blike Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 A lot of political analysists have been attributing the turnoff to the democratic party to hardcore liberals such as Michael Moore, George Soros, MoveOn.org, etc. The democrats had a major motion picture working for them which seen by millions which essentially slammed Bush, much more money from outside groups including George Soros funding huge smear campaigns on TV, celebrities publically backing up Kerry and slamming Bush, and the liberal media to back it all up! How in the world did they still lose this election? They didn't even get one southern state, and the southern states historically vote democrat. I'm not really trying to bash the democratic party here, but I think they went wrong somewhere. They should have had this election tied up. Do you think that part of it was from associating with nutjobs like Michael Moore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 I think a lot of them are so excited about the fact that they can say things that they don't give a lot of thought to the best way to deliver it. Doing the most damage possible to your opponents doesn't always mean you'll end up looking any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Exactly. Well put. It's hard to say how much of an influence that sort of thing really has. I think human nature is to be more influenced in general by positve rather than negative things (although I'm sure a lot of people would disagree). But the whole business of Hollywood and the liberal media and their impact on politics plays VERY big in middle America. It's long since reached the stage of "truism" and "common knowledge". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Southern democrats are fairly conservative, not liberal, and things have been very different since the 60's. Northern Democrats have done poorly there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 A lot of political analysists have been attributing the turnoff to the democratic party to hardcore liberals such as Michael Moore, George Soros, MoveOn.org, etc. Blike, Yes, I think the extreme left wing with their 527's definately hurt Kerry. Having Eminem campaigning for him didn't help either. Kerry disassociated himself from the Socialist and communist parties who had endorsed him, he should have disassociated himself from the other fringe elements. To my knowledge, the Gerry Falwell types didn't actively campaing for Bush, as it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 I think the real problem is that Americans are not relating to the Democratic party. People know what a check in the mail from the government is. That combined with a war that is not going as smoothly as possible but its been well-represented by the Republicans plus peoples memory of 9/11. Alot of people actually believe that we went to Iraq to free the Iraqi people from tyranny and spread the God-blessed version of democracy. And don't forget the big check in the mail. Plus the economy isn't doing that badly, given the circumstances. [sarcasm] So what are the democrats offering me? Stop the deficit? Does that mean that they are going to raise taxes and take away the money that Mr. Bush gave us? And what exactly is the deficit anyway? A government sponsored health program? The government only manages to fiddle away all the money I give it now. Why would this health care program be any different? What about individual rights? The only people that are loosing rights are terrorists anyway so what do I care? The war? Mr. Kerry didn't say he was going to do anything different; he only said something about doing it better. What about all this liberal save the environment, save the poor people, save the starving foreign people? I care about my family, not some starving man in Eugobligostan. Just sounds like an excuse to raise taxes anyway. Besides, Bush is a God-fearing man who talks to God everyday while Kerry is a baby-killing, gay-loving weirdo.[/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeTraveler Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 As much as celebraties are praised and glorified, I think most americans look at them as rich spoiled people who have no intelligence, they make millions of dollars from gaining attention. When I see them on TV talking about politics, they talk alot but say nothing. The credibility of celebraties in my mind is non existant. Personally I don't care about republican and democrat. I care about America. And I just did not see Kerry as a hard nose decision making guy. It seems alot of his opinions are generated from media. Media says bush did this wrong "so I will tell America I will do it right". Problem is the media has little credability anymore. Everyone was complaining about this and that about Bush and all Kerry did was say I will do it better. He never gave a real plan that I thought made sense. His critical thinking and creativity were lacking. Bush was the better candidate of the two in my eyes, he is a decision maker and stands by his decisions. I would have liked to see someone better suited to be president run against Bush. Kerry would not have made a good president but still he got alot of votes. That is because good candidates in this election were lacking. Thats just my opinion. *edit* Oh and one more thing, smear campaigns to me are veiwed as desperation. When you do not have a good plan or real ideas to make it better, you just bash the other guy and hope people take your side. If Michael Moores film was not so one sided, maybe like a good arguementative essay, then maybe it would have had an affect on me. In the beggining of the movie he shows a clip of him asking Bush a question and Bush telling him he should go find real work. It seemed that the whole movie was a vengence on Bush for humiliating him. I do not know if anything he said was true, As he did not give any real proof of any of his accusations. Which is why the movie had no credibility to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetrahedrite Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 In Australia, very few people that I know doubt the credibility F9/11. I can, however, see that if I was an American I would not want to be told who to vote for by a movie producer with a grudge. In light of the result, it is clear that it has not swayed the voting public but it may very well of had the effect of making a larger portion of the world hostile to the re-elected Bush administration. Another thing that is potentially worrying is that it may help recruit terrorists who have one further thing to hate the US about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mardigan Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Well most of America doesnt like the Hollywood way, so Micheal Moore and company should move to Canada and make cheesy foriegn films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 They didn't even get one southern state, and the southern states historically vote democrat. Southern democrats are fairly conservative' date=' not liberal, and things have been very different since the 60's. Northern Democrats have done poorly[/url'] there. I'm not up to speed with the specifics of American voting history, but I'm pretty sure the Dixiecrats stopped voting Democrat and started voting Republican after the 60s. Guys like Zel Miller are Democrats in name only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Actually the southern conversion from Demo to Repoob is mostly a Reagan-era phenomenon, although its roots do extend into the problems of segregationism in the 1960s. Conservative Democrats practically split into two separate sub-sub parties over the issue. But for the most part they were over that, and still voting Democrat, when Reagan came along. Good books on the subject: "The Vital South" and "The Rise of Southern Republicans" by Earl and Merl Black. (I might not have spelled their first names correctly -- the books are on the other side of the house at the moment.