Robert Bennett's Professional Analysis as to Why the Democrats Lost

Like many of you out there, or at least half or so, I am actively aware of American Politics. Now, if you sat down and asked me something political, such as "Who is the Speaker of the House?" or "Could you please spell the word, 'President?'" I would probably be unable to answer, and would also just stare at you wildly before breaking into a sprint. This is because I have little to no knowledge of what actually happens in the sphere of politics, but I DO know that such a sphere exists.

Using these depths of knowledge, I plan to dissect the world of American Presidential politics with brilliant acumen, and decipher exactly why the Democrats lost. I am doing this because I feel it is good for the nation, and I also do not especially want to read Moll Flanders now.

Let's start with the basics. It's a general rule that whichever party is not currently in power will always be the most annoying one (this is simplified for America, because we only have two parties: the Redneck, Intolerant Hicks and the Whiny, Douchey Urbanites). This is just how politics works. For instance, remember when Clinton was in power, and then we found out his secretary went down on him? The Republicans were all over that like stink on a very large monkey, and began an incredibly expensive inquiry which eventually grew more and more graphic and more and more outrageous that people eventually would hear a man named Ken Starr saying obscene things on the news like "Now, the most important thing we must consider is exactly when the President pulled his cock out and gave Ms. Lewinsky a nice fat cream pie." We all got sick of it, especially explaining to our kids what a "cunt ream" was (and yes, I have kids, it was a one time thing and they live with their mother in Michigan).

This is just one example of party whininess. I'm trying to be fair minded here, so I'm bashing both sides.

Skip to 2004, where the latest Presidential election is approaching. The Democrats are out of power, but what's amazing for this past election is that the main voice of the urban liberal is not a politician. Stop and ask yourself, "Who was the main voice of the liberal on the street this election?"

And the answer, of course, is Michael Moore.

Now, regardless of what you think of Michael Moore's political opinions, ask yourself, "Is Michael Moore, on a personal and charismatic level, a very likeable person?"

The answer, of course, is "FUCK no."

Michael Moore was, is, and forever shall be NOT likeable in the least. He is a large, fat, hairy man whose mission in life is to get in your face and yell at you over controversial issues that seem to be your fault. This is his job, and he's very good at it. He prides himself on being confrontational and outspoken. This is how he wages his war, and he does a damn good job of it. See the box office haul if you want to check. He gets in there and he just plain raises hell.

The problem is, a lot of people do not like to raise hell.

Ask yourself, "When is the last time I protested something? When is the last time I had a strong, unflinching opinion on a hard line, divisive issue, and I was willing to get in a total stranger's face and confront him on his stance?" I assume not too many of you will have a specific date. I don't know outspoken people, and I don't really want to. I don't want to know someone who may, at any time, yell at me about some issue (be it abortion or gay marriage), and then storm out of the room. People like that suck.

Polticians know this. They either avoid the hell out of controversial subjects, or they dance around them from time to time, saying one thing and then saying the other. Because, they know, when you have an opinion on a divisive subject, you probably will bash the hell out of the other side, often times right to their faces, if you can do it, and people don't like to see other people yell and fight and scream and pull hair. When you have a divisive opinion, people are either going the be zealosly with you, zealously against you, or in the middle turned off by both sides. What it comes down to is who has the louder voice, because that side will be the one turning off the most people. And this time, maybe by chance, I think, it was the liberal side. Hell, they had goddamn movies come out, movies that made the headlines week after week. Did the conservatives make any goddamn movies? I don't think so.

The average American, I think, is not controversial. He is not confrontational. He wants to be Left the Hell Alone.

People said that gay marriage was the key issue of this election, but think about how, exactly, the war for gay marriage was waged, along with who joined that war, and how they sounded on the news.

I, personally, do not have a problem with gay marriage. You can do whatever you like with your genitals, as long as I don't have to see it or hear about it. But I think that the issue was raised at a bad time. It's not good to bring something up that is so incredibly divisive and has actual religious bearings during an election, because the average American doesn't want to hear about it. Seriously. Most of us are not confrontational people. Shrugging is the national expression. We got sick and tired of hearing about Clinton's cock, and we got sick and tired of hearing about gay marriage. We just want to watch some TV and make some money.

So that's one thing. The liberal voice became urban instead of political, and in doing so alienated a large quantity of the demographics.

The other thing is that old political staple: likeability.

People always vote for the more likeable candidate, no matter what the Daily Show says. People will vote for someone that, if they don't know their political stances, they'd like to be their friend. Look at the 2000 election. Even though Bush seemed awkward and bumbling at times, people still found him more likeable than Gore (though I do find Gore pretty cool after appearing on Futurama twice and being funny as hell). Gore seemed like he'd be a good accountant, or maybe he'd be the guy you'd want to have taking notes for you in class, but when it came down to sitting down and having a beer with him, no way. Whereas Bush played baseball, liked Austin Powers, had a ranch with ponies with lots of pretty hair, and was just more affable.

Skip to this election. To the general public, John Kerry seemed to be a long-winded basset hound's scrotum. And EVEN THOUGH Bush had a very shaky political record (and I think he did), his likeability overcame these obstacles. People were either incredibly for him, incredibly against him (no one was actually FOR Kerry), or in between, and the between people had the choice of either voting for someone who seemed like an okay guy, or someone who seemed to be melting.

Personally, if the Democrats had run John Edwards, I think they would've won. John Edwards is the sort've guy you'd want your son to grow up to be or your daughter to marry. He's got the whole home-spun, Father Knows Best, 1960's TV dad-wisdom thing going on. He's Southern but Liberal, family-oriented, and clean cut and nice. Bush is damaged in the family arena, having some dubious daughters (GO LONGHORNS), a boozy past, and Cheney has a lesbian daughter (I bet if you got the Bush twins and Cheney's daughter hammered, you could make a pretty AWESOME political advertisement). If John Edwards had been up on that podium instead of Kerry, he would've charmed his way into America's heart. John Kerry might've been smart, but smart don't count for shit in the political realm. It's all about image, and John Kerry's image seemed to be that of a tragic burn victim.

Anyways, with those two powers combined, I think the Democrats had problems from the start. Actually, I'm amazed that it was as close as it was, but rather than this be the fruits of the labors of the Democrats, I think it's more the fruit of Bush having screwed a few things up. Enough people voted against Bush, rather than for Kerry, because no one was actually for Kerry anyways. No one said, "This man will make America's future great," they were like, "This man is not currently George Bush." That was his only appeal, and although it was surprisingly strong, it wasn't strong enough. Enough people were alienated by the newfound liberal outrage, or enough people were unconvinced by Kerry himself.

So that's my opinions. There are probably lots of holes in it, but I don't care, it was a good waste of forty five mintues and I didn't have to read. I don't know if I've pissed anyone off, but I hope I haven't, because that would mean I know someone who cares too much about politics, and then I'll have to hear about this from you. Boo hiss.