Democrats: Who do you want to run against in 2016?

[Einzige]

I'm a Democrat only of convenience, but I have to say for myself that voting against Rick Santorum would be a privilege and an honor.

And I fully confess it has everything to do with his personality. I mean, he's ideologically identical to Mike Huckabee. Substitute the Huckster's Southern Baptism with Santorum's 'Traditionalist' Catholicism and they're the same creature politically. But I don't hate Huck the way I do Santorum on a personal, visceral level. It's his self-pitying, contemptible and weak, that I loathe. Observe:

“I’m the only person in this race by measuring the Gallup poll from March to July, everybody else who’s even in the race or a prospective in the race their name identification increase except me. And so you just sort of wonder why is the national media not talking about me when they’re talking about people like Jon Huntsman who are way below me in the national polls yet he gets press every single day. Nobody seems to want to pay any attention to me."

More, he is a square. He actually wears turtlenecks. He thinks this makes him the hero in his own 80s high school film, as the nerd Who Won't Take It Any More.

"I’m sort of the guy at the dance, when the girls walk in they sort of walk by, and they take a few turns at the dance hall with the guys that are a little better looking, a little flashier, a little more bling. But at the end of the evening, old steady Eddie’s there. He’s the guy you want to bring home to mom and dad."

I hate him and wish to see him crushed for the purpose of indulging in what his Catholic teachers would call delectatio morosa. That's a mortal sin, and Goddamn if I don't want to indulge it by way of his defeat.

 

[ecofarm]

Huck might be a bible thumpin' hillbilly, but he seems to be a genuinely good guy and even plays guitar. Santorum will not be the candidate. If you wanna play "democrat's fantasy opponent", why not Trump?

Trump and Palin, T-Partyin'

 

[Einzige]

Huck might be a bible thumpin' hillbilly, but he seems to be a genuinely good guy and even plays guitar. Santorum will not be the candidate. If you wanna play democrat fantasy opponent, why not Trump?

Beating up on Trump wouldn't be very fun. He's annoying, but he possesses self-confidence; he's an idiot, but he's at least sure of himself in the way that most idiots are. Santorum is slightly more intelligent, but profoundly full of resentment and self-pity. He's weak, he has no gusto. I want to destroy him thoroughly.

I don't mind affable dunces. George Bush was basically unintelligent - you needn't try to enlighten me about the fact he attended Yale, as I know this - but he was full of determination and never allowed criticism to beat him down. Santorum, on the other hand, is fundamentally introverted, perhaps moreso than any major Party candidate since Nixon. And those types are always the most fun to rain Hell down upon.

On the other hand, Nixon was an aggressive introvert, and I admire that aggression even if it was self-destructive. Santorum is, frankly, a crybaby.

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

I just don't want the republicans to nominate a woman or non-white. The last thing we need is someone who can fool people into believing that the GOP is anything other than anti-minority and anti-woman.

 

[Einzige]

I just don't want the republicans to nominate a woman or non-white. The last thing we need is someone who can fool people into believing that the GOP is anything other than anti-minority and anti-woman.

The only viable non-white or female Republican nominee would be Susana Martinez. Rubio will be unelectable as of 2016, and I hope he's not the nominee as the election would be boring. I don't have anything against him personally the way I do Santorum, but he's best served waiting until 2020.

 

[Josie]

Rubio will be unelectable as of 2016

Just curious....why?

 

[digsbe]

I just don't want the republicans to nominate a woman or non-white. The last thing we need is someone who can fool people into believing that the GOP is anything other than anti-minority and anti-woman.

:roll:

 

[Einzige]

Just curious....why?

He's going to need to spend a few years building up his personality. He could get away with it if he were electrifying ala Senator Obama circa 2007, but he's not charismatic. This has nothing to do with my judgment of his politics, mind; it's as close to an objective analysis of his worth as a candidate as I can come.

Is Rubio eventually electable? Absolutely. But absent the magnetism of a Reagan, Clinton or Obama, he needs to be able to run as a substantiative candidate. He's not going to be able to in three years' time.

 

[Josie]

He's going to need to spend a few years building up his personality.

Well....he has a few years...

 

[Einzige]

Well....he has a few years...

Three years isn't enough to learn the mastery of the issues that Rubio is going to need to have to run for President.

There are, in my opinion, different kinds of Presidential candidates. There are those who rule largely by force of personality - both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Obama. These people are special cases, electable out of the gate because of their ability to communicate. Then there are administrators - Taft, Truman, Carter, Bush I. Rubio almost certainly falls into this latter category. And they have to have far more depth to their knowledge to make up for an absence of charisma.

 

[JC Callender]

Did you find his speech at the RNC boring?

He's going to need to spend a few years building up his personality. He could get away with it if he were electrifying ala Senator Obama circa 2007, but he's not charismatic. This has nothing to do with my judgment of his politics, mind; it's as close to an objective analysis of his worth as a candidate as I can come.

Is Rubio eventually electable? Absolutely. But absent the magnetism of a Reagan, Clinton or Obama, he needs to be able to run as a substantiative candidate. He's not going to be able to in three years' time.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Three years isn't enough to learn the mastery of the issues that Rubio is going to need to have to run for President.

There are, in my opinion, different kinds of Presidential candidates. There are those who rule largely by force of personality - both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Obama. These people are special cases, electable out of the gate because of their ability to communicate. Then there are administrators - Taft, Truman, Carter, Bush I. Rubio almost certainly falls into this latter category. And they have to have far more depth to their knowledge to make up for an absence of charisma.

Obama had less. Is he qualified?

 

[Einzige]

Did you find his speech at the RNC boring?

