Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (13953)	3/5/2006 3:24:48 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543651

Since Bush almost lost to Gore (or perhaps did lose to him) it's hard to say Gore was worse than Bush. I think the fact that he lost a very close election when Nader split the liberal vote is not a very good reason to judge him a poor choice. He wasn't my favorite candidate, but he was good enough- and if Nader hadn't been in the race he most certainly would have won.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (13953)	3/5/2006 3:50:21 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543651

Exactly one Democratic nominee has won since 1980. What do you think we could learn from the rest? Time frame is everything. Somebody went back to 60 to do this. I forget who. And it was 5 Dem terms to 7 Rep terms. If you go back to 76 it's 3 Dem terms to 5 Rep terms. And if you just stick with the frame you've given and put an asterik after 2000 since we don't know who won then. And the country, I think you are among the set that continues to argue, is split 50-50. Then you've got three reasonably conclusive wins by Reps since 1980 and two by Dems. I'm not certain that tells us anything, save back and forth. we don't know about the viability of a candidate until the race is run Circular logic, you have to admit. The job of campaigns is to be a bit further ahead of the curve than that. Actually it's the logic that makes itself time specific. Sitting at let's say, just for illustrative purposes, in the spring of 1988, it was not possible to know that Dukakis would get the nomination, let alone win. Nor that Atwater would employ such ugly tactics and the Dems would offer such a weak response. If the point you are making is that the Reps, in their winning campaigns have run better campaigns, I would agree. That, to me, is circular logic. Clinton ran better ones in 92 and 96. All fun and games. I think I know the point you are making, that what you are calling a centrist candidate would be able to end the 50-50 split at the presidential level. My most recent conclusion about all this, subject to the proverbial change on a dime caveat, is that it's less about the political location than about the personal charm of the candidate. We are fickle people right now.