Wednesday, November 03, 2004

I’m really not sure the gloom-and-doom Democrats get the point here. They’re blaming the religious fundamentalists, the right-wing whackos, the FoxNews channel, everyone but who they should be blaming… themselves.

They approached this election thinking that any warm body would win an election against a sitting president. So they nominated one. Hell, it worked in 1992, didn’t it?

They approached this election thinking that saying “I’m not him” was an adequate campaign platform. So that’s all they said. Again, it worked in 1992.

Had they put up a dynamic, energetic candidate that could energize the moderate left with solid rhetoric (say, ummmm, Howard Dean, until he imploded), they could’ve unseated a very vulnerable president. Therein lies part of their problem. The Democratic party today is a mishmash of young up-and-comers (Edwards, Obama) and tired old farts (Kennedy, Kerry) and unelectable liberals (Hillary, Daschle). They had NOBODY of national prominence that hit the sweet spot of the moderate electorate (I guess Edwards is the closest), and ended up with an empty suit as their flagbearer. You know what? They’re gonna have the same problem in 2008 while the GOP has groomed McCain, Giuliani, etc. for a run at the presidency. Hillary? You’ll see a 60-35 deficit if she’s the candidate.

So what should they do? Instead of belittling and denigrating the American voters, Democrats should be asking themselves, “What should we have done?” The trap they’re falling into is assuming they did everything right, and the voters fucked it up because we’re too stupid to listen. WRONG! The liberal leadership is too stupid and pigheaded to listen to the voters, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.


At 5:17 PM, Blogger Chris Halverson said...

Couldn't have put it better myself.

IMHO, the Democrats were too "all over the place", they were more anti-Bush than pro-anything. People want to be positive, not negative. They didn't come up with a solid platform and without that it's hard to take out a sitting president.

Great points!

At 9:06 PM, Blogger Donkeypuncher said...

The Democrats really messed it up. I have a feeling that if Lieberman had gotten the nomination, he would have won the election. A lot more moderate, and you actually know where he stands on the issues.

But was there any bigger mistake than what the Republicans did in Illinois? Alan Keyes???? The 3-4 decision makers figured that Republicans from central/southern Illinois would rally around Keyes. Wrong! I think that I'm actually one of the 8 people who voted for Keyes. If they had selected ANYONE more moderate, they could have taken advantage of Obama being an extreme liberal.

I don't remember if any Hollywood folks said they'd move to Canada if Dubya won. Do you?

At 6:03 AM, Blogger SirFWALGMan said...

I agree with your point. It was very "Please do not elect Bush" feeling.. and nobody was buying it. I guess you have to do more than totally screw everything up to get fired. Go figure. Good point about it being the best country in the World. Again, I reserve the right to be moody and pouty for a few days (weeks? years?) and then I will get over it. At least he cannot run again, unless my Martial Law prediction comes true!

At 2:14 PM, Blogger StudioGlyphic said...

Don't blame me, I voted for Dean in the CA primary. He had his problems, too, and I'm not sure he would have been able to run an effective national campaign. One thing I do know for sure is that he would have been the only real fiscal conservative in the race.


Post a Comment

<< Home