Matthew Dowd
Matthew Dowd has been a campaign strategist in races throughout the country. In 30 years, Dowd has worked for Democrats and Republicans, most recently serving as chief strategist for President George W. Bush in 2004.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
« Previous | Main | Next »
Somebody's Gotta Win
December 27, 2007 11:19 AM
Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor
I hope everyone's Christmas and holiday was joy filled and peaceful, and you were able to connect with your loved ones.
As we head into the final week of the primary season before the Iowa Caucus, it is an interesting moment to touch on some conclusions by various people speculating on the state of the field.
It seems there is a consensus by most pundits that this is a field of candidates in both political parties that are flawed and can't win.
Below is a summary of much of these conclusions about the dominant candidates on the Democratic and Republican sides. (Before you blog me to death with responses, I am just rehashing what is being stated by many.)
Hillary Clinton can't win because she is too polarizing, doesn't come across as warm (unlike her husband), and overall perceptions of her are much too negative.
Barack Obama can't win because he is way too inexperienced and America isn't ready for an African-American president.
John Edwards is "old news" from 2004, and for many comes across as overly marketed and too "political".
John McCain can't win because he is too old, and has damaged his brand of independence by siding too closely with President Bush on the War in Iraq.
Mitt Romney has flip flopped too much on important issues, so folks question his authenticity. And the country isn't ready for a Mormon president.
Rudy Giuliani can't win because his personal story is too "complicated" for mainstream America, and questions concerning his post-mayor professional career are a vulnerability.
And Mike Huckabee is unelectable because of many "outrageous" positions and statements in his past, and he may come across as too much of a fringe conservative.
This is a pretty pointed summary of what many are saying. (Again, for continued clarification, not necessarily my views.)
The really interesting and somewhat ironic thing is that even though all these candidates are described as "unelectable", one of them is more than likely going to be our next President. Though each "can’t win", one will win!
And one very important aspect of how voters view candidates is that once a candidate gets the nomination of their major party, the public automatically assumes they are qualified and can be president.
The nomination process on its own gives enhanced credibility and status to the nominee -- just teaches us about politics (and life), where snap judgements are often misguided, and shows the importance of not judging facts solely on their own, but the importance of putting things in context.
December 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (17)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/24545602
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Somebody's Gotta Win:
"The nomination process on its own gives enhanced credibility and status to the nominee -- just teaches us about politics (and life), where snap judgements are often misguided, and shows the importance of not judging facts solely on their own, but the importance of putting things in context."
Excellent point, and very well taken!
Posted by: larry smith | Dec 27, 2007 12:47:15 PM
Somehow I will not be surprised if the Dems select a candidate who cannot win the general election or a candidate who is seriously flawed. Food for thought in the article: "Democrats risk self-sabotage in presidential race ... again" (AmericanChronicle.com, November 5, 2007).
Posted by: Hammo | Dec 27, 2007 12:57:59 PM
This is why I believe we should hold 3 elections. The chosen candidate would have to win 2 of 3 times to be president. This would bring out a lot of non-voters that were dissatisfied with the 1st outcome.
Posted by: steve | Dec 27, 2007 1:15:49 PM
Where is the coverage for Thompson? He is just as viable a candidate and seems to me he is the best qualified of all candidates - he is honest and does not have the "baggage" of other candidates. He also knows what he is talking about. What you see is just exactly what you get!! Kudos to him!
Posted by: Barbara N | Dec 27, 2007 1:28:03 PM
Matthew Dowd needs to shut up.
The fact that we have a race that is tight is good for America Some of the candidates views and issues overlap each other which is good but for the most part we have a diverse group running for president especially on the dems side.
Posted by: Antoin, Chicago, IL | Dec 27, 2007 2:22:30 PM
I believe Matthew Dowd doesn't know what he is talking about. When it comes to winning the voters are the ones that choose their candidate and he can't pick the winner. We will find out when the voting is over and even if we don't like the winner there is nothing we can do about it but but hope your candidate wins in several other states.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Dec 27, 2007 2:33:40 PM
Dowd gave up his credibility by working for the penultimate loser of all time, GW Bush, the lesser. Of course, as the country realizes we all lost badly because of sock puppet supporters like Dowd, perhaps in blaming fools like DOWD we can recover somewhat. OR NOT....
Posted by: daddyblue | Dec 27, 2007 3:07:46 PM
How about Ron Paul? He's honest, has an OUTSTANDING voting history, has plenty of experience. His only potential 'downer' would be that fact that he supports the Constitution and in today's world ("...it's just a G*d Dam* piece of paper!" ...GW Bush) I guess you could call that a little crazy. But I guess that makes me crazy too, since I value my freedom more than my life. (That's why I'm a combat veteran!) Too many people have sacrificed liberties and freedoms for 'security', and according to one of our most revered historical figures, Ben Franklin, those people deserve neither. My vote will goto freedom, prosperity, and peace...RON PAUL 2008!
Posted by: VeteranD | Dec 27, 2007 3:29:42 PM
What about Fred Thompson? He can win.
Posted by: Bill B | Dec 27, 2007 5:44:23 PM
And what about, on the dems side, Joe Biden? Electable and well qualified!
Posted by: Jess | Dec 27, 2007 8:41:01 PM
I have no problem with media pointing out apparent negatives about any of the candidates. If they are going to do that, though, I would like for them to spend equal time pointing out apparent strengths of all candidates. It is so difficult to separate opinion from fact in media these days, in my opinion. I believe most voters will try to vote for the candidate who will do what they think needs to be done in our country.
Posted by: Lynn McMasters | Dec 27, 2007 10:23:11 PM
If the world would overwhelmingly elect Ron Paul, why are the citizens of the USA so dumb?
Posted by: Gin | Dec 28, 2007 4:50:34 AM
Fiddlesticks..GO Hillary! Boy are they afraid of you and Bill.
Posted by: Sandra Lea | Dec 28, 2007 6:19:30 AM
Last time the caucases selected John Kerry. He ended up being the wrong candidate. We needed a much stronger candidate who would pounce on Bush and remind the country of all the things he has done wrong. Granted - we didn't know about the Iraq lie back then and the country was badly divided. Now the country is still divided but I believe most Americans now want change and Republicans are not the party of change. They and the conservatives love gridlock. With trillions in debt they still want to give tax breaks to the rich and corporations AND gas companies. Please America - wake up and vote the right person in this time
Posted by: Bob | Dec 28, 2007 8:33:06 AM
I agree with Lynn. The media is a maze with truth being the prize if you successfully navigate the twists and turns. We want what each of us feels is what's best for the country and we just need the tools to help us figure that out. All I try to do is watch the news programs that I trust and see what they have to say and then weigh all other inputs...if anyone else has suggestions on how to navigate it all, do tell!
Posted by: tamarino | Dec 28, 2007 10:11:51 AM
Mathew Dowd eats crumbs fell off from a Liberals'mouth.
Posted by: kmjjp | Dec 29, 2007 11:56:19 AM
When you get your issued ID card and your chip put under your skin you will wish you had voted for liberty and freedom....Ron Paul.
Posted by: Gin | Jan 1, 2008 3:10:01 AM
Post a comment
