Quote:
Originally posted by CarneVaca
Viciousness? I don't think so. And if the liberals are paying attention, they have to know about his Israel and gun policies. Besides, I don't think he could possibly hurt the Democrats more than the party establishment already has. The party seems to believe that playing to the center will get somebody elected. What happens is confusion among the voters, enough that people couldn't tell the difference between Gore and Bush. Why give the nomination to another one of these citruls?
|
I submit that outside of a runaway candidate a la Clinton in 96, all serious Presidential contenders must play to the middle to win.
I base this on the theory that most studies show close races are won with swing votes in the 20 or so swing states. A good example of this is the gun issue. I am not arguing about right or wrong; I am just stating a fact when I say most people do not want guns banned because they think there is a Const. right to own a gun. Therefore, the politicians know that harcore Democrats will always vote Democrat even if the leading candidate reaches out to more conservative voters with slogans like let's control guns with background checks instead of banning them. I mean look at what we have now. Almost all of the Democratic candidates are not for total gun banning. Yet, from what I have read every Democrat here will vote for them as the lesser of two evils. So, I think that the side issues (unfortunately gun control is one) will always be played to get the swing votes in the crucial swing states. Without these votes, the candidate cannot get elected.
