If Kerry Would Have Picked Gephardt...

[Bill from NYC]

He would have got more union votes in Ohio and carried Missouri.

Edwards couldn't even carry his own state, nor anything in the south.

 

Choosing Edwards was idiotic, and again, please do not consider this post to be "rubbing it in."

[chicot]

Maybe. Certainly Edwards didn't manage to bring anything to the table in the South. Perhaps the Democrats were still buying into the myth that they had to win at least one Southern state to win the election, when, as it turns out, I think (though I'm not sure) that they didn't pick up one state in the South but would still have won had they picked up Ohio. I'm not sure Gephardt would have made that much of a difference though. Are there any indications that Kerry did not pick up the majority of union votes? Would Gephardt really have been able to swing enough votes in these states to carry them?

[nobody]

Maybe he should have picked Kucinich?

[Bill from NYC]

Maybe. Certainly Edwards didn't manage to bring anything to the table in the South. Perhaps the Democrats were still buying into the myth that they had to win at least one Southern state to win the election, when, as it turns out, I think (though I'm not sure) that they didn't pick up one state in the South but would still have won had they picked up Ohio. I'm not sure Gephardt would have made that much of a difference though. Are there any indications that Kerry did not pick up the majority of union votes? Would Gephardt really have been able to swing enough votes in these states to carry them?

100227[/snapback]

 

Gephardt was a friend of labor for many years, and they turned their backs on him in the Iowa primary. As I also said, he would have carried his home state.

 

I obviously cannot prove it, but I think that Edwards was part of a hatchet job by Bill Clinton, who was full of joy when Edwards was selected. Clinton is the consumate politician, and probably knew that he would bomb in his own state.

 

This election opens the door for the Clintons to make another run, which is what they obviously want. Kerry and Edwards will have a tough time trying to come back.

[Mark VI]

He would have got more union votes in Ohio and carried Missouri.

Edwards couldn't even carry his own state, nor anything in the south.

 

Choosing Edwards was idiotic, and again, please do not consider this post to be "rubbing it in."

98753[/snapback]

 

You are correct, Bill. Multiple people were making that same point on CNN and FoxNews today.

 

Edwards = Greggggggg Williams

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm not sure about that. I don't think many people wanted Gephardt. Edwards wasn't picked to win his home state, or any states in particular. He was brought in to create an image of change, that these guys weren't the tired old Democrats like Gephardt, and to put some life into the campaigning. Edwards, IMO, pretty much did what he was asked, and needed to, although sometimes he came across too much as if he were in an audition for the next Prez instead of just playing the back-up man like he should have been doing.

 

This election was lost by Kerry IMO, at least as much as won by Bush. I think Kerry just lost the election himself for making a few stupid decisions and saying too many stupid things and not being a good smart candidate. he could easily have won, even with being a "Massachusetts Liberal" and with his shoddy record if he just would have run a good campaign. Biggest mistake was proably not having the Clinton team of Lockhart and McCurry and Shrum in there all along, and going through three teams.

 

I disagree with all the liberalism is dead crap. If Clinton was running, or a guy like him with some personality and political savvy instead of opportunism, he would have won going away. The Dems in the last 20-30 years have had the issues on their side for the most part, or enough of them to easily win elections, they just haven't groomed or promoted good candidates, or the right candidates, excluding Slick Willie. Dukakis and Mondale and Gore were decent or good enough politicians they were just dreadful candidates/campaigners.

[Alaska Darin]

I'm not sure about that. I don't think many people wanted Gephardt. Edwards wasn't picked to win his home state, or any states in particular. He was brought in to create an image of change, that these guys weren't the tired old Democrats like Gephardt, and to put some life into the campaigning. Edwards, IMO, pretty much did what he was asked, and needed to, although sometimes he came across too much as if he were in an audition for the next Prez instead of just playing the back-up man like he should have been doing.

