60 Million Votes

[JohnT]

It's like this:

The Dems ran a race against the most reviled President since Richard Nixon, and possibly even more reviled than Tricky Dick. At least Nixon did not have:

1. A major motion picture

and/or

2. A major rock tour featuring some of the worlds biggest acts

actively pushing for his defeat.

So Bush, by all accounts, should've lost. It might've been close, but he still shouldn't have won.

But he did. More importantly, he even proved to have coattails, something that NOBODY was predicting even as late as 10:00pm Election day.

See, it's not the margin of victory that gives Bush the mandate, it's the fact that he and his party blew the opposition out of the water all across the board, against every expectation that gives him the mandate.

[Ramo]

What coat-tails? The Senate losses were all in red states (with FL, SD, KY all being very close). That only proves that the Dems didn't have a nationwide GOTV operation, and this hurt them badly. It's telling that in the battleground states where there were Senate races, CO, and FL, the Dems won in the former (even picking up some Congressional seats and the legislature), and lost by a razor thin margin in the latter.

As for musicians or Micheal Moore, honestly, who was persuaded by them?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Ramo
What coat-tails? The Senate losses were all in red states (with FL, SD, KY all being very close). That only proves that the Dems didn't have a nationwide GOTV operation, and this hurt them badly. It's telling that in the battleground states where there were Senate races, CO, and FL, the Dems won in the former (even picking up some Congressional seats and the legislature), and lost by a razor thin margin in the latter.

As for musicians or Micheal Moore, honestly, who was persuaded by them?

You have got to be kidding me. That's rich, Ramo.

I'll quote that the next time you or your co-ideologues start ranting about Limbaugh or Coulter, OK?

Coattails, Ramo. From a guy who was expected to lose the election. The Dems got their asses kicked and there's no two ways about it.

[Ramo]

The Dems did get their asses kicked, but not because everyone loves Dear Leader and his agenda. You don't have a mandate when you barely win as an incumbent on a campaign based on character assassination and fearmongering.

As for Limbaugh, etc., they have media networks dedicated to their propaganda on air everyday (as opposed to a movie that one watches for two hours). The closest thing to that Moore et al. have is Air America (which is crap as well, if you want my opinion), and it's pretty insignificant compared to rightwing talk radio and Fox News.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo
The Dems did get their asses kicked, but not because everyone loves Dear Leader and his agenda. You don't have a mandate when you barely win as an incumbent on a campaign based on character assassination and fearmongering.

As for Limbaugh, etc., they have media networks dedicated to their propaganda on air everyday (as opposed to a movie that one watches for two hours). The closest thing to that Moore et al. have is Air America (which is crap as well, if you want my opinion), and it's pretty insignificant compared to rightwing talk radio and Fox News.

So...No character assassination by Kerry? No fearmongereing by the democrat?

And as for talk radio...The reason that the conservatives have it is because that's what people want to listen to and how most feel and the reason the dems don't have that kind of coverage is because America doesn't like their message .

John T is right. If the dems can't beat a President that they full blast villified for the last two years, then how do they expect to beat a popular Republican.

Hey Dems...It's your message, not your tactics that is causing you to loose power . When ya get this one, then maybe we can start to have a viable two party system again. As long as you keep trying to come up with excuses then you will continue to loose the elections.

[Last Conformist]

Do we really have to have endless debates about mythical "mandates"? I'm sure believer-boy Bush's got the Mandate of Heaven too. What difference does it make? He's not gonna turn further to the right because he should do it - he may do it if he feels he'd get away with it.

[Ramo]

So...No character assassination by Kerry? No fearmongereing by the democrat?

Where did I say that? It's certainly the case, though, that the Bush campaign did that far more.

Anyways, the point is that incumbents generally run on their records, challengers run against the incumbents' records. Dear Leader's record was so pitiful, all he could run on was character assassination and fearmongering. Unfortunatley, he (barely) won, but the point is that he won doesn't mean he has some sort of mandate.

And as for talk radio...The reason that the conservatives have it is because that's what people want to listen to and how most feel and the reason the dems don't have that kind of coverage is because America doesn't like their message .

