Democratic Campaign Deathwatch Thread

[The Atheist]

I'm an incurable optimist.

Ha. I used to be like that. Just seeing the attitude of people towards the race, the polarisation of voters seems to be getting worse and my more cynical mind says the Dems are self-destructing for a change.

And it REALLY pisses me off! Still, maybe McCain will surprise us. Couldn't do any worse than the present one, I guess.

 

[Foolmewunz]

<snip>

Still, maybe McCain will surprise us. Couldn't do any worse than the present one, I guess.

Textbook definition of "damning with faint praise".


McCain might also still yet surprise us on the campaign trail by falling in pooh. One more visit to Iraq to tell America how safe it is could harm him irreparably. He has escaped mention during the recent fiasco in Basrah, which I should find rather curious, but being of the left, I naturally know that the media are all pro-right.

If something dramatic happens in Iraq - to the negative - then like the Tet Offensive in the Viet Nam War, it could rain crap on the hawks' support. If the war continues like it is with a bombing here and a shooting there, it will have no effect IMHO. But a major offensive or another kick in the pride by the Iranians, and America will show that it has no stomach for this war, and McCain could lose a lot of moderate support.

Still, right now the Presidential race has totally reversed itself. It's now McCain's to lose. The Democrats are taking turns cannibalizing their right leg and then their left leg. By the time they realize that without legs they will topple over, it'll be too late.

 

[The Atheist]

Textbook definition of "damning with faint praise".

Deliberately so. McCain was what I saw as the third-worst possible choice right from the start and I see no reason to change my mind yet. Only Ron Paul and Huckabee looked worse.

McCain might also still yet surprise us on the campaign trail by falling in pooh. One more visit to Iraq to tell America how safe it is could harm him irreparably. He has escaped mention during the recent fiasco in Basrah, which I should find rather curious, but being of the left, I naturally know that the media are all pro-right.

Set him up with a transexual hooker and get pics! You should know plenty ladyboy in that part of the world!

Still, right now the Presidential race has totally reversed itself. It's now McCain's to lose. The Democrats are taking turns cannibalizing their right leg and then their left leg. By the time they realize that without legs they will topple over, it'll be too late.

Yep.

 

[Kaylee]

Well the one thing that I think Dean has done right is to say that this needs to be settled by the beginning of July. That will hopefully give the Democrats time to kiss and make-up and reunite themselves by the general election. Regain use of their legs so to speak.

 

[IchabodPlain]

While I agree that those can be factors, I think the must difficult stumbling block is when a VP is asked to justify decisions made by his “team” even if in fact he had no input into them.

Yes, in many cases the person accused of riding another's coattails is the same individual who is portrayed as not having any other role in the decision-making process, other than in the peripheral of the person's whose coattails he or she is accused of riding.

A good example would be Nixon when he ran against Kennedy in 1960. Kennedy accused the Eisenhower/Nixon team of allowing the Soviet Union to overtake the USA in offensive missiles. Eisenhower hated Nixon, and Nixon played no role in his administration (except when he had to temporarily assumed the position of president when Eisenhower was ill). Now I haven't read the 1960 articles so I don't know what Nixon's response was, but he must have been between a rock and a hard place. If he said he had no input in the Eisenhower administration, he was screwed. If he said he agreed and that he would rectify it in his administration, than he was also screwed because he was either being disloyal to his "team" or admitting in another way that he had lacked influence.

Sources: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon#Vice_Presidency

Which reminds me as I scan the wiki page, I was wrong before. Three former Democratic VP's have been elected to the WH, the third being Lyndon Johnson (over Goldwater in '64).

We agree that there were other factors as to why Bush Sr won and Gore "lost". (I agree that he didn't actually lose.) However, my point was to try to demonstrate why running on a record of VP isn't the easiest thing to do and may go a long way towards explaining why, of the 14 VPs that became President, only 5 of them did so by winning their first term in an election.

Yes, but it does put you in a better position than holding almost any other office beforehand, except for maybe Governor (or even Mayor of a large city ETA:really the whole executive branch has a number of advantages over the legislative, when choosing candidates for President). Also, I do not think Al Gore won the Presidency in 2000, why would you think I would agree to such a crazy thing like that? I said some do believe he did not lose, which in this case is you, and does provide evidence of my assertion quite nicely.

Well, I have mixed feelings about that. I would wonder how many voters would realize that that the "united ticket" would be a political manuver that would have no meaning in reality, that its likely whoever took the role of VP would in reality just have a title and not any true input into the next administration.

