Quite correct, sometimes it works. On the other hand Savonarola also had intense charisma, personal virtue and courage, as well as a lot of legitimate criticisms of the rich and powerful. I don’t think you can say the same of Hillary and even less of trump.
That may be true, but that doesn’t make Obama some sort of wunderkind either; to me, it points at the fact that the Democrats don’t quite get that modern elections aren’t about policy and brains, but good talking points, social media savvy and being in the public eye. Otherwise they’d never have coughed up those three (smart and hardworking) stiffs for the elections.
Obama actually has some personality, while Kerry and Gore are the worst sort of dull stuffed shirts who had no chance against Bush’s personality, such that it is.
Trump has a personality, odious as it may be, but in comparison, Hillary looked entirely stolid and uninspiring.
When the people are seething for change, peasants are revolting, serfs up…they become volatile in their opinions. They want change, and lots of it, and are drawn to the most different candidate who offers the most extreme and sudden change. Trump wasn’t the “programs” candidate, not the social reaction candidate, he was the Now For Something Completely Different candidate.
Best recent example, Iran. The people wanted the Shah’s police state gone, and the god-smacked imams represented the maximum repudiation of the Shah’s autocratic “modernism”. They wanted revolutionary change, figuring that whatever was most different from what was had to be that much better. Wrong again, and so it goes.
For good or ill, I think we Americans* vote largely for the candidates we like. Policy is secondary. Obama was eminently likable to many of us. Trump, apparently, was also likable to quite a few of us (hard as that is to believe of those of us who hate him). Hillary just isn’t likable. Obama said she was “likable enough”, which summed it up perfectly. He was being polite, and damning with faint praise.
*Or at least the ones that matter in the election-- the few who might vote for either party. You’ve got your die-hard Dems and die-hard GOPers and never the twain shall meet. But, likable candidate, I think, are more likely to get out the vote of their base more so than the less likable ones.
In other words, elections are not about who can do the best at governing, but who can win the popularity contest.
I don’t fault the democrats for resisting this change in the electorate, as that leads to poor governance, but you are right, the qualifications for being elected are no longer in any way associated with the qualifications for doing a good job once elected, and the democrats have been running people who would do a good job once elected.
I really don’t see this as a fault in the dems, but rather a fault in the electorate. One that I have no idea how to address, but it is very concerning.
It’s been that way ever since a bunch of turned on Catholic women voted for John Kennedy in 1960.
All this shows is that the Democrats are good at picking candidates that have a very limited geographical appeal, but a strong appeal to those who are living in urban areas. This is one of the problems the Democrats are facing: how to appeal to suburbanites without losing that strong urban core.
Indeed, Bill Clinton shows how it can be done (he was geographically widespread with his popularity), but he wasn’t a “real” Democrat, and the party has been trying in the years since to distance itself from his efforts to blend liberalism with moderately conservative social and economic views. (It should also be noted that Bill Clinton was the last Democratic candidate who will ever do well with the Southern White Male vote).
As long as Democrats content themselves with the thought that winning Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York City, etc. is a good thing (while losing Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and other states like that), they will struggle to understand how to actually win the Presidency. President Obama’s campaigns were not so narrowly tailored. 
Bill Clinton was a governor of a Southern State. If Democrats keep nominating candidates from the Northeast, they’re fighting an uphill battle. I have to laugh at folks here putting up Kamala Harris as a viable candidate. Sheesh, Nancy Pelosi would do better than her in a presidential election (both women are from SF). I’d like to see the Dems nominate someone from the Midwest or the Mountain West (or maybe the South).
The trouble is that there are precious few Democrats from the true Midwest anymore. 
And, no, Chicago is not the Midwest. :rolleyes:
I’ve heard Sherrod Brown’s name put forward several times recently. He’s from Ohio. Does that still count as Northeast? So far, I agree he’d be a good pick.
Bernie, himself was a Adult, except he refused to concede early. But the Bernie-Bros and Sandernistas kept spreading the lies from the Kremlin and Rove long after the Primary was mathematically hers.
But too late.
Because those superdelegates werent going to change to the losing side.
He was right at that point in time, yes. But the Kremlin and Rove had plenty of negative lies and half-truths and innuendoes to spread against him. He would have lost like Mondale or Dukasis.
Yes, Clinto was widely unpopular- due to those lies and half-truths and innuendoes . Sanders would have lost even worst. A pinko socialist in the White House?!?:eek:
I wouldnt vote for Kamala.
If Hillary Clinton ran a good campaign, then it stands to reason that she lost because she’s just that unpopular, and that those of us who warned the Democrats not to nominate her were right.
Nominating the most hated non-Kardashian woman in America was an act of suicide for the Democratic Party.
And why was she hated? Because the Kremlin and Karl Rove made it so. Not to mention she was a powerful woman, which a lot of men hate.
If it had been Bernie who’d been nominated that hate machine would have ruined him, too.
I probably would, too. But winning CA didn’t do HRC any good.
I would NOT vote for Kamala.
Yeah, that old Kremlin… They always loved the Right Wing in America…
And is there any evidence Mr. Rove actually delivered any ideas for Trumpo this election or worked for his campaign at all ? As late at October he was saying he couldn’t see Trump winning.
Blaming the Kremlin — Lies ! and Mr. Rove — Lies ! for Mrs. Clinton’s inadequacies and loss is the weaker Dem exculpation rather than facing why Donald Fucking Trump was considered preferable by the People.
Lies ! All Lies ! is now their mantra.
And they even automatically deny those things which gave Hillary Haters pause as if she were some innocent paragon, smeared by the relentless vast right-wing conspiracy; the Foundation whilst Secretary of State, the private server, the bankers’ payments. All become fake news, scripted by Dread Vlad himself along with Satan.
Not that I have seen any way in which Putin has received direct benefit from Trump in return. Apart from avoiding WWIII from her aggressive and unstable nature, of course. Had she not threatened Putin he would not have preferred Donald, but the result would have been the same. The Americans voted Trump in.
Some good analysis on this thread. I think HRC’s campaign failed for a few basic reasons:
-
A lot of the the electorate wanted something really, really different. Trump was different; HRC not so much. Even so, HRC could have won were it not for her other problems.
-
Voters like strength: Trump looked strong in front of the cameras; HRC looked defensive.
-
Voters like the appearance of transparency: Trump’s foul mouth gave voters the impression that they ‘knew’ him; HRC’s policy speak made her seem detached from voters.
-
Voters don’t vote for the better human being; they vote for the candidate who’s better at speaking to them. Trump convinced the voters he was speaking to them (even the ones he offended); HRC tried to convince voters that she was a better human being. Ironically, her husband defeated George H W Bush for similar reasons in 1992.