I personally feel that was done on both sides.Feisty Mouse said:
The Bush Strategy: Ignorance & Disenfranchisement Rigging the 2004 Vote
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
Yup. That is the nature of persuasive communication, sales pitch, promotion...what ever you want to call it. I still get surprised and how many people don't understand that in competition, being 'fair and equal' is still only going to happen as a tactical maneuver NOT an altruistic gesture.Technopunk said:
OK, such as...?Technopunk said:
Ender
Black Belt
Since everyone is posting articles...
Election Will Prompt Democratic Soul-Searching
Wed Nov 3,12:26 PM ET Politics - Reuters
By Alan Elsner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats are likely to enter a period of intense soul-searching and internal struggles after their 2004 election defeats, as they ask themselves how they regain the confidence of the American majority, political analysts said on Wednesday.
It will not be an easy task. Defeated in the presidential election, the party that dominated U.S. politics from the 1930s until the 1990s also lost ground in both chambers of Congress and the Republicans retained control of most of the state governorships.
"I think this is a realigning election. The Democrats are going to have to get used to permanent minority status for a generation or two," said Tom Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
"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.
If one topic dominated the post-election talk, it was strength of social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage as a force President Bush successfully used to motivate and energize millions of voters.
"The Republicans have been successful in framing themselves as the defenders of American traditions -- of religious traditions, family traditions, and I think they have successfully painted the Democrats all too often as contrary to those values," said Barack Obama, newly elected senator from Illinois whose victory provided one of the few bright spots for Democrats on Tuesday.
Schaller said it was extraordinary that many voters in key states seemed more worried about same-sex marriage than the war in Iraq . At the same time, Republicans persuaded millions of people who lacked health insurance to vote against what they portrayed as a Democratic Party plot to put health care under the control of government bureaucrats.
In Georgia, a state where Democrats were highly competitive as recently as eight years ago, a referendum banning same-sex marriage passed with 76 percent of the vote and Bush won the presidential ballot by 18 percentage points.
GUNS, GOD, GAYS
"The Democrats' positions on guns, God and gays has alienated millions of suburban and rural voters. The party needs to find a way to talk to them again if it is going to win national elections but it won't be easy," said University of Texas political scientist Bruce Buchanan.
Republican political consultant Bill Greener said people in the nation's "heartland," where Republicans racked up one victory over another, often saw urban Democrats on the East and West Coasts as smug and elitist.
"If you project a view that people who express strong religious faith are a threat, people who hold that faith are going to feel a sense of resentment," he said.
In many ways, the Democrats have become a coalition of minorities -- blacks, homosexuals, Jews, the unmarried and the unreligious. Bush's political strategist Karl Rove characterized the typical Democrat as "somebody with a doctorate ... people who imbibed the values of the sixties and seventies and stuck with them."
In the immediate term, the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is likely to be between those on the left led by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (news - web sites), who will argue that the party needs to sharpen its differences with Republicans, and those who would like to see the party find a way to appeal again to middle class and rural voters who appear to have written the party off.
"We're sick and tired of losing," said Steve Achelpohl, head of the Nebraska Democratic Party. "There are a lot of angry candidates out here because our candidates were better qualified, and they didn't win."
Election Will Prompt Democratic Soul-Searching
Wed Nov 3,12:26 PM ET Politics - Reuters
By Alan Elsner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats are likely to enter a period of intense soul-searching and internal struggles after their 2004 election defeats, as they ask themselves how they regain the confidence of the American majority, political analysts said on Wednesday.
It will not be an easy task. Defeated in the presidential election, the party that dominated U.S. politics from the 1930s until the 1990s also lost ground in both chambers of Congress and the Republicans retained control of most of the state governorships.
"I think this is a realigning election. The Democrats are going to have to get used to permanent minority status for a generation or two," said Tom Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
"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.
If one topic dominated the post-election talk, it was strength of social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage as a force President Bush successfully used to motivate and energize millions of voters.
"The Republicans have been successful in framing themselves as the defenders of American traditions -- of religious traditions, family traditions, and I think they have successfully painted the Democrats all too often as contrary to those values," said Barack Obama, newly elected senator from Illinois whose victory provided one of the few bright spots for Democrats on Tuesday.
Schaller said it was extraordinary that many voters in key states seemed more worried about same-sex marriage than the war in Iraq . At the same time, Republicans persuaded millions of people who lacked health insurance to vote against what they portrayed as a Democratic Party plot to put health care under the control of government bureaucrats.
