LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 454
0 members and 454 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
View Single Post
Old 05-02-2017, 11:41 AM   #14
Not Bob
Moderator
 
Not Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Podunkville
Posts: 6,034
Don't you think that it'd be smarter, if instead of Jimmy Carter ....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
The best candidate is always the one who didn't run.

In the post-McGovern world of my teen years, Dems answer to getting beaten was, very consciously, to run white southern men. There was very open discussion about needing a white male candidate from the south, and it gave both Carter and Clinton big boosts in the primary. I really don't want the party to be consciously choosing to shun women and minority candidates out of political expediency, as we have in the past.
I agree with you about Clinton (and Gore in 1988), but the Democratic establishment hated Jimmy Carter in 1975-76. I don't think his southerness won him the nomination and election; it was that he was seen as the anti-Nixon (a lay Baptist minister! "I'll never lie to the American people!" etc.) and was as progressive as a Southern governor could be.

But the DLC had a point. George McGovern and Walter Mondale (and maybe even Michael "Michael" Dukakis, the worst Democratic candidate in my voting life*) were probably "better" Democrats than Clinton and Gore were. But you gotta get elected to do anything.

*I'm not even thinking about the tank picture. To enrage my inner undergrad, just whisper two words: "Bernie Shaw." Asshole.
Not Bob is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:28 AM.