Why do the Democrats SUCK at picking Presidential candidates?

[ProfJohn]

Going back to 1968 when Johnson refused to run for reelection the Democrats have nominated different eight candidates of which only two have won. 2 for 8.

And one of the those won in a very underwhelming way.
Carter won with only 50.1% of the vote, despite the fallout of watergate. The Democrats controlled 67% of House seats at the time and received 55% of the popular vote in house races.

On the flip side, three of their candidates got killed at the polls.
McGovern lost 60-37 in 1972. 23 point loss.
Mondale lost 58-40 in 1984. 18 point loss.
Dukakis lost 53-45 in 1988. 8 point loss.

Compare that to the Republicans.
Since 1968 they have nominated six different candidates. Only TWO of those did not win at least one election, Ford and Dole. That makes the Republicans 4 for 6.

Four of the elections during this time were blow outs.
Nixon by 23 in 1972.
Reagan by almost 9 in 1980.
Reagan by 18 in 1984.
Bush by 8 in 1988.
Between 1972 and 1988 the average margin of victory for the Republicans was 11%!!!!
During the same time Dole was the only Republican to suffer a 'blow out' losing by 8 in 1996.

It seems clear that the Democrats suck at nominating Presidents while the Republicans are extremely good at it.

And 2008 seems to be a perfect example of this in action. By every measure you can think of the Republicans should lose in the fall.
Yet they have gone out and nominated the ONLY candidate deemed to have a chance of winning.

Meanwhile, in a two way race, the Democrats have picked the candidate who polls weaker than the loser in nearly every head to head poll against McCain.

So why do the Democrats suck at picking candidates?

 

[Vic]

One could just as easily ask why the Republicans suck so much at choosing Presidents.

 

[OrByte]

damn...

The Dems should have packed it up years ago ok PJ!

thanks for shinin the light

 

[sierrita]

Jeepers, if the Republicans can get some fools to vote for Bush twice, I'd guess they must have super-duper Svengali powers that the Democrats lack.

 

[jpeyton]

Why dwell on the past?

Time to turn the page.

 

[nageov3t]

nothing like taking the only democrat who's won the presidency in the past 30 years and trying to run him out of the party.

 

[Painman]

Fired Up - and Ready to Go!

 

[b0mbrman]

Profjohn and Ann Coulter have become Hillary Clinton's biggest cheerleaders. What a world we live in

 

[Kerouactivist]

I will agree with you about McCain...he was only one that even stood a chance and I was hoping for pretty much anyone but him because they would have been smoked....the probably with McCain though I think is the same probably that Al Gore had in 2000....There really doesn't seem to be any group that is really pumped up about him being the candidate and elections are won and lost in the turnout...and Obama has a very energized base in college students and African-American's not to mention his other supportors along with 8 years of Bush and that will get people out in droves (just like people came out to the polls for Bush in 2000...with a please no more of the dems/Bill)...

With McCain it just seems like even people that say they are voting for him are very hohum about it...and I think that signals a likely bad-turnout from his base....

I maybe wrong I'm admittedly just speculating on what I've and heard and seen from people I've been talking too.

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: loki8481
nothing like taking the only democrat who's won the presidency in the past 30 years and trying to run him out of the party.

He ran himself out when he insulted half of the party by insinuating that they needed a feeling rather than a president. People that defended him after he whipped out his dick for a young intern and then lied about it.

Politicians aren't automatically entitled to reverence. They are hired hands, like the guys who came to fix my roof.

He's done some good in the world, but he spat in my face for not voting for his wife.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: loki8481
nothing like taking the only democrat who's won the presidency in the past 30 years and trying to run him out of the party.

price will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old, and when you do youll fantasize that when you were young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders.

I wouldn't consider myself old, and yet I and many others only have a romanticized view of the Clinton '90s. I'd like to know who is "trying to run him out of the party" because I don't know who is. Still, I can't help but think that sometimes, legacies are best left untouched.

 

[daveshel]

The Dems are too fragmented: the only thing they agree on is not to agree with the GOP.

