logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Who "lost" Kerry the election?
Who/what will lead Kerry to lose in November?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 74
Guests cannot vote 
nebraska29
post Sep 17 2004, 03:11 PM
Post #1


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



IPB Image


Recent events have me in absolute amazement about the Kerry campaign. In a matter of only a few weeks, a president who de-facto dropped out of the Vietnam war conflict was painted as a hero, while a purple-heart award winning veteran was made to look like an exaggerator and opportunist. ermm.gif Not only that, but the economy and war-two issues that Kerry should be prevailing on, are not clearly Kerry's issues. blink.gif


I've posted before about the moderate-liberal fighting going on within the party, here is a link regarding Joe Klein's analysis of Bob Shrum and Shrum's recipe to lose elections, which features populist economics and a pessimistic outlook. Shrum is a great campaign manager at the state level, but has yet to help anyone capture the white house.

Questions for debate:

1.)Up to this point, who is to blame for Kerry not doing so well? If he loses, what factor do you believe lead to the lost election?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 38)
Cube Jockey
post Sep 23 2004, 05:11 PM
Post #21


*********
Now with more truthiness

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,799
Member No.: 1,224
Joined: September-16-03

From: San Francisco, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 23 2004, 05:42 PM)
The point is, Kerry couldn't win in Scarborough's "reporting," regardless of what he did. Part of what starts with biased sources, like Scarborough, often makes its way into the mainstream media and sticks. The line from right wing sources to the manistream media is a--the?--real danger.

That is another good point BoF, the media coverage of each candidate and whether it is favorable or unfavorable matters when it comes to the election. I remember reading somewhere that in the 2000 election Gore got far more negative (and less positive) coverage than Bush did - I'll see if I can dig it up a little later. The election was very close, but I'm sure things like that have an impact on voters, at least the more intellectually lazy ones.

This goes back to how the Kerry campaign is being run. He needs to be driving the media in defining his image and he certainly doesn't need to let president Bush do it for him. He has already made that fatal mistake and we'll just have to see if it is recoverable. I am very disatisfied with how the campaign is being run and I almost wish I was playing a part in it so I could slap some sense into these people. They had a model that was working well and had potential with Dean's campaign and they basically said "right, well that works so we are just going to throw it in the trash".

This also to a certain extent relates to the media watchdog thread I started, I really want to see the media calling candidates to the carpet - on both sides - and exposing them when they are being less than honest with us. I think that if they actually did that, the whole concept of attack ads would be rather counterproductive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Sep 23 2004, 06:53 PM
Post #22


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Sep 23 2004, 12:11 PM)
I remember reading somewhere that in the 2000 election Gore got far more negative (and less positive) coverage than Bush did - I'll see if I can dig it up a little later.  The election was very close, but I'm sure things like that have an impact on voters, at least the more intellectually lazy ones.

This also to a certain extent relates to the media watchdog thread I started, I really want to see the media calling candidates to the carpet - on both sides - and exposing them when they are being less than honest with us.  I think that if they actually did that, the whole concept of attack ads would be rather counterproductive.

CJ,

The link you are probably referring to is the one by the highly regarded Pew organization:

http://www.journalism.org/resources/resear...lap/default.asp

Part of the problem with Gore’s campaign was that he got painted as a "liar" or an "exaggerator," even when he wasn’t.

The most classic, of course, the “I invented the internet” statement. Actually Gore said he “created” the internet within the context of working for it’s funding in Congress. As I understand the story, Ann Coulter substituted the synonym “invent” for “create” and it mushroomed from there.

I agree that the news media is not asking the hard questions of either candidate.

Of late, I think CNN’s Lou Dobbs has been making an attempt to do this.

Another curious story circulated of late when both the right-wing and mainstream media asked what had happened to John Edwards. As it turns out, Edwards had been on the campaign trail all along; he just hadn’t been getting any coverage. Duh.

I have a new book you might like. It’s by David Brooks and the title is The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How it Corrupts Democracy. Even the cover is a classic visulation. We have three tanks rolling around with what looks like those 30” speakers Electro Voice used to manufacture mounted on the barrels.

