Just Wondering-- Does Anyone Think Gore might have beat Bush in 2004?

Or was the whole thing rigged from the get-go?

But I see no reason Gore would have done any better than Kerry against Bush.

him. They wouldn't have come up with any swiftboat crap. OTOH, they would have still Roved him with something, no matter how far out, to cover the numbers they generated by fraud.

Face the fraud. We could run George Washington and lose, if we don't deal with that.

is very telling.

You'd think there would be class action civil rights suits in Ohio, tons of lawsuits in Florida and NM to impound those machines and pick them completely apart to determine how so many people went out to vote for judges and school boards but neglected to vote for President or Congress. You'd think it might dawn on Kerry that the Smear Boat guys are NOT going away and that a libel lawsuit against them and Regenery might just tie up their resources enough that they would go away.

A cynical person might think that because the party leadership are all wealthy men that they're perfectly happy with all this election fraud. It will lower their taxes and fatten their portfolios.

"Face the fraud. We could run George Washington and lose, if we don't deal with that."

No argument there.

But I don't see the fraud as all of what happened.

We don't have the numbers. We don't have voting Democrats enough to carry a general election. Republicans have slightly more, but both parties have to draw on independents. Democrats have to peel away moderate Republicans and Republicans have to peel away conservative Democrats. They did and we didn't.

The ticket we had in 2004 wasn't up to it even without the fraud, because it didn't top Bush on national security (don't ask me, I can't even begin to imagine).

Half of the country regardless of party affiliation describe themselves as moderate. The other half is split between liberals and conservatives. The '04 Dem ticket didn't dent that moderate middle.

Now Gore, by '04, had moved far away from that great middle, much farther left than when he ran in '00. Even in '00, although he absolutely won it, he didn't have a margin sufficient to neutralize the fraud that absolutely took place. He gave himself less to offer than in '00 because he foolishly distanced himself from his Clinton association and its economic record.

I'm not a centrist by any stretch, but if half the country is moderate, one quarter liberal, and one quarter conservative, which seems to be the generally accepted breakdown, it does seem to me that we have a numbers problem even without fraud taking place. How do you see Gore affecting this? (Beyond election reform, which we both agree on.)

his base.

I tend to think Kerry did fine with moderates and didn't pull in enough progressives. It's always a tricky trade-off, to be sure.

Kerry took 15% of moderates overall, which was better than we did in '00, but still not enough to tip.

short another miracle, this one turning metal and plastic into paper. The Repubs are beatable IN EVERY ELECTION NOW but only if the vote counting is fair. They've so estranged the majority on every issue that I think, if the machines are either eliminated or made fair thru a paper ballot and required audit, the Dems will win almost every election, even in the South. In GA I have no doubt of it. Cleland won by a strong majority in 02 but the machines gave it to Chambliss.

DEMAND A VOTER-VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT AND FAIR AUDITS FOR EVERY ELECTION

But I don't think Gore wants any part of the process after he was elected in 2000 and denied. The only way we'll see Gore in office again is if the Supreme Court puts him in the Presidency by restoring democracy.

Which, as close as the election was, might have made all the difference in the world. And, I don't think it really would have anything to do with differences between the two men, just that people are more familiar with Gore. People in general are so afraid of change, it's ridiculous. I've actually heard a couple of people, who told me they would have voted for Bush had they voted, say that they would have voted for Gore if he had run. Familiarity counts for quite a bit among the masses.

Bush had everything against him--economy, his approval rating, a unpopular war. The only thing he had going for him was an opponent who many people couldn't identify with. His position on Iraq, for instance, was confusing to the lay person. Was he for the war or against it? Did he vote for it before he voted against it? Bush could have been defeated. In a close election (and '04 was a close election) they can steal it--but if a democrat is winning by several percentage points they cannot steal it. A democrat could have won handily in the popular vote making it difficult to steal. Gore, I think, was a better speaker and a better candidate in '04 and his views on the war were consistent and understandable. He also could have alligned himself with the last democratic administration which balanced budgets and created millions of jobs.

All the people wanted was a clear choice. A lot of people felt that Kerry didn't offer that because he voted for the IWR and had a hard time explaining why he did it and what he would do differently.

system beforehand. The touchscreen machines were rigged to default from the Dems in at least 15 states and the registration and provisional system rules and management was controlled to reduce minority votes throughout the county. But Gore won in 2000 by a lot but never got his legal votes counted due to rules in Florida which prevented many thousands of legal Gore votes from being counted, rejected as overvotes in counties with Butterfly type ballots although the voters only voted for Gore but the ballot allowed(and encouraged) them to vote for Gore twice and then they were rejected by the machine count even though legal votes under Florida law- intent clear. In a fair count the Media found Gore would have won by thousands, irregardless of what they did with hanging chad. And in a fair election it was found that Gore would have won by over 100,000 votes in Florida. Approximately 90,000 eligible minority voters were found to have been dropped from the roles just prior to the election for no valid reason other than they were minority voters and had the same last name as felons- but no criminal record of their own or reason to think they might. It was clearly an excuse to prevent a big Gore win in Florida, with no semblance of a valid reason for doing it.
But Kerry appears to have won in 2004, just as Gore clearly won in 2000. People just haven't paid as much attention in states like Florida that had a lot of vote machine fraud but doesn't seem to get as much attention as hanging chads, which was a distraction in 2000 of no real significance since Gore won without dealing with hanging chad.

