Yup. That is the nature of persuasive communication, sales pitch, promotion...what ever you want to call it. I still get surprised and how many people don't understand that in competition, being 'fair and equal' is still only going to happen as a tactical maneuver NOT an altruistic gesture.Technopunk said:I personally feel that was done on both sides.
In the immediate term, the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is likely to be between those on the left led by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (news - web sites), who will argue that the party needs to sharpen its differences with Republicans, and those who would like to see the party find a way to appeal again to middle class and rural voters who appear to have written the party off.
Phoenix44 said:Oh, and one more thing. Take note of the fact that this election was not a landslide...it was a dead heat the whole time, and it was won by a few percentage points. A relatively unknown challenger took nearly half the popular vote from a powerful and well connected incumbent.
That hardly indicates that "Democrats do not appeal to the middle class." It means that Bush had a few percentage points more than Kerry. This is a severely polarized country.
Ender said:Which is a further indictment of the Democratic Party. They framed this election on a referendum 'for or against' Bush. Not on what the Democratic Party stands for. They kept hammering away on what Bush did or didn't do, said or didn't say. Kerry kept saying "I have a plan", but he never really articulated what the plans were. I still contend they need to get back to what JFK stood for and his vision , instead of serving special interests, if they want to get power back.
Technopunk said:regardless of your feelings twords Bush...
Can you really generalize everyone who voted for the man as "Ignorant"?
Isnt that just as bad as saying anyone who voted for Kerry is a Dope smoking Hippie?
First - where in the world do you get that number (75%)? Please do not tell me the exit polls that were wrong in every possible way. The implication is most that voted for Bush were lured by false pretenses - I reject that argument (I am sure if we did a comprehensive analysis of the 'average voter', some on both sides maybe misinformed about some salient issue). The fear, lies and Haliburton garbage were analized, weighed and ultimately rejected by 57+M US citizens. The opposition candidate had months and months and did a good job and came very close to winning. The Presidency is an all or nothing event and the lies, fear and oil barons won fair and square. The empire will survive and in 4 short years we get to do it all over again.heretic888 said:I don't think the attitude is that ALL Bush supporters are "ignorant" (whatever you believe this to mean), but rather, that a significant majority (around the 75% margin, I believe) of those that voted for Bush on Election Day did so on false premises.
It is no secret that this administration won the election through a campaign of fear, duplicity, and misinformation --- as well as bringing up a lot of relatively unimportant side issues that would attract "values voters" to the polls.
The ends justify the means, I guess. :idunno: