Who actually voted for Kerry in the primaries?

I don't know anyone who did. I voted for Dean.
Sorry, I wasn't around these forums during the primaries, I don't mean to drag up old stuff, but I'm just wondering.

as did many other people i know.

J/K. Weird, I seriously don't know anyone who did. Just Edwards and Dean voters.

And I believe he could have won it too.

Kerry and Edwards was about the worst team we could have sent.


DEAN in 2008!

Hell, as hard as I worked for him during the preceding 6 months, I wasn't going to vote for anyone else.

You can be brief, I would basically just like to know if you thought he was the best candidate (you really wanted him to be president) or if you just thought he was the most competitive against Bushler.

even though it was "over" by then..:) I just liked the guy.

I still do. I don't know many, either ... but we are not mythical creatures.

Because in Illinois the primaries aren't until March, so it was already a foregone conclusion.

So, though I too voted for Dean, I got to sit in a room with the 60% majority who were for Kerry.

As I told him, I thought he was the most presedential of what I assumed would be the lot running. I thought he would be the next President of the United States. I felt it. I still do. That is why I am so devestated. He has such honor. I can't reconcile myself to the fact he might not be fighting. He is so intelligent and brave and kind. I pray he is keeping his promise.

I liked Dean, but I am old enough to remember the Mc Govern Campaign, and I saw history repeating itself. JK is the most liberal, and most like my ideas.I am only sorry he didn't call Bush a coward and a liar.

because i liked to see him and hear what he had to say. he understood issues well. he had an understanding of different cultures.

So there wasn't a whole lot of choice.

DK did pretty well here, got about 20% of the vote.

I think DK is going to be the one to bring single payer health care to the USA, whether in congress or in a cabinet or (crossing fingers) as the president. He's one of those people with a mission in life.

I voted for him because we were driving home from househunting in New York at night and I heard him at a town meeting.

that's how he won over so many in Iowa. and elsewhere. but it was especially important in iowa.

setting. In the big rallies, something about his voice comes off as rather haughty, for lack of a better word, but in the small setting, he sounded so down-to-earth and personable.

I was hoping he would run in 2000 and was thrilled when he announced he was running in '04. I've been a Kerry fan for a long time.

By the time Super Tuesday rolled around, Edwards had the potential to beat Kerry. At that time I was resentful that the DNC was shoving Kerry down the throats of Democrats. I worked for Dean daily up to the end of January.

After the choice had been made....I backed Kerry...I bucked up and hit the ground and did not look back. All my free time went into his/our campaign.

I could not vote against Dennis and have a clear conscience. I am from Cleveland, after all.

Being from Dayton, Ohio we don't really get to know Dennis like you Clevelanders. I really was impressed with him during the Primaries. I would love to see him run for the Senate.....Any chance of that?

I refused to vote for anyone who voted to give bush the ok to invade Iraq in the primary.
That said I did strongly support Kerry/Edwards against bush.

Caucuses for Kucinich in WA state, and worked to go from no delegates in February to 7 by the end of May. Stayed with him until the Dem convention because of the issues. After that, switched to working for Kerry despite the saber-rattling.

Then an ABB Kerry supporter.

Kerry's vote for IWR has always disgusted me

And I'd do it again.

Thought he was the most outstanding of the lot and liable to make the best actual President. The other fellows had more painfully obvious flaws that looked too easy for Republicans to turn into fatal ones.

As a polling tracker/analysis junkie, it was pretty clear that it didn't really matter who Democrats selected for the General Campaign except that s/he represent the Party well and be an admirable, forthright, person. There were elderly Gore voters who were going to go Republican, no matter the candidate, simply because as their generation ages they find they can't cope with the Modern world anymore. There were lost of young voters who realize that retrogressive elderly people are just screwing things up for them and don't even understand why anyone would want to live in the condition of the Past. Bush was going to try to get reelected via the Christian Right turnout effort that worked out in '02, the Democrat would have to get unemployed people, black and Hispanic voters, and young voters out in an unprecedented way too. 'Liberal' Democrat or not, that wasn't going to matter except as a morale point.

Well, that's how it worked out. Kerry got nearly 5 million more voters than Gore to show up for our side. Bush, unfortunately, got the 15% gain in turnout seen in '02 almost fully- I'd gotten the impression that it was starting to fall apart in late October, but it worked- and 8 million additional voters. The good news is that Democratic "natural" growth is 3-4 million voters every four years, the Republican total is however so heavy with elderly voters that they'll have trouble maintaining the number they reached. If Republicans can keep their voters together- and that's more iffy than most Democrats can tell- both sides will have about the same number of voters in 2008, 60-61 million each. But as you can all see, the Pubbies are running out of a rationale for governing/'leadership' with their own crowd. The internal insanity level has to be ridiculous and self-sabotaging.

So I personally exonerate Kerry and Edwards of 'losing' the campaign. Republicans simply achieved something like maximal efficiency and Democrats near-maximal efficiency, and the electorate split is simply where it is. Personally, I don't see how Kerry could have done much to clean up the largest messes (Iraq, deficit/taxes, War on Terror, I/P, oil, healthcare) with a Republican Congress, so I'm fine with Bush/Congress getting into all the lose/lose situations on those they are forced into now. Federal judges, social justice/equal rights, and social security- well, that's where a Kerry Presidency would be far preferable, but Senate Democrats and the New England Republican ones may be able to keep the status quo there held.

I think Kerry will put/keep the lance into the side of the Bush Presidency during the next year or two or three- the Bushies are having a lot of trouble with the hardness of the 48% unpersuadable resistance against them, which makes their announcements at the moment pretty wierd, and Kerry will keep it unified or perhaps even increase it. There's no Gore of 2001 or Daschle of 2002 in the man, he's just recuperating for a few weeks and seeing whether Democrats want him to step up again for them.

So, damn it, I'm proud of the man. And I think you'll all be rather more assured of him in two years' time too for the work he's about to put in.

they should have run a smack back campaign like Clinton did but both Edwards and Kerry were incapable of being convincing in that role. Edwards disapeared into the woodwork and Kerry just confused the hell out of people with his nuance.

That said I wonder why they are not fighting in Ohio. I actually think they could make a great case for a recount or revote there.

but I don't think any of it is the truth about the matter.

There are a lot of people who live the Lebensluege that John O'Neill does- that Americans are a Messianic People, thus whatever wrong they do has Higher sanction and purpose, even if the shmoes perpetrating the wrongs are guilty. I know some personally, Vietnam vets too. They can't bear the idea that it was a nearly complete waste of effort, lives, and treasure. The positive results were tiny in comparison to expenditure- but let them make their point about the tiny positive results. I'm sure if the polling had shown that a counterattack on SBVfT would have been effective, it would have been done. But this election was not about people who were moderate and persuadable, as you seem to imply.

You are trying to believe that Kerry and Edwards should have Attained Perfection, used their so generated Magic Powers to convert the electorate to their p.o.v., and won. And now, because they haven't consulted you or DU about what to do with/about the mess in Ohio, do you sincerely think you have better ideas and keener political acumen about it all than they do? It's a trust I have- not blind by any means, yet real- and despite the seeming tactical fallibilities K/E appear to all of us to have, periodically, I'm still convinced those didn't decide the election. Their accomplishments on a strategic level will win out. 57 million votes weren't just a matter of Soros and Dean rallying or buying people, and the way Democrats are holding together at all levels, so solidly and unapologetically as a 48-49% unpersuadable disapproving bloc popularly and no interest in real compromise on the politician level is causing a lot of PR heartburn in the RNC and White House and offices of the leaders of Congress.

It's more right to admit that the bare majority American electorate is an ugly thing to behold in what it says and thinks, and persuaded of things not worth believing in. But we could be selfhonest and say: They have simpler, stupid, priorities, of which only some really are in direct opposition to ours. They got us into Iraq, let them get us out, let them deal with the price tag for everything they want and the remarkably limited political capital they have to spend on it now. Batten down the hatches, let 'em waste it and run a deficit in it too. Their end is nearer than you imagine, hopelessness of their cause in the longer run obvious.

firefighters in my husband's department did.

Obviously a lot of people did since he won.

Here's the delegate count:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/

If you click on the drop-down box that says "View Results by State"

You can get the numbers of actual voters, for example:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/states/CA/

Results for California:
updated: 11:01 a.m.,
March 12
Kerry 1,858,382 64%
Edwards 569,564 20%
Kucinich 133,656 4%
Dean 121,837 4% 0
Sharpton 55,014 2%

Why do you ask?

and having already run so much, least chance rove finding garbage on him, sheepish smile

I voted for Clark; donated money to his campaign; bought 12 Clark t-shirts; and donated to WesPAC after he dropped out. After Clark, I favored Edwards.

