The election is over
My Last Post pretty much sums up my feelings, so there isn't MUCH left to be said on how I feel about the results. But there always is some. :)
I am somewhat content that we are not overwhelmed with thoughts of voter fraud after the election, like many people (myself included) thought we would be. That at least saves us from more "reforms".
I have been told by the people I know who in their 20's who voted for Bush that they felt that he has not been a great president and that they acknowledge the points I made in the previous post, but they didn't know what they would get with Kerry. They felt that Kerry needed to layout his plans in the debate. They felt it was not enough to say look on my website for my plans. They did acknowledge that Kerry did more of that than Bush, but they felt Bush didn't have to as they knew what he offerred.
I have read some articles that state that Kerry lost the electoral votes (and consequently the election) because the Unions did not deliver their membership. There is probably a lot to that. The CNN exit polls suggest that Kerry only won the Union vote in ohio 58% to 42% (vs. 61% to 38% national poll totals). 34% of the polled voters in Ohio belonged to a union. The election boiled down to 136K more votes for Bush than Kerry in Ohio. If Ohio union members had matched the national average, Bush would have only had a 6017 vote lead with 155K provisional ballots to count. Kerry probably would have ultimately won the electoral vote and due to our crappy electoral vote system, would have stolen the election.
But I don't want to do anything more than acknowledge the arguement.
Kerry ran a good race. The Republicans did a better job of mobilizing their voters. They won the popular vote by a good margin. The idea that a winning candidate loses the popular vote is just not a defendable democratic concept in this day and age. Today's American doesn't see the need for the electoral college as constituted.
I personally thought Kerry was probably in trouble a few days before the election and that was kinda confirmed for me as soon as I saw the CNN exit poll (around 7:30 PM if I remember correctly) which showed Bush with a couple percent lead and an approval rating with polled voters in the low 50's. A month ago his approval rate was 47%. 50% is the hurdle incumbents have to overcome to be re-elected.
So I knew at that point it would probably still be an uphill battle.
But if you looked at the projections you could see a winning Kerry strategy: win the northest and the pacific coast. That would give an electoral majority. I also thought that Florida had a chance of going for Kerry, but with all the allegations of fraud in Florida prior to the elections, If I were advising the campaign I wouldn't have counted on Florida.
Ultimately from a campaign management standpoint that is one of the few (risky---IMO) tactical decisions that didn't pan out for the Kerry camp. They committed heavily to winning Florida. Bush had to have Florida to have a chance to win. Kerry had to have either Ohio or Florida to have a chance to win. By going for the slam dunk (florida) instead of the layup (ohio) they lost the electoral vote.
Does this mean the Democratic Party has to dramatically evolve to have a shot at future elections? I don't think so. A lot of people have suggested that changes have to happen to make the Democratic Party viable. I disagree. The reality is the gameplan of the northeast and the pacific coast almost got Kerry into the white house and those states are likely to be receptive to Democrats in the future.
I think 2008 will probably be Jeb Bush or John McCain vs. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I hope that McCain would be the Republican candidate, because I think he seems a good candidate, but the Bushs and their friends have a lot of money. I think Hillary Clinton is the favorite for the Democratic nomination, but I think she would have a tough time winning. Too liberal in a more moderate/conservative country. Frankly, I think she might get blindsided by Obama, who already has a reputation as a golden-tongued, natural-born politician. A more dynamic Bill Clinton --- without the warts. A liberal, black Reagan. His star is on the rise and I could see him catch fire during the primaries.
Is America ready to vote for a black candidate?
The Dems might not win the presidency until 2012, but the party can still rebound strongly.
Economically the US is in trouble. The only way Bush seems to know to spur on the economy is to cut taxes. Anyone who has ever played Sim City 2000 knows governments can't borrow money forever ---eventually you have to pay your bills. Once that point is reached, the moderate electorate will swing Dem.
The growth of the Mexican population is promising for future of the Democratic Party, but they sure better woo them again. The religious right is making major inroads there.
Sadly, Roe vs. Wade is almost defintely gone and a draft is likely to come. There will be a depressing number of teenage deaths. I worry about my nephews. I hope they are not drafted and dragged to the middle east to fight for corporate greed. I love them so much. It weighs heavily on my mind.
