WrestlingClassics.com Message Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» WrestlingClassics.com Message Board » Political Discussion » Should the Democrats Go "Establsihment" or "Disruptor" for Their Nominee? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Should the Democrats Go "Establsihment" or "Disruptor" for Their Nominee?
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The question is pretty straight-forward, and for those on either side of the question, the answer is pretty easy to make.

What if I were to tell you that the odds are almost always better to go with the "Disruptor" if you want a Democrat in the White House? To Wit:
 -

That chart/slide is part of a presentation made by Bruce Mehlman on the 2020 presidential election and the future of American politics. Sadly, it's just the presentation slides, not the actual lecture/speech, but there's still a lot of meat to be had there.



And Mehlman comes up with another observation that may need a bit of thought about: Since Vietnam, the candidates with more Washington experience usually loses the general election.
 -

Kinda puts all that pooh-poohing about Obama's lack of experience -- a big GOP-pushed point in 2008 -- into perspective, doesn't it?

[ 07-18-2019, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Travlr ]

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
King Francis
Member
Member # 24068

Icon 1 posted      Profile for King Francis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ESTABLISHMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dont run a disruptor against the great disruptor.. dont fight a pig in the pen..

get the US back to the middle and we can argue policies, not if the fricking idiot is racist or not...

--------------------
When I said that was the most ignorant thing I ever heard, I didn't realize you were still talking.

IP: Logged
diamondmd
Member
Member # 1292

Icon 1 posted      Profile for diamondmd     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny how people wanting the United States to live up to what it has claimed to be, where all are created equal, are considered 'disruptors".

This country is determined to go the way of the Roman Empire.

[ 07-18-2019, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: diamondmd ]

IP: Logged
Crimson Mask from FL
Administrator
Member # 10449

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Crimson Mask from FL     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When the ship is about to roll you don't right it by shifting the ballast to the center.

--------------------
So long from the Sunshine State!

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about a happy middle - Kamala Harris? Just enough to the center to calm the people down who are terrified of Warren and Sanders, and just enough to the left to calm people down who think Biden is awful?

And she's not totally inexperienced in Washington, but pretty inexperienced - she has the exact same amount of time in Congress as our 44th president had when he ran.

Policy-wise, my heart is with Warren. I just don't think she'll be able to withstand the onslaught of nonsense that will be thrown her way of she's the nominee. Sanders is... ugh. Way too polarizing. It's a moot point, though, because he's currently polling in 5th place in New Hampshire, and if he doesn't win there or at least come in a pretty close second, he's finished. I think Warren is going to destroy him among the most progressive voters.

As for me, the Democratic nominee has my vote, no matter who it is. I really don't care for Sanders or Biden, and Gabbard terrifies me, but if any of those three are the nominee, they will have my vote. I would vote for a bowl of oatmeal if it were the nominee - unless they reanimate Hitler's corpse, there is literally no one the Democrats could choose as a nominee who would be objectively worse than the person currently occupying the White House.

[ 07-18-2019, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Dragonstone ]

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by diamondmd:
Funny how people wanting the United States to live up to what it has claimed to be, where all are created equal, are considered 'ditruptors".

Think not of ideology and more about their relationships with the Party hierarchy and positions.

Carter was a new brand of "Southern Democrat", at the height of the NorthEastern control of the Party.

Clinton was a populist in the same vein (if not direction) of Huey Long, George Wallace and, yes, Donald Trump.

Obama was that uppity newcomer who thought he knew better than the Old Guard.

"Disruptors" aren't always based on ideology, and in these three cases, they were all very much in opposition to the Conventional Wisdom of their times.


Proviso on all this, BTW: Our sample size WRT the "Disruptors" is small, and we probably shouldn't take it as "the absolute way to go." But it isn't anything to arbitrarily toss away out of hand, either!

But the trend WRT "Washington Experience" was an eye-opener for me. And I imagine for all (or most) of you, too.

[ 07-18-2019, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Travlr ]

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crimson Mask from FL:
When the ship is about to roll you don't right it by shifting the ballast to the center.

As a sailor, absolutely agree. And having been in some very rough seas (including at least one hurricane, Earl in '98), yes, it's simply what you do.

But at the same time, you can only take the "ship of state in rough seas" allegory just so far....

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
The Fake J.D. McKay
Member
Member # 24269

Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Fake J.D. McKay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Novel idea: Vote for the person that represents your views.
IP: Logged
Crimson Mask from FL
Administrator
Member # 10449

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Crimson Mask from FL     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by Crimson Mask from FL:
When the ship is about to roll you don't right it by shifting the ballast to the center.

As a sailor, absolutely agree. And having been in some very rough seas (including at least one hurricane, Earl in '98), yes, it's simply what you do.

But at the same time, you can only take the "ship of state in rough seas" allegory just so far....

