How Bush Did It...
- Thread starter Otter
- Start date
I'm amused by the constant reminder that this was the narrowest win by an incumbent President in many years.
It's a *win*. Since 1950, only four incumbents have been re-elected at *all* (and one of them didn't even break 50%). One was killed, two decided not to run, and two were *defeated*.
My guess is that this is a way to demonstrate that it really wasn't a loss after all.
Which is weird, because if you look at everything aligned against Bush - Hollywood, the press, the debates, the war, George Soros, Abu Ghraib, flu shots, 527 groups and MoveOn, the protests, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Michael Moore, 9/11, loss of jobs and the constant assault from abroad about how Europe and other nations so loudly wanted him to lose - if you look at the historic get-out-the-vote and voter turnout - you would think, as I did, that Bush really did not have a chance. You would think that Florida was lost, and that the Senate was going Democratic. Instead, Bush won with a clear victory, improved his lead over the Democratic challenger in *EVERY* state (except NH) from 2000, and *added* seats to both the Senate and the House.
As I said before, the Dems lost not because people didn't 'get' the message. They were bombarded with it; they couldn't swing a dead cat around with hitting it. They just didn't want it.
In case nobody noticed, the 'map' got *redder* from 2000, and population trends show it will continue for the foreseeable future. Democrats have to learn how to get 50.1% of the vote, or they're never getting back in.
It's a *win*. Since 1950, only four incumbents have been re-elected at *all* (and one of them didn't even break 50%). One was killed, two decided not to run, and two were *defeated*.
My guess is that this is a way to demonstrate that it really wasn't a loss after all.
Which is weird, because if you look at everything aligned against Bush - Hollywood, the press, the debates, the war, George Soros, Abu Ghraib, flu shots, 527 groups and MoveOn, the protests, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Michael Moore, 9/11, loss of jobs and the constant assault from abroad about how Europe and other nations so loudly wanted him to lose - if you look at the historic get-out-the-vote and voter turnout - you would think, as I did, that Bush really did not have a chance. You would think that Florida was lost, and that the Senate was going Democratic. Instead, Bush won with a clear victory, improved his lead over the Democratic challenger in *EVERY* state (except NH) from 2000, and *added* seats to both the Senate and the House.
As I said before, the Dems lost not because people didn't 'get' the message. They were bombarded with it; they couldn't swing a dead cat around with hitting it. They just didn't want it.
In case nobody noticed, the 'map' got *redder* from 2000, and population trends show it will continue for the foreseeable future. Democrats have to learn how to get 50.1% of the vote, or they're never getting back in.
With all those vocal famous people and the liberal Dan Rather type slant in the network media, it is a wonder he won.
...since those who support or get them are typically liberal leaning.
The ones who don't "get" the message are the extreme liberal screwballs who cost the Democrats the Presidency, the House and the Senate. I will suggest that they didn't lose in spite of their efforts, but because of them.SamSpade said:
Promoting their lunatic fringe cost the Democrats big time.
My take...
Why did President Bush win reelection? Some of my Democratic friends will insist that he did because the American population is genuinely stupid. Some will say because Bush lied, played dirty tricks, and because of the Swift Boat ads. Others still will say that Bush didn't really win at all...rather that he "stole" votes in states with electronic voting. These types of Democrats are why my party is currently a minority in the Senate and House of Representatives and out of the White House for eight years. Democrats need to look at their own selves and see the problem; we need to take responsibility that our party has failed in reaching out to American voters, not blame some great deception of the American people or their "stupidity."
We lost this election because we ran a candidate who could be labeled easily. Do I think that all of those labels were true about Senator Kerry? Absolutely not, but man it's hard for independent and more conservative Americans to do the same. After all, Kerry was not only a flipp-flopper, but he was also a consistent liberal. The ineptitude of the Kerry campaign after his primary victory allowed these two conflicting images to be cemented within the American people's vision. There was no response from Kerry when the Bush campaign was able to label Kerry.
Furthermore, Senator Kerry was not liked by the American people. Who could ever see themselves at a ballgame or at a bar with John Kerry? I surely cannot, and most of America felt the same way. Americans want someone that they like as their leader...and Democrats, popularity and likeablity do not suggest dumbness.
Our convention was a disaster because Kerry only talked about Vietnam and because we showed Bill and Hillary Clinton in primetime, not Barack Obama, whose keynote address was the best speech at the convention. We didn't offer our alternatives to the Bush program in a clear way at the convention; we talked about lost jobs and the problems. Those problems should have made my party the winner in November, but my party's leaders failed so miserably in speaking with the American people and conveying our proposals that we didn't.
My party needs a serious change in leadership...we got a better leader in the Senate in Harry Reid, but we have more to do.
Why did President Bush win reelection? Some of my Democratic friends will insist that he did because the American population is genuinely stupid. Some will say because Bush lied, played dirty tricks, and because of the Swift Boat ads. Others still will say that Bush didn't really win at all...rather that he "stole" votes in states with electronic voting. These types of Democrats are why my party is currently a minority in the Senate and House of Representatives and out of the White House for eight years. Democrats need to look at their own selves and see the problem; we need to take responsibility that our party has failed in reaching out to American voters, not blame some great deception of the American people or their "stupidity."
