![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Nov. 10th, 2006 09:30 pmSo, still ecstatic about the change in the political landscape and all that, but wondering...
Where was all this anti-Bush anger hiding in 2004?
Yeah, the war has dragged on another 2 years, and yeah, that was before Katrina, and the pedophile House member, but still... I don't see why this added up to a complete change in direction.
Theories:
1. Change of management at the DNC, Howard Dean doing a kick-ass job? I saw what a terrible job the Democrats were doing in 2004, in things like using volunteers. Also there's the much-touted 50-state strategy. Have they got their act together now?
2. Kerry sucks, version 1: It's all about Iraq this year; but the Dems couldn't really talk about Iraq in 2004, because Kerry didn't vote against going to war. He would say he didn't vote for going to war, rather that he voted to allow Bush to make the decision to go to war if Bush decided it was required, but that's the kind of hair-splitting distinction that only John Kerry understands. So we just didn't talk much about the war. This year, with no need to back up Kerry, Congressional candidates could raise hell about the war, and get people rallied.
3. Kerry sucks, version 2: It's easier for people in each individual state to rally around their own regionally-appropriate Congressional candidates. It's harder to find one national presidential candidate that can connect to Northerners and Southerners and Easterners and Westerners. People in Ohio probably looked at Kerry and thought-- what planet is this guy from? Even if they hated Bush's policies, they could at least identify him as an Earthling. Oh, Bill Clinton made it look so easy to talk to people from all different parts of the country. He could connect to everyone and talk to everyone on their own level at the same time. Oh, how we need more candidates like Bill Clinton.
Maybe it's some of each of these factors. What other theories haven't I thought of?
Discuss.
Where was all this anti-Bush anger hiding in 2004?
Yeah, the war has dragged on another 2 years, and yeah, that was before Katrina, and the pedophile House member, but still... I don't see why this added up to a complete change in direction.
Theories:
1. Change of management at the DNC, Howard Dean doing a kick-ass job? I saw what a terrible job the Democrats were doing in 2004, in things like using volunteers. Also there's the much-touted 50-state strategy. Have they got their act together now?
2. Kerry sucks, version 1: It's all about Iraq this year; but the Dems couldn't really talk about Iraq in 2004, because Kerry didn't vote against going to war. He would say he didn't vote for going to war, rather that he voted to allow Bush to make the decision to go to war if Bush decided it was required, but that's the kind of hair-splitting distinction that only John Kerry understands. So we just didn't talk much about the war. This year, with no need to back up Kerry, Congressional candidates could raise hell about the war, and get people rallied.
3. Kerry sucks, version 2: It's easier for people in each individual state to rally around their own regionally-appropriate Congressional candidates. It's harder to find one national presidential candidate that can connect to Northerners and Southerners and Easterners and Westerners. People in Ohio probably looked at Kerry and thought-- what planet is this guy from? Even if they hated Bush's policies, they could at least identify him as an Earthling. Oh, Bill Clinton made it look so easy to talk to people from all different parts of the country. He could connect to everyone and talk to everyone on their own level at the same time. Oh, how we need more candidates like Bill Clinton.
Maybe it's some of each of these factors. What other theories haven't I thought of?
Discuss.
