PDA

View Full Version : Kerry Beat Himself


Taco John
11-03-2004, 03:32 AM
Kerry Beat Himself
By DOUG THOMPSON
Nov 3, 2004, 02:56

Midway through Election Day on Tuesday, Democrats working for John Kerry started scoping out housing availability in Washington.
Exit polls showed their boy leading in the key battleground states of Ohio and Florida. Word circulated around Washington that Bush strategist Karl Rove had called Republican leaders of the House and Senate and told them there was only a 30 percent chance President Bush could win a second term. Pollster John Zogby predicted Kerry would win 311 electoral votes, 40 more than the 271 needed to win.

That was then. This morning Democrats wake up with the hangover that comes from forgetting that polls don't win elections: Votes do.

When the votes were counted, George W. Bush won both the popular vote and the Electoral College, becoming the first President since his father to win a Presidential election with more than 50 percent of the vote.

Once the hangover clears, Democrats will scratch their heads and wonder what went wrong. Why couldn't they beat a President saddled with an unpopular war, a stagnant economy and enough voter anxiety to keep an army of psychiatrists busy for the next decade?

Some, of course, will claim the election was stolen, just as some Republicans would claim if Kerry had won. They can piss and moan about Ohio and file all the challenges they want but it won't change the outcome. The Republicans won. They lost.

But, in the end, the Democratic process won, even with the odds against them. They did it with sheer numbers - more than 120 million votes cast.

Bush won because he sapped votes from traditional Democratic strongholds: Hispanics, Catholics and women. Even Catholic John Kerry could not pull more than half of the Catholic vote.

And religious conservatives turned out in droves to vote for Bush. Exit pollsters found "moral values" played a much larger than expected role in voter decisions.

For the first time in too many elections, a majority of those qualified to vote actually did so. For the first time in too many years, a majority spoke. Depending on your point of view, Democracy either triumphed or subverted the process.

Even a cynic like myself has to step back and say "wow." The system worked. Voters went to the polls and made their choice. This time, they elected a President with a plurality of both the popular and electoral vote.

Some will scream and moan and point fingers. They will blame the system, the money and the inherent corruption of politics.

But, in reality, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.

They had a shot against an incumbent weakened by missteps, a questionable war and even more questionable policies.

They responded by fielding a weak, flawed candidate who ran a lackluster, mistake-riddled campaign. Kerry never defined himself to voters and wrapped him campaign in the same Vietnam war he once protested against. For too many voters, he didn't present enough reasons to change.

George W. Bush won the election but he didn't beat John Kerry. Kerry beat himself.

Once the Democrats recognize that, they should accept the bitter fruit of defeat and move on. America's problems cannot be solved unless everyone works together towards a common goal. Time to shake hands and find that common ground.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5631.shtml

MadMax
11-03-2004, 03:38 AM
Kerry Beat Himself
By DOUG THOMPSON
Nov 3, 2004, 02:56

Midway through Election Day on Tuesday, Democrats working for John Kerry started scoping out housing availability in Washington.
Exit polls showed their boy leading in the key battleground states of Ohio and Florida. Word circulated around Washington that Bush strategist Karl Rove had called Republican leaders of the House and Senate and told them there was only a 30 percent chance President Bush could win a second term. Pollster John Zogby predicted Kerry would win 311 electoral votes, 40 more than the 271 needed to win.

That was then. This morning Democrats wake up with the hangover that comes from forgetting that polls don't win elections: Votes do.

When the votes were counted, George W. Bush won both the popular vote and the Electoral College, becoming the first President since his father to win a Presidential election with more than 50 percent of the vote.

Once the hangover clears, Democrats will scratch their heads and wonder what went wrong. Why couldn't they beat a President saddled with an unpopular war, a stagnant economy and enough voter anxiety to keep an army of psychiatrists busy for the next decade?

Some, of course, will claim the election was stolen, just as some Republicans would claim if Kerry had won. They can piss and moan about Ohio and file all the challenges they want but it won't change the outcome. The Republicans won. They lost.

