Presidential Candidates

Discussion in 'The Barber Shop' started by mark the shoeshine boy, Jun 21, 2006.

  1. mark the shoeshine boy

    mark the shoeshine boy Moderator Emeritus

    Since everyone lives in different states, what is the gossip around your area for candidates for the President.

    Who do you think will be those in the running for the Democrats, Republicans and any other party that you may think of.

    Let's see what we think now and what transpires later.

    mark the shoeshine boy
     
  2. Hi Mark,
    Here in AZ it seems to be between Frist and McCain for the R nominee. People were pulling for McCain pretty fiercely until the immigration issue came up. Now folks are worried he is trading in his prized maverick status for a more moderate "electable" image.

    The more sizzling converations I've heard have more to do with who is going to go up against Hillary. Most here don't think she can get the nod but threre isn't really an obvious alternative yet.
    Cheers,
    Jeff
     
  3. mark the shoeshine boy

    mark the shoeshine boy Moderator Emeritus

    well in missouri we don't have anyone promising here....none of our governors or senators would even come close to presidental material.

    With what I read today, it seems that Mrs Clinton, may not be the choice of candidates for the Democrats....I have no real clue on the Republicans...

    any one else ???
     
  4. Guys,

    The candidate who can raise the most money will get the party nomination.

    The Presidential race will be won by the party who have the best marketing team.

    The U.S. political system is so corrupt it seems quite laughable to call it a democracy ...., unfortunately the UK is following the way of the States.

    Regards
    John
     
  5. John,

    I have to disagree with your comments. The person who raises the most money is not always the person who gets the nod and certainly not always the person who gets elected. I can point to at least two presidential elections in modern history that prove this. Reagan in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1992. Reagan trailed everyone in fund raising in 1980 during the primaries until it became apparent that he was the favorite of the electorate. Then the money came pouring in. So in a way it is a self fulfilling prophecy not necessarily the product of corruption. For Bush Senior he outspent Clinton in 1992 by something like 3 to 2 and lost. This has happened many many times on many levels. Generally if people don’t like your message you don’t get elected. Marketing really doesn’t have much sway. It can help a little but in the end it’s the message that gets one elected. A great example of this was President Clinton. He was marketed to the hilt like no other presidential candidate yet he could never get 50% of the vote and I think most historians would agree that if it weren’t for Ross Perot there would never have been a President Clinton or a Clinton second term.

    Now I’m not saying that corruption doesn’t exist, it does. I’m just saying that it’s not on the massive scale necessary to affect the outcome of a Presidential Election.

    As for who gets nominated I can’t say. One thing I’m pretty sure of though is Hilary won’t get elected even if she gets the party nod. Just my 2 ¢.

    Chris
     

Share This Page