Are we fooling ourselves?

[last1standing]

I have been reading quite a few opinions on this forum over the last several months and would like to offer my own brand of logic/biased opinion of our situation. I won't bother offering names, just ideas based on the last election cycle.

1. Being a veteran will NOT help in the General Election. Al Gore was in Vietnam, but lost the military vote. On the other hand Bill Clinton evaded the draft in a less than "honorable" manner yet won two consecutive elections against war veterans.

2. Being from the South will NOT bring at least a few southern states along. Al Gore is from TN yet lost every southern state, including his own, with the exception of FL. Bill Clinton also lost most of them.

3. We do NOT need someone from inside the beltway to win. The last Democrat considered an insider who won the presidency was Lyndon Johnson and he had the benefit of running as the incumbent. Even that did not help him in his second run.

4. Anger and passion will NOT turn off the electorate. Bill Clinton's campaign only heated up after his slogan of "It's the Economy, Stupid" and his emotional appeals to the country. Yes, Clinton also spoke of hope, but all the candidates do that. The biggest problem of Democrats is that many independents consider them wimps.

I'm not trying to suggest one candidate over another, but I am trying to dispel some notions that we need a specific "type" to take the White House. What we need is a candidate who can speak to the average American like an average American with passion and energy. If you believe that describes your choice, then fight for them with all your energy, but please understand that everyone else deserves the respect of their opinion as well.

[quinnox]

1. It seems the candidate that fits your

criteria to a tee is Dean, but of course you aren't suggesting a candidate over another.

To answer the question, no, I am not fooling myself regarding my candidate, whether you or anyone else is fooling themselves regarding their respective candidates is up to them to judge.

[last1standing]

4. My criteria does not preclude any of our candidates.

That is unless you feel it does. I haven't said a veteran or a southerner cannot win the election, only that it doesn't necessarily help. While I stated that my opinion is biased, my point is that if we vote for a "type" just because of conventional wisdom, we are fooling ourselves. It hasn't worked in the past, and it won't help now.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. You ask if we are fooling ourselves. The answer is

we are not fooled by people who pretend to hold one viewpoint while actually holding another.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Give me a break.

"I'm not trying to suggest one candidate over another"

right.

:eyes:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. What we need to win

are dedicated, committed people willing not only to vote but to educate their neighbors as to the urgency of taking back our country before it is too late. And it is starting to happen. I'm hearing of groups forming all over this country to do just that. Here in AR it's a group that includes Republicans and Independents who are so mad at Bush that they have already decided to back WHOEVER the Democrats nominate. And I mean actively work for him-and actively distribute flyers, letters to the editors, whatever it takes to get the truth out about Shrub and his cronies.

[last1standing]

5. While that work is good and necessary.

It will only move the Democratic base. Independents will not vote against bush*. They will only vote FOR someone else. Remember none of our candidates is going to match the combined might of money, lobbyists, and media that is going to converge around the chimp. Our only hope is a message that resounds with the people.

[AndyTiedye]

7. We Need a Strategy to win WITHOUT ANY Southern State

We will most likely either lose or get Diebolded in all of them.

[lancdem]

6. I must take issue with some of your statements

This is not 1992, it's 2004, and 9/11 means security/terrorism will be an issue with voters; someone who's a veteran will have bonafides to compete with Bush on that. The Bush campaign has made it clear it will try to make this election about security and terrorism, and I don't believe we can run a candidate who's weak on that. Also, Bill Clinton did not lose most of the South. He won about half the states there.
As for the insider/outsider thing, I don't believe being an insider is a disadvantage, because voters, in a post-9/11 world, want someone with experience. Bush has proven he can't do the job; voters are looking for someone who can govern, not shake things up.

[last1standing]

8. I always respect disagreement.

But I think the last thing we should do is allow the repubs to fight this battle on their terms. We need to work on the economy and other domestic issues. If the repubs manage to bring it back to foreign policy, very unlikely though it is, then we need to push back with how many lives have been lost under bush*.

As for Clinton winning half the south, check out the Edwards link. It shows past elections by state.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

Clinton by no measure won half the south in either cycle.

[RC]

10. Not true.

"On the other hand Bill Clinton evaded the draft in a less than "honorable" manner..."

WJC did not evade the draft. His number did not come up. He was registered.

"What we need is a candidate who can speak to the average American like an average American with passion and energy."

That is how bu$h campaigned for 2 terms as governor and his first term as president. As we all now know, he lied all three times.

[last1standing]

12. If you read the actual account, it is true.

While Bill Clinton's number did not come up, he did not know this at the time and used every legal method he could to avoid service. I don't condemn him for this, if I was looking at service for a war I felt was immoral, I would do the same. However, it does not make a good impression for those looking at a candidate for president. My point is that he still won, therefore maybe a military record is not necessary.

As for bush* campaigning as an average American, yes he did. He is also in the white house. One doesn't have to lie to be able to communicate with the people.

[DemNoir]

11. What a powerful post!

I just love the way you kept capitalizing the word NOT. That really drive the point home for me. Powerful stuff!

[last1standing]

13. um, okay.

n/t

[UTUSN]

14. There Are No "Types" Running. Just Real Live Human Individuals n/t

[last1standing]

21. That's a good way to look at it.

I'm just saying that I often hear that we have to nominate a southerner or a veteran or an insider or a gun nut or some other "type" that has nothing to do with the person at all. In this thread you'll read several posts that say we need a veteran "type" in the "post 9-11" world. I disagree with nominating a "type". Let's nominate a person.

