One down....

[Arkady]

Rick Perry has dropped out. Perhaps someone from Texas can explain how that guy had so much career success there. Putting aside partisanship and deeper policy questions and just looking at him as a professional politician, he just seems to be really bad at the politics side of things. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone flop as spectacularly in a debate as he did in 2012, and this time around he came across as a non-entity. Yet this is a guy who won the top spot in one of our biggest and most political states.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

I think what we have here is a case of what appeals to a state or region doesn't necessarily appeal to nationwide appeal. For some reason, Michael Dukakis comes to mind as someone from the opposite side of the spectrum, though obviously he made it through the nomination. Clearly it's not quite apples to apples for that reason. He must have been an OK governor as he served since Bush left office until... heck I don't know a few years ago. I think he was still governor when he ran in 2012. Anyway, I never thought he was ready for prime time. I didn't think it in 2012 and not even a new pair of glasses to make him look more hip and smart helped him for the 2016 race.

This does make me wonder if it'll start a trend. I'm thinking there are several others that should really drop out- politics aside, but because they simply aren't getting any kind of momentum. However, it's a free country and that includes freedom to stay in a race far longer than reason dictates one should.

 

[Max R.]

Rick Perry has dropped out. Perhaps someone from Texas can explain how that guy had so much career success there. Putting aside partisanship and deeper policy questions and just looking at him as a professional politician, he just seems to be really bad at the politics side of things. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone flop as spectacularly in a debate as he did in 2012, and this time around he came across as a non-entity. Yet this is a guy who won the top spot in one of our biggest and most political states.

Like you expected all the RNC candidates to run to the end for another 10 months? I expect at least half the field to fall by the way side over the next few months for both financial and political reasons.

Too bad the Democrats are only giving their members two choices.
Clearly a choice of the lesser of two evils. Pssst, that'd be Sanders, BTW.

 

[PhilFish]

Something (trump) sucked all the air out of the room.

Perry is but the first

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Something (trump) sucked all the air out of the room.

Perry is but the first

So you're going to blame the near absolute certainty of such a populated field dwindling to lower numbers on Trump?

I think many to most politicians on either side, Democrat or Republican, at least make the effort to fart in the wind to see if anyone smells it.

And if nobody much notices their attempted splash, and poll numbers are down, they bow out.

Isn't that how it usually works?

What's with Trump?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Rick Perry has dropped out. Perhaps someone from Texas can explain how that guy had so much career success there. Putting aside partisanship and deeper policy questions and just looking at him as a professional politician, he just seems to be really bad at the politics side of things. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone flop as spectacularly in a debate as he did in 2012, and this time around he came across as a non-entity. Yet this is a guy who won the top spot in one of our biggest and most political states.

I agree. The guy just reaks of unappeasing mojo.

I also have a personal gripe with him as far as a specific quote he once said from the bible and branded onto a plea for his campaign. If I ever met him in person, I'd let him know, from one "Christian" to another, how much of a crock that was.

 

[Arkady]

I think what we have here is a case of what appeals to a state or region doesn't necessarily appeal to nationwide appeal. For some reason, Michael Dukakis comes to mind as someone from the opposite side of the spectrum, though obviously he made it through the nomination. Clearly it's not quite apples to apples for that reason. He must have been an OK governor as he served since Bush left office until... heck I don't know a few years ago. I think he was still governor when he ran in 2012. Anyway, I never thought he was ready for prime time. I didn't think it in 2012 and not even a new pair of glasses to make him look more hip and smart helped him for the 2016 race.

This does make me wonder if it'll start a trend. I'm thinking there are several others that should really drop out- politics aside, but because they simply aren't getting any kind of momentum. However, it's a free country and that includes freedom to stay in a race far longer than reason dictates one should.

I think you're right that there can be a big difference between state level appeal and national, especially if the state is on the cultural fringe of America, like Texas or Massachusetts. But with Dukakis, the guy had clear political skills even at the national level. He secured the nomination and was, for a time, leading Bush in the polls. He did very well in the debates. He just didn't have a good response to the more vicious style of attack ads you have when you run against a Roger Ailes style opponent (Willie Horton, etc.). Perry never showed any sign that he could have won any campaign anywhere. Yet he must have political skills to have had the success he had. And certainly Bush shows that a similar set of political skills can succeed in Texas and nationally.

