Urban Shocker
Doyenne
You mean everyone won't go, "Oh no, here's that "Change!" guy again ..." and avert their eyes?
|
|
|
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
I suppose he could run as the "Experienced" guy in 2012 ... or the "Really, Really Experienced" guy in 2016 ...
Edwards used to be the "Happy Guy", now he's running as the "Angry Guy" ...
Edwards used to be the "Happy Guy", now he's running as the "Angry Guy" ...
rpgr
Active Member
It's politics. In the US there has been a lack of inspiration lately. Inspiration meaning "sound bites". Kerry "endorsing" Obama does little to help the cause (being as Kerry is more or less an "also ran", not as bad as our Dion though).
When it come to todays democratic outlook it's not about conservative or liberal, democrat or republican. It's not really about ideals.
The majority of the voters are one of two parties: the lazy and the angry.
Lazy people will vote for the "safe choice".
Angry people will vote against the person who made them angry.
If you're the incumbant you want more lazy people than angry. Low voter turn-out won't hurt you if "lazy" is the mood.
Angry works depending on who made them angry. The Federal Liberal brand was punished because voters got angry. Likewise the Ontario Provincial Conservative brand was punished because voters got angry.
It's just the way things work. Everyone says they "look at the issues" but that really is far from the truth. They only look at sound bites (i.e. very singular issues). Package a sound bite well enough and you can either make or break an election.
Obama has done very well considering it was an uphill battle. As a strategist, I would leverage the chance to make a future sound bite of "History in the Making" by doing what I said above.
The reason for a short term for Hillary is because of her ego. Given too long she will mess things up bringing doom on her party. If I were a Democrat party strategizer the maximum I would give Hillary is two 3 year terms although I'd prefer a single 4 year term followed by a short 3 year first term with Obama then a second full term if things go well.
Of course there are certain aspects that can't be predicted completely (one bad sound bite and your dead).
Unless some big time miracle from "god" (i.e. vote fixing) happens, I can't see the Republicans winning the next term. Bush has done exactly what I thought he'd do. Even worst what is happening in Iraq and Afghan is exactly what I thought would happen (other than there being no WMDs).
In any case, the climate in the US right now is anger. IMO almost any candidate could run and win against the Republican party. By grooming for a Female President this run and a Black one next run, it's just too good an opportunity to pass up, especially with an angry voter base.
Even if it is just fluff, it doesn't matter because the voter base will buy it.
When it come to todays democratic outlook it's not about conservative or liberal, democrat or republican. It's not really about ideals.
The majority of the voters are one of two parties: the lazy and the angry.
Lazy people will vote for the "safe choice".
Angry people will vote against the person who made them angry.
If you're the incumbant you want more lazy people than angry. Low voter turn-out won't hurt you if "lazy" is the mood.
Angry works depending on who made them angry. The Federal Liberal brand was punished because voters got angry. Likewise the Ontario Provincial Conservative brand was punished because voters got angry.
It's just the way things work. Everyone says they "look at the issues" but that really is far from the truth. They only look at sound bites (i.e. very singular issues). Package a sound bite well enough and you can either make or break an election.
Obama has done very well considering it was an uphill battle. As a strategist, I would leverage the chance to make a future sound bite of "History in the Making" by doing what I said above.
The reason for a short term for Hillary is because of her ego. Given too long she will mess things up bringing doom on her party. If I were a Democrat party strategizer the maximum I would give Hillary is two 3 year terms although I'd prefer a single 4 year term followed by a short 3 year first term with Obama then a second full term if things go well.
Of course there are certain aspects that can't be predicted completely (one bad sound bite and your dead).
Unless some big time miracle from "god" (i.e. vote fixing) happens, I can't see the Republicans winning the next term. Bush has done exactly what I thought he'd do. Even worst what is happening in Iraq and Afghan is exactly what I thought would happen (other than there being no WMDs).
In any case, the climate in the US right now is anger. IMO almost any candidate could run and win against the Republican party. By grooming for a Female President this run and a Black one next run, it's just too good an opportunity to pass up, especially with an angry voter base.
Even if it is just fluff, it doesn't matter because the voter base will buy it.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
You'd "give Hillary two 3 year terms"? You obviously haven't a clue how U.S. politics works.
DENTROBATE54
Banned
I'd rather see Obama in office sooner than later. I think it's more important to have a minority president than a female one this round. The novelty of females in office has long passed (Britian, Canada, Jamaica, Pakistan, India).Hilary just doesn't come across as a person of the people to me. Furthermore I can't help but think of dynasty politics when I see her. Look how Bush skating through on his father's name and what has resulted. I'm looking forward to a new direction in the truest sense, a government representative of more than just status quo, average Joe WASPs and their ilk.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
The purpose of voting Hillary Clinton in for two three year terms is to fill a notch in the history book for females. The voters who would presumably do this have been wholly characterized as being either lazy or angry. Furthermore, these angry and lazy voters are said to require "sound bites" to be induced, or inspired, to vote on the basis of those sound bites. The thinking behind these positions has been described as strategic, and has been further characterized as possessing qualities in short supply in politics and military activities around the world.
One could answer by indicating that these positions are actually quite illustrative of many of the acute deficiencies with thinking that has been characterized as being either political or strategic.
rpgr
Active Member
Real Poilitik
It's not about how thing's should be (ideal) but how things actually are (reality).
I never gave Hillary two 3 year terms. I said the max she could go is two 3 year terms. I would personally say she could get away most likely with one 3 year term because her ego is likely to get her in trouble.
If your gonna take snippits, be sure to read the whole thing before answering.
It's not about how thing's should be (ideal) but how things actually are (reality).
I never gave Hillary two 3 year terms. I said the max she could go is two 3 year terms. I would personally say she could get away most likely with one 3 year term because her ego is likely to get her in trouble.
If your gonna take snippits, be sure to read the whole thing before answering.
afransen
Senior Member
The problem is that the term of the US President is four years, not three.
billonlogan
Active Member
You can see this coming, it was a matter of time.
Sexism, Racism: Which Is More Taboo?
I wonder if the Dems have the maturity to keep this race civil.
Sexism, Racism: Which Is More Taboo?
I wonder if the Dems have the maturity to keep this race civil.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Sadly, that is a very real threat to the Democrats. Such a thing could really undo a very good chance at winning the presidency.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
ganjavih
Senior Member
So glad we're spared from this nonsense north of the border.
JasonParis
Moderator
For simplicity, we now have one thread to deal with the current U.S. primaries and the upcoming presidential and congressional elections.
BTW, if anyone needs a primer on the very confusing road to the White House that candidates and the electorate must follow, take a look at the following CBC report. It's pretty good at making some sense of this lengthy and often bewildering process.
http://www.cbc.ca/video/popup_nlp.html?http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/news/features/macdonald-primary080116.wmv
BTW, if anyone needs a primer on the very confusing road to the White House that candidates and the electorate must follow, take a look at the following CBC report. It's pretty good at making some sense of this lengthy and often bewildering process.
http://www.cbc.ca/video/popup_nlp.html?http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/news/features/macdonald-primary080116.wmv
billonlogan
Active Member