We lost this election because we ran a candidate who could be labeled easily. Do I think that all of those labels were true about Senator Kerry? Absolutely not, but man it's hard for independent and more conservative Americans to do the same. After all, Kerry was not only a flipp-flopper, but he was also a consistent liberal. The ineptitude of the Kerry campaign after his primary victory allowed these two conflicting images to be cemented within the American people's vision. There was no response from Kerry when the Bush campaign was able to label Kerry.
Furthermore, Senator Kerry was not liked by the American people. Who could ever see themselves at a ballgame or at a bar with John Kerry? I surely cannot, and most of America felt the same way. Americans want someone that they like as their leader...and Democrats, popularity and likeablity do not suggest dumbness.
Our convention was a disaster because Kerry only talked about Vietnam and because we showed Bill and Hillary Clinton in primetime, not Barack Obama, whose keynote address was the best speech at the convention. We didn't offer our alternatives to the Bush program in a clear way at the convention; we talked about lost jobs and the problems. Those problems should have made my party the winner in November, but my party's leaders failed so miserably in speaking with the American people and conveying our proposals that we didn't.
My party needs a serious change in leadership...we got a better leader in the Senate in Harry Reid, but we have more to do.
Pete
Repete
Very well said. The only thing I would say is that you cannot simply "re-label, repackage re-market and try to resell" the part of your party that got rejected. Americans are not stupid and will see it.rraley said:
As long as your party embraces crackpots like Sharpton and Jackson, and smarmy characters like Soros, and the (insert celebrity name here) I see their credibility continuing to fade.
Last edited:
I don't see this is conflicting. Kerry's flip-flopping was not irritating because it revealed an inability to take sides on an issue. It was irritating because it was so *transparent*. People KNEW what he believed on lots of issues; he just was unwilling to go out and state proudly what he believed.rraley said:
I mean, was it EVER in doubt that he was against the war in Iraq?
Any number of things hurt. The shrillness of the opposition was more likely to hurt THEM, than Bush. If I run for city council and declare my opponent as dumb as dirt and worse than Hitler, my credibility as a viable candidate is near zero.
But another is as you say - it's not enough to say the guy in office sucks. You need to provide answers, even half-baked ones. John Kerry repeated in his debates - "we can do better". Isn't this the party of vision, of dreams, and innovation? "We can do better"? That's as lame as Dukakis talking about "competence". The Presidency is about leadership, not *management*.
And lastly, as badly as the Dems wanted to portray the nation by economic figures, the simple fact is, it's doing quite well.
The ONE Democrat that has been re-elected in recent years was a centrist. As long as MoveOn and the DNC insist on moving further to the left and fielding the most boring candidates available, they will never get back into the White House.
And as long as they call the red-staters "dumb", they're *never* gonna get their vote.
Bad news on the horizon - red states are *growing*. Blue states are shrinking. Take the hint.
You are the future of the Democrats and absolutely correct.rraley said:
Except for this:
The Democrats reached out with both fists. It was the message that was the problem. "George Bush is Hitler" "No blood for oil" And their messengers left a lot to be desired as well - Terry McAuliffe, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo, Barbara Streisand and, yes, John F-word Kerry himself. Not to mention that little stunt Dan Rather pulled.
The message all along was "George Bush sucks". That's it - nothing more. No solutions, no issues, no nothing - just "George Bush sucks".
Lenny
Lovin' being Texican
The Democrats tried to win using the Jimmy Carter platform. "I'm not Gerald Ford!" They cannot understand that Carter won purely because he wasn't Gerald Ford, not because he was a Democrat, or Jimmy Carter. That's why Carter couldn't win in 1980.
John Kerry tried the same thing and failed.
I wouldn't characterize Carter's campaign as "not being Gerald Ford." Carter used "outsider" appeal...a modern day version of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and he failed. A "not being the other candidate" campaign was Reagan's 80 run, according to most historians...long gas lines, inflation, and a hostage situation in Iran; these events weren't enough to put Reagan ahead in the polls until he said in that debate one week before the election: "Are you better of now than you were four years ago?" He wasn't Carter and people preferred that...it was Reagan's four years of charisma and military toughness against the tax increasing Mondale that led to his 84 landslide.
Anyways, back to the topic at hand...The Democrats need to push the Michael Moore types to the background much like the Republican Party has pushed the Buchannites and Robertsons to the background of their party. Sadly, the Moore types are oversensitive and get very upset when anyone criticizes them; the Christian Right members are politically astute and understand that they can do more in the background.
