timberlandko wrote:From that perspective it would seem reasonable to extrapolate that The Democratic Party, or at least its latest loser, had rather less support than reflected by their Electoral College loss of "only" 34.
If you wanna know what support the Democratic Party had, you dont need to "extrapolate" anything. All you have to do is look at the national result and see, Bush 51%, Kerry 48%. Not much ways you can spin that around this way or that.
How those percentages are divided up over the different states (Bush has mostly larger leads in mostly smaller states, Kerry had mostly smaller leads in often larger states), is really quite irrelevant apart
from the question of Electoral College votes.
And thanks for the compliments, JW .. <smiles>
I understand your point nimh, and don't really argue against it ... 51-48 is 51-48 however you slice it. Look back over the numbers since '92, general and mid-terms, however, and it appears to me there is a trend there, a trend which seems, by this most recent election's results, to have begun to accellerate.
In re. Democratic Party loyalty. Less than a week after Kerry's loss, he was abandoned by those who had previously touted him as a sure winner. Those on A2k who supported Kerry on November 1st, are now blaming him as being unelectable for a multitude of reasons. There are even some who now lament the selection of Kerry over Dean.
Those most partisan on the left and in the Democratic Party are left to find some reason for losing an election that they were convinced would demonstrate that Americans are fundamentally opposed to the Administration's policies. Some claim that a majority of American voters are stupid and were misled by Republican campaigning. Perhaps the electorate just wasn't so stupid as to be misled by Democratic campaigning, but they obviously don't see it that way. Perhaps enlightened voters who reject the idea that religion may be a legitimate source of values were outnumbered by those thoughtless folks who still think of themselves as religious. Another seemingly large group blame their loss on the candidate. Kerry just wasn't electable, and he is personally responsible for mismanaging an almost sure-fire victory over the demonized George Bush. Of course, there are also the conspiracy advocates that are still trying to find some dark manipulators who somehow overturned a certain Democratic victory by foul means.
This should be expected from a Party whose fundamental approach over the past several decades has been to blame all problem and failures on others. No one on the left is ever responsible, never mistaken or wrong. Everything "good" is a result of their efforts and policies, and everything "wrong, or bad" is the product of the "evil conspiracy" of the wealthy conservative elite who manipulate the easily misled majority of American voters inhabiting the great wasteland outside the utopian urban areas of the Northeast and west coast. The amazing thing is that they've managed to convince not only themselves, but nearly half of the whole electorate of the truth of their beliefs.
Yup, Asherman ... that's purty much the way I see it too. Somehow, I ain't real confident The Democratic Party is gonna figure it out and do somethin' about it any time soon.
Oooohh, noooooooooo. Does that mean we're gonna have to listen to how "stupid" we are for the next four years? LOL.
Somewhat in line with Asherman's thoughtful post, this WSJ article was sent to me, entitled:
"Um, You're Right. (Not Really.)
What makes liberals think they have the right to decide what's acceptable to say?"
I enjoyed reading all of it (it's short), but this is the part that struck me most:
Quote:[...]Not long ago, the New York Sun, a conservative broadsheet, dispatched six brave souls to traipse around Manhattan donning conspicuous Bush-Cheney campaign paraphernalia. One reporter, Roderick Boyd, encountered a woman in Union Square who "spat on the ground at his feet and proceeded to deliver a lecture on alleged Republican fascism and 'blood for oil.' " Another reporter, Maura Yates, "received a more personal greeting from a fellow pedestrian: He walked up and stuck his middle finger in her face."
What gave this story particular interest was that it was inspired by a similar stunt by Slate reporter Richard Rushfield, who spent some time in Republican and Democratic districts wearing paraphernalia of the opposing candidate. "In my Kerry-Edwards shirt," he writes, "I enter Red America certain that I am on the verge of inciting to rage a gang of angry yachtsmen. . . . Instead I encounter only shades of indifference."
That's not the way it is in Kerry Country, however, where Mr. Rushfield's experiences tend to be a bit more vivid. "Reflecting on the sting of being called 'a--------' during my trips through Blue America, I wonder: If I were truly a Bush supporter, how long would I be able to endure a life filled with epithets before I gave up on the shirt?"
Good question, Richard, and one I often ask myself. For here's something most thoughtful conservatives learn at some point in their political education: However "Red" this country may be at the ballot box, it remains for us the land of the liberal assumption, in which merely to express our opinion is to risk seeming rude. And being the conservatives we are, most of us are way too polite for that.
WSJ
That Richard Rushfield article has been posted in full before. If I remember correctly it was found that the blue areas he visited were far more blue than the red areas he visited were red. In the red areas a democrad wouldnt really stick out.
We should earnestly hope that the Democrats get their act together. If they continue along the path they've chosen it may be necessary to send some of our folks over there just to ensure a viable two-party system. LOL
It is always tempting to hope for permanent occupation of SOG, but that would be a disaster for the nation and liberty. The Founders, Federalists all, designed a wonderfully balanced system of government. By pitting one interest group against another they made it difficult to radically change laws and government quickly and without negotiation. The majority is constrained, and the minority is protected. This system has protected our individual liberties for over two hundred years. Even though we've tinkered with it and weakened, in my opinion, some of its balances, it remains fundamentally sound. The Founders showed less understanding of how important an independent opposition part is to the overall process.
Washington, and other Federalist leaders, hated the idea of partisan politics. They believed that it was enough to provide the nation with wise and effective policies. Federalists tried to fill government with the best and most public spirited citizens, even if their political philosophy was anti-Federalist. That rascal and jacobin, Jefferson was given high office and used it to obstruct Federalist government and to build his own partisan following. Jefferson began the hate filled attack campaigning that continues to this day. The Patrician of monticello argued for the Rights of Man and Equality, but he kept his slaves and as President was perhaps even more domineering than the unfortunate John Adams. Jefferson's philosophy was also aimed at completely destroying any opposition party. The Democratic-Republican populist appeal was certainly more successful than the Federalists, and after splitting in 1824, has dominated the two party system ever since.
We need two parties to balance one another, to insure that leadership be periodically renewed and constrained. The opposition of the two fundamental political philosophical positions in American life has done us great service. One balances the other. Those who would redistribute the wealth and tilt the balance toward the individual, are checked by those who argue for liberty and social responsibility even when it calls for sacrifice. From the beginning of our political history partisans have foretold disaster and the loss of liberty if the opposition were to get into power. So far it hasn't happened. Though Jefferson did his best to undo the Federalist policies that saved the nation from ruin, he failed. The nation has survived such contentious figures as Jackson, Van Buren, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and a couple of Bushes. Partisan politics for all their distasteful and shameful tactics are less dangerous to the body politic than the permanent loss of an effective opposition party.
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. I remembers saying that when the Soviet Union went belly-up and being laughed at. Whose laughing now? No one, and that should be a lesson for the future. Success can sometimes spawn as many problems as it seems to have solved.
On the other hand it sure is nice to see the Democrats humbled, even if it is only a temporary condition.
Einherjar wrote:That Richard Rushfield article has been posted in full before. If I remember correctly it was found that the blue areas he visited were far more blue than the red areas he visited were red. In the red areas a democrat wouldnt really stick out.
"...it was found..." What the hell does that mean? This sounds as limp as the Democrat's excuses for their defeat. There are conservatives and liberals everywhere. If his reporting is accurate such slight differences don't mean much.
However Democrat Minority leader Nanci Pelosi descended even lower. The day after the election she was quoted by the Washington Post (and numerous others) as saying (paraphrase) that this was not a time for Democrats to change or even question their platform. Rather it was an indicator that they must renew their commitment to do a better job next time educating the electorate.
Evidently the stupidity of us poor slobs exceeds even their enlightened pedagogical abilities.
Asherman said:
Quote:We should earnestly hope that the Democrats get their act together. If they continue along the path they've chosen it may be necessary to send some of our folks over there just to ensure a viable two-party system. LOL
LOL!!!! Well, I ain't volunteering!
Einherjar wrote:That Richard Rushfield article has been posted in full before. If I remember correctly it was found that the blue areas he visited were far more blue than the red areas he visited were red. In the red areas a democrad wouldnt really stick out.
Einherjar - I did a search before I posted this (it was just published yesterday, I think), but I've never had much luck with the search function thingy on this site.
Asherman wrote:In re. Democratic Party loyalty. Less than a week after Kerry's loss, he was abandoned by those who had previously touted him as a sure winner. Those on A2k who supported Kerry on November 1st, are now blaming him as being unelectable for a multitude of reasons. There are even some who now lament the selection of Kerry over Dean.
