Seriously, Kerry's campaign was a mess. He was a classic example of what you don't to happen in the primary, be left with someone who offends no one, but one really likes either.

As was Gore's.

The whole problem is that democrats keep nominating candidates who inspire no one. We keep putting up people who are smart but don't have charisma. The kind of politicians who say the same old thing, and who decide what to say and what to wear based on polls....

And with Hillary, we're about to do the same thing. Which is so stupid when we have such an obvious alternative this time.

Obama inspires but really i see the white male vote going much more to McCain, one we learn of Obama's rather liberal views.

Agreed, but the Dems seem to love looking like a chicken with its head cut off.

The Republicans are far better at rallying around a candiate, putting together a good campaign, and giving citizens an idea of what they stand for (even if it turns out to not be true).

I support both Hillary and Obama. I'm just growing increasingly frustrated that one of them isn't just...securing the nomination. I'll vote for either one.

Also, Loyal, McCain "seems harmless enough"? Just wait for if he's elected, when he has the ability to nominate ultra right-wing conservatives to the Supreme Court.

Eh, I guess I see the Gore/Kerry runs different than anyone here. I don't care about charisma. Hell, I'm not charismatic and I don't relate to celebrity show-horses. I had no trouble with Gore's run. The problem I had with Kerry's run was that he ran on 'electability' which didn't leave the Dems much of a rallying platform and ideals after he lost the general. I would rather lose the general and stick, very specifically, to the things I care about in politics and life. It builds a foundation on which to build upon subsequently and over the long-run.

Gore may have lost because he wasn't charistmatic, but in the scheme of things, he won. Even many Reps by now care about the environment, so Gore got more done than most presidents will ever hope to do in shifting the general disscussion around a topic.

This is when I usually point out how many states Huckabee won even though he was never really a big contendor for the General ticket. Because the people who vote for him are people that consistently vote for what they stand for (anti-woman's right to choose, anti-gay 'family' values) and don't give a lick about electability. And, if you look at the long-term discourse on those certain topics -- especially anti-choice -- that voter block makes a little more headway every election cycle. By now the discourse around a woman's right to choose is far more conservative than it was even in the mid-70's I feel.

I'm like them, but on the other side. I want to keep pushing what I care about until it makes some headway in the general public, and to hell if the person who is speaking closer to what I believe in isn't flashy enough. I'm tired of the 'electability' arguement. Hated it when Kerry ran, hate it now. I'm not looking to recruit just to say "Yay, I recruited the Right," --when in so doing I slipped in their direction. I want to recruit them towards certain specific beliefs I have, just like they've slowly recruited the left, in a long-term vision, towards their beliefs.

Anywho, I'm with what Libs just said above, too.

good.

Gore campaign just seemed to not know what it really wanted to say, Gore had a history of environmental action, that was not actually part of his Presidential run. He was to concerned with distancing himself from the Bill and MOnica scandal and not focused enough on campaign strategy.

As for Gore actually one, well call me a purist, but until we change our constitution he didn't win, that's why we've been stuck with Bush. its all fine and dandy to win the popular vote, but at the end of the day it mens nothing as Gore can tell you.

In 2000 and 2004 the Republicans were far better at putting together a cohesive and structured campaign.

I have no response other than "not good."

You could try "Jayhawk, you ignorant slut."

By the way, in the interest of peace in this section I haven't been posting the gallup tracking numbers lately but I'm sure anyone who wants to see them can find them. They are pretty surprising.

@Ripper,

I probably wasn't being clear. When I said 'won' I meant effectively changed the direction of the discourse on a certain topic he cared about. I wasn't referring to Florida. And yes, I agree with you he didn't know how to handle distancing himself from his own vice-presidency...for that matter if he should have at all. But alas, 'One Time is No Time,' or how the saying goes.

In that sense I agree, I actually am glad he didn't run, Gore is out there fighting for an issue he's cared about and been behind for decades, and he's finally being listened too. I think Gore is just so much more likeable and he actually has shown a ton of charimsa now, its like losing just lifted this weight off and he could be himself. His campaign, it just lacked him in it. I think ultimately that is my problem with HIllary's campaign, we keep hearing about Bosnia and shit like that, and not about all the good things she has done for NY.

I think running for President would just distract from that, and hopefully our next President will be a democrat and can work with Gore.

*prays*

I just getting so frustrated, I am trie dof the Dems won;t come to the polls or will vote for McCain polls (I don't believe either).

I just fear that like that last election the Dems will find a way to lose.

I have no particular aversion to such a statement, being a social conservative. However, the idea of a federal government making such decisions reeks of autocracy. Each to their own, I suppose.