Now on the issues, we have to moderate on two very important issues in rural areas...these areas are gun control and abortion rights. On gun control, I mean honestly the Democratic Party needs to stop. The concept behind an assault rifle ban is good, but any legislation needs to show true sensitivity to gun owners. Furthermore, we need to move from pushing for gun control laws to pushing for the enforcement of those laws. In other words, gun crimes should never be allowed to be plea bargained away. On abortion rights, meanwhile, we need to stop the perception that we are the party that loves abortion...I, surely do not, as do most Democrats. Kerry's approach to ending this perception was fatally flawed: he said that he personally opposed, but that he wouldn't do anything to end it, not even end certain terrible types of abortion or require parental notification for abortions. Once again, Kerry wasn't standing up for his beliefs. Rather, the Democratic Party should make it clear that it opposes abortion and that it strongly supports effective public policy that reduces the number of abortions in the United States. An outright ban would not do this (Latin American nations all ban abortion, but they have the highest abortion rates in the world). Rather, other methods, including sex education and creating better economic conditions, will lead to less abortions (it should be noted that pro-choice Bill Clinton's term saw a 11% decline in abortions while pro-life Ronald Reagan's term saw a 5% increase in abortion). But most of all, we need to engage on that issue and not concede to the GOP. Many rural voters shut down to the Democratic Party now because of these two issues, and we have to change that dynamic.
Anyways, back to the topic at hand...The Democrats need to push the Michael Moore types to the background much like the Republican Party has pushed the Buchannites and Robertsons to the background of their party. Sadly, the Moore types are oversensitive and get very upset when anyone criticizes them; the Christian Right members are politically astute and understand that they can do more in the background.
Now on the issues, we have to moderate on two very important issues in rural areas...these areas are gun control and abortion rights. On gun control, I mean honestly the Democratic Party needs to stop. The concept behind an assault rifle ban is good, but any legislation needs to show true sensitivity to gun owners. Furthermore, we need to move from pushing for gun control laws to pushing for the enforcement of those laws. In other words, gun crimes should never be allowed to be plea bargained away. On abortion rights, meanwhile, we need to stop the perception that we are the party that loves abortion...I, surely do not, as do most Democrats. Kerry's approach to ending this perception was fatally flawed: he said that he personally opposed, but that he wouldn't do anything to end it, not even end certain terrible types of abortion or require parental notification for abortions. Once again, Kerry wasn't standing up for his beliefs. Rather, the Democratic Party should make it clear that it opposes abortion and that it strongly supports effective public policy that reduces the number of abortions in the United States. An outright ban would not do this (Latin American nations all ban abortion, but they have the highest abortion rates in the world). Rather, other methods, including sex education and creating better economic conditions, will lead to less abortions (it should be noted that pro-choice Bill Clinton's term saw a 11% decline in abortions while pro-life Ronald Reagan's term saw a 5% increase in abortion). But most of all, we need to engage on that issue and not concede to the GOP. Many rural voters shut down to the Democratic Party now because of these two issues, and we have to change that dynamic.
Pete said:
Ah, the Democratic Party is not where I want it to be, but the Republican Party is far from it too. Too many Republicans think that tax reform is best accomplished by either a flat tax or a national sales tax that would be far too hurtful to the middle and lower classes (I prefer a production tax that is levied on every level of a business's production of a good or service...it is a great idea that a conservative introduced me to, if you want to know about it, PM me and I will send you the website and the pdf proposal). Too many Republicans think that the way to fix Social Security is by cutting benefits and calling it "investment accounts" (I believe that the best way to fix Social Security is to cap payments to wealthy income earners and to increase the amount of taxable income; I also prefer returning the budget to surplus and diverting any surplus funds to the Social Security Trust Fund). Too many Republicans are in the business of demonizing cultural problems, rather than addressing them logically (like abortion, as I discussed earlier). And George W. Bush's philosophy of international relations (unilateralism as opposed to multilateralism) has turned me off the GOP further (I supported the Afghan and Iraqi actions, but I don't think that Bush went about the Iraqi situation correctly). I believe in protecting the environment (George W. Bush and most Republicans are not in that mindset). I believe in welfare (the reforms of Bill Clinton made the program less abuse-prone and more uplifting, rather than systematic). I believe in health care for all (I support providing business credits to all businesses so that they can provide for good, comprehensive health insurance for their workers) and well George W. Bush didn't really address the growing number of uninsured in our nation. So, until these things are rectified, I don't see myself being a Republican anytime soon.
Furthermore, the biggest thing that the GOP had going for it was its belief in fiscal responsibility. Well, $420 billion later, they lost that.
Mikeinsmd
New Member
Mr. Raley, you are a very intelligent young man for your age. A little misguided in some beliefs but I believe there is hope due to your open mind. I would love to have a long and productive thread with you but it is now past my bedtime (don't laugh, you'll be old & have to work oneday too)rraley said:
We shall continue this thread tomorrow! Good night all!!
Haha, thank you sir...life as a high senior whose already accepted into college is much more simpler and carefree than the life of an older person in the workforce.Mikeinsmd said:Mr. Raley, you are a very intelligent young man for your age. A little misguided in some beliefs but I believe there is hope due to your open mind. I would love to have a long and productive thread with you but it is now past my bedtime (don't laugh, you'll be old & have to work oneday too)
We shall continue this thread tomorrow! Good night all!!
