|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 19, 2016 6:19:18 GMT -5
Really? She agreed not to run against him in 2012? Do you know how rare it is to have a primary challenge against an incumbent? She was never going to run against Obama in 2012. Did a little research, Slam, to see in recent history other examples of a candidate from the same party running against the incumbent president. Besides the Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy challenge to LBJ in 1968 you had: 1976-Ronald Reagan ran against Gerald Ford 1980-Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter Each time, if the sitting President looked vulnerable, like sharks smelling blood, someone from the same party might think there is a chance to unseat him and win the general election. Now, when Obama took office, with us still mired in Iraq and the economy in a disaster, Obama played it very smart by giving his chief rival/ critic a seat at the table. Better to keep your enemies close etc. as the saying goes. It wouldn't be far-fetched to think 4 years down the line Obama's presidency, what with the crisis's on hand in 2008, might be troubled. Offer her complete free run in 2016. Smart of Obama to make the offer, smart of Clinton to accept. Keeps the party unified and everyone is happy. Except those who think the public should be offered more choices instead of having to settle for these back-room deals Granted, the long form of your theory sounds a lot more plausible than the Machiavellian "The fix occurred in 2008 . Hillary got a prestigious cabinet position which helped her resume. In return she would promise not to run against Obama again in 2012." But Hillary could have also turned down the job. She knew she would be 69 the next time she got a chance to run, and possibly against a stronger GOP opponents (the benches were not deep in 2007 and 2011, who could predict it would only get worse?).
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 19, 2016 6:28:04 GMT -5
Did a little research, Slam, to see in recent history other examples of a candidate from the same party running against the incumbent president. Besides the Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy challenge to LBJ in 1968 you had: 1976-Ronald Reagan ran against Gerald Ford 1980-Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter Each time, if the sitting President looked vulnerable, like sharks smelling blood, someone from the same party might think there is a chance to unseat him and win the general election. Now, when Obama took office, with us still mired in Iraq and the economy in a disaster, Obama played it very smart by giving his chief rival/ critic a seat at the table. Better to keep your enemies close etc. as the saying goes. It wouldn't be far-fetched to think 4 years down the line Obama's presidency, what with the crisis's on hand in 2008, might be troubled. Offer her complete free run in 2016. Smart of Obama to make the offer, smart of Clinton to accept. Keeps the party unified and everyone is happy. Except those who think the public should be offered more choices instead of having to settle for these back-room deals Granted, the long form of your theory sounds a lot more plausible than the Machiavellian "The fix occurred in 2008 . Hillary got a prestigious cabinet position which helped her resume. In return she would promise not to run against Obama again in 2012." But Hillary could have also turned down the job. She knew she would be 69 the next time she got a chance to run, and possibly against a stronger GOP opponents (the benches were not deep in 2007 and 2011, who could predict it would only get worse?). I don't know, I think Hillary had to swallow her pride and accept the job as Secretary Of State, which really is not a punishment but a notch in her belt to have that position. Otherwise for the next four years, she would be slyly criticizing Obama's decisions and hoping he would fail enough so she could run again in 2012. That would have ticked off the black voting block, that would have ticked off the Democratic Party faithful and would probably have completely ruined her chances of ever running for President again. Earlier you said the lack of candidates was because she was perceived as too powerful to beat. As I mentioned, Obama proved that wrong and Sanders did so much better than expected.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 19, 2016 6:35:12 GMT -5
One more thing before they put the strait-jacket on me.
When Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama announced their candidacies, the three of them were one of the least known and under-funded compared to most of the others. And yet they won. Campaign managers use history as a model to get their own elected. Being a long shot does not stop folks from running
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 19, 2016 6:35:52 GMT -5
Obama didn't have much to lose by running against her. If he had done well, it would have improved his profile for 4 or 8 years later, when he would have had a more "presidential age" even. We shouldn't confuse the perception of how formidable a candidate is with how well they end up doing. And at the end of the day, Sanders lost by a wider margin than previous primary losers, whether you count supers or not.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 19, 2016 6:38:08 GMT -5
I apologize if I have been extra cranky on this thread, I have had a fever and a painfully swollen cheeck and ear all week.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 19, 2016 6:49:07 GMT -5
I apologize if I have been extra cranky on this thread, I have had a fever and a painfully swollen cheeck and ear all week. No need to apologize to me. Some chicken soup and a tin foil scarf should get you back all rosy-cheeked
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 19, 2016 7:47:23 GMT -5
I don't agree with Pip that this "deep in tinfoil hat territory", because I think that the SoS position was definitely a sop to Hillary to keep her placated, out of the 2012 election, and boost a pretty thin resume. However, I think there is an easier explanation to why there were few other Democrat candidates in 2016, and that is pride and positioning. Going up against the Hillary machine, with all of its money and celebrity endorsers, was going to be a tough battle, so why would any candidate with a viable shot at the White House waste their first (and possibly last) run at the POTUS tangling with that meat grinder? Anyone who opposed Hillary would not only have all of their faults and flaws exposed to the voting public, damaging their future prospects (particularly if they got trounced) but they would have to deal with the "female" issue. I know it's not popular or maybe PC to discuss, but Hillary's gender makes her fairly bulletproof, because any criticism of her, no matter how valid, can be decried as sexist, much like criticism of candidate Obama was called out as racist even if it had merit. It also comes with a built-in voting block, made up of women who just want to see a female POTUS (just like many African-Americans did with candidate Obama) or people want to be able to say they voted for the first female POTUS, like picking the winner is the same thing as picking the right person. Any smart players on the Democratic side knew enough to steer clear of Hillary in this one, so rather than destroy any chance at the WH, they stepped back so their political futures could remain intact. There were other viable female candidates, though, like Elizabeth Warren. Or Hispanic candidates, where you would have a similar situation as with Obama. Also, I find the idea weird that a system that for 240 years has produced white, male candidates should in any way be rigged in favor of women. That's not what I said, and you know it. We have this issue here in the US where if criticism is leveled against anyone in certain groups, based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, it is labeled as being because of racism, sexism, or homophobia. It's a way of avoiding discussion of the merits of a candidate by casting aspersions on the motives behind the debate itself. We hear things like "you're only against Obama because he's black" or "you'd never say that if Hillary were a man", even if the issues raised have nothing to do with the race or gender of the target, because it is an easy way to shut down the topic by demonizing the individual raising the question. Am I saying that there is never criticism that is racist or sexist or homophobic? Absolutely not. There are still people here in 2016 (a number of whom are in my own extended family) who find it abhorrent that a black man dared to run for president, as well as those who feel the same about Hillary as a woman running for the same office, and that's deplorable. However, to squelch any legitimate debate of a candidate's qualifications because they fall into one of the so-called "protected" groups is unfair to the entire democratic process.
|
|
|
Post by Spike-X on Oct 19, 2016 7:58:48 GMT -5
Are you people going to keep picking through your stool looking for peanuts, or are you going to concentrate on what's really important - making sure that braying jackass, that bullying thug, that thin-skinned crybaby, that deplorable narcissist, doesn't get anywhere near the White House?
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 19, 2016 8:21:13 GMT -5
There were other viable female candidates, though, like Elizabeth Warren. Or Hispanic candidates, where you would have a similar situation as with Obama. Also, I find the idea weird that a system that for 240 years has produced white, male candidates should in any way be rigged in favor of women. That's not what I said, and you know it. We have this issue here in the US where if criticism is leveled against anyone in certain groups, based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, it is labeled as being because of racism, sexism, or homophobia. It's a way of avoiding discussion of the merits of a candidate by casting aspersions on the motives behind the debate itself. We hear things like "you're only against Obama because he's black" or "you'd never say that if Hillary were a man", even if the issues raised have nothing to do with the race or gender of the target, because it is an easy way to shut down the topic by demonizing the individual raising the question. I'm not going to deny that this probably happens occasionally. But I hadn't noticed the GOP being particularly careful about heaping one nasty jab after another at either Hillary or Obama. And I doubt very much that I would have any trouble at all finding GOP criticisms by the hundreds that were unarguably racist or misogynist. This idea that anybody is withholding criticism of Obama or Hellary because they're afraid of being called racist or misogynist is not one that I find particularly compelling. Consider: The current GOP presidential candidate was the spokesman for a movement that ceaselessly pressed a ridiculous conspiracy theory that Obama wasn't born in this country. Nobody who weighed in on that was the least bit shy about joining in on an unarguably racist movement. And Trump knew it would help him if he ever decided to take a shot at the White House. (Not to mention how easy it is to deflect complaints about racism, misogyny and Islamophobia by bravely inveighing against "political correctness" and how it's somehow hurting America when people think they have the right to speak up about racism and misogyny and Islamphobia.)