I don't agree. The basics apply to everything. That's why they're the basics.

--------------------
So long from the Sunshine State!

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Fake J.D. McKay:
Novel idea: Vote for the person that represents your views.

Haven't found them yet out of the current herd. Leaning toward 3 or 4 of them, but most haven't really staked out policy positions, either....

Up here (with our own election in October), that choice was made as soon as Andrew Scheer got the Conservative Party's leadership. There was very little choice to be had (even with six different Parties in the mix).

It promises to be very nasty this year....

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
1000 Masks But No Jobs
Member
Member # 2102

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 1000 Masks But No Jobs     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
How about a happy middle - Kamala Harris? Just enough to the center to calm the people down who are terrified of Warren and Sanders, and just enough to the left to calm people down who think Biden is awful?

And she's not totally inexperienced in Washington, but pretty inexperienced - she has the exact same amount of time in Congress as our 44th president had when he ran.

Policy-wise, my heart is with Warren. I just don't think she'll be able to withstand the onslaught of nonsense that will be thrown her way of she's the nominee. Sanders is... ugh. Way too polarizing. It's a moot point, though, because he's currently polling in 5th place in New Hampshire, and if he doesn't win there or at least come in a pretty close second, he's finished. I think Warren is going to destroy him among the most progressive voters.

As for me, the Democratic nominee has my vote, no matter who it is. I really don't care for Sanders or Biden, and Gabbard terrifies me, but if any of those three are the nominee, they will have my vote. I would vote for a bowl of oatmeal if it were the nominee - unless they reanimate Hitler's corpse, there is literally no one the Democrats could choose as a nominee who would be objectively worse than the person currently occupying the White House.

Still along way to go, of course, but Harris polls the worst of any of the four Democratic frontrunners. After 2016, do Dems really want to go down that road again of not running the strongest general election candidate?

--------------------
Your back-to-back (2009 and 2010) Too Tall Cup Champion.

IP: Logged
Shaving Weezie Jefferson
Member
Member # 126638

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shaving Weezie Jefferson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by The Fake J.D. McKay:
Novel idea: Vote for the person that represents your views.

Haven't found them yet out of the current herd. Leaning toward 3 or 4 of them, but most haven't really staked out policy positions, either....

Thought you were in Canada.

--------------------
This post isn't about wrestling. It is intended only to mock and criticize Richard Wallner.

IP: Logged
PsychoSem
Member
Member # 119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for PsychoSem     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think there is a little bit of flawed logic to this. Carter as a 'disruptor' was elected on the heals of all of the Nixon stuff. Clinton, much the same after a failed H.W. single term Presidency.

I will also argue that guys like Mondale and Kerry were ran as a 'throw away' because people knew it was likely both Reagan and W. would win re-election.

You could probably even throw 1988 in there with so many siding with Bush coming out of Ronald's two terms, but that seemed a little more up in the air at the time. H.W. won and ultimately lost on promising no new taxes and then raising them.

--------------------
The future's uncertain and the end is always near...

IP: Logged
Dragonstone
Member
Member # 129157

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dragonstone     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I will also argue that guys like Mondale and Kerry were ran as a 'throw away' because people knew it was likely both Reagan and W. would win re-election.
True about Mondale, not so much with Kerry. Public sentiment on Iraq was quickly going south by early 2004, and Bush's approval ratings were on the downswing from the sky high numbers he had from late 2001 through the start of the Iraq War in March 2003. By late spring 2004, he was down in the mid-40s on his Gallup daily approval rating, with a disapproval rating over 50%. And as the election got near, the polling was looking pretty good for Kerry. Kerry didn't by any means appear to be anything close to a lock or even a solid favorite, but it was looking like Bush might be one and done in late October 2004.

And in the end, Bush barely won that election. It seemed like a huge victory because he actually won over 50% that time, but he still fell short of 300 electoral votes, which no other president has done (other than Bush himself in 2000) in the last 40 years. If 120,000 voters in Ohio (out of 5.6 million) had gone to Kerry instead of Bush, Kerry would have become the 44th president.

The same was hardly true for Mondale.

[ 07-18-2019, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Dragonstone ]

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shaving Weezie Jefferson:
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by The Fake J.D. McKay:
Novel idea: Vote for the person that represents your views.

Haven't found them yet out of the current herd. Leaning toward 3 or 4 of them, but most haven't really staked out policy positions, either....

Thought you were in Canada.
Fine.

Whom I would vote for.

And whom I hope gets in; US Politics have some important effects for Canada. Economically, diplomatically and socially. It's a toss-up as to whether or not Canada or Mexico watches your elections more closely....