I admired Dean, although I was convinced that Bush would have easily defeated him in an election. But I knew that his supporters represented the energy the democratic party needed in order to win in November.

Al Sharpton also brought some of that same energy to the campaign. I am fully aware of some of his errors in the past. However, when my sons and their friends watched the debates in my living room, he was far and away their favorite. I note that some of my conservative friends also commented that Sharpton was the most honest of the candidates, and that he was saying some things that EVERY American needed to hear.

When people say that democrats do not need to "reframe" issues, they ignore what Dean and Sharpton offered.

Kerry was down on the list for me. However, once he won the nomination, I worked just as hard for him as I would have for Clark. I felt the Kerry campaign made a number of tactical errors. However, I am convinced he won the election, and that voter fraud was Bush's best friend.

and I did all of the things that you did too...even including housing and feeding his campaign workers.

Kerry was my second choice and I strongly supported him.

I like Edwards quite a lot personally, but thought that Clark would make a stronger VP pick.

But when 2008 rolls around, I am again a Clarkie all the way.

nt

In SC.

They wouldn't have been able to pull the "morals" bs issue on him. He was/is a Southerner and a no-nonsense guy who would not have sit still and taken all the lies coming from the right. The damn Swift Boat MFers would have remained in the woodwork. He could have weakened Bush-boy's "strength" and demonstrated what a coward ol' whistle ass was on 9/11/01.

Even with possible fraudulent help, this "election" should never have been close. Kerry was given a hand of 52-of-a-kind (concerning Chimpie's failures) and he ended up playing a single deuce, i.e., aborting his child illegally, AWOL, cocaine, DUI, 3 confirmed arrests, Project P.U.L.L., endless lies about everything under the sun, Bushisms, duel cowardice, treason by outing a C.I.A. agent out of spite, 100,000+ lives needlessly lost, the worst security failure in the history of the U.S.A., the worst jobs record since Hoover, etc. etc. etc. etc. JK better not play too much poker or else he'll lose his fortune in a flash, albeit he may draw a royal flush each time.

The General might have fought harder. He won OK and could have turned a handful of reds to blues. We did the N.E. liberal bit in '88 with similarly disastrous results. In '08, we'd better pick a popular Southerner liberal with massive testicles or we're going to play this same ol' bs losing song again and again and again...

IMHO, Iowa and NH have way too much power in choosing our nominee.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I voted for Clark even after he dropped out--he was still on the ballot

I am for Wes Clark, 100%.

Then Kerry when he was nominated

he was the best candidate we had. Period.

is a Rethug trait. Do try to break the habit, won't you?

Thanx.

here:

John Kerry was the best candidate

www.youreallyneedtolightenup.com

www.fullofyourself.com <------ Check it out!

:toast:

www.getoverthefactthatyourhorselostandnowyouneedtomoveonandgetalife.com

than any democratic candidate in our nation's history. Republicans would like to create a split and hostility in order to divide our party. This includes attacks on Kerry and individual democrats. These republicans will use any tactic, including personal attacks on Kerry supporters. It doesn't change the fact that Kerry likely got more votes than Bush.

Anyone But Bush...

we'll subtract you and your friends ....

it is a fact that he won the nomination, and was thus by all objective definitions the best democratic candidate.

by the time our primary was held, Kerry was really the only viable choice.

I would have been proud for John Kerry to be my president, but I would have liked to have had my vote count toward selecting our party's nominee. Yes, my state could move up our primary, but the front-loading of our primaries has made our selection process weaker IMO.

I'm sure there are many Democrats who missed the opportunity to vote for Dean, Clark, Edwards, etc., because their states' primaries come after Super Tuesday.

I wasn't sure going in to the poll (VA Primary) if I would choose Kerry or Edwards... but I picked Kerry.

because he actually voted against the war in Iraq, the only candidate who could actually prove he worked hard against this war. Also, because he was against Nafta/WTO and for a return to bilateral trade agreements. Some of his speeches could actually move you to tears he was just so eloquent though this didn't come across so much in the debates or interviews.

This is Goddess40' mom. I heard both of them speak at the WI Democratic convention. Dean was by far the better speaker, more passionate and direct. I didn't really know Dean before that but after I heard him I would have followed him anywhere. I worked very hard for Kerry after he won the nomination--phone banked, door to door canvassing, attended his rallies in WI, donated money, wrote letters to the editor--but my heart still was with Dean. And I do believe Dean could have won because he speaks to the people not at them like Kerry does and he is more of a fighter than Kerry. Kerry's biggest mistake was to hang back so long after the Swift Boat Liars attacked. It made him look weak and ineffectual. All that said I do believe Kerry did actually win. Too bad he didn't have enough fight in him to go after the voter fraud.

