I watched Newsnight last night I think there were some interesting questions which were asked about this presidential election and also for the next one. One comment regarding the democrats was how they seemed to lose the votes of the middle income midwest voters, and the comparison was drawn between the east and west coast democrat voters ( like in NY and MA and CA and etc) and those republican voters in the midwest and the south. Do you think the democrats were right to be so confident of a victory? In some states it was a close but in others it was not so close at all. In states where there are legitimate concerns about the economy, employment and about the war on terrorism, but as bad as these factors were Kerry still couldnt get a majority? Kerry seemed to do well and even gain votes after these debates, but are these debates just meaningless to voters?
How do the democrats rebound from this? And most importantly how do they change their campaign strategy in the next election? What type of voter out there in the USA particulary in target states do the democrats have to woo and court to get their candidate into office? And on the other hand if youre a republican do you really fear the democrats?
How would you approach the next election in 2008?
Allow the South the independence they've been fighting for for the past 120 years.
Pick someone who doesn't look like a gormless nerd with a chin like an ironing board! lol
As has been pointed out by many commentators, the Democrats have run out of star power. I think Hillary would lose, especially in the south. As Clinton and Gore both could talk to the south and were successful, I wouldn't be surprised if they pick John Edwards. He has four years to look less like a beginner and lose a bit of the Davey Jones look.
What about Evan Bayh of Indiana? If they could have carried the mid west, they could have won. I think the south may be forsaken, even in four years time. Its a whole different cultural ballgame down there....
I personally think the Democratic Party is digging its own grave in the South. The party hasn't won a single state in the last two elections, yet the reasons given as to why are what is driving the South away. Paul Begala, a truly liberal Democrat from Arkansas, spent much of yesterday urging Democrats to not go the line that the South went with Bush because they're all backward homophobic racist sexist buck-toothed morons. In his opinion that's exactly the condescending attitude that has driven the South away. The Kerry/Kennedy line of "we'll send him back to Crawford" really pushed buttons because it intended to say that Southerners are a tad too wacko to be taken seriously. The condescension of people of faith particularly in the South also drove them into Republican's arms. Think about it this way, Al Gore was and always will be a more staunch Christian than Bush ever would be. If he had taken Florida and the White House his very complex plan to really bring the church and state together (in a much more striking fashion than Bush has) would have gone ahead full steam. And the Dems are also burying themselves with the minority vote today. Their conclusion is that the minorty vote went up dramatically for Bush because of the gay issue alone simply says "well blacks and latino's voted because of homophobia." Again that paints voters as narrow bigots who were too dumb to vote "correctly." Let me explain this a little better - Bill Clinton doubled the number of gay discharges form the military, signed the ban on HIV-positive immigrants, energetically pushed the Defense of Marriage Act, and told Kerry to back marriage and civil union bans for gays in the campaign.
And as appalled as I am by 11 states voting for gay marriage ban, I'm perplexed that it is being painted as a solely Republican, and ergo Southern factor. Again this is bitterness at a Bush win - and yes based on some pretty dodgy issues - and the conclusion comes out bass ackwards. I am repulsed at the way the vote went, but Democrats voted in droves along with Republicans.
Bill Clinton must be agonizing over angry Democrats talking points today - most of which are based around calling Americans - mostly Southerners - dumb. That isn't going to do the party any favors. Clinton understood that when Bush Snr went right, the Dems had to claim the center, and he did it spectacularly. And I need the Dems to get their heads together and fast. If this Republican party really is drifting right I need a good central Democratic party to look to. Going left will spell disaster.
Lastly (and yeah I edited) I think this is exactly the kind of comment that will do the Democratic Party no good. It's Oliver Willis in the Guardian totally missing the point - "'Ach,' says Oliver James, the clinical psychologist. 'I was too depressed to even speak this morning. I thought of my late mother, who read Mein Kampf when it came out in the 1930s and thought, 'Why doesn't anyone see where this is leading?''"