This post has been edited by BoF: Sep 23 2004, 09:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Artemise
post Sep 27 2004, 07:42 AM
Post #23


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 668
Joined: April-15-03

From: Alaska
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Blame the media all you like, its the winning that counts.

If Kerry is pounding the pavement all the time it is highly unlikely he can be photographed doing other than. They may not give him coverage, but they cant either cover him goofing off. They will have to aknowledge he is WORKING eventually. If he eventually decides to actually take this election seriously and not try to compete with the Bush way of life as in quien es mas macho in a sports environment, we might see a candidate who is worth his salt, but its getting too late, the message is entirely weak.

BOF, "We" do not need to take Kerrys windsurfing 'in context', Kerry needs to take his windsurfing in context. 'We' think windsurfing is just grand. 'We' think all sports are fantastic. 'We' would all like to be out on our boards (surf or snow) having a good ole time and kickin it with our buds every weekend and on weekdays, like a Tuesday but can we? NO!. 'I' think surfers have the best life on the planet, no responsibilities, except to their sponsors, no cares in life, but 'I' realize that a surfer mentality cannot be President of the United States, and 'we all' cannot either be surfers because 'we' have a families to take care of, and 'I' and so many more people in this country want to see a candidate that 'WORKS' to get Howeverelected and 'Works' on weekends, and 'proves themself when the going gets tough' and 'I' think this is tough going right now and 'I' want someone who wants the job enough to dedicate to working for it without spendy fancy weekend windsurfing om Tuesday because its the 'RNC'. What? Let them take a lead? This isnt the Tortoise and the Hare!

You're making excuses for Kerry campaigning through the RNC, that he was critisized, who cares but Republicans? If you are a candidate that cares- Campaign the WHOLE TIME, work every single day How else does one expect the job to be done?

Look, if you want the job enough..Kerry just doesnt want it bad enough, hes too attached to his lifestyle, its obvious, case closed. Pick up your cards and look to 2008, Kerry has blown it, and its his own fault.
Heres the deal, Bush set the bar for vacation time, unknown in the past for Presidents, Kerry took that and exploited it, maybe even to a higher level. Now theyre competing for how much advantage they can take and still get elected. However, Kerry will lose because of his lack of dedication, he cant compete on this level.

This post has been edited by Artemise: Sep 27 2004, 08:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cube Jockey
post Sep 27 2004, 10:10 AM
Post #24


*********
Now with more truthiness

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,799
Member No.: 1,224
Joined: September-16-03

From: San Francisco, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Artemise @ Sep 27 2004, 08:42 AM)
Heres the deal, Bush set the bar for vacation time, unknown in the past for Presidents, Kerry took that and exploited it, maybe even to a higher level. Now theyre competing for how much advantage they can take and still get elected. However, Kerry will lose because of his lack of dedication,  he cant compete on this level.

I still don't see how you can make that claim. Regarding the windsurfing incident it is important to keep in mind a few things:
1) It was in a Bush/Cheny ad played on their website and maybe on TV in some places. This is hardly the same thing as getting media coverage everywhere on the local news. No one really cares about those ads except for the GOP faithful anyway.

2) The ad was about Kerry's flip-flops and the whole windsurfing thing just made for a clever gimick. The Republicans didn't state or imply that Kerry is taking a vacation because they know that would backfire on them.

But my major complaint still remains - why is the assumption here that Kerry is going to lose artemise? What conclusive proof is out there that suggests none of us should even bother showing up on election day? It is one thing to discuss the weaknesses of the campaign, but more damaging than anything Kerry can do himself is when the people that supposedly support him get attitudes like this. That is what kills a candidate, far more easily than any unfavorable soundbite replayed on TV ad nauseum.

Did you see the Republicans start a thread titled How did Bush "lose" the election? No, you didn't. Their thread is called how Bush "won" the election. The premise is still flawed in exactly the same way, and I feel that at least we are being more honest with ourselves, but this defeatist attitude will lead to defeat. Are you going to be inclined to go out there and do the things necessary to help Kerry win such as volunteering your time for the camapign, registering voters, donating money and talking him up to potential undecided voters? I would submit that with a defatist attitude none of those things would be considered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 27 2004, 12:01 PM
Post #25


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,393
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Look, if you want the job enough..Kerry just doesnt want it bad enough, hes too attached to his lifestyle, its obvious, case closed. Pick up your cards and look to 2008, Kerry has blown it, and its his own fault.


