Do you think the real reason Kerry lost is he said he's raise taxes?

[napi21]

I was listening to c-span this morning, and the moderator read a newspaper article about a study that showed Kerry lost over 90% of US counties. The biggest loss ever. They compared it to Clinton winning almost 50% and Gore winning 40% (I think).

I know we all believe BBV and disenfranchised voters had a lot to do with it, but I also remember hearing a lot of talking heads during the campaign saying that no candidate ever wins when they say they're going to raise taxes, even if it makes sense at the time. I remember them referencing McGovern, and even showed clips from his speaches.

I've never forgotten those statements, and when they read this article this morning, it made me wonder if the real reason Kerry lost isn't because of values, or evangelicals, or any of the BS the media is trying to put out, but just a metter of economics, and the majority of people just don't want to pay more taxes, even if it doesn't directly affect their tax return.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. Pay them now or pay more later;

that's the real choice on taxes at this moment.

[The Blue Flower]

2. He didn't lose

eom

[kydo]

21. I agree ...

And despite whatever the outcome of the recounts that may or may not happen and even the so-called "official, certified" ... all that crap. I don't think Kerry lost. See even after the recounts of places like Ohio happen so much tampering could have occurred that I'm not sure we can even be sure the recounts are correct -- and especially in areas the judges (i.e. rep judges) get drawn in the fight.

Our system is broke and sadly at least half of the US doesn't care to even acknowledge the fact that it is broken much feel like trying to fix it.

~kydo

[ThorsHammer]

3. No

I think he was pretty clear that he only wanted to repeal the tax cuts for those making $200,000+, which should not make much of a difference in the vote.

[lukasahero]

4. Yes

If he did lose, and that's a topic for another thread, I think the truth is that it came down to taxes. It is the only reason given by those I know who voted shrub and I have read reports (somewhere) that suggest that the "rich" "won" the election for shrub and not the xtian right.

[NoSheep]

8. I think you may be right about the "rich" winning it for shrub.

I just can't believe many of them are dumb enough to believe his lies and continue to support him after so many obvious failures. He bought those votes with tax cuts. Clear and simple.

[lukasahero]

12. They don't care about lies

they only care about their pocketbook.

The worst part about it is that several of the folks I talked to about it aren't even "rich" "yet". They "hope to be" someday and so they're voting "pocket book interests" and they have no pocket book.

When I tried to explain to them that we (my husband and I) actually do fall into the affected brackets but it would be a minimal impact that we could easily afford, they still live in this delusion that they will be "rich" someday because they work hard yadayadayada. Sorry, but not in shrub's Amerika they won't.

[TayTay]

5. 90% of counties in the SOUTH

Kerry won 100 or so of about 1000 counties IN THE SOUTH (not in the whole US.) The point of the show was to give facts and figures to how bad Dems in general are doing in the now solid repug south.

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. Huh? Over 90% of the counties in the US?

That seems totally out of whack to me. :shrug:

Bush
(Incumbent)
60,608,582 51% 286
Kerry
57,288,974 48% 252
Nader
406,924 1% 0

So... 57,288,974 (or 48% of the voters) is equivalent to 10% of the US counties? *still scratching head*

[ThorsHammer]

9. Population density (although I still don't buy 90-10)

Kerry won all the big, metropolitan areas, usually with large margins, but lost in the more rural areas. This could explain how the popular vote was close, but the vote by county was not. 90-10 still seems like a stretch though.

[robbedvoter]

7. Didn't lose, didn't say that

[Diane L]

10. Not sure why you are saying Kerry lost?

There is evidence of election fraud, so for now, reasoning why Kerry lost seems a bit odd to me.

[napi21]

11. Here's a link to the article in the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-south15dec15,0,6873286.story?coll=la-home-headlines

His overwhelming performance left Sen. John F. Kerry clinging to a few scattered islands of support in a region that until the 1960s provided the foundation of the Democratic coalition in presidential politics. Kerry won fewer Southern counties than any Democratic nominee since the Depression except Walter F. Mondale in 1984 and George S. McGovern in 1972, according to data assembled by The Times and Polidata, a firm that specializes in political statistics.

In Southern counties without a substantial number of African American or Latino voters, Bush virtually obliterated Kerry. Across the 11 states of the old Confederacy, plus Kentucky and Oklahoma, whites constitute a majority of the population in 1,154 counties. Kerry won 90 of them.

By contrast, Bill Clinton won 510 white-majority counties in the South eight years ago.

[AP]

18. I doubt there's been a Dem who put as few resources into the south.

So I'm not sure what kind of measure this was.

Kerry said several times during the primary debates that the party didn't need to win the south to win the race, and that's what they did.

[okieinpain]

17. got proof.

[w4rma]

13. No. It was guns. He campaigned on lowering taxes for those making under

200K. The tax hikes were only for those making above 200K.

[lukasahero]

22. True but

that's not what the general public heard. They heard "John Kerry will raise taxes" from the shrub crowd and, thus, the media day in and day out. "He voted to raise taxes" however many times - that was in the news almost every frickin' day. Say it loud enough and often enough and it's got to be true, right? (I hate those frickin' liars.)

[Redleg]

14. Counties don't vote, people do. The county b.s. is Rethuglican spin.

Let's not blame Kerry for this fiasco.

[AP]

15. OBL + missing explosives = Fear - bush taking responsibility =

A vote for Bush by suburban white women who didn't hear enough about why not protecting the middle class is the biggest threat to the future of the US.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

19. The big picture....

Not all of us in the 'suburban white female' category who would have seen our taxes increase with Kerry went for B*sh. We did not all vote our pocketbooks, nor were we all seduced by the 'terra terra terra...oh ya, and 911' mantra. Some of us felt that Kerry's plan for restoring America's reputation with our European allies was a far superior foreign policy plan for combating terrorists.

Also the point that Kerry made in the debates about B*sh NEVER vetoing a bill during his entire 1st term was an eye opener on the wasteful spending....I wish this point had been driven home more in the campaign. I live in the "battleground" state of PA and we had political ads out-the-wazooo and yet, I never heard this from the DNC or 527 ads.

[okieinpain]

16. holy cow, somebody has finally figured it out. it doesn't matter if you

do raise taxes, just never admit to do it. somebody give this man an award.

[napi21]

23. You're exactly right! It doesn't matter that you tell the truth.

You tell people what they want to hear, then do what you have to do after the election! That's not me, but then I voted for McGovern because I thought he was an honest man for a change.

I think we all have to face the facts. People don't really want to hear the truth! They want a likeable pal kind of guy that makes them smile and feel good. It doesn't matter if they can do the job or not.

[Leilani]

20. No

He lost because the other side defined him, & the race was about Kerry, not about Bush.

He didn't fight back when he needed to, & was seen as weak & vacillating.

[Marnieworld]

24. Kerry actually won

So I don't think he should have done anything differently.

[napi21]

25. That's why he's holding the inaugural in January too, huh?

No matter what reason you want to use, he DIDN'T WIN!

Winning is working in the oval office and living in the West Wing.

[Marnieworld]

27. Nope that's stealing

Winning is getting the most votes. That he did. If I win the lottery and my accountant then embezzles all of the money did I not win the lottery?

The purpose of the thread and many like it is to re-evaluate the campaign, do a little monday morning quarterbacking to win next time. Considering that he got the votes, people like what he ran on and turned-out and got involved in unprecedented #s, I think the message was just fine.

The only thing to fix is the election process because we have the votes. We had em in 2000 and we had in 2004. So I stand by my original statement.

[KayLaw]

29. You've got that right

I'm with Marnieworld all the way. If I win a race and my opponent knocks me down and runs away with my trophy, I'm still the winner and he's the crooked loser - the little weenie.

[RebelOne]

26. My sister and her husband voted for Bush for that reason.n/t

[politicasista]

28. All this coulda, woulda, shoula, and mighta

Had Kerry won, we would be talking about what Smirky did wrong. Smirky always gets his way. He can lie and win at the same time.:puke:

[scbluevoter]

30. ABSOLUTELY!!

Even worse, he allowed Bush to repeat it non-stop every chance he had to say it. I know in my neck of the woods (South Carolina) people talk about all of these "so-called" social issues but the big issue they have with "liberals" is that we are perceived to be the take-your-money Party.