Yeah sure, if he goes down quietly you'd call him a p*ssy. He needed to instill some confidence in the troops after losing. It worked with me. Kerry did the healing, he's done in the presidential race, Edwards is not.
Look, guys, here's the Democrat's problem: the party has moved so far left that it is quickly losing hopes of capturing the average American's vote. The vast majority of Americans don't favor gay marriage. Obviously. It is impalatable to the average American even in "swing" states like Missouri where it was voted down by a 70-30 margin. The vast majority of Americans don't want to submit decisions concerning our country to the world. They don't want to take a "global test." The vast majority of Americans want to keep more of their money. Look, I'm not trying to troll, and feel free to flame away. But you deny this at your continued peril. Truth is, Republicans will have been in the White House for 28 of the past 40 years. It took the biggest scandal in the history of the office and the greatest sheer politician of his generation to claim the White House for the Dems. Americans do not agree with the platform of the left-wing wing of the Democratic party.
I would argue the opposite, actually. It's trying to be Republican Lite but still trying to maintain a progressive identity. Rhetoric and deeds don't match. in re: gay marriage Other than the national constitutional ban, Bush and Kerry were nearly identical on their position. Against gay marriage, okay with civil unions if the people in individual states are okay. Likewise, Kerry's "global test" was vastly misinterpreted. It wasn't about asking the rest of the world for permission; it was about having a universal standard that was inarguable. Global, as in consensus/no exceptions, not global as in every damn country in the world. But in both cases, it was Kerry's fault for not communicating the positions clearly. Majority of the people did share Kerry's position - he just couldn't tell them in a simple, straightforward way.
I'd be on board with you if Bush had cracked 300 EVs either time. Yeah, our margin of error is razor thin...just like Bush's.
I guess the "Curse Of Shrum" will live on forever. I havent found a link with a quote from him-anyone found anything?
There's alot wrong with this post, but I'll highlight two of the most blustiferous parts. If you're making a "magic wand" type statement, well of course. If you put it in terms of choice (deficit reduction or tax cuts) polls show you're wrong. Right, but it took illegally purged voters and an electorate freaked out by 9/11 to keep it from us being 3/4 of the way through 4 consecutive Democratic presidents. And then I could turn your thing around and say, it took George Wallace in '68, and the greatest sheer politician of his generation to keep the last 40 years from being a clean Democratic sweep, except for 1988. The Dems have work to do, but panicking is silly. It's The Day After, so panic is understandable. For now.
Whoa! I'm as right-wing whacko as they come, but what did you expect from him? He couldn't very well come out and say "We got our asses handed to us". That would be a slap in the face of everyone who worked on that campaign. He also needed to at least attempt to lay some sort of claim to the Democratic nomination in '08 as I assume he'll be in the mix. All in all, it was exactly what I expected.
yes, kerry is also to blame - i don't believe many of the people who voted for him have made a secret of their belief that he contributes to this malaise in discourse
The United States had this kind of consensus with Pres. Bush's father for the first Persian Gulf war. Kerry voted AGAINST it!!! With a 4 million vote lead in the popular vote, don't tell us it was simply a failure of communication. If anyone had a problem communicating stuff, it was Dubya. He still won.
Concession and Victory Speeches I thought all of the speeches took a reasonable, conciliatory tone. Even Edwards was not to over the top, and was what I expected of someone who is already thinking about '08. I liked that Bush made a point of saying to Kerry voters that he wants to work with them. We'll see in the next few months if either side means anything by it, since it sounds like Rehnquist is in bad shape.
Exactly "Nobody ever went poor betting on the gullibility of the American Public" P.T. Barnum I have absolutely positively zero faith in the average american to think critically or to engage in any sort of intellectual honesty (this goes for both sides) in public discourse. They'd rather kick back a beer and watch some vapid TV show than do any sort of research on any issue. They'll just absorb what is told them by Moore or Tucker or O'Reilly or Novak or whomever. N.B - I have felt this way for a long time, this election IMO merely confirms it.
And guess who overcame the margin the last two times? And which side is going to have even more safe EVs by 2012? If you think that the winning strategy is to try to lose by only 2 million popular votes next time and eek it out in Ohio, I hope you have fun on the the 2008 edition of this thread. It's not just the electoral college. 6 straight House elections. 0-5-1 in the last 6 Senate elections.
Concerning the speeches, Bush took the trouble to mention our troops and the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. At least one side of the aisle gives a damn about them.
