<p>"Actually, I think Howard Dean might have had more of a chance than Kerry. He has enough personality to counter Bush and he also has the same "I am what you see" characteristics. If he had come out strongly against Iraq and said he would withdraw troops immediately upon election, he might have been elected."</p>
<p>Doubtful. he makes Al Gore look like Grandpa Joe.</p>
<p>I think any candidate with a consistent message, with a clear critique of Iraq, a clear plan for health care, a clear answer to outsourcing issues, and a clear feeling for what it is like to be a working or middle class American would have defeated Bush (and easily). I am a rather well-read person, follow the news, listen to debates, etc., and to this day I can't really tell you what Kerry had to say about these issues. I don't think it would have mattered whether the candidate was towards the left or toward the center. Bush was ripe for the taking. But Kerry was a pure media creation from the get-go. He stayed on message - or the lack of it - from the day he announced his candidacy. As it was, he only lost by 100,000 votes.</p>
<p>Heck, Dallas just elected an Hispanic Lesbian sheriff!</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>The Mooresque version of "pc", something prevelent on this site, does not play well in the Country as a whole. </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Patrick Caddell, who was Jimmy Carter's pollster and key strategist in the 1976 election, said tonight on TV that he believed Michael Moore and Farenheit 911 killed the Democrats this year. In fact, he said that, had he been advising the Bush camp, he would have hung Michael Moore around Kerry's neck.</p>
<p>Caddell is just sick over the same strategists making the same strategic blunders running the Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry campaigns and particularly sick over the Dems throwing away their Southern base. He pointed out that in 1992, the Democrats still held 19 of 26 southern Senate seats. As of this morning, they hold 4. That's why I disagree with Mini that this is election is just about a weak candidate in John Kerry.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>But Kerry was a pure media creation from the get-go. He stayed on message - or the lack of it - from the day he announced his candidacy. </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>It wasn't just as a candidate. He has served in the Senate for 18 years and has no record of accomplishing anything. Honestly, the man is invisible, even in his own home state.</p>
<p>" I felt like any one who goes to church on Sunday (or even once a month) was being branded as a "religious fundamentalist" And, we all know that "fundamentalist" is just a PC code word for "nutcase."</p>
<p>Carolyn I'm wondering who or what made you feel like a "religious fundamentalist" for going to church. I go to church and I've never been made to feel like that. Maybe it's different in the midwest. And in terms of "fundamentalist" being code for nutcase I don't think it is that black and white. My daughters friends are the nicest most genuine people you could meet (certainly nicer than me- they would probably be horrified with the stuff I say on here about Bush) but they do have very extreme views relative to other Christian denominations. They very much walk the talk in Christianity but they are quite judgemental and rigid about what it means to be a Christian. Evangelicals may vary in other parts of the country-less rigid, more accepting... I don't know.</p>
<p>Mini, I don't think you can ignore the popular vote margin of almost 4 million. Technically he lost by 100,000 votes, but Kerry would have governed under the same cloud of illegitimacy for 4 years as Bush did during the last 4 years, if he had captured Ohio with essentially the same popular vote as we see now.</p>
<p>If Bush had lost, he would have been the first president to have been ousted during a war. Such a loss would have been truly stunningly embarrassing, more so than his father's defeat after one term. </p>
<p>Carolyn, to answer your note in a previous post, I was simply quoting interesteddad's comment about pc values. I think pc is such a vague term that I never know what people mean by it, that's why I quoted his statement and asked what he meant.</p>
<p>I really wonder if either party can ever really have an amazingly superior candidate. What it takes to live through years of campaigning under the degree of brutal scrutiny and political greed that exists now, is very different from what it takes to be a truly exceptional leader. Perhaps we will forever be mired in mediocrity.</p>
<p>Has the country really changed? Don't you think that if Clinton could have run, Bush would be moving out of the White House in a couple of months? It sounds like, apart from the war point above, Kerry just alienated many of the democrats' traditional constituents. 1 in 5 in Vancat's beloved :) exit polls said that moral values were the deciding factor. But if a socially conservative Democrat had been running, there would not have been such a huge majority of those voting for Bush, I don't think. He has hardly been a pinnacle of morality in his life, or in his presidency.</p>
<p>It's sad that Americans voted with intolerance for gays and disregard of abortion over the economy, health care, and the dead soldiers in Iraq.</p>
<p>I agree 100% with Xiggi. No doubt. Genius.</p>
<p>By the way, Xiggi, long time no see! Hope all's well!</p>
<p>jpps1...that's what it feels like, certainly, but I don't believe that the primary reasons for voting were quite as mean-spirited as that. I think that this was primarily about Americans' feeling that their future is in jeopardy--economically, politically, militarily--and their unwillingness to take a chance on someone who was not able to convey to enough people, a convincing ability to protect them. </p>
<p>I think that people are forgetting that the vote spread was about 3 percentage points. It wasn't a unanimous vote by any means, although certain people may be acting like it was.</p>
<p>You make a good point, patient. There are over 55 million people who voted for Kerry. There is a lot of disappointment in the country today, regardless of what we thought of Kerry as a candidate.</p>
<p>One of the many interesting sites I've read today.</p>
<p><a href="http://217.160.163.211/globalvote2004/%5B/url%5D">http://217.160.163.211/globalvote2004/</a></p>
