So, What Happened?

BBC said last night that no sitting senator has been elected Pres. since Kennedy.

 

I honestly think we just need to nominate someone from the South or Midwest. That alone would be worth a couple points.

Second, Kerry should have focused more on the economy and less on Iraq (I anticipate someone mentioning that people who voted on Iraq voted for Kerry...WRONG..the Reeps who voted on Iraq called it "terrorism"). Most people had no idea what he would do if elected. Clinton stuck to a couple economic issues, but Kerry was totally unfocused.

Oh, well. I feel sorry for Kerry. Imagine what it must feel like to come that close to being President of the United States. All that work and nothing to show for it.

 

What happened? People voted based on morality as opposed to the issues.

 

I wish people had voted their morality based on the teachings of the church of foos.

but alas, the bible clearly says that a vote for Kerry = a Vote for Satan.



(curses alabama)

(then ohio)

(then alabama again)

 

As long as you continue to start a whole thread about "What happened?" and then SPIN it with answers like "black people didn't show up and 'Reeps' pushed out more negative advertising while their 'kooky' evangelicals showed up in droves", be prepared to face another Democrat defeat in 2008. Rather than pointing the finger to the person next to you, how about pointing it to yourself. That is what the Democrat platform must do. There is no room for cultural values in the Democrat Party. Thats all I say.

(ps. the Democrat Party and its supporter 527 groups outnumbered Republicans in negative advertising by a margin of 7-1. SEVEN to ONE. Are you smart enough to make conclusions based on that alone?)

 

Amendment 1 in Ohio (gay marriage ban) brought out Bush's neocon/evangelical base in extremely large numbers and probably turned Ohio in his direction.

That was the election right there

(Cause I'm sure Kerry's and the Dems mistakes which were legion will be hashed out ad nauseum elsewhere.)

 

I'm gonna steal this phrase. I've been trying to explain how Iraq didn't help Kerry, and this is much better than the confusing crap I've been saying.

 

I wanna see a link for this. I'm calling bullsh**, unless you're EXcluding Dem and Rep negative ads.

 

Yes, it's my fault the democratic party lost. I take the blame.

If I can admit that, can you at least admit that the evangelicals are indeed kooky?

 

The Democrat party needs to become a party of good ideas presented in a positive fashion. This is where they missed the mark the farthest. Far too much angry condemnation of Bush and not enough solid planning.

Also it was very clear that things like gay marriage and partial-birth abortion as cornerstone issues were not approved by a wide majority of the US population.

This gets to the heart of the "moral values" position which the Republicans dominated. When you combine the Dem losses in the Senate and House with the Presidential vote, this election was a HUGE disaster for Dems. Tom Daschle is the first sitting Senator to lose his seat in 50 YEARS!

If it were not for the fact that the major networks were so pro-Kerry, the margin of loss would have been far greater. One talking head last night postulated the major networks were responsible for a 15 point difference. While that sounds huge and I'm not sure I agree, all you had to do was surf the various networks last night to see the the Big 3 plus CNN were in shock that Kerry was losing. IN fact, CNN still will not admit that Ohio is over even though Kerry is reportedly ready to condede.

Hear is a factoid that says it all, NO Dem presidential candidate has won 50% of the vote since Jimmy Carter. That says how far the Dems are from the mainstream.

Being in denial is not a good position for a party that has just suffered a major defeat.

 

so why did Bush narrow the margins in states like NY, NJ and CA?
Kerry recieved nearly a half million votes less in CA then Gore... and Gore had Nader taking an additional half million.
So that is another million votes -the tide that seperated the two in california that didnt seem to vote.

In connecticut, kerry gained about 30,000 votes over gore.But Bush gained over 100,000 votes from alst time around.

Even in Kerry's home state the president improved his numbers.gaining nearly 200,000 votes over his 2000 total (kerry gained about the same over gore)

In New Jersey Kerry imroved over Gore by about 10,000... but Bush gained about 300,000 votes

In New York kerry LOST 200,000 votes from Gores total... the president gained about 350,000.

you can spin it any way you want.Blame the religious right.Blame ohio.. blame florida.. blame John kerry, blame Karl rove...

but the truth of the matter is that not only did Bush's base come out.But he expanded his base in key liberal states.Sure.. the GOP wont win the electoral vote anytime soon int hose places.But the key reason Bush wont he Popular vote is related to his showing in those states.

Ohio didnt hand the president the popular vote... states like New york did.

 

errrrrrrrrrrr - I'm talking electoral college here. Which is what truly is important.

Go back to your hole jacknut

 

Your question on "evangelicals" is indicative of a PART of the problem. The reality is that over 80% of the US population believe there is a God. While not all of those are "evangelicals," it IS indicative of the fact that painting all these people as KOOKY will be counter-productive, and it was.

