NationStates Jolt Archive

I remember that back in the summer it was widely foretold that Fahrenheit 9/11 would help turn Americans against Bush and thus defeat him in November. Obviously this did not happen.

If Fahrenheit 9/11 had not been released, would Kerry have lost even worse? Or wold he have won? Despite the film being a powerful propaganda piece, it gave fuel to Republicans for their populist fantasies about being oppressed by the "Hollywood liberal elite".

What's your opinion?

I think he would have lost even worse. Kerry showed that he was obviously incapable of spurring debate about George Bush.

Edit: And I love your Quote of the Week, that wily Etrusca, what will he say next.?

My guess is that it was a net wash. There's no way of knowing for certain exactly what effect Moore had, but I would guess that only the wingnuts really got exercised about it, and they weren't voting for Kerry anyway.

On a side note, though, I love how the wingnuts get all worked up over Moore, but act like Limbaugh, O'Reilley, Savage, et al, are the height of civil discourse, especially considering that they're far closer to the center of Republican thought than Moore is to the center of Democratic thought.

No difference. Farenheit 9/11 was preaching to the left. The right was unaffected.

I doubt that Michael Moore's film itself had any significant effect on the final tally, but it was part of a much wider range of hysterical reactions to Bush that I think proved very damaging to the Democrats and Kerry's campaign.

Hurt
Man I love that Moore he makes it so easy to win.

I think it helped to whip up and inspire a bit of Kerry's base, and perhaps changed some independent's minds. Kerry got the second most amount of votes of any candidate ever, as you might know. Farenheit 9-11 was a populist piece, but I doubt it really hurt Kerry. Bush supporters didn't vote for him because they hated Moore, nor do I think they were scared by him.

Of course, the affect of the movie was greatly overplayed, exaggerated, and hyped by Moore himself.

Acording to most polls, the movie actually hurt Kerry. People began to realize that the Moores of the party were taking over.

It definatley hurt more then it helped. It created alot of controversy that scared democrats away from the left and more towards a third party. Just look at the polls before and after 911F

The film added a whole bunch of anger to the left. Personally, as a someone who didn't decide who to vote for until very near the end, Fahrenheit hurt Kerry for me.

Just the anger and vitriol expressed by so many Kerry supporters was what turned me off to his campaign.

Now there was anger and vitriol from the Bush side (swiftboat vets, I'm looking at you on this charge), but it didn't seem to be so widespread.

I don't really think it made much of a difference. Most people who were already pro- or anti-Bush before seeing the film probably felt the same way after they saw it.

Michael Moore is a great American Hero--the only one who hurt Kerry in the campaign was Kerry

"Michael Moore is a great American Hero"

Hahahahahaha!

Oh yes, he ranks right up there...move over George Washington! Hahahahahaha!

...freak.

...freak.


Amazing how one word can absolutely negate anything else you may have said.


....dumbass.

Michael Moore is a great American Hero--the only one who hurt Kerry in the campaign was Kerry
Eh... :cool: well... not so sure about that. Bob Shrum could be blamed... many of Kerry's other advisors... and I wouldn't necessarily call Mr. Moore a great American hero. One who laments the targets of September 11th in the context of them not being their true enemies (as opposed to others) does not qualify as a great American hero in my book.

I think he would have lost even worse. Kerry showed that he was obviously incapable of spurring debate about George Bush.

Debate ABOUT Bush, or WITH Bush?

What I hate about politics is that it's become more "point out faults of my opponent to society" rather than "present to society my ideas and the logic behind them, then let them decide if they agree"

Did Michael Moore's screed hurt Kerry?

No more than Kerry hurt himself.

What really hurt Kerry was the sight of Michael Moore in Jimmy Carter's presidential box at the Dem National Convention. That, combined with Kerry's completely lame acceptance speech, and his ever-changing positions on any and all issues, and well...

Michael Moore's fact-deprived movie was simply one more brick in the wall.

Michael Moore is a great American Hero

If Moore's a hero, this country really is in worse shape than I thought.

To qoute Colin Quinn- "I'll expose the truth just as soon as I edit it."

It really made no difference. Had 9/11 not been made, I think Kerry would have lost even worse. All the film did was turn people who had no opinion about Bush into raving liberal lunatics.

In conclusion, Michael Moore is a giant turkey.

Debate ABOUT Bush, or WITH Bush?

What I hate about politics is that it's become more "point out faults of my opponent to society" rather than "present to society my ideas and the logic behind them, then let them decide if they agree"

You don't fire someone unless they do a bad job. No matter how well Kerry presented himself, it all came down to whether or not you though Bush did a good job in his first term.

Michael Moore is a great American Hero--the only one who hurt Kerry in the campaign was Kerry

Dont Make me Mushroom Stamp You,Seriously...... :headbang: :mad: :upyours:

Kerry had a lousy campaign and he lacked energy and focus when held up to Bush's campaign.

Moore's movie was just a polarizing piece in a country already polarized. It wouldn't have made a difference.

The Dems needed Dean, plain and simple. Sadly they were looking for a reason to dump him because they had no spine concerning candidates that were actually on the LEFT side of the political spectrum and chose the 'Dean Scream' as enough justification. Laughable. With thinking like that no wonder they lost.

You don't fire someone unless they do a bad job.

Plenty of people doing a bad job keep their job or get promoted. Case in point - Don Rumsfeld.


No matter how well Kerry presented himself, it all came down to whether or not you though Bush did a good job in his first term.

Again, plenty of people didn't neccessarily think Bush did a good job in his first term, but they voted for him because he wasn't John Kerry. Even moreso, the Dem's could have run Limbaugh (just an example) and Republicans would have still voted for Bush. It's what they do. Same goes for the Democrats.

