4 ms·

Compare that calibre with this year’s roster and it makes me cry. Why didn’t he run a term later?

WorkerBee28474 2y ago
Let's be honest, no matter who the Republicans run, the candidate will be demonized. Only years later, when the person is not a threat to Democrat dominance will people judge them more positively on their actual value like is happening here (and has happened to McCain, and to Bush...). If you don't get points for running a good candidate, there's no incentive to run a good candidate, only one who can win.
- ptsneves 2y ago
  Heh dont get me wrong. I think Obama is a philosopher king but by giving such emotional speeches and rhetorics he set the stage for very strong reactions. Reactions that bloomed into the awful culture wars of today. At the time I saw Obama as a good politician but the wrong time for it. Mitt Romney was a good candidate that would likely have normalised the tensions post 9/11. Alas it did not happen so.
- John23832 2y ago
  The current republican candidate is highly different. He fomented a mob on the steps of the capital because he was upset he didn’t win. The others you mention just had political qualities people disliked.
  - WorkerBee28474 2y ago
    That's part of the point. People spewed vitriol at both Bush and Trump with similar levels of hate. It didn't matter that they were of different quality. If you're already 100% sure the other side is going to passionately hate your candidate, no matter who you pick, then you can't win by choosing a reasonable or moderate candidate. Therefore, you pick whoever has the strongest appeal amongst your side.
elevatedastalt 2y ago
Because people don't care who it is. If it's a Republican candidate, he will be portrayed as devil incarnate. Mitt Romney was a smart guy who actually had plenty of on-ground experience. But no, deliberately interpreting everything he said in the worst light (anyone remember "Binders full of women"?) was more important.

Let's be honest, no matter who the Republicans run, the candidate will be demonized. Only years later, when the person is not a threat to Democrat dominance will people judge them more positively on their actual value like is happening here (and has happened to McCain, and to Bush...). If you don't get points for running a good candidate, there's no incentive to run a good candidate, only one who can win.

ptsneves 2y ago
Heh dont get me wrong. I think Obama is a philosopher king but by giving such emotional speeches and rhetorics he set the stage for very strong reactions. Reactions that bloomed into the awful culture wars of today. At the time I saw Obama as a good politician but the wrong time for it. Mitt Romney was a good candidate that would likely have normalised the tensions post 9/11. Alas it did not happen so.
John23832 2y ago
The current republican candidate is highly different. He fomented a mob on the steps of the capital because he was upset he didn’t win. The others you mention just had political qualities people disliked.
- WorkerBee28474 2y ago
  That's part of the point. People spewed vitriol at both Bush and Trump with similar levels of hate. It didn't matter that they were of different quality. If you're already 100% sure the other side is going to passionately hate your candidate, no matter who you pick, then you can't win by choosing a reasonable or moderate candidate. Therefore, you pick whoever has the strongest appeal amongst your side.

elevatedastalt 2y ago

Because people don't care who it is. If it's a Republican candidate, he will be portrayed as devil incarnate. Mitt Romney was a smart guy who actually had plenty of on-ground experience. But no, deliberately interpreting everything he said in the worst light (anyone remember "Binders full of women"?) was more important.