In Georgia, a state where Democrats were highly competitive as recently as eight years ago, a referendum banning same-sex marriage passed with 76 percent of the vote and Bush won the presidential ballot by 18 percentage points.
GUNS, GOD, GAYS
"The Democrats' positions on guns, God and gays has alienated millions of suburban and rural voters. The party needs to find a way to talk to them again if it is going to win national elections but it won't be easy," said University of Texas political scientist Bruce Buchanan.
Republican political consultant Bill Greener said people in the nation's "heartland," where Republicans racked up one victory over another, often saw urban Democrats on the East and West Coasts as smug and elitist.
"If you project a view that people who express strong religious faith are a threat, people who hold that faith are going to feel a sense of resentment," he said.
In many ways, the Democrats have become a coalition of minorities -- blacks, homosexuals, Jews, the unmarried and the unreligious. Bush's political strategist Karl Rove characterized the typical Democrat as "somebody with a doctorate ... people who imbibed the values of the sixties and seventies and stuck with them."
In the immediate term, the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is likely to be between those on the left led by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (news - web sites), who will argue that the party needs to sharpen its differences with Republicans, and those who would like to see the party find a way to appeal again to middle class and rural voters who appear to have written the party off.
"We're sick and tired of losing," said Steve Achelpohl, head of the Nebraska Democratic Party. "There are a lot of angry candidates out here because our candidates were better qualified, and they didn't win."
Ender
Black Belt
After an election there is always the search for the "bogeyman" to blame the loss on. Some will try to point to "voter fraud", some will say talk radio was the reason, others will try to blame "ignorant" voters.....Simply put, Democrats don't appeal to the average middle American anymore...They are not the party of JFK anymore. JFK looked to help everyone in the economy.."a rising tide will lift all boats"....JFK wanted to cut corporate and personal taxes, end double taxation on capital gains and corporate profits, encourage people to volunteer, "pay any price, bear any burden to fight communism", inspire people to improve help others, civil rights.That was the Democratic party I once was a part of....Now,They have no the vision to help everyone, all they did was blame and complain....they've lost the Senate, the House, and most of the Goverors...and until they go back to what JFK stood for, they will stay the minority.
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
Well, I think the only place it really could have been "rigged" was Florida, because of the paperless electronic voting machines, which were used mainly in black and urban precincts.
Didn't matter really, because Kerry did not take Ohio either, where the ballots were mainly paper.
I believe that the voting machines are a VERY big problem, which MUST be addressed before the next election. It doesn't matter whether or not they WERE rigged. It matters whether the technology allows for easy tampering. That's unacceptable and unnecessary.
Didn't matter really, because Kerry did not take Ohio either, where the ballots were mainly paper.
I believe that the voting machines are a VERY big problem, which MUST be addressed before the next election. It doesn't matter whether or not they WERE rigged. It matters whether the technology allows for easy tampering. That's unacceptable and unnecessary.
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
Oh, and one more thing. Take note of the fact that this election was not a landslide...it was a dead heat the whole time, and it was won by a few percentage points. A relatively unknown challenger took nearly half the popular vote from a powerful and well connected incumbent.
That hardly indicates that "Democrats do not appeal to the middle class." It means that Bush had a few percentage points more than Kerry. This is a severely polarized country.
That hardly indicates that "Democrats do not appeal to the middle class." It means that Bush had a few percentage points more than Kerry. This is a severely polarized country.
heretic888
Senior Master
Actually, John Kerry lost to George Bush for the same reason that Howard Dean lost to John Kerry (and Edwards). Because, in both of those cases, the winner put off more of a "smarmy", tough-workin', grassroots, hometown boy image that's for the vets, the police, and the firemen.
Kerry and Edwards fit that bill the most among the Democrats, even though Dean and Gephart had much more feasible and practical platforms.
Ender
Black Belt
Phoenix44 said:
Which is a further indictment of the Democratic Party. They framed this election on a referendum 'for or against' Bush. Not on what the Democratic Party stands for. They kept hammering away on what Bush did or didn't do, said or didn't say. Kerry kept saying "I have a plan", but he never really articulated what the plans were. I still contend they need to get back to what JFK stood for and his vision , instead of serving special interests, if they want to get power back.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Ender said:
I thought the Democratic agenda was pretty well outlined in John Kerry's acceptance speech and in Max Cleland's introductory speech at the DNC.
I agree it wasn't hammered on enough.
Regards,
Steve
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
No the Democratic party did NOT frame the election in terms of for or against Bush...although many of us believe that Bush has done a terrible job, and will continue to do so.
Kerry outlined his plans VERY well, in his speeches, in the debates, on his website, and in his book. Anyone who was interested could have learned the details of his plans easily. If he had trouble, relatively, getting the message across, it's because of the difficulty any challenger has in dealing with any incumbent president. The incumbent always has easy access to the corporate media. He simply has to make a speech, or a policy announcement. Not so for the challenger, who has to fight for air time. The public has to want to listen. Considering Kerry still took nearly half the popular vote, I'd say a lot of people heard him loud and clear.
Kerry outlined his plans VERY well, in his speeches, in the debates, on his website, and in his book. Anyone who was interested could have learned the details of his plans easily. If he had trouble, relatively, getting the message across, it's because of the difficulty any challenger has in dealing with any incumbent president. The incumbent always has easy access to the corporate media. He simply has to make a speech, or a policy announcement. Not so for the challenger, who has to fight for air time. The public has to want to listen. Considering Kerry still took nearly half the popular vote, I'd say a lot of people heard him loud and clear.
Brother John
Senior Master
Technopunk said:
Nail on the head, my friend.
Nail on the head.
Your Brother
John
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Can you really generalize everyone who voted for the man as "Ignorant"?
Isnt that just as bad as saying anyone who voted for Kerry is a Dope smoking Hippie?
Yes it is. I've seen people on both sides of this issue who were educated, yet ignorant. I call them OBI's. The acronym stands for Otherwise Bright Individiuals.
But if this forum is any indication of the level of reading and consideration that liberals give to politics, one might come to the conclusion that the left is better informed. Some may take umbrage to this, but we few--we unhappy few--have dominated the discussions here by weight of data and cogent arguments. This may or may not be the case with liberals across the board. Our forum can not be representative of the nation as a whole. I admit that freely.
Please note that the term "intellectual" is demonized by well placed and influential elements on the right. Robert Bork spends a chapter lambasting intellectuals in his book "Slouching Towards Gomorrah," and this supports the notion that the right is anti-intellectual. This is a pity. It discounts some of the more respectable conservative thinkers and ruins the meaning of the word "intellect".
Recognizing the complexity of the world's problems is no longer favored. Dualistic thinking is in.
On Frostcloud Forums I encountered a police officer in Washington D.C. who was adamant that Saddam had the capacity to invade the United States with armored divisions. Supposedly modified oil tankers would serve as amphibious shipping.
My best friend, handing out literature at the polls, heard one Bush supporter claim quite stridently that it was the Iraqis who flew the planes into the Twin Towers.
Just today one of my pro-Bush students (BA Indiana University 1978) mentioned on the mat that he thought Saddam had financed and helped plot 9-11. He also was completely unaware that there was a budget surplus in 2000, and didn't really believe there was now a deficit. When confronted with this, his response was, "I don't really have the time to keep up on these things."
Do not trust anecdotes though. I list them only to highlight my frustration.
Regards,
Steve
Isnt that just as bad as saying anyone who voted for Kerry is a Dope smoking Hippie?
Yes it is. I've seen people on both sides of this issue who were educated, yet ignorant. I call them OBI's. The acronym stands for Otherwise Bright Individiuals.
But if this forum is any indication of the level of reading and consideration that liberals give to politics, one might come to the conclusion that the left is better informed. Some may take umbrage to this, but we few--we unhappy few--have dominated the discussions here by weight of data and cogent arguments. This may or may not be the case with liberals across the board. Our forum can not be representative of the nation as a whole. I admit that freely.
Please note that the term "intellectual" is demonized by well placed and influential elements on the right. Robert Bork spends a chapter lambasting intellectuals in his book "Slouching Towards Gomorrah," and this supports the notion that the right is anti-intellectual. This is a pity. It discounts some of the more respectable conservative thinkers and ruins the meaning of the word "intellect".
Recognizing the complexity of the world's problems is no longer favored. Dualistic thinking is in.
On Frostcloud Forums I encountered a police officer in Washington D.C. who was adamant that Saddam had the capacity to invade the United States with armored divisions. Supposedly modified oil tankers would serve as amphibious shipping.
My best friend, handing out literature at the polls, heard one Bush supporter claim quite stridently that it was the Iraqis who flew the planes into the Twin Towers.
Just today one of my pro-Bush students (BA Indiana University 1978) mentioned on the mat that he thought Saddam had financed and helped plot 9-11. He also was completely unaware that there was a budget surplus in 2000, and didn't really believe there was now a deficit. When confronted with this, his response was, "I don't really have the time to keep up on these things."