<p>Liz, I wasn't talking about myself (Goodness knows I am not the most regular church goer), I was talking about the general trend I see in the media, the left, and even here to brand church-goers and Bush supporters as "religious fundamentalists." Read back through this thread for instance, and you'll see it mentioned time and time again that "fundamentalists" and "the Christian right" were the reason Bush won the election. Which is interesting as less than a third of Americans identify themselves as Christian fundamentalists so how did Bush win the election? The unspoken comment is that everyone who voted for Bush is part of the vast evil Christian right conspiracy. I found it interesting that CNN tonight was out "in the heartland" interviewing "church goers" about the election...as if this was some odd, unbelievable behavior that isn't common in America.</p>
<p>Carolyn, I'm not sure about the percentage. I believe that that the Susskind (name?) article in the NYT Magazine about Bush a few weeks ago quoted a source that 42 or 46% consider themselves born again Christians. I'm not sure whether "religious fundamentalist" and "born-again Christian" are one and the same, but I think it is a very large segment of our country that is more than Sunday churchgoers, that feels it finally has a voice.</p>
<p>Clinton could have won when moral values was a key issue????? Don't forget folks, many people in this Country vote pure party lines. The map changed little in theses 4 years, most States went to the same party, but look at how many more votes Bush got in States he lost. Even the land of fruits and nuts was only 5 or 6 points off for Bush! We can not ignore that this spells a decisive victory. Couple that with the results in Congress and the Senate and it was a stunning victory. A coup! I hate to say this for those of you hoping he'll be listening to those who didn't support him to some greater extent, but his mandate to press his agenda is stronger than ever.</p>
<p>Kerry got more Democratic votes than any previous candidate. Ever. More than Clinton. More than Gore. But he left 7 million on the table. He could have run left. He could have run right. But at some point you just have to connect with people, and offer them something they can understand.</p>
<p>He never did. His Yale education got the better of him - and I am not trying to be flip when I say that. He didn't connect with articulate people from other backgrounds when he was in college; he led, but never became friends with folks from said backgrounds in Vietnam; and he didn't make friends with any for the next 30 years. Can you imagine what policy discussions he HASN'T had for the past three decades?</p>
<p>I don't think he had to be a superior candidate. Just one that talked straight. That shot straight. Not "I'll send more troops to Iraq because I want to pull out." (and I won't tell you where I'll find the troops.) Or "I'll fix the health care system by relying on the Canadians." (huh?) Come on - there are Kerry supporters on this list - do you REALLY feel you know what he'd do about immigration? outsourcing? No Child Left Behind? </p>
<p>He alienated the left edge of his base every bit as much as the center part. </p>
<p>Patient - you're right - 100,000 votes, and this guy would have ousted a sitting President in the middle of the war, and the values discussion, and the fundamentalist discussion, and the Michael Moore discussion wouldn't have been worth a hill of beans. And Republicans would be scratching their heads.</p>
<p>Bobby dear, the land of fruit and nuts has a lot of conservatives among those (delicious, I might add) fruits and nuts :). In fact, most of the fruit-and-nut growers, aren't. Look at the margins in other states such as Illinois and New York. Hmmm....maybe you weren't talking about California :). </p>
<p>If you and the other Republicans who keep crowing with so little sensitivity to millions and millions of voters, your Congressional candidates will be out in a couple of years and your presidential candidate won't ever see the Oval Office. Keep it up--thanks--just what us wounded souls need! </p>
<p>Or, maybe we could all just keep the healing tone that this thread has, for the most part, taken, and bring us back together again, where we all belong. We all love this country, our freedoms, our common heritage--let's please remember that.</p>
<p>Well Carolyn I'll have to disagree with you on that. Republicans very much cultivate the evangelical vote. From viewing Frontline "The Jesus Factor", and talking to the evangelicals here, they see George Bush as their candidate. I also think the Republicans purposefully cultivate an image of being the party of family values by aligning themselves with the religious right while simultaneously presenting Democrats as the party of Liberals.(the implication being that they are socially liberal with no family values.)</p>
<p>Last year at work, during what started out as a casual lunchtime conversation, it was finally brought home to me that evangelical, fundamental Christians really do believe that wonderful, good, philanthropic, moral people who do not accept Christ as their personal savior will go to hell.<br>
I still can't believe that almost half the country feels this way. Carolyn is right -- there is no real conceptual or linguistic space carved out in the media for moderate church-goers and spiritual seekers. Not all Christians are far, far right.</p>
<p>Patient, I don't understand how 42% of Americans could say they consider themselves "born again Christians" That doesn't make sense. Catholics don't consider themselves born again Christians and they make up a sizeable majority of Christians. That would mean that there are basically NO non-born again, non Catholic Christians in the country. We know that isn't true. The numbers just don't add up.</p>
<p>Liz, yes, the Republicans definitely cultivate the evangelical vote. Just as the democrats cultivate the black baptist vote.</p>
<p>Kiddielit - I have had the same lunchtime conversation. :) My daughter and I have both been told that we are going to hell because we are Catholic. Which is why it bothers me that there is this underlying assumption in the media that ALL religious people are somehow outside the norm of US society when it is clearly not true.</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>I think the refusal of Kerry to articulate any positions was a conscious decision. I think that he and his strategists knew that his real positions on the issues (and he does have an 18 year Senate voting record) would never sell. I mean, honestly, it would probably be easier to sell "convicted felon" than "Massachusetts liberal" in a general election these days.</p>
<p>So, Kerry's strategists came up with the notion that they would conceal his record behind a "war hero" facade and we ended up with a truly bizarre convention that told us NOTHING about the candidate's views. I was thinking how bizarre Kerry's approach has been. George Bush, who I considered to be a notably undistinguished candidate four years ago, at least ran on his record as Texas governor. Kerry appeared to consciously run away from his record.</p>