Did the Dems have a chance?
Friday, November 5th, 2004 - 9:04pm
"My advice to the Democrats is never, never nominate anybody from Massachusetts again," said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041106/ap_on_el_pr/d...
There is a lot of second guessing going on in the Democratic party as to whether Kerry was the best pick for the nomination. Should they have stuck with Howard Dean? Was there a candidate out there that could have beaten Bush?
I'm bringing sexy back!
Kerry had a great turn out and ran a good campaign. Bush was the better choice and that is why he won. The central proposition that Kerry could have won if he did X, Y, and Z, means that the American people are too dumb to see how horrible Bush is. Clinton was a better choice than Dole and Bush Sr., that is why he won.
Tanglebones wrote:
You''re not endorsing that proposition, are you? Should I play you for a day as a tradeoff?
“While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.” - Justice John Paul Stevens
Thank God we have all these conservatives to tell us what we did wrong.
Seriously, though, it''s disingenuous to talk about the contempt liberals have for anyone who doesn''t agree with them. I''m not wanting to paint with too big a brush here, but I hear no shortage of conservatives who don''t like liberals - not don''t like what liberals are saying, but just don''t like them. I think, by and large, most of us are exceptions on both sides of the fence, but there''re no more liberals that don''t like conservatives than there are conservatives who don''t like liberals.
I don''t have much to say on the Democratic Message. That will get sorted out in the coming years, not the hyperbolic exaggerations of the immediate post-election drama. I will say that a lot of Republicans who were just packing their bags a few days ago, certain that the white house was out of reach, are suddenly forgetting their ennui. This election _should_ have been a lot better for the Republicans with a sitting wartime president during said time of war.
I felt -- I feel -- that Shawn, Rob and Julian were making out with the game, and as their friend I felt it was important to point out that they were making out with an ugly chick. - Cory Banks, keeping it real
No, I didn''t mean you in particular. I can see how you read it that way, but it wasn''t my intent.
On the other point, that sounds like sour grapes at having lost. Whining comes with most defeats, that''s just human nature and not tied to a particular party.
I felt -- I feel -- that Shawn, Rob and Julian were making out with the game, and as their friend I felt it was important to point out that they were making out with an ugly chick. - Cory Banks, keeping it real
Agreed - and it''s always much easier to be a gracious winner than loser.
chum
Xbox Live: Chumtastic
I agree!
There was a time post 9/11 I felt that Bush would be undefeatable in the election. Things shifted around quite a bit after that and I began to wonder how Bush could possibly stay in office.
Anyone who posted in this thread is a racist.*
*Except me. - Certis
I never thought that after 9/11 that Bush would be a shoe in. He had over three years until reelection and the Democrats waited about three weeks before they started attacking him again.
Tanglebones wrote:
This is a time of strength for Republicans. The Democrats really didn''t have a chance no matter who they nominated.
After Reagan, the GOP thought ""They love us!"". No, they loved Reagan. When the GOP lost the 1992 election they stepped back, retooled the message (Contract w/ America), and recruited a bunch of new candidates. This was important when clearing out the old party guys who rose up in the ranks out of party loyalty (Bush Sr., Dole). This is paying huge dividends now. They have dominated political matters since then.
Clinton won because he was a strong candidate, not because of the Democratic Party. After he left the White House, the Democrats thought ""They love us!"". No, they loved Clinton. The last two major Democratic candidates have been party hacks; guys who rise in the ranks due to party loyalty. That isn''t enough to win the presidency. There is a lot of deadwood in the party now.
How do the Dems get out of this hole? The House and Govenorships. That is the only way to build a strong base at the federal level. They need to retool their ideas. Not abandon them, but really make them interesting. No more boring state handouts and special interest group pandering. It needs to be strong on the U.S. being an international leader and strongly pro-investor.
They have a good start on the Governorships -- they need to do much better. While they have a lot of them in number, they have no one who has charisma and strength. This is where the strongest presidential candidates come from. They need to find a big Republican governor and take them down with a strong energetic candidate earmarked for the presidency -- no matter the $$$. This will create a good presidential candidate with a bright future.