 

[Arkady]

Like you expected all the RNC candidates to run to the end for another 10 months? I expect at least half the field to fall by the way side over the next few months for both financial and political reasons.

Too bad the Democrats are only giving their members two choices.
Clearly a choice of the lesser of two evils. Pssst, that'd be Sanders, BTW.

The Dems have more than two. Clinton and Sanders are the headliners but lots of others have filed, including several major politicians (Chafee, O'Malley, and Webb), as well as a big name political thinker, Lessig. And Biden is sort of unofficially running. Right now, Clinton's my third choice after Sanders and Chafee. I love Lessig but value practical experience too much to want to see him start at the top.

 

[Max R.]

...... He just didn't have a good response to the more vicious style of attack ads you fave when you run against a Roger Ailes style opponent (Willie Horton, etc.). Perry never showed any sign that he could have won any campaign anywhere. Yet he must have political skills to have had the success he had. And certainly Bush shows that a similar set of political skills can succeed in Texas and nationally.

He also didn't have a good response to the question of "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"
This article sums it up nicely: http://www.politico.com/story/2007/04/questions-that-kill-candidates-careers-003617#ixzz3lWpnaJme
In the press room, the murmurs over Shaw's question now turned to mutters over Dukakis' answer. "He's through." "That's all she wrote." "Get the hook!"

The reporters sensed it instantly. Even though the 90-minute debate was only seconds old, they felt it was already over for Dukakis. He had not been warm. He had not been likable. He had not shown emotion. He had merely shown principle.


Plus his hypocrisy on the military just threw gasoline on the flames of his campaign.

 

[Max R.]

The Dems have more than two. Clinton and Sanders are the headliners but lots of others have filed, including several major politicians (Chafee, O'Malley, and Webb), as well as a big name political thinker, Lessig. And Biden is sort of unofficially running. Right now, Clinton's my third choice after Sanders and Chafee. I love Lessig but value practical experience too much to want to see him start at the top.

I'd vote for Webb, but there's no chance he will be the nominee. The same goes for Chafee and O'Malley. Of course, the same can be said for most of the Republican candidates who are running but that doesn't stop wags from gleefully throwing spitballs about the "Republican clown car".

I doubt most Democrats can even name all the Republican candidates, so how much can most of them matter in this election?

 

[Lukey]

I think what we have here is a case of what appeals to a state or region doesn't necessarily appeal to nationwide appeal. For some reason, Michael Dukakis comes to mind as someone from the opposite side of the spectrum, though obviously he made it through the nomination. Clearly it's not quite apples to apples for that reason. He must have been an OK governor as he served since Bush left office until... heck I don't know a few years ago. I think he was still governor when he ran in 2012. Anyway, I never thought he was ready for prime time. I didn't think it in 2012 and not even a new pair of glasses to make him look more hip and smart helped him for the 2016 race.

This does make me wonder if it'll start a trend. I'm thinking there are several others that should really drop out- politics aside, but because they simply aren't getting any kind of momentum. However, it's a free country and that includes freedom to stay in a race far longer than reason dictates one should.

Haha - I read that something like 78% of SOUTH CAROLINIANS want Graham to drop ou. I think he's probably next.

 

[Arkady]

He also didn't have a good response to the question of "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"
This article sums it up nicely: http://www.politico.com/story/2007/04/questions-that-kill-candidates-careers-003617#ixzz3lWpnaJme
In the press room, the murmurs over Shaw's question now turned to mutters over Dukakis' answer. "He's through." "That's all she wrote." "Get the hook!"

The reporters sensed it instantly. Even though the 90-minute debate was only seconds old, they felt it was already over for Dukakis. He had not been warm. He had not been likable. He had not shown emotion. He had merely shown principle.


Plus his hypocrisy on the military just threw gasoline on the flames of his campaign.

Yes, that question is an example of the differences between the cultural fringe and the country as a whole. In Massachusetts, where people are smarter, better educated, and more moral, his reaction to that question was fine. But when you're trying to win the votes of the dumb, the immoral, and the ignorant, you need to react to such a question with a display of emotion. You need that reality-TV approach of wearing your gut reactions on your sleeve for public display. Dukakis didn't have that and hadn't needed to develop it in Massachusetts, and that hurt him in the national campaign.