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
I will also argue that guys like Mondale and Kerry were ran as a 'throw away' because people knew it was likely both Reagan and W. would win re-election.
True about Mondale, not so much with Kerry. Public sentiment on Iraq was quickly going south by early 2004, and Bush's approval ratings were on the downswing from the sky high numbers he had from late 2001 through the start of the Iraq War in March 2003. By late spring 2004, he was down in the mid-40s on his Gallup daily approval rating, with a disapproval rating over 50%. And as the election got near, the polling was looking pretty good for Kerry. Kerry didn't by any means appear to be anything close to a lock or even a solid favorite, but it was looking like Bush might be one and done in late October 2004.

And in the end, Bush barely won that election. It seemed like a huge victory because he actually won over 50% that time, but he still fell short of 300 electoral votes, which no other president has done (other than Bush himself in 2000) in the last 40 years. If 120,000 voters in Ohio (out of 5.6 million) had gone to Kerry instead of Bush, Kerry would have become the 44th president.

The same was hardly true for Mondale.

I'm not convinced in either case that they were "throwaways", but it's certainly something to look further into.

Mondale was the heir-apparent after Ted Kennedy said he wasn't going to run, and given Reagan's numbers in early '83 -- remember the '82 Midterms were painful for the GOP, and the general thought is that if the general election had been held then, Reagan would have been out on his ear -- this seemed like a good bet. Reagan had a 43% approval rating that November according to Gallup, which dipped to 35% in January of '83. The Recession was just finishing, and the all-time high of US unemployment was just beginning to drop (as was both the inflation rate and interest rates, but at a much greater speed), so people were still P.O.'d. Reagan looked like a wounded animal and the sharks were beginning to circle, with Mondale leading (this was the election that Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson were also running hard in, for those of a certain age). Mondale, known to the Party and the public seemed like the way to go.

But Reagan's approval was back over 50% by that November and stayed there until December of '86. Mondale wasn't a "throwaway", but he was the wrong person for the nomination by the time the Primaries were running, and his initial problems with Hart highlighted this. If Mondale hadn't hit Hart with the "Where's the beef" bit in the debate, one can wonder if Hart could have ultimately gotten the nomination (I personally doubt it, but he could very likely have drawn out the nomination process at the DNCon).

But as I said, by that time, it was too late; Reagan was already rolling. The choice of Ferraro hurt the Democrats more than I think they thought it would, and then Reagan eviscerated Mondale in the debates. From there.....

No, I don't think he was a "throwaway", but I do think he was the wrong candidate, given the political landscape of the time.


Dragonstone's comments about Kerry I think are valid; Bush's approval decline was still sinking, and America's opposition to the war in Iraq was climbing. Kerry was a good choice (I still wish Wes Clarke had entered the race sooner), given the pretty lack-luster array of candidates of the time and Howard Dean's flame-out after New Hampshire. But Bush caught a hiccup in the polls at just the right time. A month earlier or later and the game could have been quite different.

[ 07-19-2019, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: Travlr ]

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
Mr. Parts Unknown
Member
Member # 1692

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Parts Unknown     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
I will also argue that guys like Mondale and Kerry were ran as a 'throw away' because people knew it was likely both Reagan and W. would win re-election.
True about Mondale, not so much with Kerry. Public sentiment on Iraq was quickly going south by early 2004, and Bush's approval ratings were on the downswing from the sky high numbers he had from late 2001 through the start of the Iraq War in March 2003. By late spring 2004, he was down in the mid-40s on his Gallup daily approval rating, with a disapproval rating over 50%. And as the election got near, the polling was looking pretty good for Kerry. Kerry didn't by any means appear to be anything close to a lock or even a solid favorite, but it was looking like Bush might be one and done in late October 2004.

And in the end, Bush barely won that election. It seemed like a huge victory because he actually won over 50% that time, but he still fell short of 300 electoral votes, which no other president has done (other than Bush himself in 2000) in the last 40 years. If 120,000 voters in Ohio (out of 5.6 million) had gone to Kerry instead of Bush, Kerry would have become the 44th president.

The same was hardly true for Mondale.

I'm not convinced in either case that they were "throwaways", but it's certainly something to look further into.

Mondale was the heir-apparent after Ted Kennedy said he wasn't going to run, and given Reagan's numbers in early '83 -- remember the '82 Midterms were painful for the GOP, and the general thought is that if the general election had been held then, Reagan would have been out on his ear -- this seemed like a good bet. Reagan had a 43% approval rating that November according to Gallup, which dipped to 35% in January of '83. The Recession was just finishing, and the all-time high of US unemployment was just beginning to drop (as was both the inflation rate and interest rates, but at a much greater speed), so people were still P.O.'d. Reagan looked like a wounded animal and the sharks were beginning to circle, with Mondale leading (this was the election that Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson were also running hard in, for those of a certain age). Mondale, known to the Party and the public seemed like the way to go.