I live in Kansas and surprise, surprise they canceled the Primaries. It was a money issue, They knew the GOP nominee and well, since there are only about 3 :-) Democrats in the State, it got canceled. But I would have voted for Edwards.

I felt that overall, Kerry was the best choice.

He has a breadth of foreign policy experience and a history of taking on corruption (BCCI investigations, etc)

I actually agree with Kucinich on more issues, but I had more confidence in Kerry as Presidential material. Not that I wouldn't have been happy if Kucinich won, I just had doubts about his ability to win anything but the left wing of the Dem party.

also, I just loved the guy. Got to meet him. I still blow kisses at the TV when he pops on-- our oldest daughter turned us onto him early in the fall & we followed him the whole way.

Dean convinced me that I could do something useful by getting active in politics and his views pretty much matched my own. I was elected as a Dean delegate to the Texas State Convention but by the time it took place as a symbol of unity most of the delegates signed in for Kerry myself included.

I was heavily involved in our local grassroots Kerry group. However, now that it's all over I think Kerry was a flawed candidate and the national campaign made many errors. I still think that Kerry could have won, but I do think that either Dean or Clark would have been stronger candidates.

He impressed me very much with his toughness and heart when I saw him speak.

He has a long record of fighting for the right things.
He is more liberal than Dean.
He has foreign policy experience and has been talking about terrorism for years
He uncovered Iran Contra and BCCI
He seemed to know how nasty Rove could be

and I supported his candidacy from early on because I thought he would make a good president.

I still think that.

My beliefs and opinions were much more in line with Kerry's than any of the other primary candidates.

Debbi

N/T

And proud of it, even if Iowa had already decided it.

n/t

in caucuses well after it was already decided.

Was intrigued with Dean, but chose Kerry.

But our primary was later than most others, so the choices were rather limited.

But I also liked Kerry.

deserved to be heard.

I find no conflict in my position at all.

but by the time #%@* Texas had their primaries, Kerry was pretty much the only horse left in the race. And although I was fine with Kerry, I was really ticked off that it was already settled, so I voted for Kucinich.

and general presence were the best of the lot. BUT, then Clark got into the fray, and I seriously thought of voting for him. In the end though, I did vote for Kerry over Clark. Clark is still one of my favorites though and I think he should be given serious consideration for 2008. Clark seems to have not as much baggage as Kerry, i.e. senate votes over long-time span, Vietnam controversy, etc. That didn't sway me against Kerry but evidently it did with Independents.

Clark was not on the ballot. So I voted for Kerry, who had basically already "won" the nomination anyway.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I'm an Independent.

I was and still am a fan of the Al Gore/Tom Harkin/ Howard Dean wing of the democratic party.

Consistent on the war, realistic view of the world and the solutions to the problems we face. With a 20 year record that is consistent with his words today.

only because it was a two-man race between him and Kerry by that time. I was initially a Deaniac, then slowly converted to Clarkie as I realized that he would be too easy to paint as an out-of-touch, no-foreign-experience New England Liberal. He'd have been better as the VP: you're expected to be the "attack dog" in the campaign, and in this election foreign policy was the one you wanted on the top slot.

I was hoping for a Clark-Dean ticket, but unfortunately Clark ran a pretty weak campaign. So after Clark and Dean imploded and the primaries made their way to Minnesota, it was Edwards and Kerry. I voted Edwards.

...though now I think that he wouldn't have done as well as Kerry because his alleged lack of experience seemed to cause quite a bit of damage, even though he did own Cheney in the debate...

In Wisconsin even though the media had decided that he would not be our candidate by then.

:hi:

nt

In the Iowa Caucus and he was the winner in my precinct (because Dennis told his supporters to caucus with the Edwards team if they weren't going to win). Kerry came in a close second.

There were only 2(!) of us in my precinct, so we had to regroup. I went over to Kerry because he seemed the best of the alternatives, but I wasn't really prepared to switch. I had no idea Gephardt would do so poorly.

I was a Peace and Freedom Party member and we have a closed primary. Had I realized it (last Presidential Election it was open), I would have re-registered as a Democrat and voted for Dennis Kucinich.

david

pardon Leonard. There is zero chance of this administration doing the right thing in this case.

