|
Originally Posted by ELA
I normally do not take part in political or religious discussions, but this one seems safe enough. At least I hope so, LOL.
I think when you look at the political landscape globally, Rudy presents an interesting proposition. He has the appeal, and he stepped up during this nation's most difficult time in recent years. He brought forth the leadership needed and addded stability to a very tough situation. That appeals to people. That makes people feel that he can lead. Are people going to look at the Roman Catholic aspect? Maybe. I've read it. Personally, I don't care. Does that trickle into one's views and platforms on tough, today issues? I guess so. I've always been a fan of Rudy's, and personally, I would probably support anyone, merely by default, against Hillary Clinton.
Now, with regard to Hillary Clinton, the real strategic issues have not yet been addressed. The party needs to decide if she is 'the one' so to speak. The party needs to decide if the American public will make her 'the one'. What that means, and I think the American public also needs to look at this as well, is that Hillary's overall 'electibility' needs to be addressed.
This is one of the most critical factors that a party looks at -- over and above what polls may say. Polls tend not to assess electibility and what it means, offers, detracts from, etc. the party and the nation.
So, what does this mean? Here is my take -- if you look at recent elections and how the Democrats operate, they tend to look at a candidate, their electibility and what it can and cannot mean to the party. They tend to lean towards a center-oriented candidate who can play the 'role model' role for the party and the nation. In addition, if that person is a Southerner, who they think Republicans could possibly vote for, then that would be ideal. Interestingly enough, the Democratic party seems to be willing to overlook the charismatic and dynamic politician that should lead the party. We've seen that. Think about the some of the recent candidates.
The Democratic party has always seemed to put forth a candidate that they think Republicans might vote for. This is very different than the Republican methodology.
With Hillary, the public thinks this and she is different. So, the polls say so. That is not enough -- not nearly. She has several things in favor -- she is named Clinton, she is a woman, she votes center, and has liberal appeal. However, she has alienated many major powers in the party.
There is a question as to whether or not she has, or can win them back, and more importantly, whether or not she is a true 'team' and 'party' player.
The people who tell me that women will vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman, IMHO are not only naive, but are foolish as well. I know plenty of women, intelligent women, who are truly insulted by this. Will the conservative women vote for her? How about the religious ones?
More importantly, I think there is a real question that strategists need to answer -- is she well liked personally? That means something. They don't have to love you, but if they dislike you personally, any political strategist will tell you what grows from there.
Eric
|