The House is the ground where you develop the strong, broad based, field of candidates that can dominate a decade of elections. They currently have too many empty hacks there.
I''m not sure Democrats are ready for the serious introspection this will take. But, remember, I''m not saying this because they lost this election...(excepting Clinton)they have lost every major election since 1992. Their problem is serious.
(WoW) Whyppet Warlock - Dragonblight
(WoW) Whack Shaman - Dragonblight
(WoW) Quintana Druid - Dragonblight
(PS3)Now Playing: L.A. Noire
Kerry ran a horrible campaign and that is why he lost. While he did manage to get out the vote, he didn''t do it to the extent that Rove did. Further, he didn''t have a single memerable slogan. Bush had numerous slogans that worked incredibly well such as the flip-flopper idea, the he''s so far left he''s not on the wing idea, and (related to flip-flopper) the idea that Kerry was indecisive.
Further, Kerry had major problems getting his own campaign staff to agree on issues and direction.
Kerry lost because his campaign was horrible and Bush won because Rove ran an almost perfect campaign.
Did anyone see SNL after the first debate, where they had Kerry say roughly ""Bush says I flip flop. I don''t flip flop. When I''m in front of a pro-war audience I support Iraq, and when I''m in front of an anti-war audience, I tell them what they want to hear, and I''m here to tell you that''s not flip-flopping, that''s pandering, and we deserve a president who knows the difference!""
Wouldn''t have been great if Kerry''s slogan had been ""Kerry: Pandering, not Flip-Flopping!"" Yup, I''d have still voted for him.
I felt -- I feel -- that Shawn, Rob and Julian were making out with the game, and as their friend I felt it was important to point out that they were making out with an ugly chick. - Cory Banks, keeping it real
You would have voted for anyone in the box next to Bush. Which is the major problem with the party, you guys don''t have any vision. When the largest base of your support is people who don''t like the guy in office and not your ideas, major problems. Has the Democratic party had a new idea in the last thirty years? The only thing I can think of is Universal Health Care.
On social secuirty I know that the party is against personal accounts. They''re against tax free health savings accounts and small businesses grouping to get discounted rates. Their economic policy is to raise taxes on indviduals and give corp welfare to companies to keep jobs here. Ignoring the reason why jobs are shipped over seas in the first place.
I think the party needs to stop trying to run campaigns from the middle and run a campaign based on ideas. Bush ran on a vision. Kerry didn''t.
Tanglebones wrote:
Well, considering it was coming down to who won Ohio, I think Kerry did rather well.
This election was rural vs urban and rural america won. Look at the percentages all along the south. Bush won by 10-12 points in states from New Orleans to South Carolina.
I suspect this significant gap has to do with the gay marraige issue. I wish people would educate themselves that the president has little power in the process to legalize gay marraige and that just because the state he comes from ratified it, doesnt mean its even going to be part of the candidates presidential agenda.
What was Bush''s vision?
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
Miami, FLSeattle, WAA giant mirror in the middle east.
Steam|Xbox Live|LoL|Twitter|
Kerry and Bush were both against gay marriage.
Before I begin I should note that I am a Republican. With that said, the GOP does not win by having a vision. The only vision they currently have is that whatever they say is the right thing to do. Of corse the Dems don''t have vision either.
The reason it came down to Ohio is because Karl Rove did a hell of a job in Florida. Had we lost Florida, we would have lost the election. Kerry''s team ran a bad campaign. Until the Dems get a good political mind to do the backend work of campaigning and designing the platform, they are screwed. If they could convince Carville to come out of retirement, they would have a chance, but as it is they are not going to do well for a long time. Essentially the GOP has Karl Rove is one of the smartest men in politics while the Dems don''t have anyone that is still participating in policy that can compete with him.
Clinton was a horrible candidate. His candidacy was plagued with numerous scandals and controversies. He won because he had a great campaign that managed to downplay his low points and make a huge deal of his opponents shortcomings.
