Why is Chris Matthews being so honest about US presidential elections?

[canis582]

MATTHEWS: Why do Democrats keep running these weird presidential candidates, who always seem—ever since Jack Kennedy and maybe, well, Bill Clinton, they always lose the personality question. They always seem geekier, nerdier than the Republican guy. Why is that the case?

DEAN: How do you really feel about that, Chris?

MATTHEWS: Well, it's true. It's an objective assessment. Look at Dukakis in the tank. That‘s an objective reality. I mean, Mondale.

DEAN: Let me tell you -- let me tell you what we have to do.

MATTHEWS: Jesus, a good guy, but unacceptable on television.

The Republicans, they get the charm school. They got Reagan. They have got this guy George W. Bush. You know, they seem to run charming people.

DEAN: What Democrats have to do is talk about their values. People vote on values. They don't vote on position papers.

MATTHEWS: No, they vote on personalities.


And thats why I believe the people of the United States are getting what they deserve.

If you folks would get to know candidiates' issues and not just that they smoked a cigar while cutting a promo on Michael Moore, then I wouldn't have to post here.

[Bartman387]

I think this is very telling as to how sad both the democratic party and the state of US politics are.

Dean (DNC chair) doesn't seem to understand or want to admit that personality and style play huge roles in elections, and would rather pretend that it's only about the issues. While I don't agree that this is how our president should be picked, it would be very comforting to hear Dean say, "It's probably true that most people do vote for the most charismatic, however I think this line of thinking is what got us Bush, so the democrats would rather find someone with substance rather than style." Instead, we get pretty inauthentic mushy-mouthed talk that has plagued the dems in congress this session.

I think it shows that as much of a lead the dems should have coming into '08, the election will be much closer than people think, do to, among many things, their horrible leadership.

[W brad]

Funny, I was going to start a thread about the latest column by Frank Rich, which seems to be right on point about the election. A very good read, I'd like to hear your thoughts about it.

Is Hillary Clinton the New Old Al Gore?
by Frank Rich, New York Times

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

If you folks would get to know candidiates' issues and not just that they smoked a cigar while cutting a promo on Michael Moore, then neither the Republicans nor Democrats would be in power.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Bartman387]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you folks would get to know candidiates' issues and not just that they smoked a cigar while cutting a promo on Michael Moore, then neither the Republicans nor Democrats would be in power.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe we'd have worthwhile people in general, be they republican, democrat, or from a third party.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
then I wouldn't have to post here

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, ya. I don't know what we'd do without your contributions here.

Chris Matthews always seems like a palatable TV personality to me. I have nothing against him. But you have to realize, he's an entertainer. He's just Bill O'Reilly of a different flavor. He's a hack. Anything he says is just something that's meant to make his audience ooo and ahh, and will rarely happen to be any enlightening political insight.

I guess it's true that the recent Republicans have generally been a bit "cooler." But I don't think you or Chris Matthews are really in touch with the idea that there is a ton of variance in all aspects of life, and a handful of recent elections don't necessarily have any deep rooted significance.

Regardless, Obama is pretty "cool." Clinton was the epitome of cool. The first Bush and Bob Dole were pretty lame. So I dunno. The observation is mild at best.

Matthews (and you) are trying to paint some picture that the Democrats are "right" and the Republicans are just good personalities trying to hide the truth. If you could get it through your skull that the political process is a game, and both sides are equally corrupt, "then I wouldn't have to post here." But feel free to keep living in your fantasy land that tells you your personal preferences are objectively good, and that a political coalition designed to force others to behave in accordance is also a good thing.

If you're looking for this argument to actually be taken seriously though, you should look beyond the ever scholarly "Chris Matthews" to be the foundation of your arguments.

[BeatUp]

Because Chris Matthews is a pretty smart guy and he seems to value truth, as opposed to so many other people in positions like his. I think his thinly veiled point could be either that democrats are geeks or that they aren't really trying to win or that they're just stupid and don't understand the rules of the "game" they're playing.

Personally, I'm sick of both major parties. They're all working for the same people at the top.

[ALawPoker]

His thinly veiled point is that since the Democrats don't have as much personality, gee, I guess they compete effectively because they have more truth going for them. He (and Canis, and I guess you) would rather think one side speaks the truth but just is so inexplicably benevolent that they don't "play the game," when really we should all be able to admit both sides play the game to the same degree.

Politicians don't work so hard to campaign for these (relatively) mediocre-paying jobs because they're nice guys and they've just chosen the side that sacrifices their lives to solving other people's problems. They rip each others' throats out to get the jobs, because the jobs give them power and corrupt money. Neither side is more benevolent or fair or right than the other. 0 = 0.

[foal]

Most people don't vote on personalities, they vote party line. That smaller margin of undecideds may take personality factors heavily into account and yes they decide the election so it may feel like an election is being decided on something stupid, but in reality most people (the "base" for each party) are voting based on their political ideals. That is, in the main election. The primaries are obviously a bit different and I think a lot of people vote based on perceived electability.

I think the TV media deserves a lot of blame for the 'stupidity' of undecided voters. All they cover is strategy, polls and unsubstantial rhetoric. Voting records and stances on issues? Barely ever. And the 'debates' are quite poorly designed as well. What are people supposed to vote on if they don't have the time or skills to do their own research?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people don't vote on personalities, they vote party line. That smaller margin of undecideds may take personality factors heavily into account and yes they decide the election so it may feel like an election is being decided on something stupid, but in reality most people (the "base" for each party) are voting based on their political ideals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Foal, I think it's important to recognize that the two parties have no logically consistent "ideals." What they are is merely a coalition of various interests which will always comprise roughly half the voting populace. If national sentiment changes to reflect the idea that issue X is very important, one party will not be left to crumble. The rhetoric of the party lines will just shift to encompass the change in a way each party deems is to its best interest.

For instance, a Republican would not say "Marijuana is harmless" even though he knows he could win votes from some people by saying this. He knows his core is such where he would alienate more votes than he would gain. But as more people begin to agree with the idea that "marijuana is harmless" it becomes more plausible for a Republican to see it in his best interest to say such a thing.

The two parties, since they're acting rationally and are both extremely skilled at what they do, will always appeal to about half the voting populace. Thus, things like personality, height, and which snippy comments certain candidates come up with to attack their competitors will always play a critical role. We essentially elect the leader of the free world based on a process befitting of a sorority election. (And that claim is arguably unfair to a lot of sororities.)