Is Hillary too well known? (Limbaugh, voters, Congress, campaign)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every Democratic President since Johnson has been more or less a dark horse. Unknown, or certainly not widely known, just a few years before being elected
Every Democratic President since Johnson has been more or less a dark horse. Unknown, or certainly not widely known, just a few years before being elected
I'd rather be too well known than essentially unknown if running for President. Carter was a true dark horse but he was running against the GOP of Nixon (and even with America upset at Ford having pardoned Nixon, Carter barely won).
I'd rather be too well known than essentially unknown if running for President. Carter was a true dark horse but he was running against the GOP of Nixon (and even with America upset at Ford having pardoned Nixon, Carter barely won).
I too prefer those who are known, but the op has a point. To me, the ideal candidate is fresh blood but some proven record. Carter didn't really have one, nor did Clinton or Obama. Neither did Bush. The last 2 Pres. to have experience were Bush 1 and Reagan.
Every Democratic President since Johnson has been more or less a dark horse. Unknown, or certainly not widely known, just a few years before being elected
Well, you could say she's a dark horse since everyone who is voting for her seems to be in the dark about her accomplishments as Secretary of State.
This is a good topic for discussion. I think Chris Christie is a good example of how important it is for a candidate to strike while the iron is hot, before they become overexposed to the public. Still, Hillary may be a case of people favoring familiarity and a strong personality who can get things done, in a time of political stalemate between the parties (well, one party), but her road will be tougher than many people are assuming. The Republicans may very well win if they run a fresh face who can make it through the primaries by not saying the kind of stuff which will get him creamed in the general election (like Mitt Romney).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
I too prefer those who are known, but the op has a point. To me, the ideal candidate is fresh blood but some proven record. Carter didn't really have one, nor did Clinton or Obama. Neither did Bush. The last 2 Pres. to have experience were Bush 1 and Reagan.
Not sure why you say Clinton was unproven, when he was governor longer than Reagan (albeit in a much lesser-known state).
I too prefer those who are known, but the op has a point. To me, the ideal candidate is fresh blood but some proven record. Carter didn't really have one, nor did Clinton or Obama. Neither did Bush. The last 2 Pres. to have experience were Bush 1 and Reagan.
Carter and Dukakis were both former Governors, just like Reagan and Bush #2. Only Reagan had national recognition, but that came from his acting career and his political radio show as much as being the Governor of California, a state that's always at the top of all public awareness.
Kerry was a long-time Senator before running for Prez.
Since Massachusetts and Georgia have large populations and are both prominent presences in U.S. politics, I don't think either Carter or Dukakis qualified as being dark horses. Millions of voters already knew who they were.
I think Bill Clinton was the only President before Obama who qualified as being a dark horse.
He trailed thoughout the '92 campaign until the last 6-9 weeks of it. The incident that finally put him on the public radar as a candidate was his sax playing appearance on the Letterman show. That was the first time a candidate from either major party ever appeared on a late night show as a candidate.
Americans have preferred Governors to established Washingtonians in general after Nixon. Bush #1 inherited his term, and I think he was seen as a 4 year continuance of the Reagan presidency when he was elected.
As to being too well known… I don't think such a thing exists.
Nixon never left the scene, and had a very controversial political career long before he won his elections, and Reagan did everything possible to keep his visibility very high as well. Reagan also had much controversy surrounding his terms as Governor.
The thing is: those who like a well-known candidate only like them better as they get to know more about them. Those who don't like a well-known candidate only dislike them more as they also learn more about them.
Undecided and non-committed voters are more likely to turn out and vote for someone they know about more than someone they don't know. That is a political fact. And that's why a win for a dark horse candidate is such a political rarity when it comes to electing the President.
The voter's dissatisfaction with Congress is ancient. We saw some dark horse winners in the last 1/3 of the 20th century because the voters believed only an outsider would be able to be effective, but I doubt this sentiment is nearly as strong as it has been in the past.
Any dark horse candidate is going to have to be exceptionally inspirational to be able to win in 2016 over an opponent who is well known, I think. Voters have grown tired of the unpredictability of dark horses from either side of the political spectrum and will go for someone they know, even if the person isn't their first or best choice.
In 2016, it will be: Better The Devil You Know Than the Devil You Don't for both Republicans and Democrats.