Part of this lies in the fundamental difference between the party philosophies. The Repubs are often described by attributes like social conservatism or fiscal conservatism, but I think the thing that unifies the traditional Republicans and the neocons and the more fascist elements of our political spectrum is more of an intellectual conservatism. And unfortunately, the hallmark of this mind set is an unwillingness to innovate, to stick with only tried and true methods and ideas. And this leaves our national leadership operating more in the model more akin to that of Chrysler in 1965, when what we need is at least Microsoft 1995, if not Google 2005.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: daveshel
The Dems are too fragmented: the only thing they agree on is not to agree with the GOP.

On what issues are the Democrats fragmented and into which groups?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: loki8481
nothing like taking the only democrat who's won the presidency in the past 30 years and trying to run him out of the party.

price will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old, and when you do youll fantasize that when you were young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders.

I wouldn't consider myself old, and yet I and many others only have a romanticized view of the Clinton '90s. I'd like to know who is "trying to run him out of the party" because I don't know who is. Still, I can't help but think that sometimes, legacies are best left untouched.

"running him out of the party" is a bit of a hyperbole, but Obama did his best to trash Bill's legacy during the primaries.

putting HW Bush and Reagan on a higher platform than Clinton and dismissing Clinton's impact on the 90's economy (however true both may have been) was one of the few attacks that really struck me as out of bounds/below the belt, along with Hillary saying McCain was better equipped to be CiC than Obama (again, however true it may be, there are lines that shouldn't be crossed when both people are in the same party)

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: daveshel
The Dems are too fragmented: the only thing they agree on is not to agree with the GOP.

Part of this lies in the fundamental difference between the party philosophies. The Repubs are often described by attributes like social conservatism or fiscal conservatism, but I think the thing that unifies the traditional Republicans and the neocons and the more fascist elements of our political spectrum is more of an intellectual conservatism. And unfortunately, the hallmark of this mind set is an unwillingness to innovate, to stick with only tried and true methods and ideas. And this leaves our national leadership operating more in the model more akin to that of Chrysler in 1965, when what we need is at least Microsoft 1995, if not Google 2005.

Conservatism is politically useful as a bulwark against liberal/progressive overreach, but as a somewhat pragmatic member of the latter group, I think the usefulness ends there.

The problem with the Dem coalition is the infighting over which faction is "neediest" of progress. Women are upset because their nominee went down to the Black nominee, and they think it was "their turn".

Ironically, for most of the rank and file voters, it was never about the identity politics - it was about who would be the the better President.

The GOP has an easier time of it - they're a less eclectic group - yet they also failed to field a candidate this year that pleased everyone.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Painman

Originally posted by: daveshel
The Dems are too fragmented: the only thing they agree on is not to agree with the GOP.

Part of this lies in the fundamental difference between the party philosophies. The Repubs are often described by attributes like social conservatism or fiscal conservatism, but I think the thing that unifies the traditional Republicans and the neocons and the more fascist elements of our political spectrum is more of an intellectual conservatism. And unfortunately, the hallmark of this mind set is an unwillingness to innovate, to stick with only tried and true methods and ideas. And this leaves our national leadership operating more in the model more akin to that of Chrysler in 1965, when what we need is at least Microsoft 1995, if not Google 2005.

Conservatism is politically useful as a bulwark against liberal/progressive overreach, but as a somewhat pragmatic member of the latter group, I think the usefulness ends there.

The problem with the Dem coalition is the infighting over which faction is "neediest" of progress. Women are upset because their nominee went down to the Black nominee, and they think it was "their turn".

Ironically, for most of the rank and file voters, it was never about the identity politics - it was about who would be the the better President.

The GOP has an easier time of it - they're a less eclectic group - yet they also failed to field a candidate this year that pleased everyone.

That is what I was getting at.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Going back to 1968 when Johnson refused to run for reelection the Democrats have nominated different eight candidates of which only two have won. 2 for 8.

And one of the those won in a very underwhelming way.
Carter won with only 50.1% of the vote, despite the fallout of watergate. The Democrats controlled 67% of House seats at the time and received 55% of the popular vote in house races.

