Why Kerry Lost (was his for the taking)

[emprworm]

This was Kerry's election for the taking.

[ordos45]

There are so many hate filled generalizations in that it would take a while to list.  But I'm sure someone will rise to the task.

[SpiceGuid]

you have some good points:

* hate is not a motivation

* "anyone but Bush" is a bad slogan

* Moore made left-wing look caricatural

considering the participation, seems the Kerry side has actually mobilized the nationalists.

actually there is a visible change in French medias, Bush is no more presented as a moron, suddendly we learn he was at Yale, has a MBA diploma, previously that was plainly caricatural, there were doubts whether he has a brain or not ;D                 

now Bush is just an ally to reckon with.

Bush has gained respect, but don't wait more cooperation, you would be quickly deceived :(

[Dude_Doc]

I think emprworm is Bush himself. What he is saying reminds me of the stupidity of Bush too.

[Dunenewt]

Wow there's a lot of thought behind that comment.  Seeing as though Emprworm undeniably has a lot of knowledge about Politics.

[Dante]

Knowledge? *Cackles* There was a single fact there?

I'd spend time to refute the argument, poin by point, but frankly I'm just not in the mood. That and I know that it would do absolutely no good.

[Edric O]

This was Kerry's election for the taking.  But the young people of the world ruined it for him.

I'm afraid not. It was Kerry who ruined the election for Kerry. He took no strong stand. He was a weak character. He failed to energize his voter base, because he was too far to the right (or, to be more exact, too similar to Bush) for his voters' taste. Before the election, this is what people were thinking:

Conservative: Oh yeah! Bush is our man! We are going to get out there and crush the Democrats!

Liberal: Meh, that Kerry is an idiot, but I guess I'll have to vote for him...

That is what cost Kerry the election.

Oh, and by the way, what will it take to shrug off your obsession with constantly calling your enemies "hate-filled"? What exactly do you want - a big lovable kiss from a liberal?

[Caid Ivik]

Kerry lost because he took less electors than Bush. Perhaps you don't think he is perfect, but surely, what better could be in America? Bush all the way!  ;D

[emprworm]

Bush was not elected because of the economy, the war on Iraq, the elderly, or social security.  It was one reason and one reason alone above all others:  MORALITY.  Bush won the moral vote by 85%!!!  That is unbelievable.  Most people put bush at a mere 52% - 48% on who is better able to handle security & Iraq.  Kerry got 55% - 45% on who is better able to handle the economy.  But on who is a better MORAL leader, Bush wins 85% - 15%!!  Is that really shocking?

"ANYONE BUT BUSH!"

"BUSH = HITLER"

these were the Democrat mantras.  Both of those statements speak of HATE.  I use the word hate because it is so true!  The 18-25 year old base of the democrat party was fueled by unyielding contempt and rage against Bush.  Is this morality?  Obviously, America noticed that the "ANYONE BUT BUSH" is a morally void statement.  It speaks of a group of people that have no moral convictions, and dont stand for anything but anger.  "ANYONE BUT BUSH" means, to the average American "We hate Bush so much, we'll take Barabbas!  We'll take the worst god-hating, unamerican, facist candidate we can find...so long as it isn't Bush.  We dont care WHO it is...moral values are irrelevant.  As long as its ANYONE BUT BUSH, he can be a Satanist, and we, the Democrats, will be happy"

Ironically, the "ANYONE BUT BUSH" mentality began in the anti-bush youth base on the internet blogs.  The 18-25 year olds are generally a group of people marked by moral confusion and purposelessness.  They are filled with a slant against order, and anti-establishment.  This group of people had too much hate against Bush, and it showed.

America wanted a political party that embraced MORAL VALUES.  The 18-25 year old group was completely against that. 

I know that I am right because even Democrats are saying the same thing.

"The party doesn't know what it stands for any more. The Republicans have built majorities around their ideas, which can be boiled down to a few simple statements. The Democrats fish around for issues where they think there already are majorities," said Schaller, a Democrat"

also, read quotes by Barack Obama, who says the same thing.

If this was Kerry's fault, then his mistake was that he did not renounce the 18-25 year old anti-bush crowd.  Complementing Eminem, and Michael Moore nationally, for example, was a bad, bad decision.

[desert_storm]

I have ben to a lot of anti-war, anti-bush protests, And all of them were peaceful.  The one's were fights break out are few, and the media exagerates the violence.

[Dude_Doc]

It speaks of a group of people that have no moral convictions, and dont stand for anything but anger.  "ANYONE BUT BUSH" means, to the average American "We hate Bush so much, we'll take Barabbas!  We'll take the worst god-hating, unamerican, facist candidate we can find...so long as it isn't Bush.  We dont care WHO it is...moral values are irrelevant.  As long as its ANYONE BUT BUSH, he can be a Satanist, and we, the Democrats, will be happy"

You said it yourself. Bush is exactly the worst "god-hating, unamerican fascist candidate" there is, well, except the American Nazi Party, if they even count.

Ironically, the "ANYONE BUT BUSH" mentality began in the anti-bush youth base on the internet blogs.  The 18-25 year olds are generally a group of people marked by moral confusion and purposelessness.  They are filled with a slant against order, and anti-establishment.  This group of people had too much hate against Bush, and it showed.

That is because Bush did more things worse than he did better. People tend to dislike bad presidents. 

I know that I am right because even Democrats are saying the same thing.

Who is the fascist now?

"The party doesn't know what it stands for any more. The Republicans have built majorities around their ideas, which can be boiled down to a few simple statements. The Democrats fish around for issues where they think there already are majorities," said Schaller, a Democrat"

also, read quotes by Barack Obama, who says the same thing.

And they, of course, represent all Democrats views and thinking.

[thomas]

Kerry lost for his stances on abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage and nothing else.

[nemafakei]

Better to loathe a single individual than an entire generation.

[DukeLeto]

Kerry lost because, as I said in GunWounds's thread, Bush got the votes of the rich and the ignorant.

[emprworm]

Kerry lost because, as I said in GunWounds's thread, Bush got the votes of the rich and the ignorant.  And there are a lot of ignorant people in the US, judging by this statistic:

rofl!  Kerry, who has 10 times the wealth of Bush.  Moveon.org, that has billionaire endorsements.  And, dont forget, Bush won the most votes of any president in US history.  He also got the MAJORITY vote (something Bill Clinton didn't do even one single time).  I didn't know that the majority of American voters were rich.  ANd here I thought Duke Leeeto would have grown up and gained in intelligence since I last left. 

Guess some things never change.

::)

[DukeLeto]

And, dont forget, Bush won the most votes of any president in US history.

And Kerry just got the second most of any candidate in history.  So?  Percentage wise, it was about 52-48.

And Bush got the majority of the votes of the wealthy; even your most prized ally Gunwounds will admit to that.

And the ignorant aspect?  Look at the number of people that believe there were WMDs; that belive there Iraqis in the 9/11 hijackers; that don't know about the record deficits or impending draft.

And back on the foot Nema chopped off there: Anyone who follows something blindly and unquestioningly is ignorant.  I know that doesn't apply to every Christian in the US, but if you will vote for Bush based SOLELY on the fact your minister told you to, without doing any other research (as I know a lot people did), you are IGNORANT.  Not necessarily stupid, just blissfully ignorant.

And if there is truly no threat of a draft or major recession or whatnot, why did you move to the most liberal nation in North America?  I'm certain it wasn't for the beautiful scenery.

PS: Clinton won the majority both times.  Bush was the first president to lose the popular vote and still win since Benjamin Harrison, in 1888.  You know, while we're on the subject of blissful ignorance.

[emprworm]

PS: Clinton won the majority both times.

[SurlyPIG]

I would say that angry democrats were more minor than you think.  I think this is why Bush won, in order.

1) Republicans, quite simply, are better "electioneers" so to speak.  They rig questions, require convention-goers to swear allegiance, and generally reach their target electorate more effectively.

2) The Republican Party obtained copies of memberships of many evangelical churches (a questionable interaction between religion and politics) and contacted/campaigned to these people, managing to convince enough of them that it is more important to prevent a potential adjustment to abortion laws, a potential adjustment to stem cell collection laws, and to preserve the definition of a single word (even though the contemporary accepted definition of many words change in a matter of years).

3) Kerry is faceless and did little to correct the perception that he was indecisive.  If you actually kept track of what he said, he is quite obviously not a flip-flopper on anything that is significant (and no, the fact that he voted on no on draft C of Bill 117 but yes on draft A of Bill 182 is not a contradiction) but the way Kerry communicated his ideas was too complex and ambiguous for the average American voter to follow.  No offense, but if the poll Duke posted was right, Bush supporters truly are shockingly gullible.

I would say discontent towards the stereotype angry democrat was top 5 at best.  Keep in mind that Kerry diverted a lot of this worry by being so bland.  Howard Dean (remember the Dean Scream) probably wouldn't have done this as well.

[thomas]

again: Kerry lost for his stances on abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage and nothing else.

he couldn't have won with three major issues that the majority of americans are against.

[GUNWOUNDS]

again: Kerry lost for his stances on abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage and nothing else.

he couldn't have won with three major issues that the majority of americans are against.

