Memo to Democrats: Find better candidates

Divine Wind

Platinum Member
Aug 2, 2011
20,640
5,568
420
Texas
Good advice to Democrats....and not just for special elections, but for all elections. Less corruption and cronyism would be good too.

Memo to Democrats after special-election losses: Find better candidates
Memo to Democrats after special-election losses: Find better candidates
Fault-finding by Democrats has been in abundance since Republicans swept all four of this year's special elections to fill vacant House seats. Georgia's 6th Congressional District, which appeared the most likely to flip after Democrats triggered a nearly $25 million avalanche of donations, was most disappointing of all. Some Democrats quickly blamed their youthful candidate, Jon Ossoff, for not embracing populist themes. But the recriminations also extended to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who drew criticism for everything from being too conspicuous a target for negative ads to simply having been around too long.

What few recognized was a single factor common to all four campaigns: The Republicans simply had better candidates.

Students of congressional elections use the term “quality candidates” to designate those most likely to end up as winners. What makes a quality candidate? One obvious factor is the ability to raise money. But strength on that dimension tends to obscure an element of equal importance in electoral success: government experience.

It may appear paradoxical that after having elected a presidential candidate who boasted of his remoteness from elective politics, formal qualifications are desirable in someone running for Congress. But voters have a much more complete picture of presidential candidates than they do of House candidates. That means job résumés loom larger in congressional races.

Democrats will keep failing until they do their own autopsy



So who did the Democrats put up? Let's start in the northern suburbs of Atlanta, a seat open because former Rep. Tom Price was named Health and Human Services secretary. Ossoff didn't live in the district and his political experience had been as a mid-level staffer in the House. He was also a documentary filmmaker. These are slender qualifications compared to his GOP opponent, Karen Handel, who had served as secretary of State of Georgia. That is not a major office, but it sounds to voters like a solid résumé entry. She was also characterized by Democrats as a perennially unsuccessful candidate, but that too counts as campaign experience that Ossoff did not have.


The contrast in the Montana race to replace Rep. Ryan Zinke, who became Secretary of the Interior, on the surface was not so clear-cut. Neither Republican Greg Gianforte nor Democrat Rob Quist had ever held office or been a candidate. But Gianforte had considerable business and entrepreneurial experience that often serves as a surrogate for office-holding. Quist was a folk singer with no government experience aside from having been appointed to the Montana Arts Council. Being a native Montanan should have been an advantage against the New Jersey-born Gianforte, but the usually-reliable charge of carpetbagging didn't persuade voters, especially in view of Quist's uncertain performances on the stump and a history of bad debts. A stronger candidate might have been in a position to win after Gianforte's assault on a journalist late in the campaign.

The experience gap was conspicuous in the special election contest in Kansas between former state treasurer Ron Estes and Democrat Jim Thompson, a first-time candidate. Estes benefited from a $120,000 cash infusion from the National Republican Campaign Committee, while Thompson was turned down by the Kansas Democratic Party for a modest $20,000 contribution. Had Thompson mastered the other attribute of a quality candidate — fund-raising prowess — he might have done better.


Finally, in the special election in South Carolina's 5th District, where Democrat Archie Parnell came closer to victorythan Ossoff did on the same day in Georgia, Republican Ralph Norman, a member of the state assembly, was able to prevail over a political novice whose principal credential was being a tax lawyer.

A more dramatic erosion of support for President Trump among Republican voters in red-leaning districts might have pushed all four Democrats to victory. That time may come, but it was not sufficiently advanced this spring to help them.

The most fundamental impediment was that all four ran in districts with a preponderance of GOP voters. In such places, experience may be necessary to be competitive if not necessarily to prevail. There are many other less lopsided Republican-held districts, however, where a solid, qualified candidate could win. Democrats would be foolish to waste such opportunities on contenders like the ones we’ve seen so far this year.
 
Good advice to Democrats....and not just for special elections, but for all elections. Less corruption and cronyism would be good too.

Memo to Democrats after special-election losses: Find better candidates
Memo to Democrats after special-election losses: Find better candidates
Fault-finding by Democrats has been in abundance since Republicans swept all four of this year's special elections to fill vacant House seats. Georgia's 6th Congressional District, which appeared the most likely to flip after Democrats triggered a nearly $25 million avalanche of donations, was most disappointing of all. Some Democrats quickly blamed their youthful candidate, Jon Ossoff, for not embracing populist themes. But the recriminations also extended to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who drew criticism for everything from being too conspicuous a target for negative ads to simply having been around too long.

What few recognized was a single factor common to all four campaigns: The Republicans simply had better candidates.

