# Democrats need to be more realistic about their candidates **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 22, 2017, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-need-to-be-more-realistic-about-their-candidates/780444 "2017-02-22T04:15:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2017, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-need-to-be-more-realistic-about-their-candidates/780444/121 "2017-02-28T17:10:57Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Nevermind that two of them actually won the popular vote, and one (Kerry) came within one state of victory and decided against challenging the results in that state. It’s all the Dem establishment’s fault. I do think that democrats need to Never Mind the popular vote, since they’ve been harping on it for over a decade. This whole attitude of ‘well, we ALMOST won’ is what leads to the situation of ‘well, we ACTUALLY lost’ over and over. If you lose the election, you lost the election, period. Trying to claim a moral victory for an irrelevant statistic is just pathetic and counterproductive. (If the candidates were getting over 50% of eligible voters, it might mean something, but when they’re only getting a third or less of the potential vote it hardly means they’re a popular choice) > [@](#): > > Let’s just ignore the myriad of factors that go into winning a presidential election, and simplify it to ‘the establishment must be idiots.’ Yeah, right. Again, the Democratic establishment has not actually picked a winner since 1976 except for rerunning incumbents. I offered this to refute the proposition that they clearly know what they’re doing because of their repeated success, when they actually don’t seem to have much of any success. > [@](#): > > He’s better at getting elected than Hillary [Full stop added by me] Right, this is the sort of thing that the Democrats need to recognize. Their candidates are far worse at getting elected than alleged ‘fools’, they need to stop ignoring that and trying to claim ‘oh he just got lucky’ or some other nonsense. And really, using ‘con man’ in a derogatory way is hilariously absurd when you’re talking about a career politician like Hillary, who routinely lies and reverses position to get reelected (as I’ve pointed out in this thread). ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2017, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-need-to-be-more-realistic-about-their-candidates/780444/122 "2017-02-28T21:01:24Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > I do think that democrats need to Never Mind the popular vote, since they’ve been harping on it for over a decade. This whole attitude of ‘well, we ALMOST won’ is what leads to the situation of ‘well, we ACTUALLY lost’ over and over. If you lose the election, you lost the election, period. Trying to claim a moral victory for an irrelevant statistic is just pathetic and counterproductive. (If the candidates were getting over 50% of eligible voters, it might mean something, but when they’re only getting a third or less of the potential vote it hardly means they’re a popular choice) Sure. Because the ‘will of the people’ is always expressed by the minority of actual voters. If you don’t get that there’s something wrong with that, and it’s not the way it should be, I got nothing. > [@](#): > > Again, the Democratic establishment has not actually picked a winner since 1976 except for rerunning incumbents. I offered this to refute the proposition that they clearly know what they’re doing because of their repeated success, when they actually don’t seem to have much of any success. Maybe if you took for granted that I can both read and comprehend what you write, you wouldn’t need to repeat yourself. Disagreement does not imply misunderstanding. > [@](#): > > Right, this is the sort of thing that the Democrats need to recognize. Their candidates are far worse at getting elected than alleged ‘fools’, they need to stop ignoring that and trying to claim ‘oh he just got lucky’ or some other nonsense. And really, using ‘con man’ in a derogatory way is hilariously absurd when you’re talking about a career politician like Hillary, who routinely lies and reverses position to get reelected (as I’ve pointed out in this thread). Interesting how you put in that [full stop], ignoring the rest of what I wrote. But come on, even you must recognize that when it comes to lying and reversing position, she’s an amateur compared to Trump, the man who has had the greatest percentage of untruths ever recorded. Believe whatever you want, you haven’t convinced me in the slightest, nor, I think, much of anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2017, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-need-to-be-more-realistic-about-their-candidates/780444/123 "2017-02-28T22:07:17Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Sure. Because the ‘will of the people’ is always expressed by the minority of actual voters. If you don’t get that there’s something wrong with that, and it’s not the way it should be, I got nothing. Arbitrarily adding parameters to a statistic until your guy ‘wins’ is meaningless. Like I said and you ignored, no candidate actually got the majority of voters to vote for them, it’s about 1/3 for one, 1/3 for the other, 1/3 no-show, and has been for a long time. If someone manages to get 50% of voters to vote for them but doesn’t win the presidency, I’ll consider that significant, but the idea that tiny margins