Why record voter turnouts?

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I really think Kerry lost the election on his own, the rest of the crap that surrounded him was just icing on the cake.

I mean, just WHAT was his platform? Multiple positions on everything? Indecisive answers, to both sides of the question.
-SW

As I said in another thread.
He was trying to be all things to all people.

Either people were going to buy it or they weren't.
Either it was going to win the election. Or people were going to see through it.

Add to that he kept saying he "had a plan" or had a "better plan" but never bothered saying exactly what that plan was.

Another strike against him was in being over critical of the president saying he would have done things differently when at the time they were done he agreed with them.
Iraq's WMDs, and moving the troops from Afghanistan to Iraq are two good examples. They are both subject he agreed with at the time they were done only to later claim he would have done differently.

Just saw a report on the news saying how Time-Life is going to be coming out with a behind the scenes look at the campaigns.

In the preview they were saying how on just such issues the Bush camp set Kerry up and lay the bait out for him. And how Kerry took the bait each and every time.

Kerry thought Bush was an idiot and underestimated him.
And it cost him the election.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by wklink
I think what killed the election for Kerry were his actions and statements long before he was nominated.  His bouncing around on the Iraq war was noticed eight months ago.  He got his reputation as a flip flopper not from GWB but from Howard Dean and his own running mate John Edwards.  Before Bush even said a word about him there was doubt in the mind of the regular voter.  

I think there is a trending toward balkanization of the US electorate.  I think Bill Clinton was one of the last 'moderate' Democrats that you will see as a presidential candidate.  For all their adulation of Clinton many hard core lefties despised some of the policies that Clinton put into office.  If you compare the two, Clinton is not much left of Bush and many in the Democratic Party do not want to see such a person representing their party again.  

If the last batch of presidential wannabies is any indication the party will shift more to the left, not less.  John Kerry was considered the mainstream candidate, not the extreme one.  The only candidate out of the whole mess that I think red staters might have even considered was Joseph Lieberman and he didn't get more than 8 percent of the primary vote.  The fact that guys like Howard Dean are even considered viable candidates bodes poorly for the Democratic party.   The guys that could draw in the masses, the moderates in the party, are being drowned out.

The Democratic party is fracturing.  They have alienated their true base (blue collar union voters) but supporting policies that many absolutely dislike and trussing up a liberal senator as a moderate isn't fooling anyone.  There are moderate Democrats out there, ones that most Americans could vote for, but I am not sure that the new base of the Democratic party would allow such a person again.

slick has to slide towards the center after '94 ... or he'd got nothing done.. cept chasing chubby chicks around the oral office

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Gixer
Still suprising that only half the country bothers to vote.



...-Gixer

Uh, we don't allow people under 18 to vote. Or noncitizens. I think they estimate that 60 percent of those eligible voted.

[AKWeav]

I never paid much attention to politics.  After 9-11 I started taking a bit more of an intrest.  

I think 9-11 and whats occuring in the middle east have alot to do with the high turnout.

[AWMac]

Originally posted by WMLute
Example.  In Oklahoma people hold doors for laides, let 'em cut in line, and actually chat pleasantly with each other while waiting in line, say at the gas station.

After living in oklahoma for a decade (aaarrrggg! get me the heck out of here!!)  when I went to my home town of St.Louis I was blown away at how RUDE everyone was in comparison.

I once had car troubles in Oklahoma City, and had no less than six people pull over to offer me either a ride, or use of their cell phone within 5min.

GOOD luck getting anyone to do that in L.A.

Something to be said for southern values.

I agree Lute.  When I first moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma I couldn't believe the kindness here. I thought they were up to something. It took me a few weeks to let it sink in that peeps here are kind and courtious.

I've lived on both coasts and overseas as well. But ya just can't beat the true American kindness you find here in Oklahoma.

[lasersailor184]

Nash summed it up brilliantly.

[lazs2]

I also voted for the moderate democrat in the race.... I voted for Bush

I think that tweety makes a good point.. people were worried that kerrie would try to make vast and sweeping liberal social changes.

I think people were afraid that he would treat the constituion as a "guide" and open to change at the whim of social trends.

The reason people felt this way is the fault of the democratic party itself..... While not allways openly embracing every left wing nutball.... they certainly did not distance themselves if they thought they might pick up a vote or two.

They needed to roundly condem the michelle moores and the hollywood lefties and the miltant blacks and gays....  you can be for gay and black rights without embracing every nutball self proclaimed gay or black leader that comes down the pike.

lazs