Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (22179)	11/4/2004 12:32:57 PM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

In effect, are you saying that Clinton (Southern Governor) wasn't a Democratic victory ? So the DLC Democratic Leadership Conference - the pro-business Dems, lead by Bill Clinton - aren't really democratic ?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (22179)	11/4/2004 12:37:13 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Ed, I thought this summarized the Kerry candidacy pretty well, and some of it went to the Friedman "let's vote for the real heir to GHWB stuff." Kerry ran a high-risk "biography candidacy" based on a four-month period 35 years ago. His contrasting silence about his nearly 20 Senate years echoed. He was an anomalous kind of challenger. The most important changes he promised would be either restorations or resistances. That is, he campaigned as the candidate of complacency, albeit a curdled, backward-looking complacency. Regarding foreign policy, he promised to turn the clock back, to the alliance-centered foreign policy before the intrusion of the "nuisance" of terrorism. Regarding domestic policy, he promised to stop the clock, preventing any forward movement on entitlement reform to cope with the baby boomers' retirements. Oh well. Your description of the campaign teams is interesting: GWB somehow fielded a super team. Kerry with all his money and 527s and George Soros and Hollywood was somehow an amateur operation? Bush had the bully pulpit? Yes, but also 4 years as a sitting target for the left. Bully pulpit didn't help Jimmy Carter much, except against Ted Chappaquiddick Kennedy. This is your most telling paragraph, but more about the liberals, and you, than the way things are: "They [pundits] seem to think that the Democrats must move toward whatever it is that the southern whites find acceptable. It's a dumb idea because the democrats can only accomplish that by changing into something they see as backwards and ignorant, or by pretending." I assume you are not from the South and haven't spend much time in any southern or southwestern state. This is so close to why Republicans and many, many swing voters have such a hard time with the Liberals--this incredible sanctimonious, superior attitude. Backwards, ignorant, dumb & white. Nice touch. Also, you seem to imply that anyone who voted against these "gay marriage" proposals is somehow homophobic. Nicer touch. As I noted with Katie Couric, she was almost aghast that people who were religious should have their votes counted (yet Michael Moore's Get Out the Slacker Vote--Vote then have a Beer was seen as something entirely worthy, a great civics lesson). Bush's election while closer than it should be, bears some more analysis. Look closely at the actual % margins in the red and blue states. Bush carried 249 electoral votes by margins of 5% or more. He took Nevada by 3% and Ohio by 2%. Kerry carried only 183 electoral votes by a margin of 5% or more. This does not bode well for the Democrats in the future, not with Terry McAuliffe at the helm and lame/dead duck Slick behind the scenes as a fleeting memory. Reminds me of living in Spain, even in the 1970s, they constantly hankered for those lost days of empire, just a mere 200 years ago. I'm rooting for Hillary to get the nod in 2008. Anybody got a stack of 1988 post election maps around? electionprojection.com Kb