Would we really be better off under President Clinton?

[Danny Bateman]

6 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

I wonder. I think people so dislike her that no matter how much better of a politician/campaigner she was, she wasn't going to increase turnout. It's really hard to get motivated to go vote for someone you personally don't like. 

 

But maybe that's what you mean by "being a better politician." 

 

The most important characteristic for a presidential candidate was, is, and always will be, charisma. 

[knapplc]

15 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

The most important characteristic for a presidential candidate was, is, and always will be, charisma. 

 

And Hillary absolutely lacks that. Us Commoners most definitely connected to Trump more. 

[Big Red 40]

Why? He has no clue how a commoner lives and,  cares about no one but himself . How does that relate to common people ? He’s the epitome of everything common people hate . Imo 

[knapplc]

8 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

Why? He has no clue how a commoner lives and,  cares about no one but himself . How does that relate to common people ? He’s the epitome of everything common people hate . Imo 

 

Totally get that.

 

He's a good actor.

[Big Red 40]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

Totally get that.

 

He's a good actor.

For sure .

[teachercd]

1 hour ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

The most important characteristic for a presidential candidate was, is, and always will be, charisma. 

It is why Mitttttttt had no chance...

 

 

[NUance]

8 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

The most important characteristic for a presidential candidate was, is, and always will be, charisma. 

 

+1.

 

The operative word in your statement is "candidate".  To get elected charisma is necessary.  But once in office, it takes more than mere charisma to follow through on the myriad promises made during any election.  We are finding that out right now.  You can't competently run a country with a Twitter account and a few snappy one liners.  

[Big Red 40]

7 hours ago, teachercd said:

It is why Mitttttttt had no chance...

 

 

I’d add John Kerry , and Bob Dole to that  list too 

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, Big Red 40 said:

I’d add John Kerry , and Bob Dole to that  list too 

 

Bob Dole I don't understand. I desperately wanted him to win and beat Clinton in 1996, but he was flat and boring during the campaign. After he lost, he went on Letterman, where he had a great, charismatic, engaging session.  I almost yelled at the TV, I was so frustrated.  That guy would have beaten Clinton.  

[Big Red 40]

i don't remember a whole lot about Dole except he seemed pretty boring, and that annoying habit of  saying his own name all the time. lol  

[teachercd]

38 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Bob Dole I don't understand. I desperately wanted him to win and beat Clinton in 1996, but he was flat and boring during the campaign. After he lost, he went on Letterman, where he had a great, charismatic, engaging session.  I almost yelled at the TV, I was so frustrated.  That guy would have beaten Clinton.  

The pressure was off...he could relax and be himself.  

[Enhance]

14 hours ago, knapplc said:

I've never explicitly said chemo was acceptable. It's poison. Sometimes poison is necessary.

Fair point, but if I smoke and get lung cancer, part of that's on me for cultivating the situation that required chemo. We never only had two options in this election. But, a lot of people certainly tried to make it seem like we did from beginning to end.

[knapplc]

14 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Fair point, but if I smoke and get lung cancer, part of that's on me for cultivating the situation that required chemo. We never only had two options in this election. But, a lot of people certainly tried to make it seem like we did from beginning to end.

 

To continue the cancer analogy, sure, you had more options in the election.  Jill Stein was homeopathic therapy, Evan McMullin was herbal therapy, etc.

 

You have options when it comes to cancer, too. If your loved one is diagnosed with cancer, aren't you going to choose the best treatment available?

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

And Hillary absolutely lacks that. Us Commoners most definitely connected to Trump more. 

 

Right. Which is why she was one of the most pitiful general election candidates we've seen in a while. As they say, the only one who could've possibly lost to Trump.

 

I understand why people would identify more with Trump. Though personally I think he's a scummy dirtbag and if I ever caught myself sharing his personality traits I'd probably take a long walk off a short pier.

 

There's a bit of talking past each other in this thread. Seems to be two camps of folks. On one hand, I'm applaud the point you and Guy are making about it being a binary choice.  I found myself in the same boat in 2016. Probably a few more are sympathetic to this argument as well. Being that I was somewhere that had a puncher's chance to be a close district in NE and viewing Trump as such an absolutely unacceptable candidate led me to vote for Clinton. At that point in our electoral system, only one of two people will be president - a third party or indie could only play spoiler. I view it the same as picking a Final Four loser to win the Championship game - it just isn't going to happen. Besides, Johnson was too kooky for me, Stein was a nut too (and probably a Russian pawn. And a grifter.). The third party I liked the most was McMullin even though I disagree with him on a lot of policy. He's a good dude but he had no chance.

 

On the other hand, there's RedDenver, BRB, Enhance, my BC brethren Redux et al. are putting forth about how this system blows and voting third party shouldn't be scorned as irresponsible. To me, they all seem to be arguing for the long game: Our system is perverted by the two-party stranglehold, and reforming it is necessary, even if it means enduring presidents as awful as Trump. The fact someone as bad as him could at all speaks pretty poorly of the electoral system. Heck, some accelerationists probably think Trump will be so bad he'll actually trigger electoral reform as an issue more quickly. Not sure I share that sentiment...

 

Anyhow, the thing is, I'm not sure you nor Guy nor myself would put up any argument to defend our antiquated Electoral College. I personally wold be in favor of ranked-choice voting and/or moving to a popular vote for president. I also think 2 senators for each state puts low population states at a weird advantage. 

 

The question is how do we realistically change the system to one that's more democratic?

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

Bob Dole I don't understand. I desperately wanted him to win and beat Clinton in 1996, but he was flat and boring during the campaign. After he lost, he went on Letterman, where he had a great, charismatic, engaging session.  I almost yelled at the TV, I was so frustrated.  That guy would have beaten Clinton.  

I remember thinking the exact same thing. Dole was really funny a few years later when he was The Daily Show's political commentator for the 2000 (and 2004?) election. He had a dry wit that Jon Stewart played off of well.