Why did Kerry lose?

[sq764]

Why did Kerry lose this election?

[schweitz]

All of the above.

[chickenhead]

I voted Edwards, who brought nothing electorally.

Should have picked Gephardt, Kerry is a winner with Missouri and a tiny boost in Iowa.

Everywhere else he won, he would have still won.

Gephardt would have given us another split election, with Kerry as pres...

[so.cal.fan]

Does anyone but me think the moral values issue is being over touted? What about Clinton?The majority voted for him, twice, and he sure wasn't a shining example of "family values".
There was something from jump that made me uncomfortable with Kerry, and when the swiftboatvetsfortruth stuff came out.....I concluded some of it must be true.....hey, where there is smoke there is fire. That made up my mind. I then read several posts here on PA, where people had done some serious research, and the more they dug up, the more evidence they had this John Kerry wasn't genuine.
I couldn't stand his wife........but that isn't a good enough reason not to vote for him.
I am sort of a history buff, and I believe the biggest threat in our world right now is radical Islam. I concluded that the right people to deal with this were in the White House......so I voted to keep them there.
I'm not totally comfortable with the religious right, especially the extremist wing of it.......but I wasn't as uncomfortable with that issue as I was with the extreme left wing factions of the Dem. party that hijacked that party, imho.
Of course, what do I know? After all, I'm just a Democrat.....that voted Republican (at least for President).;)

[Dave Schwartz]

I think that the "open minded" voters got tired of the same old, "Bush is bad" theme without being convinced that "Kerry was better."

Sure, Kerry said he was better (over and over and over again) but not convincingly.

I think that even many of the liberals on this board chose Kerry because he was NOT Bush.

I said some months ago on this board that Kerry was not an electable candidate. (Okay, terrifyingly close perhaps but not electable. <G>) In fact, the democrats simply did not have an electable candidate. I even suggested (from an article that I read) that Hillary might get the nomination.

Well, Hillary most certainly IS electable and if Bush does not win the middle-of-the-roaders solidly in the next two years such that Cheney becomes electable, we will be asking that same question of them: "Who do the Republicans have that is electable?"

Personally, I'd love to see McCain but I don't see how he can ever get the support of his fellow Republicans - he's just not "right enough" for them.

Just my opinion... but, hey, I've been wrong before.

Dave

[DJofSD]

My perception of Kerry was some one that would tolerate evil. Call it moral values. His values are lacking. If you have values your position and approach to issues is firm and consistent. Kerry never demostrated he could be firm or consistent.

DJofSD

[JustRalph]

Hillary is not electable. 59Million Voters who just voted for Bush would be against her. I would bet you couldn't get very many of them to change to Hillary...............only time will tell.

[Tom]

He lacked a backbone, a brain, a personality, and he hung around with a POS lawyer who talks to the dead when he isn't chasing ambulences. He had no convictions, no morality, no plan.
And he insulted us all by thinking for a minute we would buy his crap.

[Buckeye]

I think it was "the global test" line that did him in, and certainly choosing Edwards was no help.

Couple these two with his long list of accomplishments in the
the Senate (none!) and finally, there was his "plan" to build a better America at the expense of those who are actually doing it.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Buckeye
I think it was "the global test" line that did him in, and certainly choosing Edwards was no help.

Couple these two with his long list of accomplishments in the
the Senate (none!) and finally, there was his "plan" to build a better America at the expense of those who are actually doing it.

I honestly think that what put the final nail in his coffin was the comment on the 'stolen explosives' in Iraq. He didn't do his homework and he got caught in the cookie jar; looked like a fool. I think that was a tactical disaster in the last week before the election.

I also think, even if minor, his wife hurt his campaign with her constant idiocy.. Between the 'stuff it', the tirades and finally insulting Laura Bush, it certainly did not help his cause..

[so.cal.fan]

I don't think Terresa Heinz Kerry was a minor negative, SQ.
She was disgraceful........a loaded druggie, talk about arrogant elite, she sure was one of them......had not an ounce of warmth in her, and I think her remarks about Laura Bush really cost Kerry a lot of votes.......I know more than one Democrat that didn't even vote, or voted for Bush.....because of HER.
I also think the press was sorely disappointed Kerry didn't get elected because they would have had a field day with this old broad, can you imagine the late night talk shows, had Kerry been elected. She would have been the laughing stock of the air waves. Except that it wouldn't have really been funny.

