by blehblah » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:27 pm
If Oprah wished to run, the DNC would be wise to do what they can to avoid her being nominated. Sometimes a form of benevolent dictatorship, via super-delegates, is a good thing. Surely, most RNC folks would like to go back and rewire their nomination system to avoid a Trump victory, even if it meant a loss in the general election (betting that it would be a one-term loss whilst they maintain control of Congress).
Oprah, The Rock, et al are problematic for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that they are reactionary candidates. Clinton didn't lose because she was over-qualified for a job which has both no skill/ability qualifications, yet requires all of the qualifications. She lost because not enough voters could bring themselves to vote for her in the places that mattered, and that happened because she was perceived as being highly unlikable. Why she was perceived that way has a complicated answer.
My point is this; should a party run only people who they believe will win, or only people they believe will win and are highly likely to be able to actually do the job? Both are pragmatic politics, while one is responsible politics.
The most frightening candidate would be Zuckerberg, for obvious reasons. On the other hand, his social media campaign would be impervious to Russian manipulation, so... erm... bonus?
A quantum state of signature may or may not be here... you just ruined it.