What's up with the Kerry supporters still?

[Sheriff Lytton]

...Remember, the average voter is Joe Sixpack, and the Dems, who did so well talking to Joe in 1992 and 1996, didn't get it done this time.

An excellent point Cail. You're right - Kerry and his team allowed Bush to define the debate from the word go. I was stunned watching what a poor campaign Kerry ran, because Bush was effectively a sitting duck.

And your point about the intelligence of the electorate is well made too. The sort of person you're likely to find posting on here is not Joe Sixpack. But Joe Sixpack outnumbers Joe ThinkTank big time - and until the Democrats remember that they need to field a candidate with charisma who appeals to the lowest common denominator, they're not going to win any elections no matter how badly the opposition screws up.

Maybe next time they might just pick someone a little more animated than John "Pinnochio" Kerry.

[High Lord Tolkien]

And your point about the intelligence of the electorate is well made too. The sort of person you're likely to find posting on here is not Joe Sixpack. But Joe Sixpack outnumbers Joe ThinkTank big time - and until the Democrats remember that they need to field a candidate with charisma who appeals to the lowest common denominator, they're not going to win any elections no matter how badly the opposition screws up.

Nice.
I'm not shur waht you done just said, Sheriff but it done sound like gross generalization ta me.

Keep talking like that though!
I can't wait to see the Democratic Party self destruct embracing thinking like that.

[ChoChiyo]

Did I misread the Good Sheriff's post?

I thought what he was saying was that the Democrats lost the election because they erred in overestimating the intelligence of the average voter and that they should appeal to the ignorant masses with more gusto next time--as BUSH appealed to the ignorant masses with his "shucks, I'm just a born again, good ol' boy--god bless Mericka! Pass the apple pie."

Not sure how that translates to the Democratic party self-destructing....

The biggest "error" John Kerry made was not stooping to the level of the smear campaign the Republicans ran. Nothing unusual about that tactic. They will viciously pursue something JUST to hoodwink the American public even when it's been proven again and again that there is absolutely NO SMOKE--let alone fire (whitewater).

Perhaps if Kerry had run a less honorable campaign, sent out pamphlets stating that Bush was the antiChrist (as Bush's camp sent out pamphlets in the Bible belt proclaiming that Kerry would "Outlaw the Bible"), he would have had a better chance.

But then, a voter like myself would lose all respect for him.

It is hard to live in a culture that embraces ignorance.

But, we are stuck with it.

The next democratic candidate will have a fine line to walk between maintaining his (or her) personal honor, and waging the kind of campaign (um...reality TV based?) that apparently appeals to a significant number of American voters.

[Cail]

Uhhh yeah, my point was that Joe Sixpack is the typical voter on both sides of the aisle, and that the GOP has done a much better job of mobilizing that voter.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Did I misread the Good Sheriff's post?

I thought what he was saying was that the Democrats lost the election because they erred in overestimating the intelligence of the average voter and that they should appeal to the ignorant masses with more gusto next time--as BUSH appealed to the ignorant masses with his "shucks, I'm just a born again, good ol' boy--god bless Mericka! Pass the apple pie."

Thank you for reinforcing my point!
You and the Sheriff both say that the Democrats lost the election because the "average voter" was too stupid and voted for Bush.

I've been hearing this from most Democrats since Kerry lost.

Telling people that they are stupid is not a good way to draw them into your party.

[Cail]

Telling people that they are stupid is not a good way to draw them into your party.

Yup, and it fuels the "Leftist Elite" label that has stuck to the party.

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

Yup, and it fuels the "Leftist Elite" label that has stuck to the party.

Which is the biggest load of crap ever. But you're right; again, a testament to the abilities of the GOP political thinkers.

Frankly, what the Democratic party must do is do something that the GOP has been doing very effectively lately - and that is mobilize the middle. The problem is, Washington congressmen have become too out of touch with average voters and too in-tune with big-wig partisan politics, that they are having a tough time appealing to these masses.

Part of what, I think, former Governor Bush did such a good of was appealing to these people, while still being a surprisingly astute and intelligent politician.

Senator Kerry's loss in the 2004 election was, IMO, a blow to America, but the Democratic party will be back, and the Republicans will not always control Washington as some conservatives seem to be thinking.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Frankly, what the Democratic party must do is do something that the GOP has been doing very effectively lately - and that is mobilize the middle. The problem is, Washington congressmen have become too out of touch with average voters and too in-tune with big-wig partisan politics, that they are having a tough time appealing to these masses.

But what does "mobilize" mean?
Is it a gift of some kind?
Giving something to the middle?
Or is it an issue that appeals to the middle.
Can a party create an issue or is it just a matter of saying what a Party is about in hopes that others will sign on to those values?

Can both Repubs and Dems look to their Parties positions at a glance to see what direction they will go towards and what they are against?
Is that the convention platform we hear about so much during the conventions?
I have no idea but I would like to check it out and see how close I really am to the Republican ideas.

