What happened? Election analysis

<p>The point of citing Koch, as opposed to Dershowitz, is that Kotch crossed over....making it a man-bites-dog story. He understands that this war is the first and foremost problem. And I happen to agree with him. Whatever your liberal values are...gay marriage, having an abortion, more government money for college, etc., etc., it all works better when terrorists aren't trying to kill you. Think of it as triage.</p>

<p>Carolyn, thanks for the explanation.</p>

<p>Thanks for listening Achat.</p>

<p>I was curious about the Bush vs. Gore results so I looked them up. In 2000, Gore received 50,999,897 votes or 48.38% of the popular vote. Bush received 50,456,002 votes or 47.87% of the popular vote. This time, voter turn out was much higher - over 117 million voters. Bush received 51% of the popular vote, Kerry 49%. So, I guess it's fair to say BOTH parties received more votes this time around than in 2000. :)</p>

<p>Source: <a href="http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Driver - I like the triage analogy. That is really how I had to look at things. My husband has a top secret security clearance and has been privvy to some vital information since 9-11. Just the little he has been able to share with me convinced me that we have to stay the course. It may not be easy to swallow, but the danger is real, not some figment of a publicist's imagination.</p>

<p>Xiggi: While you are waiting for the fallout of outsourcing to be measured, I hope you are not waiting on the unemployment line! I do not see an end to outsourcing with this President by the way. Even the war in Iraq is a form of outsourcing! He has made many brownie points with construction engineers and project managers who are forced to go there to make a decent living. Getting back to your post....you smugly claim that Kerry did not formulate a campaign that could win the election. Au contraire! He spent most of his time exposing a President for his gross mismanagement of foreign affairs...for not finding and prosecuting the "REAL" culprit in the 9/11 attacks....by stating that he used the invasion of Iraq as a smokescreen so that the real issues of the American people, the poor economy and the elevated unemployment rate, would hopefully not be realized....we have a country of, at times I am sorry to say, people who are unable to hold two thoughts in their head at one time. Bush appealed to the "rah rah" fraternity types in all of us. He led an emotional campaign..I observed when he was debating in the heartland that people in the audience did not focus on the content of what he said, but rather seemed to beam by their facial expressions at his "I'm a better patriot" than you approach....the Republican convention was held like a gigantic fraternity party, everybody extoling each other's virtures as being a better American and he as a more deserving leader....and tried to evoke a sense of National PRIDE! If I remember correctly, the last time this NAtional Pride was evoked, it was Adolf Hitler who spoke!
My only concern for America is that Kerry did campaign and expose the atrocities of this presidency...and tried to convey to the American people his arrogance and lack of judgment..but could not permeate the staunch beliefs of the Conservative Right ...he did not act as an incumbent as you claimed. My concern is for the American people who would rather vote following an unyielding moral code of self-righteousness, that there is only right and wrong and that no shades of gray can ever be entertained, than an American people who can rally around the facts as they are and recognize that as a nation as a whole we are headed for failure both on the world political front and from within economically and socially. Maybe I was harsh about claiming you were grossly misinformed. You used no facts, really, as George W. did not use any in his debates as well. You only made an emotionally based statement that fit your perceptions of Kerry's campaign tactics. It is a sad day in America when we elect someone to the highest office who never once visited a foreign country, who could not differentiate between different sects of Islam, much less different Islamic nations, and whose belief that collaborating with the European heads of state in attempting to formuate a solution to world terrorism is portrayed as a sign of wavering and weakness. God bless America!</p>

<p>A statement Bush made I think says it all. "You may not agree with me, but at least
you know where I stand". I don't think even Kerry knows what he stands for. I was
extremely offended by such superficial Kerry campaign gimmicks as the "duck hunting
costume" one day followed by the "ice hockey costume" the next. I think most
Americans saw through such feeble attempts to solicit votes and opted for someone
with some backbone who doesn't need to change his public image every morning when he walks out the door!</p>

