Talk:Paul Tsongas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mention of wife

Should his wife be mentioned at all? or even that she's running for his old seat? Gang14 21:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory vs Moral victory

I personally like pyrrhic victory because it makes more sense in this context. Just because someone doesn't understand the term doesn't mean we should use it. Gang14 00:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the term "moral victory" here is not a substitute for "Pyrrhic victory". The two terms have almost nothing to do with one another. Please allow me to explain.

A moral victory is won in which the "moral victor" does not actually win. For example, a football team that is a 42-point underdog, but actually loses by only a single point might be said to have achieved a moral victory. In point of fact, they lost, but they still might feel good about themselves because they did much better than they were expected to do. This is the essence of a moral victory: Being pleased, despite having lost.

The term "Pyrrhic victory" carries with it not only the fact that the ostensible victor needs to have won the "battle", but also the connotation that the winner—in order to secure the win—was forced to take steps that would ultimately lead to his defeat in the "war". It is not just the fact that you win the battle and then lose the war. It is that you lose the war because of the steps that you had to take to win the battle. In a way, it's almost the opposite of a moral victory: Being in a worse position after the contest, despite having won.

Yes, Tsongas won the Battle of New Hampshire in the winter and lost the War for the Democratic Nomination by the summer. But he did not lose the War because of anything that he did in New Hampshire. Therefore his New Hampshire win does not constitute a Pyrrhic victory.

Can the term "Pyrrhic victory" apply to a political campaign? Certainly. Let us suppose that, after Iowa and New Hampshire, Rudy Giulliani finds himself trailing the more conservative Duncan Hunter (yeah, I know—it'll never happen. I'm just making up an example.) So Giulliani, fearing that he is going to lose the GOP nomination, swings to the right in his policies. He abandons his pro-choice stand and announces that in his heart, he thinks that abortion is murder and that women who gets abortions should be fined and that abortionists should be executed. So then Giulliani's abortion stance rallies the conservative base around him and he wins the Republican nomination. But in the general election the Democratic candidate endlessly plays clips of Giulliani's fiery anti-abortion rhetoric, and Giulliani—who had previously been seen as a political moderate—loses the respect and votes of millions of independent voters, and he goes down in flames in the November election. In such a case we would say that Giulliani's winning of the Republican nomination was a Pyrrhic victory. It was a win, yes, but the steps that he took to win that battle would cost him the war, in the long run.

Now I don't mind if someone objects to the use of "moral victory" for Clinton's 2nd place finish. At the time I myself objected to that characterization, but I know that Clinton's team was successfully able to spin it as such, and that is now how most people see it. I don't think it's a perfect use of the term. But I would strongly object to the use of Pyrrhic victory for Tsongas' win, as it fails to capture the essence of that term. Unschool 05:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either term is good as an unqualified description of what happened. I'd use "moral victory" only if it were supported by a citation (a notable source that described the result that way). Otherwise, I'd just say that the Clinton campaign was able to spin the result as an upset victory because he had exceeded expectations. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I see and understand on you point on a pyrrhic victory, I misunderstood the term. But I also agree that it moral victory is also not the correct term to use in this context so the point of "the Clinton campaign was able to spin the result as an upset victory because he had exceeded expectations." I feel would be the best. Gang14 15:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no problem getting rid of the use of "moral victory" here. Unschool 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See why cant all discussions go like this Gang14 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Had he won the presidency

"A few years later the cancer returned and he died of pneumonia and liver failure two days short of what, had he won the presidency, would have been the end of his first term."

This seems to be a slightly biased statement. He didn't win his party's nomination, nevermind the Electoral College. Why not just say, "he passed away on ** [whatever day he died]"?

(the above comment was posted by someone from IP 128.253.229.131)

I disagree, 128.253.229.131. The original version is not biased, it was factual, and it contains important information which is lost in your truncated version. I think the original version should be restored.

NCdave 18:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Had he been elected, his date of death could have been completely different, as his life would have changed considerably. It's pure conjecture and doesn't belong here. Don Williams 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Gang14 21:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that, while, yes, it's conjecture, it's not pure conjecture. We know the date on which his first term would have ended. We know the date on which he died. Yes, certainly, had he been Prez, his medical care would have been entrusted to others, and the end result might have been somewhat, perhaps entirely, different. But I've seen this kind of commentary elsewhere about other people, and it's somewhat interesting. In Tsongas' case, it's even more relevant, given the fact that his cancer and its possible return was a minor issue during the campaign. And I'll bet that the next time a serious candidate for president has a history of cancer that it'll come up that Tsongas didn't live to what would have been the end of his first term. That makes it relevant, methinks. Unschool 03:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation

Is it really pronounced "SONG-gus", as the article claims, with no initial "t" sound? I suppose that's possible, but Tsongas is a Greek name, and that's certainly not how a Greek would pronounce it. --Delirium 17:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I never heard it pronounced any way but SONG-gus. Don Williams 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It may well be pronounced differently in Greek. But few of us in the US speak Greek or endeavour to pronounce words of Greek origin with an authentic Greek pronunciation. Unschool 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge

For I think this would benefit both articles Gang14 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge done Gang14 21:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What articles were merged? Unschool 03:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Paul Tsongas presidential campaign, 1992 and Paul Tsongas Gang14 04:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)