She's done a lot for NY, but I know why it won't fly in a national campaign. The stuff that happens in NY...everything from public transportation funding to gay rights to immigration, doesn't really resonate with, like, 80% of this country. That's why for ages NY politicians haven't fared well in national campaigns. Emphasizing NY doesn't necessarily help your case anywhere except for maybe a smattering of other cities and two other states: MA and CA.

The Bosnia shit is because she needs to prove she can handle National Defense, since this country has defaulted to thinking a woman isn't strong enough to do it. It is dumb. She should play into the gender roles already defined by this country for once and play up her 'domestic' policies. Health Care, Child Ed., Gay Rights, the Economy, the Green Movement, 'It Takes a Village.' Hell, no one's gonna think a woman can handle national defense anyways, so why not just move the discussion elsewhere instead of feeding the gender-role idiocy. Its a big misstep on her part to be paying so much attention to this.

If Dems don't come to the polls or they vote for McCain just cause they want to vote for someone they can have a beer with, its their fault. As makeshift pointed out, look at where that has lead the last 8 years. And for that matter, the 8 years before. I don't give a shit if my president plays the saxaphone, I just don't want him/her saying that they are considering entering Iran with fire power. But thanks to TV, our country has pretty much voted with its libido rather than its brain for decades already.

And, emotions are high. I think general election campaigns and direct pairings of Rep. vs. Dem agendas is going to quickly polarize the public. Personalities aside, people are going to vote on a president based on his/her position on the war, and his/her position on gays and a woman's right to choose. Thats pretty much the three issues its going to come down to. Immigration isn't a distinguishing factor, and economic policy goes over most people's heads anyways because its not a black and white issue (yes or no, etc., its more suggestions for intensive plans). So yeah, I still think a Dem will win it anyways and none of the polls now matter since general election campaigns and slogans haven't been rolled out yet.

McCain has some good things going for him but in practice people aren't going to vote for a bald, 71 year old, 5'7" frog-faced warmonger. Plus Obama will likely have a big money advantage over him.

I agree Dolce, yes people are pissy now, but quite frankly do I really think people will vote McCain, no, maybe they'll stay home.

Sadly, there are fanatic followers of any candidate who see them as perfect and therefore anyone who doesn't vote for them must be evil, racist, or sexist.

There are some Hillary supporters who are convinced that those of us who are not supporting her are doing so for sexist reasons, and Obama supporters who think the people who don't support him are doing so for racist reasons. While there certainly are some who feel that way, this broad brush is ridiculous.

And the sad thing is that these extremists may indeed stay home and not vote, but I think they are probably a small minority of voters anyway.

I think a small percentage might stay home, but if a person is really concerned about issues relates to racism or sexism, voting for McCain just doesn't seem viable.

People are very upset now, ask again in October when a nominee has been picked, HIllary and Barack have made up publically, totally different story.

Hell, i am pissed now, I am still not voting for McCain.

I am taking a rephrasing a quote said by the Emperor of the Empire in Star Wars.


DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF REPUBLICAN ATTACK ADS....

Its a very small amount, and when one sees how aggressively McCain is trying to court the far-right, right now, one sees that there is also a fringe group that will sit it out on the Reps. side. The two will cancel eachother out.

The one unpredictable factor, as always, is youth. Under 24 age-group gets flippant real fast. Its never turned out for the general, even last time around when they were considered a crucial demographic. They tend to tune out the minute politics isn't 'hip.' We'll see how much energy they have half a year from now.



For once I'm with the pundits. Both candidates on the Dems side have been able to weather aggressive campaigns from the other side (yeah, you heard me, both sides have been taking it and receiving it). Its been one of the benefits of this prolonged, emotional, process. I don't think either one won't be ready for Republican attack ads when they begin popping up.

Its going to be less of a factor this year than usual, actually. I consider these campaigns to be a "Paterson Moment (tm)." Air it all out quick so that no one can call you on it later. There's nothing left in either Dems closet that hasn't been aired out. There really aren't going to be any surprises left in a few months. What's McCain gonna do? Bring up Monica or Bosnia? Bring up an Afrocentrist Reverend? Been there, done that.

I find it hilarious that you Democrats still blame Kerry and Gore for losing their campaigns, when it was really YOUR fault for picking them.

I'm glad Kerry lost. In 2004 the war had only been going on 18 months. If Kerry or any Democrat had won, the right wing would have convinced middle America that it was going beautifully till the Democrat ruined it. By getting re-elected Bush couldn't avoid being connected to the disastrous consequences of his actions.

Precisely. I'm glad they're on track for not repeating the same mistake with Hillary Clinton. Confusing staidness with electability is a fatal mistake.

The Al Gore we know today was different then the bland Gore we saw in 2000.

t'is a shame.

Yeah, it's our fault for picking the candidate who actually won the popular vote in 2000.