Students of congressional elections use the term “quality candidates” to designate those most likely to end up as winners. What makes a quality candidate? One obvious factor is the ability to raise money. But strength on that dimension tends to obscure an element of equal importance in electoral success: government experience.

It may appear paradoxical that after having elected a presidential candidate who boasted of his remoteness from elective politics, formal qualifications are desirable in someone running for Congress. But voters have a much more complete picture of presidential candidates than they do of House candidates. That means job résumés loom larger in congressional races.

Democrats will keep failing until they do their own autopsy



So who did the Democrats put up? Let's start in the northern suburbs of Atlanta, a seat open because former Rep. Tom Price was named Health and Human Services secretary. Ossoff didn't live in the district and his political experience had been as a mid-level staffer in the House. He was also a documentary filmmaker. These are slender qualifications compared to his GOP opponent, Karen Handel, who had served as secretary of State of Georgia. That is not a major office, but it sounds to voters like a solid résumé entry. She was also characterized by Democrats as a perennially unsuccessful candidate, but that too counts as campaign experience that Ossoff did not have.


The contrast in the Montana race to replace Rep. Ryan Zinke, who became Secretary of the Interior, on the surface was not so clear-cut. Neither Republican Greg Gianforte nor Democrat Rob Quist had ever held office or been a candidate. But Gianforte had considerable business and entrepreneurial experience that often serves as a surrogate for office-holding. Quist was a folk singer with no government experience aside from having been appointed to the Montana Arts Council. Being a native Montanan should have been an advantage against the New Jersey-born Gianforte, but the usually-reliable charge of carpetbagging didn't persuade voters, especially in view of Quist's uncertain performances on the stump and a history of bad debts. A stronger candidate might have been in a position to win after Gianforte's assault on a journalist late in the campaign.

The experience gap was conspicuous in the special election contest in Kansas between former state treasurer Ron Estes and Democrat Jim Thompson, a first-time candidate. Estes benefited from a $120,000 cash infusion from the National Republican Campaign Committee, while Thompson was turned down by the Kansas Democratic Party for a modest $20,000 contribution. Had Thompson mastered the other attribute of a quality candidate — fund-raising prowess — he might have done better.


Finally, in the special election in South Carolina's 5th District, where Democrat Archie Parnell came closer to victorythan Ossoff did on the same day in Georgia, Republican Ralph Norman, a member of the state assembly, was able to prevail over a political novice whose principal credential was being a tax lawyer.

A more dramatic erosion of support for President Trump among Republican voters in red-leaning districts might have pushed all four Democrats to victory. That time may come, but it was not sufficiently advanced this spring to help them.

The most fundamental impediment was that all four ran in districts with a preponderance of GOP voters. In such places, experience may be necessary to be competitive if not necessarily to prevail. There are many other less lopsided Republican-held districts, however, where a solid, qualified candidate could win. Democrats would be foolish to waste such opportunities on contenders like the ones we’ve seen so far this year.
The fact is the real Democrats need to take over your party again, throw out the Progressives and start getting with what this Nation is all about. Progressive is the wrong way of life, open boarders are a wrong idea, you get the idea, with is why I and others changed parities and voted again the plans that the Progressives wanted to put into action. Start there regain you soul.
 
These special elections were all in red districts, the only thing to learn from them is instead of Republicans winning by 20 points in these races they won by 5 points. And to point to any Democrat and cry corruption and cronyism when Trump has installed his entire family on the taxpayer tit in positions none of them are qualified for is as ludicrous as it gets. You support a dear leader and his self annointed Kim Jong Un klan.

No worries, time is ticking by nicely.
 
The problem for democrats is that if they don't like the democratic candidate they wont vote for him/her. Republicans will vote for whoever is trotted out there, doesn't matter how big of a steaming turd that person is, as long as there is an (R) next to the candidates name, that's good enough for them. See Trump as an example of that.
 
No, I hope they stick to the fucking wacko feminists and cuckboy followers, as well as Muslim/minorities. That's exactly what best represents the party of misfits and un-Americans.
 
...And to point to any Democrat and cry corruption and cronyism when Trump has installed his entire family on the taxpayer tit in positions none of them are qualified for is as ludicrous as it gets.....
A Tu Quoque logical fallacy. One of the reasons Hillary lost was due to her well known corruption, cronyism and, as you just did, hypocrisy. Yes, Trump is fucked up, but he will be gone in a year or two and didn't bring a corrupt major political machine with him.
 