I've done a lot of soul searching today. For starters, the idea that anyone who voted for Bush is stupid is a ridiculous argument. I've got relatives who voted for Bush. I have close friends who voted for Bush. Hell, my mother voted for Bush. They are all extremely intelligent people. There are some idiots who voted for Bush, but I don't believe they were any larger a group than the idiots who voted for Kerry. I think people who voted yesterday, for the most part, knew exactly what they were voting for. This is what scares me. If people voted for Bush saying that they thought the Iraq war was the right thing to do, I would be fine with that. If they said that they voted for him because they believed in his tax cuts as economic stimulus theory, I would be fine with that. Hell, I would even be fine with the "we think we're safer" argument. I hold different opinions on all three areas, but if people were voting based on their differing views on policy, I would be fine with it. That's not what happened. Overwhelmingly, people voted for George Bush because A: their church organized them to, or B: they hate/are afraid of gay people. I've seen a definite trend towards Christian fundamentalism in this country over the last 5 or 6 years. This election is the culmination of that trend in my view. My definition of fundamentalism is using the state to promote one religion. Don't believe me? Go poll the people who voted for Bush based on morality issues and ask them why they don't support gay marriage or civil unions. I'd bet 500 dollars and a bottle of gin that the vast majority will mention "god" or "the Bible" somewhere in their response. Ask those same people what they think is wrong with our schools, and I'd make a similar bet that their answer will include things like "no organized prayer" and "the Bible isn't taught." Some Republicans have openly complained about celebrities stumping for Kerry and his agenda. What about the opposite? What about Chuck Norris' tv campaign urging people to demand that the Bible be taught in public schools? The reason this scares me is because it moves away from the progress we've seen as a nation over the last 150 years. I have nothing against those who hold strong religious beliefs. Hell, I respect them for their convictions. My problem is with their desire to legislate those beliefs to the rest of the population. Based on yesterday's results and the exit-polls on why voters made the choices that they did, Bush's victory was a result of people who want to make Christian law into Federal law. That's a damned dangerous road to tread. Basically, as I said, Bush supporters aren't stupid. They have convictions in their religion that they hold in high regard. Their candidate won as a result of that conviction. But I ask those on these boards to ask themselves this question: Is it really that important? If you want your child to learn the Bible and disrespect the gay community, teach them to do so at home. They are not being taught in school that they should be gay or that the Bible is wrong. Please, raise your child the way that you want, but what right does any person have to tell someone else how to raise their kid? What right does anybody have to tell someone else who they can marry? How are those issues more important than war, poverty, health care and the environment? Finally, with Islam being the fastest growing religion in the nation, what happens to you when Christianity is no longer the most prominant religion in the USA and you've set the precedent for legislating the precepts of one particular faith? Congrats on the victory, but please, take the time to think about some of these questions. If you want to reply to any of this, please keep in mind that I didn't toss you any Democratic talking points, so I would appreciate not receiving any Republican ones in response. Original thought would be appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to read the ramblings of an introspective afternoon.
Sorry, but your mom is an idiot. (So is mine for that matter.) Thank you Karl Rove, the evil genius. BTW, excellent post.
The House is gone. Too many maj-min districts in the South for the Dems to have a prayer of controlling the House for the foreseeable future. The Dems would have to get way over 50%, probably close to 55%, of the House vote nationally to get half the House. The Senate...again, we've been getting killed in those <5% races. Enough to swing the Senate from just the last two elections. My point isn't that there's no problem. My point is that the problem is more at the margins than at the core. As for picking off Ohio...again, how did the GOPs react to '92 and '96? Let me put it this way...if there was a large block of states that a tightening of message, and an updating of our core issues, could swing, then I'd aim for that. But the South sans Florida and Virginia...it's gone. Most of the welfare whores in the Midwest...gone. Trying to win them is gonna just drive you nuts. Aim to hold what we have, pick off Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, and New Mexico. Get most of that, and we win. Worrying about Georgia and Oklahoma and Idaho and Alabama is pointless.
I honestly don't think that's true. Those people are why the GOPs were able to match and perhaps surpass the intensity on our side, the base turnout. But the GOPs would have gotten killed if the suburban middle class voter thought they actually were gonna do all this stuff. And if you want to think as far out as the 2012 election...there's gonna be a huge number of gayhaters dying off, and a huge number of gayfriendly people turning 18 (or going from 22 year old nonvoters to 30 year old voters.) Add the continuing decline of white people, and the GOPs have a tough hand to finesse. But if they do it, it's bad. Reeeeal baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad. As the % of white Americans decline and gayunfriendly Americans decline, how are they next going to define "them?" Those of y'all who know my family situation knows why that scares the crap out of me.