[Lord Mhoram]

HLT,

By "mobilizing" I mean the party gets these voters to get out and vote for them.

[High Lord Tolkien]

HLT,

By "mobilizing" I mean the party gets these voters to get out and vote for them.

(LM, I'm not trying to trip you up or trick you since we both know our political views. I'm just trying to understand the general process)

So it's assumed that there are large amounts of voters out there that belong to a Party but they just don't have the motivation to vote?
Motivating or mobilizing them must involve some kind of issue then like anti-Bush or anti-taxes.
Something that effects them enough to vote.

Did the Dems fail because they didn't get the message out?
Or the message they had didn't appeal to the voters?

I'm thinking since the enormous amount to money that went into both campaigns that it's the message not the messenger that is at fault.

[ChoChiyo]

Thank you for reinforcing my point!
You and the Sheriff both say that the Democrats lost the election because the "average voter" was too stupid and voted for Bush.

I've been hearing this from most Democrats since Kerry lost.

Telling people that they are stupid is not a good way to draw them into your party.

Well, I won't comment on whether or not a shoe would fit, but there is a huge difference between calling someone stupid and calling them ignorant.

If I may:

ignorant

Lacking education or knowledge.
Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
Unaware or uninformed.


stupid

Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

Ignornat is a synonym for uninformed but with the HOPE of becoming informed.

stupid refers to a biological lack of ability to learn.

Perhaps it is semantically unattractive, but it is in essence exactly what Cail said.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a vocabulary lesson.



NOTE: Definitions come directly from Dictionary.com, and are not my own interpretations of the terms.

Thank you, post again.

[Lord Mhoram]

HLT,

So it's assumed that there are large amounts of voters out there that belong to a Party but they just don't have the motivation to vote?
Motivating or mobilizing them must involve some kind of issue then like anti-Bush or anti-taxes.
Something that effects them enough to vote.

Did the Dems fail because they didn't get the message out?
Or the message they had didn't appeal to the voters?

I'm thinking since the enormous amount to money that went into both campaigns that it's the message not the messenger that is at fault.

Well, yes there are voters from both parties that don't have the motivation to vote. But notice I said "middle: I'm referring to the average, Independent-registered voter. 31% of Americans are Democrats, 30% are Republicans, the rest are Independents and 3rd-party.

The Democrats failed because, even though I think they had one of their largest turnouts ever, the Republicans obviously appealed to more of the middle. That's my point.

To win the election, you don't need the far-right or the far-left. You need the middle-of-the-ground voters.

[ChoChiyo]

Don't forget that the Democrats did not pander to homophobia and the (false) assertion that "godless secular humanists" were going to be burning Bibles in the streets.

I don't know what the Kerry machine could have done to combat that nonsense without stooping to the same pathetic level.

It is an interesting question. What CAN you do to combat a foe that (falsely) accuses you of planning to seize Bibles and burn them--implying that your ability to be a Christian will be destroyed if the godless humanistic democratic party comes into power?

[High Lord Tolkien]

HLT,

To win the election, you don't need the far-right or the far-left. You need the middle-of-the-ground voters.

Which come from middle-of-the-ground issues too.
I think that's were the Dems failed.
A Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman type of Dem would have swept the day, imho.

[Lord Mhoram]

ChoChiyo,

The people afraid of liberal Bible-burners are far-right. President Bush appealed to the middle guy.

edit: HLT,

Why is everyone convinced that the problem was Senator Kerry? I disagree. And btw, Senator Zell Miller is a boob.

[High Lord Tolkien]

NOTE: Definitions come directly from Dictionary.com, and are not my own interpretations of the terms.

I see you know and practice this one too:

condescending

2. To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.

Have a nice day!

[High Lord Tolkien]

And btw, Senator Zell Miller is a boob.

I love this guy.
I'm going to pick up his book when it comes out in paperback (I'm cheap.)
His speach at the NRC was electrifying to me.
I wish more public speakers were like that.

I can't stand most of the speeches that I hear today.
So canned.
bla bla bla..........

Bush is the worst though.
It pains me to hear him speak. [insert sarcastic retort here]
He was so much better when he spoke off the cuff, grammer errors and all.
He's been so beaten up in the press about it that all we hear is the same old same old over and over again.
JUST TALK LIKE A REAL PERSON DAMN-IT! [insert sarcastic retort here]

[ChoChiyo]

NOTE: Definitions come directly from Dictionary.com, and are not my own interpretations of the terms.

I see you know and practice this one too:

condescending

2. To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.

Have a nice day!

Heh heh heh

No one can make you feel inferior without your permission.

[ChoChiyo]

ChoChiyo,

The people afraid of liberal Bible-burners are far-right. President Bush appealed to the middle guy.

Hmmm....well, in my neck of the woods, the majority of people "in the middle" WERE the religious nuts or the super patriots. Of course I do live in the anus of the known universe.

[Lord Mhoram]

ChoChiyo,

You bring up a good point. In my geographic area, most people are liberal anyway, so of course we have different perspectives on what the "middle" is.

It's probably different across the country.