On the flip side, three of their candidates got killed at the polls.
McGovern lost 60-37 in 1972. 23 point loss.
Mondale lost 58-40 in 1984. 18 point loss.
Dukakis lost 53-45 in 1988. 8 point loss.

Compare that to the Republicans.
Since 1968 they have nominated six different candidates. Only TWO of those did not win at least one election, Ford and Dole. That makes the Republicans 4 for 6.

Four of the elections during this time were blow outs.
Nixon by 23 in 1972.
Reagan by almost 9 in 1980.
Reagan by 18 in 1984.
Bush by 8 in 1988.
Between 1972 and 1988 the average margin of victory for the Republicans was 11%!!!!
During the same time Dole was the only Republican to suffer a 'blow out' losing by 8 in 1996.

It seems clear that the Democrats suck at nominating Presidents while the Republicans are extremely good at it.

And 2008 seems to be a perfect example of this in action. By every measure you can think of the Republicans should lose in the fall.
Yet they have gone out and nominated the ONLY candidate deemed to have a chance of winning.

Meanwhile, in a two way race, the Democrats have picked the candidate who polls weaker then the loser in nearly ever head to head poll against McCain.

So why do the Democrats suck at picking candidates?

Why do you suck at honestly summarizing topics? You know full well about the Republicans' Southern Strategy that punished the Democrats for daring to give blacks equal rights, for the 1965 civil rights bill, re-aligning the south to the Republican party, and how the south has been decisive in the 1968 and 2000 elections, at least, with the only two democrats to win since then being from the south.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

A better question might be, "Why do the Republicans suck so much at managing the nation's economic policies, preventing the illegal alien invasion, and at balancing the budget?"

 

[ericlp]

And....

The most stupidest post of the Year Award goes to...................

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: loki8481
nothing like taking the only democrat who's won the presidency in the past 30 years and trying to run him out of the party.

price will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old, and when you do youll fantasize that when you were young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders.

I wouldn't consider myself old, and yet I and many others only have a romanticized view of the Clinton '90s. I'd like to know who is "trying to run him out of the party" because I don't know who is. Still, I can't help but think that sometimes, legacies are best left untouched.

"running him out of the party" is a bit of a hyperbole, but Obama did his best to trash Bill's legacy during the primaries.

putting HW Bush and Reagan on a higher platform than Clinton and dismissing Clinton's impact on the 90's economy (however true both may have been) was one of the few attacks that really struck me as out of bounds/below the belt, along with Hillary saying McCain was better equipped to be CiC than Obama (again, however true it may be, there are lines that shouldn't be crossed when both people are in the same party)

You're right. There was a lot more intraparty betrayal than I would have liked. From Obama, I less attacks on Clinton as much as I saw attacks on the partisan division that was around when Clinton was Presdient (e.g. saying partisanship's been around since before W Bush came into power)

I did support her, but I also saw where he was coming from. Hillary was (is) running on her "35 years of experience" -- effectively laying claim to all the good of the 90s and of her husband's presidency. Him questioning the Clinton years became tantamount to her questioning his time in the IL Senate.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Why do you suck at honestly summarizing topics? You know full well about the Republicans' Southern Strategy that punished the Democrats for daring to give blacks equal rights, for the 1965 civil rights bill, re-aligning the south to the Republican party, and how the south has been decisive in the 1968 and 2000 elections, at least, with the only two democrats to win since then being from the south.

In 1972 Nixon won 49 states.
In 1980 Reagan won 44 states.
In 1984 he won 49 states.
In 1988 Bush won 40 states.
Exactly how many states are in the south? A lot less than 40 I would guess.

BTW what exactly did I say that was dishonest? Point to one line that was not truthful. I never claimed how or why Democrats or Republicans won, I just pointed out the facts.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Meanwhile, in a two way race, the Democrats have picked the candidate who polls weaker then the loser in nearly ever head to head poll against McCain.

