Should Kerry point out that bu$h lost the last election?

[Hailtothechimp]

I was discussing the election with a colleague yesterday (he's generally pro-bu$h) and we came to the topic of debates. I said that if Kerry should have the stones to remind everyone that the last election was decided not by the people, but by the Supreme Court (and a divided one, at that). This would undercut bu$h from the get-go, and remind people that there never was a mandate for what we've had for the past 3 1/2 years.

I could tell from his pause that he had forgotten about this. He then told me "Kerry shouldn't go there. It's old news." I told him I disagree, in that if we don't remember it four years is a long time to pay for it.

What does everyone here think?

[OhioDem2004]

1. true, but I don't think it's a good idea

better to beat Bush on policy than look petty which could isolate swing voters

[SoCalDemocrat]

2. This should be done, but carefully

If done right it makes Bush appear weak. He's the first President that couldn't win a popular election and actually get himself elected. It took a court decision to put him in office, and he's been dividing the nation ever since.

[fujiyama]

3. Probably not

I think those that feel his win was illegitimate won't be voting for Bush anyways. They're probably already in Kerry's corner.

Kerry will be looking to draw those that voted for Bush last time...as well as those that may be wobbly (Gore voters that are on the edge). Most likely these people won't want to hear about the election being stolen. As much as I would love to hear Kerry bring it up, I doubt these people would care to hear it.

At the same time, he might also consider going after younger voters. Here, he may consider asking if Bush is planning on bringing up the draft.

Kerry should hit Bush hard on the issues - The economy, healthcare, and absolutely pound him on his supposed strengths like the war on terror and of course Iraq...and clearly and succinctly present an alternative vision for Iraq. Here he may even bring up the neoconservative influence. Kerry's come close (says it was driven by ideaology). I just wish he can say "neo- conservatives" and even better mention the PNAC.

[Demit]

4. Yes, it's a done deal. Besides, the whole topic is so convoluted...

it's impossible to summarize in a few sentences. You have to try to reconstruct the Supremes' reasoning... Then you get into Florida law, which takes you into recounts, which takes you to hanging chads...then you end up talking about minutiae

LAWYERS have a hard time understanding it. Alan Dershowitz wrote a whole book about it. Which I bought but never read. It was so daunting, and it wasn't like the decision had a chance of being undone.

[olddem43]

5. let's leave that one to the professionals like Carville & Clinton

[Norbert]

6. No. The 2004 election is the one that metters now.

Fighting old battles, even valid ones, won't solve anything.

[Sparkly]

7. No -- little to gain, potential for losing more

We know he lost the last election.

But Kerry, unfortunately, could have done something about it if he'd believed Bush lost, and he didn't. He could have signed the Congressional Black Caucus' petition to challenge the election results; no senator did. So I think it'd be a losing proposition for him to get tough on it at this point.

[Benhurst]

8. Kerry should save this for his inaugural address, which should

start with a phrase borrowed from Gerald Ford: "Our long national nightmare is over."

[Zynx]

9. No. He can make vague allusions to it because most people won't

pick up on it, but he shouldn't say it directly. A lot of swing voters would be turned off. You could make the point that he has governed as though he's had a mandate, but he had anything but a mandate.