9/11 had much less to do with Kerry winning or loosing the election than that Kerry just didn't seem to want to win this election. Damn those Skull and Bones puppetmasters!

....dumbass.
Amazing how one word can absolutely negate anything else you may have said.

Amazing how one word can absolutely negate anything else you may have said.

Alright, you noticed the irony of me doing the same thing that I berated the other guy for doing!!

Gold star for FC!

Acording to most polls, the movie actually hurt Kerry. People began to realize that the Moores of the party were taking over.
Well, if the Moores of the left are taking over, it's only to combat the Limbaughs on the right, who have been in control and running us into the shitter for the last 15 years or so.

Alright, you noticed the irony of me doing the same thing that I berated the other guy for doing!!

Gold star for FC!

woohoo, a gold star :D

I really dont think f-9/11 made much difference, everyone that would have seen it would already have had an opinion.

What I hate about politics is that it's become more "point out faults of my opponent to society" rather than "present to society my ideas and the logic behind them, then let them decide if they agree"

I completely agree, if politicians spent as much time on their own policies as they do bad mouthing the other sides, we might be able to get decent alternatives.

Ah, Michael Moore, What election campaign would be complete without you, well Possibly every campaign before Ford started shipping jobs out of Flint, MI, but I digress. His effect on the campaign was wide reaching, well documented and poorly targeted for someone with a reasonable nose for political games.

One of the biggest problems that face any Left advocate is how to get the message across. Moore went with a Documentary (Reasonably loose wording, I must admit, but its not fiction either, technically) and other left advocates hit their respective soapboxes and started screaming. The message was not necessarily wrong; the problem was with the audience.

The statistics said it all, most people who saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and agreed with it were primarily young, Democrat supporters who are regular voters. He preached to the converted and got the response he wanted, and effectively did nothing in that respect. All he really succeeded in doing was upset the Republicans, which I'm sure has become his Number 1 priority as oppose to actually championing the cause of the left. That is what is really annoying ad disappointing about Moore, the potential to change the way we view the world is there, but instead he focuses his efforts on worthless slander and "Point-Winning"

And in that regard people like Moore just never get it, you have to show people why your way is better, not why their way is wrong. Conservative governance has been around for a long time and a lot of people are happy with it, it's up to the combined left to give us a better way, not an "excuse" for change.

Semar

Ah, Michael Moore, What election campaign would be complete without you, well Possibly every campaign before Ford started shipping jobs out of Flint, MI, but I digress. His effect on the campaign was wide reaching, well documented and poorly targeted for someone with a reasonable nose for political games.

One of the biggest problems that face any Left advocate is how to get the message across. Moore went with a Documentary (Reasonably loose wording, I must admit, but its not fiction either, technically) and other left advocates hit their respective soapboxes and started screaming. The message was not necessarily wrong; the problem was with the audience.

The statistics said it all, most people who saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and agreed with it were primarily young, Democrat supporters who are regular voters. He preached to the converted and got the response he wanted, and effectively did nothing in that respect. All he really succeeded in doing was upset the Republicans, which I'm sure has become his Number 1 priority as oppose to actually championing the cause of the left. That is what is really annoying ad disappointing about Moore, the potential to change the way we view the world is there, but instead he focuses his efforts on worthless slander and "Point-Winning"

And in that regard people like Moore just never get it, you have to show people why your way is better, not why their way is wrong. Conservative governance has been around for a long time and a lot of people are happy with it, it's up to the combined left to give us a better way, not an "excuse" for change.

Semar

I also like that he tried to enlighten people by taking their money.

Despite the film being a powerful propaganda piece, it gave fuel to Republicans for their populist fantasies about being oppressed by the "Hollywood liberal elite".

Believe me, these people don't need fuel for their fantasies. Moore is a convenient foil, but that's all he is. The vast majority of them didn't see the movie anyway.

This was Kerry's loss. He had no clear message and was playing defense to the Bush attacks virtually the entire campaign. And he STILL got nearly half the vote. Imagine if he had been able to coordinate a campaign with a clear and strong message that really resonated with voters. Bill Clinton was very capable at doing that. There is no current Democrat I can think of who even comes close.

I remember that back in the summer it was widely foretold that Fahrenheit 9/11 would help turn Americans against Bush and thus defeat him in November. Obviously this did not happen.

If Fahrenheit 9/11 had not been released, would Kerry have lost even worse? Or wold he have won? Despite the film being a powerful propaganda piece, it gave fuel to Republicans for their populist fantasies about being oppressed by the "Hollywood liberal elite".

What's your opinion?
Non-issue. Who gives a shit! :D

Edit: And I love your Quote of the Week, that wily Etrusca, what will he say next.?
My guess is, back in the 70s, that Kerry stole his wallet or something!

My guess is, back in the 70s, that Kerry stole his wallet or something!

I think it was back in the 70s when John Kohn called most returning vets war criminals. Maybe, just maybe, E took that personally. I don't even think he is a Republican.

Moore is the Left response to the Right's Coulter.

I think both need some help.

I don't think it did much except to solidify both parties' core bases.
It gave the Democrats something of a flag to wrap themselves in, a shield with which to defend themselves against accusations of unpatriotism.
For the Republicans, in the post-Clinton era, it gave them something to unite against besides Kerry, to demonize and defeat.

I don't think it changed anyone's minds as they were pretty much made up before they entered the theater. How many other movies do you know of that have that same effect? If you thought it sucked or ruled without seeing it yet, that would be strange.

Moore is the Left response to the Right's Coulter.

I think both need some help.

Not in the least.

You know, Moore may be a lot of things, but he is rather devious. You see, he doesn't lie. Well, he doesn't outright lie. Very sneaky.

Coulter...is just...this scary...scary...THING. Really.