Gore did a fine job of beating him in 2000. Kerry did a fine job of beating him in 2004. We just need to prove it.

If he'd remained active, he's have had as good a chance as Kerry. But being out of politics for 4 years, people (me for example) would have questioned the jump from nothing to everything. It wouldn't have kept me from voting for him, but I would have questioned why he wasn't working harder to change things in the interim - where is the driving commitment to public service? Did it go on vacation for 4 years?

That's something I admire in both Dean and Kerry, they took a big breath and plunged back in, full speed ahead.

I think MANY here also believe that election was rigged. My son had to point out to his teacher that it had been four times that a president did not win the popular vote when she sent home a paper asking her class to name the three presidents that had lost the popular vote but carried the electoral vote. My son got extra credit for that.

I will be so happy to point out at some time down the road that Bush actually stole the office for two terms by fraudulent means. I think my son will be too. I do think this will eventually be exposed. I'm just not sure how many years we will have to wait before it is RECOGNIZED as fact by ALL the world.

...Randi Rhodes talks about that all the time...I think she may have the article at her website...

and I think Gore would have won by a landslide. Somebody was on Malloy's show the night before the election predicting that the election would be stolen, and he said the only way to avoid it would be to have the numbers voting for Kerry be so overwhelming that it would be extremely suspicious if votes were tampered with, say 70% for K, 30% for *.

Gore had taken off the gloves, after his self-imposed hibernations, and was really giving some firey speeches speaking truth to power. We'll never know of course, whether or not he felt free to make these speeches simply because he wasn't running at that point. Something tells me that he would've been a lot more ballsy had he run this time. People are starved to hear the truth from a candidate (even if some don't even know they are starving, when they hear it they realize it), I think Gore knows this now.

would have ripped his slimey record to shreds. And there would have been no Swift Boat Liars to smear him. What were they going to do to Gore. Drag out the same old crap about him inventing the internet? That's about it. Then what?

and get out the vote. He would have done that extremely well and he would have generated more enthusiasm with Hispanics and blacks. And, well, most important of all, he would have gone on Oprah!

Well, maybe Jesus, since he has an omnipotent God on his side, and while the neo-cons are pretty resourceful, they're ultimately no match. Although I guess if they really are working directly with the devil...hmmm...:silly:

OMG - I am delirious from shoveling snow in below zero temperatures! I am on a Jesus rant and I am not even Christian (although I do like Jesus. I'd vote for him! :) )

would have a hard time proving that he is Jesus to the Religious Right. The character assassins would be out en masse.

However, I believe Gore would have been prepared for that eventuality and have planned for it. That's why I support him for '08.

could have beat Bush. Talked to a friend of mine, he voted for Bush. I asked him why, and he said the 9/11, Saddam connection....better the fighting over there than here. Now, this is an intelligent guy, but he doesn't read newspapers, and probably not alot of news. But, he does listen to some talk radio, especially the "rest of the story" guy. So, I think he's gotten some RW garbage drilled into his head that he wasn't aware of.

This is a huge part of what we were up against. He didn't watch the debates like many voters. They heard different things from co-workers or an off hand remark from the news or in the grocery store. These are our "wonderful" "informed" voters. If you can't get the MSM on your side, especially with sound bites, you will never win. I can't believe I'm saying this, but we have to dumb it down.

zalinda

cut. From 1980 to 1999 it was small gains and losses of precincts. I fully believe that Ohio's 63% turnout in 2000 (when the average had been over 70% since 1980) was something to do with long lines again, but not so long as to get on the news -- just long enough for people to see them and leave.... I'm totally guessing. Kind of a gut feeling, not anything I can prove right now. I think Florida overshadowed any voter disenfranchisement in Ohio for the 2000 election.

In 2000 * Won Ohio 50.0% to Gore's 46.5% Independents totalling 3.3% (Buchanan getting .6% and Nader getting 2.5%)


If you look at the SOS site for 2000, http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/results/11-02-04.htm you'll see some weird (although probably explainable) numbers for Buchanan in counties that Gore won as opposed to lower Buchanan numbers in counties that * won. Not that this proves anything. just that it's kinda strange in Democrat leaning counties that Buchanan had larger numbers than in Republican leaning counties.... but -- it was only a quick look anyway, and this might not have been the norm in all of them...

I believe Kerry won, and we know Gore won. Bush would have "won" no matter who ran.