I am assuming that they may, for once, learn from their mistakes. That they would actually start discussing issues and offering solutions to the problems facing the nation. Aside from the "culture of corruption," that is. A really stupid platform to base your party on, if you ask me.
Then again, this is the party that lost the presidency in 2000. How Gore was able to drop that ball surprises me to this day. Sure, he was stiff and came off as a total tool in the debates. But come on! We were at peace, the economy was more or less robust. How do you, as an incumbent, lose?!
And, of course, Gore did lose the election. People keep going on and on about the popular vote, but the popular vote doesn't matter. But I'll grant that the 2000 election wasn't decided by votes at all, so that's even more of a non-conversation. ;-)
Ultimately, the SC did say "enough is enough already." They had the vote count stand where it was. So the election was decided by the votes.
My memory is foggy, since it was done so long ago, but didn't newspapers in Florida perform their own after-the-fact recount and find that there wouldn't have been enough of a vote swing to tip the state in Gore's favor? I could have sworn I remember reading that in the Post at some point. Along with stories that independent investigations could not confirm accusations of disenfranchising of voters. Not saying it didn't happen, or that it hasn't happened in prior elections by both sides (heck, take a look at voting practices in Chicago!). Just saying I remember reading that it was a non-issue.
Could be mistaken, though. The mind isn't as sharp as it used to be...I'm getting on a bit in age. :-)
In point of fact, Gore didn't lose. And Kerry didn't lose in 2004.
In point of fact, they did. ;-)
Otherwise Gore wouldn't be introducing his speeches by saying "I was once the next President of the United States."
Were the roles reversed, and Bush had won the popular vote while Gore had won the electoral, I wouldn't be claiming that Bush had won. Nor would I be saying that Gore and his cronies stole the election. I'd mumble and grumble about Gore being President, and then return my focus to local elections and issues.
Gore definitely should have been a rout. Kerry... I don't think so. He really wasn't an appealing candidate, and Edwards just seemed so dang smarmy. I'm not sure who a good 04 candidate would have been, but Kerry ran a pretty poor campaign.
Do you remember the Philadelphia rally in the last week of the 2004 campaign in which Clinton spoke, and he was SO much better than Kerry (whom he was supposed to support)?
Clinton didn't say a thing unpleasant about Kerry, just sparkled, schmoozed & roused the crowd for 15 minutes, and afterwards Kerry was just one wet blanket. Talk about letdown!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I am assuming that they may, for once, learn from their mistakes. That they would actually start discussing issues and offering solutions to the problems facing the nation. Aside from the "culture of corruption," that is. A really stupid platform to base your party on, if you ask me.
Then again, this is the party that lost the presidency in 2000. How Gore was able to drop that ball surprises me to this day. Sure, he was stiff and came off as a total tool in the debates. But come on! We were at peace, the economy was more or less robust. How do you, as an incumbent, lose?!
no subject
Although I totally agree with you that it should have been a rout, both times, and not a sskin-of-teeth maneuver. I'm just saying. ;)
no subject
And, of course, Gore did lose the election. People keep going on and on about the popular vote, but the popular vote doesn't matter. But I'll grant that the 2000 election wasn't decided by votes at all, so that's even more of a non-conversation. ;-)
no subject
My memory is foggy, since it was done so long ago, but didn't newspapers in Florida perform their own after-the-fact recount and find that there wouldn't have been enough of a vote swing to tip the state in Gore's favor? I could have sworn I remember reading that in the Post at some point. Along with stories that independent investigations could not confirm accusations of disenfranchising of voters. Not saying it didn't happen, or that it hasn't happened in prior elections by both sides (heck, take a look at voting practices in Chicago!). Just saying I remember reading that it was a non-issue.
Could be mistaken, though. The mind isn't as sharp as it used to be...I'm getting on a bit in age. :-)
no subject
In point of fact, they did. ;-)
Otherwise Gore wouldn't be introducing his speeches by saying "I was once the next President of the United States."
Were the roles reversed, and Bush had won the popular vote while Gore had won the electoral, I wouldn't be claiming that Bush had won. Nor would I be saying that Gore and his cronies stole the election. I'd mumble and grumble about Gore being President, and then return my focus to local elections and issues.
Gore definitely should have been a rout. Kerry... I don't think so. He really wasn't an appealing candidate, and Edwards just seemed so dang smarmy. I'm not sure who a good 04 candidate would have been, but Kerry ran a pretty poor campaign.
Kerry was a terrble candidate
Re: Kerry was a terrble candidate
Re: Kerry was a terrble candidate