What happened? Election analysis

College Confidential Community
281

<p>While that Slate article accurately describes why America hates Democrats, it's not the content of what Smiley is saying. It's the tone. It's the attitude. It's the self righteous, piggish superiority that the elitists exhibit.</p>

<p>That's why the Democrats didn't win this election (and also because Bush in his own right is a fantastic candidate). That's why they won't win in 2008, too. Because instead of regrouping and analyzing their party flaws, they're attacking the other side. If they continue to live in this bubble, they're going to keep losing.</p>

282

<br>


<br>

<p>Correct. That and the fact that the self-righteous air of superiority prevents the Dem movers and shakers from understanding the country.</p>

<p>The Dems don't have an exclusive lock on self-righteous superiority. A couple of years of it from Gingrich was enough for the American voters to throw a bunch of self-righteous Repubs out on their bums not too long ago.</p>

<p>Americans want pols who "feel their pain" (so to speak), not preach at them.</p>

283

<p>"So, it begs the question: Why in the heck did the Democrats choose a Massachusetts liberal candidate -</p>

<p>You know, you keep on asking this question, and no matter how many times you ask it, the answer is the same. It is not even an opinion question, but a factual one - you can actually look up the answer on line. It just isn't very tough, and certainly not worth scratching your head about. It isn't a very deep question.</p>

<p>It happened on the Tuesday night before the Iowa caucuses (I mean we can actually pin it down to the very hour it happened.) After running for more than a year, John Kerry stood at 8% of the vote, among liberal Iowa Democrats. The liberals didn't like him! He had made literally thousands of speeches, spent millions of dollars, laid out his thinking (as best it could be understood) about absolutely everything, and was soundly rejected nationwide. He went to bed Tuesday night as a loser. On that same Tuesday evening, the campaign - desperate, and getting nowhere - aired the Jim Rasmussen ad (he having contacted the Kerry campaign only the previous Sunday night). As it turns out, the country wanted a war hero. The Iraq War was going very badly, Bush looked like a fool (no comment), Osama bin Laden was laughing at us (still is), Howard Dean who was leading looked a buffoon (still does) - and the country (including the liberal Democrats in Iowa) didn't care what the positions were of the candidate they were chosing. They just wanted someone they could trust in dealing with a war, and what better than a war hero?</p>

<p>Kerry got up on Wednesday morning, went through the same motions with the same boring speeches and the same bad hair, and went to bed. On Thursday, the polls came out - he had jumped 15% in two days. You can look it up yourself. A total media creation. Had nothing to do with what he said. What he stood for. Whom he stood for. Dean quickly came apart at the seams. </p>

<p>Following week was New Hampshire. Dean was already dead. No one had met anyone else. Gephardt was out. They were left with the war hero (or Al Sharpton?) Who could oppose a war hero with only a week between primaries?</p>

<p>So you're missing the point. They didn't nominate a "Massachusetts liberal". They nominated a war hero with uncertain and confusing positions on the war, globalization, patriot act, no child left untested, health care. Hardly a "liberal" position among them. The war hero part went down the toilet pretty quickly. But by then it was too late to reconsider.</p>

<p>You're thinking too hard.</p>

284

<p>"
Americans want pols who "feel their pain" (so to speak), not preach at them."</p>

<p>Funny. I thought we were being preached all the time about morality.</p>

285

<p>Not just a Mass liberal, a PATRICIAN Mass liberal married to an heiress. One poster claimed he had mostly lived a middle class life? Really? I have his background in front of me. Le Rosey, a Swiss boarding school where European royalty go, St. Paul's School, an old, snooty WASP boarding school in NH, Yale, Skull and Bones. Middle class? America just could not relate to him.</p>

286

<p>But that's not how he got chosen, or why he was chosen, or even what did him in. (Ask either Kerry or Bush the price of a gallon of milk, and I think you'll get the same answer - but with different accents.)</p>

<p>They didn't choose a Massachusetts liberal. In fact, they rejected the Mass. liberal soundly (in favor of candidates who were significantly more liberal on certain issues - Dean and Gephardt). They chose a war hero, and it came home to roost.</p>