[gillenr]

Karl Rove! I thought he & Bush were nuts to advocate a constitutional ammendment against gay marriage. It probably was the glue that kept his base together.

[Tom]

Kerry said that he will use his senate seat to stay on top of Bush about the war and jobs. He then asked for directions to the seante building.

[Shacopate]

Other for several reasons including some forementioned.

1. Poor gameplan and lack of vision and focus; Clinton had "it's the economy stupid" and stayed on message. Kerry had to change his campaign staff in midstream, too little too late.

2. Being a Senator means your voting record will be ripped apart. Tagged as the most liberal member of the Senate and flip flopper.

2. Personality; Bush was perceived as the more likeable candidate.

3. Inability to excite the base and new voters, alot of Kerry votes were HAB or (He ain't Bush).

4. "I was for the 87 Billion until I voted against it."

5. Swift Boat Vets threw alot of mud and some of it stuck.

6. Inability to connect with hispanic voters. (Don't know how, but Bush won this group.)

7. Osama Bin Laden tape echoed alot of Kerry criticisms; said he mislead America into war with Iraq, even mentioned Haliburton. Not exactly the type of endorsement you want.

8. Unpopular wife.

9. The fear factor. Terrorism, not the TV show.

10. Upstaged by Obama at the DNC.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Shacopate
6. Inability to connect with hispanic voters. (Don't know how, but Bush won this group.)

Many people forget that one of the Presidents brothers is married into a Spanish family. There are several young Bushies that are half Hispanic. The President speaks spanish and in the Christmas Card I got last year........there was a group photo of the family with several of these small Hispanic children right up front........I am sure that didn't hurt a bit.............not to mention he has offered a plan to legalize them.........over time. That means hope for family members etc.........who are not here yet
Oh yeah.......that Xmas card was in a letter that was asking for money........as usual

[sq764]

Originally posted by Shacopate
Other for several reasons including some forementioned.

1. Poor gameplan and lack of vision and focus; Clinton had "it's the economy stupid" and stayed on message. Kerry had to change his campaign staff in midstream, too little too late.

2. Being a Senator means your voting record will be ripped apart. Tagged as the most liberal member of the Senate and flip flopper.

2. Personality; Bush was perceived as the more likeable candidate.

3. Inability to excite the base and new voters, alot of Kerry votes were HAB or (He ain't Bush).

4. "I was for the 87 Billion until I voted against it."

5. Swift Boat Vets threw alot of mud and some of it stuck.

6. Inability to connect with hispanic voters. (Don't know how, but Bush won this group.)

7. Osama Bin Laden tape echoed alot of Kerry criticisms; said he mislead America into war with Iraq, even mentioned Haliburton. Not exactly the type of endorsement you want.

8. Unpopular wife.

9. The fear factor. Terrorism, not the TV show.

10. Upstaged by Obama at the DNC.

Clinton said the reasons were:

1) Gay Marriage issue favored Republicans

2) GOP got inactive voters to the polls

3) Dems were portrayed as not caring about family, freedom, faith and work

4) Osama tape made security a top issue

I think he's right, but this is only part of the problem.. This still sounds like whining to me.. If they truly want to get over the hump, they (the Dems) have to examine what THEY did wrong and how THEY can improve things..

Always amazes me how they blame being out of touch with key issues on the Republicans snatching those opportunities..

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Shacopate


6. Inability to connect with hispanic voters. (Don't know how, but Bush won this group.)




Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote.

[Tom]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Many people forget that one of the Presidents brothers is married into a Spanish family. There are several young Bushies that are half Hispanic. The President speaks spanish and in the Christmas Card I got last year........there was a group photo of the family with several of these small Hispanic children right up front........I am sure that didn't hurt a bit.............not to mention he has offered a plan to legalize them.........over time. That means hope for family members etc.........who are not here yet
Oh yeah.......that Xmas card was in a letter that was asking for money........as usual

Now that he has their votes, I wonder if he will consider protecting our borders?:confused:

[wes]

The one thing that many people did not like. Kerry stated that 9/11 had not affected him.

wes

[sq764]

Originally posted by wes
The one thing that many people did not like. Kerry stated that 9/11 had not affected him.

wes

Well, the global test statement was bad for him.. But I think even more damning was the 'fighting a more sensitive war' comment..

Not to mention even vaguely equating the war to a 'nuisance'... Just stupid comments at key times.

