Do you think Howard Dean or anyone else..

[KidRock]

Do you think howard dean or any other Democrat running in the primaries would have done better in the election then Kerry? If so, why?

 

[PunisherUSA]

I dunno about the others, but Dean is simply too far left to attract any of the moderate voters, so he would have done much more poorly. I also think Kerry was the best choice in the primaries, as none of the other candidates were moderate enough or as good orators.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

probably not, the bush fear/bs machine was too strong. the democratic candidates had too many dnc electability flaws

sharpton: not white
mosely-braun: not white and a woman
kucinich: vegan whacko, too short
dean: somewhat loony, too short
lieberman: too conservative, too jewish
gephardt: too boring
graham: who?
edwards: too southern, too young looking
clark: too odd, kinda creepy

when people are so easily swayed by social consevative smoke screens, and buy into thinking that "liberal" is a slur. there's not much the dnc could have done besides field someone like clinton. americans are too stupid to care about the issues or think about something that requires more than 2 minutes of thought. so the dnc would have needed an overly-charismatic freak to overcome rove's fear-mongering.

 

[blahblahblah]

when people are so easily swayed by social consevative smoke screens, and buy into thinking that "liberal" is a slur. there's not much the dnc could have done besides field someone like clinton. americans are too stupid to care about the issues or think about something that requires more than 2 minutes of thought. so the dnc would have needed an overly-charismatic freak to overcome rove's fear-mongering.

I disagree, I think the Democratic party is in shambles. Democrats don't have a firm identity. Kerry tried to appeal to everyone, which pretty much failed. Bush didn't try to appeal to everyone, he focused on a specific group of people. Until the democratic party realizes that it must target a specific group of people, it will not succeed.

It has nothing to do with stupid Americans or charisma. President Bush is literally as charismatic as a bush. Charisma doesn't win a presidential election. Making your stances clear to voters is important.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

It has nothing to do with stupid Americans or charisma. President Bush is literally as charismatic as a bush. Charisma doesn't win a presidential election. Making your stances clear to voters is important.

of course it does. and if you think bush is no very charismatic among "nascar-dads" and "security-moms", you need to get out more. when clarity in ineptitude prevails of complexity of consideration, the simplemindedness of the voting public is my first suspect.

 

[blahblahblah]

of course it does. and if you think bush is no very charismatic among "nascar-dads" and "security-moms", you need to get out more. when clarity in ineptitude prevails of complexity of consideration, the simplemindedness of the voting public is my first suspect.

Even if you call Bush charismatic, it doesn't explain the dramatic gains the Republicans made in the Senate and House. I still think the democrats have a fundamental idealogy problem.

How do you describe a Republican? Rather easy.

How do you describe a Democrat? Much more difficult.

 

[mortey]

I liked Clark a lot.

 

[Death.Trap]

To reinforce blahblahblahblah's point




http://kustomsolutions.com/jk.mp3

 

[qckbeam]

I actually liked Dean a lot. Too bad people are afraid of a little liberal charisma.

http://kustomsolutions.com/jk.mp3

Yay for soundbites taken out of context

 

[sublidieminal]

I think that any democrat with a southern background would have gone much better over the big red.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Even if you call Bush charismatic, it doesn't explain the dramatic gains the Republicans made in the Senate and House. I still think the democrats have a fundamental idealogy problem.

How do you describe a Republican? Rather easy.

How do you describe a Democrat? Much more difficult.

which to me is a comment on the depth of thought of the voters as much as a referendum on the state of the dnc. the problem for democrats is that their "base" tends to see the world as a more complex place than the republicans base (which, sadly, has become evangelical christians).

bush definitely plays a role in the republican wins you refer to. why wouldn't he? how many people do you think vote straight along the party lines? who defines the party platform? did you listen to your local political campaigns? here in ohio voinovich was basically parroting the bush campaign.

i'm sure terry mccullough did his best to run a campaign like the sound-bite happy, a.d.d., knee-jerk, simplistic, madison-avenue lowest-common denominator job rove and friends did. but it doesn't work for liberal thinkers.. not yet anyway. and when it does, the dnc will be just as bad as the gop (it's not too far off right now).

