Does anyone have a clue why Kerry didn't 'win' 2004?

I mean, I keep hearing all this crap about how "When people can't distinguish between 2 candidates they vote republican" crap and it dawns on me that people have NO FUCKING CLUE!!!

First, the biggest assumption is that all these people who vote democrat follow politics night & day, posting in the online community and getting involved as much as we do. They don't - we are overwhelmingly in the minority because most people watch TV and get their information from there. And most of these people probably don't bother to watch the conventions or debates because who knows, maybe American Idol or Dancing with the Stars are on another channel.

They vote with what they see in the news and what they saw was John Kerry blunder when it came to dealing with the Swift Boat idiots. Bill Clinton would have chewed those liars up and spit them out if it was him, but Kerry thought by taking the "High Road" somehow he could come out better. He didn't and that took a large chunk out of his lead.

Plus Bush played the 9-11 card real well. Because nothing makes us get all weepy-eyed more than we get reminded that planes flew into buildings and killed people.

But even with those two very decisive factor it still took questionable voter returns in Florida and Ohio to pull off the victory.

This crap is getting old with the "Let's teach the democrats a lesson and not vote for the ones we like" I'm on board with that in the primaries but in the general election you're talking about people's lives here. You're talking about a war that WILL NOT END and will not even be debated about ending until we have some democratic majorities out there.

Don't think of voting for bad democrats. Think of it as supporting Reid, Feingold, Levin, Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi, Conyers, Waxman, Murtha and a host of other people who are in democratic leadership positions that would have the control of bringing this war to an end.

Tom Carper is not worth a vote to me but Harry Reid sure as hell is. And since I have no plans of moving to Nevada in the next 2 years I'll vote for Carper just to help get Reid the Senate Majority position.

I'm tired of the bodies coming home dead from Iraq. I don't want to be visiting a wall in DC in 10-20 years with the names of the dead I couldn't help because it was so fricking important to me to vote out 'bad democrats'. Our soldiers deserve better than this.

Primary Election: Vote out Bad Democrats
General Election: Vote out ALL REPUBLICANS


Edit note: I stand corrected, I too believe that if every vote was counted we'd probably would have Kerry in the White House now. But thanks to Diebold, the votes were never counted and probably was the biggest factor costing Kerry

Something happened in the last few weeks (if I remember correctly, it was around the time Kerry made mention of Cheney's daughter and the faux shock and dismay that was put out in the media by her parents). I had a feeling there had been a threat made to Kerry and/or his family, because he lost all fight and it seemed he was hoping he wouldn't win. Or, it could have been because of Mrs. Edwards and the discovery of cancer. I thought that perhaps it was just my interpretation, but I think I wasn't the only one who had those feelings.

I'm still waiting for an explanation.

for instance that Kerry and Edwards declared a government in exile as a protest against the stolen election. What would have been the outcome of that? The Democrats either overestimated their ability to overcome Republican dirty tricks or were oblivious to them. I actually expected that Dubyah was going to call off the election due to "terrorist threats"-when he didn't, I was suspicious.

The people who actually changed the votes were probably computer service people who had no idea what they actually doing beyond "replacing a defective card" or "upgrading software." The culprits are the folks who wrote the hacks, who are probably living in luxury and are not about to risk prison by telling their stories.

The Viet Nam issue did not work against Clinton IT DID NOT WORK AGAINST BUSH....If Kerry would have kept to the issues instead of his service and Bush's non-service he would have no doubt won.

He is smarter, better looking, and had a better handle on the issues. When he came out at the convention and gave the salute and said reporting for duty, he set the tone for defeat.

Diebold won. Blackwell won.

America lost.

I honestly mean that.

Kerry needed bigger margins of win to overcome diebold but in the end what you said is 110% correct!

You can only cheat so many votes away and still get away with it.

I do think Kerry won, but it was by a thin margin. There was no massive popular pro-Kerry sentiment in this country, and the people weren't nearly as anti-Bush as they are right now.

Moreover, we need to stop approaching the rigged game the same way we would a fair one. We need to start playing dirty. I'm recalling a scene in "The Longest Yard" when the refs were calling the penalties in favor of the guards when Adam Sandler dropped back to pass on third down and drilled the ref in the nuts. Then he went back on fourth down and did it again. Then he went to the ref and said, "You're gonna call a fair game from now on, right?"

We need to drill Diebold in the nuts.

savy hackers than the repukes. I knew that would be the ONLY way we could win and since the Dems didn't see an "issue" with the evoting machines, I IGNORANTLY thought they had hired MASTER HACKERS to beat the shits at their own game. Guess not.:shrug: Stupid me. The Dems just think we're making this crap up. If the Volusia County, FL. mock election/flipped votes doesn't prove something to the Democratic Party, then there's no helping them. They don't want to see the problem, for SOME other reason.

dumb lies....

over...

and over....

which is why I fight for every vote out there.

This "I don't see a difference between my candidate and theirs" basically helps narrow that margin even more so that the Media/Diebold works!

Underestimated Karl Rove and his Machiavellian political savvy. That's a big no-no.

Didn't fight hard enough against either touchscreen voting machines or the Swift Boat Liars campaign.

The "$87 billion" gaffe didn't help. The Bush campaign exploited it to no end.

Never seemed to master Lakoff's concepts of framing.

Spoke over everyone's heads one too many times - a President has to be able to communicate clearly and succintly with the average Joe.

Democrats were in love with the early '70s version of Kerry - but they got a completely different version of Kerry instead.

On edit: What someone else said earlier. Bush stole the election. Again.

Some people felt voted for Bush simply because Bush has a way of making people feel smarter if only because Bush comes off like a dumbass.

Bush is like your drunk uncle who comes to the family reunions and makes a fool of himself whereas Kerry (and even Gore) came across like that 'know-it-all' cousin who irritates the hell out of people. In the end people would rather hang out with the drunk uncle because at least he doesn't talk down to you and make you feel less intelligent plus you never know what crazy things the drunk uncle will do

Edit note: Clinton was probably just as smart if not smarter than Kerry or Gore - but when he talked he came across as a a bit of a hillbilly which connected him more with the voters. Clinton used that whole "Bubba" thing to the hilt because it made him one of us instead of something better than us

No clever editing to make Bush look clever and Kerry look weak.

This isn't the 70s where we have 4 tv stations and if you aren't watching one of them you're not watching TV at all.

I think for most folks given between watching the Debates on TV or I don't know, Wrestling, videos, some other countless crap on TV - most folks probably found the other stuff.

it wasn't like the old days where that was all that was on TV.

:cry:

You referred to the convention(s) in the OP. The network convention coverage was incredibly sparse. I think if more people had seen the positive, inspiring, moving portraits of Kerry that were presented there... it would have helped... at least a bit. He might have gotten a bit of a bump and it would have preemptively helped to counter the SBVfT.

Al Gore APPEARED to because of his speech pattern - but I don't think he did. With Clinton in 1992, I don't think it was his Arkansaa accent, but the very favorable press treatment. John and Teresa were treated far worse than any major candidates in my lifetime.

Since the election, I have seen at least 10 - 15 stories in local press accounts, where Kerry has appeared for other candidates or for some issue - in all of them the description of Kerry is some variation of funny, personable, interesting and likeable. A common comment is that he should have been like this during the elction.

But, people who actually show him during the election had that same description. The MSM repeated a description of Kerry that was consistent over the newspapers, magazines, and media - that of an aloof, "social loner", to use the NYT words. The NYT when questioned on this actually said many of his friends said so. This description doesn't match what people saw, seems unlikely for a guy who has a large number of friends who have been very close to him for 40+ years. (Watching CSPAN and reading coverage, there were at least 3 non-relatives who had Kerry be a Godparent to their babies.)

He just plays dirty. And cheats.

Like I said. Drill them in the nuts until they agree to call a fair game. Then go back to thinking about how to sell our message to the people. Play by their rules for just one election cycle (I'm thinking... 2006) and they'll curl up in a ball and cry for their mamas.