Good point, there would be an air of political expedience to it. But I would counter the claim that the VP, whomever it is, would not have input by saying that their political stances on many of the issues is close, if not identical. Why shouldn't they work together*?

I don't see them the same way. Part of the reason I'm in favor of Obama over H. Clinton is because I think he does better in backroom politics. I'm basing this on the type of support he got while he was in the Illinois Senate and I'm also basing this on the type of bills he was able to sponsor and co-sponsor in the US Senate. Clinton only co-sponsored 20 bills during her 6 years in the Senate, and most of them (15) were pure fluff. (Analyzed in one of my posts in the "accomplishments" thread posted recently in this forum.)
While she was the first lady working on the health insurance project, she seemed to have arrived at the one method guaranteed to irritate the most people and get the least support possible. All in all, I don't view her as someone who has a talent for negotiating well. Since frequently a Democratic president has to deal with a Republican Congress during most of their term, I think its an important skill to have.

How many bills has Obama sponsored and passed since being a US Senator? Of those, how many do you believe are "fluff"? I'm sorry, this my delve into the other thread about accomplishments, but I think 20 in six years is pretty decent, and even if all but five in your opinion are fluff. Even using your assumption that only five are not fluff, but noteworthy, that is not too shabby in six years for one Senator out of one hundred, IMO. (If every Senator did the same that would be presumably 90-100 noteworthy bills per year, besides all of the other "fluff" bills).

The other fifteen bills may be out of compromise, (or yes padding her record or grandstanding) but that is for another thread.

Maybe it is just my personal bias, but I view Obama to be naive, and Hilary to be more disciplined and structured, though I don't necessarily agree with her on a number of issues.

I was referring to the loser’s control over their individual career, not the impact their decision would have on the Democratic party.

Fair enough, but it seems like the longer one sits in the Senate, the more they have to worry about the hundreds of votes cast every year catching up with them.





*Ego?

 

[Kaylee]

Which reminds me as I scan the wiki page, I was wrong before. Three former Democratic VP's have been elected to the WH, the third being Lyndon Johnson (over Goldwater in '64).

Well, you didn't really leave him out. I had mentioned him in the post you responded to. (Post #111 and you had also mentioned him in post #115 )

Yes, but it does put you in a better position than holding almost any other office beforehand, except for maybe Governor (or even Mayor of a large city ETA:really the whole executive branch has a number of advantages over the legislative, when choosing candidates for President). Also, I do not think Al Gore won the Presidency in 2000, why would you think I would agree to such a crazy thing like that? I said some do believe he did not lose, which in this case is you, and does provide evidence of my assertion quite nicely.

Your position: Being a VP increases the odds that you will become President

My position: Yes, mostly by the president dying in office either by assassination or death. However, being VP does not significantly increase your chances of winning your first term by general election. Odds already provided earlier in the thread. Re Gore (for those that believe he actually won the election) – he's the exception that proves the rule. ;-)

Your position: So what?

My position: Well, it’s a creepy way to get the job – but hey if you don’t care – then so what?

Good point, there would be an air of political expedience to it. But I would counter the claim that the VP, whomever it is, would not have input by saying that their political stances on many of the issues is close, if not identical. Why shouldn't they work together*?

People that dislike each other don’t tend to work together. Obama has already fired an aid, Samantha Powers, for engaging in tactics that Clinton has engaged in. Why would Obama select Clinton as VP? And if for some reason he caved into political pressure to do so, why would he trust her enough to bring her into the inner circle?

How many bills has Obama sponsored and passed since being a US Senator? Of those, how many do you believe are "fluff"? I'm sorry, this my delve into the other thread about accomplishments, but I think 20 in six years is pretty decent, and even if all but five in your opinion are fluff. Even using your assumption that only five are not fluff, but noteworthy, that is not too shabby in six years for one Senator out of one hundred, IMO. (If every Senator did the same that would be presumably 90-100 noteworthy bills per year, besides all of the other "fluff" bills).

The other fifteen bills may be out of compromise, (or yes padding her record or grandstanding) but that is for another thread.

Maybe it is just my personal bias, but I view Obama to be naive, and Hilary to be more disciplined and structured, though I don't necessarily agree with her on a number of issues.

Already discussed in the other thread:
What have Clinton. McCain and Obama Accomplished? List Them Here!

Fair enough, but it seems like the longer one sits in the Senate, the more they have to worry about the hundreds of votes cast every year catching up with them.

That is unfortunately true.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Well, you didn't really leave him out. I had mentioned him in the post you responded to. (Post #111 and you had also mentioned him in post #115 )

Fair enough, I just wanted to clear the air. My Presidential History isn't what it used to be.