Now that i'm finally sober, i must think after doing some introspection of my own, that fear ruled the election.....Almost everything W. has done is justified by fear of terrorism and the "inability" of Kerry to make us safer ('we will be blown to bits if he is elected').... At times,when even economic policy was brought up as an issue (as to why no jobs were created with tax cuts), W. went right back and made always a reference of 9/11 to somehow explain everything.....Iraq..."it's about the war on terror"...... Of course, the gay issue is also about fear, as you mentioned.... BTW, hillarious to see Cheney talk about a campaign of hope.....
Exactly. If neither candidate managed to flip a state this time around, Bush still would've increased his electoral count from 2000 to 2004 because of the shift of populations from blue to red states. As of this moment, CNN hasn't called Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico, but look at their electoral vote scorecard. Bush has won one fewer state (New Hampshire) than he did in 2000 and but of the states that he did win, he's got three more electoral votes than in 2000. If the Democrats want to win, they're either going to have to figure out how to win Southern or Western states. Period. There's no way around it.
I don't know about that. The suburban middle class, the highly religious portion of it at any rate, holds strong to the "morality" justification offered by Bush. I think the GOP has realized that, which explains the semi-recent push to force creationism, religious morality and the Bible back into the public schools. They want to force the nation's youth to adopt their religious viewpoint to governance. I don't know what you're talking about, but if it makes you feel any better, I think the general goal of the W crowd is to use the schools to make sure that gayunfriendly Americans never decline. They saw with desegregation what happens when people are exposed to multiple viewpoints.
Jacen, sorry to just jump in the thread since I haven't been a part of the discussion to this point, but I just thought I would mention my own perspective on what some of you said. FWIW, I'm also a part of the 18-29 year old voter block that voted for Bush. As I've been raised and taught in a Christian household, homosexuality is a sin against God. Most research I've seen indicates that there is no definite genetic cause of homosexuality (I'm also a first year med student, so it's not like I've only read one article about it in my whole life). Given that belief, homosexuals who continue to sin against God shouldn't be able to have the God-directed union of marriage, which was created for being between a man and a woman. The Bible states that homosexual acts are an abomination. HOWEVER, the greatest gift of God is love. Also, in the Christian belief system, we are all sinners (something too many self-righteous people who are Christians seem to forget) and are no better in God's eyes than anyone else. Therefore, although we may believe homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals should not be allowed to be legally married, that does not mean that we should in any way treat them differently than anyone else on a daily basis. The phrase I use is "Hate the sin, love the sinner." The Bible says to "Love your neighbor as yourself," and homosexuals are as much my neighbor as anyone else. So while I believe homosexuality is wrong, and I don't think homosexuals should be able to get married, I don't harbor any ill will towards homosexuals nor in the future if a homosexual patient came to me for medical care, would I treat them any differently than I would a heterosexual patient. As far as Christianity in the schools, in some instances (I can't say all, and won't try to), I believe the outcry is a response to areas where other religions are taught to students in an informative manner to make them aware of the religion, its beliefs and basic practices, while Christianity is excluded. This has most prominently occurred with Islam. In my opinion, if any religion will be taught in schools, ALL major religions should be treated equally (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) without excluding any. I would be fine with it if no religions were discussed in the schools, again, as long as all are treated equally. Recently, it seems Christianity has been more attacked/excluded/persecuted against than other religions. Alright, I'm done now. Hopefully that made some sense. I'll try not to get too involved in these threads 'cause they get me too revved up and keep me from my studies...like this one...
the fact of the matter is that karl rove did an excellent job... at the end of the day, it didnt matter how many black churches kerry went to because rove has had people out rallying the evangelicals for the past 3 1/2 years... straight up, rove whooped jessie jackson and al sharpton's asses and enough with this bullsh.it about people being afraid of gays and the dems having true values, the american people simply decided that the protection and morality of the nation is not something they were willing to give up because the economy isnt performing as well as were told it should be.. today is a great day to be an american.. I actually am excited that we are restoring some of the values in this country, and if you dont like it you can leave... this country was founded because of religious intollerance among christians and when the concept of freedom of religion was introduced, muslims were not even part of the discussion.