But Reagan's approval was back over 50% by that November and stayed there until December of '86. Mondale wasn't a "throwaway", but he was the wrong person for the nomination by the time the Primaries were running, and his initial problems with Hart highlighted this. If Mondale hadn't hit Hart with the "Where's the beef" bit in the debate, one can wonder if Hart could have ultimately gotten the nomination (I personally doubt it, but he could very likely have drawn out the nomination process at the DNCon).

But as I said, by that time, it was too late; Reagan was already rolling. The choice of Ferraro hurt the Democrats more than I think they thought it would, and then Reagan eviscerated Mondale in the debates. From there.....

No, I don't think he was a "throwaway", but I do think he was the wrong candidate, given the political landscape of the time.


Dragonstone's comments about Kerry I think are valid; Bush's approval decline was still sinking, and America's opposition to the war in Iraq was climbing. Kerry was a good choice (I still wish Wes Clarke had entered the race sooner), given the pretty lack-luster array of candidates of the time and Howard Dean's flame-out after New Hampshire. But Bush caught a hiccup in the polls at just the right time. A month earlier or later and the game could have been quite different.

Agree with almost all of your assessment Trav, though I do have one minor nit to pick about your statement that "Reagan eviscerated Mondale in the debates."

As I remember it, Reagan actually struggled mightily in the first debate, leading to whispers that his faculties might be failing him. In fact, I think one national magazine (don't remember which one) even came out with an article entitled, "Is President Reagan Senile?"

That debate (in early October, as I recall), actually helped Mondale close the gap in the polls, getting as close as the margin of error in some of them.

But Reagan was much better prepared in the second debate about 2 weeks before he election, and when asked about concerns about his age, he delivered the line, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience," which proved to be the knockout blow.

IP: Logged
King Francis
Member
Member # 24068

Icon 1 posted      Profile for King Francis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But Reagan was much better prepared in the second debate about 2 weeks before he election, and when asked about concerns about his age, he delivered the line, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience," which proved to be the knockout blow.

agree, that helped turn the tide.. and as much as I disagree with his politics, one funny ass comment

--------------------
When I said that was the most ignorant thing I ever heard, I didn't realize you were still talking.

IP: Logged
K. Fabian McClinch
Member
Member # 6275

Icon 1 posted      Profile for K. Fabian McClinch     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With the gift of hindsight, it's really difficult to see middle-of-the-road moderates like Carter and Clinton as "disruptors" -- but yes, that's how they were being portrayed at the time.

I have a feeling that although her polls are pretty low right now, Harris could be the best "compromise" the Dems can find -- a moderate centrist, not unlike Hillary (Or Barack, for that matter), so not too scary for mainstream moderates, but with enough "identity-politics" cred to lure a sufficient number of progressives. And quick-witted, fast on her feet, aggressive yet charming (essential for a woman candidate, like it or not, that's reality) -- more than able to go one-on-one with T-Rump and leave him gasping for air.

--------------------
"Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Four shots ripped into my groin, and I was off on one of the strangest adventures of my life." (Max Shulman)

IP: Logged
1000 Masks But No Jobs
Member
Member # 2102

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 1000 Masks But No Jobs     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by K. Fabian McClinch:
With the gift of hindsight, it's really difficult to see middle-of-the-road moderates like Carter and Clinton as "disruptors" -- but yes, that's how they were being portrayed at the time.

I have a feeling that although her polls are pretty low right now, Harris could be the best "compromise" the Dems can find -- a moderate centrist, not unlike Hillary (Or Barack, for that matter), so not too scary for mainstream moderates, but with enough "identity-politics" cred to lure a sufficient number of progressives. And quick-witted, fast on her feet, aggressive yet charming (essential for a woman candidate, like it or not, that's reality) -- more than able to go one-on-one with T-Rump and leave him gasping for air.

I don't know how much of a "compromise" choice Harris would be. I don't think there is a lot appeal to her in the Rust Belt that decided the last election, at least relative to some of the other Dem choices.

She is polling worse than the other Dem frontrunners against Trump. To me, Harris seems she would open up the Dems for a repeat of 2016.

Here is a NYT article from today that talks about Trump could lose the popular vote by even more in 2020 (by as much as five points), yet win the electoral college again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/upshot/trump-electoral-college-edge-.html

[ 07-19-2019, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: 1000 Masks But No Jobs ]

--------------------
Your back-to-back (2009 and 2010) Too Tall Cup Champion.

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Parts Unknown:
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
I will also argue that guys like Mondale and Kerry were ran as a 'throw away' because people knew it was likely both Reagan and W. would win re-election.
True about Mondale, not so much with Kerry. Public sentiment on Iraq was quickly going south by early 2004, and Bush's approval ratings were on the downswing from the sky high numbers he had from late 2001 through the start of the Iraq War in March 2003. By late spring 2004, he was down in the mid-40s on his Gallup daily approval rating, with a disapproval rating over 50%. And as the election got near, the polling was looking pretty good for Kerry. Kerry didn't by any means appear to be anything close to a lock or even a solid favorite, but it was looking like Bush might be one and done in late October 2004.