They learn to get their vote out. The majority of the population self-identifies as Democrat, but it is also beginning to trend slightly Republican. If the Democrats could get more of the vote out they would do better.
As for a long term solution, they need to win the South back which is no easy task because the South is fiercely anti-bureaucracy. The Dems need to stop pushing social welfare programs as much as they do and instead focus on things that would actually benefit the average voter, things like social security reform. Further, they need to push the deficit issue hard. If they could become the party of fiscal responsibility, they would be golden.
[quote=""scoli""] The majority of the population self-identifies as Democrat, but it is also beginning to trend slightly Republican. If the Democrats could get more of the vote out they would do better.[quote]
Disagree here...think the country is about 40/40/20...so no majority there...at all
[quote] As for a long term solution, they need to win the South back which is no easy task because the South is fiercely anti-bureaucracy. The Dems need to stop pushing social welfare programs as much as they do and instead focus on things that would actually benefit the average voter, things like social security reform. Further, they need to push the deficit issue hard. If they could become the party of fiscal responsibility, they would be golden.[/quote]
Well said. But the Dems foundation puts them at odds with the south''s anti-bureacracy mindset... The Dems don''t want to target the average voter...instead hitting their splintered base of liberal interest groups. I think your deficit suggestion would be a huge help, but you can''t fix the deficit the way Bush or Kerry suggested (one with tax cuts during war - the other with promising every type of social pledge humanly possible to everyone and their brother). The Dems seem to have lost their way with no new ideas...not saying my GOP has done a wonder job here either though.
To me...the bottom line is the Dems CANNOT become the party of fiscal responsibility (although Clinton seemed to focus on this) because the welfare/handout programs that are the basis of their core constituency bring in NO income, but costs million/billions...so tough to balance the books that way!
Unless you're running out of mana overhealing is the most worthless stat in the game. Underhealing is effectively known as "wiping".
so sayeth the Bear...
Nope, the majority of the country is Democrat. If you really want me to dig through the journals for a citation, I will.
Scoli,
would love to see it just for curiosity...I''ve never seen anything that pegs the country as half democratic...
Unless you're running out of mana overhealing is the most worthless stat in the game. Underhealing is effectively known as "wiping".
so sayeth the Bear...
Promoting democracy in the middle east. Personal accounts for social secuirty, tax free health savings accounts, letting small businesses group together to get better prices on insurance like large companies, the ownership ideas.
That is vision.
Tanglebones wrote:
So basically large hand outs to the financial industry and making the rest of the world be democratic by gunpoint is his vision??
Personal SS accounts: Wall Street is salivating at this
Tax free health savings accounts: Another boon to Wall Street
Promoting Democracy: Listen, lets get this straight.. the Middle East as a society is just getting out of the Middle ages.. they are just barely over feudalistic. Let them battle for their own democracy. The only reason we want them to be democratic is so we can buy them out for their oil. (which already happened with the Saud''s anyway)
Small business group together for insurance: This I actually agree with.
Playing WoW as: new father with a liquid crack habit
"Nation, I've always said that rainbows are just God's way of frowning at gay people." Stephen Colbert
But seriously, though, since you mention it by name - while Bush certainly won Louisiana (57% for the click-impaired), Orleans Parish (county) went decisively to Kerry (77%) and was the blue-est [county] in the state by a significant margin.
Disclosure: I live in Jefferson Parish (62% Bush) but that does not necessarily reflect my personal politics.
Steam
GWJFFLK|GWJFFL1|GWJFFL2|GWJFFL3|GWJFFLD
How dare George Bush let people invet some of their money in a retirement plan that will yeild better returns! Why is what bad? Because it helps corporations, who sit all corporationanly, in their big corporation! We should keep them locked into a ponzy scheme that yeilds low return so we make sure no white guys in dress shirts make a penny!
Tanglebones wrote:
If he was serious about letting *me* invest *my* money in *my* own way, he would let *me* opt out of SS and let *me* invest it how *I* see fit, not some gov''t account.
