I thought the consensus was that GWB ran on an anti-pervert platform.
Huh? Obama won far more convincingly than Bush did.
Please. Obama was leading in the polls the entire time, except when his convention bump was waning and McCain’s was waxing, which is not an accurate picture of anything anyway. If anything, I think Obama would have won more if the troubles had begun a few weeks later, as people would have had less time to recover from their alarm.
If the financial crisis had happened a few months later, not weeks, would you still be as sure? Remember that McCain was actually leading at the time.
While “fluke” isn’t the right word, it’s fair to say Obama’s win was due in very large part to circumstances beyond his control or influence.
This almost exactly. I voted for Bush in 04 (in New Jersey so it didn’t count for much). The main reason was that I thought leaving Iraq prematurely would be a bigger disaster for Iraq and the US than anything that happened before. Four years later I’m sitting in Iraq and watching it grow and talking to the people I think I was right. Looking back ten years from now, who knows. I had no faith in Kerry.
The Dean scream did not seem to me so much silly and false as manic, kooky and a bit scary.
Obama was consistently ahead of McCain from mid-September to the election in the polls. He was ahead most of the time from late March to mid-September. Here’s a chart of the polls:
In fairness to Dean, the scream sounded much different in context. He was in a very noisy environment, with lots of chaos and commotion and noise. When you heard it on the news they isolated just his voice and eliminated most of the rest of the sound. When you hear someone screaming at the top of his lungs at a football game it sounds pretty normal, but if it’s in an empty room he just seems like a nut.
The GOP used the same strategy in the large Amish settlement here, too. But they were faced with the quandary of voting for a pro-war president, thanks largely to outside cries of hypocrisy regarding their CO status, and the unwanted publicity made them largely poll shy.While there is a concensus today that George Bush sucks ostrich eggs, that wasn’t the case in 2004. Then, he still had enough support - just enough - to win reelection.
While it looks like Obama would have won even if Wall Street hadn’t tanked, McCain’s apparently befuddled response to the economic “crisis” likely pushed most of the fence-sitters into Obama’s corral.
Think back to the Clinton administration. Remember how Republicans used to criticize Clinton?
They would start with a rational critique of his policies.
Then they would start making snide personal attacks.
Then they go off on wild tangents.
Then they would start spouting bizarre conspiracies.
When they were done, you were far more afraid of them, than they were of Clinton.
Bush’s critics do the same thing. When you start foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of the guy’s name, you do not persuade people.
Also, Kerry’s platform seemed to be: “I’m a war hero! Elect me, and we’ll cut and run!”
That did not appeal to either the pro-war or the anti-war people.
I think this is a fair summary. Karl Rove knew, given what had up to then been the general GOP edge in the Electoral College, that Bush could win with just a hair over 50% of the vote in a country which was highly polarized politically anyway. The analyses I’ve seen of the gay-marriage amendments on the ballot in various states is that they were essentially a wash, having turned off as many independent voters as they motivated hard-right voters, and in particular that it didn’t make a difference in Ohio.
I did hear it in context. I also heard it out of context a thousand times. But I did hear the actual speech. I was not in the room but the recording of the speech made it clear that it was a crowded noisy room. Of course he was appified so he was much louder.
I hope you’re wrong about most Americans, but boy, did I fear exactly what you say. In the weeks leading up to the 2008 election, I was terrified of the “Bradley Effect,” and that perhaps the majority of US voters approved of torture, liked this war, might be ignorant enough to fall for swift boat attacks (e.g., the idea that Barack would not put his hand on a bible or that he was a closet commie), and might be arrogant enough to think that we could move forward without any international support other than the UK and Israel. Remember those bumper stickers that said, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention”? I’m hoping that Obama’s election is an indication that people finally started paying attention.
The whole gay rights thing just makes me sad. As a straight person, there is no aspect of homosexuality that has anything to do with my life, and it doesn’t make sense to me that people would go out of their way to focus on a distinction that creates a separate group, and then remove rights from that group.
