[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I still think McCain naming Palin as VP candidate was the most cynical, desperate move in the recent history of presidential campaigning.

It almost worked. But it unraveled so quickly and so thoroughly that it will remain an object lesson for politicians for a long time.

"I don't often agree with Jim, but when I do...."

The Republicans have learned, though it took some time for the lesson to sink in. That's another story of 2014. In 2012, they had major candidate quality issues (the rape guy in Missouri, the crazy lady in Delaware) that cost them dearly. In 2014, they pretty much had a candidate "boot-camp" where they coached and vetted.

This, arguably, is now a lesson Democrats must learn. As I noted in one of these threads previously, we Democrats have a predilection for running wonks, activists, or "third way" acolytes who run very scared campaigns. Of course, the problem is that the party is so decentralized (compared to the GOP) that so such similar "vetting" is likely to go on.

That's cynical in a very different way. These days, politicians are chosen for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to legislate (or compromise).

I don't disagree, but would add that since the point in time where fundraising became really important (say mid-1990s), the best candidates have been the ones who most approximately resemble salesmen/women.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

So the Democrats did the right thing. But Clinton's sacrifice was not a small one. And she understandably wants every advantage possible in 2016.

I remember it the way digamma & JPhillips did. But I agree with your conclusion. Clinton could have fought it for longer, and the superdelegates could have added to the mess. The fact that she and they didn't, and an agreement was reached, displays a level of tactical nous we haven't seen since from the Democrats. I really hope it comes back.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Somebody got a different take?

Nope. Good luck!