And in the end, Bush barely won that election. It seemed like a huge victory because he actually won over 50% that time, but he still fell short of 300 electoral votes, which no other president has done (other than Bush himself in 2000) in the last 40 years. If 120,000 voters in Ohio (out of 5.6 million) had gone to Kerry instead of Bush, Kerry would have become the 44th president.

The same was hardly true for Mondale.

I'm not convinced in either case that they were "throwaways", but it's certainly something to look further into.

Mondale was the heir-apparent after Ted Kennedy said he wasn't going to run, and given Reagan's numbers in early '83 -- remember the '82 Midterms were painful for the GOP, and the general thought is that if the general election had been held then, Reagan would have been out on his ear -- this seemed like a good bet. Reagan had a 43% approval rating that November according to Gallup, which dipped to 35% in January of '83. The Recession was just finishing, and the all-time high of US unemployment was just beginning to drop (as was both the inflation rate and interest rates, but at a much greater speed), so people were still P.O.'d. Reagan looked like a wounded animal and the sharks were beginning to circle, with Mondale leading (this was the election that Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson were also running hard in, for those of a certain age). Mondale, known to the Party and the public seemed like the way to go.

But Reagan's approval was back over 50% by that November and stayed there until December of '86. Mondale wasn't a "throwaway", but he was the wrong person for the nomination by the time the Primaries were running, and his initial problems with Hart highlighted this. If Mondale hadn't hit Hart with the "Where's the beef" bit in the debate, one can wonder if Hart could have ultimately gotten the nomination (I personally doubt it, but he could very likely have drawn out the nomination process at the DNCon).

But as I said, by that time, it was too late; Reagan was already rolling. The choice of Ferraro hurt the Democrats more than I think they thought it would, and then Reagan eviscerated Mondale in the debates. From there.....

No, I don't think he was a "throwaway", but I do think he was the wrong candidate, given the political landscape of the time.


Dragonstone's comments about Kerry I think are valid; Bush's approval decline was still sinking, and America's opposition to the war in Iraq was climbing. Kerry was a good choice (I still wish Wes Clarke had entered the race sooner), given the pretty lack-luster array of candidates of the time and Howard Dean's flame-out after New Hampshire. But Bush caught a hiccup in the polls at just the right time. A month earlier or later and the game could have been quite different.

Agree with almost all of your assessment Trav, though I do have one minor nit to pick about your statement that "Reagan eviscerated Mondale in the debates."

As I remember it, Reagan actually struggled mightily in the first debate, leading to whispers that his faculties might be failing him. In fact, I think one national magazine (don't remember which one) even came out with an article entitled, "Is President Reagan Senile?"

That debate (in early October, as I recall), actually helped Mondale close the gap in the polls, getting as close as the margin of error in some of them.

But Reagan was much better prepared in the second debate about 2 weeks before he election, and when asked about concerns about his age, he delivered the line, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience," which proved to be the knockout blow.

Yup, yup -- I remember that. That first debate was terrible for Reagan. Wasn't a killer, but it hurt. The second however....you could see in Mondale's eyes as he turned back to his notes he knew the "youth and inexperience" line was going to hurt bad.

Gotta wonder if he suspected just how bad....

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
Daddy Dewdrop
Member
Member # 3960

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Daddy Dewdrop     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I had just turned 18 in 1984, so it was the very first election where I could vote. I was actually rooting for Jesse Jackson to get the nomination, but did vote for Mondale against Reagan. I was pretty disappointed that Mondale only won just the one state (+ DC), but since it was my state of Minnesota, that was a bit of a consolation. It didn't take long until I became pretty disillusioned with the 2 party system and since then I almost always vote for a third party candidate.
IP: Logged
Daddy Dewdrop
Member
Member # 3960

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Daddy Dewdrop     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It all comes down to simple math. The Dems will have to go with the best candidate to flip Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin back to blue. They need to focus on that or it's 4 more years of Trump.
IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daddy Dewdrop:
It all comes down to simple math. The Dems will have to go with the best candidate to flip Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin back to blue. They need to focus on that or it's 4 more years of Trump.

Ohio's going to be very hard to flip; they've been trending Red since 2004. Maybe doable, but it will take a lot of work to not mess it up.

But it's not just the old "Blue Wall" States to be thinking about (although they should be a bit of a priority). The "Pros From Dover" are currently suggesting the following States as being "in play" at this time: Arizona, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. There's a feeling of "Sun Belt vs. Rust Belt" in the current overview of how things are shaping up for next year, but it's still early enough for another dynamic to appear....but that doesn't mean that both the Democrats and Republicans shouldn't be viewing some of the current State polling with concern: Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Georgia and even Texas and Ohio aren't as bright blue or deep red as they were even 4 years ago. What would it gain Trump get keep Wisconsin's 10 EVs but lose Georgia's 16? And would it really be any better for the Dem Nom to be able to bring Wisconsin back home but lose Virginia (13EVs)?

