![]() ![]() Nice when she wasn’t on the ballot and her Hillary-Only supporters couldn’t be exit polled because they had stayed home. * In November 2008, exit polls showed she would have got more votes than Obama did. ![]() Or maybe the 90s reputation had carried that far. Before 2008 I dunno she had won well as NY Senator. My guess is that in 2016 no one serious in either party dared run against her they knew she’d win and he’d get tagged as a loser. In the 2008 primary she demonstrated her ability, stamina, etc. Why Hilary has been the obvious Democratic candidate for so long–all the way back to 2008 Whatever it is, it didn’t help her in 2008 (which really was rigged for Obama -). I followed 2008 closely, and there too she had a very near majority of the primary votes.Ĥ) dunno what people mean by a ‘machine’. She has done a good job of attracting the supporters needed for the primaries and for the general*. And I like her positive appearance and manners if nothing else, she’s demonstrating emotional stamina, consistency, ability to raise the spirit of others and keep them on focus. Some people like to say she is bad at campaigning, but I like her methods: appearances with small groups to talk in depth about their particular concerns. When in a job, Hillary does a good job and polls well. But that’s necessarily based on a small number of data points, and I’m dismissing anything pre-WWII as largely irrelevant to the current political David FriedmanĬN – This is a mixture of my own reasons and my Typical Mind speculations about the reasons of other Democrats.ġ) is most certain as it’s based on fact, ie the record of Billary in the 90s.Ģ) many did, but I at least would have supported any Billary Surrogate, Gore preferred of course.ģ) depending on what is meant by ‘politician’. People who talk a good game but don’t have the resume to back it up seem to be capped at ~20% of the primary vote in both parties. So I think both parties place a strong value on experience, with the GOP more willing to accept “equivalent” experience from outside the government and the Democrats being more willing to lower the bar for a promising newcomer when they see a need for fresh blood. And I’d argue that Barack Obama is a marginal case with less than a full term in the Senate before throwing his hat in the ring, and arguably his 2004 convention address was an announcement of his status as Heir Presumptive to the Democratic Nomination only a few months after his Senate election. On the Democratic side, Jesse Jackson roughly matched Buchanan’s performance eight years earlier, with roughly the same background as a non-officeholding political commentator and gadfly. Pat Buchanan’s 20% or so of the primary vote in 19. But that’s clearly not the whole of the GOP’s openness to amateurs, as see e.g. That gives them a path towards nominating “political outsiders” that isn’t open to Democrats. I would suggest that the Republicans are more open to the idea that executive experience in business can substitute for executive experience in government, probably because of greater respect for market institutions generally. The Clinton political machine had a lot of influence over the party, just as the Bush machine has a lot of influence over the Republican party.Īre the Republicans more open to political amateurs as presidential candidates? Hilary is an unusually competent politician.Ĥ. Lots of Democrats wanted a female candidate.ģ. ![]() ![]() The candidate is really Billary and lots of Democrats are happy with how the team performed in the past.Ģ. In a way this connects to my curiosity about why Hilary has been the obvious Democratic candidate for so long–all the way back to 2008, although that time she ended up losing. Have there been any halfway serious Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination in recent election years who were not professional politicians at the level just below president–senators, governors, and the like? How many serious Republican amateurs have there been in past years? At a considerable tangent, suggested by events so far in this election season …Īre the Republicans more open to political amateurs as presidential candidates? Trump is the obvious striking example, but Ben Carson is another. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |