After Kerry loses

The Coffee Shop
1

…the democrats are going to do some soul searching and wondering aloud; 'What could we have done to get more votes and win?"

Some enterprising Kerry Campaign strategist will write a book that asks and tries to answer that question. I would like to help out in advance because I love democrats the same way I love my own children; Democrats have got to stop acting like a bunch of pussies. Spending 50% of your campaign time and resources pandering to 13% of the population is bad math. There’s no such thing as “tax cuts for the rich”. A fair tax system does not make wealthy people poor, it helps everyone achieve wealth. Spending 100% of your time talking about
“voters rights” and -0-% of your time talking about ‘voters responsibilities’ is bad math. Military “diversions” that keep the Americas enemies from having the time, and resources to attack us are a good thing.

I’m sure theres much more, but that’s all I’ve got for time for now.

Anyone on the left or right got anything to add? They’ll need at least until 2008 to unlearn all the stupid shit they’ve been doing for the last 35 years.

3

The problem is that the candidates that held those views can’t make it out of the primary.

I don’t know how you solve that problem unless all the states hold their primaries on the same day.
I think that is huge right there. Could you imagine if the general election was held like the primaries, on different days? I really feel that the only reason John Kerry is the Demomcratic candidate is because he won the first primary convincingly, and after that a lot of people were swayed to continue voting for the winner. Do you folks remember the Democratic debates? Howard Dean demolished everybody. Kerry sounded like a weenie. Dean was the only candidate that actually answered the questions that were asked of him AND he was able to tie it up within the alloted time. Now, if the election for the president was held over a month or two, starting in California I think Kerry would likely dominate, while if Texas was the first to vote Bush would likely dominate. Of course, if it started in Florida it would never end and the Bush dynasty would continue on until we spiraled into the depths of hell :wink:

5

Hate to agree with you RB, but you have the problem right. I don’t like the solution though.

The real solution is much more subtle. Gerrymandering. We have a Congress that basically doesn’t have elections. The reason is that we have districts which are mostly left wing or right wing wackos, so the Congressmen just have to appeal to the lunatics. The Democrats to their crazies, and the Republicans to theirs. Partisianship is the direct result, since no one has to compromise or appeal to the center to get elected. Add judicial activism to the mix causing partisian battles over judges, and you create the mess we now have in our politics.

It was only 20 odd years ago that Reagan got his tax cuts passed with the support of Democrats. That concept is inconceivable now.

The Republicans went through their enlightenment in the wake of the Goldwater election. I don’t understand why the same thing doesn’t happen to the Democrats. I was hoping the Democrats would nominate Dean this time. He would have stood for all the Democratic Party ideals, been honest about them, and gotten crushed. A new Democratic Party might have been reborn from the ashes. The country is best served with two responsible parties, not one.

I don’t see Kerry triggering that process if he loses, since he stands for nothing.

Don’t kid yourself. It is by no means certain that he will lose.

6

After Kerry loses… and the Packer win… oh… I forgot they lost

Just joking… but, no way is this election over… Hell… it probably won’t be over on Nov 2nd for that matter.

I don’t think this election will be no more decisive than when Bush was elected in the first place.

If Kerry wins, he will probably find himself in the same position as Bush. And, chances are he will be making the same foreign decisions with a better chance of succeeding… but, then again… maybe not.

I guess the short and long of this election is this… it is coming down to a polarized constituant based on different priorities established by the voters. Some see the war as more imporatant than domestic issues… others don’t.

If anything, this election will at least be more representative of more voters choices. If Bush continues to assert himself as a president who doesn’t realise this fact of a polarization of the population, then he will be doomed to succeed at the expense of the moderates. This will serve to only alienate those in the middle. And, that is a strategy that will not sustain itself in the long run and could damage the Republican party on a more grander scale (I think Senator Cain understands this better than anyone).

Democrats aren’t acting like a bunch of pussies… but, I do think they need to get their balls out that jar they been keeping up on a shelf. And, if Kerry wins… I’d be the first one to say they found that jar.

… Spending 50% of your capaign time pandering to 13% of the population is what is commonly called politics of the special interests… if your interested in this or that candidate… then your special.

… I agree there is no such thing as a tax cut for the rich (image that, a politician lieing - the horror)… there was a tax cut for everyone. It just so happens that the rich pay more taxes… so, they got a bigger return in “real” dollar terms. Sorta’ of a everyone is created equal… just some more equal than other’s sort of thing.

… voter rights vs. responsibilty seems to be a tough nut to crack and it has little to do with math. All I can say is that base on the number of new voter’s registeration numbers… I’d have to say that there are more going to exercise that right and that makes them responsible. This is a good thing… more voices makes for a more representative form of government. A concept defined in the very form of representative government we have. So… I have not problem with anyone talking about voter rights OR voter responsibilities. Only those who wish to limit the freedom of choice have problems with either of those issues - voter rights or voter responsibilities.

Military diversions in Iraq I assume… this is an OK concept… however, it is assuming we needed the diversion in the first place. No one will every know the answer to this question… Iraq may or may not have been the terrorist hot bed that was thought before the invasion. But, one thing for sure… it is definately one now.

FWIW Joe Moya