PDA

View Full Version : What is the most important factor in Presidential elections?


Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 08:11 AM
Style, or substance? :shrug:

I think the modern media, cable "news," the internet, and the 24/7 news cycle have made style much more important in Presidential politics than substance. Organization is still important, and money can be....but as long as a candidate has style, organization and money will come.

In the process, substance has been short-changed. It's why Paul is short-changed, and it's why Romney has a shot. It's why Hillary is unable to get traction, and Obama has risen so quickly.

Discuss. :hmmm:

DaKCMan AP
01-03-2008, 08:15 AM
If the last 8 years is any indication, intelligence ranks near the bottom.

Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 08:22 AM
If the last 8 years is any indication, intelligence ranks near the bottom.

While he's no rocket scientist, W isn't nearly as dumb as his critics suggest--or as he appears to be, at times. Regardless, I suspect your real beef with him is ideology and policy, as opposed to "intelligence." However, it's easier and more fun to call him "dumb" I suppose. Heh.

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 08:27 AM
Ah, here come the excuses for Fred the Tortoise's epic failure.

It's not that he was a shallow, utterly worthless candidate. No, it's that he's just not flashy enough to capture the electorate in this new, glitz-filled environment!

DaKCMan AP
01-03-2008, 08:27 AM
Regardless, I suspect your real beef with him is ideology and policy, as opposed to "intelligence." However, it's easier and more fun to call him "dumb" I suppose. Heh.

Yes.

Chiefnj2
01-03-2008, 08:37 AM
The most important factor is media relations.

Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 08:42 AM
Ah, here come the excuses for Fred the Tortoise's epic failure.

It's not that he was a shallow, utterly worthless candidate. No, it's that he's just not flashy enough to capture the electorate in this new, glitz-filled environment!

No excuses, just the truth. :shrug:

In today's culture, Jefferson and Lincoln would be....likely....."unelectable" too. Alas, it is what it is, though.

Fortunately for you, your guy has both though. I'll have no problem voting for him, depending on who the Republican turns out to be.

HolmeZz
01-03-2008, 08:47 AM
Yeah, Fred's problem was basically that he sucked. Kerry had no problem getting the dem nom in '04 despite being completely boring.

Saggysack
01-03-2008, 08:49 AM
While he's no rocket scientist, W isn't nearly as dumb as his critics suggest--or as he appears to be, at times. Regardless, I suspect your real beef with him is ideology and policy, as opposed to "intelligence." However, it's easier and more fun to call him "dumb" I suppose. Heh.

Agreed.

Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 08:52 AM
Yeah, Fred's problem was basically that he sucked. Kerry had no problem getting the dem nom in '04 despite being completely boring.

Actually, on a personal and paparazzi level....Fred makes Kerry look downright charismatic. Kerry's failing was his leftist politics.

Calcountry
01-03-2008, 01:53 PM
We had no business going into Iraq. I wish Sadaam Hussein was still threatening us with the mother of all battles, and selling his oil to his cronies at the UN.