 

This election was lost by Kerry IMO, at least as much as won by Bush. I think Kerry just lost the election himself for making a few stupid decisions and saying too many stupid things and not being a good smart candidate. he could easily have won, even with being a "Massachusetts Liberal" and with his shoddy record if he just would have run a good campaign. Biggest mistake was proably not having the Clinton team of Lockhart and McCurry and Shrum in there all along, and going through three teams.

 

I disagree with all the liberalism is dead crap. If Clinton was running, or a guy like him with some personality and political savvy instead of opportunism, he would have won going away. The Dems in the last 20-30 years have had the issues on their side for the most part, or enough of them to easily win elections, they just haven't groomed or promoted good candidates, or the right candidates, excluding Slick Willie. Dukakis and Mondale and Gore were decent or good enough politicians they were just dreadful candidates/campaigners.

100266[/snapback]

He who kept his mouth shut most, wins.

[chicot]

Gephardt was a friend of labor for many years, and they turned their backs on him in the Iowa primary. As I also said, he would have carried his home state.

 

I obviously cannot prove it, but I think that Edwards was part of a hatchet job by Bill Clinton, who was full of joy when Edwards was selected. Clinton is the consumate politician, and probably knew that he would bomb in his own state.

 

This election opens the door for the Clintons to make another run, which is what they obviously want. Kerry and Edwards will have a tough time trying to come back.

100243[/snapback]

 

Kerry certainly won't be back - he's had his chance and failed to take it, but I think Edwards may have another go at getting the Democratic nomination.

[Alaska Darin]

Kerry certainly won't be back - he's had his chance and failed to take it, but I think Edwards may have another go at getting the Democratic nomination.

100322[/snapback]

Lord I hope not. His "speech" last night was one of the all time lowlights a candidate has had at that level. Positively "Quayle-esque"

[Brandon]

Myself, I think the real mistake was the choice of Kerry at the top of the ticket to begin with. I still believe that Lieberman could have beaten Bush pretty decisively had he made it out of the primaries. He could have offered voters an alternative to Bush on the domestic agenda, particularly the economy, while still laying a much more legitimate claim to being strong on foreign policy and national defense issues than Kerry.

[Jack D. Ripper]

He would have got more union votes in Ohio and carried Missouri.

Edwards couldn't even carry his own state, nor anything in the south.

 

Choosing Edwards was idiotic, and again, please do not consider this post to be "rubbing it in."

98753[/snapback]

 

Well...maybe.

 

His choice for running mate was a calculated one. Kerry and Gephardt did not see eye to eye on a number of issues - like free trade. This no doubt caused a bit of friction between them. Besides, the unions were getting in line for Kerry anyway and their electoral calculus wasn't hinged on MO.

 

That said, I always felt that Edwards was an odd choice for VP. The only thing he seemed to bring to the ticket was eyewash. His 'breck girl' image didn't play well in the South. I mean, the guy couldn't even deliver his own COUNTY, let alone his home state.

 

Besides if Clinton could not bring home Arkansas and Gore could not help with Tennesse what makes it such a lead pipe lock that Gephardt could hand over MO?

 

Kerry's REAL problem was his inability to control or distance himself from the crazies in his party. EX: Michael Moore's propaganda helped 'gin up as much anger (and turnout) on the Right as it did on the Left.

[AKC]

The Dems in the last 20-30 years have had the issues on their side

100266[/snapback]

 

 

If the issues were in any way on their side I can't find a logical explantion for the current state of our politics.

 

Yesterday the electorate in the United States followed the trend over the past 25 years of growing the power of the right. To me the only chance the left has of a swift recovery is to immediately abandon exactly what you are suggesting- that they have the issues on their side.

 

 

Gay Marriage. I'm sure I don't need to elaborate.