But, in the end, the Democratic process won, even with the odds against them. They did it with sheer numbers - more than 120 million votes cast.

Bush won because he sapped votes from traditional Democratic strongholds: Hispanics, Catholics and women. Even Catholic John Kerry could not pull more than half of the Catholic vote.

And religious conservatives turned out in droves to vote for Bush. Exit pollsters found "moral values" played a much larger than expected role in voter decisions.

For the first time in too many elections, a majority of those qualified to vote actually did so. For the first time in too many years, a majority spoke. Depending on your point of view, Democracy either triumphed or subverted the process.

Even a cynic like myself has to step back and say "wow." The system worked. Voters went to the polls and made their choice. This time, they elected a President with a plurality of both the popular and electoral vote.

Some will scream and moan and point fingers. They will blame the system, the money and the inherent corruption of politics.

But, in reality, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.

They had a shot against an incumbent weakened by missteps, a questionable war and even more questionable policies.

They responded by fielding a weak, flawed candidate who ran a lackluster, mistake-riddled campaign. Kerry never defined himself to voters and wrapped him campaign in the same Vietnam war he once protested against. For too many voters, he didn't present enough reasons to change.

George W. Bush won the election but he didn't beat John Kerry. Kerry beat himself.

Once the Democrats recognize that, they should accept the bitter fruit of defeat and move on. America's problems cannot be solved unless everyone works together towards a common goal. Time to shake hands and find that common ground.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5631.shtml


Wow, whatever Taco. :shake: Admit for once in your life you are Fricking wrong!!!

MadMax
11-03-2004, 03:44 AM
BTW, congrats G.W. and carry on, you da man!!! ;-)

Taco John
11-03-2004, 03:46 AM
Wow, whatever Taco. :shake: Admit for once in your life you are Fricking wrong!!!


What does being wrong have anything to do with this? I've more than accepted that I was wrong. I thought it would be an electoral landslide in Kerry direction. I was wrong.

So how does that change the column that I posted?

Lomax
11-03-2004, 03:47 AM
The Democrat party was beaten because it nominated a man who could not win. It's as simple as that.

The Democrat primary process currently propels a man who must run from the far left (at least as far as the majority of our electorate is concerned) to get his party's nomination to then reinvent himself as a centrist.

That kind of strategy is bound to fail. We are a marginally conservative nation.

MadMax
11-03-2004, 03:49 AM
What does being wrong have anything to do with this? I've more than accepted that I was wrong. I thought it would be an electoral landslide in Kerry direction. I was wrong.

So how does that change the column that I posted?



My bad Taco, it doesn't... Peace bro, and I have nuthin personal against you.

Phobia
11-03-2004, 03:49 AM
That's a fair analysis. I guess. I guess I don't really care.

MadMax
11-03-2004, 03:51 AM
The Democrat party was beaten because it nominated a man who could not win. It's as simple as that.

The Democrat primary process currently propels a man who must run from the far left (at least as far as the majority of our electorate is concerned) to get his party's nomination to then reinvent himself as a centrist.

That kind of strategy is bound to fail. We are a marginally conservative nation.



I will agree with that, the anybody but Bush was doomed to fail.

Lomax
11-03-2004, 03:51 AM
Had the Democrats been smart enough to nominate Joe Lieberman, they'd have won in a cake walk.

The Democrats are too far removed from the electorate to understand what might make them successful.

Taco John
11-03-2004, 03:52 AM
Lieberman? Are you kidding?

Kerry was their best shot. Leiberman would have never stood a chance.

BigOlChiefsfan
11-03-2004, 03:53 AM
ABB (anybody but Bush) was certainly a flawed strategy. FWIW, I think the big swing in security-geese votes really did Kerry in. He shoulda shot kittens instead. Cats never vote in years when the Redskins lose at home.

Taco John
11-03-2004, 03:55 AM
Lost in the Kerry bashing is the fact that his turn-out isn't anything to shake a stick at.

