Ms. Clinton

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I disagree.

In terms of charisma:

GW Bush > Kerry
GW Bush > Gore (although some would argue that Gore won the election)
Clinton > Dole
Clinton > G Bush
G Bush > Dukakis
Reagan > Mondale
Reagan > Carter

I can't go back much farther than that, because
A. I'm only 29
and
B. I'm not sure how far back the hypothesis holds, with changes in media, etc.

addition: Obviously charisma/persona alone is not sufficient. But in recent history charismatic advantage seems to be a necessary component of a successful presidential campaign.

Not surprisingly, I disagree, although your point is astute and well taken. Let me demonstrate my objection.

In terms of Charisma:

Edwards>Kerry
McCain> Bush
Gore =Bradley
ElizabethDole>Bob Dole (amazingly no one with more charisma ran, and truly there have been few politicians with less demonstrated charisma than Bob Dole, until, of course after the election, when it was discovered that Dole was a likable, funny guy. Who knew?)
Cuomo>Clinton (at least as percieved at the time)
Hart>Dukakis

My point is that the most charismatic politician does not always emerge from the party fight. It is usually the politician with the best package of charisma ( I am not totally denying its importance), pedigree, fund raising ability, and the best fit for the effect of the external political climate on the internal party politicx.

I will grant you that it would seem that the most charismatic politician wins in a general election, but I will also add that charisma is, to a large degree the perception as put forward by the media. Just as an example, Howard Dean was charismatic, until he was over enthusiastic, and then he was considered one of the most charmless politicians in recent memory.

Of course, arguing over which politician has the most charisma is much like arguing over whether one quarterback or another has "it." I think Hillary has the best combination of factors, and she has a chance to undo some of her negatives and show that she has "it." In summary John Beck + Hillary Clinton= IT.

I will wait for my conservative friends to start puking now.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Primaries need to be nationalized. It's silly that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have such a disproportionate influence over who wins a party's nomination. If there were a set day in the late spring where every state voted in a presidential primary, voter turnout would increase.

The point of primaries is that they don't want an especially high voter turn out because it drowns out the voices of the party activists.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

yeah. I also hate that I can't vote in both parties' primaries. Last time I really REALLY wanted to vote in the Democratic primary because I liked Leiberman so much better than that icky Kerry guy.

My husband thinks democracy would work better if we required an IQ test at registration.

What? Your husband wants me to be disenfranchised? Babs, you need to talk some sense into him, dummies are people too.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

I will grant you that it would seem that the most charismatic politician wins in a general election, but I will also add that charisma is, to a large degree the perception as put forward by the media. Just as an example, Howard Dean was charismatic, until he was over enthusiastic, and then he was considered one of the most charmless politicians in recent memory.

I totally agree. That's my point. In the primaries we're actually choosing based on platform. The voters most educated about the issues are the ones that turn out for primaries. But for 30 years the election itself has gone to the mosre likeable guy. So if party X wants to win, they're going to have to choose a good persona in the primary process.

I think Hillary has the best combination of factors, and she has a chance to undo some of her negatives and show that she has "it."
I will wait for my conservative friends to start puking now.

Tell me you're kidding. Please. Like now. Before the nausea hits.

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

What? Your husband wants me to be disenfranchised? Babs, you need to talk some sense into him, dummies are people too.

I don't know about the rest of you guys, I gave up trying to talk sense into my spouse long ago.
(To be fair, I think Mr. Gordon's actual argument is that the founding fathers intended the U.S. to be a republic and not a democracy. But what good is it to characterize his beliefs accurately?? It's much more fun to caricature them and then poke fun at him!)

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

Not surprisingly, I disagree, although your point is astute and well taken. Let me demonstrate my objection.

In terms of Charisma:

Edwards>Kerry
McCain> Bush
Gore =Bradley
ElizabethDole>Bob Dole (amazingly no one with more charisma ran, and truly there have been few politicians with less demonstrated charisma than Bob Dole, until, of course after the election, when it was discovered that Dole was a likable, funny guy. Who knew?)
Cuomo>Clinton (at least as percieved at the time)
Hart>Dukakis

My point is that the most charismatic politician does not always emerge from the party fight. It is usually the politician with the best package of charisma ( I am not totally denying its importance), pedigree, fund raising ability, and the best fit for the effect of the external political climate on the internal party politicx.

I will grant you that it would seem that the most charismatic politician wins in a general election, but I will also add that charisma is, to a large degree the perception as put forward by the media. Just as an example, Howard Dean was charismatic, until he was over enthusiastic, and then he was considered one of the most charmless politicians in recent memory.

Of course, arguing over which politician has the most charisma is much like arguing over whether one quarterback or another has "it." I think Hillary has the best combination of factors, and she has a chance to undo some of her negatives and show that she has "it." In summary John Beck + Hillary Clinton= IT.

I will wait for my conservative friends to start puking now.

I hope you're just trolling, because Hillary is not fun.

Let's hope she spells the demise of the Democratic Party well into the next century. She has no redeeming qualities.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

(To be fair, I think Mr. Gordon's actual argument is that the founding fathers intended the U.S. to be a republic and not a democracy. But what good is it to characterize his beliefs accurately?? It's much more fun to caricature them and then poke fun at him!)

So it isn't one now? WHat change doesn't he like? Perhaps it's the women and non-landowners voting thing?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

(To be fair, I think Mr. Gordon's actual argument is that the founding fathers intended the U.S. to be a republic and not a democracy. But what good is it to characterize his beliefs accurately?? It's much more fun to caricature them and then poke fun at him!)

Then Mr. Gordon would be wrong. The founding fathers didn't distinguish between a republic and a democracy, other than Madison- and Madison's distinction didn't catch on until later.

[BarbaraGordon]

Well, I opened a can of worms there huh?

I'm afraid to ask what he really thinks. Just in the time we've been married he's turned into an atheist and (worse) a democrat! What's next? A Communist? A Longhorn?

Better off not knowing, I figure.

Besides, he's off at his "office" (Starbucks) no doubt hard at work at a software emergency or some Oblivion Elder Scrolls quest.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I hope you're just trolling, because Hillary is not fun.

Let's hope she spells the demise of the Democratic Party well into the next century. She has no redeeming qualities.

Yeah, if the goal is to choose the candidate most likely to alienate half of America, Hillary's the way to go.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Well, I opened a can of worms there huh?

I'm afraid to ask what he really thinks. Just in the time we've been married he's turned into an atheist and (worse) a democrat! What's next? A Communist? A Longhorn?

Better off not knowing, I figure.

Besides, he's off at his "office" (Starbucks) no doubt hard at work at a software emergency or some Oblivion Elder Scrolls quest.

Let me get this straight, he's a Democrat who hates football, stares at the computer instead of his wife, and prefers Dwarkin to Moses? Be careful if he starts to wear speedos around the house.