[Jerseycoa]

15. Disagree

1. Being a veteran will NOT help in the General Election. Al Gore was in Vietnam, but lost the military vote. On the other hand Bill Clinton evaded the draft in a less than "honorable" manner yet won two consecutive elections against war veterans.


Post-9/11 means the president needs foreign policy creds and military service. Bush couldn't get elected if he had first run post-9/11. The only way he will be re-elected is if enough people are stupid enough to believe him as commander in chief. It's all he's got, faker though he is. Clark and Kerry are the only two candidates who can confront this critical aspect of GWB's creds (fake though they are) as a wartime president. The Iraq war has less to do with it than war on terror: Americans tend not to vote out wartime presidents.

[union_maid]

16. That was then, this is now

"1. Being a veteran will NOT help in the General Election. Al Gore was in Vietnam, but lost the military vote. On the other hand Bill Clinton evaded the draft in a less than "honorable" manner yet won two consecutive elections against war veterans."

In 1992 a person's military experience didn't matter. In 2004 we have war being waged incompetently by people without military experience and it seems to matter. At the very least, if we nominate someone with that experience the issue can be on the table.

"2. Being from the South will NOT bring at least a few southern states along. Al Gore is from TN yet lost every southern state, including his own, with the exception of FL. Bill Clinton also lost most of them."

Someone on the ticket better be from the south. Might not always help, but it sure couldn't hurt.

"3. We do NOT need someone from inside the beltway to win. The last Democrat considered an insider who won the presidency was Lyndon Johnson and he had the benefit of running as the incumbent. Even that did not help him in his second run."

I don't really disagree with the premise, but I have to ask..what second run was that?

"4. Anger and passion will NOT turn off the electorate. Bill Clinton's campaign only heated up after his slogan of "It's the Economy, Stupid" and his emotional appeals to the country. Yes, Clinton also spoke of hope, but all the candidates do that. The biggest problem of Democrats is that many independents consider them wimps."

That's kind of intangible. I don't think any of the candidates that might possibly win this thing come off as wimps, though.

[last1standing]

19. The more things change the more they stay the same.

To respond to your responses:

1. "In 1992 a person's military experience didn't matter. In 2004 we have war being waged incompetently by people without military experience and it seems to matter. At the very least, if we nominate someone with that experience the issue can be on the table."

Every poll still shows that the economy is the #1 issue. Security comes a distant second or even third. I'm not saying a veteran will hurt the ticket, I just don't think it'll help.

2. "Someone on the ticket better be from the south. Might not always help, but it sure couldn't hurt."

Again, if it's not going to help, then why make it a prerequisit? I say let's just find the best candidate regardless of geography.

3. "I don't really disagree with the premise, but I have to ask..what second run was that?"

Johnson was beginning a run for his second full term, but his reelect numbers were so low, he abandoned the race.

4. "That's kind of intangible. I don't think any of the candidates that might possibly win this thing come off as wimps, though."

You're right, it's very intangible. My bias thinks one candidate is going to come off as wimpy, you my think another will, or none at all. Only the GE will see who is right. My point is that we had better choose someone we think has the passion and energy to fight every step of the way and push his message.

[bearfartinthewoods]

17. RE #2,,,,tell me the last time we won the presidency without a

southerner on the ticket?

[David Dunham]

18. Even If the Economy "Improves," Job Situation Will Stay Bleak Through Nov.

[last1standing]

20. Other than Mondale/Ferraro name the last time we didn't run one.

It hasn't helped alot, has it?

[shivaji]

22. Dems DO NOT need the south to win, all we need is

to hold the Gore states plus Nevada & WV, both good prospects.
W. VA has lost a lot of jobs and is definitely in play. If I
was advising the nominee, I would advise him to restrict spending
to ONLY the Gore states plus NV and WV. Let the repugs have the
rest. We will have 270 EV's.

[last1standing]

24. I'm not saying we should abandon the south.

I just don't think we must have a southerner on the ticket to be viable in the south. I think we need someone who is willing to look at the south in a whole new way. In other words stop pandering to them and bring them into the discussion of the best way to lead this country into the future. Both repubs and Democrats are guilty of treating the south like spoiled little children who require special treatment to stop them from throwing tantrums. In this scenario, repubs have the advantage because they have more money to bend the argument to their advantage. How else could the very type of person Jesus spoke out against gain the Christian vote?

Let's just treat everyone as equal human beings and see what happens.

[John_H]

23. Yes. We're toast anyway. Let's nominate Dean just for kicks.

[bhunt70]

25. lol

[CabalBuster]

26. Thanks for reafirming to me that Howard Dean is the best choice

[wabeewoman]

27. I don't think 'we're' fooling ourselves

but I definately think we are letting the news media define what it will take to win but they don't know and who trusts them anyway. I don't even think who the public 'likes' is going to work this time-I know people who have worked for an incompetent boss and really liked them but still wanted them fired. I agree with your premise that those should not be the reasons we select a candidate. It should be the person we believe will stand up for democratic principles and is most likely to succeed in undoing nearly everything bush has done this past 3 years. If they inspire us in the process, so much the better.