OK, here's my two cents on the 2004 election:

1) This officially marks a new era of post-911 politics. It is clearly obvious that fear is on the minds of the American people, and that threats of terrorism and being attacked anytime in the future has replaced the economy as America's main concern. After reading suck quotes as "well, if the terrorists strike, then we won't have to worry about an economy, will we?" and "I don't think we can change Presidents when we are in the middle of a war", i knew that this issue was going to be an extremely tough battle for the Democrats and could cost them the election. It is clear now more than ever that, from this point forward in the new post-911 politics of America, that Democratic candidates are going to have to make this an extremely important issue from here on out, even more so than the economy.
2) It is much better for a candidate to have to rely on the religious right to come to the polls than it is to have to rely on the youth of america to come to the polls. The results from the election make it clear that it is the reliable religious right who go to church every week that come to the polls and vote, whereas the "sketchy" youth of America still don't come and cast their votes like they should, despite the fact that many thought there would be a huge voter turnout. As a 19 year old college student, this is a tad dissapointing.
3) The American public is looking for a candidate with high morale values. It is clear to me now, especially with all 11 gay-marriage banning propositions passing in their respective states, that we live in a nation where many believe in traditional, conservative values, especially in marriage. America is still turned off by the thought of gay marriage and stem cell research, which disgusts me in a way. It's also disgusting that people turn to a candidate who fought one of the most immoral wars in the history of America just because he fights for the more "traditional" morales and values (especially when Kerry isn't exactly an advocate for gay marriage and supports quite a few of these traditional values).
4) People like a guy with high morales, who talks about his wife and kids with love and respect (as he did in the last debate), who looks like the boy next door or the neighbor that lives down the street. Many see that image as a guy who they can trust and who shares their values. Which I find to be reasonable, but it's not like Kerry has been a wild rebel who's been drinking every night and going to strip clubs; he's an honorable man who fought for his country in another unjust war and served his state for 20 years as a Senator. Funny thing is, it's Bush who's been busted for DUI, dodged serving in Vietnam and got drunk off his ass every night when he was in his 20s. Oh the irony.
5) You can have all the big bands you want campaigning for you, all the bon Jovis and Bruce Springsteens and Pearl Jams and, f**k, even all the Puff Daddys and Ashton Kutchers of the world on your side, and it doesn't matter; people don't care about who supports the candidate, but rather the candidate themselves. No 'Vote For Change' tour is going to change their minds; ever.
6) Not enough people saw Fahrenheit 9/11, or to put it more accurately, not enough of the right people. It's clear now that most of the people who saw the movie where liberals who/or were going to vote for Kerry, while many of the conservatives turned a blind eye to it and never saw it, ignored it as fiction. Michael Moore tried his best to get it out there, but it's obvious that almost all viewers made up their minds as to who they were going to vote for and/or knew what their opinion was of the movie before they even saw it. Moore should have also fought harder to get the movie onto basic tv, because are people who are undecided or who are Republican going to pay to see it? No, but if it's on NBC or CBS or ABC for free, they may take a look at it.
7) The Democrats need to pick a strong candidate in 2008, no doubt about it. There's no way that the Democrats can win another election unless they pick a candidate that everyone has a clear definition on who they are, what their character is, and what their opinions are on the issues. It is clear that most people still didn't really know what Kerry's character was or what is opinions were on the issues, and I think that's one of the big reasons as to why Kerry lost. Especially on terrorism; in this post-911 America, people didn't really think Kerry had a strong plan to fight terrorism, or thought that he didn't really have a plan at all, at least a plan that was different from Bush's (and even I have to admit that Kerry focused too much on "this is what Bush is doing wrong in fighting terrorism" as opposedto "this is how I will fight terrorism and protect America.").
The Republicans of 2004 are without a doubt the greatest spinners in the history of American politics. They kept pounding the same old "Kerry is a flip-flopper" and "Kerry has no effective plan to fight terrorism" phrases into the minds of Americans, and we thought they were redundant and pointless. But, in the end, they worked. These phrases stick into voters minds, and, as a result, affects who they vote for. At the same time, Kerry's emphasis on "I fought in Vietnam and fought bravely for my country" failed to get voters to vote for him. So in other words, I conclude that: Repetitive phrases that focus negatively on the other candidate = good; repetitive phrases that focus positively on a candidate = pointless and annoying. At least according to the Americans that voted.
9) Dan Rather is horrible at one-liners.

