Do "successful campaigns" always reflect leadership by good candidate? Or do they reflect

[Proud2BAmurkin]

the "followership" of a voting base short on judgement and foresight and memory and long on emotion or gullibility?

I'm thinking about the people who nominated Bush but there are probably other modern candidates that are successful because of a voting base that is gullible and emotional and doesn't exercise good judgement or foresight.

Clinton's campaign is criticized here sometimes with an argument about "mismanagement". I'm just not convinced campaigns that perform well reflect competence in the candidate. Just sayin.

[tammywammy]

1. So seriously,

What are you going to do if they institute a thread limit? I mean, you won't be able to post every single thought anymore. Do you have other boards to go to? Will you expand into GD more (but obviously not in primary territory)? The Lounge possibly? I'm sure you'd be a big hit in the Hillary supporters group.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

3. I'll respect any decision

it's not my board

[tammywammy]

5. I didn't ask if you'd respect it.

I'd ask what you would do. GD? Lounge? Hillary Supporters Group?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

8. uh, "post at or below the limit"?

:shrug:

[MadBadger]

14. That would be impossible.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

19. Yes I can

[Art_from_Ark]

2. Adlai Stevenson and George McGovern were great candidates

Look what happened to them.

[democrattotheend]

16. I don't think so

I wasn't alive when either ran for president, but from what I know about McGovern, it sounds like he was a pretty lousy candidate...you have to be to lose 49 states. That's not to say he would not have made a good president, but he could not have been a very good candidate if he lost 49 states.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

20. either way, success and failure of a campaign doesn't always mean good leader or bad leader

sometimes it means good followers or bad followers

[Art_from_Ark]

24. McGovern lost because he was smeared big time by Nixon

and someone hadn't vetted his first running mate (Eagleton) properly.

He had great credentials, he just had the misfotrune of being a good guy running against the father of the modern smear campaign.

[krabigirl]

4. No, they reflect good marketing.

[OzarkDem]

6. Obama is getting a "free ride"

I'd prefer not to wait until the GE for him to learn what real opposition is. He will collapse like a house of cards.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

9. I would respect the campaign if that wasn't true (free media ride)

[OzarkDem]

11. The only thing I'm not sure of

is if they realize they're getting a free ride. Or are they like Paul Hackett, with egos so large they won't realize how little experience they have until its too late.

[Nailzberg]

7. Did you add another row?

[OzarkDem]

12. No, I did

[1awake]

18. Me neither!

nope, not at all!

[Proud2BAmurkin]

21. BAAH!

:wtf:

[Fresh_Start]

10. George Bush won at least one primary and one GE nt

nt

[smalll]

13. Obama's "successful campaign" reflects David Axelrod. That's about it.

Any student of history should know to beware of young kings, like Obama, relatively young, or Bush, emotionally and mentally so. A young king means a Regency, hidden, unnacountable powers-behind-thrones, court intrigue, and at least a touch of corruption.

Well, I guess Dave can't do any worse than Dick. That's something.

[OzarkDem]

22. and money that will quickly disapper if he wins the GE

those corporate "bundlers" will disappear very fast.

[gravity]

15. They reflect good political skills

which is beneficial for a candidate once they get into office

[Proud2BAmurkin]

17. In Bush's case, less good political skills than gullible electorate. Other cases too.

[LadyVT]

23. Marketing and social psychology

We psychologists recognize the latter. It's empty.