Some reasons Kerry lost

[varwoche]

More importantly, however, was Bush's ability to convince enough voters that the war in Iraq really is part of the "War On Terror".

You bet. I was listing banal reasons, whereas Iraq is a biggie.

 

[Atlas]

Cursing someone charged with the responsibility of taking a bullet for him if necessary probably lost him the vote of every single undecided Secret Service agent. ...

Is this a reference to the snowboard incident where he also complained "I don't fall off." There were a few of those types of events that didn't show him off well.

I don't know that they lost him votes but they certainly cemented opinion.

Wasn't there one where he and Theresa and friends had burgers together in a fast food "We're real people" place and then retired to their luxury bus and sat down to their real meal of more like $1000 a plate delicacies. I don't remember the details but I thought that the poor guy really has to work at being a regular guy. His hunting photo op was similar to me.

But looming over all was Viet Nam and Iraq. The Swift vets debacle was not handled well. He couldn't turn away their attacks, he couldn't apologize and he couldn't release the last of his military papers. He had to have seen it coming but he made his time in Nam central to his campaign. I think he recovered after the first debate and pretty much put the issue behind him but alot of folks had made up their mind by then.

 

[TragicMonkey]

He specifically pointed out that many of those voting for Bush were motivated by a sense of hope for their vision of the future, be it a better economy, or the safety of their loved ones, while the Democrats pounded away at the same old negative messages.

Like Cheney and his "suitcase nukes" statement?

 

[crimresearch]

More likely Robert Byrd's various statements that have so endeared the Democrats to minority voters.

And of course Edwards' speech at the DNC convention couldn't possibly have been read in the wrong way...'anyone who isn't for us isn't a real American'...

 

[TragicMonkey]

More likely Robert Byrd's various statements that have so endeared the Democrats to minority voters.

I didn't realize Byrd ever said anything except "West Virginia needs more federal money." The amazing thing is that he seems to get it. Does he have blackmail material on everyone, or is he using a combination of mind control and forged checks?

 

[BPSCG]

And of course Edwards' speech at the DNC convention couldn't possibly have been read in the wrong way...'anyone who isn't for us isn't a real American'...

That reminds me. I didn't watch the Democratic convention (and only a little of the Repub), but a neighbor noticed this:

Barak Obama's speech was full of platitudes about how there's no black America and white America, no rich America and poor America, no young America and old America; there's only the United States of America.

Then Edwards comes on the next night and talks about how there are "two Americas..."

I figure there were a half-dozen fence-sitters around the country who heard that and said, "That does it; these bozos can't even get on the same page" and pulled the lever for W.

 

[BPSCG]

I didn't realize Byrd ever said anything except "West Virginia needs more federal money." The amazing thing is that he seems to get it. Does he have blackmail material on everyone, or is he using a combination of mind control and forged checks?

My guess: He doesn't try to get $100 million for a dam, 'cuz he knows he ain't gonna get it. So he puts one-million-dollar riders into a hundred separate billion-dollar appropriations bills; his little rider becomes a rounding error.

If he just needs a million for a bunch of school blackboard, he does a hundred $10,000 riders in smaller appropriations.

 

[crimresearch]

That reminds me. I didn't watch the Democratic convention (and only a little of the Repub), but a neighbor noticed this:

Barak Obama's speech was full of platitudes about how there's no black America and white America, no rich America and poor America, no young America and old America; there's only the United States of America.

Then Edwards comes on the next night and talks about how there are "two Americas..."

I figure there were a half-dozen fence-sitters around the country who heard that and said, "That does it; these bozos can't even get on the same page" and pulled the lever for W.

The Democrat's bipolar attitude to such things makes it problematic for some folks who actually want those platitudes to come true to support the negative side of the party.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Actually it's 60 million and change.
[Derail]
About half a million more than the entire population of France, which is physically about the size of Texas and has approximately the population of California plus Texas.
[/Derail]

If you are going to be pedantic, it helps to get your facts straight. France's population is 60,424,213 (July 2004 est.), which means that France has half a million more than the Bush voters - not less. Physically, France is 339,158 sq miles, about 77,361 more than Texas or 29% bigger - not about the same size. California plus Texas has a population of roughly 57 million - 2.8 million less than France, not approximately the population. 3 million votes is considered a huge amount, so 2.8 million people is also a huge difference.

 

[Jocko]

If you are going to be pedantic, it helps to get your facts straight. France's population is 60,424,213 (July 2004 est.), which means that France has half a million more than the Bush voters - not less. Physically, France is 339,158 sq miles, about 77,361 more than Texas or 29% bigger - not about the same size. California plus Texas has a population of roughly 57 million - 2.8 million less than France, not approximately the population. 3 million votes is considered a huge amount, so 2.8 million people is also a huge difference.

So what's a 3.5% margin of error between friends? I mean, considering how many people here think Kerry actually won, I'm a little surprised that 3.5% is any big deal.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Yeah, I almost forgot -- it's this kind of arrogant elitist sneering that lost Lurch lots of votes. Keep it up - and keep losing -- loser.

Why don't you have your apologetics ready yet for the aluminum tubes? I'm waiting, and I'm going to keep bringing this issue up just to remind you that you didn't know what the hell you were doing when you voted for Bush.

Originally posted by Jocko
Ah, so 55 million Americans are wrong, and Kerry was right all along. Gotcha. Do me a favor, keep on thinking that way. I'm sure it will work in '08.