[GameTheory]

When will they learn that legislators can't get elected president? Governors always do so much better -- they have record of leadership, of being "small scale presidents". If you are a senator you are already at the top of your branch of government -- it is not a track to the presidency.

[Equineer]

Originally posted by GameTheory
When will they learn that legislators can't get elected president? Governors always do so much better -- they have record of leadership, of being "small scale presidents". If you are a senator you are already at the top of your branch of government -- it is not a track to the presidency. So true... most members of Congress have had to compromise icon-like perceptions of leadership in order to get anything accomplished.

The "moral" questions about gay marriages and pro-choice abortions seem to have won the election.

Post-election analysis has revealed that a majority of voting Americans think Iraq was a strategic mistake.

The President's domestic agenda on non-religious issues such as Social Security and Tax Reform should have produced a true landslide like those earned by Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984.

Nixon 1972:

[Equineer]

Reagan 1984:

[Lefty]

One poll very seldom changed. It was who would better fight the war on terror. It always came out about 85% for Bush. This was totally separate from Iraq and Bush consistently got that 85%!

[boxcar]

I have long thought that Liberals are out of touch with reality, out of touch with themselves, out of touch with mainstream America. Kathleen Parker thinks so, too.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20041105.shtml

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

Originally posted by GameTheory
When will they learn that legislators can't get elected president?

Kind of like geldings can't win the Derby? I admit it's a more difficult sell, but he came 200K votes from doing it. I would say that's within the margin of Kerry's error, it was a winnable campaign.

[kenwoodallpromos]

1) Sitting senators are 0 for 10. If Demos 0 for 5.
2) Nominees from Northeast or Great Lakes areas are 1 for 17. If Demos, 0 for 5.
3) Demos are 3 for 10. The 7 Repub winners were from TX and Ca, the 3 Demos from the South.
4) Governors or Gov candidates are 8 for 9.
5) Based on #1 + #2 above, Kerry's odds were like 1 of 85 prior to considering him specifically.
6) Edwards lost his own polling precinct.
___________
(Good luck sitting NY Senator Hillary). LOL.

[DJofSD]

Kind of like geldings can't win the Derby? I admit it's a more difficult sell, but he came 200K votes from doing it. I would say that's within the margin of Kerry's error, it was a winnable campaign.

Close only counts in horseshoes, dancing and atom bombs.

DJofSD

[Equineer]

Originally posted by Lefty
One poll very seldom changed. It was who would better fight the war on terror. It always came out about 85% for Bush. This was totally separate from Iraq and Bush consistently got that 85%! There is a difference between trusting someone to fight and trusting them to win. This difference was reflected by the election results... not even close to previous Republican landslides.

I certainly trusted Bush to fight... and I side with Republicans on many non-religious domestic issues.

However, the top priority in campaign 2004 was debunking Iraq as a model for winning the war on terrorism.

Mission Accomplished!

Or would you like to offer a well-reasoned argument how Iraq can be repeated on a worldwide basis without both bankrupting the nation and losing the war on terrorism?

[kenwoodallpromos]

"The country is fairly evenly divided; there is no huge mandate for George Bush," said Steve Rosenthal of America Coming Together, a political interest group that raised millions of dollars for Kerry's campaign.

"The best thing the party can do at this point is take a step back and analyse what happened.

"The national Democratic party has built something of a values wall between voters," Rosenthal told CNN. "We need to begin to figure out how to begin to take that down."
______________
They need to "figure out" how to to have a more moral attitude. LOL.

[sq764]

Originally posted by chickenhead
Kind of like geldings can't win the Derby? I admit it's a more difficult sell, but he came 200K votes from doing it. I would say that's within the margin of Kerry's error, it was a winnable campaign.

I disagree.. I think he was close, yet so far away..

If my car goes 100 mph and yours goes 98 mph, you are going to get close, but you are just never going to catch me, no matter what you do.. I think the Dems are in the same (swift) boat.

[chickenhead]

I agree, my point is that his car was not limited to 98 mph because he was a senator.

Does that make sense?

He lost this for a lot of reasons, but I honestly do not believe being a Senator, or his Senate record even, cost him very much.

He chose Edwards as Veep....Edwards did not bring him anything where it mattered. That hurt him electorally far more than the fact that he was a Senator, Edwards didn't flip any states.

Same for Kerry himself. He's from a blue state, nothing to gain there. Would not matter if he was governor or Senator, nothing to be gained.

