View Full Version : what went wrong for liberals in the election?
Nov 15th, 2004, 10:36 PM
I've seen a lot about the presidential elections in the US in other threads... but none discussing this: "what went wrong for liberals?"
It was commonly thought that high turnout would lead to liberals winning elections. Then we have the highest turnout in US history, and liberals lose.
We have a currently unpopular war in Iraq (even here in the US), and liberals lose.
We have a "conservative" president where not even 1/2 the country approves of him, and liberals lose.
We have a president who lost jobs during his term (whether or not it is any president's job or influence that determines jobs available), and liberals lose.
We have an economy that is not as good as it was (overall) when Bush entered office, and liberals lose.
In effect, everything liberals could have hoped for in a presidential election happened.... and they still lost.
So the question is, what went wrong for liberals in this election?
Nov 15th, 2004, 10:48 PM
The stranglehold that religion has here in the US is just as bad as anywhere in the ME.
Nov 15th, 2004, 11:07 PM
Do you really think it's religion? Or even morality?
I haven't yet decided upon what I think is the problem for liberals... Which is partly why i axed this question..
However, just to poke a possible hole in the religion argument, I'd like to point out that liberal democrats ran the country pretty solidly until possibly as early as Reagan, but as late as 1994 (when Congress became conservative)... So it might not be that.
Seriously (to all)- this is just a discussion peice... I might play the part of Socrates here, but it is simply discussion.
Nov 15th, 2004, 11:11 PM
The "best" candidate they could muster against Bush was Kerry - and that's damn sad.
The country was split, 50/50 for all intensive purposes, and the the best man to run against an uber-conservative president that lost jobs, caused a mess in Iraq, and put us in a record deficit.... was a mind changing liberal who couludn't form and keep an opinion of his own for more than 20 seconds. Not to mention he had no charisma whatsoever... The other candidates? I bet the vast majority of people that voted couldnt tell you about anyone other than Bush, Kerry, and for some Nader... and that's also very sad.
...and DBA is right. A lot of Christian right wing nuts would vote Bush even if they had lost their job, their son died in Iraq, and their unborn kids' kids are gonna be stuck with all the bills... cause they think he is a "god fearing man" and a "man or morales."
Two party dictatorship baby :D
Nov 15th, 2004, 11:22 PM
A lot of left wing democrats would vote that way too if their bishop tells them too.
Nov 16th, 2004, 1:19 AM
I don't think that its about political party lines that gave Bush the election. It had to do with fear of the unknown which every human experiences. It also has to do with the behavior of terrorism of which Americans have no clue about. Its easy to tramatize one if that individual has already had an experience of one "911" Bushatola has made his calling and the flock rushed to their safety. How did he win the election? Was it a campaign of the peace and prosperity. Now are you in that flock? FEAR NOT! Bush is history in just 4 more short years. good day!
Nov 16th, 2004, 1:21 AM
I wonder.... What would have happened when Bill Clinton would have been the democratic candidate???
Nov 16th, 2004, 3:17 AM
>What would have happened when Bill Clinton would have been the democratic candidate???
:grin! i think cigar smoking women would become trendy again. bleach splotched jeans and dresses would be all the rage. TV shows about desperate, neglected housewives with daughters begging for plastic surgery would become reality. the U.S. military would be put under a U.N. flag and marched off to mothball U.S. bases around the world. :nudge:
Bush would have won with a landslide. As much good as slick willie tried to do, he's earned a seriously bad rep in the annuls of history. He can be blamed for alot of things. But IMO, our 2-party system is a sham and needs to be reworked to better voice what is good for the people, not what lines a politicians campaign chest.
Dec 9th, 2004, 6:48 PM
hahah... thats great... if democrats put up moveon eeeeyyyyaaaaa Deaniacs for office, republicans will run the country with ease.
Dec 10th, 2004, 1:31 AM
Kerry lost, because he wasn't a charismatic man. Simple. Americans tend to vote for the most charismatic man, regardless of policies. If Arnie could have run for POTUS, I'm sure he would have replaced geedubyah with ease.
Martin Sheen would have won easily too, BTW.
Dec 13th, 2004, 2:13 AM
Now, are YOU serious?!? GWB is the more charismatic man with ease. For a certain group of people admittedly, but nevertheless more charismatic than John Kerry. It's just amusing to see neither party could come up with something more decent... (in the broadest sense..)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.6 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.