Some things I have taken note of during the election and its aftermath.
* The Media is even more polarized to the left of mainstream
* Given a reason to vote, Americans will step up and do the right thing, vote.
* The "young" vote will leave you at the altar every time.
* Pundits and Pollsters don't really understand Americans and what we care about deeply.
* The last 4 years have created such divisions, politically, that it will take another 4 years to repair. Let me expand a little on this one. I have spent most of the day surfing blogs and I am appalled at the level of down right hated being spewed by left leaning bloggers. People, we are all Americans. If we "righties" can live with 8 years of Bubba, then you can get by for the next 4 years.
* I am encouraged by European leaders reaching out to
* 2008 is going to be exciting; there are numerous dynamic leaders in each party that may consider running for president.
*
* The power of the internet and the blog will not be under estimated again.
* Our country is moving toward the center and possibility right.
* Morals and Character matter and in the end, may have won this election.
*
Well, there are a few thoughts. I have thought about what I want to see from the President in the next 4 years and will be posting that as an open letter to the President later tonight or tomorrow. If you are among the few that actually read the entire open letter I posted to Senator
On a personal note, I have never really thought of myself as a great writer but I am very encouraged by those of you who come by everyday to read my ravings and sometimes leave comments. Thank you to all, even if you only stop by for 30 seconds.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Some Post-Election Observations
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The USA Today posted a map with election data by county. It's stunning to see how few counties Kerry won.
I enjoy your blog. If I have to pick between "great writing" and a person's genuine and honest observations, I'll pick the second alternative every time.
You write clearly, anyway. Keep it up. I'll look forward to your letter to Bush. I have a lot of concerns about certain issues, and I'm going to contact my Congressman and Senator about them.
Keep writing!
I agree. I, too, have seen an awful lot of liberal bloggers crying fowl and screaming how their rights are being violated. We of the right-wing persuasion would have been expected to suck it up and get along if Kerry had one, and we expect no less of the liberals. The truth is we're all on the same side, and to present anything less than a united front to the rest of the world is exactly what the ones wishing to topple us want to see.
I enjoy your site, so you can chalk me up as one from Blog Explosion who actually reads the sites I visit. I'll be back to read your open letter, and feel free to visit us any time at Follow That Star.
http://followthatstar.squarespace.com
I hope you aren't confusing despair and sadness with hatred. I am a liberal and I don't feel hate. Yes, I cry foul, but wouldn't you? You know that if Kerry had won the right would have had lawsuits and outcries galore. So please don't confuse disappointment with hatred.
And frankly, the hate comes from both sides. The commenter before me is a perfect case in point. It makes me sad how incredibly divided this country has become. what ought to have united us has divided us, and apparently right down the middle. I don't know what can heal this division, but I hardly think it is more of the same.
Is America really leaning more to the center if not the right, or has it been that way for a while?
* In 1984, the country had a choice between a right-wing Reagan and not a left-wing Mondale. Reagan wins.
* In 1988, the country had a choice between a right-wing Bush and not a left-wing Dukakis. Bush wins.
* In 1992, the country had a choice between a right-wing Bush, a quasi-right-wing Perot and a left-wing running as a moderate in Clinton. Clinton wins.
* In 1996, the country had a choice between a right-wing Dole, a quasi-right-wing Perot and a left-wing running as a moderate in Clinton. Clinton wins.
* In 2000, the country was torn between a right-wing running as a moderate in Bush, a left-wing Gore and a minor influence from the beyond left-wing Nader. Bush wins.
* In 2004, the country was torn between a right-wing Bush and a left-wing Kerry. Bush wins.
What trends are displayed by this? In the last 6 elections:
* A left-wing candidate representing purely the left-wing interests has lost 4 out of 4 elections, or 100.0% of time.
* A right-wing candidate running as purely representing the right-wing interests has won 4 out of 5 elections, or 80.0% of the time
* A left-wing candidate running with moderate interests has won 2 out of 2 elections, or 100.0% of the time.
* A polarized candidate running as a moderate has won 3 out of 3 elections, or 100.0% of the time.
* If there are two major candidates that lean towards the same wing, while there is a third major candidate representing either a moderate or opposite poll, the third candidate has won 3 out of 3 elections, o 100.0% of the time.
* You can neither appease the people 100% of the time, nor can you attempt to bullshit them 100% of the time. Kerry tried the same thing (for the majority of the election) as Dukakis did, meeting the same results. During the course of the election Kerry said everything that follows at least once in regards to Iraq:
- He was for invading Iraq.
- He was against invading Iraq.
- He stated that we invaded Iraq for the right reasons.
- He stated that invading Iraq was a mistake.
- He stated that in the same position that he would have done nothing different.
- He stated that that he would change the way things are in Iraq.
- He stated that he had the answer to the problems in Iraq without stating anything different than what Bush stated.
* A political party must at least try to reach out to their membership and not expect their membership to reach out to them. In this last election, the official Democratic policy was that you either stand up and wave the flag for liberal idealism or you are a Republican.
* Charisma is underrated as a tool to get elected. A political candidate cannot be made of wood, he must be able to appear approachable and as such must be able to express feelings about subjects that might be considered taboo. Bush (and to an extent Clinton before him), was able to freely talk about faith, family and beliefs and come across like a normal person. Kerry (and Dole to an extent) on the other hand looked like a weeble wobble, shifting uncomfortably when an unpreped question came to him, he seems there, but aloof (telling the world that the rich and famous are the "heart and soul of America" doesn't help).
* Making issues that are beyond the understanding of the average citizen as one of the forefront issues of the campaign makes no sense whatsoever. Without any effort explaining the implications of what an issue really is, while namedropping famous people as the reasons for supporting it does not lend well to communicating why this is an issue to the general public, for instance with Embryonic stem cell research.
* Candidates should let Vietnam stay in the past; it was devisive when it ended 30 years ago, sometimes it is best to let it rest. If a candidate was in the military during the Vietnam war, fine. You were a protestor against the Vietnam war, fine. Don't try to play both cards in the same election, or try playing one of the two cards and act surprised when you're called to the carpet on the other.
* A candidate must have a good record and be willing and able to stand by that record when it is called into question. If the candidate doesn't have much to show or has some questionable calls on time spent on a particular item in their resume, expect for it to be called into question, much like an interview. Your candidate is after all interviewing for a job, that of the President of the United States.
* If you feel a candidate is too controversial or too polarized, either tone him down or do not nominate him. A candidate such as Howard Dean, might make for a media darling, however they need a message beyond fear and hate.
* A political party cannout counting on the media to always protect your candidate or slander your opponent. This can be a two edged sword, that can and has in the past, come full circle.
Perhaps once the Democratic party realises these issues really are issues and not merely minor oversights on the part of the public, they will field a winning candidate.
Thanks to all for your comments.
Thanks to Dennis W for the link to election map.
Thanks to MaxedOutMama, visit her at http://maxedoutmama.blogspot.com/
Thanks to Chasmyn, no I generally don't confuse sadness and disappointment for hate unless told so as I have been. I know that all liberals are right hating freaks, just the ones I call friends.
Thanks to our first anonymous commentor, check out his blog at http://followthatstar.squarespace.com/.
Thanks Brin for your comment. I can only explain our need to rally around the President as something uniquely American bordering on nationalism.
To our second anoymous posting, all I can say is WOW. Great information, next time leave your name so I can give you proper credit.
The Mad Tech
Post a Comment