Thoughts on why the Dems feel this is the year to put Hillary, Obama..

[LBK]

as the 2 big democratic nominees? The problem for the Dems the last few elections is that they have failed to put the charismatic middle of the orad type candidates out there and have thus, lost the election 2 times in a row. You would think they would learn from this and get someone that is tough, has a spine and can garner the support from those middle roaders that can be influended to vote dem.

This is a critical election for the Dems. This should be the year they can win given they put a popular figure out tehre that is not too polarizing. Yet, they place Hillary and Obama at the top of the list. 2 polarizing controversial nominees.

Why?

Any thoughts on why the Dems can't seem to understand the need to place a less polarizing figure in the running?

And I am a democrat. Frustrated one at that. Seeing no options here.

[Dan.]

The nomination process isn't what it used to be. The Dems don't just "put" people as front runners; polls do. Thus, Hilary and Obama are what the people want.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
The nomination process isn't what it used to be. The Dems don't just "put" people as front runners; polls do. Thus, Hilary and Obama are what the people want.

[/ QUOTE ]

...just like they wanted Dean on 04.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
The nomination process isn't what it used to be. The Dems don't just "put" people as front runners; polls do. Thus, Hilary and Obama are what the people want.

[/ QUOTE ]

A better reason is that they are the two people the media has put forth and told the people to want.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
A better reason is that they are the two people the media has put forth and told the people to want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. The commercial news media produces an information product for consumption. They produce the product with the broadest market appeal for maximum profit.

What you are saying is equivalent to saying that Americans only eat hamburgers because McDonald's tells them to. If Americans would prefer something else, McD's would produce it to maximize profit. If Americans wanted news about other candidates, the new media would provide it to maximize viewship/profits.

[4 High]

Whoever decides to run, decides to run. What top white males took a pass that had a serious shot? Mark Warner? Wes Clark?
I dont think there is any white male candidate that would leapfrog Obama and Clinton in polls and support, so the ops post is kinda baseless.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A better reason is that they are the two people the media has put forth and told the people to want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. The commercial news media produces an information product for consumption. They produce the product with the broadest market appeal for maximum profit.

What you are saying is equivalent to saying that Americans only eat hamburgers because McDonald's tells them to. If Americans would prefer something else, McD's would produce it to maximize profit. If Americans wanted news about other candidates, the new media would provide it to maximize viewship/profits.

[/ QUOTE ]

nay

the media has the power to make or break a candidate. Obama is teh first real black candidate and as such he has recieved a ton of media coverage. this leads to a perpetual cycle of increased coverage as more people know him from the previous coverage.

The media has the power to create thier own stories.

[Dan.]

John McCain joked that in 2000 his base was the media. That didn't get him elected.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
The media has the power to create thier own stories.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the population has the power to ignore the stories they don't care about. If they don't care, the news network's ratings go down and they change stories. Don't presume that everybody is being force-fed information because you don't want the information.

[iron81]

The Dems have actually done a good job this year of putting forward middle of the road types that have a broad appeal. Hillary is actually a very moderate candidate: she is tough on Foreign Policy and relatively conservative on taxes. The hatred you see for Hillary is largely based on the first impression we got of her 15 years ago.

Obama is more liberal than Hillary, but he has a very broad message. He got 70% of the vote for his Senate run in Illinois and from what I've seen, conservatives at least respect him. The media still fawns over him so much that he isn't very controversial or polarizing.

Also, I'll say that your ideal candidate that is "tough, has a spine and can garner the support from those middle roaders" is basically impossible. The conventional definition of moderate is someone who holds some liberal positions and some conservative postions. Anyone like this is going to be labeled a flip-flopper.