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCOOTER93 Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 The South has belonged to the Republicans, pretty much, since Barry Goldwater voted against the LBJ's civil rights bill in 63. In the 64 election BG took the 7 southern states, and nothing else. Since then the Dem's have clear title to the black vote. In a way, the Republican's traded the black vote all over the country for the white south. Scooter93 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 In a way' date=' the Republican's traded the black vote all over the country for the white south. Scooter93[/quote'] If that's true it was a very good trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 The South has belonged to the Republicans, pretty much, since Barry Goldwater voted against the LBJ's civil rights bill in 63. In the 64 election BG took the 7 southern states, and nothing else. Since then the Dem's have clear title to the black vote. No, again, this is a common misperception. Republicans had their portenting victories, but Democrats continued to dominate southern politics right up to the 1980s. I've cited sources above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Blike, Yes, I think the extreme left wing with their 527's definately hurt Kerry. Having Eminem campaigning for him didn't help either. Kerry disassociated himself from the Socialist and communist parties who had endorsed him, he should have disassociated himself from the other fringe elements. "You cannot be a sincere, committed born-again believer who takes the Bible seriously and vote for a pro-choice, anti-family candidate." Jerry Falwell. The Nazi's were behind Bush - you can believe that. Most intelligent people can seperate the candidates from the supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted November 8, 2004 Author Share Posted November 8, 2004 The Nazi's were behind Bush - you can believe that. Most intelligent people can seperate the candidates from the supporters.But the Republicans did not embrace the Nazis whereas Michael Moore sat in the presidential box at the DNC. They should have done more to disassociate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1dermon Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 yeah, well bush should've done more to disassociate with the "swift boat veterins for truth" dumbasses. hey, out of the 200+ veterins for truth, only 1 had ever served with kerry...you want to talk about a smear campaign...i dont think moore hurt the dems, or soros, they got info out there. however, i have heard reports that in ohio bush got an automatic 4,000 votes on many voting machines. proven y the fact that in one county which was only less than 700 people in population, kerry got like 360votes and bush got more than 4,000 votes. hmmmmmm. there SHOULD be an investigation into the FOR PROFIT company which manufactures those voting machines, because they obviously rigged the hell out of them. but whatever, bush won fair and square. just like last election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 But the Republicans did not embrace the Nazis whereas Michael Moore sat in the presidential box at the DNC. They should have done more to disassociate. It seems to me, that given the economic conditions of Ohio, that it was ripe to be plucked by the Democrats. I think that if Kerry had disassociated himself from Moore, Eminem types and the far left Hollywood crowd, as well as backing off on "partial birth abortion", moderating his position on federally funded "stem cell research", he would have carried Ohio and thus the presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 however, i have heard reports that in ohio bush got an automatic 4,000 votes on many voting machines. proven y the fact that in one county which was only less than 700 people in population, kerry got like 360votes and bush got more than 4,000 votes. Less than 700 people live in Ohio? That explains the drop in US GNP I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 yeah, well bush should've done more to disassociate with the "swift boat veterins for truth" dumbasses. hey, out of the 200+ veterins for truth, only 1 had ever served with kerry...you want to talk about a smear campaign...i dont think moore hurt the dems, or soros, they got info out there. however, i have heard reports that in ohio bush got an automatic 4,000 votes on many voting machines. proven y the fact that in one county which was only less than 700 people in population, kerry got like 360votes and bush got more than 4,000 votes. hmmmmmm. there SHOULD be an investigation into the FOR PROFIT company which manufactures those voting machines, because they obviously rigged the hell out of them. but whatever, bush won fair and square. just like last election. When Bush was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, he was very clear in saying that he did not approve of the 527's and the swift boat ad's If there was a shred of credible evidence that the machines were "rigged" the responsible democrats would be all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 If there was a shred of credible evidence that the machines were "rigged" the responsible democrats would be all over it. Funny you should mention 'responsible' democrats. Here's a link i found on Michael Moores website. http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=284 As you predicted, they are on the case of the wicked vote rigging conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 That's just.... sad. A radical-left friend of mine sent me an email this morning saying they were renting a billboard along I-95 to show the Iraqi war dead totals and other statistics. I'm reminded of that Tyler Durden line in Fight Club, "How's that working out for you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1dermon Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 hey, atinymonkey, why dont you read my quote again....i seriously hope you're joking...read especially the part that says "one county" thats the interesting twist to your attempted flame job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 r1dermon totally agree with your post.Although it would have been devastating to elect Kerry it should not detract from the points you made.Unfortunately in todays climate Bush was the only logical choice .His thick as cow poo, has no leadership qualities,hence ideal for the military to use as a puppet president.Which i will endorse every single time.It would be suicide to elect a liberal at this moment in time.The world is in the grip of do-goodies,political correctness.And they are too many evil people who have no scrupples in carying out another 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Bush was the only logical choice .His thick as cow poo, People seem to be under the impression that if you repeat a slur enough times that it becomes the truth. People can legitimately oppose Bushs policies and opinions but he isn't actually stupid. Stupid people don't get Masters degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now