2008 Presidential primaries thread

[MrMon]

Barkley didn't enter the race until Truman had dropped out. Then he took his shot and failed too. Recall that Truman wasn't exactly popular in 1952.

Yes, I know it a more closed system then, but New Hampshire still had it's primary. It was supposedly a gauge of public opinion, so if a sitting president didn't do well, like Johnson in 1968, then it was a sign to the regulars that the guy wouldn't do. I just had no idea it happened to Truman.

I need to pull out my unread copy of "Truman" to check on the details of this.

[bisonbison]

Wiki, not surprisingly, is not very clear. From what I can gather:

Truman wanted to run. The main contender was Kefauver. Kefauver won NH and Truman dropped out. Then Barkley started to campaign and went nowhere. Kefauver won 12 of 15 primaries but was blocked by the party heads at the convention who picked Stevenson.

Stevenson of course got destroyed by Ike, as would have happened to anyone. Then 4 years later he got destroyed again, only worse.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Obama: Photogenic, but what has he accomplished? Sure, Bush had never done anything, but who wants another dose of that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not having established a long term voting record in the Senate will be plus for him IMO. He won't be labled as being an "inside the beltway" type and that is a very a good thing if you're running for president.

[bisonbison]

The last truly non-incumbent election before that, and thus the last time we had this situation, was 1928, when Herbert Hoover, the Commerce Secretary, took on Al Smith, governor of New York.

Thanks for figuring that out. It's random crap like this that keeps me crawling wikipedia when I should sleep.

[7ontheline]

[ QUOTE ]


Not having established a long term voting record in the Senate will be plus for him IMO. He won't be labled as being an "inside the beltway" type and that is a very a good thing if you're running for president.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Just look at the problems Hillary is having now trying to explain her war vote. Look at how it screwed Kerry in 04. The longer you are in the Senate, the longer your voting record can be picked over to find contradictions or can be spun to put you in a bad light.

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Not having established a long term voting record in the Senate will be plus for him IMO. He won't be labled as being an "inside the beltway" type and that is a very a good thing if you're running for president.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Just look at the problems Hillary is having now trying to explain her war vote. Look at how it screwed Kerry in 04. The longer you are in the Senate, the longer your voting record can be picked over to find contradictions or can be spun to put you in a bad light.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes sense to me and as long as you have some credibility (not sure what the threshhold should be) I think the voter doesn't put much emphasis on years of political service and could end up just hurting you - historical evidence to the contrary v. welcome.

-Al

[adios]

Last person to be elected president that served in the Senate was LBJ in 64 I believe. Kennedy was elected in 60. Here's a link you may find interesting regarding Senators being elected president:

A Senator Becomes President

As far as "inside the beltway" types, maybe Bush 41 would be considered one. Before that maybe Nixon, maybe not as he had been out of Washington for awhile.

[kutuz_off]

[ QUOTE ]
Last person to be elected president that served in the Senate was LBJ in 64 I believe. Kennedy was elected in 60. Here's a link you may find interesting regarding Senators being elected president:

A Senator Becomes President

As far as "inside the beltway" types, maybe Bush 41 would be considered one. Before that maybe Nixon, maybe not as he had been out of Washington for awhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

That trend is likely to be broken by either Obama, Clinton, or McCain. There's a similar thing said about New York City mayors' inability to get on national stage, going back to early 1820s I believe.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
He won't be labled as being an "inside the beltway" type and that is a very a good thing if you're running for president.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the voter doesn't put much emphasis on years of political service and could end up just hurting you - historical evidence to the contrary v. welcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me, from a long way away, that voters are keen to elect someone that they trust (ie, can prove experience) but they also dislike the concept of Washington "insiders."

I think this massively hurts Hillary (obvious establishment type) and Obama (very new, young - this is reinforced by his appearance, who strikes me as a very young looking face)

By contrast, McCain, while he has obviously been around for a long time, does seem to generate a "maverick" perception - thus, he has the benefits of experience, but without being tied very closely with the current (or previous) administration.



Australian politics (which I see much more closely) has demonstrated that it is very easy to highlight a candidate's inexperience - see Mark Latham at the last election. While, obviously, American voters are different people to Australian voters, international comparisons can be useful between culturally similar countries where similar issues are at work.

[Your Mom]

I just can't believe that this country would elect Hillary. She can't take a stand on an issue and she comes off as the wacko dyke bitch. If the dems want to see the repubs come together and mobilize like you've never seen before, they'll nominate Hillary.