What we should have learned from 2004,2000

by orin76, Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 06:16:02 PM EST

What we should have learned from 2004,2000 is that Electablity is more than simply knowing what you are doing. You can have the most knowledgable most credible person in the world run for president, but  if you they have a horrible personality that turns people off they won't get elected. This is why  Clinton,Kuccinich,Biden,are unelectable while either Obama or Edwards are electable.  

While personality is not the only factor voters take into account it can be the deciding factor. If you can't stand the person it doesn't matter what they say or how good the ideas are you aren't going to listen to them




Tags: Kerry, Gore, Electablity (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 23 Comments :: Post a Comment


You get the prize (2.00 / 1)

for worst dumbass diary of the day.


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 06:29:53 PM EST

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

I agree, Hillary is NOT electable because of her high negatives.  In the general election, likeability matters more than policy positions.  Gore, Dukakis and Kerry were all right on positions BUT people just didnot like them.


by allmiview on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 06:48:28 PM EST

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

allmiview,

Hillary's "negatives" were at an all time low 2 months ago. Remember that whole inevitability thing?

Numbers change. Being criminally stupid on guns and abortion doesn't. Hillary is electable. Obama has no chance.


"What do Barack Obama and David Koresh have in common? Too god damn much."
by ThinkingDem on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:33:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

Half of the country will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances.  If she is the nominee, democrats will lose.  Taking polls before you decide your positions is doomed to failure.


by allmiview on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:07:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

Which she did on Kyl/Lieberman. Then voted the right way, anyway.

As opposed to Obama, who claimed the vote was a rush to war, a vote so vital to our national security...he missed while off raising money.

Polls change. Ask Reagan.


"What do Barack Obama and David Koresh have in common? Too god damn much."
by ThinkingDem on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:29:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

Gore lost the gun vote, Kerry and Dukakis were viewed as weak on defense (ie, Dukakis in the tank, Kerry's "I voted for the $87 billion BEFORE I voted against it).

Why are the anti-Hillary people incapable of remembering history?


"What do Barack Obama and David Koresh have in common? Too god damn much."
by ThinkingDem on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

People didn't like Gore? (none / 0)

Then why did more people vote for him than Bush?

Is today "fun with sock puppets" day?


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:44:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

Please, America is not going to elect Barack Hussein Obama, as for John Edwards, he couldn't withstand the 4 months of fire from Bush-Cheney in 04, how will he stand up to Mitt and Huckabee?

Clinton is clearly the most electable because she can win in FL and OH.

Unfortunately, the GOP will not let go of "Hussein". I hate to admit that fact.


by American1989 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:04:26 PM EST

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

So, I see the Hilary Clinton campaign has paid operatives on mydd too. I'm Sorry Hilary Clinton has no chance because no one outside the Democratic party will listen to anything she says.


by orin76 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:12:26 PM EST

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

Funny, is that why in NY 64% of Independents listened to her and 20% of Republicans gave her a chance? Right. They won't listen. Surely, the 40%-50% of Independents who support her now against the Republicans are not listening, nor are the 5%-10% of Republicans.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:16:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: in NY 64% of Independents listened to her (none / 0)

RJ, you're referring to her re-election numbers, right? Sorry, but you can't do that.

For my academic composition course, I once wrote an essay called 'The power of incumbency'. Did you know that the re-election rate in the Senate is at 87% and the one in the House is at 93%? (These are rates comparable to the Soviet Union, btw)

What I'm trying to say is: A sitting Senator has a number of huge advantages over his challenger when running for re-election. That's why usually, the incumbent wins. Hillary will not enjoy these NY-specific advantages because she runs in the nation, not NY.

Also, in the age of ticket-splitting, electoral behavior in state-wide races (U.S. Senator, Governor) cannot be equated with presidential elections. It is quite possible that people in NY support her as a Senator, but not as a presidential candidate.

Of course, states and regions love their native sons/ daughters. But too much love from the NY/ NorthEastern electorate could in fact imperil Hillary's chances in the ('Yankee-hating') parts of the Midwest, the West, and the South.


"The way to win a Presidential race against the Republicans is to develop the class warfare issue..." Lee Atwater, Bush `88 campaign manager.
by aufklaerer on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:00:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

Orin, Lindsey Graham and Strom Thurmond listened to what Hillary had to say. Stop speaking in absolutes. You look like an idiot.

An uninformed idiot, if you think Obama or Edwards are closer to 270 electoral votes than Hillary is.


