Why Kerry's Going To Lose

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

18 Sep 2004, 11:36 PM
MVS

I don't need an automatic rifle. Zombies are naturally slow, and, with my new hi-capacity mags, folding stock, and LaserAim Dot Sights, I'm not likely to miss more than 30 times per Zombie.
18 Sep 2004, 11:51 PM
burgundy

Quote:

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

do the vast majority of countries that refine weapons grade plutonium not use it for collection purposes?

When was the last time a plutonium bomb was detonated?

Out of all the plutonium bombs on Earth, what percentage of them have been detonated?
20 Sep 2004, 04:48 AM
Fe 26

Quote:

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Firearm Related Homicides
Australia: 0.56
USA: 6.24

Firearm Related Suicides
Australia: 2.38
USA: 7.23

Accidental Death by Firearms
Australia: 0.11
USA: 0.58

Total Gun Deaths
Australia: 3.05
USA: 14.05

In "kangaroo land" we use our guns to kill kangaroos, not each other.

Once again the US out does the auzies.

But anyway, those stats don't mean much on their own.

Was there a increase in other types of crime related deaths? Like did people start using knives and bats to get the job done? What was the over all murder rate? Did it stay the same, or did it drop? How big is each nations lower middle and poor class in regards to the rest of the population?
20 Sep 2004, 01:19 PM
Calliander

Really good article detailing Kerry's problems by a fairly staunch Dem op-ed for the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/op...erbert.html?hp

Quote:

Originally Posted by NY Times

Waiting for the Candidate to Emerge
By BOB HERBERT

Published: September 20, 2004

I had a feeling John Kerry was in trouble when, coming out of the primaries, voters kept saying they were for him because he could win. It was clear that many voters had cast primary ballots for Mr. Kerry not because they liked him, or because they felt strongly about his positions on the issues, or because they were drawn to his compelling vision of a better future for the United States and the world, but simply because they felt he was capable of beating George W. Bush.

History tells us you need more of a rationale than that to win the White House. The best candidates offer the electorate not just something, but someone, to believe in. Describing the aftermath of Harry Truman's remarkable triumph over Thomas E. Dewey in 1948, the biographer David McCullough wrote:

"To such staunch Truman loyalists as Sam Rayburn and George Marshall, to the weary White House staff workers who had been with him all the way, there was never any question as to why Truman won. He had done it by being himself, never forgetting who he was, and by getting to the people in his own fashion."

Who is John Kerry? He doesn't seem to want to let on. More than anything else, he presents himself as someone who fought in Vietnam. But that was more than 30 years ago. Who is he now?

A longtime Democratic operative recently complained, "He's not displaying a moral center, or showing us a philosophical foundation. For him, it's all about tactics."

Mr. Kerry has suffered recently in the polls primarily because of his reluctance to put his authentic self on display. He's run a cautious, soulless campaign so far, saying only the things he thinks he should, and shadow boxing instead of really mixing it up, as if he were afraid, as Bonnie Raitt once memorably sang, "to throw a punch that might land."

If Mr. Kerry has a message, he's garbled it pretty badly. If he's passionate about anything, he's kept it to himself. George Adair, a 50-year-old Democrat from Alabama who responded to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll, was succinct on this point: "I don't feel I have a clear enough picture of Mr. Kerry's agenda."

There is a hunger in America for change. Doubts are rising daily about the fiasco in Iraq. There is a sense that the threat of a terrorist attack in the U.S. may be increasing rather than receding. Economic insecurity remains high.

I believe American voters would exchange George W. Bush for a first-rate Democratic candidate in a heartbeat. More than 50 percent of the poll respondents believed the country was headed in the wrong direction. But the poll also showed that regardless of how the respondents intended to vote, 61 percent believed Mr. Bush would win in November.

Mr. Kerry has only a few weeks to turn things around. Nearly everyone who thinks the Bush administration has been a disaster for the United States is rooting for him. Sort of. More precisely, they are rooting for Mr. Bush to lose. And this, I think, is Mr. Kerry's fundamental problem.

He was selected by Democratic voters because they thought he could beat the president. But he has yet to exhibit the warmth or political savvy necessary to fully energize potential supporters and achieve that victory. An overly cerebral campaign fronted by a candidate too inhibited to blow the whistle on the insanity surrounding us is a big-time recipe for defeat.

John Kerry needs to make a stronger emotional connection with voters, and he won't be able to do that without revealing more of what he truly feels and believes - in other words, more of himself.

Voters may want change, but they don't want to step into the unknown. The race is still close enough for Mr. Kerry to prevail, and there are debates coming up. But time is short.

The No. 1 issue facing the United States is the war in Iraq. Senator Kerry intends to address that issue again this week. If he tries to finesse it, if he tries to play hawk and dove at the same time, if he fails to draw convincingly a clear and distinct line between his approach to this great tragic misadventure and that of the Bush administration, he might as well fold his campaign tents and go home.

Senator Kerry said over the weekend that he was ready to step up his campaign effort, that he was in a "fighting mood.'' We'll see.

Leadership at times requires great courage. John Kerry has not yet closed the deal with voters who are dissatisfied with President Bush. He may find, in the final weeks of this campaign, that the most important quality he can draw upon is the courage to be himself.

Herbert's been pretty much bashing Bush all year, but this is a really good piece (and it was alongside another great Safire one, too). I saw, over the weekend, that Kerry was jabbering about Bush having some secret plan to call up troops and I just shook my head - it's over for him.

Speaking of that Safire piece, he really ought to run Kerry's campaign for him, because he, too, hit the nail on the head.
20 Sep 2004, 01:32 PM
g0zen

Kerry's bringing out the big guns now: Joe Lockhart and Mike McCurry. These guys are both very intelligent, brilliant strategists, and respected Clinton alumni who I think are really going to help propel the Kerry campaign forward. Lockhart especially is a prize fighter when it comes to politicking.
20 Sep 2004, 01:47 PM
Diff-chan

The problem is as much the candidate as the strategy, though. He's a ridiculously terrible candidate. His inconsistent message on Iraq and his voting record made him an open target for defining - the Republicans defined him early on and he has, sadly and pathetically, played to that definition with his high-brow vacationing in Idaho and Nantucket Bay and his baffling refusal to take a stand in Iraq.

I think Kerry is now realizing that large, huge swathes of the population just dont like him - even people who are planning to vote for him dont like him. I read he is going to try to make himself out to be a more likable person. This is good, but he should've done in 3 months ago. His focus on Vietnam has been an unequivocal disaster. Now he is pushing into Howard Dean like attacks which are going to finish him off once and for all. I think, though, when he loses it will probably be all of the Vietnam, "Reporting for Duty" shit that will be cited as the main cause.

I think right now his only hope is to make a firm stand on Iraq, and lay out what he plans to do, and let the chips fall where they may. Anything else is too little.
20 Sep 2004, 01:54 PM
g0zen

Everyone is painting this election as an easy win for G.W. Bush already when it clearly isn't. I'm sadly reminded of a similiar situation in '01 when Gore's numbers showed an increase and everyone began calling the election in his favor then and there, and we all know how that turned out (all conspiracy theories valid or otherwise notwithstanding). I'm going to hold calling this election either way until the debates. Dean made the point to Bill Maher that Kerry really shines when the pressure is on and is good about keeping his cool. If he can get Bush to crumble in the debates this time like he did against Gore I think the American people will take notice.
20 Sep 2004, 01:59 PM
dave is ok

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I think, though, when he loses it will probably be all of the Vietnam, "Reporting for Duty" shit that will be cited as the main cause.

I think right now his only hope is to make a firm stand on Iraq, and lay out what he plans to do, and let the chips fall where they may. Anything else is too little.