<p>First, may I say that Xiggi is the only poster here who lays out cogent arguements. You can believe them or not, but most posters here sound like what they probably are: dug in, ultra liberal, educated middle class folk. NY and CA are full of that group, and there are other pockets. But look at the map folks, most of America does not think like you. Lot's of reasonable reasons for why Bush won have been put forward. However, I think it's quite simple. Dems were banking on the hate of Bush being so strong that even a Massachussetts ultra liberal with a questionable record in the Senate could beat him. How stupid were they? Unbelievably! A strong centrist, probably a Governor as opposed to a Senator with a record that could be shot to pieces, could have won in a land slide.</p>

<p>Sgiovinc1 - Since Achat was so kind to listen to me, could you please tell me what parts of Kerry's campaign platform in particular you found attractive? I'm not interested in what you think Bush did wrong but in what in particular about Kerry himself and his platform you found attractive. Thank you.</p>

<p>At the risk of saying the obvious, how about Kerry lost because he was a lousy candidate? About the worst the Dems could have come up with. Look - he was in the single digits in the Iowa primary after 6 months, with no place to go, a week before the primary, with no new ideas. Then came the tv commercial with Rasmussen. He went from 8% to 23% in two days, without saying a darn thing. A total media creation - in fact, the largest media-created candidacy in the country's history. (interesting, too, that the ad that made his candidacy was the one in which he doesn't speak.)</p>

<p>He was never clear on Iraq. He looked at the same intelligence Bush looked at and came to the same conclusion. He favored a larger military budget, and more troops to Iraq (likely a draft, too, since he never did say where he was going to find the troops.) Almost no one who was without health insurance or in danger of becoming uninsured could figure out his health care "plan". No plan to stop outsourcing. Favored WTO and globalization, probably the single largest global environmental threat of all time. No Middle East policy to speak of. He was poorly focused, long-winded, and with more than two decades of public service behind him, no one could point to a single thing he had ever done.</p>

<p>Worst of all was how out of touch he was with ordinary Americans. His Yale education had clearly failed him. (The other guy too, but he had some other things going for him.) I remember vividly the televised town meeting from Minneapolis. A woman stood up and asked him how she could really know that he understood the condition of working and middle class Americans. He thought a minute, and all he could come back with was that he had fought with some of them (us!) in Vietnam. There it was - 30 years of public service, and no contact with ordinary Americans. He didn't get it at Yale either.</p>

<p>Turn out was NOT large. About 114 million. About 7 million less than the pundits thought it would be. College students and single women didn't turn out in droves. Not voting is part of a long and noble tradition when you can't find someone worth voting for. Can't say I blame 'em.</p>

<p>Mini - I think you and Bobby have both hit the nail on the head. And it might have helped if he had carried his own geese. :)</p>

<p>Well, I'm one of those "ultra-liberals" (actually, I simply prefer "leftist"). I think a real liberal with a track record, a critique, and a program would have had a much better shot. (actually, I think a wet sock would have had a better shot). Kerry was "none of the above".</p>

<p>I understand mini - that's why I think you are so on target. Like I said, I WANTED to like Kerry, I really did. I still remember when Clinton was asked a similar question in the town hall debate against the first G. Bush - The question was "How much is a gallon of milk?" Clinton could answer, Bush couldn't (remember how befuddled he was by the supermarket scanners?). I knew right then who I would vote for and Kerry came across as the same to me and, I suspect, millions of others.</p>