287

<p>Sgiovinc1, going back a bunch of posts here, the reason school taxes are rising so fast is because of the incredibly rising cost of paying teachers' healthcare insurance. Now, I don't begrudge anybody health insurance; however, those who believe that a national plan would "cost us money" are living in a dream world if they don't think we are paying through the nose for one another's healthcare right this minute.</p>

<p>Although I recognize that the world "liberal" is a dirty word these days in the red states (I've decided to start openly calling myself a socialist instead), I don't think it was liberalism that sank the Dems. If anything, my most liberal friends and acquaintances were not happy with his position on the war. I believe it was the culture wars all the way. Red state voters took one look at Theresa H.K. and said, "These are not my people."</p>

<p>However, I can't see who else the Dems could have run instead. And now we have Hillary Clinton to look forward to in '08? The woman who is despised by so much of the country! I hope this isn't a speeding train, because although I would love to see us have a woman in the White House, it's more important to me that it be a Democrat. Btw, the Wall Street Journal expressed admiration for the idea of Hillary in this morning's paper. Said she'd be a great candidate because she's a hawk on the war!</p>

288

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>Good narrative on Kerry's nomination. However, it goes back further than that. After the Gore loss, the Democratic party came to the (wrong) conclusion that they needed to "energize their base" by becoming more liberal. Basically, the poo-bahs had had enough of centrist "red state" candidates. You could see it in the house-cleaning that took place in the party structure. You could see it in the election of a left-coast lib as Minority leader in the House and the symbolic lunacy of choosing Boston as the site of the convention. Part and parcel of that realignment was a primary structure designed to preclude outsiders from getting the nomination -- a process that was so front-loaded that only a candidate with access to big money contributors could win. Of course, in the Democratic Party, "big money" contributors early in the game are going to throw their weight behind a traditional (and almost certainly Washingtonian) candidate. Basically, the Dems stacked the deck because they didn't want any more Jimmy Carters or Bill Clintons. </p>

<p>Howard Dean threw a short-lived monkey wrench in the plans, but only by throwing mountains of red meat to the fringe wing of the party. But, without money and organization, he wasn't in it for the long haul.</p>

<p>Of course, the other part of the equation is that the Dems didn't have a viable candidate in the bunch. That's what happens when you don't win any Senate or Governor's seats in the heartland for decade or so.</p>

<p>I was so uninspired that I went to the polls for the Democratic primary prepared to vote for Al Sharpton, just because he has a terrific sense of humor. To my relief, Joe Lieberman was still listed on the ballot, even though he had dropped out of the race, so I had somebody to vote for. Now, when someone who has voted for the Democratic candidate in every Presidential election since McGovern can't find a candidate to vote for in the primary, the Democrats are in big trouble. And, indeed, they were.</p>

289

<br>


<br>

<p>Hillary is no dumbie when it comes to political instincts. She started staking out a "centrist" position on terrorism and the war immediately after 9/11. (She's also kept a very low profile nationally, in keeping with Dick Morris' observation that the less people see of her, the more they like her!)</p>

<p>I expect her to continue laying a foundation to run as a centrist candidate, both in her re-election bid in NY and potentially as a Presidential candidate in 2008. She's in a good position to do that because the fringe wing of her party (and the big money) loves her, so she can satisfy them relatively quietly just as George Bush is able to satisfy his rabid constituents without killing his ability to run as a relatively centrist candidate.</p>

<p>I don't know, and I don't think she knows, whether or not she can be a viable candidate.</p>

290

<p>I must confess I have read only scattered pages of this thread. I wonder if the issue of vice presidential selection has come up. As unexcited as I was about Kerry, his selection of Edwards was nearly the final nail in the coffin. Selecting as a running mate a guy who represents the most heinous of special interest groups, and cannot even come close to carrying his home state when other Democrats do so, seemed a uniquely bad idea then, and a worse idea now.</p>

291

<p>Robyn, John Edwards (and his professional background) played an explicit role in my final decision. In fact, he was one of five reasons I mentally listed as I pondered my vote on election day.</p>

292

<p>Xiggi: The correct sentence was,"Those who claim to be ‘moderate’ are not moderates at all. Many of them usually vote conservative, but are ashamed to call themselves conservatives" not ,"Ashamed to be conservative?".</p>