I agree with a lot of what you say Bungle.
My old man called me to talk on Wednesday morning, we were both a tad dispondant, he alikened my feeling to his when Thatcher beat Kinnock for the last time. (before Major went on and beat him)
He said Karl Rove got America out to vote for Bush by placing the Gay marriage issue on the same ballot.
How does one explain Michigan then, I mean we voted for a liberal president, and on the same piece of paper, marked a cross on amending our state constitution not only to ban marriage, but to ban civil unions between homosexual couples.
The line of thinking that only southern right wing nutjobs voted for banning gay marriage is flawed.
I have to ask this question however. I've been on Britnet for approximately 2 years. When I first arrived Bush had approval ratings of 80% give or take. Everyone was expecting a complete and utter landslide in this election.
If, we take the point that Kerry wasn't an ideal candidate, therefore he didn't make this election close. But Bush in the past 2 years made this election close with various cock ups.
Sure he trounced the popular vote, but.............
Does it not worry the middle-right that Bush was a few hundred thousand votes in Ohio away from losing this?
Bingo. Absolutely bang on Manc. Right now we have gloating from people like Grover Norquist on the right saying America has become more conservative and is recognizing it's moral religious values and that's a good thing. And on the left people like Richard Cohen are saying the same thing but in a more America is officially HillBilly Hoo-Haa land now and that's absolutely a bad thing and we should all hope for recession and failure in war to wake us all up.
Crap. America isn't shifting anywhere. Gore lost by 350 votes. That is so tiny a number the idea that claiming it suggests anything about the American people is idiotic. Kerry lost by a larger margin but nothing as historic as is being suggested. Bush can claim a mandate but America as a bastion of the religious right? Not even close. Reasonable arguments suggest Kerry wasn't likeable enough, and that Rove was a genius in getting out voters no-one in the media understands. If Kerry had won those thousands of votes in Ohio the American media and the rest of the world would be stating that America had moved to the left, and conservatism is dead. Which would also be crap. Republicans are simply trying to pretend that Clinton didn't happen, mainly because he did such a good frikking job. Democrats are simply claiming that all the civilized intelligent people voted Kerry and all the dumbasses voted Bush in an attempt to seize some kind of victory. Both are full of it.
Oh and this is the best line I've heard about the Bush victory. It's Ed Helm's from The Daily Show on what's coming next - "If you want to have gay sex or visit a library, it's probably your last night to do those things. . . I'll be killing two birds with one stone."
Bingo. Absolutely bang on Manc. Right now we have gloating from people like Grover Norquist on the right saying America has become more conservative and is recognizing it's moral religious values and that's a good thing. And on the left people like Richard Cohen are saying the same thing but in a more America is officially HillBilly Hoo-Haa land now and that's absolutely a bad thing and we should all hope for recession and failure in war to wake us all up.
Crap. America isn't shifting anywhere. Gore lost by 350 votes. That is so tiny a number the idea that claiming it suggests anything about the American people is idiotic. Kerry lost by a larger margin but nothing as historic as is being suggested. Bush can claim a mandate but America as a bastion of the religious right? Not even close. Reasonable arguments suggest Kerry wasn't likeable enough, and that Rove was a genius in getting out voters no-one in the media understands. If Kerry had won those thousands of votes in Ohio the American media and the rest of the world would be stating that America had moved to the left, and conservatism is dead. Which would also be crap. Republicans are simply trying to pretend that Clinton didn't happen, mainly because he did such a good frikking job. Democrats are simply claiming that all the civilized intelligent people voted Kerry and all the dumbasses voted Bush in an attempt to seize some kind of victory. Both are full of it.
Oh and this is the best line I've heard about the Bush victory. It's Ed Helm's from The Daily Show on what's coming next - "If you want to have gay sex or visit a library, it's probably your last night to do those things. . . I'll be killing two birds with one stone."
I need this response in a reply to Gross50 on the other board, hope you don't mind.
