21 replies to this topic

[Rov Judicata]

This is a minor incident in election strategy, but I'm stratching my head trying to figure out this statement:

http://www.knoxnews....2630723,00.html

Quote

Kerry has yet to schedule a Tennessee campaign visit, concentrating instead for now on Michigan and Washington, where votes are scheduled on Saturday. His wife has scheduled a visit to Knoxville on Friday, according to Bill Owen, a Democratic national committeeman from Knoxville who serves on Kerry's state steering committee.

"John Kerry is not trying to run a regional candidacy. He's running for president of the United States, with an emphasis on the united," said Kathy Roeder, spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign in Tennessee.

"An emphasis on the united"? This doesn't reflect on Kerry, because I expect he'll renounce the statement in some capacity, but I'm trying to figure out what the 'emphasis on the united' is supposed to even mean. Anybody have any ideas?

[the 'Hawk]

Sort of like George Thomas, when he said, "Mix 'em all up, I'm tired of states' rights"?

I think he's about a hundred and forty years too late to run on the same campaign as George McClellan did, no?

[Bad Wolf]

*scratches head*

Remember that political questionnaire from way back to see what political figure was most in agreement with each of us and how no one scored even 70% with me? (Kerry was 68 or 69)???  Well here's why.  Kerry is prolly the guy I'll vote for but his isolationism bugs me and this federalism is all kewl and all but um...

[Appreciate]

Rov, I want you to know, I knew this was your thread from the main page because you forgot again:  THERE'S NO BIZZ in BIZARRE.



Kathy

(I'm only bugging him about this cause I told him that exact thing TWO DAYS AGO and he forgot very quickly.   )

[Nick]

Nah, this has nothing to do w/ nationalism or any of that--it's a thinly veiled criticism of John Edwards.  After Edwards took South Carolina by a nice margin, Kerry's campaign countered with almost the exact same wording.  I don't remember the precise statement, but it was basically "That was expected.  Edwards is a regional candidate, with strong appeal in his region, but Kerry's the national candidate that could actually win the election."

essentially "That's nice, but we're still too far ahead of him to care".

Kerry's campaign has also mentioned that Edwards is the one candidate that they'd least like to face one on one . . .

I wouldn't be surprised if Edwards takes Tennesee, and Kerry's staff is already downplaying it.  They'll let Edwards have a few Southern states in his home turf, (they almost always wind up going Republican in the generals anyway these days)and focus on snapping up everybody else.

-Nick

[QuiGon John]

I'm not sure what the problem is with that statement.  I assume they meant "United States, emphasis on the United" in the same way I might say "Ex-Andromeda fan, emphasis on the Ex."

In other words, Kerry's been accused of paying attention only to part of the USA, slighting the South a bit, so his campaign puts out a statement saying no, he's interested in appealing to the whole-- united-- nation.

Makes sense to me, whether or not I necessarily agree...

Edited by John Burke, 06 February 2004 - 12:30 AM.

[MuseZack]

Nick nailed it.  It's a veiled and somewhat garbled swipe at Edwards and to a lesser degree Clark as having strength only in the south.

[Delvo]

"We're too separated, we need to get together" is fairly standard stuff from left-wing public figures, and has been for longer than I've been alive. If there's a problem with Kerry saying it, it's that he's just very unoriginal; every speech I've heard from him could just as well have been written for any other Democrat.

It also goes along with the fact that Kerry has also attacked Bush for supposedly not living up to his claims to be a uniter, not a divider.

[CJ AEGIS]

Una Salus Lillius, on Feb 6 2004, 12:16 AM, said:

Kerry is prolly the guy I'll vote for but his isolationism bugs me

Bugs is an understatement of a high degree.   Kerry is a fine modern example of our terriable foreign policy of the 1930s.

[G1223]

Add in CJ he also someone who would want to hand off to the UN  our troops to go fight in the little "Peacekeeping"Wars.

Everyone rememberes UN Rules of Engement:  If fired on go and get ammo from supply officer sign form; FUBAR-234-234550-435 for each 10 rds signed for. Return to post and return fire if you can clearly identify attackers and check to make sure they are on the list of  hostile forces.That sounds exactly like the Kerry plan or will be the end gains from it.


His plans for the Economy. Keep what is in place but remove Bush. Take credit when slugishness ends. Blame Bush till slugishness ends.

[MuseZack]

G1223, on Feb 6 2004, 03:28 PM, said:

Add in CJ he also someone who would want to hand off to the UN  our troops to go fight in the little "Peacekeeping"Wars.

Everyone rememberes UN Rules of Engement:  If fired on go and get ammo from supply officer sign form; FUBAR-234-234550-435 for each 10 rds signed for. Return to post and return fire if you can clearly identify attackers and check to make sure they are on the list of  hostile forces.That sounds exactly like the Kerry plan or will be the end gains from it.