As for the supposed military hypocrisy, I saw nothing remotely hypocritical about his approach to the military.

 

[Max R.]

Yes, that question is an example of the differences between the cultural fringe and the country as a whole. In Massachusetts, where people are smarter, better educated, and more moral, his reaction to that question was fine. But when you're trying to win the votes of the dumb, the immoral, and the ignorant, you need to react to such a question with a display of emotion. ....

Wow. That's a very nice summation of why so many people don't like Democrats.

 

[Arkady]

I'd vote for Webb, but there's no chance he will be the nominee. The same goes for Chafee and O'Malley. Of course, the same can be said for most of the Republican candidates who are running but that doesn't stop wags from gleefully throwing spitballs about the "Republican clown car".

I doubt most Democrats can even name all the Republican candidates, so how much can most of them matter in this election?

I like the size of the mainstream Dem field. Five candidates is enough to cover a good spread of the party policy spectrum and to give a variety of backgrounds and personalities to choose from, while still being able to put them all on a stage and have something that at least resembles a debate, with some actual interaction among them. Ideally, you start with about seven, reduce to about five a year out, then three after the early states, then two.

On a side note, it's too bad the early states are Iowa and New Hanpshire. They're not reflective of the nation as a whole and so make a poor screening device. You'd do better with NY, Ohio, or somewhere like that. Somewhere with a mix of urban and rural, a diverse economy, and a more diverse electorate.

 

[Arkady]

Wow. That's a very nice summation of why so many people don't like Democrats.

Agreed. As an outsider (I've never been a Democrat), I can see that Democrats have some difficulty because they aim a little high, in a country where appealing to the lowest common denominator is the key to success. If you want the votes of halfwits, jackasses, and the willfully ignorant, you can very easily aim too high.

 

[American Patriot]

I will make a prediction. Within 6 months that GOP field will be down to 4 or 5 that will be it. Then the mud slinging will really begin and that will change the whole picture. I see Hillary as their nominee but in reality she is already a non factor.

 

[Max R.]

I will make a prediction. Within 6 months that GOP field will be down to 4 or 5 that will be it. Then the mud slinging will really begin and that will change the whole picture. I see Hillary as their nominee but in reality she is already a non factor.

Agreed except about Hillary. Like Trump, I think she will peak well before the conventions.

 

[Max R.]

Agreed. As an outsider (I've never been a Democrat), I can see that Democrats have some difficulty because they aim a little high, in a country where appealing to the lowest common denominator is the key to success. If you want the votes of halfwits, jackasses, and the willfully ignorant, you can very easily aim too high.

When you put a single state and about 2% of the entire population over the other 49 states and 98% of the population, you are not just an "outsider".

 

[Arkady]

When you put a single state and about 2% of the entire population over the other 49 states and 98% of the population, you are not just an "outsider".

Just to clarify, Massachusetts isn't the only state with people who are considerably better than those of the nation as a whole. It's just the one that was relevant to this discussion. Vermont's another good example, and that's something Sanders has to wrestle with. He's wildly popular in Vermont, but Vermont is a state where people are extremely well educated by American standards, and also a state where the social situation is in good shape (low crime, low incarceration, low teen pregnancy, low obesity, etc.) If you think of it in old-school terms -- the deadly sins like wrath, sloth, lust, and gluttony -- Vermont is an unusually moral state. Just because a politician has a great track record of appealing to moral people like those of Vermont doesn't mean he'll do well when trying to appeal to a much lower caliber of human in the nation as a whole. Sanders will have to learn to aim much, much lower.

 

[Max R.]

Just to clarify, Massachusetts isn't the only state with people who are considerably better than those of the nation as a whole. It's just the one that was relevant to this discussion. Vermont's another good example, and that's something Sanders has to wrestle with. He's wildly popular in Vermont, but Vermont is a state where people are extremely well educated by American standards, and also a state where the social situation is in good shape (low crime, low incarceration, low teen pregnancy, low obesity, etc.) If you think of it in old-school terms -- the deadly sins like wrath, sloth, lust, and gluttony -- Vermont is an unusually moral state. Just because a politician has a great track record of appealing to moral people like those of Vermont doesn't mean he'll do well when trying to appeal to a much lower caliber of human in the nation as a whole. Sanders will have to learn to aim much, much lower.

The same level of hubris isn't lessened by including a far smaller state.