of victory in a statistic that is not what a smart candidate campaigns to win means something is just silly. > [@](#): > > Maybe if you took for granted that I can both read and comprehend what you write, you wouldn’t need to repeat yourself. Disagreement does not imply misunderstanding. Claiming that you disagree with a position I didn’t take does, in fact, imply misunderstanding. > [@](#): > > Interesting how you put in that [full stop], ignoring the rest of what I wrote. But come on, even you must recognize that when it comes to lying and reversing position, she’s an amateur compared to Trump, the man who has had the greatest percentage of untruths ever recorded. I agree that the Democratic establishment staked this election on someone who is pretty bad at being a politician, but I put that fact in the ‘evidence they are fools’ category and not the ‘evidence that they are really clever and only won because Trump got lucky’ one. If you’re going field a candidate who is dishonest and abandons principles for reelection, you should pick one who’s good at it. > [@](#): > > Believe whatever you want, you haven’t convinced me in the slightest, nor, I think, much of anyone else. Democrats have had their heads in the sand since at least the turn of the millennium, I don’t actually expect that to change much from “Bush wuz dumb, we should have won!” ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-need-to-be-more-realistic-about-their-candidates/780444/124 "2017-03-01T03:53:27Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Arbitrarily adding parameters to a statistic until your guy ‘wins’ is meaningless. Like I said and you ignored, no candidate actually got the majority of voters to vote for them, it’s about 1/3 for one, 1/3 for the other, 1/3 no-show, and has been for a long time. If someone manages to get 50% of voters to vote for them but doesn’t win the presidency, I’ll consider that significant, but the idea that tiny margins of victory in a statistic that is not what a smart candidate campaigns to win means something is just silly. Sorry, but three million votes is not a small margin, especially given the percentage who actually voted. It is, as I have stated several times before, generally the rural minority ruling over the urban majority. Then add in the stupid bullshit that Pubbies threw in to make it as difficult as possible for mainly Dems to vote (surprise), and it gets even worse. > [@](#): > > Claiming that you disagree with a position I didn’t take does, in fact, imply misunderstanding. Bullshit. Your thesis couldn’t be clearer, and you’ve restated it several times. The Dem establishment are fools, and its their fault that Trump is President because they didn’t pick the right candidate to run. There. Regurgitated enough for you? So spare me the idiot treatment; I assure you I am not. I got what you said, I just said it’s full of shit. > [@](#): > > I agree that the Democratic establishment staked this election on someone who is pretty bad at being a politician, but I put that fact in the ‘evidence they are fools’ category and not the ‘evidence that they are really clever and only won because Trump got lucky’ one. If you’re going field a candidate who is dishonest and abandons principles for reelection, you should pick one who’s good at it. Man, you wriggle out of positions like a fish on a hook. So you denigrate Hillary first for being a liar, then for not being a good enough liar? Eeeyeahrite. > [@](#): > > Democrats have had their heads in the sand since at least the turn of the millennium, I don’t actually expect that to change much from “Bush wuz dumb, we should have won!” Sorry again, but disagreeing with your point is not ‘heads in the sand.’ Believe it or not, you really don’t hold the corner on reality. I know what you said, and the fact is that, especially in politics regarding over 100 million people, Occam’s Razor almost never holds true. So your explanation, while facile, is, if anything, a small part of the whole truth regarding presidential elections. But please, condescend to teach us poor deluded Democrats your own view of reality, since you are the clear authority on electoral politics. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-need-to-be-more-realistic-about-their-candidates/780444/125 "2017-03-01T05:46:15Z")
The popular vote is more than just the polish on the Electoral College. It matters, it signifies, if nothing else. However cunning and shrewd he may have been in allocating his attention, that’s gamesmanship. High level, high stakes, still gaming. Trump is claiming an undeniable mandate, that he is empowered to dismantle the country and rebuild it according to his plan. He will jam his hand down America’s throat, seize the asshole at the far end, and pull it inside out. Seems to me a program that ambitious/catastrophic would require a thundering majority, a sheer avalanche of popular votes. So that it shall rest on the solid authority of the people, and not on the gaming ability of the ruthless and ambitious. In my experience they are not reliable people. Aside: Has he given up claiming that there were…what, three to five million?..illegal votes? Seem awfully accepting of someone who was screaming for an investigation for this massive crime. Either that or the attention span of an intern goldfish. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-need-to-be-more-realistic-about-their-candidates/780444/126 "2017-03-01T15:50:04Z")
