The OFFICIAL United States Presidential Election Thread! III

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
I'm an atheist and I voted for Bush so I don't want to hear any of your secular bull****. And lets take note of how all the liberals on here are still swearing up and down that Bush's an idiot, and he's incompetent, and that the rest of the country must be idiots too. And yet here they are still trying to figure out why anyone would vote for Bush. Who is the ignorant I ask?

The election appears to have been won on social issues (Gay Marriage, Abortion) and "traditional values", whose roots are in religion.

I'm fine if you don't believe that an increase in secularism over time will erode that base - but that's what I think will happen.

[MalevolentLight]

It might have helped if the Dems had put up somebody who was smarter

So true.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

Hillary may be more centrist issue by issue than Obama (im not sure really)

It might depend on what you consider centrism, but I'd say that Obama's the heir to Wellstone.

but I fear a whole range of past associations make it hard for her to appeal to cultural conservatives in the red states. I think Obama may have more potential.

I absolutely agree, lotm. Obama's real gift is the ability to articulate left-wing values honestly and elegantly, and most importnatly without sounding like a total douchebag, in contrast to John "everything is God's gift" Kerry, and in this way reframe the political debate. He's really comparable to Reagan in that way.


LOTM - I really need to read more about Obama. A lot of moderate types seem to like him. He certainly seemed to articulate, more clearly than Kerry, the need to win in Iraq and move to democracy now that we are there.


Hillary also has a lot of baggage among the left for her hawkishness.

LOTM - A great deal depends on where the international situation is in 2008. I personally think that had there been no 9/11, or had the Iraq war gone much better, the hawkish dems (Joe, Edwards, Gephardt) would have done better in 2004.

And the left will not sell out for supposed "electability" this time

LOTM - the left thinks supporting Kerry was selling out. The hawks think Kerry was not centrist enough. What he did was paper over the gap. These recriminations are going to get nasty.

(not that she's electable). She'd be defeated in the primaries, and she'd lose in the general if she made it out.

Personally I like Ed Rendell (who has the advantage of being a governor, not a Senator), but I think no Jew (other than maybe a left wing one) is viable while the WOT is underway, which it may well be in 2008.

Why do you say that?


LOTM - Cause I hear a background rumble of antisemitism, from both right and left, directed for the most part against Bush officials - it never gathered strength against Joe, cause he faded so fast. Its subtle and hidden in the US - a tad less subtle in Europe - and open and above board in the muslim world. I dont think a Jewish pres can do what needs to be done in the WOT, without confirming alot of conspiracy theories. A Wellstone type figure OTOH might have such different ideas about what needs to be done, that it might not matter.


I take it Rendell is fairly centrist, though?

LOTM - a good clintonian third wayer, took on public employee unions when he was mayor of philly, ran the city very well. Has followed party line of criticizing Bush on Iraq, but I think his position as governor has releived him of the need to take a position on whether the original invasion was justified. IF things end up well there, he will have "viability"

IF the WOT is still a big factor in 2008, Bob Graham may be the best shot - has been a governor, from Florida, and matches the "dem must be a southerner" criteria, even if little appeal in most southern states.

That would be interesting, but Graham isn't the most charismatic guy around... And he did pretty anemically in the primaries.

LOTM - well, we may be ready for something else.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
America had a clear choice between evil and not-so evil... it chose pure evil.

Congratulations righties... you have your moron in office for another 4 years. Let's see how much more of a failure he will be. I wonder if there will be another terror attack... or how much worse will things get for the middle class.

At least now the Democratic Party can clean house. Get rid of the Clintonians. Kerry is a failure... he couldn't even beat Dubya the moron.

Get rid of the Southern, moderate Democrats? (Clintonians)

I said this earlier, Sava. It tells you a lot about the issues if the people vote for a moron over an obviously talented challenger.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The sinking ship being America, not the Democratic party.

Ready for an application?

[alva]

Isn't religion on the rise instead of being in decline?
You could be waiting for sometime then.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But that message was probably repeated a trillion times on forums across America... It was the Demo mantra...

Kerry never repeated it and in fact spoke many times how he felt the President was an intelligent person. He can't control what the rank and file say.

[DanS]

Isn't religion on the rise instead of being in decline?

It's pretty steady.

[MalevolentLight]

The election appears to have been won on social issues (Gay Marriage, Abortion) and "traditional values", whose roots are in religion.

Religion and morals are not interchangable. Islam is a good example of that. I am a firm believer in morals and the traditional values of our country, and while they may have been influenced by Christianity, they are by no means going to disappear if secularism takes greater hold. I for one have no problem with Bush's faith whatsoever and I in fact feel more confident in our security knowing someone with strong morals is in offirce.

[DanS]

Personally, I thought Kerry ran a competent campaign. If the democrats made a mistake, it was in nominating a Northeast liberal in the first place. How can a northeast liberal expect to carry some place like Columbus or Cincinnati? Not saying it can't be done, but it's a real uphill battle. Dean would have suffered the same fate. Northeast liberal.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Not exactly. The youth vote was the highest in a long time but every sector had a higher turn out so the percentage of the vote which was youth was virtually unchanged. In absolute terms it was a blow out year for the youth vote but their participation rate was still the lowest of any group.

Yes you're right. I did hear about percentages and not absolute numbers.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


It will have an impact as GWB has a tendency to nominate some very partisan people. I like to think judges should be non-partisan but I guess that's just wishful thinking.

Specifically, dealing with Rehnquist who ever replaces him will likely be on the bench for 25-50 years so it is a major blow. I believe four more justices are in their 80's and a likely to retire so this could be the end of America as a pro-choice country.

Let me understand, Oerdin. Radical leftwinger activists the Democrats have traditionally nominated do NOT count as partisan nominations?

Daschle and his Senate co-conspirators have hamstrung judicial appointments for four years. Who is partisan? Who?

My God, not even the people of Wyoming could be mislead by the leftist propaganda anymore and threw that partisan hack out of office.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ming


I think it says more about Kerry... with so many people voting AGAINST Bush, Kerry still wasn't considered good enough by a majority to win

I respectfully dissent from this view. This issue really turned on the issues, IMHO.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned


Let me understand, Oerdin. Radical leftwinger activists the Democrats have traditionally nominated do NOT count as partisan nominations?

Daschle and his Senate co-conspirators have hamstrung judicial appointments for four years. Who is partisan? Who?

My God, not even the people of Wyoming could be mislead by the leftist propaganda anymore and threw that partisan hack out of office.

That would have been a neat trick, considering he was running in South Dakota.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by DanS
If the democrats made a mistake, it was in nominating a Northeast liberal in the first place. How can a northeast liberal expect to carry some place like Columbus or Cincinnati? Not saying it can't be done, but it's a real uphill battle. Dean would have suffered the same fate. Northeast liberal.

It still hasn't sunk in that only appealing to the Liberal vote is a bad strategy. They seriously think the moderates and conservatives are a minority they have out numbered.