The conundrum for Democrats is that in order to get better candidates, they would need to change the party and actually stop being Democrats, and as Nancy has demonstrated, they are certainly more interested in maintaining their status quo than in doing anything positive for the nation.

The good news is that when better candidates do come along with better ideas for them, first they are ignored and told to shut up and sit down and learn their place, then finally when they get burned enough, they begin to see things differently, they see the fatal flaw of liberalism and become good conservatives to join the Republican Party!
 
The problem for democrats is that if they don't like the democratic candidate they wont vote for him/her. Republicans will vote for whoever is trotted out there, doesn't matter how big of a steaming turd that person is, as long as there is an (R) next to the candidates name, that's good enough for them. See Trump as an example of that.


Excuse us?


See:

Harry Reid

Nancy pelosi

Maxine

Ted Kennedy

Pocahontas


.
 
The problem for democrats is that if they don't like the democratic candidate they wont vote for him/her. Republicans will vote for whoever is trotted out there, doesn't matter how big of a steaming turd that person is, as long as there is an (R) next to the candidates name, that's good enough for them. See Trump as an example of that.
Evidence, please. Remember all the LW jokes about "the Republican clown car"? The Democrats were given two choices; Bernie and Hillary. Thanks to the fucking, godless Russians, we know Hillary was a shoe-in and Bernie never had a fucking chance due to the DNC. OTOH, the RNC was pushing Jeb!, but they weren't corrupt like the DNC and he soon fell out.
 
The problem for democrats is that if they don't like the democratic candidate they wont vote for him/her. Republicans will vote for whoever is trotted out there, doesn't matter how big of a steaming turd that person is, as long as there is an (R) next to the candidates name, that's good enough for them. See Trump as an example of that.
Lol! Says the turd that nominated Hillary Clinton and then lost.
 
Democrats didn't know that having a foreign power take control would be applauded.
The one Obie let in control while thinking it would be hildabeast that won so no problem? Is that the foreign power we're supposed to be upset about and blame Trump for?
 
The problem for democrats is that if they don't like the democratic candidate they wont vote for him/her. Republicans will vote for whoever is trotted out there, doesn't matter how big of a steaming turd that person is, as long as there is an (R) next to the candidates name, that's good enough for them. See Trump as an example of that.
Evidence, please. Remember all the LW jokes about "the Republican clown car"? The Democrats were given two choices; Bernie and Hillary. Thanks to the fucking, godless Russians, we know Hillary was a shoe-in and Bernie never had a fucking chance due to the DNC. OTOH, the RNC was pushing Jeb!, but they weren't corrupt like the DNC and he soon fell out.

Evidence? Do you know who the President is? That's all the evidence you need.
 
The problem for democrats is that if they don't like the democratic candidate they wont vote for him/her. Republicans will vote for whoever is trotted out there, doesn't matter how big of a steaming turd that person is, as long as there is an (R) next to the candidates name, that's good enough for them. See Trump as an example of that.
Lol! Says the turd that nominated Hillary Clinton and then lost.

You're not smart enough to realize this, but your post only reaffirms what I said.

Thanks!
 
The problem for democrats is that if they don't like the democratic candidate they wont vote for him/her. Republicans will vote for whoever is trotted out there, doesn't matter how big of a steaming turd that person is, as long as there is an (R) next to the candidates name, that's good enough for them. See Trump as an example of that.


PRECISELY !!!!! Democrats tend to be much more discerning and many are just downright lazy to get up and vote.....Right wingers, however, are excellent sheep and will follow the herd.
 
The problem for democrats is that if they don't like the democratic candidate they wont vote for him/her. Republicans will vote for whoever is trotted out there, doesn't matter how big of a steaming turd that person is, as long as there is an (R) next to the candidates name, that's good enough for them. See Trump as an example of that.
Evidence, please. Remember all the LW jokes about "the Republican clown car"? The Democrats were given two choices; Bernie and Hillary. Thanks to the fucking, godless Russians, we know Hillary was a shoe-in and Bernie never had a fucking chance due to the DNC. OTOH, the RNC was pushing Jeb!, but they weren't corrupt like the DNC and he soon fell out.

Evidence? Do you know who the President is? That's all the evidence you need.
Trump didn't win on purely Republican votes. He won it with a lot of former Democrat blue collar votes.

If you are as smart as you think you are, then you know Trump was the last person the RNC wanted as President.
 
If you are as smart as you think you are, then you know Trump was the last person the RNC wanted as President.


YET, rather than calling out the orange moron for his broken promises, and maintaining some measure of an ethical rudder, the RNC praises and almost fully backs this scourge in the oval office....How come?
 

Forum List

Back
Top