Interestingly enough, the people over at Intrade who are playing with their own, real money disagree with you. They don't seem to have gotten a lot more confident about betting on McCain:

http://data.intrade.com/graphi...121248413517713857.png

...even though they'd been betting for a while that Obama would be the nominee:

http://data.intrade.com/graphi...121248413517713866.png

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Why do you suck at honestly summarizing topics? You know full well about the Republicans' Southern Strategy that punished the Democrats for daring to give blacks equal rights, for the 1965 civil rights bill, re-aligning the south to the Republican party, and how the south has been decisive in the 1968 and 2000 elections, at least, with the only two democrats to win since then being from the south.

In 1972 Nixon won 49 states.
In 1980 Reagan won 44 states.
In 1984 he won 49 states.
In 1988 Bush won 40 states.
Exactly how many states are in the south? A lot less than 40 I would guess.

BTW what exactly did I say that was dishonest? Point to one line that was not truthful. I never claimed how or why Democrats or Republicans won, I just pointed out the facts.

The term "Southern Strategy" no longer refers only to the south and no longer only to using race as the wedge issue -- Text

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Why do you suck at honestly summarizing topics? You know full well about the Republicans' Southern Strategy that punished the Democrats for daring to give blacks equal rights, for the 1965 civil rights bill, re-aligning the south to the Republican party, and how the south has been decisive in the 1968 and 2000 elections, at least, with the only two democrats to win since then being from the south.

In 1972 Nixon won 49 states.
In 1980 Reagan won 44 states.
In 1984 he won 49 states.
In 1988 Bush won 40 states.
Exactly how many states are in the south? A lot less than 40 I would guess.

BTW what exactly did I say that was dishonest? Point to one line that was not truthful. I never claimed how or why Democrats or Republicans won, I just pointed out the facts.

Sorry, when you don't bother to respond to the points I make, why would I spend the time to add more points?

One thing I'll clarify: the 'Why do you suck at honestly summarizing topics?' question was formed to match your begged question not whether, but why democrats pick bad nominees.

The dishonesty is in terms of 'honestly discussing the issue', including the issues that are clearly relevant, not excluding them to reach the conclusion you want.

It doesn't mean you lie explicitly, it means you are not being forthright with information that challenges your position. The phrases 'lie by omission' or 'in good faith' are helpful.

The south has been the swing vote in each election pretty much. If there was a landslide, it was with the landslide, but when it was closer, the south decided the election.

You cited 1968 as the turning point. That's exactly the same year of the first presidential election following the south's realignment.

That has a lot more to do with why the democrats have lost - as LBJ said when he signed the bill, the democrats just gave away the White House for at least a generation - than your statement that the democrats 'suck at picking candidates'. Another important factor is the right of the right-wing propaganda machine, in exactly that same time frame, which again has nothing to do with the reason you claimed.

But I'm getting tired of your not responding to the points made and just racing on to ignore them and spin some more. So, don't consider this a response for discussion.

I'm not making a number of points that would be made if it were.

But one point that cries out to make is the chutzpah you show to say the democrats since 1968 have nominated bad candidates, when you compare them to the Republicans. Nixon? War criminal, abused power terribly, split the nation and was the first president to have to leave office early in disgrace (avoiding virtually certain removal via impeachment). Reagan, a tax-hating movie actor who led the nation to unprecedented peacetime debt and terrible policies from death squads and terrorists throughout the Americas to Iran-Contra and a broad assortment of convictions of officials. The first George Bush? Only looks adequate in comparison to the others, but did little of note but squandering the opportunity for re-aligning the nation's cold war posturing after the USSR ended. And you say George Bush is on the good list, not the embarrassing list? What a joke.

Several democrats look much better, but to pick one, Al Gore has become quite respected as a one-man war on global warming, including the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Or you can take Jimmy Carter, imperfect but the man who set the nation on the right course after Nixon's bad policies, putting Paul Volcker in charge of the Fed for Reagan to get the credit and making energy our domestic priority and human rights our foreign policy, two excellent priorities. Oh, and another Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Painman
Fired Up - and Ready to Go!

Did ProJo give you permission to post a link to his pic?