Do not trust anecdotes though. I list them only to highlight my frustration.
Regards,
Steve
TwistofFat
Green Belt
When I voted for Bush there was no doubt in my mind what and why I was doing what I was doing. It was not to stop gay marriage (could care less who you do whatever with as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else - go crazy). Nor the miriad of other reasons floating around (oil, anti-Kerry, Guns/God/Gays)...I am sure that Bush will be tougher on terror than Kerry - period. I did not vote for my candidate on that reason alone. Yes, I am troubled my many things but recognize that many, many more are fabrication and fantasy.
I do know the names of the rivers in Iraq, have a BA (yes, later added a BS to get a job in my current field), read really neat things from Oneill to Edmund Parker and am pretty sure the world is generally round. To judge the motovation of those who voted for Bush from MATalk or any other chat room may not yield a complete picture of those of us who call ourselves conservatives. To judge intelligence from same said posts is also narrow at best. Yes there are nutcases on every side of every issue (OBI's), but please do not judge me or the majority of American voters until you get to know each of us. Some of them is reel smart like.
I am Glenn and I approve of this post.
I do know the names of the rivers in Iraq, have a BA (yes, later added a BS to get a job in my current field), read really neat things from Oneill to Edmund Parker and am pretty sure the world is generally round. To judge the motovation of those who voted for Bush from MATalk or any other chat room may not yield a complete picture of those of us who call ourselves conservatives. To judge intelligence from same said posts is also narrow at best. Yes there are nutcases on every side of every issue (OBI's), but please do not judge me or the majority of American voters until you get to know each of us. Some of them is reel smart like.
I am Glenn and I approve of this post.
heretic888
Senior Master
I don't think the attitude is that ALL Bush supporters are "ignorant" (whatever you believe this to mean), but rather, that a significant majority (around the 75% margin, I believe) of those that voted for Bush on Election Day did so on false premises.
It is no secret that this administration won the election through a campaign of fear, duplicity, and misinformation --- as well as bringing up a lot of relatively unimportant side issues that would attract "values voters" to the polls.
The ends justify the means, I guess. :idunno:
It is no secret that this administration won the election through a campaign of fear, duplicity, and misinformation --- as well as bringing up a lot of relatively unimportant side issues that would attract "values voters" to the polls.
The ends justify the means, I guess. :idunno:
TwistofFat
Green Belt
First - where in the world do you get that number (75%)? Please do not tell me the exit polls that were wrong in every possible way. The implication is most that voted for Bush were lured by false pretenses - I reject that argument (I am sure if we did a comprehensive analysis of the 'average voter', some on both sides maybe misinformed about some salient issue). The fear, lies and Haliburton garbage were analized, weighed and ultimately rejected by 57+M US citizens. The opposition candidate had months and months and did a good job and came very close to winning. The Presidency is an all or nothing event and the lies, fear and oil barons won fair and square. The empire will survive and in 4 short years we get to do it all over again.heretic888 said:
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
In fact, most Bush supporters STILL believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and/or an active program for developing them (72% of Bush supporters, in fact). Most Bush supporters STILL believe that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. And even though Bush himself has long since stopped saying those things, most Bush supporters STILL believe that BUSH believes these things. This comes from PIPA: The Program on International Policy Attitudes.
So I'd say, yes, these people voted under false pretenses.
So I'd say, yes, these people voted under false pretenses.
TwistofFat
Green Belt
Perhaps if you asked them if the WMD may have been moved to Syria in the 20 months build-up they might say "maybe"? That would make them dumb and make you what? Better infomed? Only when the clouds of combat pass will we know for sure. There are shades of grey in the WMD question but that would take more time than I have.
If no WMD ever existed in Iraq (they are in Iran, Syria, Africa but not in Iraq), perhaps the real reason for the admin going to war was to establish a stronghold in the middle east where we could threaten AND strike others that we fear might attack us. False pretenses and lies? Good offense. I don't know why you voted for whomever you selected, but please don't assign motivation to those you do not know.
The significant difference between the parties - when R's lost in 1976, 1992 and 1996 the thought was what did they do wrong and how do they correct it so it does not happen again. The center-right does not hate the left or think them fools - they simply do not agree. Look at the democrats for the way to improve your chances at victory, not how deep in the sand our heads remain...we like it down here.
If no WMD ever existed in Iraq (they are in Iran, Syria, Africa but not in Iraq), perhaps the real reason for the admin going to war was to establish a stronghold in the middle east where we could threaten AND strike others that we fear might attack us. False pretenses and lies? Good offense. I don't know why you voted for whomever you selected, but please don't assign motivation to those you do not know.
