Being 21, I am younger than most of you. As a result, the only presidential elections I can honestly remember are the 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 ones.
I was just pondering across this thought earlier today, and with my mental illness, I can't help but wonder "is this just a crazy delusional thought, or is this a truth coming from some unconventional wisdom"?
Here it is: Was the 2012 election similar to the 2004 election?
I personally think they do have a lot in common. During the 2004 election, many people were pretty unhappy with George Bush. The economy has become worse, we were involved in two wars that the majority of the country didn't like, all that stuff. But people still voted for Bush over Kerry. Why?
Because John Kerry was a bad politician. Now, by "bad politician" I don't mean whether I agree or disagree with their political stances, but their ability to get votes. Because lets face it, it is the DUTY of a politician to get votes in the same way that it is the duty of a business to make money.
So what made John Kerry a bad politician? First of all, he flip flopped on the issues. He had changed his mind on several issues so many times, no one knew what he really believed. And the GOP had quite a field day with that.
Mitt Romney had the precise same problem. Romney has flip flopped so many times no one knows what he would do.
Second was money. Many people bashed John Kerry for his spoiled, rich background and in fact he's pretty darn rich. Many common Americans of the middle and lower class simply could not identify with a man of this much wealth. (how bush managed to do it though is pretty funny and ironic if you ask me, but whatever).
Of course, Romney had this same problem. There was even the thread here about the Baptist woman who believes Obama is a Muslim, but wouldn't vote for Romney anyway because she sees Romney as a rich, spoiled brat.
Finally, I frankly think neither Romney or Kerry are very good speakers. Obama is a much better speaker than Romney, and Bush is a much better speaker than Kerry. Note, by "better speaker" I don't mean whether I agree with their stances on any political issues, or even, the content of the speech. I simply mean their ability to arouse the emotions of MOST American people and to sway people to support them. In essence, a good speaker is a good politician. Kerry and Romney are not.
Finally, both Kerry and Romney have said things that made several groups of Americans determined not to vote for them no matter what.
With Kerry, it was his hardcore anti-Vietnam rhetoric that, in the eyes of many Americans (even independents) as un-patriotic. If you remember those "swift boat veterans for Bush" ads, you know what I'm talking about.
With Romney, it was his "47% of the country doesn't count" crap. Not only can you kiss that 47% of the country goodbye (at least if they have any brains) but the rest of the country as well, supposing they have any sympathy in their hearts.
Just as a lot of people didn't like Bush, a lot of people didn't like Obama. People didn't like the way Obama handled the bailouts, people believed Obama failed to live up to many of his promises, and the national debt has only gotten worse. But Romney was such a weak candidate (in other words a bad politician) that people voted for Obama anyway.
So I mean it like this: An incumbent that most people were unhappy with was re-elected, simply because the challenger was very bad in the eyes of the public.
I was just pondering across this thought earlier today, and with my mental illness, I can't help but wonder "is this just a crazy delusional thought, or is this a truth coming from some unconventional wisdom"?
Here it is: Was the 2012 election similar to the 2004 election?
I personally think they do have a lot in common. During the 2004 election, many people were pretty unhappy with George Bush. The economy has become worse, we were involved in two wars that the majority of the country didn't like, all that stuff. But people still voted for Bush over Kerry. Why?
Because John Kerry was a bad politician. Now, by "bad politician" I don't mean whether I agree or disagree with their political stances, but their ability to get votes. Because lets face it, it is the DUTY of a politician to get votes in the same way that it is the duty of a business to make money.
So what made John Kerry a bad politician? First of all, he flip flopped on the issues. He had changed his mind on several issues so many times, no one knew what he really believed. And the GOP had quite a field day with that.
Mitt Romney had the precise same problem. Romney has flip flopped so many times no one knows what he would do.
Second was money. Many people bashed John Kerry for his spoiled, rich background and in fact he's pretty darn rich. Many common Americans of the middle and lower class simply could not identify with a man of this much wealth. (how bush managed to do it though is pretty funny and ironic if you ask me, but whatever).
Of course, Romney had this same problem. There was even the thread here about the Baptist woman who believes Obama is a Muslim, but wouldn't vote for Romney anyway because she sees Romney as a rich, spoiled brat.
Finally, I frankly think neither Romney or Kerry are very good speakers. Obama is a much better speaker than Romney, and Bush is a much better speaker than Kerry. Note, by "better speaker" I don't mean whether I agree with their stances on any political issues, or even, the content of the speech. I simply mean their ability to arouse the emotions of MOST American people and to sway people to support them. In essence, a good speaker is a good politician. Kerry and Romney are not.
Finally, both Kerry and Romney have said things that made several groups of Americans determined not to vote for them no matter what.
With Kerry, it was his hardcore anti-Vietnam rhetoric that, in the eyes of many Americans (even independents) as un-patriotic. If you remember those "swift boat veterans for Bush" ads, you know what I'm talking about.
With Romney, it was his "47% of the country doesn't count" crap. Not only can you kiss that 47% of the country goodbye (at least if they have any brains) but the rest of the country as well, supposing they have any sympathy in their hearts.
Just as a lot of people didn't like Bush, a lot of people didn't like Obama. People didn't like the way Obama handled the bailouts, people believed Obama failed to live up to many of his promises, and the national debt has only gotten worse. But Romney was such a weak candidate (in other words a bad politician) that people voted for Obama anyway.
So I mean it like this: An incumbent that most people were unhappy with was re-elected, simply because the challenger was very bad in the eyes of the public.