Lomax
11-03-2004, 03:57 AM
Lieberman? Are you kidding?

Kerry was their best shot. Leiberman would have never stood a chance.

I'm so glad guys like you still don't understand what could sway the swing voters.

Keep running your left against the middle. That's the ticket.

Taco John
11-03-2004, 04:01 AM
I'm so glad guys like you still don't understand what could sway the swing voters.

Keep running your left against the middle. That's the ticket.



Why do you think I'm Libertarian?

Liberman is about as inspiring as watching moss grow. He'd be lucky to energize the base enough to get the voter turnout of Mondale.

Don't presume to lecture me about understanding what will sway voters and offer up Lieberman as the answer in the same breath. That's the worst analysis I've heard all month.

Lomax
11-03-2004, 04:04 AM
Why do you think I'm Libertarian?

Liberman is about as inspiring as watching moss grow. He'd be lucky to energize the base enough to get the voter turnout of Mondale.

Don't presume to lecture me about understanding what will sway voters and offer up Lieberman as the answer in the same breath. That's the worst analysis I've heard all month.

Sorry, TJ, the worst analysis this month were the early exit polls that had Kerry winning.

RINGLEADER
11-03-2004, 04:06 AM
John Kerry did lose it...he thought he could win just by not being George Bush. A lot of people thought that...

Taco John
11-03-2004, 10:02 AM
Sorry, TJ, the worst analysis this month were the early exit polls that had Kerry winning.

I give those a second place. They were at least feasable. The idea that Lieberman had a shot at this thing are much more laughable.

Cochise
11-03-2004, 10:21 AM
I wouldn't say Kerry beat himself. I would say that this defeat has been brewing for decades, back to the George McGovern era and before.

The Demcoratic party has gone left, and left, and left, and landed themselves in such as spot that the "most electable" candidate they have to offer can't even win.

BIG_DADDY
11-03-2004, 10:22 AM
Well he shouldn't have to do that he's married. Maybe that fugtard party will bring us a decent candidate next time.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 10:23 AM
Lost in the Kerry bashing is the fact that his turn-out isn't anything to shake a stick at.

False...Bush received more votes than any president in history.

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 10:24 AM
I give those a second place. They were at least feasable. The idea that Lieberman had a shot at this thing are much more laughable.
Too Jewy?

ROYC75
11-03-2004, 10:32 AM
Thats strange, he acts like a pussy more than a bully ! :rolleyes:

Brock
11-03-2004, 10:34 AM
Yeah, just like the Bronkos "beat themselves" the past 2 weeks.

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 10:37 AM
Kerry didn't beat himself, the opposition beat themselves by shoving the principles underlying their opposition aside and making their snap judgment that Kerry was the 'electable' one of the group.

dtebbe
11-03-2004, 10:52 AM
It was pretty clear that Kerry was to be the next Jimmy Carter. I keep reading about the war in Iraq being "unpopular", and I agree that any war sucks, but I think the vote last night shows that most people would rather have the Islamic murderers coming to Iraq to fight our troops than have them coming here to fight our citizens.

I think Osama Bin Landen's video days before the election showed just how desperate they have become, since when do terrorists offer peace? After losing 70% of his leadership and having to make videos from a cave for the past 2 years, what other option does he have?

DT

Mr. Kotter
11-03-2004, 11:02 AM
The Democrat party was beaten because it nominated a man who could not win. It's as simple as that.

The Democrat primary process currently propels a man who must run from the far left (at least as far as the majority of our electorate is concerned) to get his party's nomination to then reinvent himself as a centrist.

That kind of strategy is bound to fail. We are a marginally conservative nation.

EXACTLY. :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
11-03-2004, 11:07 AM
I'm so glad guys like you still don't understand what could sway the swing voters.

Keep running your left against the middle. That's the ticket.

He appears to be absolutely blind to that fact. :shake:

Chieficus
11-03-2004, 11:11 AM
False...Bush received more votes than any president in history.

The left-leaning actors and musicians spent a good deal of effort stummping for stuff shuch as "get out the vote" and "vote or die," of course, with most of them saying on the side, "get out the vote for change!"

And it worked...Americans did 'get out the vote,' and not only did Kerry go down, but the republicans gained in both houses of congress and in some of races involving govenors...

Make's you wonder...what are MTV and P-diddy going to be pimping next election: "Sit on your can!" or "Stay home, don't vote!" ??? ROFL

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 11:16 AM
Make's you wonder...what are MTV and P-diddy going to be pimping next election: "Sit on your can!" or "Stay home, don't vote!" ??? ROFL
Is there a definitive source on P-Did's leanings? I noticed he was conspicuously mute on the subject. Then on Monday, some talking head said he was pro-Bush. I do know Laura dissed him at some point, but. . .

Michael Michigan
11-03-2004, 11:16 AM
Kerry Beat Himself

I doubt this is news---have you seen Teresa?

Bwana
11-03-2004, 11:17 AM
I doubt this is news---have you seen Teresa?

ROFL No doubt.

Chieficus
11-03-2004, 11:18 AM
Is there a definitive source on P-Did's leanings? I noticed he was conspicuously mute on the subject. Then on Monday, some talking head said he was pro-Bush. I do know Laura dissed him at some point, but. . .

I don't know... I thought his "Vote or Die" campaign was aimed against the war and a possible draft...I could be thinking about something else though and just confusing it...

ZepSinger
11-03-2004, 11:20 AM
Yeah, just like the Bronkos "beat themselves" the past 2 weeks.

Dang, ya beat me to it!!!
ROFL

mlyonsd
11-03-2004, 11:21 AM
I doubt this is news---have you seen Teresa?

Sen. Kerry better watch his step. Teresa might just off him for the '08 candidate. I wonder if Hillary would consider turning into a lesbian?

Ok, that's the one and only cheap shot I'm going to take today.

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 11:23 AM
I don't know... I thought his "Vote or Die" campaign was aimed against the war and a possible draft...I could be thinking about something else though and just confusing it...
I think he was trying to be flashy, to suggest that the right to vote is a life and death issue. It may have been about the war, but I'm fairly sure that was never explicit.

KCTitus
11-03-2004, 11:26 AM
Apparently the 'vote or die' stuff didnt work too well...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/11/02/politics2059EST0779.DTL&type=printable

ChiTown
11-03-2004, 11:28 AM
Apparently the 'vote or die' stuff didnt work too well...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/11/02/politics2059EST0779.DTL&type=printable

Yeah. The Dems spent $70M on "Get out the Vote", and forgot the fact that their candidate wasn't somebody people trusted, let alone wanted to vote for. It's the details that often kill the deal......

Calcountry
11-03-2004, 11:33 AM
Wow, whatever Taco. :shake: Admit for once in your life you are Fricking wrong!!!
He knew it all along, that is why he voted for Badnarik.

RINGLEADER
11-03-2004, 12:00 PM
I don't know... I thought his "Vote or Die" campaign was aimed against the war and a possible draft...I could be thinking about something else though and just confusing it...

If you take a step back and look at how Kerry even became the nominee you start to get at the real problem: the Dems didn't nominate Kerry based on his positions or his past views and votes, they nominated him because of his "electability". And they determined that Kerry was more electable because of something he did more than three decades before. It was no coincidence that Terry McAuliffe and the Kerry campaign were working together last January pimping the Bush-National Guard stories. They were designed to get Kerry the nomination. Why work so hard to put an empty suit out in front of your party? Because he was the most "electable".

Take another step back and I think you come to the conclusion that if Howard Dean wasn't part of the equation even Kerry would have fared much better. Without Dean the issue of "electability" doesn't come into question and without Dean you don't have votes for the $87 billion before votes against the $87 billion.