Think about it!

They flipped votes on the evoting machines. Hacked into the Central Tabulators and changed votes. He did not lose the election. REMEMBER....he was leading in all the polls on elections night? UNTIL the polling software went down? THEN.....MIRACULOUSLY when the software was fixed, the idiot was ahead? You don't really believe that, do you? Kerry won, the idiot lost. Just like in 2000........ Gore won.

..that they are absolutely right.

What's scary is there are still people here on DU who think Kerry lost because they couldn't tell the difference between him and Bush. If they couldn't tell then maybe they need to have a mentality test

can see the difference between John Kerry and the idiot-in-chief.:eyes: I'll never figure that one out either and why don't people see the evoting thievery? It's as plain as the nose on my face.:shrug:

Sometimes we put on the blinders because we don't want to be distracted with what's around us but many times those blinders will hide even the most obvious like the nose on our faces

they have read enough info on DU about the election fraud and the blinders will be ripped off. One can hope. Heaven knows there's enough info here to show there was fraud and after the Volusia County mock election and the hacker flipping the votes, if people don't see the fraud, then they don't want to see it. Those blinders should be long gone.

Far too many irregularities with long lines at the polls (not enough machines sent out, means long lines, means tons of people don't get to the polls before closing hour!), weird ratios (towns with 20 registered Republicans show 67 Republican votes, or something), the exit poll discrepancies, and it doesn't help that last time, the company president said he'd help deliver Ohio's electoral votes to President B***.

Looks like he did!

:mad:

when the swift boat liars started spreading their crap, I said that if dubya wins, this will be the reason. So I do believe the swift boat liars played a rather large role.

During the primaries, although he was not my first choice, I was surprised that he didn't come off stronger. Then there were a few times when the strong John Kerry came through. During the contest with Bush, there were times I was reminded of the old "Good Bobby/Bad Bobby" cartoon that everyone my age remembers .... it was almost as if some of the people around Kerry were holding him back. But a person who wants to be the president is responsible for his/her campaign.

I know Gore won in 2000. And I question if Kerry didn't win in 2004. I have mentioned before that during the month of September 2004, I was given information about a break-in to a campaign headquarters in PA. I spoke to the head of the state's Kerry campaign; in fact, we had a 3-way call with a union leader from the place that was broken into, where computer harddrives were stolen. I told the fellow that I was reminded of 1972. I was told that there were strange goings-on in ten key states. I really think that the campaign should have made an issue of those Nixonian tactics.

use the "NIXONIAN" issue. The reason would be that the people we were trying to win had a positive image of Bush as a person, but were getting concerned about his policies. (Bush's favorability was higher than his approve/disaprove numbers.)

I canvassed for McGovern and the few times I was broached the watergate issue - which was already known during the election - I was looked at as if I had 2 heads. Nixon,unlike Bush was pretty unlikeable. Still, people did not want to believe that their President could allow law breaking and dirty tricks.

killing of Iraqi civilians -- Kerry couldn't have pulled that off -- Kerry is the good guy - Bush is no different then Saddam or Hitler...!

LynneSin,,

First I will say, IMHO Gore won Florida in 2000 and Kerry won Ohio in 2004. Vote counting fraud cost them those states.

But,,,,

first Gore:

Gore made a major error in not meeting the Unions in WV. The Unions felt Gore was anti-coal and they did not push their members to vote for Gore. Had Gore won little old WV he would have been President.

Joe repug his VP was not a good pick, IMHO, Bob Graham would have added 40,000 votes to Gore's Florida total. The indep. in Florida loved Senator Graham.

Now Kerry:

The Swiftboaters killed him. He did not attack them HARD at the very beginning and it made it look like he was hiding from his war record. When he did fight back it was like weak tea.

in just as a reminder.Even with all these things, Kerry looked like he was going to win-so other tactics were employed just to seal the deal.

if you read the whole transcript Osama actually says that he's pleased how * is destroying the American economy.

Strong Kerry speeches w could quotes (criticism of bush, dem alternatives, etc) just not shown.
Bush bumbling and saying stupid stuff just not shown.

Often footage of Kerry speaking (no audio) while a News Anchor gives a piss poor summary, distorting what he said.

Kerry quotes taken out of context to make him look stupid. Bush quotes edited to make him look smart and strong.

When Kerry and Bush presented w/o media filter in debates, it was clear to those who watched the difference between the two,.

As to swiftboat bs -- Kerry responded, demanded bush stop it, put out an ad w Jim Rassmusin (sp) telling about the day Kerry saved his life, sent Max Cleland down to crawford to see Bush in a Cindy Sheehan style protest. etc etc AND THE MEDIA BURIED IT WHILE GIVING ENDLESS AIRTIME TO SWIFTIES. While major dems sat idly by and let it happen.

I was listening to NPR then and would wake up to the morning news. Bush and Gore were campaigning extensively and I noticed a difference in how the two were presented in the media. If Bush had given a speech the day before, a soundbite of that speech would be presented followed by thunderous applause. Bush would say something like, "If elected, I will put FOOD ON YOUR FAMILY!!!"--applause, applause, cheering, applause. In that setting, even a halfwit like Bush sounded "impressive." But when Gore gave a speech the day before, NPR would cover it by having having a reference to the appearance and Gore's speech given as a third-party summary: "Gore-campaign spokesperson Jane Doe said that, if elected, Gore would strengthen environmental standards..."

The media was definitely in on the impending coup.

shows plus the fixing of the votes

I don't understand why so many DUers fail to realize that most people get their political news from TV and radio or from friends who listen and watch........they DO NOT spend time checking the internet and 'far off' (LA, OH, etc and the BBC, Guardian) newspaper stories

....they just get the constant drumbeat or drip-drip that the repubs and W defend the US and the dems are cowards, traitors, and immoral

in Tulsa, there are 2 far-right RW talk radio stations and a religious wrong radio station on am (also NPR on fm, but everyone 'knows' that's elitist and high-brow)......if you're in your car and don't want to listen to music, that's what you get.....even listening for less than 10 minutes across the dial requires an hour or more to find (or ask at DU for) specific, documented counter arguments/info......most people don't do that (don't know it's possible or know how to do it or don't want to or have the time to)......and the little bit every day bores deep within

and realized that, as a sheeple in 2000, I'd swallowed a big bunch of bullshit about Gore, that he wasn't the guy I'd been lead to believe he was.

and lied to by the media in 2000

I read it almost daily and it really just blew me away......how the daily lies were reiterated and rewoven

made a cartoon by the right wing media, people like Gore, Kerry, Dean and Teddy Kennedy. I was shocked when I saw Teddy give a speech and realized what a sane and wise man he is. I'd bought the caricature of him as well.

I could go door to door and ask about the swift boat vets and next to nobody would know what I was talking about. One person I know, a Republican Vietnam vet, laughed at the whole thing and said they were just an embarrassment. Had nothing to do with his vote. That has been nothing but a red herring since the day they first arrived on the scene and it's just too bad a bunch of uninformed, weak-kneed Democrats fell for it.

Most people also don't know, or refuse to acknowledge, that the exit polls showed that Kerry attacked unfairly more often than Bush did. The average voter doesn't differentiate between Moveon and the Kerry campaign. They see a Bush attack ad and lump it all on the Democratic candidate.

9-11? Yep, but not because anybody got all "weepy-eyed". Rather, because Americans actually do believe that carrying a big stick goes a long way in preventing war or terrorist attacks and also believe that Democrats just don't think that way and won't keep the country safe. He lost because too many said he should shut up about Vietnam, BCCI, and the other work he has done on international crime and would have proven he was serious about these issues and knew what to do.

