Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Originally posted by: forkushV
QuoteAh so limiting time and location of appearances is now "whatever it takes to win." Damn, I always thought it was called politics.
Originally posted by: alanleroyQuote
Originally posted by: forkushV
As a private citizen, Hillary's only job is to get to 270 electoral votes in about 13 months, which she gets to do on her terms, not anyone else's.
Presidential nominees focusing on only about nine states wasn't the "original intent," but any nominee that doesn't do that is going to lose. Raising millions or now billions of dollars, wasn't the "original intent," but any candidate that doesn't do it is going to lose. And candidates get to defy the "original intent" by limiting their public and press exposure when it is to their advantage. Richard Nixon did that brilliantly with his "Rose Garden Strategy" in 1972.
So Hillary is dealing with today's reality while others here are asking her to participate in a fantasy world. If she stays the course, I like her chances.
Of course she has the right to dodge exposure and to try to limit debate. Other candidates have to right to use that to their advantage by then claiming she's cowardly and not willing to defend her positions in an open forum. Her strategy could backfire as her competitors take an 'anywhere anytime' approach and she hides in the Nixon Rose Garden. Can you imagine Lincoln backing down from the 7 Douglass debates for fear of a misstep and a drop in the polls? Neither can I....but whatever it takes to win, I guess.
Call it what you want. Democrat Martin O'Mally calls it 'an undemocratic process'.
"We're making a big mistake, as Democrats, if we try to limit debate and have an undemocratic process," O'Malley said Monday on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports."
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/250738-omalley-sparse-debate-lineup-undemocratic
Undemocratic indeed.