 

Health Care is a red herring- for some reason the left keeps thumping on an issue they don't actually own because a large number of voters realize all their proposals are astronomically unaffordable. So they spend time and money on pursuing it while by the time voters enter the ballot booth it doesn't end up cutting their way- even in our granola-eating 5-second attention span home State the "government" health care plan on our ballot yesterday was voted down. By the same people who voted Gray Davis into power ;-)

 

Education. This is my biggest gripe with the left. Only a monster would stand in the way of children getting the best education possible. And the Teacher's Union and their political beneficiaries in the Democratic Party are exactly that- monsters- for obstructing competitive experiments like vouchers. The argument that "they might choose a religious school" is insane- the choice is between an awful public school education or the kids get 45 minutes of Cain and Abel every day makes that choice incredibly clear. Dems only THINK they own the education issue- if education was the #1 topic of the '08 election the public is plenty smart enough to see that Dems and the Teacher's Unions are far more interested in self-preservation than the quality of eduction our children get, and I don't see the issue playing out as "favorable" to them if the spotlight were put on the type of monsters they are for denying it just to pad Democratic coffers and keep a system that is beyond repair fully greased with money. It's proven that private schools can offer children BETTER education with LESS money per student, and standing in the way of that is hardly being on the right side of the education issue.

 

If the left is to halt their continuing slide into insignificance they must either admit who they are (like conservatives did starting with Reagan), stand up and say "I'm liberal and proud of it", or they must move to the middle. The little smoke and mirror job Schrum and McCullum tried to pull with the very liberal Kerry fooled very few centrist Americans in the end.

[Kelly the Dog]

If the issues were in any way on their side I can't find a logical explantion for the current state of our politics.

 

Yesterday the electorate in the United States followed the trend over the past 25 years of growing the power of the right. To me the only chance the left has of a swift recovery is to immediately abandon exactly what you are suggesting- that they have the issues on their side.

Gay Marriage. I'm sure I don't need to elaborate.

 

Health Care is a red herring- for some reason the left keeps thumping on an issue they don't actually own because a large number of voters realize all their proposals are astronomically unaffordable. So they spend time and money on pursuing it while by the time voters enter the ballot booth it doesn't end up cutting their way- even in our granola-eating 5-second attention span home State the "government" health care plan on our ballot yesterday was voted down. By the same people who voted Gray Davis into power ;-)

 

Education. This is my biggest gripe with the left. Only a monster would stand in the way of children getting the best education possible. And the Teacher's Union and their political beneficiaries in the Democratic Party are exactly that- monsters- for obstructing competitive experiments like vouchers. The argument that "they might choose a religious school" is insane- the choice is between an awful public school education or the kids get 45 minutes of Cain and Abel every day makes that choice incredibly clear. Dems only THINK they own the education issue- if education was the #1 topic of the '08 election the public is plenty smart enough to see that Dems and the Teacher's Unions are far more interested in self-preservation than the quality of eduction our children get, and I don't see the issue playing out as "favorable" to them if the spotlight were put on the type of monsters they are for denying it just to pad Democratic coffers and keep a system that is beyond repair fully greased with money. It's proven that private schools can offer children BETTER education with LESS money per student, and standing in the way of that is hardly being on the right side of the education issue.

 

If the left is to halt their continuing slide into insignificance they must either admit who they are (like conservatives did starting with Reagan), stand up and say "I'm liberal and proud of it", or they must move to the middle. The little smoke and mirror job Schrum and McCullum tried to pull with the very liberal Kerry fooled very few centrist Americans in the end.

100404[/snapback]

Tell me that you don't think that if Al Gore or John Kerry were just "decent" candidates instead of the disasters their campaigns became that they would not have won the last two elections. Gore is without question.

[Brandon]

Tell me that you don't think that if Al Gore or John Kerry were just "decent" candidates instead of the disasters their campaigns became that they would not have won the last two elections. Gore is without question.

100465[/snapback]

 

The problem with that explanation is that Bush was hardly a strong candidate himself. In 2000, he was basically branded as a fool by the media. His first term was a very difficult one both for him politically and for the country. But yet he won a fairly decisive popular vote victory.