Exactly and this is why Dukeleto's ignorance argument is not really relevant... because people didnt vote for Bush just because of MWD or osama.... but because of morality... something they are familiar with.

[Edric O]

Bush was not elected because of the economy, the war on Iraq, the elderly, or social security.  It was one reason and one reason alone above all others:  MORALITY.  Bush won the moral vote by 85%!!!  That is unbelievable.  Most people put bush at a mere 52% - 48% on who is better able to handle security & Iraq.  Kerry got 55% - 45% on who is better able to handle the economy.  But on who is a better MORAL leader, Bush wins 85% - 15%!!  Is that really shocking?

If you read my topic, you'll notice that I gave exactly the same analysis. Kerry won on all economic issues plus the war in Iraq. In fact, according to CNN, he won on "the economy" by 80%, on "jobs" by 70% and on "the war in Iraq" by around 65% (far greater margins than most people expected), but Bush crushed him on all social and moral issues.

In conclusion, a candidate with Kerry's economic policies and Bush's moral views would have won by a landslide.

I use the word hate because it is so true!  The 18-25 year old base of the democrat party was fueled by unyielding contempt and rage against Bush.

18-25 year olds are not anybody's "base". A majority of them voted for Kerry, true, but that was only a very slim majority - just 54%. And 45% of all 18-25 year olds voted for Bush.

Obviously, America noticed that the "ANYONE BUT BUSH" is a morally void statement.

Most of my comrades say the same thing, and the majority of American leftists I know refused to vote for Kerry (and chose the Socialist Party candidate, the Green Party one or Ralph Nader instead). But the problem is that Kerry was the only other man besides Bush who could have won this election. The "Anyone but Bush" attitude was sparked by the nature of the American two-party system.

The 18-25 year olds are generally a group of people marked by moral confusion and purposelessness.  They are filled with a slant against order, and anti-establishment.  This group of people had too much hate against Bush, and it showed.

Really? Including the 45% of them who voted for Bush?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that you are in your early 30's yourself. So were you "marked by moral confusion and purposelessness" or "filled with a slant against order" 5-6 years ago?

[Edric O]

rofl!  Kerry, who has 10 times the wealth of Bush.  Moveon.org, that has billionaire endorsements.  And, dont forget, Bush won the most votes of any president in US history.  He also got the MAJORITY vote (something Bill Clinton didn't do even one single time).  I didn't know that the majority of American voters were rich.  ANd here I thought Duke Leeeto would have grown up and gained in intelligence since I last left.

What matters is a candidate's policy, not his personal financial status. For the record, here are some official statistics from CNN:

VOTE BY INCOME

Under $15,000: 36% for Bush; 63% for Kerry

$15-30,000: 42% for Bush; 57% for Kerry

$30-50,000: 49% for Bush; 50% for Kerry

$50-75,000: 56% for Bush; 43% for Kerry

$75-100,000: 55% for Bush; 45% for Kerry

$100-150,000: 57% for Bush; 42% for Kerry

$150-200,000: 58% for Bush; 42% for Kerry

$200,000 or More: 63% for Bush; 35% for Kerry

The numbers speak for themselves.

[Wolf]

All of this makes my head hurt. I'd have to say that Kerry failed in presenting himself to the American people as "the President." And, yes, while there are hate-filled Kerry supporters out there, I just last night had such a conflict with an ardent Bush supporter. He called me closed-minded, irresponsible, and said that I was becoming a crazy, brainwashed liberal just to impress people. My efforts to dissuade him went in vain. He told me that anyone who tried to take away "his guns" was trying to "ensalve him" and that anyone who supported anyone who was pro-gun control was an "irresponsible American" who was only trying to "impress their liberal friends and the French."

All of this crap makes me sick and strongly consider endorsing the views of Dust Scout.

[GUNWOUNDS]

All of this makes my head hurt. I'd have to say that Kerry failed in presenting himself to the American people as "the President." And, yes, while there are hate-filled Kerry supporters out there, I just last night had such a conflict with an ardent Bush supporter. He called me closed-minded, irresponsible, and said that I was becoming a crazy, brainwashed liberal just to impress people. My efforts to dissuade him went in vain. He told me that anyone who tried to take away "his guns" was trying to "ensalve him" and that anyone who supported anyone who was pro-gun control was an "irresponsible American" who was only trying to "impress their liberal friends and the French."

All of this crap makes me sick and strongly consider endorsing the views of Dust Scout.

that guy you were arguing with was trying to make the same point that TMA makes every once in awhile.... that for some people being liberal is trendy thing to do.

there are derogatory comments for both republican and democrats.

democrats say republicans are closeminded bigots

and republicans say democrats are trendy lunatics.

I sure cant wait for a moderate like John McCain to run for prez.