 

[blahblahblah]

which to me is a comment on the depth of thought of the voters as much as a referendum on the state of the dnc. the problem for democrats is that their "base" tends to see the world as a more complex place than the republicans base (which, sadly, has become evangelical christians).

the charisma of bush definitely plays a role in the republican wins you refer to. why wouldn't it? how many people do you think vote straight along the party lines? who defines the part platform? did you listen to your local political campaigns? here in ohio voinovich was basically parroting the bush campaign.

i'm sure terry mccullough did his best to run a campaign like the sound-bite happy, a.d.d., knee-jerk, simplistic, madison-avenue lowest-common denominator job rove and friends did. but it doesn't work for liberal thinkers.. not yet anywya. and when it does, the dnc will be just as bad as the gop (it's not too far off right now).

Depth of voter? You mean the same democrats who have no concept of economics? Or about health care? I spent earlier this evening schooling a democrat (a very smart person that I may add) about economics and the reality of health care in the US.

Democrats are not able to handle more complex concepts, they don't have a clue on what their party stands for. In your context, Republicans are simpler because there is less deviation in policy decisions. As a republican, I can pretty much immediately point out all of the major policy decisions a republican is likely to endorse.

A democrat on the other hand can vary greatly. That doesn't make it easy for a democrat to choose a democratic candidate. What would you rather choose, a candidate whose positions are largely unknown or a candidate whose positions are crystal clear? People don't have time to spend 10 hours researching each candidate or political party.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

What would you rather choose, a candidate whose positions are largely unknown or a candidate whose positions are crystal clear?

that depends upon the "crystal clear" position.

People don't have time to spend 10 hours researching each candidate or political party.

which is precisely why my above characterisation is accurate.

do you think bush voters that actually understand the issues any better than kerry voters? forget about "republicans" and "democrats", i'm an independent and you voted for kerry. the political process is such that knowledge is inhibited precisely because it's a lot easier to get votes from the impassioned uninformed than any other mindset. the fear and hate is the driving force for 90% of the votes on both sides.

my opinion is that a person who sees the world in black and white is more easily convinced than a person who sees shades of grey. in general, i think the christian conservatives fall into the former category more than the amiguous 'liberal base' (if such a thing even exists).

 

[f|uke]

I disagree, I think the Democratic party is in shambles.

Because we lost to an incumbent president? For all this talk of being "fair" and "equal" in the debating here, that is a very unfair accusation. Kerry was not the democratic party and you know this.

Do you think howard dean [...] would have done better

Yes. I think the characterizations of him being some kind of loose cannon were grossly unfair. It was a media assasination. Dean was just a passionate guy, and I have no doubt he would have been a more singular voice then Kerry was.

Kerry sucked.

 

[blahblahblah]

do you think bush voters that actually understand the issues any better than kerry voters? forget about "republicans" and "democrats", i'm an independent and you voted for kerry. the political process is such that knowledge is inhibited precisely because it's a lot easier to get votes from the impassioned uninformed than any other mindset. the fear and hate is the driving force for 90% of the votes on both sides.

my opinion is that a person who sees the world in black and white is more easily convinced than a person who sees shades of grey. in general, i think the christian conservatives fall into the former category more than the amiguous 'liberal base' (if such a thing even exists).

The point is that a person can take a look at Bush and quickly identify if he is their candidate. That doesn't make a person less complex, it just simplifies the amount of time it takes to determine their position on a given candidate.

Democrats don't see the world in shades of gray. They are black and white just like Republicans. The difference was that the Democratic party made it a difficult time making clear what their positions are on all the issues.

As for Christians, it would be incredibly easy to have them switch to a democratic candidate. All you have to mention is compassion for humanity (welfare) and re-word (not change) certain ideals, you can easily get the Christian vote. It isn't about black or white or shades of gray, it is all about targeting a group of people.

Because we lost to an incumbent president? For all this talk of being "fair" and "equal" in the debating here, that is a very unfair accusation. Kerry was not the democratic party and you know this.

Exactly. Bush fit the Republican party, and the Republican party rallied around Bush. Kerry never fit in with the democratic party, and the Democratic party never rallied around Kerry.

When you have a problem with a political party unanimously supporting, you have to suspect something is wrong.