<p>At a very young age you are learning selective representation.</p>

293

<p>Robyrm...my dad said the same thing about Edwards. (Oh, and hi y'all, and where is Carolyn? I've been working all day to make money for my move abroad:) ). I feel so sorry for their family, though--first the loss of their son and now breast cancer. </p>

<p>I have a question for you on the very little topic of his work, though: if he had taken nothing for his work, and simply represented people maimed, killed, or disabled by incompetent doctors, would you feel the same way? I don't do personal injury work, but in my profession, and with my husband as a doctor, I have seen reports of the kind of horrible pain doctors can inflict through incompetence. Do you agree that these victims should be compensated? Is it that they are given too much that offends you, or that lawyers' fees inflate the verdicts, or what?) Or should they just "suck it up" as one of our posters has suggested in another context, and live with the pain that has been inflicted on their lives?</p>

<p>On a rational note, I was listening to the NPR Newshour, and Mark Shields (sp?) was saying that the percentage of voters who were members of the religious right did not actually increase in this election, and that he still felt that the reason for the victory was that Bush was seen as the more effective leader, and that people were reluctant to change course or go with an unknown quantity in a time that is still seen as a national crisis. </p>

<p>The comments today on this board do not necessarily support his point of view, however, although admittedly it's only about ten of us gloating or whining, as the case may be :). </p>

<p>For the babybird who said, "It's the attitude. It's the self righteous, piggish superiority that the elitists exhibit." Honey, I don't know where you're applying to college or if you are, but the fact that you're on this site suggests that you aspire to join this apparently-questionable group of people. Might I suggest that you abandon your thoughts of higher education to avoid such an atrocious fate? Does anyone remember Spiro Agnew's contempt for the "effete snobs"? What ever happened to good old Spiro Agnew? Dear, the elite are the ones whose talents and energy are producing most of the wealth in this country. They are also the ones who will be teaching you, caring for you in illness, entertaining you as creative artists....but I guess that doesn't make them any more appealing.</p>

294

<p>Patient,
In support of your plan to move abroad I am going to start a thread on "why expat?"- hopefully Cheers, Momrath and a few others will toss in a few ideas.</p>

<p>As to Edwards...this is an issue on several levels. Doctors make mistakes because they are human. Doctors have malpractice insurance to compensate patients because they make mistakes because they are human. It is the patient who is harmed, and I have no difficulty with patients getting reasonable settlements in compensation for their injuries, or even for their "distress"- though the quanitification of this is an issue.
Since attorneys do not work for fixed fees, but rather at a % of the compensation received by clients, it is clearly in their interest to ensure the quantification is amplified...as the system is currently established. When fees are set for Attorneys and limits placed on the fees they receive, such as medical insurance now enforces limits on fees that Doctors can charge, then I think the medical malpractice insurance issue will fall by the wayside.</p>

<p>If Democrats wanted to make health care an issue in this election to a greater extent than they did, then they lost the chance to do so by having a VP candidate who represents a special interest group which is one of the main obstacles to health care reform. This is my biggest objection to Edwards, beyond personal disdain for anyone who betters themselves as a result of the misery of others. </p>

<p>I agree, however, his personal life is compelling, but at least on this side of the world, a non-issue.</p>

295

<p>Hi Roby....I'll be looking for that expat thread :). </p>

<p>Yes, I don't have any problem with caps on the fees and awards. I am not, however, talking about honest mistakes. I am talking about gross incompetence and lack of caring. My husband does reviews of complaints for the state medical licensing boards. He tends to be, understandably, protective of doctors who are just the target of angry, unreasonable patients but he too has sometimes been shocked beyond belief at the incompetence, not honest mistakes of some. Now of course, we don't know what Edwards' cases were like--maybe he was a genius at deceiving and manipulating the facts and making honest mistakes look like gross negligence. But if he was doing things like, providing an award to provide lifetime care of a child who was utterly disabled, unable to walk, talk, or learn because of a botched delivery where the doctor didn't attend during a precarious delivery--these are really the kinds of things that happen--then I say that what he did was good. </p>

<p>As far as people profiting from other people's misfortunes: HUH???? Isn't that what every doctor does?????</p>

296

<p>Robyrm, you are an M.D., correct? Because calling someone "a member of the most heinous of special interest groups" is, well, a statement I would reserve for a neo-Nazi. Or perhaps for a public official who causes thousands of people to be killed as a result of lying about the reason for starting a war. </p>

