I'm not going to blame the presidency on the Democrats' campaign (Bush's re-election can be credited to the Christian Coalition, Extreme Orthodox Jews, and the ignorance (i.e: more than half of the Bush voters still believe WMD's are in Iraq) of some of the voters), yet, by focusing on the presidency, as opposed to both the presidency and Congress, there won't be a balance to ANY of Bush's court nominees, etc.

I think it should have been obvious to the Dems that Bush supporters advocated him because of two major reasons. The first would be a cowboy mentality (or, the idea that Bush, like a cowboy, is tough on the enemy). Let's round 'em up and kill them terrorists! The second reason would simply be for religious reasonings (nevermind that particular amendment...). The wealthy didn't clinch the victory.

With that in mind, the Dems could have attacked these points and focused a BIT on Congress. Face it, when Daschle loses, something seems a bit odd. It's been a depressing day for the Dems, but, I'd like to see them run a better campaign in '06. And, yeah, if ONLY it would be Obama vs. McCain in 2008. I wouldn't have much of an issue with either one.

First rule in politics: do not blame the electorate (in this case, don't call them stupid).

Easily the most jaw-dropping thing that happened last night. I'm still shocked he lost. You're right, when something like that happens, it is an indication that something has gone awry. They have to, have to connect with voters again; the Republicans are gaining supporters among women, Latinos, etc. Those are significant losses for the Dems.




McCain would win. Easily. I think you'd even have a landslide. Obama wouldn't have the advantage of being more charismatic (McCain is too), and in addition, McCain has campaign experience and respected and admired by both sides.

I think the part about them being ignorant (or, should I say: uninformed) comes from a recent study done by the University of Maryland. If you still believe there are WMD's in Iraq (among other disproved statements), face it. You aren't reading even the conservative papers.

Perhaps, to vote, you should be required to pass a test. One that would only allow you to vote if you're informed. Hell. Bush is already destroying the constitution, why not destroy another one? At least it'd be for a good cause.

That wasn't my point. I wouldn't care if McCain won. At least he wouldn't fill the office with Extreme Christians.

And, of course, the country wouldn't be nearly as polarized.

You're talking about the PIPA study. PIPA is a partisan hackery group that rigged the study in order to make Bush-supporters look bad.

[quote="torrino" Face it, when Daschle loses, something seems a bit odd. It's been a depressing day for the Dems, but, I'd like to see them run a better campaign in '06. And, yeah, if ONLY it would be Obama vs. McCain in 2008. I wouldn't have much of an issue with either one.[/quote]

Dashcle loos is sad and pathetic and just highlights how piss poor the democratic party is run these days.

Obaam vs McCain would be great, I respoect both mena nd would love to see either one as President, though Obama hasn't got a shot to win.

The democrats really have no one to run in 2008, this Hillary talk is bloody frightening.

I know. The thing is though, it isn't only that the Democrats ran a less than spectacular campaign, but that the Republicans run a great campaign also. They definitely have their things together; I mean, they actually gained power in this election.


I expect more or less the same thing in 2008 from them (thus discounting McCain). If it has worked for 2 elections straight, and worked very well, why would they want to change things? if there is any change, it'll probably come from the Democrats.


Btw, what's everyone's view of there being a third party backed by those dissatisfied with neither? I get the sense that a lot of people in the US don't feel any kind of connection with either party.


Note: edited to correct minor error.

Here's a rule to debating: Don't add in a bunch of adjectives without backing your word up. You'll only be presented with a three letter word: Either "how" or "why". Now write up!

What's wrong with Edwards?

Hey, you never know who might run and do well. No one in 2000 would have predicted that Dean would have been a front runner.

By the way, I agree the Democrats ran a bad campaign. Here are my reasons for their defeat:



1. The "insiders" continually underestimate the new "moral majority's" pull in the rural areas. There is a bit of truth in the cliche about the insular media feeding off its own and only seeing the viewpoints of its own...

2. People vote for personality more than they do issues, which explains how the country can go from Reagan to Clinton in four short years. It wasn't ideology, it was charisma. Kerry had no charisma.

3. Democrats keep nominating Massachusetts liberals and others who are too far out of the mainstream (of course, so do Republicans -- Bush is hardly a moderate -- but had the Republicans nominated a moderate, they would have done even better).

4. The Republicans have been eating into the Democrat's base for years (working people) and the Democrats haven't even tried to go after the Republican base (because they never would). The Republicans are better organized and registered many new voters over the past 4 years while the Democratic registration surge didn't happen until the last six months or so, and that's all anyone concentrated on, forgetting the past.