Senators can win....when Clinton won first time around, a Senator in his place would have won thanks to Perot.

When Clinton won the second time around, a Senator would have won, Dole was a Senator.

[sq764]

Originally posted by chickenhead
I agree, my point is that his car was not limited to 98 mph because he was a senator.

Does that make sense?

He lost this for a lot of reasons, but I honestly do not believe being a Senator, or his Senate record even, cost him very much.

He chose Edwards as Veep....Edwards did not bring him anything where it mattered. That hurt him electorally far more than the fact that he was a Senator, Edwards didn't flip any states.

Same for Kerry himself. He's from a blue state, nothing to gain there. Would not matter if he was governor or Senator, nothing to be gained.

Senators can win....when Clinton won first time around, a Senator in his place would have won thanks to Perot.

When Clinton won the second time around, a Senator would have won, Dole was a Senator.

I think his senate record hurt him a lot.. I think that and the fact that he chose a trial lawyer as his running mate hurt too.

Until a senator does win, it's hard to go against the theory though..

[chickenhead]

you know how sometimes if you say a word enough times, or write it....and it starts to look really weird, like you've never seen if before? Like you've never noticed what a weird word it is?

That just happened to me with "senate".

[Steve 'StatMan']

Originally posted by chickenhead
you know how sometimes if you say a word enough times, or write it....and it starts to look really weird, like you've never seen if before? Like you've never noticed what a weird word it is?

That just happened to me with "senate".

Want another scary word? - therapist. Separates into 2 words. No wonder my Ex didn't want to go see one.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Hmm. senate - make it sound like 1 syllable instead of 2, and it sounds like a Chicagoan "We went to da zoo and saw dem senates in da reptile house". ;)

[wes]

It's supposer to be an election not a war. Suppose to be able to agree to disagree. Don't have to worry about a fight breaking out. We all know who owns all the guns in the USA. :rolleyes:



wes

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by chickenhead
I agree, my point is that his car was not limited to 98 mph because he was a senator.

Does that make sense?

He lost this for a lot of reasons, but I honestly do not believe being a Senator, or his Senate record even, cost him very much.

He chose Edwards as Veep....Edwards did not bring him anything where it mattered. That hurt him electorally far more than the fact that he was a Senator, Edwards didn't flip any states.

Same for Kerry himself. He's from a blue state, nothing to gain there. Would not matter if he was governor or Senator, nothing to be gained.

Senators can win....when Clinton won first time around, a Senator in his place would have won thanks to Perot.

When Clinton won the second time around, a Senator would have won, Dole was a Senator. Senators being poor candidates is not neccessarily because they are senators, but because of what they are not -- adminstrators, leaders. Despite the fact that you have listed a plausible excuse for the senators, you still have named a batch of senators that lost. Not the best evidence that they can win. Part of the problem Kerry had is that people didn't know if they could trust him as a leader, partly because he's never been one.

In horse racing terms: Make a list of all the legislators that have run for prez and all the governors. Now compute impact values. Your money should be on the governors...

[kenwoodallpromos]

The early 1900's DC, and big cities gave us income tax; the depression; and FDR's welfare state(and FDR vacationed every year in Arkansas), the rest of the county has not trusted Wash insiders or big city politicians.
For the 1 exception, JFK, see Google-Kennedy/Mafia.
I just looked at the 2004 Demo and Repub platforms- the Demos are all about individuals and the Repub church and family.
Remember Sen .and Mrs. Edwards' and Kerry's "Let's split up the Cheney family" comments?

[chickenhead]

I think this sample is far too small to say something like "Congressman can't win", especially since they have, often enough.

Considering almost every election has either an incumbent, or a vice president, and the remainder is split between governors, military or appointed administrators, and congressman....of course "non-congress" people are going to win more often, they have many more candidates.

[chickenhead]

Looking at only races (I stopped at 1908) where an incumbent was not running, if my math and history are correct these are the results:

VeeP 3/6
Gov. 2/6
Congress 2/5
Other 3/0

I threw out incumbents because the strongest of all IVs by far is in favor of incumbents.

[chickenhead]

oops ..... "Other" should read "3/3"

[Equineer]

The recent trend appears to be that candidates most clearly associated with Washington politics have lost 4 out of 5.

Carter beat President Ford

Reagan beat President Carter

G. H. Bush beat Governor Dukakis

Clinton beat President Bush

G. W. Bush beat Vice President Gore

Seems to me that a short resume on national/international issues/policies tends to be an advantage because it allows candidates to run more on their "visions" than their records.

