JMT
Sr. Member
Posts: 2,152
|
|
« on: June 13, 2016, 11:02:43 AM » |
|
I picked O'Malley and Walker, because both were largely hyped and had a real opportunity to become serious candidates / their party's nominee and they completely blew it. O'Malley was talked about as the major Hillary Clinton alternative, and he practically lived in Iowa prior to the election and only received about 0.5%. Realistically, he should've been the Hillary alternative and he allowed a 75 year old Democratic socialist from Vermont to steal that title from him. I love Bernie, and of course Bernie's strengths played into his rise (it wasn't only O'Malley that led to Bernie's rise) but I feel like O'Malley should've performed stronger.
For me personally, I never expected Jeb Bush to win. He wouldn't have rallied the more conservative voters needed to win a primary, and he was generally boring. Not to mention, I think "Bush fatigue" is real and he would have been far from the best candidate to beat Hillary in the general election. A main argument against Clinton is to have a fresh face and to avoid political dynasties, so nominating Bush wouldn't have made sense. That being said, I think Scott Walker ran the worst campaign on the GOP side. He was largely hyped: he's young, appeals to both the establishment and the more conservative Tea Party types, and won election as Governor 3 times in a blue state like Wisconsin. The fact his campaign didn't even make it past September is a huge embarrassment to him and his campaign team. They had a perfect resume to win a GOP nomination and blew it. Of course, no one saw the rise of Trump and no candidate really knew what to do about it, but Scott Walker should've at least lasted until Iowa..
|