 

I think this attitude by the Democrats that they have the issues on their side is actually their number one problem. The party is losing increasingly large sections of the middle of this country. I saw something Tuesday night that I thought would never happen in my lifetime; a Republican presidential candidate won the local vote in my county of Arkansas. Overwhelmingly, I might add. This is an area where local Republican candidates are completely unelectable just because they have an ® beside their name on the ballot. You either run here as a Democrat or Independent, because you won't win as a Republican. Yet Bush took over 60% of the vote. Why? Its because although this is a traditional Democratic area, its conservative in its beliefs. BTW, the local Dems won very easily.

 

There are areas like this all over this country. The Democratic party's hard left turn during these last 20-30 years where the issues are supposedly on their side is what has caused them to lose these areas. The voters in these areas feel as though the national Democratic party is abandoning them, and that's why the Democratic party is getting its butt kicked everywhere except the Northeast and West Coast.

 

The point is, the Democrats would be very, very wise to take a long look at their own positions instead of just blaming another loss on a poor candidate. Bush was far from unbeatable. As I stated in another post yesterday, had the Democrats nominated a more moderate candidate, Bush would be out of a job at the end of January.

[Kelly the Dog]

The problem with that explanation is that Bush was hardly a strong candidate himself.  In 2000,  he was basically branded as a fool by the media.  His first term was a very difficult one both for him politically and for the country.  But yet he won a fairly decisive popular vote victory.   

 

I think this attitude by the Democrats that they have the issues on their side is actually their number one problem.  The party is losing increasingly large sections of the middle of this country.  I saw something Tuesday night that I thought would never happen in my lifetime;  a Republican presidential candidate  won the local vote in my county of Arkansas.  Overwhelmingly,  I might add.  This is an area where local Republican candidates are completely unelectable just because they have an ® beside their name on the ballot.  You either run here as a Democrat or Independent,  because you won't win as a Republican.  Yet Bush took over 60% of the vote.  Why?  Its because although this is a traditional Democratic area,  its conservative in its beliefs.    BTW,  the local Dems won very easily.   

 

There are areas like this all over this country.  The Democratic party's hard left turn during these last 20-30 years where the issues are supposedly on their side is what has caused them to lose these areas.  The voters in these areas feel as though the national Democratic party is abandoning them,  and that's why the Democratic party is getting its butt kicked everywhere except the Northeast and West Coast. 

 

The point is,  the Democrats would be very,  very wise to take a long look at their own positions instead of just blaming another loss on a poor candidate.  Bush was far from unbeatable.  As I stated in another post yesterday,  had the Democrats nominated a more moderate candidate,  Bush would be out of a job at the end of January.

100897[/snapback]

Bush won because 1] the country was attacked and is at war and he used that fact to his best advantage, 2] Kerry ran a crappy campaign when even mediocrity would have won it, and 3] Bush's people and Reublican machine did a better job getting out the vote on this day than Kerry's people and Democratic machine did. The country is split, was split, and will continue to be split. Bush basically won the entire south, the entire middle and the entire southwest. Kerry won the entire east coast, the entire west coast and almost the entire industrial midwest. He won the biggest economic centers and intellectual centers. He lost middle America. He lost Ohio by 100,000 which everyone knew was the one state that whomever won was going to win the election. That is hardly a sweeping victory. The country is 50-50 and has been for decades.

[PastaJoe]

I think Edwards was chosen because he was second to Kerry in the primaries, and it was a move to energize the Democratic party and keep it united, more than to appeal to voters outside the party. I think the party may have splintered a bit if Edwards wasn't picked, but Bob Graham would have been more crediable on foreign policy vs Cheney, and he may have made a difference in Florida.

[AKC]

That is hardly a sweeping victory. The country is 50-50 and has been for decades.

100997[/snapback]

 

I don't buy that "divided country" theory. It seems to me if you truly believe it you would also have to accept that the election results prove it's "less divided" than it was 4 years ago. More and more citizens are choosing the message of the right, and the right has been rewarded with control of EVERYTHING in return for the populations adoption of their message.