[cryptic1]

To appreciate how deluded liberals are about this election, a
writer in one of Toronto's papers had this to say about the
election result: "the moderates on America's flanks have been
marginalized, the extremists in the middle of the country are
now the mainstream". As usual the libs have got it backwards.
In the conservative national post one writer got it right:
Ah, Democrats: so intolerant in their tolerance, conformist in
their nonconformism, preachy in their militant secularism. If any
of the columnists and academics and film stars bodying forth to
denounce the 60 million or so Americans who voted for Bush as
so many right wing religious wackos, had ever met any of the
people they treat with such hysterical scorn, they might
realize how narrow their conception of diversity really is. But then
if they had any interest in finding out how other people think,
and why, rather than merely confirming themselves in their
infinite self-regard, they might not have lost the election.
Another writer paraphrased William F. Buckley who once said
he would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the
Boston telephone directory than by the 2000 members of the
Harvard faculty. In March J. K. Galbraith observed anecdotally
that not one member of Harvard's faculty is pro Bush. This
really speaks volumes how out of touch academia is with the
real America.
Finally many American liberals fearing four more years of
right wing moral values etc have creatively set up web sites
with a new map of north america. On the new map, Canada
includes the west coast of the U.S. Known as the new province
of Pacifica;the northern states that voted Kerry become "New
Michigan" and New York, Penn, and New England become the
"Southeast Territories"(think Northwest Territories). AND the
remaining states of the Union are named "JESUSLAND". The
libs are really having a hard time digesting the elections result.
Unfortuneately, in the great white north nothing is heard
but disparaging words about the election results. Gee, SEC.,
do you want to take up my offer of switching places.

cryptic1

[Lefty]

EQ, I stand by my statement. Kerry was winning a lot of polls before the election but not the one on terrorism. Bush dominated that one and is a big reason why he won. People didn't trust Kerry to fight, cause he wouldn't even vote for the first Gulf War. He wanted to talk and talk and...
If debunking Iraq war worked so great how come Kerry wasn't elected

[kenwoodallpromos]

Maybe it's the cold weather. LOL.

[boxcar]

If the NewsMax has it right, Rhenquist pulled off a brilliant strategy -- one that would virtually ensure a record turnout of the Conservative base. And what a turnout it was!

Boxcar

*************************************

1. Rehnquist's Clever Boost for Bush

When Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist announced in late October that he had been diagnosed with thyroid cancer, we took the news sadly.

Now that the election has taken place and the dust has settled, we think the clever veteran of the Court and Beltway politics may have timed his announcement to give George Bush a small boost before Election Day.

Rehnquist could have waited a few days, until after the election was over-- as John Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, did to announce her breast cancer.

As NewsMax reader Miguel Tuas first pointed out to us, Rehnquist's timing was impeccable.

Though Rehnquist did not say he planned to step down, many media commentators said the ailing chief justice, now 80 years old, may have to leave the court to attend to his health.

And that suddenly injected the judiciary -- and the number of Supreme Court appointments the next president may have to make -- into the presidential campaign.

Can you imagine Kerry's potential court picks: Dershowitz? Tribe? Estrich?

Thankfully, we don't have to.

[Tom]

So, this was the real October surprise?
Like that cartoon guy in the beer commecials says...
"Announce you are dying to wake up the base? BRILLIANT!"
:D :D ;) :D :D :D

[kenwoodallpromos]

If you believe the trache was fake- would you slit your throat for Kerry?

[boxcar]

kenwoodallpromos wrote:

If you believe the trache was fake- would you slit your throat for Kerry?

I wouldn't slit my throat for anyone, let alone a pig like Kerry! Besides, I don't believe for a moment that Rhenquist's trache or the stated serious of his illiness is fake. For one thing, if it was, someone in the media would have blown the lid on the scam by now.) But this doesn't mean that he couldn't have waxed like a sly fox by the timing of his announcement. Maybe he figured if he's on the way out (either off the court or even worse -- down for the final count in life), then why not be a good opportunist (like Kerry) and pull off his own October Surprise? He and the Repubs certainly had zero to lose, but possibly everything to gain by it. If nothing else, perhaps he could be instrumental in waking up the sleeping giant known as the Silent Majority, and get more in this group to get up off their duffs and vote.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

This guy's piece is pretty funny. Worth the read...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/dg20041106.shtml

Boxcar

[doophus]

Chief Justice CLARENCE THOMAS

As I type, Drudge's headlines indicate Clarence Thomas is being considered for Chief Justice......

http://www.drudgereport.com/sc.htm

How loud can Katie Couric scream?