Which has nothing to do with your post about supporting Dem candidates and makes me wonder why you felt the need to bring Kerry into it at all. But yet has everything to do with it. Because when you support a Dem candidate, you either support them wholeheartedly or just stay home and vote. The last thing ANY Dem candidate needs are a bunch of so-called supporters who nitpick the campaign apart because they can't get over their sour grapes when their annointed lefty went down in flames.

but they saw the ads and the main thing the swiftboats were to do was basically nullify Kerry's military career. Kerry should have won hands down as a heroic man who could have skipped out on Vietnam but choose to serve anyways. That message never got out there and it was mainly due to the Swiftboat ads and that "Flip-Flop" on military spending lies.

I never saw an ad, I bet alot of people never saw an ad. And who was it that said Kerry should stop talking about Vietnam? The same people who were pissing in their boots over the swift boaters. Face it, it wouldn't have mattered what Kerry did, the sour grapes brigade would have slung rocks at him for something. That's why I say, if that's what one considers supporting a Democratic candidate, then for god's sake just stay home until election day. Beyond anything else, we don't need any more of that shit.

They were heavily played in key markets.

I think a whole lot more were made out of them then what they were. I note you're ignoring everything else I've said too.

Polls in the fall showed that the public believed Kerry's story on Vietnam. The SBVT convinced only those who were already inclined to vote for Bush. There appeal for swing voters was minimal because they were so negative. They are given more credit than they actually earned.

The biggest issue is the one that Democrats continue to be vulnerable on: Protecting America in a time of war. This goes back 30+ years and nothing is really being done about it. The next nominee will face the same thing. It is a structural and not a candidate specific problem.

, but it only applies if the seat is safe from a republican or other pro war candidate. Kerry for example did not and will not receive my vote for president and will not receive my vote for Senate, as long as he is polling well against any Republican or other pro war candidate.

I mean here's a guy who was ardantly pro-war but after watching what happened realized that he was wrong and is now ardantly opposed to the war.

But I will give you that much. My assumption is you live in Massachusetts and there Kerry is pretty much safe. But what if you live in Ohio? Kerry was polling well in that state but the state voting system is corrupted by Diebold. So Kerry does need every vote he can get in hopes of covering the spread setup by Diebold for the voter switch.

I'd like to think that we're going to have a few more John Murtha's out there that are recognizing we need to get out of Iraq. Even my senator Joe Biden has mentioned Timelines.

Right now, if we had a vote to bring the troops home, I would suspect that John Kerry would support this measure. He has definately moved more to the left in that matter. But if we don't get the democratic majority all of this is a mute point because the republicans won't even allow the vote to hit the floor.

So if you're 110% sure that your state is free of voter fraud then I commend you on your 'not voting if they are polling strong' As for me, I'm not taking any chances here in Delaware. Carper peeves me off but I need him to put Harry Reid in the Senate Majority position. And I'll even write a letter to Mr. Carper and let him know that is the only reason I'm voting for him in 2006

Unless of Course he was in danger of losing his seat to a pro war candidate. I would vote for a Democrat who supported the war, ( I should have Qualified my initial response with this too)but has now sincerely apologized, for authorizing it. As far as I know Murtha has not apologized for his vote.

I do live in Mass where Dems are generally safe, and as long as they are I will keep trying to push for the most progressive candidate there is. If I had lived in Ohio during the 2004 election I probably would have reluctantly voted for Kerry. He wasn't polling well enough IMO to justify voting for another candidate. The spread would have to be large enough to make any large scale voter fraud almost impossible.

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

Seriously, I have an honest Disagreement with you, then you attack me as being an idiot and somehow blame me for all the dead in Iraq. WTF is that?!

Did you miss the part where I said that a candidate would have to be polling well enough to make election fraud almost impossible? I'm not talking the 4 or 5 points ahead that Kerry was in Ohio. I'm talking about at least a ten point lead, in the polls. I know the election was stolen in Ohio, but the stole it with only a few thousand votes.

and then renounced the vote, as many Dems have done. No one wasted a lot of time calling McCarthy a "pro-war" democrat after that.

What part of the revelations from fitzgerald investigation, DSMemos etc that bush lied, manipulated the intel, hid other assessments and was so determined to hide his lies from congress and the american people that he had his henchman destroy the career of an ambassador and outed his wife when the ambassador revealed the lie did you miss in the last few months?

I would vote for a pro-war Democrat if they had sincerely apologized for their vote. I mean a very sincere apology and not I'm sorry that I voted for the war, but I was tricked by Bush. That doesn't fly in my opinion. I'm very aware of all the deception this administration engaged in, but I didn't by it at the time and I don't think the Democrats should have either. There was enough evidence to call into Question the Administrations claims and not enough debate or investigation by Congressional Dems

If you read his comments when he voted in the first place, it seems he was trying to reduce the likelihood of unilateral war for any reason by working on negotiating the words of the resolution. If both the Congress and the Bush administration were playing honestly, the resolution as passed should have avoided war, while having the inspectors verify that their were no WMD. The administration was not being honest in anything, Kerry has explained since at least December 2003 that he was wrong to trust them at all.

I think the people who voted against the resolution knew there would be war and wanted to be on record against it. A comment by Teresa that the resolution delayed the war by about 4 months, but that it unfortunately didn't avoid it in conjunction with Kerry's statements against going to war in op-eds and a Georgetown speech in early March 2003, show Kerry was quixoticly trying to stop a war that was unstoppable. (The argument that it was political makes no sense when you consider the March statements. In March, though far more people were anti-war than in the precious October - it was still a minority.)

Kerry (who naively assumed no one could/would question his patriotism in BOTH 1971 and in 1972) may at worst have been reluctant to assume the worst of President Bush - that he would violate his oath of office and trample the constitution.

to a republican, but short of writing letters he will never read, the only way to show my disapproval for his vote on Iraq, is to vote against him. I respect his attempts to stop a unilateral war, but I just simply disagree I think he should have voted against it.

He has not made a sincere apology for his vote and has not taken full responsibility for it. I don't believe saying you're sorry, but I was duped is a sincere apology.

Even If he does take full responsibility for his vote on Iraq, I may still vote for someone who supports gay marriage. So long as it doesn't risk a Republican getting into office, of course.

out. I got some strange looks for that, what with all of the less...let's call it "grandfatherly" candidates in the race. He wasn't the most exciting, head-turning kind of guy either, especially when contrasted with some of the strong personalities vying for votes (or, in some cases, stump time).

Still, he didn't have to hedge his vote; he voted against the authorization of war while serving as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

If a 67 (or thereabouts) year old non-ideologue voted no while chairing a Committee that enjoys the highest degree of classified intel access in the Senate (though certainly not unfettered), how do some of the more intelligent, "liberal" members coast through with a twist on the old "I wuz duped" explanation?

and is polling well, but loses due to some last minute shenanigans. How will you and others like you feel when the Senate loses one of its strongest liberal members?

But I wouldn't take responsibility for it, since I didn't engage in any shenanigans which cost him the election and accounted for shenanigans in my voting strategy. I can Imagine he would feel pretty bad though, considering he never contested the election or made a strong push for election reform.

All this is assuming that some one is even going to run against him and that some kind giant voter fraud could even be pulled off in Massachusetts, which I really don't think it could. Even in the the Republican stronghold of Ohio they only managed to steal a few thousand votes.It would be virtually impossible to steal the amount of votes need to undermine a strategy like mine.

I wouldn't say that Kerry is one of the strongest LIBERAL members of the senate either. He is a strong Democrat though and I respect him, I just have a different opinion on some things than he does. I would like to see massachusetts have an even more liberal senator and that's why I vote the way I do. If I can't have a more Liberal senator than my vote may at least show up on Kerry's radar and help push him further to the left. Living in Mass is great, because I can afford to do things like this.

That's pretty funny actually. There are two Democratic Parties in Massachusetts and Kerry has done an outstanding job of bridging the 'lunch-bucket' Dems concerns with the concerns of the upper-income Dems. This is very hard to do. When Kerry (or Kennedy) leave, there will not be anyone more liberal than them elected. (That's actually pretty funny.) There will be more moderate Sen. elected to reflect the change in the MAss electorate since these people were elected.

More liberal, that's funny!

I realize it may be an uphill battle at the moment,but I'm going to keep trying (Is that pretty funny?)and keep hoping that one day we may send a more progressive senator to Washington.

Is that funny?

Where are you getting these voters from? It sure doesn't sound like Massachusetts. That state also likes to send Senators who bring home the bacon, like every other state. That state wants to send 'statesmen' to DC and also people who remember where Worcester and Springfield and Lowell and New Bedford and Gloucester are and how to take their values and concerns to DC as well. There are whole huge land masses in that Massachusetts where no one gives a flying fig about a lot of the 'liberal' issues and a successful Democratic candidate for statewide office has to balance these baseline concerns with the need to protect the states economic interests. (We are not that liberal a state. We are very liberal indeed when what is being asked of us doesn't cost anything in terms of taxes, like gay marriage. We are not that liberal when it comes to pocketbook issues. That is a misreading of the state. Massachusetts is, in some ways, one of the most conservative places in America.)

find he is one of the most progressive in the Senate. You can count on one hand the others in this category. There are only a handful of states (in total)where the parties have a secure lock on voters, that is, the state is extremely conservative or extremely progressive.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about what I have written. I'm speaking for only myself and am under no impression that the state as a whole is as Liberal as I am. Christ, the 88 in South Bay Shopping Plaza just got slapped with a fine for being open on Christmas. What Kind of Puritanical bull shit is that?!

That doesn't mean that I am going to give up on electing the most progressive candidate possible or keep trying to push our elected officials as far to the left as I can with just one vote.

Yes, my ideal candidate would also be one who can bring back the bacon and as far as I can tell Kerry is not doing that great of a job at it. Last time I checked we were only getting $.75 for every dollar paid in Federal income tax.

NJ gets the least back for dollar in the nation. The progressive income tax takes more per person from an affluent person. Many entitlements give money based on poverty - less poverty - you get less per person. Both factors are per person - and the ratio is lower for affluent states.

Other factors are military and other government facilities. Didn't Kennedy and Kerry say most (or all) of the military facilities. I assume also, MA is likely being punished for have all Democrats in Congress.

If not, he's one of the most liberal.

As to a sincere apoplogy, I think he has apologized for the only thing he did. Kerry did not start the war and couldn't have stopped it by voting no. There were also no group of Senators he could have won over to also vote no. If you look at the changes the Senators did get the administration to make - they included taking out the reasons given after no WMD were found. If the administration had taken the law with the same seriousness that Senator Kerry did, they would not have invaded in March 2003 - because it was clear there were likely no WMD and the inspectors were in fact getting Iraq to destroy missiles. Kerry did what he said he would when he voted and loudly critisized the administration when it invaded in abuse of the resolution.

What do you want him specifically to apologize for:
- Taking the country to war - he didn't
- Giving Bush power he didn't otherwise have - he didn't
- Losing in 2004 - he certainly didn't choose to do this

What he did apologize for is trusting Bush and allowing this trust to make him try to push for a bi-partisan alternative way to avoid war. For someone with his background, having his name listed as being for a war (by people who would otherwise be his supporters) which he spoke as strongly against before it started as any over politician has to hurt.

Okay, okay he is, one of the MOST liberal senators, but I would still like to see someone who is further to the left. Someone who would have opposed this war from the beginning.

You make a good case for the apology too, But as far as I know, he has not said, I'm sorry or I apologize and that's what I want him to say. Maybe, I'm just being vindictive,but I'm really pissed about this war and wish that people had opposed it from the beginning. Maybe you're right that it's not fair to call him pro-war.

I don't know, maybe I should just be happy with what I got....but I'm not. Not really

I still think I got a good system though

:)

phrase that he is sorry he trusted Bush - going onto to say if he knew the level of deceict, he wouldn't have voted as he did. I honestly think that he can not go any further - because he is apologizing for what he has also called a mistake (trusting Bush).

I doubt he could or would apologize for the war (other than say as President where he's apologizing for the country) because on a personal level he knows he spoke out before the war started - he called for Regime Change here when Bush invaded.

He really is in a different place than most of the Senators (many voted against it, some with less thought than Kerry), many voted for it and were for regime change itself (Edwards and Lieberman for example). The main thing is the resolution was a trap - there would be war either way and it wasn't clear what they could do to change Bush's direction.

you mentioned questionable election results in FL in 2004.

Did you mean 2000? FL (my state) went red rather strongly in 04. Something happen I didn't know about?

but not as bad as Ohio. One would suspect with their voter lists purged as well as Katherine did, they wouldn't have to fuss around as much to get the votes. I will always hold Florida in question with any results. Hell, I see Nelson is polling strongly against Harris for the senate race but I wouldn't hold anything past her or the voting system

I didn't read anything, but with Jeb as governor, even if it was not an overt kind of thing, folks like the police like to please the governor and it doesn't take a lot to keep some neighborhoods at home on pollling day.

DISINFORMATION

Oct 21, 2004 (eve of the 2004 election, approximately)
PIPA Poll of the American Public on International Issues

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

These are some of the findings of a new study of the differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in September and October.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

Steven Kull adds, "Another reason that Bush supporters may hold to these beliefs is that they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda. Here too they are in agreement with Kerry supporters." Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have. Kull continues, "To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq."

Much more (sorry, pdf only) http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/IraqRealities%20Oct04%20pr.pdf

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20263/

Pretty amazing stuff -- worth reading the whole alternet summary -- :

<snip>


The World According to a Bush Voter
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted October 21, 2004.

<snip>

In particular, majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assume that he supports multilateral approaches to various international issues, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (69 percent), the land mine treaty (72 percent), and the Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming (51 percent).

In August, two-thirds of Bush supporters also believed that Bush supported the International Criminal Court (ICC). Although that figure dropped to a 53 percent majority in the PIPA poll, it's not much of a drop considering that Bush explicitly denounced the ICC in the first, most widely watched presidential debate in late September.

In all of these cases, majorities of Bush supporters said they favored the positions that they imputed, incorrectly, to Bush. Large majorities of Kerry supporters, on the other hand, showed they knew both their candidate's and Bush's positions on the same issues

<snip>

I thought he won.

...we need a little more cowbell.

We needed a rebel. Someone who isnt afraid to rock the DNC if they need it. He was gray when we needed a bright blue candidate. Much to my chagrin I see the leaders of the DNC installing these pro war candidates instead of someone with a clear anti war agenda. Go read this weeks Nation 1/16 and theres an article about this stuff. Its called "Rebel..lighting a fuse under Lieberman and the rest of the appeasers" Its exactly what needs done.

The best he could offer was a "not as bad as the republicans" vision. All he did was pander to the right by playing "hero" and bag a ferocious goose.

He was a pathetic candidate that followed the DLC geniuses' advice on how not to stand for anything but advancing his ambitions.

Wrong war! Bush handling it wrong etc. Kerry never struck me as weak. He was an articulate, intelligent forward thinking candidate. IMO, if you think an anti-war candidate would have won you are wrong. Anti-war is perceived as weak and frightened. People were looking for security and someone to get rid of the terrorists.

4,230 for bush.............how'd they do that??? how often did they do that?

Read the second chapter in Al Franken's new Book "The Truth (with jokes)". The chapter is entitled "How Bush Won: Fear" I have two sister and neither had ever voted for a Republican Presidential Candidate including Reagan. They both voted for Gore in 2000 but Chimpy in 2004 because they thought he would protect them from the terrorists ....and get this.....they both live in rural America. I have always thought that Kerry might have pulled it off if it wasn't for the Osama tape a few days before the election.

What really shocks me is how sucsessful he was. How did he manage to convince those in rural America that the terrorists could reach them even there?

