Skip to comments.Presidential Election Review (The Point)
Posted on 11/17/2004 4:49:55 PM PST by Angry Republican
Election Day was two weeks ago and no presidential candidate in history had received as many votes as did George W. Bush. More than 59 million voters sent the Texan back to Washington for a second term.
The finger-pointing and second-guessing for John Kerry's loss has been going around Democratic circles for 13 days now. Everyone and everything has been blamed for his defeat.
While John Kerry's campaign may be faulted for committing costly errors, one must not look past the fact that Kerry was a weak candidate. His support hit a record low for the percentage of people who were supporting him, not because he was John Kerry, but precisely because he wasn't George Bush.
In early 2003, I spoke with a senior Bush-Cheney campaign official and asked him who he thought would be the most difficult candidate for Bush to defeat. Without hesitation he stated, "Dick Gephardt." He said Gephardt had the credentials, the experience, was a tireless worker for the causes he supported, and he would get votes in red state America.
And who would be the best candidate for Bush to defeat? After joking about Howard Dean who was a virtual unknown at that time, he said, "John Kerry." Why? "Because," he said, "John Kerry is [arrogant] and you can't hide that from the American people. They'll see right through him." He added that there were very few principles on which Kerry would take a stand.
Post election analysis and exit polling data - however accurate that may be suggest that Gephardt may have been a more competitive presidential candidate. Considering the comments of early 2003, it is possible that if he were the Democratic nominee, Dick Gephardt would be planning his White House transition.
And that's the Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
I tell people the election was over when they chose Kerry as their candidate.
How many million Democrats are veterans? Probably half of them voted Bush or stayed home. For any other candidate they would have voted party line. But Kerry was guaranteed to alienate a high percentage of veterans, including Dem veterans. In an election that was settled by 3 1/2 million votes, that was fatal.
Does anybody else here see the irony in this?
I do ... and, it's sweet ;-)
Yeah, I was thinking that when I saw the article saying "more than 59 million." I just rounded it off nice and even. It is as of the latest numbers a few hundred thousand shy of 61 million, which is why I made it easy by rounding.
As of wednesday:
Bush 286 31 51% 60,605,371
Kerry 252 20 48% 57,284,871
99% Precincts Reporting - Wed Nov 17, 8:29 PM ET
Its a good thing...:-)
I asked my supervisor, a Bush basher, if he truly thought sKerry would win. He said no.
A Gephardt/ Lieberman ticket would have been best for the 'Rats. However, for God only knows what reason, they chose sKerry.
because he wasn't George Bush
while he ran thinking he'd be elected because he WASN'T George Bush.
That's what I suspected you meant -- Kerry lost because he wasn't George Bush.
But there are plenty of other ironic things, and one can never know what another is thinking unless they are specific.