Of course, there’s a good chance that gas prices and evaporating wealth among the middle class was a large contributor to Obama’s win. The middle class tends to have a large part of their wealth tied up in their home, and a whole lot of people had drifted into a lifestyle dependent on inexpensive energy costs, so in the 15 months or so before the election, many voters just started feeling the pain, and any incumbent would have had quite a difficult time garnering support. In the 2004 election, the things that were going wrong hadn’t started to personally hurt the majority of voters.
When you have enough to win, you DESERVE to win!
Thats what the sore loosers on both sides of the aisle can’t seem to wrap their obsessed minds around :rolleyes:
This is trolling and you will stop, now. There have already been several posts from left leaning posters pointing out that Kerry was an ineffective candidate. While your post filled out some of the reasons why Kerry was ineffective in your post, you added nothing to the actual discussion of why Bush won and this particular stupid (and demonstrably false) comment is intended only to irritate other posters. That is trolling.
[ /Modding ]
So, is this why Obama got a majority of the vote?
Regards,'Shodan
I keep reading this, but I still can’t figure out what you’re saying. Could you rephrase, please?
Exactly. While there were plenty of us who saw Bush and the war for what they were in 2004, that was far from the prevailing sentiment, particularly in the press.
That changed big time in 2005, and IMO, the person most responsible for that was Cindy Sheehan. This is a woman whose picture and actions were in the paper every day for months, just because she was an outspoken critic of Bush and the war and because her son had died in Iraq she couldn’t be written off as a dirty fucking hippie.
It’s hard to believe that was newsworthy, since the opinions she was offering up back then are pretty widely held now. I think the anti-war and anti-Bush sentiment crystallized around her activism and visibility, like the little boy who pointed out that the Emperor was butt-ass naked.
She eventually went off the deep end and faded into relative obscurity, but the second half of the one-two punch came with Katrina. For once people were noticing in real time that Bush was screwing the pooch, and it became clear that he had been doing it all along.
Harrumph. “Deserving” has nothing to do with winning. If you have enough support to win, you win. Whether any particular person deserved to win is quite another question.
Kinda jumping to conclusions by labeling me a “sore loser”, aren’tcha? I recall being a somewhat disappointed loser, but certainly not a sore loser.
When I look at my county and the neighboring ones that voted Republican in 2004 and still voted Republican in 2008, I notice something interesting. In an election with historically high turnout, you’d have to go back to 1968 to find a higher percentage of voters, turnout in all three Republican counties was down compared to 2004. I haven’t seen a national analysis of voter turnout versus voting patterns, but I say Barack Obama got the majority of the vote because the Republicans stayed home.
Seems straight forward to me, but I’ll try again.
If you look at electrorial college votes, presidental winners usually win by a good margin.
EVEN in these cases the loosing side usually claims it was close and therefore no real “mandate from the people” or that guy isnt “their president”
Also if you look at total popular vote, its usually close. IMO close enough that either both candidates are pretty much equally crappy or equally good or the voters are wholly uninformed on who is better/worse, or some of all these.
So ,with a close popular vote, or a close electorial vote, the loosing side claims BECAUSE it was close it isnt a “real mandate from the people” or that guy isnt “their president”.
But HERE is where the hypocrisy (from BOTH sides, depending on who wins)comes from). With a “close vote”, that means with something just slightly )different, THEIR guy would have won. Which is what they are usually bitching about. IFF things had just been a little more different/fair, their guy woulda won. Which is true enough. But he would have still just BARELY won. So, doesnt the OTHER SIDE have a perfect right to claim a “stolen election”, or “no real mandate”, or the fact that the guy isnt “their president”?
Logic would seem to me to dictate yes, but IMO a good fraction of the “loosers” sure as hell would NOT grant the “theorectical shoes on the other foot loosers” the same consideration they expect as the current/actual loosers.
If its close electorial vote wise, the loosing side will invariably pick a few states the winner won due to some percieved “unfair advantage”, of which there are a gazillion. Of course they IGNORE all the states their guy won due to his/her “unfair advantage”, because of course their guy is all fair and honest and right :rolleyes:
sorry, got run!
maybe that helps
all hooped up on automotive paint fumes and beer right now!
to recap, if you had enough to win, you deserved to win, now matter how slim the margin. And even if it was slightly unfair, it was that damn close, whats the difference in who actually got in?, because apparently the vast majority of the voters were pretty much equally divided as to who should be in the white house in the first place