See?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2334398
So, now, instead of blaming the thieves, you get to blame the voters (unjustly). And for this, thank Kerry.

for Bush because Kerry "turned" against his fellow troops back in his Vietnam days. She said she heard her recently deceased VET dad's voice tell her as she entered the voting both that he was a traitor so vote for Bush. She told me she is a registered Democrat. :crazy:

I didn't know where to begin. She has always been super friendly to me so I basically told her I was a VET and I would sooner take a bullet to the head then EVER vote for a fucking republican, let alone Bush, and that Kerry was anti-vietnam war yet he volunteered and bush was PRO war yet sleazed his way out of it and she was like "yeaaah, welllll...."

but yeah, this is an example of uninformed cluelessness when a super nice liberal seeming Democrat librarian can tell me this crazy shit about kerry being a traitor so she voted for Bush because of what her dead freeper vet father would think.

That had a load to do with it being so close. Kerry should have destroyed chimpy but their propaganda train was excellent. IE swift boat liars. The rethugs can only win when they mislead the people. If they were honest about their agenda they wouldnt stand a chance so propaganda is vital to them. We need to figure out a way to counter that or we will suffer from it again.

without re-taking Congress. But, if this is changed it will also effect groups like MoveOn.org; because they use the same advertising methods. I don't know but maybe we should use their tactics against them?

of her library and read Kerry's full testimony. My husband's moderate Republican uncle who was very pro- Vietnam War and a WWII vet - actually got the full testimony (the prepared speech and the Q&A) and his comment was that after reading it he saw where he was coming from, saw his sincerity and was impressed with his intelligence and poise. He ended up voting for Kerry.

Note that none of those points address whether he thought Kerry was correct in demanding the war end. I wish I would have noticed that when he was speaking - as I would have asked. It could really be either way, because Kerry broke no laws in speaking out and as soon as you accept that he was sincere, even if you disagree, what he did took courage and intelligence and was done in good faith.

I was a college student in 1971 (anti-war), the biggest surprise to me was the Q&A that showed how knowlegable he was and all the comments about the mental and physical needs of the soldiers not being met. Kerry was genuinely very unique. Between this and being one of the co-founders of VVA and his sdvocacy of getting people help for PTSD (which was not well understood) and other soldiers who had become addicted to the cheap drugs available in Vietnam - he should be respected by his fellow vets.

For those who are dissing Kerry, I've got a request of you. He did an extensive interview with David Bender on Politically Direct. But it was broadcast on Christmas Day, so very few people heard it. I challenge you to listen to it, and tell us all what you have a problem with.

Here's the link: http://www.airamericaplace.com/upload/aapd122505.mp3

My experience of the campaign was kind of unique -

I've gone for long stretches of my life without a tv - I've never watched the evening news -
but I did get local cable for the election season so I could watch C-Span

about six weeks before the election I decided I should make an attempt to watch the network news
if only to see what most of America was seeing

I would spend all day on the internet - here at DU, etc., or watching Kerry campaign rallies on c-span. I even watched a couple of Bush's rallies.

Then I would sit down in the evening and watch the evening news reports.

It was like stepping into another reality.

And the frightening part was that it was the reality most of America was living in. The news on the campaigns had no relation to the campaigns I was following on the internet and on c-span.

You see the effects of this even here at DU - "Why didn't Kerry say this of that, why didn't he talk about this or that issue"? Except he did. And it didn't get reported.


This was even true for Bush - the press, after the elections expressed surprise at Bush's agenda - yet Bush had been very upfront about what he wanted to accomplish. Social Security reform and - War. War, war, and more war. Bush pretty much promised endless war at his rallies... and no one at the MSM said a thing about it...

Every day Bush said something stupid... one gaffe after another - did you hear about it on the tv? No.

Kerry makes one verbal slip - and it becomes the centerpiece of the Republican attack. An attack aided and abetted by the media - who also turn the Swiftboat liars into a major story - even when the SBVT were shown up as liars .

Now we find out the NY Times sat on the NSA spying story for over a year, when they could have brought it out before the election.

And so it goes.

thnks for your post.

in louisiana they had insufficent numbers of voting machines supplied to democratic districts, people in black areas of orleans parish such as xavier university waited up to 9 hours to vote

9 hours

this story was reported in the republican-owned times-picayune, new orleans newspaper, but i don't know if it's still online, someone motivated could get it from their archives tho

if they cheated like that in louisiana, which was not considered borderline, then they cheated like that in every state, they took no chances

most people don't have hours to stand in line to cast a vote, if you supply more machines to republican precincts than to democratic precincts, more machines to white precincts than to black precincts, then that's all you have to do

and the white people won't complain because most of them don't even know about it

paulk -- poster upstream -- is right abt media coverage too, sooo biased

so I can oust Joe Lieberman; Then we can ellect a real democratic senator in Connecticut.

Not everyone is as cerebral as he is which is what it takes to really appreciate him.

He and his handlers also ran about as poor a campaign as could be run. Kerry, as honorable a man and war hero that he was, never took advantage of his own honorable past history. His handlers should've had him flaunt what he did in the past instead of taking the high road towards the swift boat fuckers. Taking the high road was a grave mistake. He never fought back and that spoke volumes.

Another thing. Kerry just didn't have the charisma, IMO, that the public unfortunately demands of its candidates. I know a lot of people will disagree but that's the way I found him. John Edwards was supposed to take care of that end of it, but I guess that didn't pan out either.

Kerry's image makers were a joke. To make such a big show of dressing him up in hunting fatigues to go out on that silly goose hunting trip in the middle of his campaign was embarrassing to say the least.

And who on earth advised him to pick the time that he did to make his famous lesbian remark about Cheney's daughter? If that didn't come off as insincere and contrived, then nothing did.

Anyway, the presidency was his for the taking, but it just didn't work out. I hope we see a better campaign next time and with different campaign managers.

First and foremost, it WAS stolen in Florida and Ohio, maybe other places. Votes that were his were systematically eliminated or changed.

I always like to get that up front, so I don't have to listen to a cacaphony of voices telling me "but, they stole ...."

So, with that out of the way, why did he lose?

HE RAN POORLY DOWN THE STRETCH.

After the convention, his campaign people were outplayed in every respect. They didn't take advantage of the post convention time period, they didn't deal smartly and promptly with the Swift Boat Liars, and they threw up a wall that remained up until Labor Day. By then, Kerry had fallen behind and lost his momentum. He's not a guy who can get down with the boys. He's intelligent, and his speech always shows it. He can't turn it off, like Clinton can. You have to know when to ditch such things as not ending a sentence with a preposition.

And Kerry is not a good speaker. Like most of us, he can't shut up.

There's more, but enough for now.

Sweated too much in his acceptance speech??? Ice doll Teresa?? Sailboard photo?? Patrician?

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. This shit is right out of Rove's playbook. People who are determined to find fault, will; even if they have to repeat right wing lies to do it. So as far as I'm concerned, those who can't get over their sour grapes ought to just go home. And that goes for ANY Democratic campaign out there. This kind of half-assed support does way more harm than good.

And Neil, you're still not funny.

Thanks for playing!

- all since the election. During the elction I noticed in a few CSPAN rallies the huge change in Kerry, when Teresa arrived at an event. Even at the NYU Iraq speech - in the middle of a very serious speech - mid sentence, you could see a slight smile and he immediately looked more relaxed (or happier). He finished that part, then commented that his wife had just made it over from another event, she joined the people at the front. He continued the speech.

From the pictures "ice" is the last word I would use. (Why did Oberman in discussing debate 1 - show the Kerrys kissing as the best kiss.?)

The MSM did not want to show Teresa for the incredible person she is nor did they want to show anything that made their 10 year marriage look good.

They're candid, accurate observations made by me.

I'm glad you enjoy the cartoon. About one in ten says something that some Democrats won't like, but that's the nature of commenting on politicians and what they do.

There's nothing in the cartoon you dislike that hasn't been said at DU a number of times this year.

Every appearance she made, people came away talking about how warm, caring, and down to earth she was.

In the meantime, Rovebots bleated on TV about how she just wasnt "First Lady Material"

The awkwardness between JFK and THK was palpable. When he introduced his VP, she was destroying the moment by trying to discipline Edwards' little boy. When she and JFK were on stage together, she often acted stiff and uncomfortable with him.

And her "shove it" moment didn't help.

If I didn't sincerely think she had hurt him during the election, I wouldn't have mentioned it. Her approval numbers were simply atrocious.

I saw the complete opposite. The media created a false perception of Teresa. I taped one profile of her and I loved the images even though the commentary was subjectively leading---things like saying that people aren't warming to her, even though none of the images reflected that. I had to look past the narrator.

Whenever she gave a speech it was to captivated audiences, like the one in New Mexico.

In some venues the cameras kept rolling after her speeches, and the connection I saw her make with people in a room ran counter to the media's portrayal of her.

On the other point, Laura Bush's approval was in the 80s, yeah right!

I visited the Heinz Endowments' site, Teresa Heinz Kerry is far more caring, loving, nurturing and compassionate, in words and deeds, than most people in public life today.

to meet Senator Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry, and to speak with them for a few minutes. And both of them were very approachable, warm, intelligent, engaging people. 'Nuff said.

I've known John over 20 years. Helped him win his first Senate race. Helped him retire his campaign debt before. Helped him extensively in Florida in 2004.

I'm not unfamiliar with the subjects in my topics.

The Edwards boy, by the way, supposedly (per his dad) loved stopping to visit with Teresa AFTER the election. She wasn't disciplining the boy.

That is the reality of the middle voters. If it is on TV, it's part of their reality. If not, it isn't.

The polls don't lie. She was not well-perceived during the election by the general public.

There are millions of pictures of Teresa and Kerry (many posted on the Kerry group) where they look very happy to be together. Some of the people on DU went to a Boston party and met them.

I can see that among other things, if Kerry wants to run he needs to fix part of his image and that of Teresa. Changing an image is tough - but it's easier than having to change who you are. What is sad is that they both seem to be very nice people - who the media (for its own reasons) didn't back. In spite of the most biased media I've seen since perhaps Goldwater, he almost won.

An important insight though is that they can do what they did to Kerry to anyone. Watching the CSPAN rallies, I felt like I was in a different universe than people who weren't. Kerry was personal, charismatic, and on fire in the last few weeks. On MSM, there were only talking heads talking over a shot that failed to show the number of people there. No one seeing the MSM would have been able to know he broke records on crowd size.

A friend of my 20 year old who goes to college in PA told me that he was so amazing and awesome - she saw 3 different rallies. (The joy of being a college student in a swing state.)

I want to see us take the House, and perhaps the Senate, next year.

Then we can turn to the presidential race for 2008. Kerry is running again, and if he's going to run, he's going to have to clean up some areas. Whether THK deserves her rap is not my issue. The fact is she must do all she can to clean up the problem areas or "shove it" will be the image that gets shown over and over on TV.

As for Kerry, he has to be less of a stiff, which is why I used the Frankenstein analogy. He's got to loosen up, and talk to people in shorter sentences.

up the problem? So someone should be cast aside because the media serves as a shill for the Republicans? If they continue to do this to our candidates, how will we ever win? Are you suggesting Democrats play timid?

Many posts here make the case that your last point is a RW caricature. You claim to know him, and that's your characterization of him? Yet many who meet him for the first time walk away impressed by his affable nature. Just a few weeks ago there was a story about his call to jury duty. The Republicans who met him in that realm completely changed their opinion of him. That's what matters. People saw Kerry on Imus the other day, same impression. That's what matters.

The media will continue along its biased path until its held accountable for its lack of objectivity, but bias doesn't change who a person is, it impacts the perception others may have. Now if you want to talk about how to change the media, that's the discussion. There is a more practical and expedient way around the MSM bias: remove the RW talking points from the discussion and promote the truth.

The point is anyone can be made to look good or bad by the media. Look at Bush - his aides went TWO DAYS before telling him about Katrina because they knew he'd be angry. Yet, the media fooled most people into thinking he was a nice guy, down to earth - forget what you hear about BRANDING students at Yale.

Kerry, who seems by almost all accounts to be a decent, honorable man who didn't look the least bit stiff on CSPAN and who has been known to be very quick to hug people was cast as stiff (well, it worked in 2000.) Teresa, who is a warm lovely woman who runs the Heinz Foundation and was thought well enough of to have been appointed by GHWB to represent the US at an environmental conference - which Kerry also attended, was portrayed as both weird and unlikeable. (Look at the 5 Kerry and Heinz kids - they certainly reflect well on their parents, unlike the Bush twins.)

Your version is the delusion.

:crazy:


The truth is that it's your perception.

it doesn't matter what a person is 'really' like or what people think they are like when they get to see them in person

THE BOTTOM LINE is THE CANDIDATE IS WHAT THE MEDIA SAYS AND PRESENTS

but to claim that the Kerry lost the election because most people believe he and THK are stiff (he still got 59 million votes) is false. Then claiming to know them personally and saying that they are stiff in person is a personal opinion (based on what I don't know). Next saying that nearly all Democratic politicians share this belief and that "Rove didn't create Kerry's vulnerabilities so much as he exploited them" is just not true.

That's two candidates they've turned into caricatures now. I will not stand by and watch them do it to a third!

Either Gore or Kerry would have been better Presidents than Dimson. Neither man was perfect. But you can't tell me that Bush didn't have some missteps as well. It didn't matter.

The 2006 races are very important and should defintely be our focus.

I also agree that if Kerry decides to win as you say he needs to improve his (and Teresa's) image with some additional people. I do get your point that the images are what the images are. (I was trying to make the point that the media may have been as unfriendly to any Democrat.)

Having lost, even narrowly, he would need to demonstrate that he has learned and will do better. I imagine that that is what he is trying to do and that at some point he will need to assess if it is possible. It may be a moot point, if Hillary chooses to run and doesn't lose any of her early strength.

On a level playing field, he would have won last time.

I find too many of my fellow Dems want to stand at the ocean's edge and argue with the surf. It is what is. The mass middle is soft and gooey. It votes for the lamest of reasons. It is easily manipulated.

We have to be smart about addressing areas we were not successful last time. My critical comments of Kerry are not new. They're shared by just about every Democratic pol in the nation. Rove didn't create Kerry's vulnerabilities so much as he exploited them.

Kerry is running, so I want to see him run smart. He can't do that if he listens to those who are impressed simply by being in his presence. Your best friends are the ones who candidly tell you what you're doing wrong, not those who lavish praise on you.

That your perception of John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry is real?

Here is the BS you spew: Rove didn't create Kerry's vulnerabilities so much as he exploited them.

Talking to you further is pointless.

This is what they served you, and you drank it right down. You didn't have to, you chose to.

:beer:

Was it yummy?

mkkay?

because it really was not reported accurately in the media. As were so many things you "saw with your own eyes."

The reporter was from a Richard Melon Scaife paper that had ACCUSED TERESA OF FUNDING TERRORISTS

Please read the linked article by Joe Conason:

http://www.fairandbalanced.us/docs/StoryID2633.htm

<snip>

7/29/2004 - The New York Observer
Scaife's hired hack deserved Teresa's ire - Teresa's 'shove it' meant for reporter's boss, for years of attacks

Joe Conason

<snip>

Meanwhile, Ms. Kerry herself is hardly exempt from the angry fantasies emanating from Mr. Scaife's strange universe. Last spring, a Scaife-funded "research group" sent out a study that accused her of covertly financing violent radicals of various kinds, including Islamists, through the straitlaced Heinz foundations that she controls. There was absolutely no basis for that tale -- as the right-wing sleuths could have learned by making a single phone call. The Heinz money they had "traced" through a San Francisco group had actually gone in its entirety to support anti-pollution projects in Pennsylvania.

<snip>

Which is interesting, but irrelevant to the issue of her being on tape and looking bad saying "shove it!"