"What do Barack Obama and David Koresh have in common? Too god damn much."
by ThinkingDem on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

Ny is Democratic state


by orin76 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:28:27 PM EST

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

My post went COMPLETELY over your head. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to explain something that should have been understood by a 10-year old.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:37:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

What makes someone unelectable is having taken a position that runs in direct contrast to the common wisdom of the people.

Like Barack Obama voting AGAINST making it LEGAL to defend yourself with a handgun in your own home against an intruder. Or voting against requiring Doctors to SAVE fetuses that survive an abortion.

The idea that Obama can get 270 votes is idiocy. Yeah, he can win New York and California. But Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Colorado, New mexico, Arizona, Oregon, completely off the table.

Hillary's negatives were at an all time low just a couple of months ago. These things fluctuate.

Being criminally stupid on guns and abortion doesn't.


"What do Barack Obama and David Koresh have in common? Too god damn much."
by ThinkingDem on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:29:36 PM EST

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

Simple, but profound diary actually. Democrats are looking at the same choice that we always seem to. In every election cycle it seems to come down to a an exciting, young, charismatic, reform candidate vs. the establishment candidate backed by party insiders and big lobbies.

I can think of it back to 1984, when it was Hart v. Mondale. In 1988, Jesse v. Dukakis. In 1992, Clinton v. Gephart. 2000: Bradley v. Gore. 2004: Dean v. Kerry. So now we have Obama/Edwards v. Clinton.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the candidate that can get the big players in the Democratic Party behind them is probably not the one that will prevail in November.

And, yes, there's little doubt that there are all kinds of Clinton operatives around here.


by dmc2 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:13:48 PM EST

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

DMC2,

What made Hart a reform candidate? Hart, like Jesse, like Kerrey (not Gephardt, who didn't run in 1992; again, Obama people GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT) Bradley or Dean ever reform? What did any of them ever change?

Democrats nominate candidates who stand for blue collar Democratic ideals, not pie in the sky academic dreamers who talk a good game but have never backed it up.


"What do Barack Obama and David Koresh have in common? Too god damn much."
by ThinkingDem on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:32:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

"Democrats nominate candidates who stand for blue collar Democratic ideals, not pie in the sky academic dreamers who talk a good game but have never backed it up."

...and then go down in righteous defeat every time.


by dmc2 on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 05:19:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Adopt New strategy (none / 0)

What we should learn from 2000 and 2004 is that relying on a few states like Ohio and Florida is a losing strategy? No more relying on a few swing states. We need to adopt Dean's 50 state strategy. There is no excuse in the book why democrats can not compete in most states in the South and west. We need to expand the map. By only hope that no matter who the nominee is they keep Dean as head of the DNC and adopt his strategy along with the grassroots.


by harmony94 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:15:57 PM EST

Totally agree. (none / 0)

How about reclaiming the Clinton coalition of '92/'96?

The New Democratic Coalition that emerged after '88 (that's the West Coast, the Great Lakes, the NorthEast, Minnesota and Hawaii)

plus

some 'purple' states in the Rockies, the SouthWest, and the South.

I usually wouldn't quote Obama, but he said it best: I'm not running for president of the red states or the blue states, but of the United States. THAT should be every Democrat's obligation.

Kerry spent a lot of time, money and effort in Ohio that he could've spent somewhere else (Iowa? New Mexico? Colorado?)


"The way to win a Presidential race against the Republicans is to develop the class warfare issue..." Lee Atwater, Bush `88 campaign manager.
by aufklaerer on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:14:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore WON (none / 0)

Gore won the popular despite being massively outspent.

Kerry ran at a time when the GOP was at its peak, and an incumbant President had a war to flog.   Kerry still mamaged to come closer than any challenger in over 50 years.

2008 is totally different.  The Republicans are past their peak and in decline.   Furthermore Democrats will outspend the Republcians for the first time in ions.

Clinton will run a better campaign than Gore or Kerry and she will outspend her GOP rival.  CLinton by 5%.


by dpANDREWS on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 11:22:09 AM EST

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

What is up with all these crappy 3 line diaries?


by SocialDem on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 03:38:56 PM EST

Re: What we should have learned from 2004,2000 (none / 0)

If Gore had won Nh; Fla wouldn't have mattered. Kerry lost because for the reason I expected from the day he got the nomination i.e. his Vietnam was history. Clinton is an attack ad waiting to happen.


by orin76 on Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 08:08:23 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: