DEMOCRATS: Are you angry with my state?

[opebo]

What's it gonna take Third World poverty go change in back to the Dems?

Precisely Flyers.  Quite a few parts of the state are there already, just not enough yet.

Opebo, pretending to be in touch with the average citizen.

I've lived in the third world, and driven through Ohio many times (though admittedly back in the better days).  Many parts of the latter resemble the former.

yawn

Go have a look round your country.  A good half of it is desperately poor.

[A18]

Yeah. They're called liberal cities.

[opebo]

Yeah. They're called liberal cities.

What does that have to do with it?  The point is that America is 1/2 'third world'.

Besides, rural areas are also very poor. 

[A18]

Farmers are not poor. I live in a rural area, and I am not poor.

Cities are not third world, but they're the closest you get to "desperately poor" in this country—particularly those such as Washington, D.C.

[Ebowed]

Philip is very in touch. Glued here 24/7, doesn't work and leeches off welfare while opposing welfare, and who is a high school dropout. Just look at his on line times.

Odd online times != high school drop-out

[Sibboleth]

I don't hate Ohio. I think Kerry's strategy in the state was brain dead, but that's hardly Ohio's fault.

[Democratic Hawk]

No, I'm not angry but it strikes me as rather masochistic that a state that has suffered economically should re-elect Bush

Kerry lost because he was been perceived as too liberal on social issues. I think a more moderate Democrat would have carried it. New England liberals are perceived as been out-of-touch with states like Ohio. Had Ohio prospered economically then Bush would have carried the state big

Dave

[Sibboleth]

Kerry didn't bother with the part of the state that is going through hell at the moment: the Ohio Valley. It was basically abandoned the same time neighbouring WV was... there was an upturn in support for him there in the last few days, but he should have hammered Bush into little pieces out there.
He didn't. And because of that, he lost Ohio and the election.

[Vasall des Midas]

If anything, Dems should be angry at Florida. Ohio swung in their direction, after all (granted - that was because Al Gore gave up on the state while Kerry didn't).

[angus]

I don't hate Ohio. I think Kerry's strategy in the state was brain dead, but that's hardly Ohio's fault.

Kerry was a lark.  Kerry is an excellent US senator with a fine voting record.  I think he can have that office as long as he wants it, but he is not an executive officer.  He's just not made that way.  He is nuanced and understands Law very well.  He is a legislator, and we should not apply the Peter Principle.  I'm not saying the democrats could have won with anyone, in light of the September 11, 2001 attacks which tend to help Republicans, but they certainly should have found a feisty attack dog, not the elder-statesman type that would have trouble winning even in peacetime.  I suspect Hillary and Company understand all that and in light of this it comes as no surprise that the Dems get behind Kerry understanding that this spells a loss in order to set up a free slate in both parties in 2008 which will, if things go well for the democrats, make them the party of the First Female President. 

Surely you were not surprised that Kerry lost.  (or that you lost your five quid on that silly Kerry wins Mississippi bet).

[ian]

My state really disappointed me, moreso than Ohio.  I live in one of the most conservative towns in Arkansas, and I was finding Kerry stickers/signs a lot of places.  And a lot of people SICK of the war.
But I'm not really disappointed in Ohio.  The Democrats there did their best.  And their best wasn't enough.  We'll get it next time.

[angus]

But they didn't!!!

There are about a dozen democrats I can think of who could have had the sort of flyover country appeal necessary to make the race competitive.  That's the whole point!  And I suspect that the dems know this.  And I'm certain that the average MA voter really doesn't want to loose Kerry as a Senator.  So it all makes sense.  Vast right wing conspiracy??!  Hillary's been using that phrase so long that it ceases to make sense, except that in this case, there really is one!  The right wing of the DNC (i.e., the Clintonian Democrats, New Democrats, whatever they're calling themselves now) conspired to offer up someone who is a fine legislator, but who didn't have a snowball's chance in hell to defeat a popular wartime incumbent.  This neatly and openly clears the way for 2008.

quod erat demonstrandum.

[Jake]

Yeah. They're called liberal cities.

What does that have to do with it?  The point is that America is 1/2 'third world'.

Besides, rural areas are also very poor. 

opebo, take a look around America. My corner is struggling, but only because it's a dying coal region, the areas outside the cities here are booming. Jobs are availible around here, so many in fact, that more and more houses are being bought in my county every month, and the number has been rising like this for almost 3 years.  Your Bush-hate and the fact that you don't even live in this country have distorted the way you are seeing things.

[Akno21]

The right wing of the DNC (i.e., the Clintonian Democrats, New Democrats, whatever they're calling themselves now) conspired to offer up someone who is a fine legislator, but who didn't have a snowball's chance in hell to defeat a popular wartime incumbent. 

He had better than a snowball's in hell chance. His defeat was extremly narrow in the anals of history, and if someone had a time machine, there wouldn't be that much tweaking neccessary to make him win, unlike some other losing candidates. In the last 100 years, few losing candidates did better than he.

[angus]

Fair enough.  ah, it's hasty posting.  like hasty pudding but less tasty.

Meals taken in haste, five hours of sleep, and all communism all the time.  I'm loving fatherhood.  did I mention that?

well, anyway, you are correct.  Kerry did very well.  I will say, as someone who has voted for Kerry as US Senator in the past, that I, for one, am glad that he has retained that seat.  I don't know whether the average MA voter is wise enough to feel the same way, I do what I can, but am only a mortal, not a god.  at least I have no worshippers as yet. 

Now, be gone.  I tire of this mode of entertainment.

[Rob]

To be "angry" at the state of Ohio is very oversimplistic. 49 percent of Ohioans voted for Kerry- should Democrats be angry at them? Kerry won 16 counties in Ohio, several of them overwhelmingly- should Democrats be angry at those areas?

[Citizen James]

Nah,

A distaste for some of the politicians with some rather underhanded tricks to suppress voter turnout, but not the people themselves.

[opebo]

I don't hate Ohio. I think Kerry's strategy in the state was brain dead, but that's hardly Ohio's fault.

Kerry was a lark.  Kerry is an excellent US senator with a fine voting record.  I think he can have that office as long as he wants it, but he is not an executive officer.  He's just not made that way.  He is nuanced and understands Law very well.  He is a legislator, and we should not apply the Peter Principle.  I'm not saying the democrats could have won with anyone, in light of the September 11, 2001 attacks which tend to help Republicans, but they certainly should have found a feisty attack dog, not the elder-statesman type that would have trouble winning even in peacetime.  I suspect Hillary and Company understand all that and in light of this it comes as no surprise that the Dems get behind Kerry understanding that this spells a loss in order to set up a free slate in both parties in 2008 which will, if things go well for the democrats, make them the party of the First Female President. 

Surely you were not surprised that Kerry lost.  (or that you lost your five quid on that silly Kerry wins Mississippi bet).

angus, I think it is completely beside the point whether Kerry was an executive officer or not.  when one votes for president one is simply voting for a party and its (and its constituencies) agenda.  The idea that some personality traits or management style matters seems frivolous to me.  However if you mean that voters fall for the idea that a 'strong leader' who is against their interests is better than a mealymouthed bureaucrat who would implement their interests, then yes, it is a huge factor in elections.  But not because of any real executive capabilities, just because of foolish misperceptions.

[12th Doctor]

I'm angry at the 2:30 AM election day ruling allowing the GOP to challenge blacks. The main pourpose was to slow down the voting process.
I'm angry about the screw ups in different precincts at the same voting place by the Cuyahago elections board, costing Kerry thousands of votes in Cleveland.
I'm angry by the 10 hour lines to vote, some people didn't get to vote until 3 AM November 3rd. Obviously this caused some people to give up, since there was no other way to vote. Of course Fox had already called it for Bush.
I'm angry that in a lot of counties, the election boards chose which precincts to recount with the interest of making sure that the results didn't change much.
I'm angry at Blackwell for only accepting registration forms on 80 pound paper, and other inane methods of suppressing voter turnout.

Heaven forbid the election laws acctually be enforced.

[Sibboleth]

(or that you lost your five quid on that silly Kerry wins Mississippi bet).