Oregon did same as Michigan by the sounds of it - voted well over 50% for Kerry, voted the incumbent Democrats back into their offices such as Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Representatives, Senators etc. yet well over 50% voted for the Marriage Ammendment measure to limit it to one man and one woman only.
The Republicans were a bit exasperated here on Tuesday night - on the one hand, the constitutional change regarding marriage passed easily but on the other, tax repeals were rejected, their candidates did dreadfully and voters eventually rejected a cap on medical malpractice (non-economic damages - pain and suffering) lawsuits although this was very close with an almost 50/50 split.
We had Erin Brockovich on commercials here, urging people to vote against the cap. It was dubbed "Battle of the BMW's" as it was basically lawyers vs. doctors.
It's not sour grapes - I thought on Tuesday night and still think now that the best candidate, as selected by the people won fair and square - democracy at its best - but I do think that elections are more about where you live than who you vote for.
The electoral college system is outmoded and cheapens the votes cast in states such as Oregon and Washington. Although the final result would not have changed - President Bush would still have retained his position for a second term - it seems that the entire west coast voting against him can now be ignored as he accepts his mandate to do as he pleases.
I think it would also be helpful if Dems didn't pin the election on people opposed to gay marriage when their candidate was openly against it also.
I think it would also be helpful if Dems didn't pin the election on people opposed to gay marriage when their candidate was openly against it also.
I don't think he made enough of his stance on this. Rumours have it that Bill Clinton told him to openly denouce it a few weeks before the election but he (rightly or wrongly) refused. Its like he would have to take a stance on discrimination to get the Bubba vote. :roll:
My old man called me to talk on Wednesday morning, we were both a tad dispondant, he alikened my feeling to his when Thatcher beat Kinnock for the last time. (before Major went on and beat him)
I think you hit the nail right on the proverbial head there! :wink:
For me though it was more similar to the Major Vs Kinnock election, with all the campaigning and confidence which the Labour Party seemed to exude back then. I dont think that I feel quite as stunned as I did the day after the UK general election, but I did think Kerry had a chance, and so did his party members and followers alike, and that kind of stunned silence mixed with feelings of disbelief were there, but not as concentrated because it wasn't that suprising a result.
Some Good posts on this thread.
I think the first thing the Dem's should do is hire Mr. B as a political adviser for his talents in getting to the key points and putting them so clearly.
Well thank you John.
Just heard a great analysis on NPR from Democratic strategists. It went sort of something like this. If a party spends much of its time condescending to certain people, they aren't going to vote for them. So when Kerry decided not to try and even contest the South the question was why. The answer given was "well they're a bit weird. We don't need thier vote." When looking at the Christian voter the Dems sneered a little too much and labeled them as fundamentalists, hard-right, radicals, the Taliban wing of the Republican party, bigoted right, religious-right etc. If you flip that on its head it explains alot. If Bush Reps condescendingly referred to some Democrats as the Jewish left, Calvinists extremists, Godless weirdos, etc then you've alienated a whole swathe of people, and at the same time managed to say "we don't want the Christian vote." Since the victory the cathartic calls of "well they're all dumb" has suddenly extended from the South to include the entire Midwest. That isn't helpful in any way, and is a reoson why Democrats had such trouble appealing to certain segments. The real crisis came when Bush's moral emphasis was pushed to appeal to minority voters. Some Democratic commentators concluded this as Republicans are trying to appeal to black voters because they don't like gays. Tar with a big brush.
I think that analysis goes a long way. In esssence the plan was to not even try and gain any Republican voters because, well, they're all weird religious illiterate weirdos. Good plan!
Democrats should remember a few things about this election. George Bush won more votes than any other Presidential candidate in history. But thens o did John Kerry. So that means that more people opposed this President than have any other. That is vitally important in not allowing both sides to paint America suddenly as a fundamentally rightwing religious nation. Let's be realistic, a few thousand votes and Kerry would be President, and religious Conservatism would be pronounced dead.