PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts

  • el
  • pt
  • Comments

    RSS feed for comments on this post.

    1. Much better, Steven. Much, much better.

      Many of your premises and conclusions are inaccurate but at least you’re now attempting to justify some of your assertions. And that’s a good thing.

      First problem with your analysis is you’re apparently basing much of your analysis on the stipulated fact Clark simply doesn’t (or didn’t) have the name recognition of Powell. This is a weak argument when you consider a Bill Clinton or a Howard Dean also didn’t enjoy a lot of name recognition outside of their own regions. Name recognition is over-emphasized; it only matters if the candidate in question has no real qualifications or accomplishments or notoriety.

      More to follow..electrical storm

      Comment by JadeGold — Saturday, August 30, 2024 @ 5:23 pm

    2. Second, WRT Colin Powell and moderation. You’re quite correct Powell is far removed from the GOP base; we all recall how he was booed at a GOP convention for saying he was pro-AA and pro-choice. The GOP likes Powell because he’s a beard for them on racial issues. OTOH, they don’t care a whit for his politics as evidenced by recent attempts to make Powell the scapegoat for the ongoing Iraq debacle.

      Whether Powell could have secured the GOP nominAtion in 96 or 00 is up for debate. Personally, I don’t believe the GOP is ready for a black man at the helm. But Powell would have done better against a Bush Jr. than against a Dole if for no other reason than Powell would then not be available to bolster Bush’s campaign in the areas of foreign policy and the military. It is also quite possible, without a Powell, Bush may not have received 9% of the black vote.

      However, Clark is far more aligned with the base of the Democratic Party. Believe it or not, Dems care just as passionately as anyone on national security issues–we just believe you should be honest and open about the reasons for going to war. Even Dean, who opposed the war, doesn’t favor abandoning Iraq.

      Clark negates Bush’s most powerful campaign theme: national security. Pictures of Bush on the CV(N) all of a sudden look like Dukakis riding around in a tank. And as Steven noted, Bush now has a record to run on–a not very good one; Clark should be able to put together a platform which exploits this.

      Comment by JadeGold — Saturday, August 30, 2024 @ 6:29 pm

    3. Steven: I save my “smug taunting” for cogent analysis. For you, I offer “acrid derision.”

      Sorry.

      Again, you’re foisting the canard that being Governor of a state automatically translates into national name recognition. Ain’t necessarily so. Most people would be lucky to be able to name 3 or 4 state Governors. Quick! Who is the Governor of Maine? Of Iowa? Of North Dakota? Of Oregon?

      Moreover, the power wielded by Governors varies dramatically. As we know, Texas’ Governor wields very little power. While the Governor of a state such as California has a great deal of power.

      Comment by JadeGold — Saturday, August 30, 2024 @ 6:47 pm

    4. That wasn;t what I said. As usual your reading comprehension must be called into question.

      Comment by Steven — Saturday, August 30, 2024 @ 7:07 pm

    5. Steven also makes a lot of wild hand gestures about constituencies as if constituencies were something a person is born with, like red hair or big feet.

      Constituencies form around candidates with whom voters agree with on certain issues. IOW, when a Bush Jr. proclaims abortion to be wrong and against the Constitution–he obtains the anti-choice constituency. When a Dick Gephardt votes pro-union on every issue, he gets the labor constituency.

      Similarly, any candidate with an opinion is going to garner a constituency. We know Clark is pro-choice–so it’s not a stretch to imagine he’ll get that vote. He’s pro-AA–he’d get that.

      Comment by JadeGold — Saturday, August 30, 2024 @ 7:08 pm

    6. You spend an awful lot of time hanging around my blog for someone who only wishes to spew derision.

      And just being pro this or pro that that doesn’t mean you get anything vote-wise. All nine Dems are pro-choice, will they all get the pro-choice vote? And now you are reducing the conversation to single issues.

      And no, anyone with an opinion isn’t going to garner a consituency, at least not one big enough to get nominated, WHICH IS THE ISSUE.

      Again, as i said the other day, we will see how this pans out. When Clark gets the nomination, you can gloat. I shan’t spend much time worrying about that happening, however.

      Comment by Steven — Saturday, August 30, 2024 @ 7:15 pm

    7. For one who claims not to be worrying about something that will never happen–you spend an awful lot of time reprinting GOP watercarriers’ opinions of GEN Clark.

      Do you really believe George Will would ever write a favorable opinion column about any Democrat candidate?

      Steven, I’m beginning to believe you don’t understand constituencies. For example, Dick Gephardt–in the early going–will probably suck up most of the labor union endorsements. According to you, this means when a Gephardt doesn’t secure the nomination, those labor endorsements are lost to the eventual nominee.

      Do you really believe NOW is going to abandon the Dem nominee if it’s not Mosely-Braun? Are they going to stay home come Nov of 04?

      Come on, Steven–I’m giving you credit for knowing better.

      Comment by JadeGold — Monday, September 1, 2024 @ 12:37 pm

    8. Listen, my anonymous friend, what you donít understand is the nomination process.

      Clearly all the relevant Democratic constituencies will coalesce around the eventual nominee. That isnít the issue. The issue is, especially given the highly compressed nature of the nomination process, that to get nominated one needs a clear constituency immediately. If one does not, garnering the nomination is difficult, because one will lose the early primaries.

      Indeed, you make part of my point: if Gephardt does, initially, ďsuck upĒ the labor vote the labor vote initially, it isnít available to other candidates. Again, you are conflating the nomination process with the general election.

      If one loses the early primaries one loses precious media coverage, one loses contributions (people donít give money in large quantities to losers) and one loses voters (the downstream, so to speak, primary voters tend to be less inclined to vote for someone who won 3% of the vote early on than someone who won 30% or 40%).

      Thereís a reason why these candidates spend so much time in Iowa and New Hampshire, and, to a lesser degree, South Carolina. It certainly isnít because of their vast populations. Think about it.

      Such observations have precious little to do with carrying anyoneís water. They have to do with understanding this process.

      And aside from your somewhat obnoxious partisanship, it is rather unclear as to what your qualification are to argue otherwise.

      I challenge you to 1) demonstrate how the above has anything to do with my particular partisan leanings, and 2) demonstrate how it is empirically incorrect.

      Ranting is not allowed, but research is. Grades will be issued at the end.

      Comment by Steven — Monday, September 1, 2024 @ 1:19 pm

    9. Also, I would note, that again you are relying on a flawed debating tactic–rather than respond to the content of the post you rant that George Will would never write a favorable column about a Democrat and that I am carrying partisan water.

      However, such assertions do nothing to actual deal with the content of either Will’s column nor of my posts.

      In short: try again.

      Comment by Steven — Monday, September 1, 2024 @ 1:35 pm

    10. Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday, August 10, 2024 @ 2:58 pm

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Close this window.

    0.189 Powered by Wordpress