Imagine having one of the major effects of a national election--but one watched throughout the world--be that you, Tim Walz, were exposed as an idiot, a liar, a fraud, and a clown, with a batshit crazy shrew for a wife.

Mind you, I think they deserve even worse, but I'll take this.

This is probably the best place to ask this.

Why?

Why torpedo your chances with super poor candidate selection?

I read a thread last week where someone was discussing living in Montana and how the left was running a candidate that was far left.

Here they did the same thing. They ran a candidate against James Comer, and dumped millions of dollars in support and attack ads. She is unelectable in Western Kentucky. Her experience? A single mom. Her platform? Gun confiscation and abortions for all. Comer crushed her as expected.

Wouldn’t you actually want to run someone that has a slight chance of winning?

I only ask because Walz fits neatly in the same category. However, I stated a while ago that we assume he was chosen, not that Beshear and Shapiro declined.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
This is probably the best lace to ask this.

Why?

Why torpedo your chances with super poor candidate selection?

I suspect that nobody else wanted the job.

They figured the media could get her elected. She did not want someone who would over shadow her, ie: a real candidate.
The guys you mentioned did not want to be tied to her, win or loose.
Shipero was a Israel supporter which I am sure her and ohummer did not want.
It is pretty simple . Walz would take the job and is in close proximity to the states in play.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
This is probably the best place to ask this.

Why?

Why torpedo your chances with super poor candidate selection?

In an established Republican area, the remaining Democrats are generally just crazy, so they elect a crazy in their primary.

The centrists (people who dont actually believe in anything) just gravitate to the team in power because it serves their ambitions for power best. This is why in more established democrat areas, they come up with an occasional moderate, and why in established republican areas, you get so many RINOs

Walz and Minneapolis-Saint Paul disgust me. And sadly their vile influence has a tendency to spill over the border into what we in South Dakota call "East River" which is rather liberal compared to the stalwarts on my side of the Missouri River.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
This is probably the best place to ask this.

Why?

Why torpedo your chances with super poor candidate selection?

I read a thread last week where someone was discussing living in Montana and how the left was running a candidate that was far left.

Here they did the same thing. They ran a candidate against James Comer, and dumped millions of dollars in support and attack ads. She is unelectable in Western Kentucky. Her experience? A single mom. Her platform? Gun confiscation and abortions for all. Comer crushed her as expected.

Wouldn’t you actually want to run someone that has a slight chance of winning?

I only ask because Walz fits neatly in the same category. However, I stated a while ago that we assume he was chosen, not that Beshear and Shapiro declined.

As my departed father once told me, just because someone's in charge doesn't mean they know what they are doing. Hence someone in charge selected Walz. By the way, every street cop should know this rule.

Why, do the Police make VP selections?

quote:

Originally posted by mlazarus:
........just because someone's in charge doesn't mean they know what they are doing.....

This describes the liberal's dilemma, viz. unqualified people rise to the top purely because they parrot the commie party line. These people are all miscreants who live in a bubble yet consider themselves to be mainstream.

A perfect example is that stupid broad in charge of advertising for Bud having a man (pretending to be yet another stupid broad) as the spokesperson for Bud Lite.

They're all like that. Totally detached from reality.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Why torpedo your chances with super poor candidate selection?

That’s a question I’ve asked myself since 1972. In 1968 the Democrat candidate for President was LBJ’s Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, whom Tom Lehrer described in a song as a “fiery liberal,” and then who lost to Richard Nixon. That seemed to indicate that the electorate was fed up with the leftist policies of Lyndon Johnson.

But four years later in the second run against Nixon the Democrats nominated George McGovern who, as I recall, was identified as being even more leftist than Humphrey. The thing I remember most clearly about all that was a meme-type photograph (perhaps in National Lampoon magazine) of Nixon and a group of his aides laughing uproariously and saying, “They nominated who‽”

Unfortunately, it hasn’t always been the Left that has nominated unelectable candidates. When the national mood has been in favor of leftist policies there have been times when Republicans doubled down on more conservative candidates than the one(s) who lost the previous time.

I suppose it simply demonstrates that although politicians live or die by understanding the electorate, most of them really aren’t that smart and once they become wedded to an idea or philosophy, it’s very difficult to impossible for them to change their minds. But then that’s true of most people. I am often reminded of a quotation attributed to James Clerk Maxwell:
“There are two theories of the nature of light, the corpuscle theory and the wave theory; we used to believe in the corpuscle theory; now we believe in the wave theory because all those who believed in the corpuscle theory have died.”

Sometimes attitudes and ideas change only because the influential people who hold them die off.

quote:

In 1968 the Democrat candidate for President was LBJ’s Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, whom Tom Lehrer described in a song as a “fiery liberal,” and then who lost to Richard Nixon. That seemed to indicate that the electorate was fed up with the leftist policies of Lyndon Johnson.

