George W. Bush won in 2004 because of two reasons: 9/11 and Iraq.
Well, Kerry was also not a fantastic candidate. And the Democrats didn't compete in plenty of states where they should have, making them TOTALLY dependent on Ohio. And they had a HUGE financial disadvantage; they hd to swich to public funding a month before Bush did because of the GOP's convention timing. And the GOP scheduled referendums on gay marriage issues in lots of states to increase turnout. And the Republican voter machine on Ohio was phenomenal.
They all contributed too. :p But I agree that you nailed the main ones!
I'm very impressed that a kid from Belfast knows this much about American politics and elections. Bravo!
Thanks very much!
I'm just a huge political geek, particularly for American and British, so this stuff gets me fired up!
We need to start thinking outside the box and we need leaders who are going to find the solutions to the challenges of the future by not relying on the prescriptions of the past, because they aren't going to work.
This includes employment, social benefits, housing, education, healthcare, pensions, the environment, defence and crime & punishment.
For the first and possibly last time, TD, I completely agree on all points.
To put it in perspective, the U.K. conservative party is a lot like our "left-of-center" Democratic party in the U.S. The only party in the U.K. that comes close to our Republican Party is the BNP. No joke.
I think that's true to an extent. I'd say that about 90% of the UK Conservative Party, except its right wing, would fit comfortably into the Democrats. I'd also say that a decent portion of the Democratic Party- it's left wing- could slot into our Labour Party on most issues. But yeah, you guys are way more right wing than us- remember, our right wing
party accepts a large welfare state, nationalised healthcare, the existence of man-made global warming and supports abortion rights and the rights of homosexuals.
However, I'd also say that a fairly large portion of the Republican Party in the USA isn't so much right wing as purely nihilistic and blatantly cynical. For instance, conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic want to reduce the deficit- but our conservatives do it - even when I disagree with them- through a combination of spending cuts and tax rises. Over there, however, Republicans point blank refuse to do spending cuts which might hurt them electorally- such as defence cuts- or any tax rises at all. They oppose a healthcare plan which WILL, according to all nonpartisan bodies, reduce the deficit even though they say they want to reduce the deficit. They won't cut programs which might lose them votes even if that will bring down the deficit. But they WILL endorse huge tax cuts for their rich friends even if that EXPLODES the deficit.
There is a sizeable portion of the American Right which cares about nothing
except self-enrichment and electoral success, at the expense of all ideology, even if its own. That is not even close to the majority of Republicans in America but is a sizeable faction of Republicans in Washington DC- and is exemplified by Sarah Palin, who is pro small government where it wins her votes, anti small government where it loses her votes, and has no ideology whatsoever beyond "What will get me elected". And that calculated, selfish cynicism is what's dangerous for US politics- not the people who genuinely hold views which are far to the right of the mainstream and are at least ideologically consistent in them. Or, to put it another way- Glenn Beck is a heckuva lot more dangerous for American politics than Bill O'Reilly.
All IMHO, of course.