Please explain to me how Edward's wife saying FL was her home state was supposed to surpass the fact that FL is run by the President's brother? When I heard that, I was hysterical. That was pretty short-sighted on the part of the Democrats. Additionally, FL had hurricanes to help it out this year. If emergency response/recovery had been like with Andrew, then, maybe, Kerry would have had a shot with the state....otherwise, it was all for Bush.
If the Dems have lost touch with reality, how come our nominee got 48% of the vote running against an incumbent war president??? How come this is the first time in 16 years the GOP candidate outpolled the Dem???
To me, one of the worst things about Kerry losing is that now we've got to hear a bunch of stupid sh** about Hillary running. People, she will never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never get the nomination. Ever.
The mistake in picking Edwards was to pick him and then not compete in the South. If you weren't going to TRY in Virginia and North Carolina, they shoulda picked Bayh. Or Richardson. But, the strong CW is that Edwrds helped in the industrial Midwest. Who knows. As to your broader point...did the GOPs need a Northeast strategy after losing in '92 and '96? No. The Dems do NOT need a Southern strategy. F' the South. They need a "convince 2% of GOP voters to vote Dem" strategy. Flipping Ohio is all they need. Flipping Missouri and keeping Iowa is all they need. The key thing to retain your sanity is to laugh at the pundits for the next week, cuz they're gonna say alot of dumbass sh**. Bush gets 100% of the power, and yeah, that really sucks. But the man can't clear 300 EVs. He had the media on his side for almost 4 years, up until about a month ago. He had tons o' money. He had a war. He was the incumbent. And he couldn't clear 300 EVs. If 9/11 had never happened, Kerry would have clearly won.
i concede, this thing is over just now on CNN international, they talked about how kerry overwhelmingly won the vote on people whose #1 issue was iraq... he won by a landslide from those people whose #1 issue was the economy... he won for those people whose #1 issue was jobs wanna know what the issue the most voters checked as their #1 issue? moral values :0 suddenly, i have two questions 1- what kind of loon do you have to be to base your vote on this? 2- bush? moral values? huh? the problem with america is clear to me: it has become much more important how something appears than how it actually is - the US is headed straight toward a frightened right wing christian fundamentalist state that bristles at logic, intellectual thought and hard truth congratulations dumbfvcks, you've proven bushco. correct for pandering to the lowest common denominator
The democrats HAVE the value issues. They value education and health care, for instance, and equal access to it. You know, things that effect real matters of every day life, as well as life and death situations. The republicans don't have moral issues. They have a way of getting ordinary people extra-ordinarily concerned with what other people... people who live far away from them, people they never see, are doing with their sex organs. That's pretty much the extent of the Republican's "moral" high ground. They clothe it in religious language, but it has nothing to do with "morality" and everything to do with fears that other people might be enjoying themselves.
Apparently, lying about your military record (or lack of) and killing innocent civilians in Iraq don't fall under "moral values" for these voters.
1-what a surprise, i ask two perfectly legitimate questions, and it makes no sense to a bush voter - we are in a war with more of the same likely on the way, the country has several serious economic issues that deeply affect the average family... but instead the largest segment of voters list "moral values" as their key issue - now how is that not messed up? the electorate is becoming as utterly delusional as the candidates they elect on a regular basis - when we have a problem, it doesn't get dealt with honestly - it gets a gloss or a diversion to take it out of proper view, and the problem never gets a real solution because all effort has been spent to spin the issue so that everybody feels all better about it btw i forgot to mention that bush got 79% of the moral values vote... i'd laugh if it wasn't so so so so so so so so so so sad 2-yes, and... ?
Well yeah, that's the evangelical faith-based vote kicking in. They have an idea in their heads of what kind of person Bush is, and there was no fact or event during his tenure that was going to sway them from voting the way they did. For all the talk about how people would be swayed by the "9/11 changed everything" conversions (see Silver, Ron), they didn't exist in significant enough numbers to flip any state that was physically touched by 9/11 (NY, NJ, PA, CT, DC, MA). The WOT was fourth in the overall importance list behind morality, Iraq, and the economy. Yesterday was the biggest indicator yet that the country is split on moral and cultural lines more than purely political or economic lines. The gay marriage votes are an even bigger indicator of that than the Pres race.
Now there's a load off of my mind. I think you have just demonstrated why people who consider this to be important would overwhelmingly vote for Bush. He didn't talk down to them, he talked to them; he didn't take on your condescending moral tone, he was one of them. If you want to understand electoral politics, understand that it is about people and connecting with them. It is not about acting superior and treating them condescendingly. You have n idea of the problem with America, and we sure as hell don't need you to point it out to us. You should be careful of how broad a brush you paint with.
Since when does "What kind of a loon do you have to be to...? qualify as a "perfectly legitimate question?
Lying about your record and killing civilians, sounds alot like John Kerry's Vietnam experience. I guess the candidates had more in common than we thought.
right... my single bigsoccer post has everything to do with what "moral values" bush holds classic you have got to be kidding TRANSLATION: tell them what they want to hear ummm yeah, i'm american dude
For many years AFTER the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the South voted as a Democraic block. That began to change in the 70's due to progressively more liberal policies from the Democratic party. Who's biases are on display now?
The American election process: where the willing and the able run for the highest office of the land, and we choose the willing.
This is such a ridiculous statement, it hardly deserves a response.. "everything to do with fears that other people might be enjoying themselves."????? Yeah, because obviously all of these people who oppose gay marriage and abortion view these things as "enjoyable"... Get a clue...
That's not true. How many states did Humphrey carry in 1968? http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/ One. Your assertion is contradicted by the facts.
ahead of iraq, the war on terror and the economy? this question is self explanatory and completely appropriate - i'm sorry... isn't killing foreign peoples a "moral issue" - what about out own young men and women dying in a desert a half a world from home? - how about people losing their jobs in droves while multi multi millionaire executives escape legal justice time and time again? ya know, just because a question is loaded (if not inflammatory) does not mean it is unfair - i wholeheartedly stand by my assertion that one would have to be painfully dense to place a faith-based basis on their vote when our country is so clearly ailing NEWSFLASH: sometimes hearing the stuff you don't want to hear is good for you, and sometimes it is a downright requisite
I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you, but I was talking about your condescending post. Do "moral issues" matter to you? Where do you stand on gay marriage? Where do you stand on the role of religion in shaping policy? Your POV on these things are "moral issues" and for you to belittle others for voting based on them is both disingenuous and condescending. You have a gift for oversimplification. Speaking for Americans everywhere, we would thank you to not advertise that.