True and true. I am so perplexed why, to a public that by and large has forgot about Vietnam, he would call it upon our collective memory so much. WHAT A FUCKING RETARD. He wasnt a viewed as a war hero (although three purple hearts in four months would suggest that he had his shoelaces untied the whole time he was there), he was viewed as a fucking traitor, someone who ratted on the army when he got back, and made plenty of other real heroes get spit on upon leaving the plane back to the their respective hometowns. I'm officially taking 'conspiracy theory' as the overwhelming reason that Kerry got the nod, there wasnt just one person better for the job then him, there were many. But the dems knew that the only way that Hilary Clinton, (or any woman, for that matter) would be elected in 2008, is if the Republicans were to fuck America up for another four years, add another couple thousand to the death toll in Iraq, and Kerry was the perfect man to take the fall, perfectly unlikeable, even to die-hard Bush haters like myself.
20 Sep 2004, 02:00 PM
Diff-chan

g0zen, I hear what youre saying but if you dont think that Kerry is in a downward spiral right now youre delusional. Take New Jersey. Gore won that state in 2000 by 16 points. Right now, polls in New Jersey are all saying Bush is ahead by 4+ points. And dont say its because of a post-convention bounce, either. The RNC was almost a month ago and all the polls in this state have been pretty consistent lately. This is crazy shit and if I was a member of the DNC I would be shitting my pants now.

From what I heard, the Kerry campaign has already given up on Missouri and Arizona and is scaling back TV commercials. Just look here and surf a bit.

Kerry's Dean-esque attacks really speak of desperation. There's only six weeks left before the election and with every passing day his chances grow slimmer. Rathergate was a real disaster for him because (A) the documents were so obviously phony, and (B) CBS continued to drag it out, which kept it in the news for all this time.

As for the debates... did you read/hear the Imus interview? For all intents and purposes Imus buried him. And Imus is a staunch Democrat! I saw MTV News ask Kerry a simple question and he dragged it out and poofed and wheezed and spoke polispeak and didnt answer the question.

When MTV News and Don Imus are owning you with softball questions... youre in trouble. Big trouble.
20 Sep 2004, 02:28 PM
g0zen

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

g0zen, I hear what youre saying but if you dont think that Kerry is in a downward spiral right now youre delusional. Take New Jersey. Gore won that state in 2000 by 16 points. Right now, polls in New Jersey are all saying Bush is ahead by 4+ points. And dont say its because of a post-convention bounce, either. The RNC was almost a month ago and all the polls in this state have been pretty consistent lately. This is crazy shit and if I was a member of the DNC I would be shitting my pants now.

Ironically, here in Tennessee the opposite could prove to be true. Bush is making the same mistake here that Gore made in '01, he thinks he's got TN locked up so he isn't campaigning here as hard. It's causing a slow but steady erosion of his lead here, and by the time of the general election I'm predicting the polls will be tied if not in Kerry's favor. I think we can expect just as many surprises this year as we had in the last election. I certainly don't think it's a lost cause for Kerry by any means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Rathergate was a real disaster for him because (A) the documents were so obviously phony, and (B) CBS continued to drag it out, which kept it in the news for all this time.

This has been blown way out of proportion by the right. If anything, this is CBS and Dan Rather's lump of shit to hold, not Kerrys. I can see this maybe strengthening Bush's base who buy into the whole 'liberal media' conspiracy, but I don't think it'll have too much of an effect with the moderate swing voters. Of course, I could be completely wrong. The American public is nothing if not unpredictable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

When MTV News and Don Imus are owning you with softball questions... youre in trouble. Big trouble.

And yet, can you deny he's still a better speaker than Bush? I think these debates are going to really highlight the ability of both Kerry and Edwards. I personally think when people see John Edwards go up against Dick Cheney it'll have an effect with some voters, especially here in the south. I only wish they'd allow Edwards to debate Bush, because that would be nothing short of a massacre perhaps too graphic for public television.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page