Jump to content

2 reasons why Bush won the election


BewareofNick
This topic is 6597 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

A second term for the worst President ever is a pretty hard pill to swallow, yet here we are. Now we have to ask ourselves why.

 

Of course, the conspiracy theorists are out there with the latest theory: Diebold rigged the elections. In August 0f 2003, Wally O'Dell, CEO of Diebold stated his support for the Republican Party and notes he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year." Some have taken that to mean that the election was rigged. Could it be? Perhaps, but this line of thinking didn't do us any good in the past and will be counterproductive for the next 4 years. Let's give it a rest. As of January 20, 2005, George Bush will no longer be a pretendident. He'll be a duly elected, majority elected president.

 

Reason #1: Homophobia

 

The Bush team played the gay card and did it extremely well. It's no coincidence that of the 11 states that voted on Tuesday, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and even Oregon – the one state where gay rights activists had hoped to prevail, a few of these, most notably Ohio, were battleground states. The GOP was able to use this measure to turn out the angry white evangelical Christian vote. Indeed, the usual canard of higher voter turnout = Democratic strength, fell apart because the GOP did a better job at turning out the vote, and not just in the aforementioned 11. After revving the faithful up, Bush himself took a step back and said he's be okay with civil unions, while the party itself continued on the original message.

 

Reason #2: Democratic Charlie Brown

 

Were voters for Kerry or against Bush? Kerry was seen as the most "electable", not as the best candidate. He was not a unifying force but rather the candidate of last resort. Granted, Kerry received the 2nd most votes for a presidential candidate in history (Shrubya being first of course), but he never caught fire. To win in 2008, the Democrats will have to find someone to rally around. Someone who can unify the party like it hasn't been since Bill Clinton. Odds on favorite at the moment is Hillary. She could do it, with either John Edwards or Barack Obama as her VP...

 

BUT

 

The democrats will have to have a MESSAGE and it can't just be look at how bad Bush has further fucked everything up in his second term. We'll do better. The democrats will have to capture the hearts and minds of the electorate and have a message that is not just "Bush lied, people died." Give people a reason to vote FOR you not against the other guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 Million Reasons

 

Plain and simple, some four million Christian evangelicals did not vote in 2000 but did so this year. I would agree with your analysis that the gay card was played, successfully and quite cynically, by republican strategist, led by Karl Rove. I believe it is instructive that the four million number so closely tracks Bush's popular vote difference with Kerry, as otherwise there is a great deal of consistency between the vote in 2004 and the vote in 2000.

 

Ultimately, as minorities increase in even greater number and as socially liberal young people become actual voters, the make up of voting population will change and no party will be able to rely upon culturally conservative or predominantly white voters for a victory.

 

As the state of California changed between Pete Wilson's two terms and today, with twelve years or so, the nation as a whole will change. This election is likely the last grasp of both social conservatives, religious Christian fundamentalism and successful wedge politics.

 

 

http://www.gaydar.co.uk/francodisantis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BON,

 

>To win in 2008, the Democrats will have to

>find someone to rally around. Someone who can unify the party

>like it hasn't been since Bill Clinton. Odds on favorite at

>the moment is Hillary. She could do it, with either John

>Edwards or Barack Obama as her VP...

 

Hillary Clinton will not play well at all in 90% of the red states. In order to win this next time, the Dems need to run a governor from a southern state. Someone Bubba in a pickup has something in common with. While Hillary may be the odds on favorite with gay men, Hillary is a smart, independent woman who scares an awful lot of men. An awful lot of women just plain don't like her.

 

Kerry/Edwards didn't carry his own state in this election. That would not seem to be a positive sign for his future.

 

As modern as we like to think we are, most of the US just isn't ready for a Clinton/Obama ticket.

 

Since Jack Kennedy, the only Democrats elected have come from the south: Johnson, Carter and Clinton. Two were governors. I think this may represent a clue.

 

--EBG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Kerry would have won if he had convinced the voters that he could do a better job than Bush--and I am a Republican. The problem, which didn't get much discussion, is that Kerry really had poor qualifications for the job. He had been a Senator for 20 years but he never been a leader in the Senate. He had never been an executive, never a cabinet member, never an administrator of an agency. Yet he wanted to step into his first executive position in the middle of a war. He asserted that he could do a better job on the war, but he had no basis for saying that. Without experience, it was an empty boast. Who would hire a man as the Chief Executive Officer who had no previous managment experience? Sure, there were other issues, but I believe that anyone who really believed that Kerry could do a better job than Bush would have voted for him. We all want Iraq to come out right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>In August 0f

>2003, Wally O'Dell, CEO of Diebold stated his support for the

>Republican Party and notes he is "committed to helping Ohio

>deliver its electoral votes to the President next year." Some

>have taken that to mean that the election was rigged. Could

>it be? Perhaps, but this line of thinking didn't do us any

>good in the past and will be counterproductive for the next 4

>years. Let's give it a rest.