His plans for the Economy. Keep what is in place but remove Bush. Take credit when slugishness ends. Blame Bush till slugishness ends.

G, it would be nice if for once you could actually make an assertion about a Democrat based on his or her actually held positions and opinions instead of your bizarre interpretations of them.  


What UN Peacekeeping wars did Kerry support?  

What are his actual ideas on what to do about the economy?  

Here's his website.  http://johnkerry.com/


Go wild, explore his platform and ideas.  You might actually learn something that will allow you to make real, live fact-based arguments.

[Rhea]

Appreciate, on Feb 5 2004, 10:20 PM, said:

Rov, I want you to know, I knew this was your thread from the main page because you forgot again:  THERE'S NO BIZZ in BIZARRE.



Kathy

(I'm only bugging him about this cause I told him that exact thing TWO DAYS AGO and he forgot very quickly.  )

Let's hear it for Kathy, Pedant Extraordinaire!  

(I would have said the same thing, only he fixed it before I saw it. LOL!)

[GiGi]

MuseZack, on Feb 6 2004, 09:40 AM, said:

Here's his website.  http://johnkerry.com/


Go wild, explore his platform and ideas.  You might actually learn something that will allow you to make real, live fact-based arguments.

Thank you Zack.

[Nick]

John Burke, on Feb 6 2004, 12:26 AM, said:

I'm not sure what the problem is with that statement.  I assume they meant "United States, emphasis on the United" in the same way I might say "Ex-Andromeda fan, emphasis on the Ex."

In other words, Kerry's been accused of paying attention only to part of the USA, slighting the South a bit, so his campaign puts out a statement saying no, he's interested in appealing to the whole-- united-- nation.

Makes sense to me, whether or not I necessarily agree...

That's funny--we made the same point within one minute of each other.

But I was faster, so I won!



-Nick

[Rov Judicata]

I understand the "regional" part. It's the "emphasis on united" that I'm still not getting, and I don't see how it makes any more sense in the context of a national vs. regonial debate...

[Gaiate]

^

I'm guessing it's a dig aimed at Bush, like Delvo said.

--Te

[Aric]

I seem to remember that from 2000, Bush won virtually all the southern states, but Gore was still within a couple of points from winning anyway.  Does the south really matter if we're examining a Democrat's chances versus Bush?  Isn't there enough points to win in the north and west where Democrats traditionally fare well?  I seem to remember political analysts describing 8-9 'battleground states' where elections are won and lost, and I don't remember aside from Florida, that any were even in the South.

I have to say, I must have had the worst luck in catching anything Kerry says, because I have still to see anything Presidential about him.  I have yet to see why he is so inspiring or popular to Democrats, certainly nothing that would make him a better choice than Dean or Edwards.

Aric

[Rov Judicata]

Gaiate, on Feb 6 2004, 04:02 PM, said:

^

I'm guessing it's a dig aimed at Bush, like Delvo said.

--Te

Oops, missed that. Good call Delvo, hadn't thought of that! Thanks....

[AnneZo]

Removed.  Upon re-reading the thread, I see someone already made my point.

Edited by AnneZo, 06 February 2004 - 06:17 PM.

[Delvo]

Aric, on Feb 6 2004, 05:03 PM, said:

I seem to remember that from 2000, Bush won virtually all the southern states, but Gore was still within a couple of points from winning anyway.  Does the south really matter if we're examining a Democrat's chances versus Bush?

Yes; the fact that they got close last time based mostly on other regions doesn't make a region they didn't win irrelevant. That reasoning is fundamentally flawed; using it, we could eliminate every single region as irrelevant based on one of the last few elections. Winning one southeastern state might have given Gore the win, but it didn't happen, so he lost. Then again, the same thing is true of a bunch of non-southeastern states he didn't win either. And, if Gore had won, we could say the same thing about Bush: If he had just gotten one or two more states, he could have won, and those states don't need to be in any particular region to have that impact. And someone might say "Well, they say the Northeast is important to Democrats, but they got it last time, and Bush still came close, so does it really matter?" Of course it does; without it, they wouldn't have done as well as they did.

Quote

Isn't there enough points to win in the north and west where Democrats traditionally fare well?

In those states alone, no. If that were the case, Democrats would always be winning, so, since they don't always win, you know that clearly the reliably Democrat states aren't enough.

Quote

I seem to remember political analysts describing 8-9 'battleground states' where elections are won and lost, and I don't remember aside from Florida, that any were even in the South.

That's not because the southeastern states don't matter. They do. They just don't count as "battleground" states if everybody presumes them unwinnable by one party and unlosable by the other. Battleground states are the ones that political strategists still think might go either way.