<p>Bobby100....thank you for at least acknowledging that we're educated! And yes, we are somehow prone to making educated decisions. Re: Kerry's campaign platform....I believe we should NOT take it upon ourselves to legislate others' moral right to choose. We should NOT have a ban on partial birth abortions....that is between a doctor and his patient especially when the mother's life is at stake. We SHOULD allow stem cell research...we need to find ways to enable any one among us to benefit from whatever discoveries lie therein. That should not be legislated as well. We SHOULD allow medicines from Canada to be sold here...free enterprise is a wonderful thing. Keeps the costs down! Tired of spending a fortune for drugs that maintain our health when it takes but a few cents to manufacture the pill. We SHOULD NOT legislate a ban on Gay Marriages. Last time something like that was tried, it was called the "Prohibition Act." Somewhere down the line some wise statemen got that repealed. Can't legislate that as well. Notice how many foreigners are answering the phone for VERIZON DSL and DELL Computers? They're all in India, Pakistan, etc. No one speaks English..they speak to you from a script. We need more of this type of employment kept in our own country. We have our young people crying for jobs, college grads on unemployment lines. Lets deal with that issue...not support more opportunities for BIG INDUSTRY to consolidate and get bigger. Notice how many banks are left? Not many...Fleet just been swallowed up by Bank of America. Scary. We have no real choices left and with no choice, you cannot make educated decisions as to what is best for you and your family. ANd let us deal with a Social Security NOW so our children will have some retirement investmets for their future. I DON'T believe that privatizing is the answer. TOO RISKY! I know many a friend whose tax sheltered annuitieis are halved or more because of bad investments. I DON'T believe we should be investing all those billions of dollars on a war that we cannot win in IRAQ, especially when we are in a billions of dollars of debt and cannot balance the budget. I have to believe that that occurred under the Republican watch as we had a balanced budget when Clinton was President. And last but not least..education. THe NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT was a wonderful thing! Sounds great on paper, but not able to be implemented because there are too few Federal dollars to effectuate any mandates at the State Level. I have to believe that the Democrats would have pulled our country out of the muck and mire we are in now..our European neighbors hate us, our economy is weak, our unemployment rate is very high in manufacturing towns.and elsewhere..and yet the rich keep getting richer, the poor remain underprivileged and poor, and the middle class gets the squeeze....I never thought I would see the day I would have to carpool to a lucrative job because "gas" expenses could not fit into my budget. There is so much more that came out of those debates if people just listened and read between the lines....if they only pored through all the "rah rah" and realized how we had all been duped!</p>

<p>Looks like again no one wants to discuss the issues!!!! let's just "rah rah" about how great our BUSH administration is and how weak Kerry was. TOO BAD...a sad state of affairs in this country when no one has a thought on the campaign issues!</p>

<p>If we want to talk about flip flops....</p>

<p>-President Bush opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission before he supported it, delaying an essential inquiry into one of the greatest intelligence failure in American history.</p>

<ul>
<li>President Bush said gay marriage was a state issue before he supported a constitutional amendment banning it.</li>
</ul>

<p>-President Bush said he was committed to capturing Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" before he said, "I truly am not that concerned about him."</p>

<p>-President Bush said we had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, before he admitted we hadn't found them.</p>

<p>-President Bush said, "You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," before he admitted Saddam had no role in 9/11.</p>

<p>What I said was that these were the typical views of the educated middle class. It doesn't make them correct because you're educated. The educated upper middle/wealthy have different views as do the educated foreigners and lots of other educated groups. Interesting discussion about this in class today. Educated middle class is the most bitter and disenfranchized group who are most upset today. You eccho the discussion. You tell a poster he will be outsourced because Bush won. Like Kerry was really going to improve the business environment! There is a lot here that reflects untrue rhetoric that characterized the campaign. Yet they are widely help beliefs among the middle class today. Hey, if I lenghten this I can turn it in!</p>

<p>"Looks like again no one wants to discuss the issues!!!! let's just "rah rah" about how great our BUSH administration is and how weak Kerry was. TOO BAD...a sad state of affairs in this country when no one has a thought on the campaign issues!"</p>

<p>Here's a quickie answer.</p>

<ol>
<li>We have lives.</li>
<li>We have friends</li>
<li>We have stuff to do after school</li>
<li>We are applying to college</li>
<li>We are studying for tests</li>
<li>We HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED EVERY SINGLE CAMPAIGN ISSUE IN DEPTH AND FOR AN EXTREMELY LONG TIME. If you are too lazy to check the old boards for the archived discussions, well then boohoo.</li>
</ol>

<p>You have to look at election results on two levels:</p>

<p>a) On the micro level, John Kerry was a particularly poor candidate. I had voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election, starting with McGovern, and Kerry is my home state senator. Yet, never once in the years he has been my senator nor in this election did he give me one single reason to vote for him or to believe that he would be an effective leader.</p>

<p>b) On the macro level, the Democrats are in deep trouble. If you don't believe me, look at the electoral college map, paying particular attention to the Southeast. Traditionally, the Democratic party won elections with a coalition of northeast/midwest rust-belt unions and conservative "yellow dog" Democrats in the southeast. Now, a Democrat can't get elected as "dog catcher" in the southeast, depsite huge heavily Democratic African-American populations.</p>