[JustRalph]

Rush Limbaugh predicted this the day he heard the Chief was very ill.

I think it is a good choice. If I can't have Scalia....... I will take Thomas

[PaceAdvantage]

Combine this with Bush's racially diverse cabinet, and you have to wonder long and hard how the left-wing critics continue to pound about how Republicans are nothing but racists and Nazis.

DO THESE PEOPLE LIVE IN A WORLD I LIKE TO CALL REALITY??

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Combine this with Bush's racially diverse cabinet, and you have to wonder long and hard how the left-wing critics continue to pound about how Republicans are nothing but racists and Nazis.

DO THESE PEOPLE LIVE IN A WORLD I LIKE TO CALL REALITY??

Speaking of black conservatives, Thomas Sowell is one of my favorites:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041105.shtml

[doophus]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Combine this with Bush's racially diverse cabinet, and you have to wonder long and hard how the left-wing critics continue to pound about how Republicans are nothing but racists and Nazis.

DO THESE PEOPLE LIVE IN A WORLD I LIKE TO CALL REALITY?? But, PA, Jessie has, between extortion runs, labeled each of them an "Uncle Tom."

And I remember when the word "run" or its derivatives was used, you only thought about the moonshine industry.......sigh.........sigh

GT.....

Ditto, ditto, ditto! Sowell is one of every right-thinker's favorites, whether black, white, purple or gold. He would make a perfect replacement for Alan Greenspan or Justice Rehnquist's replacement, IMO. Read Sowell's latest column at:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell.html

JR....

In total agreement except Thomas, age 56, is (12) yrs younger than Scalia. Thomas would hurt "dem" gonads for a longer period of time, but make no mistake, I'll take either or even co-chief justices' would be just fine.

[Equineer]

Doophus,

Sowell's column was applauded by Democratic elitists... a confirmation that Republicans are being outsourced quicker and can someday be recycled as neo-libs after they spend some time on the economic rock bottom and begin to emerge from denial.

Nationally, Kerry carried America's 50 richest counties. ;)

[boxcar]

Equineer writing in Liberalese (translate: gobbledygook)

Sowell's column was applauded by Democratic elitists... a confirmation that Republicans are being outsourced quicker and can someday be recycled as neo-libs after they spend some time on the economic rock bottom and begin to emerge from denial.

Nationally, Kerry carried America's 50 richest counties. ;)

"Denial" is the Lef't dwelling place right now, and it's likely to be this way for some time to come.

Another reason so many "ordinary" folks voted for Bush was that the the taxpaying poor and middle class really did benefit from his tax cuts -- contrary to the conventional wisdom (lies) of the Left. It appears, though, the Left had one thing right: People will vote their pocket books.

Boxcar

[sq764]

Originally posted by Equineer
Doophus,

Sowell's column was applauded by Democratic elitists... a confirmation that Republicans are being outsourced quicker and can someday be recycled as neo-libs after they spend some time on the economic rock bottom and begin to emerge from denial.

Nationally, Kerry carried America's 50 richest counties. ;)
You keep throwing out this stat... Beyond rich people voting for Kerry, what does this 50 county crap do for you?

Bush carried 55 million votes :-)

Bush carried 51% of the popular vote :-)

Bush carried more Electoral votes :-)

[PaceAdvantage]

And some on here were predicting a Kerry landslide!!!

<insert more insane cackling here>

[lsbets]

I'd like to see your link for the 50 richest counties. The only info I've found contradicts what you have to say, but you may be right, do you have a link VS?

[doophus]

I don't know what happened between 2000 and 2004 elections, but Teton County, WY (Jackson Hole area) went Kerry by 847 votes. This was only county in WY to vote Kerry, and it's also the richest county in the USA. The 2000 election map by county shows the Jackson Hole area as red.

FWIW, Wyoming gave 69% of the total vote to W. It looks like Chaney produced.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Equineer
Doophus,

Sowell's column was applauded by Democratic elitists... a confirmation that Republicans are being outsourced quicker and can someday be recycled as neo-libs after they spend some time on the economic rock bottom and begin to emerge from denial.

