Posted on 11/13/2004 10:52:36 AM PST by freeforall
American post-vote posturing nonsense
JIM CHAPMAN, London Free Press
It has been interesting and sometimes quite annoying to watch and listen to the American commentators in the aftermath of the U.S. election.
At the more or less final count, George W. Bush had won 51 per cent of the popular vote to John Kerry's 48 per cent.
Yet to hear some of the Republican commentators, their party staged a major triumph, a complete vindication of their president's record and proof positive that they speak for the great majority of U.S. citizens who reject the liberal media elite version of America.
Bushwah. They won 51 per cent of the voter support up for grabs; 49 per cent of their fellow countrymen voted otherwise.
Now, in a nation such as Canada, where we regularly elect leaders with less than 40-per-cent voter support, that 51 per cent looks pretty good. But in the context of American political struggles, it wasn't a very impressive win.
In 1972, Richard Nixon won 60.8 per cent of the vote. In 1984, Ronald Reagan captured 58.8 per cent of the votes cast and in 1964 Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater with 61.1 per cent of the voters supporting his Great Society. These were major wins, solid confirmations of public support for the winning candidates.
Dubya's 51 per cent was just a whisper above the bare minimum needed to declare victory in the public contest (the Electoral College totals are a story for another time).
On the other side, the Democrats are equally guilty of misinterpreting the numbers. They're weeping and gnashing their teeth over what they're identifying as their failure to connect with voters, despite the fact 48 per cent of those who went to the polls gave Kerry the nod.
Give your heads a shake, guys, that's not exactly chopped liver. Yet the airwaves are full of back-room Democratic power-brokers and strategists who are anguishing over the need to rebuild the party in the aftermath of a crushing defeat.
The knives are already out for Kerry and, based on his performance on the hustings, John Edwards is likely to join his running mate sooner rather than later in the where-are-they-now? category. But that doesn't have to mean a wholesale restructuring of the Democratic party.
From a vantage point north of the border, it doesn't seem like it's such a daunting challenge to put a Democrat back in the White House in 2008. In fact, I think it hinges around one issue that's ultimately more important than any other -- give people a better candidate.
The Democrats got almost half the vote with a guy who never really shook the image of being a flip-flopping, elitist, say-anything-to-get-elected political hack. That was less a failure by the party than a clear lack of strength on the part of the candidate.
I suggest what they need next time is a presidential possibility checklist. There must be somebody in their party who:
* Has no skeletons in his closet (hello, swift boat veterans).
* Has a solid, consistent voting record that illustrates a workable philosophy.
* Has enough charisma to satisfy those who think that's important.
* Knows the difference between talking to people and just makming speeches.
* Isn't afraid to offer specific plans and policies that clearly demonstrate their superiority to those of the Republicans.
Put that package together and run it next time and see what happens.
In the meantime, any party that would give up and say they've lost contact with the American people even after winning 48 per cent of the popular vote doesn't deserve to run the country.
Up here on the snowy side of the border, the federal Liberals would sell their souls for that level of support (if they haven't already made another deal). Next Column: Time to show plane sense
Jim Chapman is host of CJBK-AM Radio's Talk of the Town. His column appears Saturdays
a canuck says please ignore this asshole...we have more than our fair share of marxist/socialist wingnuts in our press and governments...thats why we invented fabulous rye whiskey and a country full of nubile female happybums...eh...bcboy
THEY have some idea of how many manufactured votes there were. I suspect it WAS a crushing defeat without the illegal/dead/felon/multiple votes.
Shows how little that colwn understands about America. How does he explain 4 Senate seat losses and 5 in the House for the Dems.
Thank God I'm not Canadian.
I agree. They know the margin is bigger than the outcome shows. Here's a writer recommending the Democrats fearlessly present their plans and demonstrate how superior they are to the Republican alternative. Why don't they just do that? Wouldn't that be easier than flip-flopping and slandering your opponent? Hmmmm........
But Nixon did nothing to help Republican candidates for the House and Sentate. Republicans actually lost House and Senate seats in 1972. Reagan also failed to translate a landslide presidential win into congressional gains. Bush is the first President to win reelection while making gains in both the House and Senate since 1936 when FDR did it. Republicans gained a net increase of four seats solidifyng Republican control of the Senate. He is the first Republican President to win reelection on those terms since McKinley in 1900.
Calling Mr. Chapman, Mr. Chapman....
Please pick up a clue at the curtesy booth.
Somebody needs to send these people A RED MAP.
And remind them that it's not 51% - I think it's 52-53% since the count went over 60 million - which is 10 million more than he got in 2000.
PLeasee, do not pay any attention to such drbble being spewed by this clown who is probably a " NEW Democrat" which is somewhere left of communist.
My guess is, if the Democrats had won, this guy would be chortling about the complete repudiation of Bush's policies.
Hogwash. His "Great Society" was in his inauguration speech so how could people have been voting for it? And besides most of that 61% were sympathy votes. Any candidate running as Vice-President who's President is assassinated a year before the election will probably receive more than 50% of the vote just out of sympathy and to maintain continuity.
Once the voters got to know him proper, he was soundly rejected. So much so in fact, that he decided to withdraw from the race lest he suffer a humiliating defeat.
Well now, there are a few more items to add to the list to save the democrats
- Repudiate Michael Moore and the Hollyweirdos.
- Stop saying that abortion is the same as cutting your toenails,
- Stop wanting to increase taxes on anybody.
- Support our military
- Stop pushing activist judges and the gay lifestyle
- Stop bad mouthing God and all who believe in God
- Stop being ARROGANT A$$HOLES....Oh Well, Never mind. That last one is impossible.
And Clinton felt he had enough of a mandate to fire all the federal prosecutors throughout the country as his first act in office because he had what percentage of the country behind him? 49.2% in 1996 and 43.0 % in 1992. What about Carter? 50.1% in 1976. Truman in 1948? 49.6% Why even the sainted FDR in the middle of WWII only got 53.4% of the vote in 1944 to Dewey's 45.9%!
This guy is clueless -- he has no idea what he is talking about.
I live in the same city as this dufus and he has been a pain in my as* for years whether it's on the radio, on TV, or in print. You turn around and someone else is giving him a job and I've yet to figure out why!! Like I said in another thread the other day, the loud mouths make better press. His coments mean less the more he talks.
* Has no skeletons in his closet (hello, swift boat veterans).
* Has a solid, consistent voting record that illustrates a workable philosophy.
* Has enough charisma to satisfy those who think that's important.
* Knows the difference between talking to people and just makming speeches.
* Isn't afraid to offer specific plans and policies that clearly demonstrate their superiority to those of the Republicans.
Put that package together and run it next time and see what happens.
Guess what? They don't have anyone in their party that would meet these criteria. All they have is a bunch of corrupt mountebanks and poltroons that have nothing to sell except decades-old ideas straight out of the writings of Marx, ideas that have been proven time and again to do nothing but spread poverty, misery, despair and ultimately mass murder on the greatest scale ever seen.
And the fact that this guy even puts this in print just shows his utter stupidity about America and our politics and DQ's himself from any knowledgeable conversation on the subject.
Somebody send this jerk a quarter and tell him to call somebody who gives a rat's a** what they think.
If these idiots spent more time reading than they did writng the world would be a whole lot better off.
The Queen is dead! Long Live the King!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.