<p>Why? Pretty simple. In American politics, 30% of the voters are fringe right-wing conservatives and 30% are fringe left-wing liberals. It's the 40% in the middle who determine their elections and these voters get spooked by fringe "wing" politics, of the left or the right. Thus, to be successful, a political party has to do as little as they can to satisfy their fringe base, while publicly positioning themselves as "moderate" to the broad middle ground.</p>

<p>It's not a fluke that the only three Democratics elected since John Kennedy in 1960 have all been southern Democrats. Bill Clinton, in particular, gave the Democratic Party a blueprint by positioning himself as a moderate. Unfortunately, the party made a huge mistake after the last election (another poor candidate who stupidly rejected Clinton's help) by deciding that they needed to be more "liberal" and throw more red-meat to energize their fringe. Out go all of the Clinton-style DLC strategists and in come old-school left-winger like Pilosi as the party leadership. I knew the Democrats were in huge trouble four years ago and that they clearly didn't "get it". Predicatably, Kerry ran a campaign managed by an all-star loser team of Kennedy and Dukakis retreads, strategists who clearly missed the huge population swing to the sunbelt. That dog won't hunt.</p>

<p>Note that the Republican Party made exactly the same mistake when Newt Gingrich's arrogance led the party to frighten the middle-ground voters with the rabidness of they way they threw red-meat to the right-wing fringe of the party. They lost a LOT of moderate Republicans over their "moral majority/chrishun coalition" emphasis. But, to their credit, Republican strategists figured it out and Bush has successfully positioned himself as a reasonably centrist, non-threatening guy who is smart enough to not make abortion or gun control a centerpiece of his campaign strategy.</p>

<p>The Democrats still haven't figured it out. The problem is that, even if they do, they've thrown away their entire Southern base. Look at the Senate races in the region last night. Twenty years ago, you couldn't elect a Republican senator in the South. Now, you can't elect a Democrat. It is going to take a radical repositioning of the Democratic Party for it to become viable in national elections.</p>

<p>The most frustrating thing to me is that many of the Democratic positions (on civil rights, etc.) resonate very well with the broad middle of the electorate -- but only if you don't beat them over the head with it. Again, something Clinton understood. Don't make it look like pandering to special interests, rather pitch it as a quintessentially "American" value. After all, who wouldn't support giving every man, woman, and child a "fair shot"?</p>

<p>Here's a hint to Democratic strategists: stop nominating Massachussetts liberals and, for goodness sake, stop having Ted Kennedy appear on TV with them. Here's another clue: Barbara Steisand is not helping you. And another, don't lead with "gay marriage". And, don't base your entire foreign policy on seeking approval from the French. These are all losing strategies.</p>

<p>Here's another hint: Invite the DLC strategists back into the party.</p>

<p>Bobby100: THe point I was trying to make that you obviously missed is that being educated means you recognize that you are capable of free thought, have an opinion, and can base that opinion on some knowledge that you have acquired over time by reading, attending classes and lectures, travelling to foreign countries to view life as others view it..you don't live in a vacuum. I never said my views were correct.....I said they were based on facts that I have acquired over time. The HArvard motto is:
"VERITAS" which in LAtin means Truth, for a person to be educated you need to keep searching for the TRUTH! I am only saying re: outsourcing that BUSH has done very little to keep businesses from forming monopolies. And one of the results of that is making the CEO's richer by outsourcing the lowlier jobs to countries whose employees don't demand minimum wages...keeps up the profits...but as a result, there are less jobs here for our graduates....I am only identifying what has occurred since BUSH took office. Based on what he has done, it doesn't look there will be any time soon when outsourcing will not be encouraged. I cannot say for sure that Kerry would have improved the business environment, but I sure as hell knew I lived better during the Clinton years and I wasn't paying $2.25/gallon of gas...and I had choices when I went shopping......There are things I am not able to buy anymore...it's either one brand name or nothing. Doesn't sound like an economy that thrives on competition keeping the costs down. You have given me no real facts to dissuade my point of view I am sorry to say. You need to go back to class and come back with a few.</p>