Nationally, Kerry carried America's 50 richest counties. ;)

Equineer, according to CNN, New JErsey has 4 of the top 18 richest counties in the country - Morris, Somerset, Hunterdon and Bergen..

It appears as if Bush won Hunterdon, Morris and Somerset counties..so, um.........

[chickenhead]

I'm too lazy to actually look up how these counties voted, anyone who really cares enough feel free.......



Listed below are the 20 richest counties in the United States, according to the Census Bureau's estimated median household income in 1998:

Douglas County, Colo. ........... $84,645

Los Alamos County, N.M. .......... 81,879

Loudoun County, Va. .............. 75,886

Hunterdon County, N.J. ........... 74,457

Fairfax County, Va. .............. 73,337

Hamilton County, Ind. ............ 72,530

Howard County, Md. ............... 72,187

Somerset County, N.J. ............ 71,779

Collin County, Texas ............. 71,423

Fayette County, Ga. .............. 70,352

Morris County, N.J. .............. 69,490

Forsyth County, Ga. .............. 67,385

Williamson County, Tenn. ......... 66,335

Washington County, Minn. ......... 65,748

Montgomery County, Md. ........... 65,691

Falls Church, Va. ............... 65,623

Putnam County, N.Y. .............. 65,568

Livingston County, Mich. ......... 64,705

DuPage County, Ill. .............. 64,365

Ozaukee County, Wis. ............ 64,056

[sq764]

Originally posted by chickenhead
I'm too lazy to actually look up how these counties voted, anyone who really cares enough feel free.......



Listed below are the 20 richest counties in the United States, according to the Census Bureau's estimated median household income in 1998:

Douglas County, Colo. ........... $84,645

Los Alamos County, N.M. .......... 81,879

Loudoun County, Va. .............. 75,886

Hunterdon County, N.J. ........... 74,457

Fairfax County, Va. .............. 73,337

Hamilton County, Ind. ............ 72,530

Howard County, Md. ............... 72,187

Somerset County, N.J. ............ 71,779

Collin County, Texas ............. 71,423

Fayette County, Ga. .............. 70,352

Morris County, N.J. .............. 69,490

Forsyth County, Ga. .............. 67,385

Williamson County, Tenn. ......... 66,335

Washington County, Minn. ......... 65,748

Montgomery County, Md. ........... 65,691

Falls Church, Va. ............... 65,623

Putnam County, N.Y. .............. 65,568

Livingston County, Mich. ......... 64,705

DuPage County, Ill. .............. 64,365

Ozaukee County, Wis. ............ 64,056

Boy, it took a long time to rebut Equineer's made up 'facts'.. Check out the richest county in the country - Douglas County..

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/CO/P/00/county.000.html

They voted 67% Bush in the election....Sheesh, is Dan Rather you fact checker?

[Equineer]

Originally posted by sq764
Equineer, according to CNN, New JErsey has 4 of the top 18 richest counties in the country - Morris, Somerset, Hunterdon and Bergen..

It appears as if Bush won Hunterdon, Morris and Somerset counties..so, um......... I haven't personally researched this statistic. Combined results for the 50 richest counties were tallied and reported after the election by CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider, who said Kerry beat Bush (i.e., popular vote among the rich).

BTW, I am concerned for the well-being of some of our most extreme conservatives. They seem convinced that I campaigned vigorously for Kerry, but their loss of short-term memory is not a healthy sign. :)

Here is Schneider:

[sq764]

Originally posted by Equineer
I haven't personally researched this statistic. Combined results for the 50 richest counties were tallied and reported after the election by CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider, who said Kerry beat Bush (i.e., popular vote among the rich).

BTW, I am concerned for the well-being of some of our most extreme conservatives. They seem convinced that I campaigned vigorously for Kerry, but their loss of short-term memory is not a healthy sign. :)

Here is Schneider:

Well, next time you want to avoid sounding ridiculous, I would pre-empt your statement with 'I heard' or "so and so said"... Prevents embarrassment..

[Equineer]

Originally posted by sq764
Well, next time you want to avoid sounding ridiculous, I would pre-empt your statement with 'I heard' or "so and so said"... Prevents embarrassment.. Not embarrassed to repeat that "Kerry carried America's 50 richest counties." I consider Schneider to be as reliable a media source as any other.

What :) pre-empted :) your understanding of what I said?