Tell me, what are some common Democratic ideals? I bet you can have an easier time listing Republican ideals (no sarcasm please)?

 

[Lil' Timmy]

The point is that a person can take a look at Bush and quickly identify if he is their candidate. That doesn't make a person less complex, it just simplifies the amount of time it takes to determine their position on a given candidate.

if a person can't set aside sufficient time to understand complex issues and nuanced stanes, that's simplemindedness, imo.

Democrats don't see the world in shades of gray. They are black and white just like Republicans. The difference was that the Democratic party made it a difficult time making clear what their positions are on all the issues.

i'm not talking exclusively about "democrats" and "republicans", as i mentioned above. i'm talking about evangelical christian conservatives vs a putative dnc base.

As for Christians, it would be incredibly easy to have them switch to a democratic candidate. All you have to mention is compassion for humanity (welfare) and re-word (not change) certain ideals, you can easily get the Christian vote. It isn't about black or white or shades of gray, it is all about targeting a group of people.

perhaps, but i feel that if this were true, it would have been done. but i'm not talking about your average everyday mildly-pious christian, i'm talking about the evangelicals.

going to bed see you all tomorrow or there-abouts.

 

[f|uke]

Tell me, what are some common Democratic ideals? I bet you can have an easier time listing Republican ideals (no sarcasm please)?

Democratic ideals
Civil rights. Providing health care. Tax the rich, help the poor. Creating Equality. World peace. Diplomacy. Concern for the environment.

Republican ideals
Stand tall like a man. Impose my morality. Nobody ****s with America. **** the environment, and **** Iraq, I deserve a hummer/SUV. I dont care who dies in another part of the world.

 

[umop]

of course it does. and if you think bush is no very charismatic among "nascar-dads" and "security-moms", you need to get out more. when clarity in ineptitude prevails of complexity of consideration, the simplemindedness of the voting public is my first suspect.

Polysyllabics 101

 

[Sprafa]

I wanted Clark 04....

 

[kathaksung]

Manipulate media and poll

Howard Dean is a vivid sample of how insider group to use media and intelligence to manipulate an election.

1. In last October, when Dean became a threat to Bush, they at first threw out Wesley Clark to block him. Media said that Clark was the only one in Democratic Party which could beat Bush. ( try to divert the support of Dean to Clark) CNN-USA Today Gallop poll said Clark lead over Bush at the rate of 49% to 46%. How could they get such a result when not much people knew who Clark was?

Even media beat the drum to blow up Clark, the general has never led in any of Demo's primary. Where is the base of that 49% vs Bush's 46%?

2. When they failed to block Dean by Clark, inside group threw out Kerry. Kerry won the first Demo Primary in January. The tactic was the same. Now they said Kerry is the one who can beat Bush. The problem is how could Dean, as a leading candidate in Iowa, suddenly dropped into a result of 18% vs Kerry's 38%? Media use a word "Iowa surprise" to explain this drama. It's not convincible. Consider Demo candidates have similar stands on important issues, that 75% Iowa voters are anti-war, that Kerry has voted for Iraq war authorization Bill.

3. Same show had acted in recall of California. Before the recall, poll said Arnold had 26% vs Bustmonte's(Demo)28%. Another Rep's candidate, Mclintok, had a steady 14%. Mclintok wouldn't pull out the campaign after persuation. Then CNN poll suddenly boosted Arnold a 40% vs Bustmonte's 28%. (with Mclintok's 14% unchanged)
Obviosly, inside group once thought Mclintok would pull out, but he didn't. Of course that wouldn't trouble them, because they control election office thus they control the result. (just like in Florida election) All they had to do was immediately threw out a poll to justify Arnold's victory.

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

how did this thread escape the wrath of fenric?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Democratic ideals
Civil rights. Providing health care. Tax the rich, help the poor. Creating Equality. World peace. Diplomacy. Concern for the environment.

Republican ideals
Stand tall like a man. Impose my morality. Nobody ****s with America. **** the environment, and **** Iraq, I deserve a hummer/SUV. I dont care who dies in another part of the world.

And the ability to be open minded is shown yet again...

 

[Zeus]

I wanted to hear the dean scream again