Nope, we will have blown it and its our own fault.

If we had wanted a workaholic, passionate candidate, we would have picked Dean.

But no. That's not electable. It screamed in enthusiasm for begeegee's sake!

Guess the mind control ray of the Republican party is fully engaged. As the first debate appraoches, expectations for Bush are lowering, expectations for Kerry rising, and so we wll get the government we deserve.

Which is to say, not a very good one. It is really quite astounding! I'd suggest all Demos everywhere, and all those undecided, just stop watching television. That's where the mind control beams are coming from. Stop watching television and use that time to do some wind surfing, wave surfing, web surfing, street surfing, trail surfing or some darn thing that's real.

Calm the mind, focus the soul, vote for Kerry and get rid of the Bush mind manipulation machine.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Sep 29 2004, 05:43 AM
Post #26


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,198
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Sep 17 2004, 11:11 AM)
Questions for debate:

1.)Up to this point, who is to blame for Kerry not doing so well?  If he loses, what factor do you believe lead to the lost election?
*

It's been about 11 days now, and I have finally calmed down enough to respond to this question... I haven't voted in this thread, because I believe the entire premise is false.

The election is still about 5 weeks away. The election has not been lost yet. This is not the time to concede that a candidate can be elected on a platform of "Laura deserves to be First Lady for four more years."

George W. Bush is President in part because millions of eligible, and registered voters did not vote four years ago.

If you are posting in this thread, you are a declared Democrat. If you didn't have strongly held opinions, you wouldn't be posting on America's Debate. Go to your local Democratic Party headquarters and see how you can put those talents, and opinions to work. I assure you, they will welcome your help.

I'm lousy at speaking to people face to face, and worse on a telephone; but I've been helping with data entry on the campaign computers. PE has been on the telephones. We took some of our Fourth of July decorations down to spruce up the headquarters today. We've been trying to figure out how to prominently identify the headquarters ever since someone drove a car through the front window.

Elections are won not by the candidates, but by the votes cast. Man the telephones. Write letters. Encourage Kerry Supporters and Bush Haters to Register and vote. Total strangers have stopped us to purchase our campaign buttons because they want to support Kerry. Our HQ will not have any more Kerry/Edwards signs until at least Friday; and at that, they are looking for a truck owner to pick up the signs. I have seen very few Bush/Cheney yard signs.

Entering the data is encouraging. In three hours of data entry this morning, I saw very few voters who had identified themselves to our volunteers as Bush supporters...

Do what you can as a Democrat to get other people to go to the polls and vote, and don't forget your own responsibility to register and vote!

The only Poll that really counts is the one on November 2, and that is still over a month away. If each of you persuades a few voters that it matters that they cast their vote, it will multiply your vote, and it might make the difference.

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Sep 29 2004, 05:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Oct 1 2004, 12:19 AM
Post #27


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



A few things I've noticed in a battleground state...

There are a lot of yard signs up this year. For every one "Bush/Cheney" sign, there are two "Kerry/Edwards." Seriously. Even where the "Bush/Cheney" signs predominate such as on the street I travel to go to work, I noticed that one person had placed a "Kerry/Edwards" sign in their yard and then elevated it to stand taller than the Bush sign across the street. Cool! thumbsup.gif

This story appeared in my daily newspaper today:

Democratic Sen. John Kerry is batting .500 with Essence Cheatom.

Because the Northeast Side resident is just halfway to the minimum voting age of 18, she won’t be able to go to the polls on Nov. 2.

But that hasn’t prevented the fourth-grader from throwing herself behind Kerry with a youthful exuberance typically reserved for a favorite cartoon character or the latest music sensation.

Essence is the founder and president of a pro-Kerry student organization at Duxberry Park Alternative Elementary School on the Northeast Side.

Last week, while most of her schoolmates were outside, swinging and playing hopscotch, Essence was inside, leading a discussion about issues ranging from Medicare reform and toxic waste to land use and the war in Iraq.

Between meetings, Essence has been buttonholing teachers who might be undecided voters.