KCWolfman
11-03-2004, 12:00 PM
Kerry Beat Himself

Now, THAT is inherent

BIG_DADDY
11-03-2004, 12:01 PM
I'll bet he's not in the mood today.

jettio
11-03-2004, 12:12 PM
This election was decided by the one Bush-Cheney voting bloc not included in my sig.

Single issue voters, church-going pro-lifers.

God Bless'em.

Those are honest and good folks, whereas, the groups in the sig are inflexible retards that have no standards for the Chief Executive.

The Pro-Lifers believe that B*sh will deliver a Supreme court that can overturn Roe v. Wade.

Maybe he will, but I doubt it. I expect he will betray those folks in that regard.

My feelings is that Kerry is a class act and would have been able to start some important initiatives that would be very valuable, with foreign relations and domestic issues.

B*sh is a cyncial politician, but he does have excellent political abilities, he has even left himself an out when he betrays the pro-lifers that got him over the top.

To those concerned about my personal feelings. Season ending losses for the Chiefs in 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2003 were much more disappointing.

Kerry is a good and decent American.

And it is a bit of justice that B*sh should have to deal with his folly in Iraq, the effects of his questionable fiscal poicy, and his implied promise that there will never be a terrorist attack when he is President.

I can only pray that he will strive to be more like his Father and not the arrogant dunderhead he has been to this point.

One thing is for sure, B*sh has nobody else to blame for anything until January 2009.

Time for him to step up and do the job.

Cochise
11-03-2004, 12:23 PM
I feel so good for the military too, they won't leave things undone and broken in Iraq.

Can you imagine if Kerry would have won? They would have been relying on him to deliver them the resources they need when he voted against them. They're all driving around in and operating weapon systems he voted against. He would have defeated the candidate that the military supported by a good margin.

I mean, how demoralizing would it have been for them if sKerry would have won? It's like America telling them that we have no faith in their ability to get the job done. We want to give up on something that you have sacrificed and people have given their lives for. We want to cut and run, just because it's not always a piece of cake.

I know that if I were over there putting my life on the line that would be demoralizing to me.

jettio
11-03-2004, 12:38 PM
I feel so good for the military too, they won't leave things undone and broken in Iraq.

Can you imagine if Kerry would have won? They would have been relying on him to deliver them the resources they need when he voted against them. They're all driving around in and operating weapon systems he voted against. He would have defeated the candidate that the military supported by a good margin.

I mean, how demoralizing would it have been for them if sKerry would have won? It's like America telling them that we have no faith in their ability to get the job done. We want to give up on something that you have sacrificed and people have given their lives for. We want to cut and run, just because it's not always a piece of cake.

I know that if I were over there putting my life on the line that would be demoralizing to me.

What is going to be demoralizing is seeing how many Tim McVeigh(s) this Iraq War has created.

War f*cks people up, and it is even more devastating when the leaders pick fights they don't understand, and troops find themselves facing a worse situation than they were told to expect.

You need to put an end to that "voted-against" nonsense, that is only the titty milk that the cynical manipulators feed the stupid, that is not reality.

ck_IN
11-03-2004, 01:53 PM
<i>When the votes were counted, George W. Bush won both the popular vote and the Electoral College, becoming the first President since his father to win a Presidential election with more than 50 percent of the vote.</i>

When you win a clear majority in both popular and electorial vote your opponent didn't beat himself. You beat him. Don't try and discount or minimalize it.

<b>Bush won. Kerry lost. Bush beat Kerry</b>

John_Wayne
11-03-2004, 01:56 PM
Just ignore TJ. He can't even admit that he BARELY won a popularity poll that was rigged in his favor vs. the lowly Gunther_Fan. He can't admit reality.

ck_IN
11-03-2004, 01:57 PM
<i>What is going to be demoralizing is seeing how many Tim McVeigh(s) this Iraq War has created.

War f*cks people up</i>

Life f*cks people up if they're willing to be f*cked up. People like McVeigh do whatever they're going to do. The excuse they use to try and justify it is irrelevant. Iraq war, turned down by my prom date, mommy dressed me funny. It's all the same to these types of people.

