think that Perot lost fair and square.

But I mentioned Perot because he really lost despite being an non-politician. So you can hardly use his example to prove that Clark would win.

I just hope more Dems will consider the "package" (homestate, likeability, etc) and not just their voting record.

Actually I think we and the pols should change that trend instead of caputilating.
The "package" has nothing to do with the job at stake. Every reasonable person knows that.
But it has been legitimized over the last few decades by pols, the media and voters alike.
Someone should run a campaign which emphasizes that the "package" is good for nothing and sloves nothing. We should have someone running who challenges this trend not someone who caves in, again, like Bill Clinton did.

BTW likability is a totally subjective thing, so noone can give an accurate assessment of how it plays in an election, anyway.