Two questions arising from the 2004 results

[Vykromond]

The Democrats have lost Election 2004 with an even greater margin than the hit they took in Election 2002. Even setting the Presidential race aside, there have been several congressional seats lost by the Democrats this year. All of these were close races, but the fact remains that the Democrats have slipped significantly. EDIT: I forgot to mention, for those of you who haven't heard, Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle is out, replaced by John Thoom (R). So regardless of whether the Democrats want to change or not, looks like they're gonna have to.

At this point, let's ask ourselves two questions. One is a 20/20 hindsight sort of question, fun and retarded just like all hindsight calls. The other is much more interesting.

1) (PRESIDENTIAL QUESTION) Would the other Democratic primary candidates have done better than Kerry?
2) (POLITICAL QUESTION) Where does the Democratic party go from here?

[Galleleo]

Didnt you mean 2000?

Anyways, i think anyone within that party would have done better then Kerry. They need to find them a new clinton.

[Vykromond]

No, I meant the midterm congressional elections in 2002.

[Galleleo]

ok, didnt know about those. continue as you were.

[Nickname]

1) (PRESIDENTIAL QUESTION) Would the other Democratic primary candidates have done better than Kerry?
2) (POLITICAL QUESTION) Where does the Democratic party go from here?

1) Reverend Al Sharpton. He was the most well spoken, most intellectual, best candidate they could have choosen. He only had one problem, he is black.

2)I think Hilary is going to run in 08. Thats why she didn't leave Bill (doesn't want a divorce on the record) I think she could help reboudn the democrats but by 08 she'll be even older and may not run based on age


a few fun quotes i've heard recently.

"the election isn't over for 11 days. Thats how long it takes for ohio to count little pieces of paper."

"They should elect presidents by having a monkey spin a giant wheel with the candidates face on them. That way Nader would have a chance!"

[Nickname]

Oh and America clearly showed they want the repubs by having them control everything but my underpants.

edit: oh, assuming hilary runs in 08, i'd say that edwards will run in 12.

[PUNK rock]

1.) Probably not.

2.) They need to find fresh new faces, such as the Obama guy from Illinois, to run for office.


And Ohio is not the next Florida, we can count just fine. The only problem with Ohio is there was enough turnout in the gun totting hillybilly category to offeset the votes of the intelligent people.

[Nickname]

Thats the spirit.

Demos do have good up and comers -- Barrock Obama clearly is as he crushed the other guy (you know, the one who ran in a state he said he would never run in, that guy) and Edwards (who clearly is the face of tomorrows Democratic President, it's only a guess if it will be 4 years from now or 8)

My best guess is that it's clinton in 08, Edwards in 12 and 16. Obama in never (he's black)

[GoldenPlums]

Just my opinion, but the democrats should really have had this election in the bag. It was there for the taking but they've fucked it up. Kerry just isn't very inspiring. When he's speaking he may mean what he says but he comes across as not being very confident about it. At least when Bush says something, however dumb, you know he actually believes in it.

Kerry's best bet was to play the-i'm smarter, better informed and have better judgement-card and distance himself from Bush. But you have Kerry going around campaigning saying dumb things like "we're gonna hunt and kill the terrorists" almost as much as Bush. If you listen to Clinton talking about terrorism, whether you like him or not, you know he's a smart guy and has a pretty good understanding of what makes the world tick. In the latest rallies there wasn't much difference between Bush or Kerry's rhetoric so you may as well vote for the guy you know best. Kerry's advisors should be shown the door and beaten-up on the way out.

[bloodzombie]

1) (PRESIDENTIAL QUESTION) Would the other Democratic primary candidates have done better than Kerry?
2) (POLITICAL QUESTION) Where does the Democratic party go from here?

I think Howard Dean would've done better if it wasn't for that one incident that got blown out of proportion.

Nick... al sharpton is a freak

The truth is, a huge amount of people vote on how they feel about the person when they see him talk, or they pick one issue (which they sometimes don't even know much about) and vote on that. Kerry just wasn't good looking enough, and he seemed a little bit like Lurch.

[Vykromond]

But that's the thing, BZ. Dean was way too young, way too emotional, way too liberal, way too smart, way too assertive for the same electorate that ended up burying Kerry under "character judgments" and "moral qualms."

I think it should have been Clark.

[Pandagirl!]

The only problem with Ohio is there was enough turnout in the gun totting hillybilly category to offeset the votes of the intelligent people.

Are you calling my parents ignorant hillybillies?

[Vykromond]

Pandagirl89, I'm begging you right now not to tar this thread with your brush.

[Nickname]

you know what, Edwards will be 08 and 12. Hilary will run but will lose the primaries, because they'd never be dumb enough to put a woman in the presidential race. I stick with my Obama preds, he'll never get elected either.

[PUNK rock]

Obama has the best chance out of any colored or female person to win the primaries if people realize that he is a highly intelligent person and disregard the racial stereotypes. Oh shit, there's my youthful naivness coming out again.

Clark might have done better, but then again he lacks real political experience.