Calcountry
11-03-2004, 02:21 PM
Kerry Beat Himself
By DOUG THOMPSON
Nov 3, 2004, 02:56

Midway through Election Day on Tuesday, Democrats working for John Kerry started scoping out housing availability in Washington.
Exit polls showed their boy leading in the key battleground states of Ohio and Florida. Word circulated around Washington that Bush strategist Karl Rove had called Republican leaders of the House and Senate and told them there was only a 30 percent chance President Bush could win a second term. Pollster John Zogby predicted Kerry would win 311 electoral votes, 40 more than the 271 needed to win.

That was then. This morning Democrats wake up with the hangover that comes from forgetting that polls don't win elections: Votes do.

When the votes were counted, George W. Bush won both the popular vote and the Electoral College, becoming the first President since his father to win a Presidential election with more than 50 percent of the vote.

Once the hangover clears, Democrats will scratch their heads and wonder what went wrong. Why couldn't they beat a President saddled with an unpopular war, a stagnant economy and enough voter anxiety to keep an army of psychiatrists busy for the next decade?

Some, of course, will claim the election was stolen, just as some Republicans would claim if Kerry had won. They can piss and moan about Ohio and file all the challenges they want but it won't change the outcome. The Republicans won. They lost.

But, in the end, the Democratic process won, even with the odds against them. They did it with sheer numbers - more than 120 million votes cast.

Bush won because he sapped votes from traditional Democratic strongholds: Hispanics, Catholics and women. Even Catholic John Kerry could not pull more than half of the Catholic vote.

And religious conservatives turned out in droves to vote for Bush. Exit pollsters found "moral values" played a much larger than expected role in voter decisions.

For the first time in too many elections, a majority of those qualified to vote actually did so. For the first time in too many years, a majority spoke. Depending on your point of view, Democracy either triumphed or subverted the process.

Even a cynic like myself has to step back and say "wow." The system worked. Voters went to the polls and made their choice. This time, they elected a President with a plurality of both the popular and electoral vote.

Some will scream and moan and point fingers. They will blame the system, the money and the inherent corruption of politics.

But, in reality, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.

They had a shot against an incumbent weakened by missteps, a questionable war and even more questionable policies.

They responded by fielding a weak, flawed candidate who ran a lackluster, mistake-riddled campaign. Kerry never defined himself to voters and wrapped him campaign in the same Vietnam war he once protested against. For too many voters, he didn't present enough reasons to change.

George W. Bush won the election but he didn't beat John Kerry. Kerry beat himself.

Once the Democrats recognize that, they should accept the bitter fruit of defeat and move on. America's problems cannot be solved unless everyone works together towards a common goal. Time to shake hands and find that common ground.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5631.shtml
The American people beat Kerry.

FringeNC
11-03-2004, 02:25 PM
The only reason this election was close is unprecedented media bias....or the country is getting much more Democratic...given similar historical economic numbers, incumbents win by landslides...

The interesting question is not analyzing why Kerry lost, but why did Bush underperform the models so incredibly....

Lomax
11-03-2004, 02:31 PM
The only reason this election was close is unprecedented media bias....or the country is getting much more Democratic...given similar historical economic numbers, incumbents win by landslides...

The interesting question is not analyzing why Kerry lost, but why did Bush underperform the models so incredibly....

That kind of spin is priceless. Do you do this for a living?

ck_IN
11-03-2004, 02:40 PM
<i.The only reason this election was close is unprecedented media bias....or the country is getting much more Democratic...given similar historical economic numbers, incumbents win by landslides...

The interesting question is not analyzing why Kerry lost, but why did Bush underperform the models so incredibly....</i>

I'll give you media bias. CBS has officially become a branch of the DNC along with the LA and New York Times.

I don't think the country is getting more Democratic. I think perhaps the New Yorks and Californias of the country are becoming bluer while the red states are getting redder.

