|
U-Know! Forum » Four more years? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 17:53
|
||
|
First of all, I didn't mean my comments to be aimed personally at you Grufty, it's a general-purpose diatribe aimed at those wandering around this week mumbling "i can't believe it . . . i don't understand . . . how can people be so stupid!" My town went for Kerry by a 35%+ margin, so I literally feel surrounded by this attitude. I'd also like to make it clear that everything I'm talking about here is purely in terms of TACTICS & STRATEGY . . . not "positions on the issues" or "who's right or wrong." >And just what the hell kind of person thinks "well, I >*was* going to vote for John Kerry, but that Michael >Moore guy really pisses me off, so I'll vote for Dubya >instead"? I'll tell you what kind... a Bush voter. What kind of analysis is that? It's almost a tautology -- yes, people who voted for Bush are "Bush voters." But the point is there were 7 million more Bush voters in 2004 than in 2000. Who are these NEW Bush voters? Women, Catholics and Hispanics are three traditionally democratics voting blocks where Bush picked up a lot of support vs. the last election (or one could argue the flipside that Bush didn't win these voters, "Kerry lost them.") Overall Bush got a higher % of the popular vote in 45 out of 50 states. Bush also won among every age group over 30. The evangelical vote is significant, but not sufficient to win an election (and they're one of those solid blocks that isn't going to shift loyalties anyway -- a known quantity.) As always, it was the party that did the better job of peeling off moderate swing voters won. Have you noticed that for the past week or two Bush has been making direct overtures to moderate dems? It appears to be working . . . meanwhile Kerry never made an appeal to moderate republicans. How could he when surrounded by the likes of Susan Sarandon and Al Franken? Those guys are anathema to republicans. It's like if Bush went around campaigning for dem votes with Rush Limbaugh in tow . . . My point is, if you want to understand what happened start by looking at the actual results of the election, don't start with your personal animus against Bush. Do you (plural) want to beat the republicans next time, or do just want to continue the "fuck bush circle jerk" for four more years? IN SPITE of having an approval rating under 50% . . . IN SPITE of the vast majority of Americans saying they think we're "on the wrong track" . . . Bush still GAINED support vs. 2000 across the board. HOW could Kerry fail to beat such an unpopular president? I think Kerry himself (and his campaign team) get about half the blame. The rest I assign to the Michael Moore / "Fuck Bush" crowd, who poisened the well for the democrats by reducing a very serious debate to a stream of epithets and punk rock compilations.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 17:57
|
||
|
One of the mysteries of the Kerry campaign is why he didn't use Edwards more -- the guy was practically invisible after the convention, and a total milktoast during the debate. Dunno what to make of that.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 18:05
|
||
|
Two questions: 1. Do you have any data to back up your claims about what Bush voters believe? Seriously, I've heard these charges numerous times but never seen any numbers. 2. How do you explain all the non-evangelicals voting for Bush? For example, he also won the Catholic vote, which is a traditionally democratic block (even though Kerry's a catholic!) And a comment: Disparaging people of faith as "stupid" is exactly the kind of attitude that loses elections in America. Christians may have a different moral view than you, but ignoring or baiting this vast voting block is utter folly. The point I've been trying to make today in my various posts is that disparaging the very people you need to persuade is truly . . . STUPID.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 18:25
|
||
|
Whoah! Just heard a news report that probably explains Edwards' low profile: his wife has been diagnosed with breast cancer. Presumably the diagnosis was made a few weeks/months ago and they didn't want to make it public til after the election. Best wishes to them both & all that . . .
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 18:54
|
||
|
In 1993 the Clintons tried to get a sweeping healthcare reform bill (tagged as "Hillarycare" at the time) through a democrat-controlled congress. Not only did they fail to get the bill passed, but the political backlash was so strong that the democrats lost in a landslide in 1994, and the republicans have had control of congress ever since. Perhaps the current democrat strategy really is to wait for the republicans to implode -- cuz they sure aren't doing much pro-actively. Kerry's platform was a combination of "me-too" positions (the same as Bush's but with more hot air) and warmed-over policies from the 90's. For example Kerry's healthcare plan is basically a watered-down & reheated version of 1993 Hillarycare. If Clinton couldn't get it through a friendly congress, what chance would Kerry have with a hostile one? I think a key part of the dems/Kerry's failure is their total lack of new ideas. No wait -- Kerry had this exciting plan to cut corporate taxes and therefore stimulate employment (groan!)
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 19:01
|
||
|
Kerry did NOT ever "support gay marriage." He merely said that perhaps a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage was unnecessary. In fact Kerry went out of his way to avoid talking about "moral issues" completely. Or rather, he talked about morality purely in vague symbolic terms (pandering crap in other words.) He could have tried to make a MORAL argument against "Iraq", but HE DID NOT. He merely made a "tactical" argument against it. Sometime after he voted for it, but before he voted against it. While saying that it was "the wrong war at the wrong time" but adding that he'd do it all over again and he's glad Saddam's in jail. (Is there really anyone out there who doesn't understand why the "flip flop" charge worked so devastatingly well against Kerry?)
|
|||
|
MonkeyBoy 1008 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 19:10
|
||
|
There is something very wily about Bin Laden and he knew what he was doing sending that tape. Horrific as 9/11 was it would have taken someone who really knew what they were doing to organise and execute the whole thing from a hideout in another country. Though I wonder if Bin Laden will ever be able to pull something off as audacious as or on the scale of 9/11 now he does not have a centre of operations like Afghanistan. Most Al Qeda operations since have been brutal acts of terror and do not quite have the ingenuity of 9/11. Perhaps he is working on the next big thing or maybe those video tapes are just reliving past glories (for him) until he can get something else big and symbolic together again. He only has to produce a tape once every six months and it is the world's major news story.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 19:23
|
||
|
It took him nearly 3 years to put this video together. As far as Binnie's role in 9/11 -- I'm sure he was involved in the planning, but most experts seem to believe he's more like the spokespoerson for the organization than it's brains. He crafts "the media message" but someone else coordinates all the battlefield details. Maybe you could say Binnie is the Bush, and Dr. Zawarhi is the Karl Rove . . . The airplane hijacking trick was very clever, but it's not going to work a second time. (The only reason it worked so well the first time was the assumption that hijackers take airplanes to get the hostages and use them to bargain for something . . . nobody imagined "suicide hijackings.") Not sure what other technique they could use to produce that kind of result . . . except a nuke. In which case Bush's "fear mongering" would turn out to be an accurate warning that should have been heeded. My feeling is that AQ attacks have become smaller and more sporadic for the simple reason that the organization has been on the receiving end of a few years of "war on terror" now, and yes it has produced results.
|
|||
|
Lugia 970 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 21:06
|
||
|
Well, looking at it from the solid Blue state to the south of ya... I think a lot of the problem here lies with the 'mushy' message of the Dems this time out. There was a lot of indefinition there, and Kerry was a good embodiment of that. He's a good guy, he's done great stuff in the Senate, but he's too apt to go over the heads of the Pabst 'n' Pickups crowd. Contrast that with Clinton. In that case, you had a message distilled down to a simple line: "It's the economy, stupid!" and a guy that had, well, 'guy' qualities. Instead of the dreadlocks and Chomsky-a-go-go set, what the Dems need defining the 'on-point' is a leaner, meaner and more direct means of getting the core point across. And then couple that with someone that has the sufficient 'image' qualities like Dubya's got. Not the stupidity...Clinton was far from stupid...but that 'just like you' sense to them. The Left's message needs to be tailored to today's soundbite mentality in 'sell mode', but then they have to be ready to grapple with the real issues in a real, comprehensive, and full-on intellectual manner once the cameras are out of the way. Until this foobar mushy mentality gets out of the way, this problem will persist. I have to agree...too much energy was expended shouting AT Dubya and not enough on figuring out how to shout him DOWN. I just hope these lessons get picked up on fast, because now the game is to try and hold the bastards back for the next four years, and it will take some lean-n-mean reasoning to at least slow the far-right down. By no means does this mean that things should lean toward the center, no. It just has to be 'sold' that way so that a large class of people in the USA who only pick up on things in that mode will be able to make sense of it. A straightforward 'why you should care, and why these things are bad for us' message. And then the right face to put on it...not some pandering celeb, but someone who really makes people feel secure while at the same time is able to make people feel they're on that person's level. It shocks the fuck out of me, all the missed opportunities. Just something such as the 'Massachusets liberal' thing could've been countered with an ascerbic punch questioning why people would exclude a part of this country and a part of all Americans from being such, and how trying to divide the nation with words like that is unamerican, and it would've landed a nasty blow. But no one ever touched something solid and smackdown like that. They have to learn to throw good punches...and by that, I don't mean pulled ones, but all-on haymakers. Because Bush's people certainly did loads of punching, kicking, and biting; it makes no sense to insist on 'Marquess of Queensbury rules' in a barfight.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 21:17
|
||
|
That sounds like a step in the right direction. But you're going to have to get over the idea that Bush (and whoever else on the other side you don't like) is "stupid." I swear to fuckin gawd, that is the root source of the whole thing. BUSH IS CONSISTENTLY UNDERESTIMATED BY HIS OPPONENTS! Stop doing that . . . give the guy some credit and watch your credibility rise too. And I take some issue with the idea that "it's all message" -- the message has to be based on real proposals & policies. Ones that are distinctive, popular & workable. I think it's not just a new message & a new messenger, it's an entirely new game plan that's needed. Take Kerry's healthcare plan for example -- he didn't talk about it much, probably because it wasn't very exciting. Basically a watered-down & reheated version of the plan that blew the dems out of the water back in 1994. It didn't work then, what makes anyone think it would work better with Kerry facing a hostile republican congress? I have to agree with Zell Miller's comments on his party (see the "If Anyone Still Had Any Doubts" thread) -- in so far as the choice for the dem party is between changing direction or becoming more and more marginalized. Either that or just twiddle thumbs & hope that the republicans will eventually screw up as badly as the dems did in 1994. Though of course even then, it wasn't just the dem's making a mistake it was also the republicans being ready to take advantage with a "bold plan" communicated effectively (the "Contract with America" or whatever they called it.)
|
| Pages: 11 – [ Previous | 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