This is a good topic for discussion. I think Chris Christie is a good example of how important it is for a candidate to strike while the iron is hot, before they become overexposed to the public. Still, Hillary may be a case of people favoring familiarity and a strong personality who can get things done, in a time of political stalemate between the parties (well, one party), but her road will be tougher than many people are assuming. The Republicans may very well win if they run a fresh face who can make it through the primaries by not saying the kind of stuff which will get him creamed in the general election (like Mitt Romney).
Not sure why you say Clinton was unproven, when he was governor longer than Reagan (albeit in a much lesser-known state).
I shouldn't have said unproven, you are right. We could say the same about Carter and Bush I guess, but his name was not well known throughout the country and according to many who lived in AR when he was governor he didn't do much. I wasn't here then, so am basing this on hearsay only. At that time AR was very blue, if blue and red were even used 20 years ago. Reagan was governor during the height of the "hippy" age, in a hippy state.
Carter and Dukakis were both former Governors, just like Reagan and Bush #2. Only Reagan had national recognition, but that came from his acting career and his political radio show as much as being the Governor of California, a state that's always at the top of all public awareness.
Kerry was a long-time Senator before running for Prez.
Since Massachusetts and Georgia have large populations and are both prominent presences in U.S. politics, I don't think either Carter or Dukakis qualified as being dark horses. Millions of voters already knew who they were.
I think Bill Clinton was the only President before Obama who qualified as being a dark horse.
He trailed thoughout the '92 campaign until the last 6-9 weeks of it. The incident that finally put him on the public radar as a candidate was his sax playing appearance on the Letterman show. That was the first time a candidate from either major party ever appeared on a late night show as a candidate.
Americans have preferred Governors to established Washingtonians in general after Nixon. Bush #1 inherited his term, and I think he was seen as a 4 year continuance of the Reagan presidency when he was elected.
As to being too well known… I don't think such a thing exists.
Nixon never left the scene, and had a very controversial political career long before he won his elections, and Reagan did everything possible to keep his visibility very high as well. Reagan also had much controversy surrounding his terms as Governor.
The thing is: those who like a well-known candidate only like them better as they get to know more about them. Those who don't like a well-known candidate only dislike them more as they also learn more about them.
Undecided and non-committed voters are more likely to turn out and vote for someone they know about more than someone they don't know. That is a political fact. And that's why a win for a dark horse candidate is such a political rarity when it comes to electing the President.
The voter's dissatisfaction with Congress is ancient. We saw some dark horse winners in the last 1/3 of the 20th century because the voters believed only an outsider would be able to be effective, but I doubt this sentiment is nearly as strong as it has been in the past.
Any dark horse candidate is going to have to be exceptionally inspirational to be able to win in 2016 over an opponent who is well known, I think. Voters have grown tired of the unpredictability of dark horses from either side of the political spectrum and will go for someone they know, even if the person isn't their first or best choice.
In 2016, it will be: Better The Devil You Know Than the Devil You Don't for both Republicans and Democrats.
your reasoning is exactly why I think the Republican will choose a candidate that has some experience and why I think if Hillary doesn't run, the Dem might have trouble fielding a well known candidate. ideally we need a fresh face, with some following: who, I have no idea at this stage.
She's not too well-known. Dems don't need a dark horse.
Pubs desperately need a dark horse, someone who isn't part of the same old disastrous Neocon/Dubya/Reaganomics/Tea Party/Congressional Republican/Romney/Palin/Paul/Ryan/McConnell/Boehner/Obstructionist/Justice Roberts/Justice Scalia/Limbaugh/Beck/Gingrich/Perry vein. Christie, Jindal, Paul, Rubio, Romney, Ryan, Walker, Palin...are not going to do it. Pubs need someone who can rebuild the party from scratch to join us in modern times, not take us back to the Stone Age (Dubya's time).
She's not too well-known. Dems don't need a dark horse.
Pubs desperately need a dark horse, someone who isn't part of the same old disastrous Neocon/Dubya/Reaganomics/Tea Party/Congressional Republican/Romney/Palin/Paul/Ryan/McConnell/Boehner/Obstructionist/Justice Roberts/Justice Scalia/Limbaugh/Beck/Gingrich/Perry vein. Christie, Jindal, Paul, Rubio, Romney, Ryan, Walker, Palin...are not going to do it. Pubs need someone who can rebuild the party from scratch to join us in modern times, not take us back to the Stone Age (Dubya's time).
Yet you support big government which is one of the oldest form of government and has always failed. Course you wouldn't know that since you'd have to educate yourself on policy. There's that word again, policy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No
