Reply With Quote
You forgot money, but agreed.
Policy positions are irrelevant in determining election outcomes. They're nothing more than made up justifications people use to validify their predetermined decisions. The only three things that matter are party affiliation, physical appearance / likeability and which side has the better marketing campaign.
You forgot money, but agreed.
True.
John Kerry lost because the prevailing voice of the Left in 2004 consisted of a disorganized bloc of rabid, belligerent protest sign wavers who spent much of the day arguing about which level of Dante's circle Bush and Cheney would be designated to when they died. It was like hearing from 100 different versions of boutons every day.
The leading voice on the Left at that time was Michael Moore, which was not a good thing when a majority of the country was still either approving or uncertain of the job Bush was doing as President.
Barack Obama won because the leading voice on the Left in 2008 was Barack Obama. I see the Right's campaign against him in 2012 being very similar to the Left's campaign in 2004, which would be a bad thing for them. The only exception would be Rick Perry, who I think would run a less anti-Obama campaign, preferring a pro-Jesus campaign that will still allow his supporters to maintain their anti-Obamaism under the guise that Perry is God's Choice.
"John Kerry lost..."
.... by the lowest margin for any in bent Pres.
dubya won because Repugs started a fake war for oil, expecting that they could sell the ignorant, incompetent life-loser, affirmative-action dubya as a victorious war "mission accomplished" president, then when the war wasn't won, ridiculing every single Repug/military prediction, they switched to selling "you don't change Pres during a war".
With no Iraq war, Kerry wins.
And then of course, Repug Ken Blackwell stole OH with vote fraud.
This is easily one of the dumbest things said on this forum.
Without Iraq, 2004 voters are thinking about 5% unemployment, low taxes, a 30% gain in the DOW over the last year, rising home prices and an Afghanistan war that people are generally tolerant of.
Without Iraq, Kerry gets crushed.
Without Swiftboat Gate, he probably wins.
you're saying the Iraq war in 2004 was a negative for dubya? This is easily one of the dumbest things said on this forum.
You're right boutons. Everybody loved the way Iraq worked out and appreciated George W. Bush's bold decision making. No WMD's? No problem. Without Iraq though, voters just weren't going to tolerate a good economy and would have kicked Bush out.
I agree with boutons on this one. Iraq was actually something Bush used as leverage in those elections. Because back then the spin was that Iraq war = War against terror. Here's an article from back then: link
The fallout for the war started later on, with Abu Ghrahib (sp?), and the civil war concerns that required the extra troop buildup.
The Abu Grahib story broke well before the election. Public support was already declining.
If you want to say that Bush's ability to spin Iraq is the reason he won when compared to a scenario where Iraq still happened, then yeah, I'd agree. But that's not what boutons is saying. He's saying that if Iraq never happened at all Bush wouldn't have won. That's just ridiculous. The economy was good, people were okay with Afghanistan. What issue was out there that was going to cause independents (republicans and democrats don't count since their votes are predetermined) to look past a good economy to vote bush out?
"Public support was already declining"
For us smart ones, it had declined before Mar 03.
There was a clear, persistent, fear-and-monger, Rove-ian message/suggestion that "We don't change Presidents in the middle (of even an unpopular) Global War on Terror."
A message deemed necessary by an unpopular war that threatened the re-election chances of the president, and provides no justification whatsoever towards the claim that the president's re-election chances would have diminished if the unpopular war never occurred.
Political bad habit arising from the privilege of revising and extending the record?
You're right. I thought it was 2006, but it was early 2004.
That's what I was going at. He definitely used Iraq and the war on terror as a leverage on that election. Which basically played the 'determined commander' against the 'flip flopper'.
Herman Cain: Austerity for You, Ritz Carlton for Me
Cain's presidential committee, Friends of Herman Cain, spent $448,000 on air travel in the first half of 2011. That comes out to nearly $2,500 a day. And when it came to hotels, Cain's operation doled out nearly $100,000 in the first half of the year—or $538 a day—on some of swankiest hotels in America.
Cain has spent less than his biggest rivals this election cycle—his $2.1 million trails Tim Pawlenty's $2.5 million and Mitt Romney's $5.6 million. But what separates Pawlenty and Romney is that their campaigns spend within their means, raising far more—Romney $17.1 million and Pawlenty $4 million—than they spend. Cain, on the other hand, contradicts his own fiscal responsibility message: His spending has outpaced his fundraising haul by nearly $43,000. (He's in the black if you include the $500,000 loan Cain made to his campaign in his haul.)
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...lton-president
He's in the black
Seriously, I pretty much expect a guy worth $18 million to not stay in a Super 8.
I think the Lily Ledbetter ruling in the courts was atrocious, personally. And whether or not the first two "would have happened" is arguable.
I dunno.
Posted 8/27/2003 11:42 PM Updated 8/28/2003 7:45 AM
Most say Iraq war was worth fighting
By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY
CRAWFORD, Texas — The news from Iraq is mostly bad, and criticism of President Bush from Democrats is relentless. But nearly two-thirds — 63% — of Americans say the war in Iraq was worth fighting, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows. (Related: Full poll results)
.......
If the election were held today, the poll shows Bush would defeat an unnamed Democrat, 51%-39%, among registered voters. That's a slight gain from the 48%-40% that was measured in late July. Other polls taken last week showed the race closer. One had the Democrat slightly ahead.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...oll-usat_x.htm
I've never heard of Tim Pawlenty
"nearly two-thirds — 63% — of Americans say the war in Iraq was worth fighting"
in Aug 03? The Repug lie machine is very effective exploiting Human-Americans' good will and faith in govt in times of national trauma.
It doesn't mean I have to like it now, does it?
Please read my words again. I said I didn't like it. I never claimed it violated anything.
Do you purposely misinterpret my words because of you bias against me?
Exactly
You're either with us or against us.
Why don't you support the troops?
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
We have to fight them over there or they'll follow us home.
There's a connection between Sadaam and Osama.
etc.
etc.
etc.
good lord
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
