Boon 0 Report post Posted May 16, 2005 No. If Kerry had done a better job selling his national security plan, THEN he could've won, IMO. You can't sell what you don't have. My theory states that most of the people who voted for him felt safer with him in charge than with Bush in charge. We're not talking about how they felt about one issue, we're talking about what the main issues they voted on were. What about the majority (55% according to the poll I quoted above) of people who felt that something else was more important then Iraq or the war on terror? Don't no sell those stats by saying that 100% was an exaggeration. And I'll take those numbers over that subconscious stuff you said earlier, too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted May 16, 2005 (edited) Feel free to no-sell my subconscious at your own peril. Ever seen "Forbidden Planet"? Enough said. edit: Okay, yeah I was wrong. Damn facts always gettin' in the way of my opinions... You can't sell what you don't have. He had a plan. If you had visited his website and searched it for an hour you might have found some reference of how to order a copy of it which I'm sure would have arrived on your door by November 3rd. Its not his fault you were lazy. Edited May 16, 2005 by RobotJerk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted May 16, 2005 He had a plan. If you had visited his website and searched it for an hour you might have found some reference of how to order a copy of it which I'm sure would have arrived on your door by November 3rd. Its not his fault you were lazy. This sounds so wrong from you, because it sounds like you're just ripping on Kerry the way all of us did, however, I'm not certain that you are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted May 16, 2005 I blame Bob Shrum more than Kerry for the stupidity of his campaign, but Kerry should've been smart enough not to listen to Shrum's common sense-defying campaign "ideas". Plus Kerry was a hypocrite on the Iraq War (never clarifying whether he was for or against ousting Saddam Hussein, voting against the $87 billion but bashing Bush for not getting the troops the supplies they needed), and tried to milk the service in a war he was morally opposed to for political mileage. I had to keep telling myself that his presidency would not resemble his campaign (as they rarely do), to keep myself from voting for Nader again. I was a big supporter of his at the time, but only because I didn't think the man we saw on the campaign trail was the real him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted May 18, 2005 I blame Bob Shrum more than Kerry for the stupidity of his campaign, but Kerry should've been smart enough not to listen to Shrum's common sense-defying campaign "ideas". Plus Kerry was a hypocrite on the Iraq War (never clarifying whether he was for or against ousting Saddam Hussein, voting against the $87 billion but bashing Bush for not getting the troops the supplies they needed), and tried to milk the service in a war he was morally opposed to for political mileage. I had to keep telling myself that his presidency would not resemble his campaign (as they rarely do), to keep myself from voting for Nader again. I was a big supporter of his at the time, but only because I didn't think the man we saw on the campaign trail was the real him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spicy McHaggis 0 Report post Posted May 18, 2005 51-48 seems awfully close. Seemed close to me, too. But, Bush was the first candidate since 1988 to win a majority of the vote and almost 60 percent of eligible voters voted, which was the highest number since 1968. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