Simple math, but where to place those "+" and "-" signs.....

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
PsychoSem
Member
Member # 119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for PsychoSem     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Parts Unknown:
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonstone:
quote:
I will also argue that guys like Mondale and Kerry were ran as a 'throw away' because people knew it was likely both Reagan and W. would win re-election.
True about Mondale, not so much with Kerry. Public sentiment on Iraq was quickly going south by early 2004, and Bush's approval ratings were on the downswing from the sky high numbers he had from late 2001 through the start of the Iraq War in March 2003. By late spring 2004, he was down in the mid-40s on his Gallup daily approval rating, with a disapproval rating over 50%. And as the election got near, the polling was looking pretty good for Kerry. Kerry didn't by any means appear to be anything close to a lock or even a solid favorite, but it was looking like Bush might be one and done in late October 2004.

And in the end, Bush barely won that election. It seemed like a huge victory because he actually won over 50% that time, but he still fell short of 300 electoral votes, which no other president has done (other than Bush himself in 2000) in the last 40 years. If 120,000 voters in Ohio (out of 5.6 million) had gone to Kerry instead of Bush, Kerry would have become the 44th president.

The same was hardly true for Mondale.

I'm not convinced in either case that they were "throwaways", but it's certainly something to look further into.

Mondale was the heir-apparent after Ted Kennedy said he wasn't going to run, and given Reagan's numbers in early '83 -- remember the '82 Midterms were painful for the GOP, and the general thought is that if the general election had been held then, Reagan would have been out on his ear -- this seemed like a good bet. Reagan had a 43% approval rating that November according to Gallup, which dipped to 35% in January of '83. The Recession was just finishing, and the all-time high of US unemployment was just beginning to drop (as was both the inflation rate and interest rates, but at a much greater speed), so people were still P.O.'d. Reagan looked like a wounded animal and the sharks were beginning to circle, with Mondale leading (this was the election that Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson were also running hard in, for those of a certain age). Mondale, known to the Party and the public seemed like the way to go.

But Reagan's approval was back over 50% by that November and stayed there until December of '86. Mondale wasn't a "throwaway", but he was the wrong person for the nomination by the time the Primaries were running, and his initial problems with Hart highlighted this. If Mondale hadn't hit Hart with the "Where's the beef" bit in the debate, one can wonder if Hart could have ultimately gotten the nomination (I personally doubt it, but he could very likely have drawn out the nomination process at the DNCon).

But as I said, by that time, it was too late; Reagan was already rolling. The choice of Ferraro hurt the Democrats more than I think they thought it would, and then Reagan eviscerated Mondale in the debates. From there.....

No, I don't think he was a "throwaway", but I do think he was the wrong candidate, given the political landscape of the time.


Dragonstone's comments about Kerry I think are valid; Bush's approval decline was still sinking, and America's opposition to the war in Iraq was climbing. Kerry was a good choice (I still wish Wes Clarke had entered the race sooner), given the pretty lack-luster array of candidates of the time and Howard Dean's flame-out after New Hampshire. But Bush caught a hiccup in the polls at just the right time. A month earlier or later and the game could have been quite different.

Agree with almost all of your assessment Trav, though I do have one minor nit to pick about your statement that "Reagan eviscerated Mondale in the debates."

As I remember it, Reagan actually struggled mightily in the first debate, leading to whispers that his faculties might be failing him. In fact, I think one national magazine (don't remember which one) even came out with an article entitled, "Is President Reagan Senile?"

That debate (in early October, as I recall), actually helped Mondale close the gap in the polls, getting as close as the margin of error in some of them.

But Reagan was much better prepared in the second debate about 2 weeks before he election, and when asked about concerns about his age, he delivered the line, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience," which proved to be the knockout blow.

Yup, yup -- I remember that. That first debate was terrible for Reagan. Wasn't a killer, but it hurt. The second however....you could see in Mondale's eyes as he turned back to his notes he knew the "youth and inexperience" line was going to hurt bad.

Gotta wonder if he suspected just how bad....

Thanks for the comments on this guys, very much appreciated.

--------------------
The future's uncertain and the end is always near...

IP: Logged
1000 Masks But No Jobs
Member
Member # 2102

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 1000 Masks But No Jobs     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even a Fox News poll shows Biden handily defeating Trump in a general election. Latest polling shows Biden +10 over Trump, Sanders +6, while both Warren and Harris trail Trump by one point in a general election.

Even more important, Biden is ahead of Trump in Ohio (+8), Pennsylvania (+11), Florida (+9) and, amazingly, Texas (+4).