5. Something very wrong is going on with the surveys and polling done in this country, and bad polling can lead candidates to make bad decisions about where to campaign and how to campaign. When surveys and exit polls showed a huge Kerry win early in the night, you know something is really wrong.

6. Negative campaigning and "repeat the lie enough so they believe it" works. What was that survey -- 75% of Bush's supporters believed that there were WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was behind 9/11? You can fool most of the people most of the time...

I'm sure I can comment more and add more later, but you're going to see a LOT of editorials and comments on this same subject, and remember -- you read it here first.

Mike Ventrella

BA, Political Science, 1981

I do believe you of all people should knwo how and why ;-)

No, Krem. I don't know how PIPA is a partisan hackery group that apparently rigged the study in order to make Bush-supporters look bad. Remember, I'm only 16! It's fucking politics, and, as you said, it doesn't affect me! So, why would I know?

Yes torrino, they sure did. Starting with the Dem establishment going against Dean like they did.

People like to blame the south for yesterday, but it was the Northeastern democratic establishment that caused yesterday. If Dean or Edwards had been the nominee they would have run a much better campaign, win or lose.

And people might say well but Dean is from the Northeast, and yes he was, but he talks like a real person, he has an affinity with small town folks, he doesn't talk like a lifer politician, and he attacked the washington democrats for being subservient chickens to Bush. Then they all ganged up on him.

And what do some of you mean about no one to run in 2008? What about Edwards? He's the brightest star in the party and the best chance the Dems have, he's better than Clinton was in 1992.

Oh yeah but Edwards from the icky south isnt he? Ewww. Can't we just cut the south off and sail it away? Keep thinking like that and Dems will lose again. Edwards is the best bet and the Republicans said all year long that their worst fear was Edwards getting the nomination.

If I could pick the 2008 ticket right now it would be Edwards with Evan Bayh as veep.

Krem, don't mock me. With such a response, I can't decipher whether you're laughing with me or at me .

Now, get to work on that response.

With you, of course ;-)

Let's make a deal: YOU produce the study you're talking about, and I'll retort it.

Archie, I dont see the Democrats making inroads into the south. Even if Edwards runs, he stilll will do simliar in the south as Al Gore. Face it, the South has always backed one party (I realize theres a contradiction). Also, if Edwards is so great, what the hell did he do for Kerry? I see the Dems making better progress in states like Ohio, Colorado, Nevada and Arizona.

No it's not about making inroads in the south, though they can make a few but right they won't be taking Texas anytime soon. The reason southern candidates are good is that they tend to be much more at home with small town folks than a typical north eastern candidate is. And a southern candidate is less scary to the older people in general because they are perceived rightly or wrongly as less likely to be for radical social change or big social programs.

Bush won the rural vote like 65-35. Remember that the republicans only won by a few points, so if Edwards or Bayh or Dean can make inroads in that way, it's a big thing. When you see Bush handing out water in florida after the hurricane, if you didn't know he was president, he looks like he could have been just a regular guy there to help. B. Clinton, Edwards, Dean, Bayh have that quality too. Kerry doesn't. Hillary doesn't.

Also the final results showed that Bush did 5% better than Kerry among seniors. The reason was "values". Seniors normally lean democratic, unless they think someone is out of touch. The candidates I suggested are less out of touch, in image at least, on those issues.

Actually he has actually done alot to help seniors pay for prescriptions.

That doesn't matter. Look for the "values" to become the smear word du jour.

DO you all really think it was "morals" that won this election...?

That's what the exit polls are saying, supposedly.

You can't blame people really. Abortion and same-sex marriage are big issues with evangelicals.

Values was the number one cited reason for the way they voted in exit polls. Especially among seniors.

(And yes the exit polls were pretty accurate, its just some blogs released incomplete versions too early)

BTW, to throw in a conspiracy theory angle, do you think those numbers cost Kerry the election? Maybe people stopped "getting out the vote" cause they were too confident?

I dont know, it probably made Bush's margin better. I dont know if it could have made up the whole difference.

But I do recall just as anecdotal thing someone in the forum saying they went to vote in NH and were told not to bother by a relative because their state was for sure going Dem. And then of course it was very close in NH after all.

Really the way I look at this election is this"

The Dems nominated an old craggy ugly guy with a 20 year record as one of the most liberal senators who couldn't shut up about his Vietnam service that even his supporters didn't want to hear about., And he had a borderline lunatic (IMO) unappealing wife. On top of that, liberals chose this election year to push the couldn't be more hot button topic of gay marriage to the front burner. And still with all that, it was still close.

If they just nominate someone who is more appealing and has a normal real marriage and others dont do crazy things like push divisive issues in an election year, they will do fine next time IMO.

But that's a long way off. :?