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 19, 2016 8:47:51 GMT -5
That's not what I said, and you know it. We have this issue here in the US where if criticism is leveled against anyone in certain groups, based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, it is labeled as being because of racism, sexism, or homophobia. It's a way of avoiding discussion of the merits of a candidate by casting aspersions on the motives behind the debate itself. We hear things like "you're only against Obama because he's black" or "you'd never say that if Hillary were a man", even if the issues raised have nothing to do with the race or gender of the target, because it is an easy way to shut down the topic by demonizing the individual raising the question. I'm not going to deny that this probably happens occasionally. But I hadn't noticed the GOP being particularly careful about heaping one nasty jab after another at either Hillary or Obama. And I doubt very much that I would have any trouble at all finding GOP criticisms by the hundreds that were unarguably racist or misogynist. This idea that anybody is withholding criticism of Obama or Hellary because they're afraid of being called racist or misogynist is not one that I find particularly compelling. Consider: The current GOP presidential candidate was the spokesman for a movement that ceaselessly pressed a ridiculous conspiracy theory that Obama wasn't born in this country. Nobody who weighed in on that was the least bit shy about joining in on an unarguably racist movement. And Trump knew it would help him if he ever decided to take a shot at the White House. (Not to mention how easy it is to deflect complaints about racism, misogyny and Islamophobia by bravely inveighing against "political correctness" and how it's somehow hurting America when people think they have the right to speak up about racism and misogyny and Islamphobia.) You're right when you say that you could find GOP criticisms by the hundreds that fall into the "ist" category (I'm using "ist" to save typing time). That's undeniable. The Republican problem has a huge problem with attracting those elements that gravitate toward that type of argument, and it's why they continue to lose ground across society as a whole, which they should. The problem is that legitimate criticism of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is lumped in with those "ist" criticisms as a way of denying honest discussion about them. You can't argue that Barack Obama's resume, when he was running for POTUS, wasn't lacking in solid accomplishments, but yet, whenever his lack of accomplishments was brought up, it was countered with "you just don't want to see a black man succeed". That's the type of thing I'm talking about. As for deflecting complaints about being "ist", it's the old "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question. What proof can a person offer to counter those types of accusations, because the accusers don't want to weigh the merits of the criticism, they only want to shut down any discussion of them. On the flip side, does the "PC" card get pulled too much? It sure does, but by the same token, the "ist" card gets used in a lot of situations where it should not as well. If we can't have open and honest debate about candidates and issues, then we're not doing our due diligence, and we're hurting the entire democratic process as such.
|
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,163
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 19, 2016 9:10:11 GMT -5
Are you people going to keep picking through your stool looking for peanuts, or are you going to concentrate on what's really important - making sure that braying jackass, that bullying thug, that thin-skinned crybaby, that deplorable narcissist, doesn't get anywhere near the White House?