Your position: Being a VP increases the odds that you will become President

My position: Yes, mostly by the president dying in office either by assassination or death. However, being VP does not significantly increase your chances of winning your first term by general election. Odds already provided earlier in the thread. Re Gore (for those that believe he actually won the election) – he's the exception that proves the rule. ;-)

Your position: So what?

My position: Well, it’s a creepy way to get the job – but hey if you don’t care – then so what?

I am am accepting of the fact that something unfortunate may happen. If it does not, the visibility of the position, combined with a moderate to successful Presidency of the person they served under, often can prove to elevate and separate the VP into a future nominee.

I should ask you how many Senators have been elected to President from that office during the last 100 years? I counted three in both parties (Harding, Kennedy, Carter). The odds favor VP.

People that dislike each other don’t tend to work together. Obama has already fired an aid, Samantha Powers, for engaging in tactics that Clinton has engaged in. Why would Obama select Clinton as VP? And if for some reason he caved into political pressure to do so, why would he trust her enough to bring her into the inner circle?

This kind of stuff happens in close primaries. I think it would be better to galvanize a large group of Democrats, than to have them fight between two close candidates in a divided primary. It seems the longer this drags on, the worse off both are. I think the option of coming together, even if seen as inauthentic, is better than the wedge being driven in to each other and their supporters for weeks and months on the campaign trail.

If you think them coming together would give the impression of political expedience, I would counter by saying the same sort of thing will ensure after either candidate wins the nomination, and the loser endorses him/her. Can you think of it, Obama warming up the crowd for Hilary, or vice versa?

Already discussed in the other thread:
What have Clinton. McCain and Obama Accomplished? List Them Here!

From your link: Obama has passed 18 bills in the US Senate. Of which, the poster you linked to felt that 6 were significant. Whether you or I agree entirely, the numbers are about the same.

 

[Kaylee]

Fair enough, I just wanted to clear the air. My Presidential History isn't what it used to be.

Neither is mine. I've gotten reacquainted with a lot of it in this thread.

I am am accepting of the fact that something unfortunate may happen.

True, something unfortunate may happen. However, the practice of medicine is always improving and the nation’s security has probably improved also. I would suspect that it's less likely now for a VP to inherit a presidency due to the death of the sitting president.

I do distinguish between those VPs who have inherited the presidency and those VPS who went on to win the presidency in a general election. The first group got there passively, and from what I can recall so far, most of them probably would not have been been likely to win the presidency in a general election. The other group got there by fighting very hard for the position.

If it does not, the visibility of the position, combined with a moderate to successful Presidency of the person they served under, often can prove to elevate and separate the VP into a future nominee.

I should ask you how many Senators have been elected to President from that office during the last 100 years? I counted three in both parties (Harding, Kennedy, Carter). The odds favor VP.

There’s a web site for everything:

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/charts_rest_pres-titles.php

14 Vice-Presidents, 10 Governors, 6 Cabinet Secretaries, 6 Senators, 4 Generals, 2 Congressmen were elected to the presidency.

The 14 VPs category can be further broken down into these categories:
Won first presidential term in the general election: 5
Sub-category special circumstances 3
No special circumstances 2
“Inherited” first presidential term when sitting president died or resigned: 9

Of the 5 who won their first term in a general election IMHO 3 were due to extremely special circumstances:
Adams and Jefferson were “founding fathers” of the country
Van Buren, with Jackson, helped found the Democratic party.

I think it’s fair to restate this summary:
14 Vice-Presidents, 10 Governors, 6 Cabinet Secretaries, 6 Senators, 4 Generals, 2 Congressmen were elected to the presidency.

to:

10 Governors, 9 VPs who Inherited the Presidency through death (8) or resignation (1), 6 Cabinet Secretaries, 6 Senators, 4 Generals, 3 VPs who won the first term of the presidency in a general election and had extremely special circumstances, 2 Congressmen, 2 VPs who won the first term of their presidency in a general election without any special circumstances.

I think this summarizes why I'm not as convinced as you are that accepting the vice-presidency is a good career move.

This kind of stuff happens in close primaries. I think it would be better to galvanize a large group of Democrats, than to have them fight between two close candidates in a divided primary. It seems the longer this drags on, the worse off both are. I think the option of coming together, even if seen as inauthentic, is better than the wedge being driven in to each other and their supporters for weeks and months on the campaign trail.

