Did the Democrats get their message out?

[CADsortaGUY]

If so - why?
If not - why not?

CsG

 

[ntdz]

I think they did get their message out, and quite frankly, I thought it was effective. Had they had a stronger candidate, they might've won. The entire campaign, Bush made it a referendum on Kerry, and that just killed him. I think Karl Rove is just too much of a genious to get beat.

 

[Rainsford]

Yes, and this is why D)...despite running against a sitting President during a time of war who is viewed as strong, moral and decisive, with a non-personable candidate who's a little weak on sticking to his guns, they were able to get 48% of the popular vote. Republicans seem impressed with Bush's 51%, but Kerry's 48% for a runner up is the highest since 1976 (not counting 2000), which is pretty impressive as well I think.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I think they did get their message out, and quite frankly, I thought it was effective. Had they had a stronger candidate, they might've won. The entire campaign, Bush made it a referendum on Kerry, and that just killed him. I think Karl Rove is just too much of a genious to get beat.

I seem to be agreeing with you a lot in the last day or so

I agree with this as well, a stronger candidate who could have fought back more effectivly could quite possibly have won. Kerry came off as a flip-flopping intellectual, two things a lot of people don't like.

 

[conjur]

Yes but McAuliffe and Cahill were ineffective at combatting attacks and rebuttals and aspersions.

 

[SuperTool]

They got their message out, but Republicans got their voters out with wedge issues like gay marriage.

 

[aswedc]

The message was out, but too complicated. I don't care if you support Bush or not, but you have to admit he didn't say a single thing during campaign stops or in the debates that couldn't be comprehended (and interpreted the way the Republicans want it to be) by a 12 year old. "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time", "Flip Flop", ect. The American people couldn't take the time to listen and understand how it was possible for Kerry to approve the use of force but not how President Bush subsequently used it and therefore the flip flop name stuck. I think it was a misunderstanding, not a disagreement with Kerry, that caused Bush to be up in the polls regarding national security. Unfortunetly this was unavoidable because the Democratic position is inherently more complicated, presenting a problem that could not have been solved by a different candidate IMO.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
If so - why?
If not - why not?

CsG

Sure they did.

Bush is a fvcking idiot...

Bush is a fvcking liar...

Bush is a fvcking election stealing asshat...

Bush is a fvcking moron...

Bush is a bible humping oil guzzling Halliburton loving war mongering psychopath...

Bush is a terrorist...

Bush is evil...


That was their message, wasn't it?


That is why they lost...



Ot---- but hey...I see that Iowa is the only state that fox hasn't called yet. I expect a little more effort towards the end result of a little larger margin next go round. Something in the neighborhood of a 67/32 split would do.

 

[MegaWorks]

Bush is a fvcking idiot...

Bush is a fvcking liar...

Bush is a fvcking election stealing asshat...

Bush is a fvcking moron...

Bush is a bible humping oil guzzling Halliburton loving war mongering psychopath...

Bush is a terrorist...

Bush is evil...

Most of it is true.

 

[BunLengthHotDog]

Republican here, voted that way... I think Democrats would be much better served by a candidate, and/or campaign, that isnt an outright attack on the incumbant. I am not, by any means, playing high and mighty because the Republican party also stooped to the same level, and a lengthy game of finger pointing ensued.

This country, from either side...hopefully both...could use a breath of fresh air. I think Kerry would have been much better served by ignoring Bush entirely during the debates, his "plans" were never fleshed out, and at that point his "plans" become rhetoric to me. I believe that if he had completely ignored Bush (no he did this / that wrong speeches) and actually EXPLAINED his plan, everyone would have been much better served. Its much easier to point a finger, we know what Bush is going to do, he has done it for the last 4 years...We have NO IDEA what Kerry would do. He effectively did get points accross, but did not explain HOW he planned on getting any of it done. Had that happened, I think he would have done MUCH better.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
If so - why?
If not - why not?

CsG

Sure they did.

Bush is a fvcking idiot...

Bush is a fvcking liar...

Bush is a fvcking election stealing asshat...

Bush is a fvcking moron...

Bush is a bible humping oil guzzling Halliburton loving war mongering psychopath...

Bush is a terrorist...

Bush is evil...


That was their message, wasn't it?


That is why they lost...



Ot---- but hey...I see that Iowa is the only state that fox hasn't called yet. I expect a little more effort towards the end result of a little larger margin next go round. Something in the neighborhood of a 67/32 split would do.

Hehe - well I'm sure some might take issue with your description of their message - but IF that was their message - did they really get it out if they still lost?

Oh, and FYI - Iowa has a partisan hack Sec of State. That is why no one is calling Iowa yet. I'm sure they are thinking of a way to challenge something or try to get the provisional-provisional(yes - we had two layers of provisionals:roll: ) ballots to count twice... from 3-4 counties. Don't worry - Iowa is now a Red state for the first time since Ronald Reagan was Re-Elected!

CsG

 

[NesuD]

Yes they did get their message out. That is why they got hurt all across the board. Their message is they are according to Isla in another thread. "Those who live in the Northeast and the westcoast with IQs over 100 who are progressive and more cultured than all the rest of us."

:roll: