Opinion of Brian Schatz

[Mechaman]

Obvious FF is obvious FF.

Also, LOL at some of the people on here who are voting HP out of spite because the guy was appointed into office or some dead guy's will.  I'm not judging, and nobody should be judging, Schatz based off of how he got into office (unless of course he had somebody murdered and then came into the Governor's office with a mountainload of blackmail to get into office a la Frank Underwood but then he wouldn't be in office if that was made public) but based off of what he brings to the table for the people of Hawaii.  Going off of his wikipedia page I can see that the only positions of his that are mentioned is that he supports same sex marriage and he voted against FISA.  I mean really, that makes him better than at least 75% of the current Senators right off the bat.  He was also endorsed by the labor unions in the Lieutenant Governor primaries.  If labor unions IN HAWAII endorse you, you must be pretty daggum pro-labor.

Like Oakvale just said, in a state as Democratic as Hawaii what is even the point of going moderate hero?

Seriously, what is wrong with you people?

[Mechaman]

How can you be more electable than someone guaranteed to win the general election?

The same thing was said about Al Gore and Kerry. Look where that lead this country.

Maybe if the United States had a 20 point democratic advantage you'd have a point

In 1976 Carter had a 30 point advantage and almost lost as a moderate. I don't want the same thing to happen in Hawaii.

...

What makes Schatz immune to extreme collapses like Carter or Dukakis? Pixie dust? We're in it to win it and it makes no sense to kneecap yourself in the name of ideological purity. We are being a bunch of Teabaggers here!

Ummm, like I said earlier this is Hawaii?  This kind of line of questioning is like wondering why they don't run moderate Republicans in Oklahoma.  In other words, quite ridiculous I must say.

[Mechaman]

How can you be more electable than someone guaranteed to win the general election?

The same thing was said about Al Gore and Kerry. Look where that lead this country.

Maybe if the United States had a 20 point democratic advantage you'd have a point

In 1976 Carter had a 30 point advantage and almost lost as a moderate. I don't want the same thing to happen in Hawaii.

...

What makes Schatz immune to extreme collapses like Carter or Dukakis? Pixie dust? We're in it to win it and it makes no sense to kneecap yourself in the name of ideological purity. We are being a bunch of Teabaggers here!

Carter was a moderate.

What about Dukakis? And Carter was still to the left of Wallace, who, while he reformed, was still very rightwing and a viable Democrat.

Hold on, lets look closer

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um... closer?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh come on stop trolling.

I'm not trolling. Wallace was essentially the Democrats' Reagan: a man to get out the racist vote with populism. He even had a good showing in the Massachussets primary due to racist resentment over having busing in and out of Roxbury. The main reason why he lost so much is because he kept messing with the Democratic establishment and because the New Left certainly wasn't going to let the most notorious segregationist lead their movement.

I feel like you were trying to make a point here but it's not making any sense.

[Mechaman]

How can you be more electable than someone guaranteed to win the general election?

The same thing was said about Al Gore and Kerry. Look where that lead this country.

Maybe if the United States had a 20 point democratic advantage you'd have a point

In 1976 Carter had a 30 point advantage and almost lost as a moderate. I don't want the same thing to happen in Hawaii.

...

What makes Schatz immune to extreme collapses like Carter or Dukakis? Pixie dust? We're in it to win it and it makes no sense to kneecap yourself in the name of ideological purity. We are being a bunch of Teabaggers here!

Carter was a moderate.

What about Dukakis? And Carter was still to the left of Wallace, who, while he reformed, was still very rightwing and a viable Democrat.

Hold on, lets look closer

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um... closer?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh come on stop trolling.

I'm not trolling. Wallace was essentially the Democrats' Reagan: a man to get out the racist vote with populism. He even had a good showing in the Massachussets primary due to racist resentment over having busing in and out of Roxbury. The main reason why he lost so much is because he kept messing with the Democratic establishment and because the New Left certainly wasn't going to let the most notorious segregationist lead their movement.

I feel like you were trying to make a point here but it's not making any sense.

My point is that even with extreme advantages, such as what Carter and Dukakis had before their respective elections, candidates can still lose. I'm simply not willing to give any advantages at all to the republicans just because one candidate supports gay marriage with a slightly larger pomp in their step than the other.

But at the same time though, you seem to be assuming that moderatism will always be a factor.  That in itself is a faulty assumption.  It is quite possible for a candidate to be perceived as too moderate and thus decrease base turnout.  In a state like Hawaii, that has as much chance as happening as someone being perceived as a "too liberal" candidate.  And even then, I find the argument very hard to make that Brian Schatz is "too liberal" for a state that gave Obama over 70% of the vote even after coming out in favor of gay marriage.

And Carter was the moderate.  Just because a politician who was openly segregationist at one time was running in the race doesn't make Carter particularly left winged by serious measures of the day.  I mean, this was the same race that Frank Church, Birch Bayh, Mo Udall, Fred Harris, and Walter Fauntroy were running in!  Almost all of whom were considered at least "New Left" by many people. Carter did horribly because he was a bad campaigner (emphasis), not because he had a humanitarian foreign policy or wanted to pursue alternate sources of energy (those two policies probably being his most left winged).

Again, this is an apples vs. oranges comparison.