"This is a student who comes around once in a lifetime," said Mike White, a teacher at Duxberry Park. "She’s so driven and passionate about her beliefs. It’s just a rare quality to find, especially in a 9-year-old."


http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?sto...0930-C7-00.html

In my home county of Franklin County where Columbus is located there are more than 90,000 new voters this year. My younger sister told me today that her best friend--who hasn't voted since she was 18--registered this year because she wants to get rid of "Ambush." mrsparkle.gif

And this came from Sunday's New York Times:

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A sweeping voter registration campaign in heavily Democratic areas has added tens of thousands of new voters to the rolls in the swing states of Ohio and Florida, a surge that has far exceeded the efforts of Republicans in both states, a review of registration data shows.

The analysis by The New York Times of county-by-county data shows that in Democratic areas of Ohio - primarily low-income and minority neighborhoods - new registrations since January have risen 250 percent over the same period in 2000. In comparison, new registrations have increased just 25 percent in Republican areas. A similar pattern is apparent in Florida: in the strongest Democratic areas, the pace of new registration is 60 percent higher than in 2000, while it has risen just 12 percent in the heaviest Republican areas.

While comparable data could not be obtained for other swing states, similar registration drives have been mounted in them as well, and party officials on both sides say record numbers of new voters are being registered nationwide. This largely hidden but deadly earnest battle is widely believed by campaign professionals and political scientists to be potentially decisive in the presidential election.

We know it's going on, and it's a very encouraging sign," said Steve Elmendorf, deputy campaign manager for Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee. The new voters, Mr. Elmendorf said, "could very much be the difference."


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/politics...pagewanted=1&hp

Malcolm X once theorized that in a close election where the White vote is evenly divided, a heavy turnout by Black voters could make all the difference.

It's always been just a theory. Could this be the year it becomes an actuality?

The debate tonight is important. But it's not the be-all or end-all. Curmudgeon is dead on it. The only poll that matters is when the voters go to the polls on the first Tuesday in November.

My conservative colleague Aquilla is right that the fat lady is in the building, but it's still not clear who she's going to be singing for.

hmmm.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 1 2004, 09:49 AM
Post #28


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I have been reading the results of the poll here on AD regarding the first Bush/Kerry debate held last night. One vote for Bush winning, 27 for Kerry winning. Guess there's still breath in the Democratic nominee's body, so don't bury him yet! mrsparkle.gif

Kerry was polished, articulate, gracious. He gave back better than he got from Bush. As Paul Begala mentioned in his blog, Bush seemed surprised at how presidential and well-spoken his opponent is.

In contrast, the President pooped out after 30 minutes or so. He resorted to repeating himself, he ummed and awed. He did not have command of his facial expressions, grimacing, smirking, and looking clearly irritated with what he was hearing from his opponent. He did not have a good answer for Kerry regarding nuclear proliferation and the U.S. developing more weapons of mass destruction (bunker buster nuclear bombs) while requiring the other nations not to develop them. He resorted to repeating that it was a tough job and he was working hard. But he had no solutions to offer regarding the quagmire in Iraq or his failure to capture Osama bin Laden. At one point he misspoke, mentioning Saddam Hussein when he meant bin Laden.

MSNBC was very glowing in its praise of Kerry's performance in this first debate. CNN was less glowing, but its QUICK VOTE poll indicated Kerry as the winner to the tune of 77%.

Kerry does not look like a loser to me. And perhaps some of the undecideds got a chance to see that the Democratic nominee comes off every bit as Presidential as the incumbent does, perhaps more so.

Now, how about we work for our candidate?

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 1 2004, 10:53 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nebraska29
post Oct 2 2004, 11:01 PM
Post #29


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Another curious story circulated of late when both the right-wing and mainstream media asked what had happened to John Edwards. As it turns out, Edwards had been on the campaign trail all along; he just hadn’t been getting any coverage. Duh.


You've touched on something here BoF that we needto pay closer attention too. A lot of media outlets get their scoop from the right wing-and that's how we get storeis about Kerry's tan, windsurfing, or other inane things. They are also makinjg some major Fox(faux) mistakes.

NBC "fact-check" on debate distorts what Kerry said.


CNN plays down significance of a great Kerry debate.

NBC(again) distorts Kerry's comments on Iran.

