I disagree. With the popular vote, the people have spoken. Every hour the Democrats wait to concede is injurious to our future.
I sincerely hope the Kerry camp concedes today, especially with the popular vote against him.
It is time to start with a clear message of dissent.
I say screw 'em. We need to let Bush have the mess he created and be ready to pick up the pieces in 2008.
I think Kerry is to concede at 10am or at least make some kind of statement.
Just Kerry's concession speech; ok, not as good as Gores, but it will be interesting to see if his actions back his words.
Nobody from the left has talked about the 'what might have beens' if the Dems had put a different candidate forword. It might be too early for this, but I'm very curious about what some of you think about this.
Still too soon?
Is any A2Ker who was a Kerry supporter or Bush hater (yes, they were different voters*) able to explain who else might have carried the day for the Dems?
*Kerry supporters truly thought he was the best person available; Bush haters were more concerned with defeating Bush then supporting Kerry.
Anyone?
Larry - since you've brought that line of thought up - how was Clinton's message different from those of the Democrats you've identified?
It's a sincere question. There was some discussion of the U.S. election over lunch yesterday (in between the interesting stuff about dogs and kids), and the concensus of those who had an opinion here was that Clinton was a very different type of messenger.
If his message was different, what was his message, and how did he deliver it?
lone voice. Remember that, in this election, the largest turnout in history voted against Bush as well, so your comment about the candidate is well taken. A better candidate seems to evade both parties. in 2000, the way the GOP eviscerated Mcain left the Gore/Bush debacle. Both candidates were marginal
in the normal process of post mortem DEM style
First we blame the candidate
Then, in the next stage we blame thhe party
Then we blam,e the DEM voter(we cant even live up to our expectations)
If we could survey the best out there, (and stay away from Senators because they are naturally gonna be called flip floppers, whhat Rove did to Kerry in this election, Clinton did the same to Dole in 96) Its the nature of senatorship. I guess our presidents should come from the "minors" the governors of the states.
I
Youve gotta agree that neither Bush nor gore were never the best theparties could produce. The conflict in 2000 was evidence of how the slogans and spinmeisters and not the candidates input to their own campaigns. Gore was, at least a semi incumbent (but his disavowing any connection to that status proved fatal).
Had Mcain been the candidate, It would have been a landslide for him. the first 9 months of Bushs first term was evidencing that the GOP maybe goofed up bad. He was a fish out of water and was losing credibility quickly.
Clinton was, by far the best pol of the last 15 years. He pod the GOP because he took their agenda a nd modified it to be palatable to a wider electorate. I had issues with Clinton because he continued the gutting of the environmental programs and the military that Bush 1 began.
Well yeah Larry, Clinton was the best republican president of the 2oth century but we already knew that.
Interesting, larry. Thanks for answering.
Given the growth of the U.S. government under Bush, gotta wonder how much message matching action matters. <shrug>
I personally have the Opie theory. The candidate most like Opie wins.
Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, any sorta Bush = Opie
that theory certainly fits with my Reagan=Floyd the Barber theory....
Mayberry as target market.
hmmmmmmmmm
It works.
So if Hilary could be seen as Helen Crump ...
Nope, don't think so.
Yup, Larry. Aw shucks = Bush = Opie in my book.
Of course that makes Setanta the perfect candidate. You should hear him say "Aunt Bea, Aunt Bea".
farmerman wrote:lone voice. Remember that, in this election, the largest turnout in history voted against Bush as well, so your comment about the candidate is well taken. A better candidate seems to evade both parties. in 2000, the way the GOP eviscerated Mcain left the Gore/Bush debacle. Both candidates were marginal
in the normal process of post mortem DEM style
First we blame the candidate
Then, in the next stage we blame thhe party
Then we blam,e the DEM voter(we cant even live up to our expectations)
If we could survey the best out there, (and stay away from Senators because they are naturally gonna be called flip floppers, whhat Rove did to Kerry in this election, Clinton did the same to Dole in 96) Its the nature of senatorship. I guess our presidents should come from the "minors" the governors of the states.
I
Youve gotta agree that neither Bush nor gore were never the best theparties could produce. The conflict in 2000 was evidence of how the slogans and spinmeisters and not the candidates input to their own campaigns. Gore was, at least a semi incumbent (but his disavowing any connection to that status proved fatal).
Had Mcain been the candidate, It would have been a landslide for him. the first 9 months of Bushs first term was evidencing that the GOP maybe goofed up bad. He was a fish out of water and was losing credibility quickly.
Clinton was, by far the best pol of the last 15 years. He pod the GOP because he took their agenda a nd modified it to be palatable to a wider electorate. I had issues with Clinton because he continued the gutting of the environmental programs and the military that Bush 1 began.
Excellent points, farmerman. You are especially right about 2000; I was a McCain backer who was disappointed that he wasn't the Republican nominee.
But don't you think most of Clinton's success came from his moderate viewpoints and positions, rather then his personality?
I still think Dean could have reached out to many conservatives, because he has many conservative views, especially in the area of fiscal responsibility, gun control, and some other positions that are closer to Repubs then Dems.
And with the way Iraq is going, I think he would have found much more support with his consistent anti-war stand rather then Kerry's trying to have it both ways.