Those most partisan on the left and in the Democratic Party are left to find some reason for losing an election that they were convinced would demonstrate that Americans are fundamentally opposed to the Administration's policies. Some claim that a majority of American voters are stupid and were misled by Republican campaigning. Perhaps the electorate just wasn't so stupid as to be misled by Democratic campaigning, but they obviously don't see it that way. Perhaps enlightened voters who reject the idea that religion may be a legitimate source of values were outnumbered by those thoughtless folks who still think of themselves as religious. Another seemingly large group blame their loss on the candidate. Kerry just wasn't electable, and he is personally responsible for mismanaging an almost sure-fire victory over the demonized George Bush. Of course, there are also the conspiracy advocates that are still trying to find some dark manipulators who somehow overturned a certain Democratic victory by foul means.
This should be expected from a Party whose fundamental approach over the past several decades has been to blame all problem and failures on others. No one on the left is ever responsible, never mistaken or wrong. Everything "good" is a result of their efforts and policies, and everything "wrong, or bad" is the product of the "evil conspiracy" of the wealthy conservative elite who manipulate the easily misled majority of American voters inhabiting the great wasteland outside the utopian urban areas of the Northeast and west coast. The amazing thing is that they've managed to convince not only themselves, but nearly half of the whole electorate of the truth of their beliefs.
To be fair, there would have been no shortage of newly minted
Republican Bush critics if he, and not Kerry, had lost, but your point is well taken that it is a uniquely Democratic characteristic to blame everything but their
message for lost elections. To a large extent I believe that this is because Democrats lack a solid faith in the principles they espouse, and a solid faith in the people they presume to represent.
JustWonders wrote:Einherjar wrote:That Richard Rushfield article has been posted in full before. If I remember correctly it was found that the blue areas he visited were far more blue than the red areas he visited were red. In the red areas a democrad wouldnt really stick out.
Einherjar - I did a search before I posted this (it was just published yesterday, I think), but I've never had much luck with the search function thingy on this site.
You posted an exerpt from an article. The exerpt was about another article written by Richard Rushfield. That Richard Rushfield article, which your article was about, has been posted before. The article about the article is new, but the topic is the same, and the findings from back when the Rushfield article was posted still aply to the topic.
Sorta seems like The Democrats operate on somethin' of a pack dynamic, turnin' on and finishin' off their own fallen.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:To be fair, there would have been no shortage of newly minted Republican Bush critics if he, and not Kerry, had lost, but your point is well taken that it is a uniquely Democratic characteristic to blame everything but their message for lost elections. To a large extent I believe that this is because Democrats lack a solid faith in the principles they espouse, and a solid faith in the people they presume to represent.
I contend that Democrats have a very solid faith in the principles they espouse, seing as how they can not imagine that these principles are what is causing them to loose, and that they are indeed very atatched to these principles, seing as how they are not prepared to compromise any of them to get elected, but try instead to improve everything but the message.
Einherjar - Thanks
The "Comments" section of the link I posted are interesting, too, if you want to check them out
Einherjar wrote:I contend that Democrats have a very solid faith in the principles they espouse, seing as how they can not imagine that these principles are what is causing them to loose, and that they are indeed very atatched to these principles, seing as how they are not prepared to compromise any of them to get elected, but try instead to improve everything but the message.
John Kerry wasn't prepared to
compromise to get elected?
Finns assertion not mine. I'm just reinterpreting the evidence as he sees it in order to convince him to reconsider his views.
timberlandko wrote:Sorta seems like The Democrats operate on somethin' of a pack dynamic, turnin' on and finishin' off their own fallen.
but doesn't it make sense to acknowledge what the mistakes were? can they be fixed? if the same person runs again, will the same problems come up?
also, what outside circumstances contributed to the candidate's failure? what if any, are likely to change in the next run?
for example, i still think kerry would have done a good job if elected. however, if it's found to be that the vietnam stuff and the national climate is the same as 2004, it's a good bet that he'd be taken down by the same things.
if on the other hand, iraq is done with, islamist terrorism is reduced and the economy is still or back in the doldrums, kerry could win.
and the composition of the congress in 2008 would have some bearing on the prez election as well.
ultimately, for me, kerry did not campaign as strongly and decisively as i'd anticipated.