Do Democrats want to win or take their chances of a 2016 repeat?

https://news.yahoo.com/2020-vision-trump-blasts-fox-news-over-poll-showing-him-losing-to-biden-172519443.html

--------------------
Your back-to-back (2009 and 2010) Too Tall Cup Champion.

IP: Logged
King Francis
Member
Member # 24068

Icon 1 posted      Profile for King Francis     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And according to the Trumpsters now... Fox is just another mainstream media outlet..

I agree.. if they (me) want to win.. Biden is the candidate.. the only goal should be to get this clown outa office

--------------------
When I said that was the most ignorant thing I ever heard, I didn't realize you were still talking.

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
FOX's spin on the news is a given -- and rightly denigrated -- but their polling has been very good for years now. Given the numbers they just gave out WRT Biden v. Trump, both campaigns should be paying attention to them.

We do have to be aware of the two versions of FOX's polling, though: Their old relationship with Opinion Dynamics, whom they worked with for years, was only so-so; it's since they partnered up with Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw & Co. Research that they've become a leader in the biz. Nate Silver gives their team with Robbins and Shaw an "A" rating, putting them up there with Marist, Marquette Law School, Sienna and Survey USA, which is a pretty good place to be. Hell, he even ranks them above Quinnipiac University and Angus/Reid, which is something (both of those still get an "A-" rating, but still...!)

Now, that poll showing Biden ahead in Ohio was from Qunnipiac, not FOX, but that's a big bit of news regardless. As I said above, Ohio has been trending Republican for a decade now, and will probably end up being considered a "Red State" before too long. If Biden is pulling these sorts of numbers when no-one else in the field is, that's going to be a very big selling point to the Democratic Party's "SuperDelegates" (whom aren't quite as "super" as they used to be after 2016 and some tweaking to their part in the nomination process). That could produce an extra dozen or more delegates that could make a difference if the Convention numbers are close. That's 18EVs. And right now, no-one is considering Ohio a Swing-State like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin or Arizona -- all the major analysts (Cook, Trende, Rothenberg/Gonzales, Sabato) are all calling Ohio as (at worst) Leans R. A few more polls like this and we could be seeing the number of Swing States opening up....


Would like to know where 1000 Masks got his PA, FL and TX numbers, since none of them were a part of the Qunnipiac or FOX polling. The last one I saw for Texas was back in early June, so it's pretty stale, and my latest for Florida is only a week or so newer, and it showed a tie between Biden and Trump....

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
1000 Masks But No Jobs
Member
Member # 2102

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 1000 Masks But No Jobs     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The individual states came from Quinnipiac. They are referenced in the article I linked to.

--------------------
Your back-to-back (2009 and 2010) Too Tall Cup Champion.

IP: Logged
diamondmd
Member
Member # 1292

Icon 1 posted      Profile for diamondmd     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My issue with establishment dems is that now that the supreme court is allowing tRump to bypass congress and take money from the military to build his wall, the next dem president should do the same to battle climate change. Someone like Joe Biden will never do that in fear that the hypocrites in the GOP will get mad. I they are going to break laws and get away with it the next dem president needs to be willing to do the same except to do something good with it.
IP: Logged
1000 Masks But No Jobs
Member
Member # 2102

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 1000 Masks But No Jobs     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by diamondmd:
My issue with establishment dems is that now that the supreme court is allowing tRump to bypass congress and take money from the military to build his wall, the next dem president should do the same to battle climate change. Someone like Joe Biden will never do that in fear that the hypocrites in the GOP will get mad. I they are going to break laws and get away with it the next dem president needs to be willing to do the same except to do something good with it.

Fair enough. That puts you firmly in the camp of rolling the dice while wishing and hoping you don't get four more years of Trump.

Again, do you want to win or take your chances with a nominee that is more "pure?"

--------------------
Your back-to-back (2009 and 2010) Too Tall Cup Champion.

IP: Logged
diamondmd
Member
Member # 1292

Icon 1 posted      Profile for diamondmd     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Didn't you vote for tRump?
IP: Logged
1000 Masks But No Jobs
Member
Member # 2102

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 1000 Masks But No Jobs     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by diamondmd:
Didn't you vote for tRump?

I did. The Dems did not nominate someone I liked. The Dems went ahead and ignored general election polls to stack the deck for a candidate that did not poll well in a general election.

It seems insane to me to constantly complain about Trump, then go ahead and set yourself up for the same thing to happen again by nominating a weak general election candidate.

[ 07-27-2019, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: 1000 Masks But No Jobs ]

--------------------
Your back-to-back (2009 and 2010) Too Tall Cup Champion.

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 1000 Masks But No Jobs:
The individual states came from Quinnipiac. They are referenced in the article I linked to.

Yeah, well, that article kinda misrepresented the polling; the Ohio poll was just a couple of days ago while the others were a month and more ago. Those figures for Florida and Texas and Pennsylvania don't have much weight anymore....

