fruitloop wrote: Apart from anything else, there are probably some voters who wouldn't vote for a woman (more than those who would vote for her because she is a woman). I didn't see much of the campaign so I don't really know, but she looked reasonably impressive to me. Certainly no disgrace.
Which means, do losers always resign? Not always. In Taiwan, Lian Chan didn't resign/leave the stage in 2000 and took over a year to go after 2004.
Elsewhere, it's not uncommon for American contenders to run more than once for the nomination, at least (not sure about if they get beaten in the actual election - please enlighten me). In the UK, it depends on the circumstances. In 1983, Michael Foot got a thumping, was seen as old and a loser. He was replaced by Kinnock with a long term project to reform the Labour Party, so when he made progress but still lost in 1987, he got another chance in 1992, after which he resigned. William Hague lost for the Conservatives in 2001 and went not because he lost but because he lost quite badly and was perceived as weird (the Conservative Party is more ruthless than the Labour Party). Michael Howard was always a stand in (also perceived as a bit weird), to be replaced by a new generation after 2005. Gordon Brown had been on the scene for 20 years, lost badly (in some senses) and was seen as weird.
Having said all that, leading the party and running for President seem to be more fluid in Taiwan. Perhaps it would not be surprising to see Tsai again in 4 years.
Jonny wrote:Tsai Ing Wen stepped down right after her defeat. Any true leader would not give up. Why not stay as DPP leader and then keep going for the 2016 elections? Stepping down just like that just shows Tsai was just a push over. One loss and she's gone.
ChewDawg wrote:I think this result bodes poorly for the DPP. Tsai is the best they've got. She's erudite, internationally educated, and moderate on China/trade issues. Today there was talk of Su leading the party again. If they keep recycling old faces from the lawyer and 1979 incident generation, the elections to come will be even bigger losses.
This is normal in Asian culture. It's taking responsibility for the loss.
Jonny wrote:Do the Taiwanese truly care whether or not they are part of China? I bet just a few threats from China and Ma would've won by a larger result. The CCP might as well just reward Taiwan by pouring billions of dollars into the Taiwanese economy to help create jobs for Taiwanese in order to guarantee another KMT win in 2016. I even read a report on NTDTV that most Taiwanese are concerned about jobs. Not China. Meaning that if being a second Hong Kong would mean even just a little bit of economic improvement, they'll accept it.
But at the very least, the election was fair and within the guidelines of democracy, freedom, and liberty. The people of Taiwan have a choice to become another PRC SAR. Freedom is their right. If they make that request, then we all have to respect that.
Battery9 wrote:I'm sure the first thing Ma did this morning was check his Facebook. He won't give that up.
Forumosans browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 visitors