 

Another huge factor in this "divide" is the last gasps of the liberal media. War is difficult and controversial yes, but imagine this election with a truly unbiased media- imagine the Los Angeles and New York Times NOT for all intents and purposes running their own free, full time campaigns for Kerry for the months leading up to the election. Imagine Networks like CBS NOT brainwashing citizens with their biased tripe, fabricated evidence and reckless reporting. Imagine a level playing field from the media standpoint and I believe you'd see even more historic numbers in retrospect.

 

I'm with Brandon as I said before on the "issues"- I believe it's exactly the thing that is killing the left. Here's my test- do you have a new idea of improving America or is does your answer to every challenge include the need to spend more money? Because it seems every hot issue today: Education, Health Care, Social Security, etc. is answered in the same way by the Democrats- we'll spend more money. And the next question is "where do we get that money" with the answer "We'll tax the rich".

 

That isn't an answer that is resonating with our populace anymore. Tired message, stale answer: I think the left needs a whole new attitude. Check out the opening of this column:

 

One Perspective

[Peter]

Edwards did nothing for him. It was the same as Gore not being able to win his home state.

 

Kerry has no one but himself to blame.

 

He should have picked Bob Graham if for no other reason than to win Florida. He has never lost an election in Florida and is a conservative Democrat.

 

Who knows whether it would have changed the ultimate result. It would have given him a much better chance.

[stuckincincy]

I'm not sure about that. I don't think many people wanted Gephardt. Edwards wasn't picked to win his home state, or any states in particular. He was brought in to create an image of change, that these guys weren't the tired old Democrats like Gephardt, and to put some life into the campaigning. Edwards, IMO, pretty much did what he was asked, and needed to, although sometimes he came across too much as if he were in an audition for the next Prez instead of just playing the back-up man like he should have been doing.

 

This election was lost by Kerry IMO, at least as much as won by Bush. I think Kerry just lost the election himself for making a few stupid decisions and saying too many stupid things and not being a good smart candidate. he could easily have won, even with being a "Massachusetts Liberal" and with his shoddy record if he just would have run a good campaign. Biggest mistake was proably not having the Clinton team of Lockhart and McCurry and Shrum in there all along, and going through three teams.

 

I disagree with all the liberalism is dead crap. If Clinton was running, or a guy like him with some personality and political savvy instead of opportunism, he would have won going away. The Dems in the last 20-30 years have had the issues on their side for the most part, or enough of them to easily win elections, they just haven't groomed or promoted good candidates, or the right candidates, excluding Slick Willie. Dukakis and Mondale and Gore were decent or good enough politicians they were just dreadful candidates/campaigners.

100266[/snapback]

 

The arrogance by the Democrats that most issues are on their side is one factor in their recent decline. Take Social Security. The Democrats claimed repeatedly that the Republicans were going to destroy it, incessantly twisting some words by ex-speaker Gingrich (who was referring to HCFA, the Health Care Finance Admistration - the same agency that Clinton excoriated prior to his election). Yet during the 8 years of the Clinton Admisistration, what did they do? And then along comes Bush II, and there they go again.

 

Or Medicare co-pay increases - mandated by a law passed in 1994 in the interests of solvency. But Kerry et al blames it on Bush.

 

Democrats do not grasp the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln's quote, "You can fool some of the people some of the time," and so forth.

[PastaJoe]

I don't buy that "divided country" theory. It seems to me if you truly believe it you would also have to accept that the election results prove it's "less divided" than it was 4 years ago. More and more citizens are choosing the message of the right, and the right has been rewarded with control of EVERYTHING in return for the populations adoption of their message.

 

I don't see how you can interpret a 51-48% split among voters as not being divided. It's now up to Bush and Congress to propose moderately conservative policies to bridge the gap. If they continue to move to the far right on issues, it will continue to polarize the country instead of bringing it together. It may turn out to be what the slight majority of voters wants, but it will not bring unity among the majority of Americans overall.