PDA

View Full Version : Presidential Nomination Re-do



Unchainme
03-20-2012, 12:44 AM
I'm curious about this, as I'm watching "Gamechanger" on Palin being in the VP Slot, and I just recalled how bad of a candidate McCain, and Palin were on the GOP ticket going against the Obama machine at the time, and was wondering how during a few of the past elections, how different things could have turned out in a few elections.

I'm going to try to simply approach this as someone with a non-political aspirations, and someone who's strictly looking at things from a historical perspective.

1992- I guess Perot at one time had the lead over Clinton and Bush, but decided to drop out, and come back in. For the GOP? Bush clearly was running on fumes, Reagan's buzz had died down, he was truly fucking up in the economy, and there was really no one there that could have ran in his place. Perhaps though, it was time to cut away from Dan Quayle and consider another nominee? Jack Kemp anyone? Clinton? Solid Nominee, and one of the better post-Kennedy presidents we've had. Perot? Should have never came back in and out. He seems to me, to be the 90's version of Ron Paul.

1996- Clinton was kicking ass, without a question. So there's nothing that needs to be redone here. Bob Dole was a weak candidate, but lets face it, He's not winning the presidency against Clinton with a rising economy

2000- Al Gore probably wins this without some fuck up in Florida. Bush? fucking terrible. Almost lost the election. I think that it would have been better to nominate McCain here. Either of those candidates likely don't get us into a war with Iraq, and try to avenge W's dad for it.

2004- No avoiding Bush as the nominee here, as much as it would have been preferred :(. Howard Dean would have been the best choice for Dems. to energize the base, and likely would have knocked Bush out imo, team him up with Wesley Clark and you've got an excellent one-two punch that likely shuts bush up about being more millitarily based Kerry was a boring fucking joke.

2008- Obama wins this. No matter what. Bush was terrible, and the country had simply ran out of patience. And watching "Gamechange", Palin just made it even worse. She wasn't qualified and just was used as the ultimate cannon-fodder for the dems.

2012- Obama wins the nom by default. On the GOP side? Hitching your wagon potentially to a social conservative in an election where the matters are mainly fiscal is beyond fucking stupid. Romney is clearly to dull of a candidate to run against Obama and will likely get eaten alive. Paul? Likely at his best when he's a 3rd party candidate, and in my opinion, would more than likely make some major waves that way. Herman Cain, I think would have been the better nomination, maybe he turns out like Palin, but perhaps he would have had a shot at rallying the gop base.

Anyways, any thoughts towards any of this? If I'm incorrect in your opinion, let me.

Dr. Love
03-20-2012, 01:04 AM
3rd party candidates almost always can't get on all the ballots on all the states. It takes too much money/organization.

I think it would have been more interesting if John Edwards had won in 2008, given the scandal that would have erupted.