Omit the remark on the stupidity of the American people from the campaign strategy, and it should be fine. It would have been irresponsible of me to have concealed in the privacy of this conversation a fact pertinent to the politics we're now discussing that both you and I know to be true without a doubt.

[derail]BPSCG & Jocko,
Didn't anybody ever point out to you guys that Twain and Beethoven were both outspoken liberals?[/derail]

 

[Patrick]

Why don't you have your apologetics ready yet for the aluminum tubes?

?????

I'm waiting, and I'm going to keep bringing this issue up just to remind you that you didn't know what the hell you were doing when you voted for Bush.

Uh, I didn't vote for ANYBODY - you don't know what the hell you're doing practically every time you open your mouth.

 

[BPSCG]

If you are going to be pedantic, it helps to get your facts straight. France's population is 60,424,213 (July 2004 est.), which means that France has half a million more than the Bush voters - not less.

As of November 15, Bush had 60,512,548 votes, which is more than 60,424,213. But I'm sure that France will eventually surpass Bush's number, especially with all that immigration from the middle east...

Physically, France is 339,158 sq miles, about 77,361 more than Texas or 29% bigger - not about the same size.

Okay, smaller than Alaska, then. A lot smaller.

 

[Jocko]

[derail]BPSCG & Jocko,
Didn't anybody ever point out to you guys that Twain and Beethoven were both outspoken liberals?[/derail]

Don't confuse self-determination with liberalism. Twain would be quite aghast at what passes for "progressive" thought these days. He came of age around the same time as the Republican party, remember, which itself was revolutionary in its own time but seems like a no-brainer now (i.e., an amendment forbidding slavery).

 

[Batman Jr.]

Why don't you have your apologetics ready yet for the aluminum tubes?
?????

These aluminum tubes. You haven't addressed them, and I don't want to hear any of your pro-Bush propagandistic crap until you do.

 

[crimresearch]

There is hardly any need for apologetics for anything whose source is 'an extensive 3 page article from the New York Times'...the presumption is already upon the person citing that to prove it isn't another forged piece of crapola.


Odd that those who purport to be favoring Democrats seem so intent upon portraying anyone that rebuts completely impeached sources like the NY Times with verifiable facts, as being'pro-Bush'...
I would think you would want to stake that territory out for yourself and not cede the truth so readily to your opponents.

Of course, I'm not one to talk, since I think*all* parties own their share of lies.

 

[corplinx]

Then Edwards comes on the next night and talks about how there are "two Americas..."

One of the dukakis campaign bigwigs had some thoughts about "two americas" when it became popular during the primary run. Simply put, they thought it was a bad idea and it had never worked before when it had been tried.

All around, I think Edwards was the worst VP pick since Dan Q.. He is a lightweight, a trial lawyer with some controversial cases, has no political experience to speak of, and the Kerry campaign treated him like the second stringer he was the entire campaign.

His press coverage was abysmal, he drew flies instead of crowds, and his only saving grace was that he pulled a comeback in his debate with Dick Cheney after everyone had already changed channels to watch baseball after he had been schlacked silly for the first 30 minutes.

 

[Batman Jr.]

There is hardly any need for apologetics for anything whose source is 'an extensive 3 page article from the New York Times'...the presumption is already upon the person citing that to prove it isn't another forged piece of crapola.

That's a pretty feeble defense decrying any evidence I present to be false just to validate your own preconceived notions about the integrity of the president. The proper procedure is that you read the article, explain to me your concise objections to it, and, if the discrepancies you found in it remain untenable, it gets thrown out the window. You sound like a creationist demeaning the verisimilitude of the fossil records simply because they dare to challenge the Bible.

Originally posted by crimresearch
Odd that those who purport to be favoring Democrats seem so intent upon portraying anyone that rebuts completely impeached sources like the NY Times with verifiable facts, as being'pro-Bush'...
I would think you would want to stake that territory out for yourself and not cede the truth so readily to your opponents.

Alright, so show me those facts making everything the Times touches turn to falsity.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Twain would be quite aghast at what passes for "progressive" thought these days.

Did your dog or a potato shaped like Jesus tell you that? Because Clemens has been dead for quite some time.

 

[crimresearch]

That's a pretty feeble defense decrying any evidence I present to be false just to validate your own preconceived notions about the integrity of the president. The proper procedure is that you read the article, explain to me your concise objections to it, and, if the discrepancies you found in it remain untenable, it gets thrown out the window. You sound like a creationist demeaning the verisimilitude of the fossil records simply because they dare to challenge the Bible.

Alright, so show me those facts making everything the Times touches turn to falsity.

Jayson Blair...should I go on? Or is the most recent high profile example of faked articles sufficient to rebut your presumption that the Times is not unreliable?

You're the one on record with the extraordinary claims, it is your job to present support for them, not the skeptic's job..

The Times is proven to be unreliable by the very existence of their faked stories....the ball is in your court, and so far all you have done is throw up a straw man argument to deflect attention from your unreliable sources.

The postion of 'The Times said it, I believe it, and that settles it' is the only topic on the table.

I don't need to memorize very word in your Bible to declare it bogus, I don't need to read all of your Chick tracts to dismiss them, and I certainly don't need to defend the position that your NY Times is not a reliable source...stick to that issue, why don't you?