|
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,163
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 19, 2016 9:14:41 GMT -5
As for deflecting complaints about being "ist", it's the old "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question. What proof can a person offer to counter those types of accusations, because the accusers don't want to weigh the merits of the criticism, they only want to shut down any discussion of them. On the flip side, does the "PC" card get pulled too much? It sure does, but by the same token, the "ist" card gets used in a lot of situations where it should not as well. If we can't have open and honest debate about candidates and issues, then we're not doing our due diligence, and we're hurting the entire democratic process as such. I'm no politician, but I approve this message.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 19, 2016 10:50:17 GMT -5
You're right when you say that you could find GOP criticisms by the hundreds that fall into the "ist" category (I'm using "ist" to save typing time). That's undeniable. The Republican problem has a huge problem with attracting those elements that gravitate toward that type of argument, and it's why they continue to lose ground across society as a whole, which they should. The problem is that legitimate criticism of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is lumped in with those "ist" criticisms as a way of denying honest discussion about them. You can't argue that Barack Obama's resume, when he was running for POTUS, wasn't lacking in solid accomplishments, but yet, whenever his lack of accomplishments was brought up, it was countered with "you just don't want to see a black man succeed". That's the type of thing I'm talking about. As for deflecting complaints about being "ist", it's the old "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question. What proof can a person offer to counter those types of accusations, because the accusers don't want to weigh the merits of the criticism, they only want to shut down any discussion of them. On the flip side, does the "PC" card get pulled too much? It sure does, but by the same token, the "ist" card gets used in a lot of situations where it should not as well. If we can't have open and honest debate about candidates and issues, then we're not doing our due diligence, and we're hurting the entire democratic process as such. I think you are way over-emphasizing the idea that people are discouraging open and honest discussion by calling people racist or misogynist or etc. when it's not warranted. It's much complained about but it doesn't happen that often. Whereas openly complaining about "political correctness" (in the most vague manner possible) and bragging about not being politically correct (again, in the most vague way possible) and saying "political correctness is hurting out country" (without even beginning to explain why) are very common tactics among conservatives, and are prevalent among conservative leadership. Donald Trump can hardly make a speech without saying something like "I don't have time to be politically correct" and it was a common refrain among most of the GOP wannabes during the GOP primary debates. (And I watched all the GOP primary debates. Except when I walked away for a few minutes to use the bathroom or to get away from Ted Cruz's gibberish for a short time.) I could easily find a dozen examples from the past week of conservatives waving away all criticism by playing the "I'm against political correctness" card (which has become the politically correct way to say "I should be able to be racist and misogynist without being criticized"), but you would have trouble finding examples of the critics of Obama or Hillary being called racist or misogynist without good reason. (And I mean among the Democratic or "liberal" leadership. I have no doubt you could find some really dumb arguments about what's racist and what's misogynist on, say, the IMDB message board for the recent "Ghostbusters" or the recent "Magnificent Seven." But I also have little doubt that the rants against PCness would be even dumber.) And that doesn't even begin to take into account how politically correct conservatives are when it suits their agenda. They are much worse than liberals because they never get called on it because it's not politically correct to call it "political correctness" when a conservative is offended. One common example is the way that some hardcore christians oppose gay marriage, but they object to being called "homophobes" when objecting to equal rights for homosexuals can not be considered anything else but homophobia. (This is something that Ben Carson brought up at one of the debates, probably just after or just before he complained about "political correctness.") They are basically asking for special treatment when it comes to the definition of homophobia. If that's not a case of conservatives appealing to political correctness when it's convenient, then "political correctness" is an even more useless term than I thought it was. I've seen similar objections to words like "Islamophobia," "mansplaining" and "white privilege." I've seen these words (and others) called hate speech by vociferous critics of "political correctness" who couldn't see the irony (or pretended they couldn't). I much prefer discussions of actual examples when discussing political correctness. It's very easy to attack "political correctness" when it's a vague and general term. But I think you can have a more useful discussion when you have actual examples to discuss and dissect because then you can get a better idea about what "political correctness" actually is.
|
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,163
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 19, 2016 12:12:30 GMT -5
I much prefer discussions of actual examples when discussing political correctness. It's very easy to attack "political correctness" when it's a vague and general term. But I think you can have a more useful discussion when you have actual examples to discuss and dissect because then you can get a better idea about what "political correctness" actually is. Your points about PC and Fill-in-the-blank-phobia are spot on, Hoosier. These ill-defined terms are very often used to distract from actual issues. They also tend to put an end to any discussion, because someone accused of Whateverphobia or or being Policitally Correct is already branded as not having a worthwhile opinion. One thing I find obvious, however: saying that one grabs women by the p**** is not being "politically incorrect". It is being an a$$#***.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Oct 19, 2016 12:42:16 GMT -5
First, has everyone forgotten Martin O'Malley, the third candidate in the Democratic primaries? Second, this article is an interesting look at a couple of Trump supporters and their reasons for supporting him: Apparently "political correctness" is a really big issue to some people.
|
|