[sq764]

Originally posted by Equineer
Not embarrassed to repeat that "Kerry carried America's 50 richest counties." I consider Schneider to be as reliable a media source as any other.

What :) pre-empted :) your understanding of what I said?
If you want to play semantics, fine.. You statement says he carried every one of the 50 richest counties.. If he carried the vote collectively, then say so.

Haven't you learned let what trusting the media does for you? You'd think the exit polls (or the 2000 election) would have taught you something...

[chickenhead]

on a totally unrelated note, these numbers seem awfully low to me, even for median. Maybe I'm thinking too much in inflated 2004 dollars, but there are some counties in CA where you'd get thrown in jail for vagrancy if your household was only pulling down $65K....you'd be living in your Escalade.

[Equineer]

Originally posted by sq764
If you want to play semantics, fine.. You statement says he carried every one of the 50 richest counties.. If he carried the vote collectively, then say so.

Haven't you learned let what trusting the media does for you? You'd think the exit polls (or the 2000 election) would have taught you something... You are the one playing semantics... but poorly. Kerry carried America's 50 richest counties.
[subject] [verb] [object]
See http://www.kico4u.de/english/uebungen/mixedsentences/identifying3.htm... Simple sentences are "a piece of cake." :)

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by chickenhead
on a totally unrelated note, these numbers seem awfully low to me, even for median. Maybe I'm thinking too much in inflated 2004 dollars, but there are some counties in CA where you'd get thrown in jail for vagrancy if your household was only pulling down $65K....you'd be living in your Escalade.
chicken......... I was thinking the same thing.............the Escalade, now that was good

[sq764]

Originally posted by Equineer
You are the one playing semantics... but poorly. Kerry carried America's 50 richest counties.
[subject] [verb] [object]
See http://www.kico4u.de/english/uebungen/mixedsentences/identifying3.htm... Simple sentences are "a piece of cake." :)

Ok, let's make it easy.. Follow this slowly: Your...sentence....is....wrong....and....is....fac tually....incorrect....

[Equineer]

Originally posted by sq764
Ok, let's make it easy.. Follow this slowly: Your...sentence....is....wrong....and....is....fac tually....incorrect.... What source makes you believe the statement was factually incorrect?

Schneider cited this statistic among several anomalies that appear to contradict traditional/conventional political wisdom.

For years, Republicans have been type cast as the party of the rich... Schneider used his rich counties analysis to prove his point about obsolete perceptions.

[Equineer]

Chickenhead,

Here is a recent (4/19/2004) TOP-10 List based on IRS info:

#1 Teton County, Wyoming (average adjusted household gross income $107,694 in 2002)
#2 Fairfield County, Connecticut
#3 Marin County, California
#4 Sommerset County, New Jersey
#5 Morris County, New Jersey
#6 Clear Creek County, Colorado
#7 Douglas County, Colorado
#8 Hunterdon County, New Jersey
#9 Westchester County, New York
#10 New York County, New York

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-04-17-wyoming_x.htm

[Steve 'StatMan']

Originally posted by Equineer
Nationally, Kerry carried America's 50 richest counties. ;)

I know I took that statement to mean Kerry carried all 50 of those counties. But it didn't say "each of the 50" and yet it didn't say "the majority of". Open for individaul interpretation and therefore potential misunderstanding.

[doophus]

Top 10 Richest Counties

I knew I had seen something in the not distant past...

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2004/04/18/build/wyoming/40-teton-wealth.inc

The top (9) counties listed in this article, I couldn't find results or a county named New York, NY, gives Kerry a total vote of 532,714 vs Bush with 514,497.

I didn't try the square miles thing, but what does it say when the Repubs only win (4) of the (9), and if there is a New York County, NY, then, probably only (4) of (10), richest counties in USA? This fact doesn't seem to jive with the Dem rhetoric, but what really does?

The largest % garnered by county for Kerry was in Marin County, CA with 73%.

The largest % garnered by Bush was Douglas County, CO with 67%. Note also that Bush won all (3) NJ counties.

[Equineer]

Doophus,

New York County is the TOP-10 List that was common to both our links.

See this list and map of NY counties: http://www.nysac.org/nysac/countylinks.html

In just the Manhattan borough, Kerry won by more than 350,000 votes.

[Lefty]

EQ, if you want to correct obsolete perceptions about Repubs being the party of the rich then you need to talk to the DNC. They and the big media keep trumpeting that mantra