Anyone else think Dean could have pulled it off?
lone voice. Im m not denying Clintons centrist stances, but remember, he almost shot himself in the ass before the convention. So, I observe (in my addled state)In a contest between an elite and apopulist, always bet on the populist. Think about all the presidential winners between Nixon and Now. always give it to the covert " hick'. My grudging admiration of Bush's insight concerning people, may have presented as much of a margin of approval for him as did the "morals' issue. Kerry couldnt give you directions without a table of contents.He came across like a preachy, long winded, somelierat Antoines. (thats about as snotty as people can get without knighthood)
Clinton was already bouncing back as a serious contender even after the J Flowers thing in the pre-primaries. His cheeseburger pounding, saxophone playing, elvis wannabe demeanor hid, IMO probably the most staggering intellect besides Marylin vos savant. hes a bleedin constitutional, sports, music, art, politics , friggin genius..Yet he was Bubba, a child of the log cabin who overcame his background but retained his drawl. kerry also had that annoying mass accent. Hey, I dont think this is rocket medicine.
PS, i wanna show you how smart we were in Pa. Hedging our bets, Arlan Specter(R) beat out joe Hoeffel(D) for the US Senate. Since Arlan is a moderate and is a ranking member of the judiciary committee(since Mr Orrin Haatch is going to be terminated in JAn).
THEREFORE by retaining Specter
we still have a say re: the bringing forth of USSC justice nominees. We sacrificed one of our own for the good of the makeup of the court. Arlan will outlast the president , so we can be a bit manipulative if needed. Of course, I cant believe that Arlan squeeked by with such a low plurality. Maybe a lot of people werent thinking too far ahead.
So We hedged our bets. We voted for Kerry, but, if he lost (we reasoned) we needed not to lose Arlan on the Judiciary committee.Pennsylvanians who give a **** can send their 50$ checks to the FARMERMAN DEPRECIATION FUND
c/o The little Hole near the feedmill
Gobblers Knob
Lancaster County PA 19711
Do I make sense?
seriously though.
I tell ya, if Mcain wouldve run in 2000, this Dem would have voted for him and Ill bet this whole Iraq war would not have happened. My reevaluation proicess re" my political posture is , once again , going throughh a quatrannuary mullin over
A. With the rise in the Conservative gOPs, a party change to gOP would allow me a voice in busting or raising the gOP candidates that get squeezed out
B I can stay a DEM and bet all my cards on the fact that my party has a "DEATH WISH" when it chooses candidates
If its Mcain against Hillary in08, mcain will get my vote. Ive been drivin g to meetings all day so Ive been doing waay more thinking than usual.
Cheers
Not much on the post-mortem front here.
I'll give it a go.
I guess we could look at it a couple of ways... Who stepped away from the Dems since 2000.... or what issues prevailed as cited reasons for votes.... or what mistakes did Kerry make....?
Shockingly, for me, Iraq fell to a second or third choice among exit polling (if we have any confidence in exit polling.)
Moral/values was number 1. And, I guess we could say Gay Marriage (slapped down by all states on the ballot) and abortion aspects of stem cell had to be high on this list.
Iraq and the economy had almost as much importance. I really think, though, tired as we all are of the term--character (re flip-flopping) was an issue mixed in with morals and values of the candidate, specifically. People who vote 'conscience' or morality weigh their trust of the candidate as importantly (or MORESO) as their stand on the issues. The reason for this is if they don't believe the candidate is speaking from their gut--or being honest, it doesn't matter what they say--because this type of voter doesn't believe he's being honest. They don't trust him to do what he's saying.
I think Kerry's previous Senatorial career is what killed him. He had too much on record to waffle as he tried to position himself as a candidate. Kennedy was the last Senator to make it through a Presidential election successfully--and he'd only been Senator---what, Timber, one, two terms... He hadn't laid down enough Senate votes to hang himself with later.
We could also look at who left the Dems since 2000. Women. (I don't think the blacks ended up leaving... And, Hispanics. I think the women left on security issues (or maybe they got older--) Generally, a younger woman is voting social issues, and older women are voting security...I think I may be stereotyping Hispanics--but I think possibly the moral/ church issues (Possibly Catholic issues) may have lead to their exodus. Plus, Bush is strongly changing border issues to their benefit.
But, there is a much bigger issue. One my fellow conservatives and I have been saying for a couple of years--certainly after the 2002 mid-terms. The Democrat party is at a crossroads. They have been openly smacked down--not the Presidency, but Daschle, and other Senate seats, and the House.
They aren't representing many people anymore. In the interests of a strong twoparty system, I hope they sit down and re-invent themselves.
Actually, I hear many people say the GOP is going too far in this or that direction... I think the nation is saying that Dems went too far. The laws attacking prayer, isolating Christianity, while allowing other religions to operate (thinking about allowing Muslim prayer to disrupt school, but tediously driving Christian prayer out), allowing a child to have an abortion without parental consent, while it is illegal for her to have a tooth removed without parental consent, perpertrators of crimes having more rights than their victims... I could go on. I think the left has inflicted a lot of crap on the public, and I think they just got a pink slip.
The Dems have been served--and they will have to re-evaluate. There are important things they can contribute. They just need to hone in on them--and get busy. I'm actually looking forward to seeing what they can come up with.
Both Dole and Kerry should provide proof that, success as a US Senator is almost a guarantee against a successful bid as president. The amount of compromise that is normal everyday legislative procedure in the Senate is toxic to the presidential candiidacy. Its toxicity is directly proportional to the length of Senatorhood .
The only difference between Clintons evisceration of Dole and Bush's of Kerry was the use of the word to describe flippity flopping