"I guess I wasn't Mark Rich enough."

pretty good. I thought he would have made a great President, because he could have served his term while he served his time.

:)

Sorry, bad joke.

david

it deserves. It remains one of the examples of Clinto lacking a spine. I've often wondered if he was given as much evidence as is available .... not simply that Leonard is "not guilty" in a courtroom sense, just as OJ was "not guilty" .... but that the person who did execute the two FBI men is known. There is no question that Leonard was not one of the two men who approached the car. He has been in for too long.

Even though he dropped out by the time California voted.

in virginia

onenote

There wasn't any choice but to vote for Kerry. I would much rather have voted for

1. Dean
2. Edwards
3. Clark

The last thing I wanted was to have to vote for a bush capitulator.

But Clark got Oklahoma so....

And I was proud to.

Viablility was a problem for Dennis by 1 vote in the first in the nation Iowa caucus!

After 9/11, I imagined the perfect candidate before I had any idea who would be running. Beginning in late 2002, everything I heard about Edwards precisely matched what I had already decided would be the ideal candidate, plus there were many things I hadn't imagined which were total icing on the cake.

I researched Dean on the advice of DU'ers in Fall 2002, but went right back to Edwards. Everyone else who came along was pretty much the opposite of the ideal candidate -- they were too much a reaction to the world Republicans created rather than a symbol of the kind of world Democrats wanted to make.

But proudly voted for Kerry in the GE!

But I grew to admire Kerry!

he had already dropped out, so I voted for Sharpton.

One of the bluest states, NJ, has absofuckinglutely nothing to say about who the nominee is. Instead, farmers in Iowa and weird Yankees who play checkers around pot bellied stoves control it.

The choices were Kerry, Clark, and Kucinuch by that point in my state. My first choice, Sharpton, was not allowed on the ballot, and my second choice, Clark, had already asked us to give our votes to Kerry since he could not excuse himself from the ballot in time.

Voted for him and hoped that he would prove me wrong.

The mother fucker folded before the sun went down.

Sadly my gut instict was right...corruption seems to have gotten the better of him.

I'm a Clarkie but by the time the CA Primary rolled around he had withdrawn so I gave my vote to Kucinich.

as a write-in on the Oregon paper ballot.

Here in WV, ours was in MAY, so pretty much had been decided for us. Others were listed, but why bother? :eyes:

I might have voted for Dean, had it not been over for him by then.

he would have beeen a great president.

..and am damn proud of it too.

I was torn between Kerry, Edwards, and an occasional day for Dean, but in the end I went with Kerry. I still think that when you take into account things like experience he was the best choice and had the best odds of winning. I also think he would have made a wonderful president. Maybe he still will make a wonderful president...only four years later than he had originally planned.

Involved with Kerry campaign since July '03!

I was only 17. Dad voted for Kucinich. (and didn't vote for Kerry in the final election, since this was the safe state of California, he would have voted Kerry if it was a swing state) Mom voted for Edwards. (But was a Kerry supporter right after Edwards conceded)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but my nana had a stroke the day of the Va primaries so.
Why?
I had been a long time Kucinich supporter but Kerry really had impressed me a lot.
Why I supported Kerry was clear despite this nonsense I would hear that he wasn't a real liberal from people, I did my homework, I found that Kerry while not a perfect liberal wasnt the wishy washy centrist status quo DLC type he was made out to be. He had views that I agreed with and I really liked him personally, just seemed like a great guy, I am disappointed that he couldnt have been number 44. Never was ABB for me, it was all about making John Kerry president.

....campaigned for Kerry. I always felt Kerry was the best choice and still do. As we all know he did win this election and it was stolen! I also feel that Kerry worked his heart out himself on this and although alot of others have resorted to calling him a quitter and name calling I feel he is still working on it. Because I do know that this man is a fighter not a quitter. He has always been a fighter and takes great pride in all his work and he loves this country and would do anything he could to make it better! Anyone that really knows anything about this man knows that is true. And even if they don't turn up enough evidence to overturn this election you can bet that Kerry will be there in the Senate fighting for the people and he will be a thorn in Bush's and other repugs side so bad they will wish they never heard the name Kerry! I also beleive Edwards will continue to work with Kerry to get all the evidence they need to bring Bush and the rest of these repugs to there knee's! I would proudly support this man again because I know he would be a great president.

To me, Dean had the purest message and one that was logically consistent. I did not feel anyone "owned" him, or that he took a position just to satisfy someone else. I was very sorry to see Dean drop out.