I am somewhat content that we are not overwhelmed with thoughts of voter fraud after the election, like many people (myself included) thought we would be. That at least saves us from more "reforms".
I have been told by the people I know who in their 20's who voted for Bush that they felt that he has not been a great president and that they acknowledge the points I made in the previous post, but they didn't know what they would get with Kerry. They felt that Kerry needed to layout his plans in the debate. They felt it was not enough to say look on my website for my plans. They did acknowledge that Kerry did more of that than Bush, but they felt Bush didn't have to as they knew what he offerred.
I have read some articles that state that Kerry lost the electoral votes (and consequently the election) because the Unions did not deliver their membership. There is probably a lot to that. The CNN exit polls suggest that Kerry only won the Union vote in ohio 58% to 42% (vs. 61% to 38% national poll totals). 34% of the polled voters in Ohio belonged to a union. The election boiled down to 136K more votes for Bush than Kerry in Ohio. If Ohio union members had matched the national average, Bush would have only had a 6017 vote lead with 155K provisional ballots to count. Kerry probably would have ultimately won the electoral vote and due to our crappy electoral vote system, would have stolen the election.
But I don't want to do anything more than acknowledge the arguement.
Kerry ran a good race. The Republicans did a better job of mobilizing their voters. They won the popular vote by a good margin. The idea that a winning candidate loses the popular vote is just not a defendable democratic concept in this day and age. Today's American doesn't see the need for the electoral college as constituted.
I personally thought Kerry was probably in trouble a few days before the election and that was kinda confirmed for me as soon as I saw the CNN exit poll (around 7:30 PM if I remember correctly) which showed Bush with a couple percent lead and an approval rating with polled voters in the low 50's. A month ago his approval rate was 47%. 50% is the hurdle incumbents have to overcome to be re-elected.
So I knew at that point it would probably still be an uphill battle.
But if you looked at the projections you could see a winning Kerry strategy: win the northest and the pacific coast. That would give an electoral majority. I also thought that Florida had a chance of going for Kerry, but with all the allegations of fraud in Florida prior to the elections, If I were advising the campaign I wouldn't have counted on Florida.
Ultimately from a campaign management standpoint that is one of the few (risky---IMO) tactical decisions that didn't pan out for the Kerry camp. They committed heavily to winning Florida. Bush had to have Florida to have a chance to win. Kerry had to have either Ohio or Florida to have a chance to win. By going for the slam dunk (florida) instead of the layup (ohio) they lost the electoral vote.
Does this mean the Democratic Party has to dramatically evolve to have a shot at future elections? I don't think so. A lot of people have suggested that changes have to happen to make the Democratic Party viable. I disagree. The reality is the gameplan of the northeast and the pacific coast almost got Kerry into the white house and those states are likely to be receptive to Democrats in the future.
I think 2008 will probably be Jeb Bush or John McCain vs. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I hope that McCain would be the Republican candidate, because I think he seems a good candidate, but the Bushs and their friends have a lot of money. I think Hillary Clinton is the favorite for the Democratic nomination, but I think she would have a tough time winning. Too liberal in a more moderate/conservative country. Frankly, I think she might get blindsided by Obama, who already has a reputation as a golden-tongued, natural-born politician. A more dynamic Bill Clinton --- without the warts. A liberal, black Reagan. His star is on the rise and I could see him catch fire during the primaries.
Is America ready to vote for a black candidate?
The Dems might not win the presidency until 2012, but the party can still rebound strongly.
Economically the US is in trouble. The only way Bush seems to know to spur on the economy is to cut taxes. Anyone who has ever played Sim City 2000 knows governments can't borrow money forever ---eventually you have to pay your bills. Once that point is reached, the moderate electorate will swing Dem.
The growth of the Mexican population is promising for future of the Democratic Party, but they sure better woo them again. The religious right is making major inroads there.
Sadly, Roe vs. Wade is almost defintely gone and a draft is likely to come. There will be a depressing number of teenage deaths. I worry about my nephews. I hope they are not drafted and dragged to the middle east to fight for corporate greed. I love them so much. It weighs heavily on my mind.
posted by The Tobidian at 3:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home