I'm comfortable with my position. If Kerry wants to win the election, he has to come across as less of a stiff and she has to come across as less of a rich woman with a funny accent.

www.dailyhowler.com

What we really need is to fight the media when they paint our Democratic candidates as cartoons. They did it to Gore. They did it to Kerry. Time to not go along with it. Time to fight back and say we are proud of these people and anyone who is going to make them look like a buffoon will have to go through us first.

Care to respond to post 187?

But I wonder why you would think people here would find such a caricature funny.

In the end, the Swift Boat attack and all that didn't really matter much. They mainly affected people who already had their minds made up anyway. Kerry's positives were fine, as reported in this article in http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/001333.php



We are, as Democrats, once again learning the wrong lessons. Democrats suffer much more from the 'Knight in Shining Armor' problem, wherein we assume that there is one special person who can swoop in and 'save' the Democratic Party and win the election. This is ridiculous. We need to build an organization that becomes focused on winning in '08 NOW. This is the secret to the Republican's winning ways. They build the organization and then slot the appointed winner of the primaries into that existing structure. The Democrats chose a nominee and then build an organization in 4-6 months. Our way doesn't work.

The debate about the $87 Billion illustrates this. No Democrat seems to notice that there was a 24/7 recording truck taping every appearance of Kerry that he made from Feb on. A mistake was inevitable. (There are no candidates who run mistake-less campaigns, not even Republicans.) The thing that should be focused on here is the fact that the Republicans had an organization in place to take advantage of those mistakes. We did not and do not. We are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past, no matter who is nominated, until we get our act together and begin to build a permanent Democratic structure that can aid who ever the nominee is. This is a winning path to victory.

Any candidate now being mentioned is vulnerable to the 'Big Smear.' Every single one of them. What have we done to build an organization that will minimize the damage, do the media outreach, enlist the help of the Dem blogs and so forth so that when those inevitable mistakes are made, they are not fatal to our nominee? Nothing, but infighting so far. The same thing will happen again, IMHO, until structural change comes.

organization need to realize there is no "knight in shinning armour" going to do all the hard work for them. This is going to take a lot of effort and team work.

so to speak. The Republicans have a continuing structure that prepares their candidates for victory. We do not. Until we solve that, we will lose. They have a structural advantage over us. No amount of scapegoating will change that.

The Republicans in '08 will conduct primaries and have a candidate selected by at least the middle of March. That candidate will then be able to take advantage of built-in money support channels that have been built up for 30+ years. They will also have the advantage in a huge and dedicated media support system that will immediately begin to tout their candidate in a consistent series of talking points that will be heard across vast swaths of the USA. (Consistency is the key. The more a few points are heard, the more they will be remembered.)

One of the hidden advantages of the Republicans is their ability to use their grassroots support to get to conservative churches and get copies of membership and mailing lists. They have a concerted and highly organized attack structure already in place. They simply swap out the name at the top and slot in the new guy. The apparatus for the campaign is built and ready to go.

The Democrats do not do this. The Dems must take back their own 'Get Out the Vote' effort. The folks at Americans Coming Together and other vtoer registration agencies where, by law, unable to promote Kerry by name. This is insane. The Dems cannot outsource their GOTV eforts anymore. (This hurt us a lot in the swing states, like Ohio.)

There are indeed lessons to be learned from '04. However, no one seems to care and would rather bash individual cnadidates than work on the structure that must be put in place. This means that, regardless of who the Dems nominate next time, they will not have pre-built organization necessary to win and will be vulnerable to everything Kerry (and Gore before him) was vulnerable to. We will lose again and then again sit around and stare at our navels and wonder why we didn't win, if we were in deed, the purest ones in the land. (No shortcuts, we have to work our way out of this.)

But you don't mention that in your tiresome, loathsome, dishonest screed.

Why Do Ignore the Fact that Kerry Won the 2004 Election?

Kerry is not President right now. We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. In some ways, the issue of election fraud is sapping all the energy out of the discussions of what needs to be done and is not doing anything to get the issue moved forward.

We lack the structure and organized effort that is massively needed to get the issue out into the open. The fact that a few people know about it on some liberal blogs is not enough. This will never become a big national issue unless we change the way we pursue it. Right now, it reads like tin-foil hat stuff. We need to bring this forward in a more positive and constructive fashion. The way it is discussed on DU (and other forums) is a loser.

by MendacityCentral.

There have now been more than several reports about this misbegotten election -- and Diebold has tanked in NC, is tanking in California.

And, btw, the way this is dicussed at DU has kick started more positive results than you seem to be aware of.

Go check out what GuvWorld is doing in CA, for example. He's turning the world right side up. It's all laid out for you in the Elections Forum.

:hi:

/no typing. just get over it.

One of the "papers of record" - (pretty sure it was the NYT)

There have been reports nearly every day in *Recent Weeks* printed in the PRESS regarding massive problems and fraud with the vote tabulations in Florida and Ohio. I'm talking Mainstream Corporate Media. Not Tin Foil Hat publications or "liberal blogs" (yes of course it's being discussed there)

However, it is not being reported in Broadcast or Cable "News" - THAT fact is a huge problem - if it doesn't get mentioned there, most people won't learn about it.

Reality is what we make it. We do have some leverage in that regard, only if we collectively excersise what remnants of "free speech" and the right to petition our government for a redress of our grievances.

If we don't share a common grievance about how OUR votes were NOT properly counted, and how that fact impacted the "official results" NOW...

What in the hell can you or I or anyone else honestly expect to be the outcome in 2006 or 2008, but a result of another rigged election????

Another rigged election will produce more of the same: false mandates, false reality, and a delusional electorate faced with false choices.

This is why when a leading Democrat seriously discussed the need to insure that the voting system be fixed so it can not be rigged - the liberal media should POSITIVELY repeat and amphlify it. But this way, it is a winnable issue and we have the high ground. People think they are for democracy and democracy requires a fair voting system.

John Kerry has been talking about those things that are 100% provable problems and doing his best to move people to care enough about them that they will push for changes. This should be the way to go forward. The liberal media would do better to back him (and anyone else working on this) and demand accountability.

At this point, I think even if someone came to Kerry in the middle of the night with a smoking gun - it would lead to charges for those provably involved. Even if it could be pushed to include the President and the VP, they would have to be impeached to get them out. Then the line of succession takes over. (I doubt anything could be offered to the Republicans - even if it were shown with 100% certainty that Kerry won - so they would agree to impeach Cheney (or have hime resign) and have Bush nominate Kerry as VP and then resign. At which, point Kerry nominates Edwards as VP)

He has the GAO report, but even before then, he has had at his disposal mountains and mountains of testimony as well as software and hardware evidence that this took place in several states across America in 2004.

And then there was the moment when Mark Crispen Miller provided him with his book just a couple of months ago, which apparently (i havent' read it yet, i just heard him report on it on democracy now and AAR) contains everything Kerry needs to know in how that election was rigged.

Kerry's reported response was rather disappointing to me, but more importantly Kerry's response has been virtually silent on the entire matter.

I'd like to know where and how Kerry has been doing anything at all in advancing this matter... looking forward to seeing that information.

but it doesn't per several people who read it. THe book contains a lot of things that went wrong and then concludes the election was stolen. This surprises me from a Uninversity professor. In high school I had a trig teacher who called this type of proof where you do what you can with the equation then sys "therefore" and state what you were to prve. He called it proof by intimidation - which he would not except - requesting we use induction or deduction instead.

Kerry did speak about elections problems on the AAR show where Bender was the host and on a recent Ed Schultz show. He focuses more on demanding that the system be fixed so future elections are safe. He did mention that in FL one county proved that the Dieblod machine is hackable. We can't get 2004 - and I'm sure Kerry regrets that as much as anyone. We need to fix it going forward.

The key to getting some of this taken seriously is to get it into the media. We have those exit polls and we have 'sufficient cause' to have all this stuff investigated 'on the record.' What we don't have is sufficient resources to really push this.

