Refresh My Memory, Please...

Back in 91, were people saying things like "Clinton can't win" and "Clinton is un-electable" and "Clinton has too much baggage" (and the like?)

If so... they were wrong about Clinton, right? So what makes them believe that they are correct in 2003? Why does anyone pay attention to all the naysayers who keep needling their opponents with "soandso can't win" because "soandso is unelectable".

They are just needling you. I wouldn't go so far as to accuse those folks as being flame-baiters, but certainly they are yanking your chains. Am I the only one who sees it?

Just wondering. Just asking.

-- Allen

Your logic is fatally flawed. Just because the people predicting Clinton's unelectibility were wrong doesnt in any way imply anyone predicting any candidates 2004 unelectibility is going to be wrong.

If clinton was a candidate in the primary it might, but unless you are going to make some argument that supports the comparison between the Clinton situation and the current situation it has absolutely no relevance. By this logic, I suppose we should all be supporting Sharpton because then everyone would be predicting inelectability and by the Clinton logic he'd win the general election with 98% of the vote.

arwalden is not claiming that it proves that naysayers are wrong, just that they were wrong before, so why should we listen to them.

The truly doomed candidates are these Washington insiders running these pathetic campaigns.

Arguing that we shouldnt listen to them is indeed implying that they are wrong, unless of course you think we should be trying to be wrong and not right.

It certainly is the case that candidates differ in their abilities to win the general election. Predicting this is extremely difficult, but thats politics. Just because many were wrong in one case doesnt prove them wrong or not worthy of being listened to in another. It simply proves that these things are hard to call.

If we didnt listen to every argument that in previous elections proved wrong, we shouldnt bother discussing the primary, because not a single argument would be valid.

Dean is running a great campaign, and most of the other campaigns are poorly run.

A much better argumument could be made that poorly run campaigns are much more likely to lose the General Election.

if you could provide examples, I am also claiming that no one knows either way. No one knows anything, but we can try and predict, thats what we are all doing. The original posters argument is that we can know either way. He argues that because Clinton won, arguments of inelectibility are unsound, he is wrong.

However, they might also be wrong... they've been wrong before. And we can play the circular logic game all night.

just like every other person on this forum, therefore their arguments should be given just as much credence on thier face as any other arguments. Thus, the argument of this thread, that they should be dismissed because of the Clinton example is wrong.

And, thankfully for your peace of mind, you've been spending more of your time in the Lounge, obviously. It's a tiresome, endless bleating of bullshit.

Not for Ross Perot. Is there one in this race?

;-)

But we knew that from the Lounge...
:-)

(Actually, Dennis impressed me tonight. He certainly represents a "spirit" that's missing in the others and much of the nation/world. Off to meditate now...)

Unlike Perot, Kucinich has held two major elected offices in his time: the mayor of Cleveland (youngest mayor of a large city in US history), and a very liberal congressman from a diverse, and often quite conservative, district.

Perot was just some billionaire CEO loudmouth running as a grudge match against the Bush clan - an old Texas business rivalry. His campaign was short on specifics and long on demagoguery.

Kucinich's campaign may be idealistic, but that's better than being egotistic, a la Perot. Kucinich is the closest to being the Paul Wellstone of this race, not the Ross Perot.

I wish Ross Perot would run. Anyone want to start a Draft Ross Perot Independence Party website?

Maybe if enough of us asked him to run, he would. His main issue was the deficit in 1992, and the deficit is bad, again.

the Republican Party is so completely off thier traditional values and the values of most of their electorate. But I guess those in power have done a good job of buying off anyone who could threaten them from the right.

People said Clinton was unelectable because of Gennifer Flowers, and they were wrong.

People say Dean is unelectable because he wants to raise federal taxes on the middle-class (even if it's only a little and it will help the economy).

Clinton promised a middle-class tax-cut in 1992.

If Dean changes his mind and promises a middle-class tax-cut, he might win.

that he did not have charisma and did not make a broad spectrum of people feel better about the prospects for themselves with him driving the bus.

the only guy running that matches that is Edwards. Before that, Carter (take I), Reagan (I & II) and even GB I to some extent.

you might notice that thses were all WINNERS.

Dean is pissed off and snotty...
Clark is an Army guy...
Kerry is from Mass...
Gep is close...
Lieberman is, well, Lieberman...
the others are wallpaper looking to impact the platform

Few people knew anything about him.

He won with 43% of the vote. Electorally, he won because Perot took a lot of Bush votes away in swing states. This is why a strong Libertarian or other so-called conservative is needed in this race.

Straight up, it's going to be tough.

Is anyone here great with web-design? We could use a sharp website asking Perot to run as an Independence Party candidate.

Because of the extramarital allegations and ethical concerns brought up by Jerry Brown and others, Clinton was perceived as a long shot, and came in 3rd in New Hampshire. Just because he finished better than expected in 3rd place, he was dubbed "The Comeback Kid".

Let 1991-92 be a lesson for the overconfident. In politics, anything can, and usually does, happen.