 

Give it a rest? Ignore it and it will go away? That kind of thinking is very dangerous. If we don't stop the easily-hacked Diebold and get paper trails in the e-voting machines, we will never win anything in the future and people will never feel that their vote will count or be counted.

 

>Odds on favorite at

>the moment is Hillary

 

It's actually Howard Dean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick,

 

I am the last one to suggest not pursuing that course of action. I think it's very possible that there was fraud committed. If so, it should be pursued, but behind the scenes, much as it would have been conducted. My point though is if we pursue it ad nauseum, the way we did in Florida in 2000, we'll never uncover it. We need to uncover it (if it occurred) the same way it was committed, behind the scenes and under the radar, then we blow the lid off the mother once we have irrefutable proof of it.

 

Neal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Rick, I know that you're a big fan of Dean (and I am too, as a matter of fact--Dean and McCain both intrigue me). However, have you seen the slam that Newsweek is putting on Dean in this week's issue? They must have some back up to their story because the claims seem pretty outrageous (e.g. that Dean didn't want to be President, just wanted his views heard).

 

Check out this article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6407029/site/newsweek/

 

Not trying to start a fight, but if Newsweek is right, Dean may not be electable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, BON, that was such a succinct summation of the facts. Well stated!

 

>Were voters for Kerry or against Bush? Kerry was seen as the

>most "electable", not as the best candidate. He was not a

>unifying force but rather the candidate of last resort.

 

I would wager that most of the people who voted for Kerry were doing so, because they were against Bush. I know that for me, that is why I voted for Kerry, but the vitriol espoused by his fanatical supporters almost caused me to vote for Bush. I never, ever thought that Kerry would beat Bush, as all the polls attested to, as Kerry was behind all the way, and only the debates brought him even with Bush going into election day.

 

I never could get into Kerry, as he never inspired me with any of his messages, at least, not as Bill Clinton did.

 

I got so tired of hearing "I have a plan for this and that", but he would never elaborate the points of his plans during the debates/ads, except to spout "go to http://www.kerry????. com". What total bs, as many Americans, especially the low income voters of the rural areas of the South and mid-America, don't have the financial resources to afford internet services. But, they all can afford and do own a tv set, so he should have stated his plans and stopped spouting the referrals to his web site. That policy came across as elitist, and as such, he came across the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sheeple are pretty easy to heard when you dangle the right bait in front of them, that's the beauty of evangelical Krischuns. No critical thinking skills needed, just blind devotion. Bush was right that we misunderestimated him.

 

The right has been talking of mandates and how Bush won more votes than any other candidate in history, which is true. They fail to mention that John Kerry comes in at #2. This in turn makes this statment true: No presidential candidate in history has had more votes cast against him than George W. Bush.

 

Think about this too: 54 million people cast their votes for the "most liberal senator next to Ted Kennedy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest msclonly

How sad, so many miserable people spreading their menure

 

..on these strings, and in turn keeping themselves in a state of hatefulness, while being arrogent to the max!

 

Have you ever wondered what is the source within yourself, that gives you all the rotten feelings, that motivates you to write with such vitriol and lack of civility. Yet, you expect people to respect you, when you have no respect for others, whom you disagree with.

How do you expect to win over people with your bad examples of intolerance, hatred, etc, etc.?

 

I really choose not to be associated with such a group of losers.

 

 

}(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>However, have you seen the slam that Newsweek is putting on

>Dean in this week's issue? They must have some back up to

>their story because the claims seem pretty outrageous

 

Well, that article begins with a photo of "The Scream" with the caption "The meltdown moment." Soon after the media destroyed him by playing that clip a thousand times in a few days and repeatedly telling everyone that it was Dean's meltdown, most of them admitted that it had been overplayed and that the "meltdown" had been a media creation. Most people who saw his rally speech that night saw nothing wrong with it, but after having the mainstream media tell them it wasn't presidential and that Dean was a hot-head, that became the general consensus.

 

Dean's only problem was that he wasn't media-ready. He'll be ready for 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tampa Yankee

1. Kerry

 

2. The Democratic Party base that annointed Kerry.

 

Sadly I predicted to others when Kerry won the Primary that the general election was doomed. I considered him the weakest of the field. Why is that? Easy... one of the most liberal senators on record, from the Northeast establishment, and worst of all from Massachusetts. Mass candidates and even more so the state itself has a high profile left-leaning rep going all the way back to McGovern in '72. Of course the candidate of my choice would have failed IMO... according to my 20/20 hindsight. Liberals just don't win the White House -- not an opinion but a track record.