The popular vote is either relevant or irrelevant depending on context. If you’re trying to claim that you’re the _real_ winners because you won the popular vote, then that’s not a valid claim. But if the discussion is whether your party is in crisis and needs a massive shift in strategy and approach to survive, then the fact that you won the popular vote (and also lost a bunch of electoral votes by extremely small margins) is very relevant. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-need-to-be-more-realistic-about-their-candidates/780444/127 "2017-03-01T16:29:36Z")
So, if I agree with you, its relevant. But if I don’t, it isn’t? Handy little gadget you got there. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-need-to-be-more-realistic-about-their-candidates/780444/128 "2017-03-01T17:04:22Z")
No idea what you mean with that. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-need-to-be-more-realistic-about-their-candidates/780444/129 "2017-03-01T19:30:29Z")
The relevance of the popular vote is that a candidate who “wins” without it can claim the power of the presidency, but can not claim anything like “the will of the people is behind me” or words to that effect. This fact, of course, hasn’t stopped trump from doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-need-to-be-more-realistic-about-their-candidates/780444/130 "2017-03-01T19:33:42Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Here’s TV evangelist Pat Robertson saying, not tongue-in-cheek, that Trump is part of God’s plan for the US: So was the flood. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-need-to-be-more-realistic-about-their-candidates/780444/131 "2017-03-01T21:46:42Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Democrats need to be more realistic about their candidates > > There’s one difference I always note between reading conservative and liberal sources on politics, and it was true even before Donald Trump brought a tidal wave of weirdness into last year’s campaign. Republican writers, describing a candidate like Mitt Romney or John McCain are able to acknowledge that he has flaws. Democratic writers, and the other hand lean towards saying [things like this](http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/morford/article/Is-Obama-an-enlightened-being-Spiritual-wise-2544395.php): > > Barack Obama isn’t really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway. > … you want to know what it is? The appeal, the pull, the ethereal and magical thing that seems to enthrall millions of people from all over the world … Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul. > > Back in 2008, Slate magazine actually had a feature called _Obama Messiah Watch_ collecting evidence of the awesome, incredible, sometimes supernatural things that Obama accomplished according to the liberal media. [It can be found here.](http://academic.udayton.edu/race/2008electionandracism/Obama/Obama58.htm) > > Nor was Obama the only Democratic candidate to transcend the earthly plane and rise to a higher level of existence. No less a source than Lena Dunham’s newsletter [told us this](http://www.lennyletter.com/politics/a613/hillary-clinton-is-more-than-a-president/) about Hillary: > > I love Hillary Clinton. I am in awe of her. I am set free by her. She will be the finest world leader our galaxy has ever seen. … Maybe she is more than a president. Maybe she is an idea, a world-historical heroine, light itself. … Hillary is Athena > > This stuff hurts the Democrats. In Obama’s case, high views of the man led the Democrats to assume that he would bring the Democrats permanent victory, and they were blindsided by the huge gains that Republicans made in Congress and at lower levels. In Hillary’s case, they simply assumed that their candidate would coast easily to victory because they were blind to her massive flaws. > > In ancient Rome, they had the practice of _[Memento Mori](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_mori)_. Perhaps in 2020 Democrats could devise a 21st century version of the same idea to remind each other that their candidate is, in fact, a mortal human being with failings just like everyone else. Maybe a new Google Chrome extension which would take every article that mentions the candidate’s name and add the sentence, “Remember that \_\_\_\_\_\_ too is mortal” to the end of it. Good question. Do Democrats need to be more realistic about their candidates? I would say the answer is no. The Democrat Party is doing a spectacular job of picking Presidential candidates. Plus, the Democrat Party’s use of super delegates insures that the Democrat Party leadership’s choice of candidate will be the Democrat Party’s candidate in the general election. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-need-to-be-more-realistic-about-their-candidates/780444/132 "2017-03-01T23:05:08Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Good question. Do Democrats need to be more realistic about their candidates? I would say the answer is no. > > The Democrat Party is doing a spectacular job of picking Presidential candidates. Plus, the Democrat Party’s use of super delegates insures that the Democrat Party leadership’s choice of candidate will be the Democrat Party’s candidate in the general election. Sanders would have lost- decisively - with or without Super delegates. They meant nothing. The Dems also picked Obama. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-need-to-be-more-realistic-about-their-candidates/780444.md?page=6)