Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was thinking about it do Democrats consider the 2004 election to the 2012 one? 2004 had a really crappy candidate with baggage and a shady history in Kerry in 2012 republicans had the same in Romney...both were trying to unseat a sitting president instead of just trying to get elected to an open seat...Is that a fair comparison?
I think if he had not voted for the war then tried to be against it he would have won. Bush was an idiot and should have been easier to beat than Obama in 2012. Democrats screwed up in nominating a nominee who had voted for a war he was running against...
I think if he had not voted for the war then tried to be against it he would have won. Bush was an idiot and should have been easier to beat than Obama in 2012. Democrats screwed up in nominating a nominee who had voted for a war he was running against...
Now, think real hard about a major, major issue in 2012. Think about who the Republicans nominated. Think about what major, major issue was the centerpiece of that nominee's single term in public office in Massachusetts.
Still stumped? I'll give you a hint.
Mitt Romney, in a GOP debate in 2011: "I like mandates!"
When an incredulous Fred Thompson asked him if he really did, Romney replied: "Oh, absolutely!"
Aside from that, Kerry wasn't "running against" the war. While criticizing Bush for his prosecution of the war, Kerry was quite clear that he thought the U.S. needed to stay in Iraq militarily until reconstruction was complete.
So, not only is your claim about Kerry's Iraq stance wrong, you completely miss the point that the GOP similarly nominated a flawed candidate in 2012, and the fact that in that case the candidate was opposed to the policy he had once supported to a much stronger degree - the analog to Kerry in 2004 would have been if Romney was opposed to the Affordable Care Act, but accepted that it was passed and wanted to modify it. He didn't - he wanted a complete repeal, a much greater opposition to the AFA than Kerry ever held against the Iraq War.
Nice try, but your comparison and conclusions are complete fails.
Kerry was a bad candidate well beyond his policy stances. But looking at 2004, the Democrats probably didn't have a better candidate. Dean? Edwards? Clark? Please.
Oh I know the GOP nominated a fool. I didn't vote for him. No chance that was going to happen. I was just curious if democrats saw 2004 the same way republican saw 2012...I liked Dean in 2004 personally...I didn't even vote though...
I was thinking about it do Democrats consider the 2004 election to the 2012 one? 2004 had a really crappy candidate with baggage and a shady history in Kerry in 2012 republicans had the same in Romney...both were trying to unseat a sitting president instead of just trying to get elected to an open seat...Is that a fair comparison?
The two incumbents had abused drugs at different times. Both were corporatists who used tax dollars to prop up auto companies and banks.
Both Obama and Bush ran against weak opposition. Can you imagine to win election and reelection just having to beat a 72 year old McCain,or Mitt Romney,a guy who was the inspiration for your own healthcare plan? Kind of like a team winning the Final Four if they played crappy midmajors all the way.
2004 was actually the perfect prelude to all future elections. The fact that a cardboard box personality like Kerry got that close showed how locktight the hold the Dems have on the 241 electoral votes attributable to the 19 states blue since 1988.
With NM and Va solid blue now due to demographic shifts, even a Gore or Kerry could win with ease.
I was thinking about it do Democrats consider the 2004 election to the 2012 one? 2004 had a really crappy candidate with baggage and a shady history in Kerry in 2012 republicans had the same in Romney...both were trying to unseat a sitting president instead of just trying to get elected to an open seat...Is that a fair comparison?
I think that both Kerry and Romney shared a public perception that they were either indifferent to what was happening or felt entitled to win due to their position in life.
Neither was effective at convincing the voters otherwise. Both seemed to be continually muddled about their reasons for running, and both never tried to find a way to convince the voters their perceptions were false. When Kerry went sailboarding on the Columbia river after winning Oregon in the primaries, I knew he was doomed. He should have gone to a neighborhood bar and bought a round. Mitt should have done the same whenever he won. Neither really understood that's what most of us do to celebrate a triumph.
Niether was very good at mixing with the workaday folks. Both seemed to be very uncomfortable when they walked into a diner early in the morning.
So- yeah. I think your comparison is pretty valid. There are big differences in their respective histories, but in the end, they were more alike than different in their personalities, even if their politics could have not been more different. I do think Kerry is more intense than Romney, but intensity alone does not make a President.
If it did, the band would be playing Hail To The Chief for President Santorum. Or, in 2004, President Dean.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