Bush was not a good campaigner. Reagan would've disected Kerry. Bush tried to play nice. Reagan would've won in a landslide.

Calcountry
11-03-2004, 03:56 PM
<i.The only reason this election was close is unprecedented media bias....or the country is getting much more Democratic...given similar historical economic numbers, incumbents win by landslides...

The interesting question is not analyzing why Kerry lost, but why did Bush underperform the models so incredibly....</i>

I'll give you media bias. CBS has officially become a branch of the DNC along with the LA and New York Times.

I don't think the country is getting more Democratic. I think perhaps the New Yorks and Californias of the country are becoming bluer while the red states are getting redder.

Bush was not a good campaigner. Reagan would've disected Kerry. Bush tried to play nice. Reagan would've won in a landslide.
How did you like CNN projecting Ohio "green".

"We have never done this before". As if, green is the final result, with the electors to be settled later. Lending credence to the lawsuits if Kerry wanted to pursue it.

ck_IN
11-03-2004, 03:59 PM
Honestly I stopped watching CNN years ago. They're the Clinton News Network to me. Fox is my outlet of choice. After that I go to the 'net and then the bloggers.

Green is an interesting colour. It does sound like they were trying to set it up for recount controversy if Kerry wanted to go there.

Stinger
11-03-2004, 04:11 PM
The only reason this election was close is unprecedented media bias....or the country is getting much more Democratic...given similar historical economic numbers, incumbents win by landslides...

The interesting question is not analyzing why Kerry lost, but why did Bush underperform the models so incredibly....


ROFL ROFL

Please your killing me.

The only reason this election was close is unprecedented media bias

I am not sure how to respond. Let see the Media and I stress MEDIA exit polls had Kerry winning this election yesterday. I won't even go into the cbs et. all. This board has been documented with all of that.

or the country is getting much more Democratic

Then please explain why the Republicans picked up the Presidency, additional seats in the House and Senate?

given similar historical economic numbers, incumbents win by landslides

Lets see he got over 50% of the popular vote something Bubba could not do.

Me thinks someone is in denile. :shake:

Taco John
11-03-2004, 04:15 PM
Just ignore TJ. He can't even admit that he BARELY won a popularity poll that was rigged in his favor vs. the lowly Gunther_Fan. He can't admit reality.


What are you talking about? Exactly what I told you would happen, happened. I can admit that I won.

Rigged in my favor?

You're clueless...

Taco John
11-03-2004, 04:17 PM
I think he was trying to be flashy, to suggest that the right to vote is a life and death issue. It may have been about the war, but I'm fairly sure that was never explicit.



Puffy was just doing whatever he could to get in the spotlight to promote himself... That's all vote-or-die was about...

Baby Lee
11-03-2004, 04:18 PM
Puffy was just doing whatever he could to get in the spotlight to promote himself... That's all vote-or-die was about...
Any insights into his leanings?

I need the guidance of celebrities to validate my thoughts and positions. ;)

Stinger
11-03-2004, 04:19 PM
Puffy was just doing whatever he could to get in the spotlight to promote himself... That's all vote-or-die was about...


What???? You mean a Celebrity that talks political doesn't mean what they say? Say it ain't so :rolleyes:

dtebbe
11-03-2004, 04:31 PM
The left-leaning actors and musicians spent a good deal of effort stummping for stuff shuch as "get out the vote" and "vote or die," of course, with most of them saying on the side, "get out the vote for change!"

And it worked...Americans did 'get out the vote,' and not only did Kerry go down, but the republicans gained in both houses of congress and in some of races involving govenors...

Make's you wonder...what are MTV and P-diddy going to be pimping next election: "Sit on your can!" or "Stay home, don't vote!" ??? ROFL

I know when I saw all those punks talking vote, it motivated me for sure (not that I really need it). It just goes to show how people under 25 are good at talking, but really cant back it up when the LEAST bit of effort is required.

DT