<p>John Edwards was clearly chosen because with his populist stance and rags-to-riches background, he balanced Kerry in terms of SES and geography. Given the process, it will be a long time before we see a poor man run for our nation's highest office or its second highest, and so unless we want to save the Presidency for people of independent means, we are likely to have candidates who have become rich on the backs of others, one way or another.</p>

297

<p>Hi Patient. I'm still here. Here's one we can all enjoy a good laugh over (I think). </p>

<p>On the radio driving home today someone actually called in and said he had the REAL reason why Bush was re-elected --- seems that Kerry and Bush, both being members of the Skull and Bones Society, had conspired together so that Kerry would run as the Dem candidate so that Bush would win. The talk show host asked "but how did Kerry win the primary?" Simple, the caller said. The Skull and Bones Society have operatives in key primary states that rigged the primaries. Not only that but Clinton is also part of Skull and Bones Society and that's how HE was elected. So, you see, NONE of us should be arguing or even care much about this or any election any more because it's all just one of those Yale secret society conspiracies. Guess it casts a whole new light on the importance of elite college admissions :)</p>

298

<p>I might observe that it would appear that Edwards presence on the ticket did nothing for it. Possibly it would have done worse in the south without him?! The rags to riches from persuading handpicked groups of jurors to sock it to medical insurers and manufacturers isn't quite as compelling as some other paths. His father would have been a better candidate.</p>

<p>Regarding the war hero analysis........interesting. The problem that surfaced in the election was the nations grasp that Bush was not [fill in one of the the mischaracterizations from the left here] and that Kerry was not Audie Murphy. They had a Vietnam veteran against the war, not a Democratic John McCain.</p>

<p>I am a bit concerned that I have agreed with a few of Mini's recent posts. :)</p>

299

<p>Aparent5,
Yes- you caught me. I would claim guilt for overstatement, but I stand by my stance that "trial lawyers" are not fault-free in the whole medical cost debacle, and I think that the Democratic party panders to the lawyers-- all the while expecting the average Joe to see it as a gesture towards the rest of the population. I think this is just foolish. Just as doctors can be incompetent, trial lawyers can be greedy.. I too have no idea about the cases that John Edwards tried. However, I feel very uncomfortable with the willingness of the Democrats to remain beholden to the needs of this particular special interest group. </p>

<p>As for the notion that doctors benefit from the misfortune of their patients...disappointing that the spouse of a physician would articulate this. I, for one, try to relieve suffering.</p>

300

<p>Patient:</p>

<p>Do a Google search on "John Edwards cerebral palsy". You'll find plenty of articles on his storied career as North Carolina's most successful (and wealthiest) medical malpractice trial lawyer, winning at least $150 million in settlements from N. Carolina doctors and hospitals over a ten year period. Here's a pretty good one, although there are others in the NYTimes and Boston Globe.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200401%5CPOL20040120a.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200401%5CPOL20040120a.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>His specialty was cerebral palsey cases, in which he successfully blames obstretricians for not performing C-section deliveries earlier. The fact that current medical research indicates that higher rates of C-sections do not lower the incidence of cerebral palsey didn't stop Edwards from racking up a succession of the largest settlements in N. Carolina history. </p>

<p>He stopped taking cases where the child had died; prefering the huge awards from disabled cases. His patented courtroom trick was to "channel" the words of the unborn child to the jury: Saying that he felt the child inside of him, calling out for help. "Come help, me...."</p>

<p>This is relevant to his politcal career for two reasons: trial lawyers have been the biggest contributors to his political career and he has been dead set againt caps on jury awards in medical malpractice cases. I think it is more than fair to question his connection to this special interest group.</p>

<p>It is relevant in terms of the current health care cost problem because lawsuits such as his force doctors to perform C-sections at a ridiculously high rate. This major surgery is painful for the woman, carries its own risk, and is expensive as heck. It is precisely this "over-delivery" of medicine for defensive purposes that makes our health care so incredibly expensive. You can't have a system that takes judgement out of the hands of the practicing physician or holds them to an unreasonable standard of omniscience. Well...I guess you can have such a system, but you better be prepared to pay through the nose for it.</p>