And then pigs would fly and the Cub''s would win the world series.
Playing WoW as: new father with a liquid crack habit
"Nation, I've always said that rainbows are just God's way of frowning at gay people." Stephen Colbert
And how would you invest it?
Tanglebones wrote:
I''ve seen far too many news articles that attempt to claim rural America elected the president. I think if we remove those in the suburban areas we come to the realization that Bush would have lost, remove certain groups based on religion or ethnicity and the numbers drop again. The fact remains that this was diverse and in elections, one group''s vote is hardly more important and thus warranting distinction as a special group by which one can claim a candidate won. We can create all kinds of grouping to prove and disprove this point.
Certain groups can put a candidate over the top, but its the greater whole and the agreement of a majority that creates a concensus behind the candidate. Pulling 200,000 voters from all walks of life from one candidate usually places them in another and can influence percentage points in each catagory.
I''ll humor my cynical nature, I believe there is a sentiment in many media circles to marginalize the ""rural voter"" in claiming that those living in out of touch and rural communities tip the election in Bush''s favor due to lack of understanding or for simplistic goals. Surely there must be some fluke to a democratic loss.
"We do not come in peace, we come ahead of peace to secure it's arrival by force of arms"
Jason_O --- extremely well said! Good points Anti Matter...
To be more blunt...it astounds me when many tend to toss in that the rural communities are out of touch and backwards, giving Bush the election...when on the other side, the Dems tend to target the fringe groups, and its proven, with less education and less understanding of issues time and again. So, its pure irony to hear that drivel coming from commentators mouths.
You can''t say, well, take away this group from Bush, and he would have lost...well...of course...take away a 90% black vote and Kerry prob couldn''t have won in his own household...You can''t what if voting blocks in a sensical manner...(well...you can...but doesn''t make sense
)
Again...I guess my point is you shouldn''t marginalize any voters...those that vote deserve credit for doing what should be done...i.e, voting... whether from the liberal or conservative side of the aisle... It makes no sense to discredit voters because they put morality first, or they put rural farm issues first, or they put ''give me mo welfare'' first...
Just my 2.7 cents...
Unless you're running out of mana overhealing is the most worthless stat in the game. Underhealing is effectively known as "wiping".
so sayeth the Bear...
Sorry it took me so long to respond, but I''ve been very busy.
While this is not the most recent data, it should satisfy you. I would look for more recent data for you, but I''m actually in the middle of doing a major research/ polling project for a class and hopefully,with some cleaning up and perhaps the assitance of a professor, publication.
http://www.census.gov/prod/1/gen/95statab/election.pdf
What appears to be a plurality in this document is actually a majority because of the way the questions are structured. For the option of ""Independant"" I believe they left out the options of Independant Leaning GOP or Dem.
Further, the data would have been much more intersting had the questions been formated to make a distinction between Weak Party, Party, and Strong Party.
Had these options been on there the results would have shifted to a majority.
Scoli...great info...lots of info. Going to read it tonight...on glance though...it seems to point that Dems are around the 50% mark...although the graph doesn''t give enough accuracy to pin it at 49 or 51. Based on the fact that the Repub is about the 40 mark...lets call it 43, and the independent is around 12, that pegs the dem at 45% - right inbetween what you and I though...i.e, 40/40/20 and 51 Dem for you...
Also, this is 92 data, and I''d think that the independent wedge has grown, while the dem and GOP lines have fallen...just a hunch...but I think this last election, where things seemed to be pegged at 43% for Bush / 43% for Kerry until election day seem to hold up.
Agree, obviously coloring the comments with lean dem or lean gop may change things...but look at the lines on the later pages...with the exception of carter and clinton...repub''s have owned the elections...so not sure that all this data holds up.
Good stuff though...and thanks for finding that...
good luck on your research project!
Unless you're running out of mana overhealing is the most worthless stat in the game. Underhealing is effectively known as "wiping".
so sayeth the Bear...