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
Travlr
Administrator
Member # 4304

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Travlr     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 1000 Masks But No Jobs:
Again, do you want to win or take your chances with a nominee that is more "pure?"

This is the question that I knew would have to be answered by the Left/Dems this cycle. I could see it coming from three years away. The dancing around it by some and the full "you're either fully with us or you're the enemy" messaging has been sadly amusing as all Hell.


You can absolutely have someone who can beat Trump.

There is a 100% chance that you can have an ideologically "pure" candidate (however you want to describe that).

There is NO guarantee that you can have both in the current environment.

--------------------
The Traveller
a fan since '68....

"Reputation is what others think about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same.... Guard your honor; let your reputation fall where it may."

IP: Logged
diamondmd
Member
Member # 1292

Icon 1 posted      Profile for diamondmd     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 1000 Masks But No Jobs:
quote:
Originally posted by diamondmd:
Didn't you vote for tRump?

I did. The Dems did not nominate someone I liked. The Dems went ahead and ignored general election polls to stack the deck for a candidate that did not poll well in a general election.

It seems insane to me to constantly complain about Trump, then go ahead and set yourself up for the same thing to happen again by nominating a weak general election candidate.

No more insane that voting for someone you knew had no business being president.

So excuse me for not taking advice about purity from someone who voted for tRump because they didn't like Clinton.

IP: Logged
1000 Masks But No Jobs
Member
Member # 2102

Icon 1 posted      Profile for 1000 Masks But No Jobs     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by diamondmd:
quote:
Originally posted by 1000 Masks But No Jobs:
quote:
Originally posted by diamondmd:
Didn't you vote for tRump?

I did. The Dems did not nominate someone I liked. The Dems went ahead and ignored general election polls to stack the deck for a candidate that did not poll well in a general election.

It seems insane to me to constantly complain about Trump, then go ahead and set yourself up for the same thing to happen again by nominating a weak general election candidate.

No more insane that voting for someone you knew had no business being president.

So excuse me for not taking advice about purity from someone who voted for tRump because they didn't like Clinton.

You don't have to take my advice. King Francis said the same thing I did. You don't even had to take his advice. The numbers don't lie in who has the best chance to win a general election.

How did it work out last time around by going with the weaker general election candidate?

[ 07-27-2019, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: 1000 Masks But No Jobs ]

--------------------
Your back-to-back (2009 and 2010) Too Tall Cup Champion.

IP: Logged
PsychoSem
Member
Member # 119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for PsychoSem     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Biden just needs to survive the far left of his own party during the primaries and he will have a good shot. All of these other distractions have sort of helped him find his 'sea legs' because the pressure hasn't been on him.

--------------------
The future's uncertain and the end is always near...

IP: Logged
Liz Hunter's Boyfriend
Member
Member # 7919

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Liz Hunter's Boyfriend     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by 1000 Masks But No Jobs:
Again, do you want to win or take your chances with a nominee that is more "pure?"

This is the question that I knew would have to be answered by the Left/Dems this cycle. I could see it coming from three years away. The dancing around it by some and the full "you're either fully with us or you're the enemy" messaging has been sadly amusing as all Hell.
Are you amused as all Hell when that messaging comes from The Establishment AKA DNC-Pelosi-Corporate Dem Donors (All the same)?

Trump Himself made a show of siding with Pelosi against AOC. Doesn't that tell you something?

The Establishment doesn't want to hear other voices, voices that would disrupt their gravy train.

IP: Logged
Liz Hunter's Boyfriend
Member
Member # 7919

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Liz Hunter's Boyfriend     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Travlr:
quote:
Originally posted by diamondmd:
Funny how people wanting the United States to live up to what it has claimed to be, where all are created equal, are considered 'ditruptors".

Think not of ideology and more about their relationships with the Party hierarchy and positions.

Carter was a new brand of "Southern Democrat", at the height of the NorthEastern control of the Party.

Clinton was a populist in the same vein (if not direction) of Huey Long, George Wallace and, yes, Donald Trump.

Obama was that uppity newcomer who thought he knew better than the Old Guard.

"Disruptors" aren't always based on ideology, and in these three cases, they were all very much in opposition to the Conventional Wisdom of their times.


Proviso on all this, BTW: Our sample size WRT the "Disruptors" is small, and we probably shouldn't take it as "the absolute way to go." But it isn't anything to arbitrarily toss away out of hand, either!

But the trend WRT "Washington Experience" was an eye-opener for me. And I imagine for all (or most) of you, too.

{[**WARNING**]} HIGH RUBBISH CONTENT POST...even for Travlr.

Clinton was a populist? Huey Long? George Wallace? wha???

IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WrestlingClassics.com Home Page

Click here to see the WCMB Rules and Regulations

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3