General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Who did you support and VOTE for President in 1992? Primary/General [View all]LostOne4Ever
(9,319 posts)The Media had declared Kerry the heir apparent before anyone had even heard of Dean.
Why did Kerry win that one election? Well for one it was only the first election of a tiny part of the country. Two, better campaigning by Kerry in Iowa of convincing Liberals (who were desperate to get rid of bush) that Kerry had a better chance of beating bush due to him being a war hero and having more foreign policy experience.
If Kerry was so scary to Nixon (...in 1971), so inspiring, and had so much political skill and experience why did he lose the popular vote to double dumb by ~2million votes? Why did Dean out raise him? Oh some polls said so? Polls by the same people who said Dean would trounce him in Iowa? Yeah right
Kerry trounced bush in the debates and he still lost. The party was too focused on looking good on foreign policy and not enough about relating to the common voter. We did not need to focus that much on Foreign policy because by then the war was already unpopular. So he trounced Bush on the debates, was a war hero vs a deserter, had tons of foreign experience, the war had turned against bush, democrats took back congress, and yet he still lost the popular vote. Not only that, but Bush won by a plurality of the vote?
Why? He had everything going for him, why? He was boring. His speeches were boring, the debates were boring. He was boring.
The media did their best to make Dean (Mr Gun Rights) look like a far leftist. We never had a chance to see how he would have done in the actual general election, but the one thing Dean was not, was boring (the stupid video proves this). We did not need loads of foreign policy experience because the american public already had turned against the Bush Foreign policy.
Not to mention that Dean had many things going for him that usually won general elections. He had a popular grass roots campaign and was a popular Governor (Governors have been rather successful in modern elections), and above all else he did not have a record on the Iraq war to explain away.
As to not arguing 9 year old things - maybe you should not make outrageous comments about things that happened 9 years ago - as they may be countered by others who disagree.
Maybe you shouldn't look for fights? This was a thread on the positions we took on the 1992 election and I was explaining my voting record and opinions.
And what in the world is outrageous about
I still get angry when I think of how the MSM killed his campaign.
and
I still think dean would have beaten Double Dumb in the General.
Both of these are opinions, shared by many democrats, and unless you are omniscient you have no way to prove or disprove.
Definitely looking for a fight.