When things like this happen and flighty reporters give out what essentially are RNC talking points, then we have some serious problems. I only regret that I didn't throw a media option in on the poll.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Oct 2 2004, 11:47 PM
Post #30


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



[quote=nebraska29,Oct 2 2004, 06:01 PM]
[quote] A lot of media outlets get their scoop from the right wing-and that's how we get storeis about Kerry's tan, windsurfing, or other inane things. [/quote]

Good observation Nebraska.

MSNBC was saying Kerry was ORANGE in the days before the debate. I don't know why Kerry had such a peculiar color. He had had a cold and perhaps some medication changed his skin color or maybe it was a make-up or whatever. Regardless of what ws going on, Matthews, Scarborough and others used an unnecessary barrage of words to point it out more times than necessary.

So, let's make a joke out of it. Is the country ready for an orange president? rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by BoF: Oct 2 2004, 11:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
English Horn
post Oct 3 2004, 01:41 AM
Post #31


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 633
Member No.: 2,819
Joined: March-30-04

From: Connecticut
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Sep 17 2004, 11:11 AM)
1.)Up to this point, who is to blame for Kerry not doing so well?  If he loses, what factor do you believe lead to the lost election?
*



Well, this whole topic coul be just a bit premature: according to the latest poll, Bush's lead has evaporated after the debate. In fact, the president now has the lowest post-GOP convention approval ratings.
So the fight is still on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nebraska29
post Nov 4 2004, 01:10 AM
Post #32


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I would use this space to write "neener-neener-neener" to those who thought this thread was unnecessary, but I can't gloat about things that really disappoint me. sad.gif mad.gif

With that being said, I must say that I'm a little disappointed in Kerry. He did a great job in the debates, but blabbing on and on about his faith and putting on the hunting gear didn't earn him any more fundamentalist or NRA votes by any means. At least if we nominated Dean, he would've been out there sticking the president and he wouldn't apologize for what he believes in. The GOP appeals to their base, it appears that our party ignores them and tries to dress up like the GOP.

Any thoughts on this now fresh and(unfortunately right) topic?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
piesh22
post Nov 11 2004, 02:15 AM
Post #33


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 2
Member No.: 3,924
Joined: November-11-04

Gender: Private
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Sep 17 2004, 09:11 AM)
Recent events have me in absolute amazement about the Kerry campaign.  In a matter of only a few weeks, a president who de-facto dropped out of the Vietnam war conflict was painted as a hero, while a purple-heart award winning veteran was made to look like an exaggerator and opportunist. :ermm:   Not only that, but the economy and war-two issues that Kerry should be prevailing on, are not clearly Kerry's issues. :blink:


I've posted before about the moderate-liberal fighting going on within the party, here is a link regarding Joe Klein's analysis of Bob Shrum and Shrum's recipe to lose elections, which features populist economics and a pessimistic outlook.  Shrum is a great campaign manager at the state level, but has yet to help anyone capture the white house. 

Questions for debate:

1.)Up to this point, who is to blame for Kerry not doing so well?  If he loses, what factor do you believe lead to the lost election?
*




Honestly, I think that Kerry did no wrong, or he would've lost by a landslide. I think his advisors did nothing wrong. I think that America didn't want to let go of a president in a war that president started. Don't get me wrong, I wanted Kerry to win. It's just that because it was that close, Kerry did nothing wrong, his advisors did nothing wrong, no one messed up anything. America just wanted to finish the war with the president it started with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Matthew R. Whitt...
post Jul 26 2005, 11:00 PM
Post #34


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 2
Member No.: 5,311
Joined: July-26-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



John Kerry won Ohio and the presidency in 2004.

I live in Butler County, Ohio. It's about as republican as it gets in this state, and 8 out of every 10 people I saw and spoke too, many of them life long republicans, were voting for Kerry.

This state is in sad shape, and the people here know it and were not going to vote for Bush. Yes, he has a following here, but Kerry got more votes.

Bush only "won" the state through massive fraud, which he was helped with by our current Sec. of State and future governor candidate, Ken Blackwell.

The exit polls don't lie folks. thumbsup.gif us.gif

I've seen too many people jump on Kerry and try and claim he was a poor candidate. Not so.

