• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why do the Democrats SUCK at picking Presidential candidates?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I think Americans are bi-polar when it comes to politics. Meaning they want to be conservative and love to hear the message of 'less government' 'low taxes' but don't like it carried though advocating expensive policy all along the way for their cause, whatever that may be. nasa, military, ss, etc can't cut nothing in their mind or cut the other guys stuff first. Hence we have even Republicans that are big government liberals, despite the campaign rhetoric which got them there. Almost across the board Repulicans are neo-conservatives in the fiscal sense but the voter still loves their main leader to be tough talking Tax Fighter/John Wayne type.

America's real liberal leanings is shown in Democrat domination of Congress and state houses for 40 years across the land. and to get back to the bi-polar theme, governors, the states president, are more republican , even blue California elects Republicans all the time.

Sorry Professor but if you're a conservative the accent of Reagan, Bush's, McCain isn't really winning maybe losing less?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So why do the Democrats suck at picking candidates?
Click to expand...

Why do you SUCK at posting is a much better question? So far the only thing I can see that you don't SUCK at is avoiding fighting in the GWOT. Out of all the presidents you mentioned in the past 40 years or so, only 1 or 2 of them didn't SUCK once they became president so your point and your post is moot as per usual. Pst, btw, neither of them were from the GOP. Stop voting for assholes OP then cheerleading their actions. :cookie:
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

This sure sounds like a claim as to why Democrats or Republicans won to me...
Why do the Democrats SUCK at picking Presidential candidates?
Click to expand...

All you've shown is that the Republican candidates have won more often than the Democratic candidates, which doesn't really prove your theory about the Democrats sucking at picking candidates. Maybe the Democrats are more fragmented, as other posters have suggested. Or perhaps Republicans are just bigger tools and they'll vote for anyone their party tells them to.

In any case, you might want to try ACTUALLY "just pointing out the facts", you might get less of an adverse reaction that way.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
I think Americans are bi-polar when it comes to politics. Meaning they want to be conservative and love to hear the message of 'less government' 'low taxes' but don't like it carried though advocating expensive policy all along the way for their cause, whatever that may be. nasa, military, ss, etc can't cut nothing in their mind or cut the other guys stuff first. Hence we have even Republicans that are big government liberals, despite the campaign rhetoric which got them there. Almost across the board Repulicans are neo-conservatives in the fiscal sense but the voter still loves their main leader to be tough talking Tax Fighter/John Wayne type.

America's real liberal leanings is shown in Democrat domination of Congress and state houses for 40 years across the land. and to get back to the bi-polar theme, governors, the states president, are more republican , even blue California elects Republicans all the time.

Sorry Professor but if you're a conservative the accent of Reagan, Bush's, McCain isn't really winning maybe losing less?
Click to expand...

So very, very true. There's just no intellectual consistency with the American electorate. On the one hand, they'll bitch and moan about taxes this, gov't interference that, but try to modify Social Security or some other entitlement program, and people are up in arms. Voters are typically conservative in theory but liberal in practice.
 
Once again Non Prof John trolls under the wrong bridge. So lets give McCain some equal time. Many of us like McCain as a person, but but he is not exactly the sharpest knife is the drawer, he has the charisma of wilted lettuce, and says I am a trusted leader when the US military and the republican party never let him have a single true leadership role.

But in many ways, the GOP is totally two faced when picking its Presidential candidates as its become the party of image over substance and the party of promise one thing and do the exact opposite. In our now 63 year old post WW2 history, we have had a Republican President in most of those years. Yet in all of those 46 years of of a republican President, I cannot think of a single Republican President who has been vindicated by history. And I can't think of a single democratic President except maybe LBJ
who has not been vindicated by history in the 27 years of a Democratic President. And in many ways, Eisenhower was the last semi honest one in bunch, Nixon had the lone single virtue of recognizing China, Ford was in for too short of a time but has worn well, and George H. Bush at least spent his last three years in some sort of fiscal sanity while running an engaged and not totally dishonest foreign policy. After that, the well of good things to say about Republican President runs rather dry.