The significant difference between the parties - when R's lost in 1976, 1992 and 1996 the thought was what did they do wrong and how do they correct it so it does not happen again. The center-right does not hate the left or think them fools - they simply do not agree. Look at the democrats for the way to improve your chances at victory, not how deep in the sand our heads remain...we like it down here.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
I am sure that Bush will be tougher on terror than Kerry - period. I did not vote for my candidate on that reason alone.
I submit that to be a member of an informed electorate you're not entitled to your opinion unless you meet the duty to defend it. Writing "period" as an emphasis displays a reluctance to defend your stance and is reflective of arthritic thinking. To say "Bush will be tougher on terror" lacks any weight unless you give us some reason for believing so.
To judge the motovation of those who voted for Bush from MATalk or any other chat room may not yield a complete picture of those of us who call ourselves conservatives. To judge intelligence from same said posts is also narrow at best.
Which is why I discounted doing so, Glenn. Read the post again.
Yes there are nutcases on every side of every issue (OBI's), but please do not judge me or the majority of American voters until you get to know each of us.
Why don't you all come over for coffee next week and we can get familiar? I've got a recipe for scones. Given that there are 59,268,796 of you folks and 55,738,671 of my friends, should I make a double batch? Is any one of you gluten intolerant?
Glenn, I'm not talking about nucases when I talk about Otherwise Bright Individuals. They are ignorant to an appalling degree and lack the ability to reason fully. They don't read the papers (note the plural form), watch the news channels (again the plural), or read books from either perspective (my goodness, that plural keeps popping up). They "don't have the time." They have "better things to do." Gotta catch "Survivor" on the TiVo, after all. Of course that romance novel is a real page turner.
Yet these people--both conservative and liberal--have solid opinions dripping with vitriol--even though those opinions are based on what they heard at the barbershop or coffee house. They pass on urban myth e-mails and take it as the truth.
I'm sick of it.
Regards,
Steve
I submit that to be a member of an informed electorate you're not entitled to your opinion unless you meet the duty to defend it. Writing "period" as an emphasis displays a reluctance to defend your stance and is reflective of arthritic thinking. To say "Bush will be tougher on terror" lacks any weight unless you give us some reason for believing so.
To judge the motovation of those who voted for Bush from MATalk or any other chat room may not yield a complete picture of those of us who call ourselves conservatives. To judge intelligence from same said posts is also narrow at best.
Which is why I discounted doing so, Glenn. Read the post again.
Yes there are nutcases on every side of every issue (OBI's), but please do not judge me or the majority of American voters until you get to know each of us.
Why don't you all come over for coffee next week and we can get familiar? I've got a recipe for scones. Given that there are 59,268,796 of you folks and 55,738,671 of my friends, should I make a double batch? Is any one of you gluten intolerant?
Glenn, I'm not talking about nucases when I talk about Otherwise Bright Individuals. They are ignorant to an appalling degree and lack the ability to reason fully. They don't read the papers (note the plural form), watch the news channels (again the plural), or read books from either perspective (my goodness, that plural keeps popping up). They "don't have the time." They have "better things to do." Gotta catch "Survivor" on the TiVo, after all. Of course that romance novel is a real page turner.
Yet these people--both conservative and liberal--have solid opinions dripping with vitriol--even though those opinions are based on what they heard at the barbershop or coffee house. They pass on urban myth e-mails and take it as the truth.
I'm sick of it.
Regards,
Steve
Oh scones I'm hungery. I'll be there in lessee Middle of no where GA. To atalanta 2.5hours. Atlanta to umm where is the nearest airport to Bloomington indiana... Oh I might need to buy a ticket. Hmm. Ok how about the recipt. I need a good one for that instead?
You think your sick of it. Well my cousin is one of 'em and he is a conservative I'm a liberal.
Anywho I don't have anything I'mportant to say other than to announce my canadicy for "president" in the elections of the year (I'm 19 and I think you have to be 40 for president right?)the year 2028(is that right?)
MY platform well you don't want to know. Just run to canada now... Wait that won't be safe enough.
You think your sick of it. Well my cousin is one of 'em and he is a conservative I'm a liberal.
Anywho I don't have anything I'mportant to say other than to announce my canadicy for "president" in the elections of the year (I'm 19 and I think you have to be 40 for president right?)the year 2028(is that right?)
MY platform well you don't want to know. Just run to canada now... Wait that won't be safe enough.