Even if you believe Bush really did win( hmmm.gif ), Kerry still came VERY close to beating a sitting president during a time of war, when Americans are buying into the endless fear campaign from Bush, who was sitting on the biggest pile of campaign $$$ ever.

No my friends, John Kerry was elected president, just like Al Gore in 2000. Dumbya is the only two term president in history never elected to the office. sour.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Jul 26 2005, 11:20 PM
Post #35


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Matthew R. Whittington @ Jul 26 2005, 05:00 PM)
John Kerry won Ohio and the presidency in 2004.


Even if this is true, it may be a blessing in disguise.

Had Kerry won Ohio, he would still have lost the popular vote. He would still have to deal with a Congress controlled by the Republicans with no popular mandate (from the popular vote) to do much, if anything.

I voted for Kerry and whish he had won, but he would now be governing under circumstances that would probably make him a one term president. I think Kerry knew this when he threw in the towel.

This is hard for me to say. I get nauseated just looking at Bush or hearing his voice. sad.gif

This post has been edited by BoF: Jul 26 2005, 11:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoraX
post Aug 27 2005, 05:31 PM
Post #36


****
Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 66
Member No.: 558
Joined: February-28-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Kerry did not want to win the election. He did not campaign as though our lives depended up it. His staff did not want to pay the registration fees to be a candidate in my state. He wanted to ride this election on coat tails, he played the election like a frat party. Not all the electoral votes were counted before he threw in the towel. He didn't want to fight like Gore had to make sure every valid vote was counted. But enough of that...

Kerry was just a horrible candidate. "We can do better!" What kind of slogan is that? He was out there saying he could do the war better. He wanted to escalate the war in Iraq. Kerry was not willing to be a true opposition...but then, neither does the majority of the Democratic party.

Nearly half the nation that voted, voted for Kerry because he was not Bush. He had that much support alone. He could have won if he was resolute in pulling out of Iraq. Oh, but wait, he voted for the war! Well, I guess he is the Dumbacrat's best pick.

If Gore and Kerry losing to Bush isn't an eye opener for the Democratic Party then this nation is doomed for 4 more years of regression. But if the 'liberals' in this nation are not ready for a president who enforces liberal values then Bush is indeed the best man for them. Then a vote for Kerry was just a retracted vote for Bush.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaime
post Aug 27 2005, 07:25 PM
Post #37


Group Icon

**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Admin
Posts: 5,941
Member No.: 4
Joined: July-25-02

From: Down where the River meets the Sea
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Please do not post in the Democrat Debate forum if you have not declared yourself a Democrat.

(btw - welcome back LoraX smile.gif )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Boney King o...
post Aug 27 2005, 07:59 PM
Post #38


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 18
Member No.: 5,392
Joined: August-21-05

From: Claremont, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Democrat



Ironically, I think Iraq is what actually did Kerry in. I think a lot of people realize that, in retrospect, going into Iraq was probably a bad idea, but that doesn't mean that we can just up and leave now. Iraq would dissolve into chaos and civil war, and Kerry knew it so he couldn't come out and say that he would immediately get us out of Iraq. People didn't want to vote for someone who said that the war was "wrong" if he wasn't ultimately going to do anything differently than Bush.

Plus Kerry was hand-tied from being able to say that he would have kept us out of Iraq if he had been president because, well, he voted for it (which was probably because he already knew he was going to run for president and didn't want to be hurt by being against a war that the public supported at the time).

This duality of opinions-- trying to be the candidate against the war but who also voted for it, and not having any real alternative plan to Bush's for getting out-- made him look weak and of course helped to foster the "flip flopper" image. I honestly think that Kerry would have made a good president, but he was a terrible candidate. It's sort of sad that the two characteristics are not one and the same.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Sep 4 2005, 05:48 AM
Post #39


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(The Boney King of Nowhere. @ Aug 27 2005, 02:59 PM)
I honestly think that Kerry would have made a good president, but he was a terrible candidate.  It's sort of sad that the two characteristics are not one and the same.


I concur with this statement.

Yet I also think Kerry would have had a rough time if he had been elected without the mandate of the popular vote and with both houses of Congress overstocked with Republicans. ph34r.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: January 21st, 2020 - 02:10 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.