A then deeply unpopular Truman is now vindicated by history, Kennedy has also been vindicated, and even LBJ can point to his work on civil rights even though he lost his way on the Vietnam war and too much social spending. A deeply unpopular Carter has been proved right on foreign policy with a Nobel peace prize to show for it, and the Bill Clinton years were the *most scandal free administration in recent American history with a balanced budget surplus to put a cherry on top. The *exception of the Monica Lewinsky blow job was a personal Bill Clinton failure and did not effect public policy. And of course we all know what GWB&co. did with the budget surplus as he has gone on to rack up 3.6 trillion in public debt. As for scandalous looting of the public treasury by GWB&co, that too is legendary and we don't know the 1/4 of it yet.

But here we are in 2008 and the Republican party of image over substance has even outdone itself by running McCain. And the GOP has even managed to finally confuse itself by running McCain. Here we have a fellow who gets a 100% conservative rating, yet many in the GOP are convinced he is a flaming liberal because he has taken a few rational stances against GWB. And the Republican leadership stands 100% in lock step support of GWB to the point of gridlock at exactly the time about 81% of the American people are convinced the country is heading in the wrong direction and GWB popularity is now something on the order of 27% and falling. And now McCain must somehow convince the American people that he will go off in a new direction while continuing the failed policies of GWB&co.

And here we are in the eve of a historic general election and Non Prof John starts another thread dedicated to the proposition that the Republicans can fool the American public yet again. Surely this is not the same Non Prof John who so missed the mark on his predictions of the election of 11/2006. But I will give PJ one thing, he is one the few, the bravely irrational, and one of the last few remaining people somehow convinced that the GWB years were anything but unmitigated disasters.

Thats the other thing PJ missed about American history, when the American people get a truly bad Republican President, a democrat wins the Presidency the next election. And GWB&co. really really really stinks and is almost certainly the worst President in US history.
 
"It seems clear that the Democrats suck at nominating Presidents while the Republicans are extremely good at it."

I normally like to let ProfJ's posts go by with just a smirk, knowing that people exist without the ability to see more than one side of a discussion.

I have to chime in though. How can you cite Carter's win as 'underwhelming', and not put Bush's win over Gore in that same category?

I'll agree that Mondale and Dukakis were poor candidates, but since then they have had solid candidates in Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and now Obama.

I'd argue that those are better candidates, as a group, than Bush, Dole, Bush, and McCain - in fact I'd take those 4 dems in a landslide over those 4 Repub's.

Winning <> good candidate

For someone who has 'prof' in their name, can you at least use proper grammar? "the Democrats have picked the candidate who polls weaker then the loser in nearly ever head to head poll against McCain"

For what it's worth, Obama polls well against McCain - you have to ignore polls prior to this week since Hillary was still in the picture.

Lets worry about polls when both candidates have VP picks in place - and then the issue is going to come down to the 12-15 states that were very close in the last elelction - WI, MI, OH, VI, NM, PA, and the southern block of typically republican states. I think Virginia goes Obama, we'll see about the rest.
 
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Bush Sr. and Dole probably would have won in 92 and 96 if it weren't for Perot.
Click to expand...
Nope, research done at the time said that Clinton still wins.

The Perot vote seemed to have been split nearly 50/50.

Although not having a two vs. one fight might have helped Bush.
 
Considering the popularity of the phrase, "lesser of two evils," and the past 7+ years with Bush in office, the OP seems quite loony.
 
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 than the loser in nearly every head to head poll against McCain.

So why do the Democrats suck at picking candidates?
Click to expand...

Talk about sour grapes! You must have a pucker a foot wide and extending all the way to your A-hole. McCain has the only chance of winning? Pretty poor pickin's there! Well, after eight years of disappointment, McCain did learn how to be a Bush clone! Is that the only qualification for a Repub candidate?????
 
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Profjohn and Ann Coulter have become Hillary Clinton's biggest cheerleaders. What a world we live in 🙂
Click to expand...

funny how ann coulter never said the same thing for bush...

but, then again, she's a useless c**t.
 
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.
Click to expand...

THIRTY YEARS, UHM? Off topic here, but in the last thirty years the US of A went from Numero oneo in public education to nineteenth. Plus all the Repub deregulations that led to disasters and required GOV bailouts. Or their friends needing bail. Sorry for the hijack but I have all this ire to get out.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
You cited 1968 as the turning point. That's exactly the same year of the first presidential election following the south's realignment.
Click to expand...
68 also happens to be the point at which the anti-war and big government liberals took over the party.

And before we get into a debate about whether the "Southern Strategy" was racist let's not forget that the Democrats created the "Solid South" by passing Jim Crow laws and supporting segregation.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Craig234
You cited 1968 as the turning point. That's exactly the same year of the first presidential election following the south's realignment.
Click to expand...
68 also happens to be the point at which the anti-war and big government liberals took over the party.

And before we get into a debate about whether the "Southern Strategy" was racist let's not forget that the Democrats created the "Solid South" by passing Jim Crow laws and supporting segregation.
Click to expand...

But let's forget about the civil rights act, shall we?

:roll:
 
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Craig234
You cited 1968 as the turning point. That's exactly the same year of the first presidential election following the south's realignment.
Click to expand...
68 also happens to be the point at which the anti-war and big government liberals took over the party.

And before we get into a debate about whether the "Southern Strategy" was racist let's not forget that the Democrats created the "Solid South" by passing Jim Crow laws and supporting segregation.
Click to expand...
But let's forget about the civil rights act, shall we?

:roll:
Click to expand...
The one that was voted on by a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats?

Again, before you make the claim that the Republicans only won because they were a bunch of racists remember the following:
The first Southern state to give the GOP control of both its governorship and its legislature was Florida. It did not do this until 1998.

Georgia did not elect its first post-Reconstruction GOP governor until 2002.

Until 2005, Louisiana had been represented since Reconstruction only by Democratic Senators.

Arkansas has two Democratic Senators, a Democratic governor, three out of four of their U.S. representatives are Democrats, every statewide office is held by a Democrat, and their state legislature is Democratic.

Tennessee and North Carolina have a majority Democratic delegation in the U.S. House of representatives. Mississippi has a house delegation that is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.

Were all these state and local offices held by racist Democrats? Or could it be that southern voters are far more conservative than Democrats Presidential candidates such as Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis or Kerry?
 
We deny the enemy and he is us, but the children know.

Row, row, row your boat,
Gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Life is but a dream.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Topic Title: Why do the Democrats SUCK at picking Presidential candidates?
Click to expand...

Republicans, including you, picked George W. Bush, who turned out to be a traitor, a murder, a torturer, a war criminal and liar to the core, and Democrats suck at picking candidates for President? :shocked:
 
Profjohn is a frighteningly stupid person. These candidates won because they were better candidates? Or maybe the republicans are better at campaigning, i.e., playing dirty?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Craig234
You cited 1968 as the turning point. That's exactly the same year of the first presidential election following the south's realignment.
Click to expand...
68 also happens to be the point at which the anti-war and big government liberals took over the party.

And before we get into a debate about whether the "Southern Strategy" was racist let's not forget that the Democrats created the "Solid South" by passing Jim Crow laws and supporting segregation.
Click to expand...

Are you this much of a party hack? Yes the Democrats were incredibly racist for a long time, and then the parties switched positions. It doesn't matter if the people had a (D) or an (R) behind their name. The anti black racists used to be Democrats then, now they are Republicans. They're the same scumbags, they just changed their color from blue to red.

Why does it always have to be "but but the Democrats did this!"?
 
In case it hasn't been said the American people have been asleep since TV was invented and are awakening on the Internet. What has happened is that Americans have sucked at picking Presidents, but that is changing because, well because, change is on the way.
 
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: daveshel
The Dems are too fragmented: the only thing they agree on is not to agree with the GOP.
Click to expand...

On what issues are the Democrats fragmented and into which groups?
Click to expand...

The Republican party is a coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and business, all of which get along reasonably well.

Democrats have blacks and a large chunk of Hispanics, 2 groups that harbor alot of distrust among eachother. They have labor, which is mostly at odds with their immigration policy. They have young people, who always have a poor turnout. They have environmentalists and feminists, each with their own unique agendas.

I'd say the democrats have to work a whole lot harder to keep their coalition in line than the Republicans.
 
I think the republicans really are closer in attitude to the typical american so they pick candidates that American's are familiar with and like. However, they also suck at running the country which is the only reason the democrats ever win any elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top