LBJ was a disaster for the country, but he had good political instincts and he knew how to get his way. His leftist policies have moved this country far to the left and spurred racial discord.

quote:

Unfortunately, it hasn’t always been the Left that has nominated unelectable candidates.

You're right...
In 1964 the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater. I think Barry Goldwater would have made a good President... but he was a disaster as a candidate. He only carried the deep south.

Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Republican Senator Barry Goldwater in a landslide victory.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

In 1968 the Democrat candidate for President was LBJ’s Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, whom Tom Lehrer described in a song as a “fiery liberal,” and then who lost to Richard Nixon. That seemed to indicate that the electorate was fed up with the leftist policies of Lyndon Johnson.

LBJ was a disaster for the country, but he had good political instincts and he knew how to get his way. His leftist policies have moved this country far to the left and spurred racial discord.

quote:

Unfortunately, it hasn’t always been the Left that has nominated unelectable candidates.

You're right...
In 1964 the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater. I think Barry Goldwater would have made a good President... but he was a disaster as a candidate. He only carried the deep south.

Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Republican Senator Barry Goldwater in a landslide victory.

LBJ Was the one that escalated us into Nam and ironically was the reason for not running for re-election.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Republican Senator Barry Goldwater in a landslide victory.

Goldwater was certainly unelectable for a number of reasons, but LBJ had plenty of help from the major news reporting businesses at the time. Even though I had just graduated from high school before the 1964 election and was pretty naïve about such things, I was struck by how biased the media was in its reporting and commentary against Goldwater.

There’s a persistent myth that news reporting back then was “neutral,” and although it probably was more so as compared with today, that’s like saying habaneros are less hot than ghost peppers. As has been pointed out by at least a modern historian or two, “the most trusted man in America” (Walter Cronkite) was hardly “neutral” in his reporting about the battle for Hue during the Vietnam War, and he was far from being the worst of the lot.

quote:

Even though I had just graduated from high school before the 1964 election and was pretty naïve about such things, I was struck by how biased the media was in its reporting and commentary against Goldwater.

And the major newspapers and big 3 TV networks largely controlled what people were exposed to. They largely attempted to pretend they weren't biased and most people didn't question it much.
There was not much in the way of 'alternative' media except for a few minor publications like National Review.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
As has been pointed out by at least a modern historian or two, “the most trusted man in America” (Walter Cronkite) was hardly “neutral” in his reporting about the battle for Hue during the Vietnam War, and he was far from being the worst of the lot.

“It seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate" - Walter Cronkite (1968).

I think that that one sentence gave rise to the objective to subjective turn journalism has taken.

braille diver: Every time I hear the quote from the book of Isaiah "Come, let us reason together", I think of LBJ's voice intoning the words in that unctuous voice of his, and I want to puke.

Mind you, at the time I voted for LBJ, but my girl friend was pissed at me. She was driving around in the family Suburban with a huge Goldwater sign on top. I was the one who "evolved", we've been married for 55 years.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
This is probably the best place to ask this.

Why?

Why torpedo your chances with super poor candidate selection?

I read a thread last week where someone was discussing living in Montana and how the left was running a candidate that was far left.

Here they did the same thing. They ran a candidate against James Comer, and dumped millions of dollars in support and attack ads. She is unelectable in Western Kentucky. Her experience? A single mom. Her platform? Gun confiscation and abortions for all. Comer crushed her as expected.

Wouldn’t you actually want to run someone that has a slight chance of winning?

I only ask because Walz fits neatly in the same category. However, I stated a while ago that we assume he was chosen, not that Beshear and Shapiro declined.

From a game theory strategy, I can formulate an explanation.

From a warfare strategy, you want to put some competition even in places you know where you'll lose. That means the other side has to spend money there. Not putting a competition means you free up the other side's money and allow them to spend in the hotly contested races.

You put in a far left candidate that you'll know will lose because don't want to use your first string, second string, or even third string players. That will be a waste of a good player in a race you'll lose anyway. Instead, you use a far left candidate and that gives you a base line of how much support you can get. If so many people will vote for this nutcase, then you have an idea of how competitive you can get with a closer to the middle candidate given that you know where your lowest support level is.

And this is also supported from a business strategy. I've been in meetings discussing market share in hospitals. The top guy would would go, "We'll put some competition in Hospital X to keep them occupied and to let them know they better not fuck with our business in Hospital C. But we can't go after Hospital B because J&J will empty their war chest to protect their crown jewel business there.

Moping Tim Walz licks his wounds with his cat as he breaks silence on election defeat




Tim Walz was pictured taking in his election loss with his cat by his side as he sat at his Minnesota house, as his daughter insisted he will be OK.

The failed vice presidential candidate wore a sweatshirt, gray slacks and sneakers as he lazed about, with his cat on his lap, in the photo shared by his daughter, Hope Walz, on her Instagram.

'The Earth keeps spinning and we live to fight another day,' the loving daughter captioned her snap.

-more at (gag) linky.

The worst part for all you poor folks in Minnesota is that you're still stuck with him as your governor.