 

The election map makes it clear that Gephardt was the winning choice if there was a win to be had. IMO there isn't a state that Kerry won that Gephardt wasn't likely to carry and he would have been much stronger in Missouri and Ohio and possibly Iowa. There may be others too. He certainly didn't light my fire -- I was not the Lone Ranger in that sentiment. However, look at the 'BIG BOARD' (George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Love the Bomb Candidate) :)

 

Democratic primary voters need to temper 'passionate politics' with 'practical politics'. I think that is very unlikely based the sentiments expressed in this Democratic electorate microcosm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rove's Revenge

 

Rove's Revenge

By MAUREEN DOWD

 

WASHINGTON — Just how much did Karl Rove hate not being one of the cool guys in high school in the 60's? Enough to hatch schemes to marshal the forces of darkness to take over the country?

 

Oh, yeah.

 

A supporter of Nixon against Kennedy at 9, the teenage Karl was, in his description, "a big nerd," a small guy with a pocket protector, briefcase, and glasses almost as big as his head.

 

Even as a high school debater in Salt Lake City, "Rove didn't just want to win; he wanted the opponents destroyed," write James Moore and Wayne Slater in "Bush's Brain." "He would defeat them, slaughter them and humiliate them."

 

The Boy Genius, as W. calls him, the "architect" who helped him get the second term he dearly wanted to surpass his father, is happy to crush the liberal elites inspired by Kennedy's New Frontier under the steamroller of 19th-century family values.

 

Like the president, vice president and defense secretary, General Karl wanted to wipe out the gray, if-it-feels-good-do-it, blame-America-first, doused-in-Vietnam-guilt 60's and turn the clock back to the black-and-white Manichaean values of the 50's.

 

W. and Karl played up western movie stereotypes. After 9/11, the rugged frontier myth, the hunter/Indian-fighter hero in a war of civilization against savagery worked better than ever. But this White House's frontier is not a place of infinite progress and expansion, stretching society's boundaries. It doesn't battle primitivism; it courts primitivism.

 

Instead of the New Frontier, Karl and W. offer the New Backtier.

 

Even as a child, I could feel the rush of J.F.K.'s presidency racing forward, opening up a thrilling world of possibilities and modernity. We were going to the moon. We were confronting racial intolerance. We were paying any price and bearing any burden for freedom. We were respecting faith but keeping it out of politics. Our president was inspiring much of the world. Our first lady was setting the pace in style and culture.

 

W.'s presidency rushes backward, stifling possibilities, stirring intolerance, confusing church with state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark age, more creationist than cutting edge, more premodern than postmodern. Instead of leading America to an exciting new reality, the Bushies cocoon in a scary, paranoid, regressive reality. Their new health care plan will probably be a return to leeches.

 

America has always had strains of isolationism, nativism, chauvinism, puritanism and religious fanaticism. But most of our leaders, even our devout presidents, have tried to keep these impulses under control. Not this crew. They don't call to our better angels; they summon our nasty devils.

 

Jimmy Carter won the evangelical vote in 1976, and he won it in Ohio. He combined his evangelical appeal with a call for social justice, integrating his church and laboring for world peace. But W. appealed to that vote's most crabbed insecurities - the disparaging of the other, the fear of those godless hedonists in the blue states out to get them and their families. And the fear of scientific progress, as with stem cell research.

 

When William Jennings Bryan took up combating the theory of evolution, he did it because he despised the social Darwinists who used the theory to justify the "survival of the fittest" in capitalism. Bryan hated anything that justified an economic system that crushed poor workers and farmers, and he hated that the elites would claim there was scientific basis for keeping society divided and unequal.

 

The new evangelicals challenge science because they've been stirred up to object to social engineering on behalf of society's most vulnerable: the poor, the sick, the sexually different.

 

Yet the Bush conservatives do their own social engineering. They thought they could toughen up the American character with the invasion of Iraq. Now they want to reshape the country on "moral" issues - though their morality seems to allow them to run a campaign full of blatant distortions and character assassination, and to mislead the public about the war.

 

Back in 1994, Newt Gingrich said he wanted the government to mold the moral character of Americans and wipe out remnants of the "counterculture McGoverniks." He got derailed, but now he and his pious friends are back in full cry, messing with our psyches and excluding themselves from the rules they demand others follow. They'll eventually do themselves in, but will they do us in first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Rove's Revenge

 

Maureen Dowd was much more enjoyable when she was ruthlessly attacking Slick Willie and his thick-ankled wife. She won a Pulitzer for that. In other words, a one trick pony. All she can do is nip a someone's shins.

 

The last person to win more than 50% in a presidential election was the President's father in 1988. Your hero, the perjurer, never broke the 50% mark. Hmmm, by most of your standards that would have made him unfit to lead the nation and certainly not a man with any mandate. I just love it when the shoe is on the other foot; and the fact that most of you can't see that. Gotta get out of the ghetto more guys.

 

Later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Rove's Revenge

 

>Maureen Dowd was much more enjoyable when she was ruthlessly

>attacking Slick Willie and his thick-ankled wife. She won a

>Pulitzer for that. In other words, a one trick pony. All she

>can do is nip a someone's shins.

 

Well at least she throws out critiques to both sides of the aisle.

I like her even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...