Countering the Dems

AlphaFrog · #1 07-22-2007, 01:13 PM

I generally don't get heavily into politics, but my mom and I were discussing this the other day...

Since the Dems generally name their candidate before the Republicans, should the Republicans feel obligated to present a candidate who would "counterbalance" the Democratic candidate?

For example, if the Dems pick Clinton, since she's pretty far left, the Republicans could probably get away with putting up a candidate who's a little farther to the right than if the Dems pick Obama. However, it might be wise for the Republicans to pick someone like Rudy, who could pull in the centerist votes.

I know there's a million '08 threads already, but most of them seem to have made their way to the Obama/Clinton debate and sort of stuck there.

DeltAlum · #2 07-22-2007, 01:27 PM

A lot of people are ready on call the election for whomever the Democrats run, simply because of the dismal polls on President Bush.

Personally, I think that the Dems could be in a real bind if Clinton and Obama remain the front runners.

Overlooking liberal vs. conservative, one is a woman and one is black.

As sad as the question is, is the American voting public ready for either?

I hope so, but I'm not sure.

Jody · #3 07-22-2007, 02:11 PM

OP,

Republicans typically nominate who they want, not someone they think will "beat" the Democrats. It is more than 15 months to the general election there's alot of things that could happen between now and then.

AlphaFrog · #4 07-22-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jody

Republicans typically nominate who they want, not someone they think will "beat" the Democrats.

That's my general understanding, but I wonder if that's the wisest thing for them to do...

For the record, every "political" quiz, etc I've taken has me moderate conservate, or stongly libertarian (when that's an option)....but really, my main "issues" are abortion and immigration reform. It wouldn't bother me if they legalized gay marriage. I don't have an opinion on gun control, because it seems a dammed if you do, dammed if you don't argument. I'm in a middle class tax bracket, so most tax issues don't have much to do with me (although I'm all for privatizing retirement, as Social Security probably won't be there by the time I'm old enough, so I'm just paying out money that I could be putting in my own 401k).

Drolefille · #5 07-22-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

A lot of people are ready on call the election for whomever the Democrats run, simply because of the dismal polls on President Bush.

Personally, I think that the Dems could be in a real bind if Clinton and Obama remain the front runners.

Overlooking liberal vs. conservative, one is a woman and one is black.

As sad as the question is, is the American voting public ready for either?

I hope so, but I'm not sure.

Every poll I've seen on the subject suggests that individually, most people are open to voting for either a female or a black candiate (or both) but that, like you, many don't think that other people or "America" will do it. Are we just cynics?

UGAalum94 · #6 07-22-2007, 08:35 PM

I think there might be a lot of people who won't vote for those particular two, and I'll be prepared for a lot of accusations of sexism or racism if they fail to be elected.

But I think most people would vote for an African American or a women who reflected their political positions.

For instance, a lot of people from across the spectrum would have voted for Colin Powell.

And I think a lot of conservatives would have voted for Ward Connorly or Alan Keyes (although I think he's gone to far right now and seems a little freaky).

Of course there are a lot of people who wouldn't, but nobody would probably frame the people who wouldn't as racists, but I think if Obama loses the south, it will blamed on racism as opposed to his actual positions being too far left.

And if Hilary crashes in the red states, it's because she's freaking Hilary not because she's female.

As far as women, Elizabeth Dole was at one point, I think, electable at that level and may still be. Or Condolezza Rice maybe although I don't think she can fake the warmth that she'd have to. (I don't think she's any colder that H. Clinton or E. Dole, but they can play the role that American voters want to see better I think.) And this is an absurd example for obvious reasons, but I think a big section of the right would have voted for Margaret Thatcher had it been possible.

People ARE prepared to vote on the issues and leadership, rather than race or gender, but Clinton and Obama aren't going to pick up too many Republican moderates, I don't think.

(Oddly, I think they may pick up some hard right conservatives who might not vote for Republicans again for a long time. I think they are mighty angry and want to punish the party.)

In regard to AlphaFrog's question, at this point, it's a question of which party is even less competent than the other incompetent party. I don't think either is capable of pro-active strategy.

In the last election cycle one party put forth John Kerry and the other George Bush. Could it get worse? You wouldn't initially think so, but I bet you it can.

(Who would bother to go to the polls in a Giuliani vs. Clinton election outside of New York? How different are their actual positions, other than attitude toward Marc Rich?)

adpiucf · #7 07-22-2007, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jody

OP,

Republicans typically nominate who they want, not someone they think will "beat" the Democrats. It is more than 15 months to the general election there's alot of things that could happen between now and then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

That's my general understanding, but I wonder if that's the wisest thing for them to do...

It worked pretty well for the last 5 out of 7 elections!

Rudey · #8 07-22-2007, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jody

OP,

Republicans typically nominate who they want, not someone they think will "beat" the Democrats. It is more than 15 months to the general election there's alot of things that could happen between now and then.

What does that mean? Who they want and not who will beat the Democrats? They nominate the guy with the most money who has been able to gain support financially and beyond because of his electability. Republicans went for Bush because of his ability to beat the Democrats by gaining the Christian votes. If it wasn't about winning, everyone would be throwing money and time away.

-Rudey

DeltAlum · #9 07-22-2007, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudey

If it wasn't about winning, everyone would be throwing money and time away.
-Rudey

Yep.

As for voters being ready to vote for a black or woman, I would expect people to say that on surveys, etc.

I hope that's honest, but the cynic in me thinks that perhaps they say it because that's what is the "right" thing to say. Whether that transfers to the voting booth is questionable to me.

I hope I'm wrong about that.

All in all, though, we've come a long way from when I remember an awful lot of people who said they wouldn't vote for JFK because he was Catholic.

moe.ron · #10 07-23-2007, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

For example, if the Dems pick Clinton, since she's pretty far left,

She's far left?

Kevin · #11 07-23-2007, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moe.ron

She's far left?

She was before she decided she was a presidential candidate. These days, she's just whatever it takes to win the election.

Rudey · #12 07-23-2007, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

She was before she decided she was a presidential candidate. These days, she's just whatever it takes to win the election.

Actually as a member of the DLC she's considered a centrist. What are you talking about?

-Rudey

shinerbock · #13 07-23-2007, 10:47 AM

I think its...

Obama------Clinton-------MIDDLE--Rudy-----Romney/Thompson

honeychile · #14 07-23-2007, 11:01 AM

I think this is going to be a fascinating election. One part of me says that it's the Democrats' to lose, but there's no one outstanding candidate in either party.

Just once, I'd like to vote FOR a candidate, not AGAINST the other person!

Tom Earp · #15 07-23-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honeychile

I think this is going to be a fascinating election. One part of me says that it's the Democrats' to lose, but there's no one outstanding candidate in either party.

Just once, I'd like to vote FOR a candidate, not AGAINST the other person!

OMG, true that!

There is not realy a strong candidate from any where that can be seen on the horizon!

Amazing on how much money is collected to get a winner and for what? Favors!