I guess that newspapers heavily endorsed Kerry because literate Americans heavily support Kerry.

John T is right. If the dems can't beat a President that they full blast villified for the last two years, then how do they expect to beat a popular Republican.

Hey Dems...It's your message, not your tactics that is causing you to loose power . When ya get this one, then maybe we can start to have a viable two party system again. As long as you keep trying to come up with excuses then you will continue to loose the elections.

I actually generally agree with that. But, the problem is not that Democratic positions are too left-wing (Americans by and large agree with Democratic positions). Rather, their positions are poorly articulated, and the debate is framed in the Republicans' favor. As the linguist George Lakoff has written so much about. Obama is an example of how to get out of that rut.

But the reason why Kerry barely lost the popular vote, rather than barely won the popular vote is largely due to GOTV. New York, for instance, had one of the lowest voter turnouts in the country.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
57% of the country in 92 voted for someone other then Bill Clinton to be President. That's not a mandate at all.

There was a viable third party in 92 also, so the numbers are skewed. duh. Even so, the margin of victory over his oppenent was much greater.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo

So...No character assassination by Kerry? No fearmongereing by the democrat?

Where did I say that? It's certainly the case, though, that the Bush campaign did that far more.

Funny...I never saw Kerry do anything else. He kept talking about his big plans, but never revealed them. Bush, OTOH, actually talked about specific proposals...and of course Kerry's record.

I guess that newspapers heavily endorsed Kerry because literate Americans heavily support Kerry.

Most, not all, newspapers are the only game in town. Very few places does a newspaper have to compete for its business. The declining circulation they are experiencing well addresses their misunderstanding of the electorate as well. Radio, OTOH, actually has to compete for its market share...and the fact that conservative radio's audience is growing speaks well to how it does understand the electorate.

I actually generally agree with that.

At last we find a small bit of common ground. Perhaps Repugs and dems can work together?

But, the problem is not that Democratic positions are too left-wing (Americans by and large agree with Democratic positions). Rather, their positions are poorly articulated, and the debate is framed in the Republicans' favor. As the linguist George Lakoff has written so much about. Obama is an example of how to get out of that rut.

But the reason why Kerry barely lost the popular vote, rather than barely won the popular vote is largely due to GOTV.

Right back to the excuse game.

Are you guys ever gonna learn?

[Odin]

Bush won because he got the fundie vote out.

[GePap]

In 1944 The Democrats had 70% plus of BOTH houses of Congress and the precidency.

By 1952 the repugs had climbed back- heck, in 1948 they almost won the precidency.

When the republicans create a majority akin to the one Democrats once had, THEN they can crow. They aren't even close.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ming

It would make your knee-jerk, conservative, wet dream come true if the Democratic Party became dysfunctional, eh?

[Gatekeeper]

Being a moderate isn't the "manly" thing to do anymore. Nowadays the more extreme you are, the more electable you appear to be. Great for the extremists, but downright scary for a nation's future. About the only time moderates are ever used is to be trotted out at the national conventions and on special occasions, to show how "diverse" any given party is.

Insofar as I'm concerned, the moderate should form their own party and act as a the fulcrum between the nutcases on the right and the left. We'll be boring and call it the "Rationalist Party," except its acronymn (RAT) doesn't exactly click, does it? Oh, well. Back to the drawing board while the GOP and Dem partisans fiddle as Washington burns.

Gatekeeper

[Drake Tungsten]

Of that list, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Stabenow, and Dayton look vulnerable.

Ben Nelson will probably lose if Mike Johanns (current Republican governor) runs against him. Not sure it would be a big deal though, as Nelson is a DINO...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


In 1944 The Democrats had 70% plus of BOTH houses of Congress and the precidency.

By 1952 the repugs had climbed back- heck, in 1948 they almost won the precidency.

When the republicans create a majority akin to the one Democrats once had, THEN they can crow. They aren't even close.

Very true. If the GOP hadn't nabbed Ike, then they could have been finished on the national stage. The Dems aren't in danger of extinction...yet. They do need to get more to the center to make a comeback though.