In 2000 I think McCain would've made a much better Republican candidate and I'm still trying to figure out why the Democrats went with Kerry in 2004. What really goes on behind the scenes?
2006-10-06 11:48:41 · 4 answers · asked by dardekkis 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
This is a great question. It speaks to a fundamental weakness in our political process. George W. Bush (or more accurately the people behind W) ran a more effective campaign against both McCain and Kerry. In both cases he used the media to undermine his opponents credibility. His campaign cut down McCain in the early rounds of the primary I think it was in North Carolina. Against Kerry, they used the "flip flop" argument because Kerry tried to argue against Bush's Iraq folly after voting to give the President the authorization to use force.
We elect people who are better at getting nominated by their parties and then at getting electoral college votes. Sometimes these characteristics translate into strong leadership qualities; other times you get guys like W (or if you are a Republican, guys like Clinton.)
2006-10-06 12:55:27 · answer #1 · answered by dan_in_la 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately it boils down to Financial backing. As for the Demoncrats, what else did they have? Howard Scream, Reverend Al.
May as well have put Michael Moores fat ars up there.
2006-10-06 22:02:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe, because it's not the best presidential candidate!
2006-10-06 19:38:07 · answer #3 · answered by alfonso 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because they speak freely. their views can be disagreed with, therefore lose votes, whereas teh vague oens go ahead and get votes based on looks, relations, and bullshit.
jon stewart talks about it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y043aZAsUK4
2006-10-06 18:56:38 · answer #4 · answered by what a mockery 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