Assuming that all the people who voted for Bush were "kooky" is a major denial. There is a far greater base than that. Please don't take this personally but this is a major reason for the Kerry defeat.

 

That is correct. Goldwater (1964), McGovern (1972), Dole (1996), and now Kerry have all failed. There's simply too much voting record that can be spun and distorted.

Governors make great presidential candidates on the other hand. They are 5-1 in post-war elections.

 

What about House Reps, how's their record?

Thanx in advance.

You have given too much rep in the last 24 hours

 

A lot of Bush's gains in states that he still lost have to do with people voting for a sitting president while we are still at war. I can appreciate that. Had there never been a 9/11 or Iraq, I think Bush would have never been focused on what he wanted to be, and I certainly don't think he would have had middle of the road democrats voting for him based on his faith.

In my mind, there was a real message that never got through to the masses. The 100 Facts thread that Mel started really provided a good summary of where this guy should have been weak.

I got tired of hearing about people that should have been more informed, but they weren't. A friend of my Wife has three kids, and was voting for Bush for security reasons even though here husband was very pro-Kerry. I wish she would have read the "100" list.

If Bush really were better on security, and a better leader in the "war on terror" I would have seriously considered overlooking all of the other issues that I disagree with him on -- but he is not.

I disagree that the dems were too negative. That argument comes up all the time, and it backfires. You rarely heard Bush and Cheney's names at the Democratic convention, but then Kerry Edwards got absolutely drilled in response.

The problem was the issues that made news, and the Kerry campaign's lack of ability to influence what was out there. Instead of some damn air guard document, how about some video going around the perimiter of a chemical plant on main street USA that is completely unsecure. How about more and earlier attacks on the diversion that was Iraq.

That is something that I think was effective in getting Kerry back into the race in October and should have been a major theme at the convention.

The bottom line is that the democrats can't and shouldn't try to win by being more republican. 2008 will be a referendum on the republican party. It will be far too removed to blame Clinton for anything, and they have a strong hold on all branches of government.

If things go well, it will be like the republicans running in 1996. If things go poorly, we might see a mass booting to give the other party a chance.

 

James A. Garfield (1880) is the only president who won the election as a sitting member of the House. But since then no sitting member has won a major party nomination. John Anderson ran as an independent in 1980 while he was in the House. In the last century the only president for whom the bulk of his political career was in the House was Ford.

 

Also Senators tend to micro-manage every detail with the idea that no one else can be trusted while governors tend to be better delegaters with a stronger belief in individuals. This to me, was the Kerry attitude to a fault.

 

McGovern was senator. HHH was LBJ's VP at the time, but he was Senator before.

Copied & pasted from elsewhere: Kennedy was the last sitting senator to be elected president. Nixon and LBJ were VPs before they were elected president.
Otherwise, every former senator - Humphreys, McGovern, Goldwater, Mondale, Dole, Gore and Kerry - has failed in their presidential bids.

Contrast that with state governors who have run for president: Clinton, GW Bush, Reagan, Carter, Dukakis and (snicker) George Wallace.

 

True, and another problem with the Senate is that it demands compromises and picking battles, which hurts if you want to avoid being labelled a flip flopper.

Governors have less of that problem, and they tend to be defined by broad ideas rather than voting record.

 

The opposition will have to do more to appeal to the religious next time around. Something happened where people in the South believed those pamphlets they received stating Kerry was going to ban the bible. By no means should anyone have believed Kerry would ban the bible, but what did he/Dems do to change the belief or debate the flat-out lie?

Whoever runs against Ahnold in 2008 (presuming the amendment passes) is also going to have to demonstrate that s/he is NOT a "left-wing liberal" or "the most liberal blah, blah, blah" as the GOP will always claim. Every time the GOP tries to make things divisive, the Dems need to counter to the middle.

Frankly, this was probably the Dems' last stand for a while. America LOVES catch-phrase spouting movie stars, and I think that's coming next.

PS--Kerry really ********ed up about Iraq, and it cost him.

 

Sorry to hear you are not proud to be an American.

We just had an election in which the highest number of Americans voted in the history of the country with fewer voting problems than ever. That in and of itself is something for which everyone should be proud. What other country can say that?

The fact that a portion of your views do not agree with the majority of America is nothing to be ashamed of. The fact is, there is far more to the base of the people who voted for Bush, and against Kerry, than just the fact that some of them happen to be evangelical Christians. Perhaps learning more about what Christians actually believe we be useful in understanding why this group of people DO support Bush 90% of the time. But even if 100% of Christians voted for the Republican, that would not be nearly enough to elect the President without a great deal of support for other issues.

The fact is, this country WAS founded on a basis of Christ-based teachings. Those who choose not to accept that reality condemn themselves to not understanding why they are losing. There is much more to Christianity than just some symbols of events. That is the key issue, and a lot of Americans voted on it.