If you think them coming together would give the impression of political expedience, I would counter by saying the same sort of thing will ensure after either candidate wins the nomination, and the loser endorses him/her. Can you think of it, Obama warming up the crowd for Hilary, or vice versa?

Well, we just see this differently. I don’t have anything to add to what I already said on this topic.

From your link: Obama has passed 18 bills in the US Senate. Of which, the poster you linked to felt that 6 were significant. Whether you or I agree entirely, the numbers are about the same.

I’ll respond to this in the other thread, the next time I'm back at the forum.

 

[Kaylee]

From your link: Obama has passed 18 bills in the US Senate. Of which, the poster you linked to felt that 6 were significant. Whether you or I agree entirely, the numbers are about the same.

I’ll respond to this in the other thread, the next time I'm back at the forum.

As promised --
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3617472#post3617472

 

[dudalb]

The Democrats seems to have a death wish.
My jaw dropped when I heard that Obama statement. Making a statement that can easily be intrepreted as insulting to blue collar, rural voters,the exact demo that has cost the Democrats two elections in a row Briliant.
Even if it was dragged out of context, the point is you have to EXPECT the other side to take things out of context. You are very careful about what you say, even in a closed situation link a fund raiser,and you don't hand your opponents a club to beat you with.
"It's What You Say, Not How You Say It,That Makes Or Breaks A Case" might not be a logical rule, but it is the way the real world works, and one would think any politician who has been around for a while would know that.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Bump - For Updated Opinions

I'm known to change my mind from time to time, but this isn't one of them. It's a little over a month since I started this thread, and I see no signs of the Dems getting their house in order to prepare for the run against McCain.

The only surprise to me is that McCain's laying relatively low, but perhaps wisely so, letting Hillary and Barack slog it out and feed him more material for the fall.

He spent considerable time in the Deep South, as a hedge against the black turnout if Obama gets the nod (IMHO). That's actually an interesting possibility - that the Democrats could break the lock that the Republicans have had on the south since the Goldwater run, with several states now having significant black populations, who will no doubt turn out for Obama in similar percentages to the primaries (especially against a Republican).

But it's the national picture which ought to have the Democrats worried. The numbers are too close - if the Democrats had come up with a clear winner in February as they envisioned when Super Tuesday was created, this would be all over but for choosing the place settings for the innaugural ball. As it is, we've actually got a horse race,... a horse race that I still think the Democrats are finding multiple ways to lose.

Flipping the Bird
The fake Kantor video.

More to come.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I'm known to change my mind from time to time, but this isn't one of them. It's a little over a month since I started this thread, and I see no signs of the Dems getting their house in order to prepare for the run against McCain

I disagree. The DNC is starting to run anti-McCain ads, the superdelegates are all but unanimous that the nominee will be selected by early June, and both Dem candidates have been shifting their attention more and more towards McCain. The way the Dems are lining things up, the dynamics will shift very quickly once the nominee is named. Many Dems are just sitting on the sidelines, taking potshots against McCain here and there, but once they have their candidate, we'll see an onslaught as the public turns its attention to the general.

 

[T.A.M.]

I disagree. The DNC is starting to run anti-McCain ads, the superdelegates are all but unanimous that the nominee will be selected by early June, and both Dem candidates have been shifting their attention more and more towards McCain. The way the Dems are lining things up, the dynamics will shift very quickly once the nominee is named. Many Dems are just sitting on the sidelines, taking potshots against McCain here and there, but once they have their candidate, we'll see an onslaught as the public turns its attention to the general.

I agree. It may be too late though.

TAM

 

[chipmunk stew]

I agree. It may be too late though.

TAM

Nah. It'll still be five months until the general. The Iowa caucuses were only four months ago. Five months ago, Clinton was attacking Obama for an essay he wrote in kindergarten about wanting to be president, as her status as the Inevitable Nominee was being threatened by poor showings in Iowa polls.

 

[Foolmewunz]

There's an excellent counter-theory to my gloom-and-doom forecast. It was posited in one of the Obama/Hillary threads, I believe. I can't find it to give credit to the Forumite (it isn't original, but it was well-stated).

The theory goes that since Obama is the likely nominee, he'll have vetted hiimself under fire from the Clinton machine and all the petty crap will just seem like, well,... petty crap, when the Republican spin doctors go after him. The negatives able to be attached to McCain and his Bush War association will still carry the day.

That, versus the "We're just giving them material to attack with..." pretty much sums up the possibilities. I hope the former happens. I just don't see it, personally.

Chipmunk - TAM,
Until I see BillandHill come out on the podium and ask their supporters to get behind Obama, I cannot see this thing being "settled" in June.