AKC Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 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. 101382[/snapback] It's the essence of the two party system to have the choices in most instances come out close- it's what protects us from either of those parties going too far with ideas that are unpopular. It's another of our checks and balances that don't happen in a parliamentary system where radicals can get into the govenment and make deals to forward their radical agendas through power sharing coalitions. It's effect keeps our government more mainstream. The divide in the country is only the declining significance of the Democrat message, and if the Dems would like to get back in the race they'll have to make adjustments. Pondering why the public is rejecting them while they "own the issues" isn't going to do it IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 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] I don't know how folks viewed it Nationally, but as an NC resident for some 14 years now, the real question around here was whether or not Edwards would be able to help hold his Senate Seat for the Dems in NC. Most felt he had a very slim chance if he ever ran again here. And anyone from this area knew Edwards had about as much a chance of delivering NC to the Dems as Nader had in winning the whole thing. Granted that's an overstatement, but the Dems had zero chance in NC...Edwards or no Edwards...I still don't understand how he got that Senate Seat in the 1st place...In the land of Jesse, Edwards is not exactly the prototype in NC... B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 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. 101382[/snapback] Sure, just like the "far right" movement you've been incessantly whining about got all the bums thrown out this time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Sure, just like the "far right" movement you've been incessantly whining about got all the bums thrown out this time? 101533[/snapback] That is not the point. I think what he is saying is that we just can't live too long with this split before it blows up in our face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 That is not the point. I think what he is saying is that we just can't live too long with this split before it blows up in our face. 101587[/snapback] I know which side is going to have the guns in the Civil War... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 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] I personally think this is more the case with Kerry than Gore because I felt Gore was as much a personality issue as a campaign issue. Alternately, though, it was increasingly easy...even for a layman like myself...to see the micromanagement skills of Kerry when it came to his campaign. In fact, it was one of the things that turned me off about him in terms of being a president. If he's going to try and run his presidential campaign, and not trust people built to do that kind of thing, then what kind of people would he surround himself with as CIC? His changes came too late. They should have happened long before the debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATBNG Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 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] I agree wholeheartedly. Just what did Edwards bring to the table? Clinton and Gore brought a sense of youthful professionalism when they ran, but Edwards gives off more of a lightweight lawyer vibe in my mind. That 2 AM speech in Boston with the weird faces and the very odd fist pumping dance at the end was probably the funniest moment of the entire campaign after Howard Dean and Bush's performance in the first debate. Kerry thought Edwards would bring a Clinton effect, but that wasn't what Kerry needed this time. His persona is one of a serious, thoughtful, emotionless man, and I think Gephardt would have been a better choice to amplify that exterior, even if his act was deemed to be a bit dated in the primaries. Edwards did indeed show shades of being the Left's Dan Quayle. With all that said, it's probably an inappropriate time to be picking on the Edwards family. I hope Mrs. Edwards recovers speedily and thoroughly from her cancer diagnosis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 I know which side is going to have the guns in the Civil War... 101656[/snapback] Don't get too overconfident thinking you have an ironclad answer to this... You would be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Don't get too overconfident thinking you have an ironclad answer to this... You would be surprised. 102674[/snapback] Sure I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts