Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
I'm not arguing that Bush has a mandate or not, because it apparently doesn't ultimately matter, but I do think it's foolish to argue that just because Kerry also got a shitload of votes, in an election where a shitload of votes were cast anyway(for a change) can be considered evidence of much.
|
I think it remains relevant when discussing the amount of voters who turned out. It also seems that this time around (for obvious reasons), Bush supporters want to talk a lot about the popular vote. I don't think it's fair to say that over 50 million Americans simply closed their eyes and voted for the guy who wasn't Bush. I know plenty of them did, but I think it's certainly more complicated than that.
Again, I think Kerry speaks in Senate garble that never translated very well amongst the public. But the man wasn't a terrible candidate, and his performance supports that. He lost, yes. But once again, this was no landslide, no mandate, and my only concern is that the GOP will take a close victory and turn it into an excuse to go carte blanche.
Quote:
|
I think a lot of people ended up voting ABK. Anybody but Kerry. The Democrats have all gone on record saying there was no mathematical way to win. Not that I trust them, but most of the articles claiming Kerry should have won, or could have seem to be a little illogical in places.
|
Well, clearly he could've won. Clearly he could've done things about his campaign better. Again, I think the man lost, but it was close, and when 3.5 million Americans (roughly the total number of votes accumulated by Nader in 2000) is the only divide between you and popular victory, you need to question what you could've or should've done to improve yourself.
Also, I don't know that it was necessarily a vote
against Kerry, but in many ways, it may have been ABABB. Figure that one out!
Threaded Mode