Like watching paint dry. And the general consensus is that he underperformed. Couple that to the less-than-stellar reception his State of the Union response got and it's basically impossible now for Rubio to paint himself as the Charismatic Candidate Of Change.

The perception of being charismatic is as important as charisma itself. If people talk up your speaking skills and your 'presence', other people will magically notice them. If you have a reputation as being a dullard, then it's more likely others will find you to be a dullard, even if you're not an absolutely terrible speaker. Rubio isn't completely laconic, but he's not enormously charismatic himself, and he's gotten a reputation now as being mediocre on the stage and on the stump. That'll be difficult to overcome.

Bobby Jindal has basically succumbed to the same problem. At one point Democrats were actually afraid that Republicans might have found their Obama in him. Then they heard him actually speak and those fear dissipated.

 

[Einzige]

Obama had less. Is he qualified?

Did you read that second paragraph at all?

Obama was what I consider a 'Type One' candidate - someone inherently electable on the basis of personality alone. Kennedy and Reagan are other examples of this type.

Rubio does not have the potential to be a Type One any longer. He may have, once, but the reception to his RNC address and his SotU response have killed that momentum, which has to be built up early in one's career.

 

[Peter King]

I'm a Democrat only of convenience, but I have to say for myself that voting against Rick Santorum would be a privilege and an honor.

And I fully confess it has everything to do with his personality. I mean, he's ideologically identical to Mike Huckabee. Substitute the Huckster's Southern Baptism with Santorum's 'Traditionalist' Catholicism and they're the same creature politically. But I don't hate Huck the way I do Santorum on a personal, visceral level. It's his self-pitying, contemptible and weak, that I loathe. Observe:



More, he is a square. He actually wears turtlenecks. He thinks this makes him the hero in his own 80s high school film, as the nerd Who Won't Take It Any More.



I hate him and wish to see him crushed for the purpose of indulging in what his Catholic teachers would call delectatio morosa. That's a mortal sin, and Goddamn if I don't want to indulge it by way of his defeat.

I think Rick Santorum is a liar and I would love to see him defeated by Hillary Clinton.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Did you read that second paragraph at all?

Obama was what I consider a 'Type One' candidate - someone inherently electable on the basis of personality alone. Kennedy and Reagan are other examples of this type.

Rubio does not have the potential to be a Type One any longer. He may have, once, but the reception to his RNC address and his SotU response have killed that momentum, which has to be built up early in one's career.

This would be considered horse manure...

 

[JC Callender]

The general consensus was that he gave an awesome speech, which I'm sure is one of the reasons he was asked to give the reply at the SOTU. And I don't think he has to be all that charismatic anyway if he's running against Hillary.

Like watching paint dry. And the general consensus is that he underperformed. Couple that to the less-than-stellar reception his State of the Union response got and it's basically impossible now for Rubio to paint himself as the Charismatic Candidate Of Change.

The perception of being charismatic is as important as charisma itself. If people talk up your speaking skills and your 'presence', other people will magically notice them. If you have a reputation as being a dullard, then it's more likely others will find you to be a dullard, even if you're not an absolutely terrible speaker. Rubio isn't completely laconic, but he's not enormously charismatic himself, and he's gotten a reputation now as being mediocre on the stage and on the stump. That'll be difficult to overcome.

 

[Einzige]

This would be considered horse manure...

You'll consider it horse manure because you'd vote for Rubio without qualifications. The 'mainstream' - you know, the ones Republicans condemn in every other sentence - simply don't find Rubio that exciting. And rightfully so, because he's not very exciting. He looks good, but he can't speak. Bobby Jindal looked good, and he's even worse at speaking.

 

[Einzige]

The general consensus was that he gave an awesome speech

The general consensus in Republican circles was that he gave an awesome speech, just like the general consensus in Democratic circles was that Kerry's Convention speech was a floor-ripper. The general consensus from everyone else was decidedly more muted.

The most charismatic fellow on your team, by a good margin, is Chris Christie.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

You'll consider it horse manure because you'd vote for Rubio without qualifications. The 'mainstream' - you know, the ones Republicans condemn in every other sentence - simply don't find Rubio that exciting. And rightfully so, because he's not very exciting. He looks good, but he can't speak. Bobby Jindal looked good, and he's even worse at speaking.

Presuming to know how someone would act is what got the horse manure got laid on you the first time...

 

[polgara]

This would be considered horse manure...

Which is best used in the garden to help plants grow. Rubio's response was very well received and will not affect his career at all.

Good evening, AP.

 

[Einzige]

Which is best used in the garden to help plants grow. Rubio's response was very well received and will not affect his career at all.

Good evening, AP.

Sure it was.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Which is best used in the garden to help plants grow. Rubio's response was very well received and will not affect his career at all.

Good evening, AP.

Good evening pg. I trust you're staying warm...

 

[JC Callender]

No, I don't think people were thrilled with Christie's speech. His approval rating shot up in his home state when he started attacking Republicans because they weren't feeding him his billions of dollars in Sandy relief fast enough.

The general consensus in Republican circles was that he gave an awesome speech, just like the general consensus in Democratic circles was that Kerry's Convention speech was a floor-ripper. The general consensus from everyone else was decidedly more muted.

The most charismatic fellow on your team, by a good margin, is Chris Christie.

 

[Jack Hays]

Did you read that second paragraph at all?

Obama was what I consider a 'Type One' candidate - someone inherently electable on the basis of personality alone. Kennedy and Reagan are other examples of this type.

Rubio does not have the potential to be a Type One any longer. He may have, once, but the reception to his RNC address and his SotU response have killed that momentum, which has to be built up early in one's career.

This is propaganda dressed up as analysis. In 1988 Bill Clinton gave a widely panned (as boring and overlong) nominating speech that was thought to have spoiled his national aspirations.