A clear choice

[WATU2]

Well, here we go ... off to 18 months of Presidential canpaigning, although it seems as if it has already gone on for at least 6 months. Boy, do I envy those countries that limit national campaigns to 90 days!

Any interesting article that it does not matter which candidate wins so much as which party he or she represents.

Choose your party

 

[TUMe]

Thanks, there is so much I love about this article.

First, it is a tacit admission the Hillary might not be the strongest or most appealing candidate.

Second, it isn't likely to score many points with Independents, the type who say "I vote for the person, not the party."

It flies in the face of Hillary's campaign against Obama that she was/is the one you want taking the 3 am call.

When you have Clinton with two decades of baggage versus a fresh Marco Rubio, you start talking about party.

 

[noble cane]

When I have Hillary vs. Rubio/Bush/Graham/Pick your RINO... I start voting for Hillary...

The Devil I know, I can fight.. its the Devil that comes dressed as a friend that is the problem..

 

[TUBballJunkie]

Originally posted by TUMe:

First, it is a tacit admission the Hillary might not be the strongest or most appealing candidate.

Second, it isn't likely to score many points with Independents, the type who say "I vote for the person, not the party."

Agree completely. A preemptive ignore the individual, just vote for the Democrat.

 

[TUMe]

What makes this even funnier is that the Democratic Party was thrashed just five months ago.

"Stamp the Rooster" is dead.

 

[lawpoke87]

So a Democratic mouthpiece is saying vote for our party and ignore our candidate. This article should make Dems nervous imo. I don't expect Hillary to be a particularly strong campaigner but to start this line before the election season starts seems a little premature. Are Dems really this on edge about Hillary the candidate?

FWIW....I will vote for the candidate regardless of party who does not have the surname of Clinton or Bush. Need some new blood.
This post was edited on 4/14 10:41 AM by lawpoke87

 

[aTUfan]

My wife is a very loyal Democrat. She says that there is
no way she would vote for HRC.

 

[WATU2]

Always interesting to see the lens through which people arrange information to fit their predetermined views. To me the point is that the policy gap between the two parties is so big that it dwarfs the differences among candidates running for an individual party's nomination. Arguing over personality differences may take up a lot of time and is appealing in a sort of National Enquirer way, but the bigger differences are in policy.

I'm not sure Krugman is a big Hillary fan. Think he likes the Okie-bred Senator from Massachusetts.

 

[lawpoke87]

I think both you and Krugman are over-estimating the knowledge of the average voter. The likeability and ability to communicate of a candidate are far more important to the "swing" voters than ideology imo. The left and right are concerned about positions and will vote for the candidate soley based on party affiliation. The middle (where an election is won) tend to vote for the actual candidate.

This post was edited on 4/14 12:56 PM by lawpoke87

 

[noble cane]

Originally posted by WATU2:
Think he likes the Okie-bred Senator from Massachusetts.

Ah... yess the Cherokee cheek boned Senator Elizabeth (Herring) Mann from Massachusetts.. seems natural one socialist would like another..

 

[TUMe]

Originally posted by WATU2:
Always interesting to see the lens through which people arrange information to fit their predetermined views.


Indeed, or their needs of the moment.

 

[TUBballJunkie]

Originally posted by lawpoke87:
The middle (where an election is won) tend to vote for the actual candidate.

This post was edited on 4/14 12:56 PM by lawpoke87

Agreed. I'm registered independent and I'm always a swing voter in local and state elections based on the candidate.

 

[WATU2]

Really? Regardless of what the policies he or she represents? So if they say they want to bring America together, reduce inequality, etc. convincingly that's enough, regardless of whether the policies they back may do not such thing?

OK. Maybe you are right. I voted for Bush because he SAID he was against nation building and foreign adventures, could work across the aisle and would create a more inclusive Republican tent for all Americans.

How did that work out?

Of course, if I had paid more attention to who Cheney and Rove were......
This post was edited on 4/15 12:58 PM by WATU2

 

[TUMe]

Originally posted by WATU2:
Really? Regardless of what the policies he or she represents? So if they say they want to bring America together, reduce inequality, etc. convincingly that's enough, regardless of whether the policies they back may do not such thing?





What has happened to you WATU? I am starting to worry.

 

[TUBballJunkie]

What? Who said they don't care about an individual's policy positions?

 

[lawpoke87]

WATU2 posted on 4/15/2015...

Really? Regardless of what the policies he or she represents? So if they say they want to bring America together, reduce inequality, etc. convincingly that's enough, regardless of whether the policies they back may do not such thing?

OK. Maybe you are right. I voted for Bush because he SAID he was against nation building and foreign adventures, could work across the aisle and would create a more inclusive Republican tent for all Americans.

How did that work out?

Of course, if I had paid more attention to who Cheney and Rove were......

__________________________________

In general...yes. There are very few presidential candidates who come out with extreme agendas. They do enough to secure their base as they head to the middle and the independent voters who decide a general election.

I voted for Obama the first time around because I liked the idea of transparency and openness in government after the Bush years. I liked the idea of someone who would preserve the personal liberties I saw being eroded by the Patriot Act. I liked someone who said that the deficits being ran under the Bush Administration were unpatriotic. How has that worked out?

 

[URedskin54]

Originally posted by WATU2:
Really? Regardless of what the policies he or she represents? So if they say they want to bring America together, reduce inequality, etc. convincingly that's enough, regardless of whether the policies they back may do no such thing?

Isn't that how our current disappointment got elected?

 

[TU Sepp]

I have two types that I will not for in a presidential election...

No Bush's...

No Texans...

After that I am open to any candidate...

 

[aTUfan]

No more Clintons either

This post was edited on 4/17 12:46 AM by aTUfan

 

[rabidTU]

I suppose this is my opportunity to come out FOR a candidate. Right now it seems to be Hillary versus "Who-llary". Hillary is the presumptive democrat candidate and at this point looks like she'll be "IT". If that happens, IMO the dems are in deep trouble because she's probably the least gifted of a host of dems who could run.

Since I am an independent, I am looking to defeat the Obama lieberal leftists and at this point and will vote Republican or third party. But I have a favorite and that person can defeat any democrat that is serious about being the POTUS IMO. Let me identify that individual by giving their strengths.

1. Smart and is able to show it on the tube.

2. Excellent comunicator.

3. Conservative who's not afraid to express those views.

4. Is transformative.

5. Is not a typical rich republican.

6. Young - so he/she appeals to the future voters.

7. Will have a base that is not traditionally republican, but is traditionally conservative.

8. Comes from a large swing state.

9. Is everything Hillary ain't. So there is a major contrast between the two.

10. Has an impressive background and life story that appeals to the marginal voter.

11. Will be tough on our adversaries and loyal to our friends instead of trying to be an appeaser.

12. Is willing to work with congress to get things done - won't exceed his/her authority and defy the constitution.

So thats my ideal candidate. He/she is everything Obama isn't and can whip Hillary like the old creepy hack she is.