i think you're doing exactly the right thing....thanks for all your effort. Resist the temptation to focus on making money, if you can, and stay in the game....unfortunately, it's too easy for us to rely on the children of the elite to make this career choice. Fortunately you know this.
I can't afford to make that choice, that's why I weaved in and out of official politics earlier this decade.
(re: "Chris and I believe that elections and partisanship are necessary but not sufficient tools to use for major ideological realignment of our cultural institutions, so that we can build a progressive governing majority. This realignment is happening, all over the country, and that's what we want to focus on.)
I agree, I see Thompson as the best match-up on their side for Hillary. Thompson is the only front runner who would not have the fundamentalists sitting on their hands.
On the other hand, I find his general old looks and sluggishness to be reassuring. I think he reeks of the past, of old-school politics; for this reason I see him as relatively easy for Obama or Edwards.
But Hillary is also "old politics" because of her last name, to top off her already coastal/liberal enclave ID (i.e. NY, DC). I never think of her as from Illinois, I dont' know why she doesn't play that up. She should have run for Illinois office.
I agree with every word. We'll eventually close the message gap, the "master narrative" that explains liberalism, the need for an active government that provides security, justice, and ensures opportunity -- and greater freedom - for individuals and the private sector alike.
The R's managed to pull an inside straight by winning several consecutive cycles by very small margins. And this was the mighty and wealthy Conservative machine vs. the poor and hapless liberal coalition.
I'll never be convinced that she is anything better than the 4th most electable candidate running.
Her intellect doesn't matter. All the leading candidates are very intelligent, and more importantly, the electorate at large does not value intellect. Ask Adlai, Fritz, and Dukakis, and Kerry and Gore, too.
She is an intellectual "liberal enclave" (Illinois, NY, DC) politician. She isn't that good on the stump - even though she is good in small groups. And I'm against family dynasties.
Doesn't matter how "charismatic" she is. Or isn't. (she isn't to me.) But if I didn't think there were 3 other candidates better on all the above fronts, I'd support her.
The hard core Gore supporters look pretty small in number to me, as they did in '04.
There are a heck of a lot of people out there like me who admire Al Gore from a policy and intellectual perspective but think he's a hapless political candidate, and have no illusions or hopes that he has somehow magically evolved, or that the country has somehow radically changed and will embrace an issue-focused, intellectual candidate.
Yes, he was screwed, but it was his responsibility to recognize that and adjust accordingly. You have to make mid course corrections in politics. He didn't, at multiple junctures. And he also ran poorly in '88, too. He doesn't get retail with regular folks.
While I generally agree with the idea that HRC is the least electable, I don't think she's "unelectable." Agree that electability is very important to many voters. Many blog readers last cycle didn't seem to understand this, in my view.
Question is, to what extent are these doubtful leading edge high info Iowa voters representative of similar voters in other states?
I don't doubt that this sentiment is out there everywhere - but how prevalent is it? Will it remain confined to an insignificant subset of primary voters, or will it grow?
I think a narrowing of HRC's lead would seed this thought. But without this narrowing, the thought might not take root widely.
Could the bandwagon effect of early wins in IA and NH be less this cycle?
An afternoon at Heritage, huh? You are a disgusting, filth-licking, dirt-rolling, porcine turncoat. How dare you insult liberals by entertaining the thought of consorting with such subhuman blobs of slime. You are undoubtedly living a miserable and lonely life. And I forgot, you're stupid, too. But you will lose. And all of us will be celebrating. I will dance, I will sing.
I think many R's are dying for a white horse, and Fred looks well cast for the role. I wouldn't be surprised if he were to gallop into first place within a month of his announcement and stay there.
Fortunately, he really is pretty dull. He has a certain gruff charm, but I cannot see him generating much true enthusiasm, not even up to the level that GWB managed in 2000. He is a jowly old man, an improved Bob Dole. 'Old' is not good right now, I think.
Moreover, there were some hints that he is going to run a policy-centric campaign; he was talking about his willingness to take on Social Security and entitlements. To that I would say, yes, please do run a Mondale/Dole/Kerry/Gore muddled message race. Fred's also pro-Iraq war...currently....if he doesn't change that by his announcement, he'll stick with that. Another major negative for him.
He matches up poorly against Edwards or Obama (new vs. old, change vs. continuity)....he might be the best match up they have against Hillary given her poll negatives, her (IMO) insider-ness - Fred can define himself as an outsider against her. (Reason number #3464349 why she is not the strongest D nominee.)
Your analysis I'd say is accurate for the high information insiders, but probably 95% of conservative voters have no idea about the various plusses and minuses of the field beyond generalities. It's too early and too volatile. Personally I think an entry by Newt or Thompson would find very, very many sympathetic ears. Thompson to me looks stronger simply on account of his personality.
It's the same on the D side, still far too early, despite the lateness and the accelerated media cycle, except that on our side I think personality and charisma are bigger factors than ever. Has there ever been a primary like this one for D's, where more than one popular heavyweight is running, one who would be a runaway favorite in any other year? '68? '60?