Anyway, I think this is not just a dissapointing day for America, but a true testament as to what America really is; a nation that still believes in strong conservative values and wants a leader who can protect them from terrorists and terrorism. Period.

whygodeep

Welcome back to the 1950's. If you look at all the crap that went on with "red scare" and replace the word communist with terrorist it's the same old crap. I am truly in a state of deep depression for the state of this country and the rest of the world when we decide to invade on another false premise in the name of protection from terrorists.

Ya, it is amazing to see how paranoid this country really is. Unfortunately, a need for some sort of protection or "security blanket" from terrorists will probably come at the expense of our economy and maybe some of our own civil liberties, especially since this will mean that, more than likely, the Patriot Act will be renewed. This is a sad day indeed.

whygodeep

PS Now that I think about it, at least the 50s had decent music and a decent pop culture. We don't even have that anymore.

To add my thoughts to yours:

- at least it was "close"
- electoral college should be abolished, it's obsolete
- a "none of the above" box should be added so we aren't forced to select a candidate we don't want just because we want the other one even less.
- see everyone again in four more years; hopefully a young, intelligent, candidate who has one foot in "reality" will run next time instead of another slew of old rich white guys.

c-

Ya it was pretty close...even though a 3.5 million difference in the popular vote is still relatively large.



A lot of Democrats said that four years ago; now with the relatively large popular vote going for Bush this year and Kerry still having a chance despite this, I bet they're not saying that anymore. But I'd have to agree with you.



If this was the case, and if somehow that is what the majority voted for, who would be President then?



Ditto

whygodeep

Was it Chris Matthews who said, "The kids went to see Springsteen, but they didn't go to vote."

It's mind boggling. The percent of 18-30 year old voters in the 2000 election was 18%.

This year 18-30 year olds came in at 17%.

where did you get those numbers?

Really? Only 17%? There was actually a decrease!? That really surprises me, especially since on campus here at Arizona State, it seemed like the students were really getting involved in this election (which was all for not, though, since Bush won here in AZ by 11 percentage points). I guess the youth were either too busy studying or were too busy doing what they normally do during the day (whatever "that" may be). Or maybe the long lines turned them away. But in the end, a campaign shouldn't be about how many people a big artist/celebrity can draw to a campaign rally, but how many people a candidate can draw to the polls; and in that case, Bush won.

Also I find it surprising that this election isn't much different from four years ago (at least in terms of electoral votes) except for a bigger popular vote for Bush, Bush getting a much more solid victory in Florida, and the fact that Bush got a few of the states that went for Gore in 2000, which ultimately decided this election.

whygodeep

They had those numbers up last night during the election. Although the numbers I saw said it was 17% 2000 and in 2004. Not trying to say that I would prefer one set of numbers over the other, one staying the same and one going down 1%........simply put.....there just weren't enough young people voting.

Obama in '08.

Could it be people think Kerry is a flip-flopper with no plan to fight terrorism b/c he really is a flip-flopper with no plan to fight terrorism?

I would kill to see a Hilary Clinton/Barack Obama ticket in 2008.



I don't believe Kerry was a flip-flopper with no plan to fight terrorism, but you are entitled to your own opinion.

whygodeep

Most people realize that in order to be an effective Senator, you have to filibuster, compromise and deal with both parties. Only an idiot would call this "flip-flopping".

IMHO, privatizing Iraq after invading it is not the correct plan, as any and all our military leaders agree. Think about it. A country invades you, then they throw open the borders to all business (without any taxes, tariffs, security checks) to buy all of your infrastructure - your factories, utilities (water!), financial entities. Of course, the foreign businesses who purchase your companies have nothing but profit/greed on their minds, so they lay off the local workers to increase margins.

Still with me? Can you say major unemployment?

Next, they fire all the military, every last soldier.

In Iraq, we're talking a total of 500,000 workers without jobs now. Sound like freedom and democracy to you?

Sounds like civil war to me!!!