We need those incessant phone calls to talk radio and C-Span and LTTE and such. You tell me on DU, ahm, so what? I already believe there were problems. That doesn't advance anything. (In some instances, we make it worse. We believe that the way in which we fight fraud is proprietary and that there is only one way to do so. People who only believe in irregularities and haven't made it all the way to believing in fraud are discouraged by the relentless negativism and stop investigating it. This is a big problem. We need more warm bodies to fight this fight, not less.)

are you hip to brad friedman of bradblog.com ?

This guy has been all over this issue from day one, and the hot thing is that he's able to get air time on a number of radio shows, lots of great guests..

check out his radio archives - mountains and mountains of evidence discussed chronicled and archived.

http://www.bradblog.com/

And you might want to check out the Conyers Report, the GAO Report, Mark Crisin Miller's new book, Fooled Again.

Yes, we got ripped off two Federal Elections in a row. Everything else is just spin and smoke.

You might want to visit the Elections Forum because this has been a known known there for months and months.

Kerry won.

Gore won.

What else do we need to know?

:(

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/001333.php

oh and in reply to you sig... Scoles for Congress, PA-7.

And one of the reasons is, I'm sorry to say, the sort of talk I'm seeing on this thread and repeated throughout the liberal blogosphere.

This particular thread actually has some excellent points about the culpability of a slanted media, which I see as the biggest reason we did not prevail. PaulK has it exactly right. If you watched Kerry rallies on C-SPAN and then saw the scant and misleading coverage of them in the MSM (and maybe online as well?), it is easy to understand why undecided voters were less than wowed. As far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of Americans SAW John Kerry exactly five times during the four months or so of the general campaign: his DNC acceptance speech, the three debates, and his concession speech. The rest of their access to him was in tiny, badly-chopped soundbites and the spin provided by the RW-controlled MSM. I'm willing to bet most of the people on the left who continue to repeat the Rove lies about Kerry -- that he is uncharismatic, can't speak, doesn't connect, didn't defend himself enough against the Swift Boat Liars, and flip-flopped on Iraq -- did very little research of their own on the man and watched one or fewer rally speeches on C-SPAN. If you had watched, you would have seen a handsome, vital, intelligent and *very* charismatic politician who drew huge crowds all over the country, spoke with humor and passion and had people all over him in the ropeline, just dying to connect with him and tell him how much his vision meant to them.

And this brings me to the dreaded ABB voter and campaigner. Tay Tay makes a very good point when she talks about the "knight in shining armor" syndrome. Except that when you expect one person to solve all your problems and be perfect, you will always be disappointed. To paraphrase Tay Tay, it will take more than one idealized person, it will take a solid organization of ALL of us supporting our nominee, to really take back the government. We had an amazing organization this time, but they were not all supporting the nominee, too many were freaked out and disheartened and focused only on getting rid of Bush. If you were ABB, I believe you must take some responsibility for where we are now. ABB is not enough. You have to truly believe in your candidate, truly understand the candidate's vision and views and not take the easy way of believing what anyone else tells you about that candidate, whether it is Karl Rove or Markos of DailyKos. We will never win if we only work to oust the Republicans, we must work to put our own party in because of what it and its nominee stand for.

Try to take your blinders off and do the research. Go to the C-SPAN archive and watch a few Kerry rallies -- see what a great speaker he really is and how he fired up those huge crowds in the Midwest. Check out the passion he displayed throughout the campaign and which has not abated once since November 2, 2004. He took the measure of the situation all through the long hours of that long night, and saw that he had to concede. It was the only choice. But he hasn't conceded one inch since then. Not in his fight for a healthcare plan for every American child, not in his support of the investigation of vote count irregularities and his championing of fair election legislation, not in his staunch support of the troops and their needs both in Iraq and once they come home, not in his fight against despicable Bush nominees/appointees such as Bolton and Meiers, not in his loyal and effective support of Democratic fights against every illegal and immoral stunt and evil piece of legislation put forth by a bullying GOP Senate majority. He has worked tirelessly in the senate this year (again, you will see this, if you watch C-SPAN!) and all over the country campaigning for Democratic candidates at every level of government. His PAC has raised huge amounts of money to support Democratic candidates and ready our party for the big push to take back America in 2006.

So before you repeat the old, tired RW talking points about John Kerry, do some research of your own. You may be surprised by who the man really is.

First off, I am not willing to say, with 100% certainty, that John Kerry did not win.

I think there is a very good chance that he did win.

I find it extremely curious that the afternoon exit polling had him up by like 3 percentage points in this state, 2 percentage points in that state, and the "final" results turned out to be the exact opposite of the exit polling.

Now that being said, if John Kerry truly did NOT win, I think there were several factors at work:

- He waited about a month before responding to the Swift Boat liars. It made him look very weak as a candidate, to not come out right away and forcefully denounce the Swift Boat Veterans for Liars. I think most people believe that if you will not defend and stand up for yourself, how will you stand up for them?

And they also believe that if you do not denounce any allegations against you, then those allegations must be true. Hillary Clinton taught Bill Clinton this important lesson, b/c he never wanted to respond to various rumors either.

- I also believe that the Bush Crime Team were very affective in convincing a portion of the American public that they were the only ones to keep them safe. Never mind that they let 9/11 happen. Never mind that the war in Iraq has made us LESS safe.

- You also have people out there who do not believe that we should change Commander-in-Chief in a time of war, even if the so-called Commander-in-Chief is a half-ass one.

So that's my take.

only one event in Kerry response . . . see also Rassman quotes in the article below.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/25/cleland.swiftboat/

Political drama unfolds as letter carriers fail to deliver
Kerry, Bush camps weigh in on ad controversy

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Posted: 8:58 AM EDT (1258 GMT)


CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) -- Representatives of both political parties Wednesday converged on Crawford Middle School in attempts to deliver messages -- in letter form -- about a campaign that is critical of the military record of Sen. John Kerry.

Though neither letter wound up in the hands of its intended recipient, their bearers delivered their messages to dozens of members of the news media who served as the audience for the political theater.

The drama began unfolding Tuesday, when former Sen. Max Cleland made plans to fly to the presidential ranch to hand-deliver a letter to President Bush asking him to condemn commercials by the group that calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

God bless him, Max Cleland went to Idiot Son's ranch.

However, what really struck me about Kerry's response to the Swift Boaters, was that he waited until after midnight to forcefully respond, and he did it after Bush's acceptance speech at the Rethug convention.

It was basically his first time delivering a forceful rebuttal, and he waited until after midnight to do it?

That really struck me as odd.

in CNN's wording - tell me if you think this is really strange wording:

"Cleland was accompanied by Lt. Jim Rassmann, a former Green Beret who has credited Kerry with risking his life in order to save Rassmann's."

What I find strange is that it is the official NAVY Bronze star with Valor citation that credits Kerry with risking his life to save Rassmann - backed by the man's own telling of the story. CNN makes it sound like it's only the claim of a Kerry supporter. Somehow, this sounds to me like CNN is making this sound less concrete fact than it was - which in the context of the SBVT is important.

every claim is treated as equally valid or equally invalid. "While Rassman claims Kerry saved his life, SBVT claim he did not." There was so much of this during election 04 coverage.

I know a lot of moderates and even Republicans who disliked Bush. However, Rove & the RW media machine so successfully demonized Kerry as a flip-flopping, medal-tossing, Hanoi Jane-loving political opportunist who can't be trusted with national defense that many of those who disliked Bush basically thought of * as the lesser of two evils.

Part of our problem was we had no focused coordinated message with which to respond to the RW media machine. The RW hammered home a couple of points about Kerry over and over and over and over. We had dozens of points and hit Bush with all of them, but they were not focused. The DNC had some good ads, MoveOn had some great ads, other 529s had some good ads as well. However, there was not a consistent theme in all of them. Nothing stood out. There were no consistent themes pounded home through repetition like the other side does. Bush had a thousand faults where Kerry had two. But, the Republicans had 1000 ads pounding home those 2 faults while we had 1000 ads, each addressing 1 fault of Bush.

Not only that, our money dried up at the end. The RW 529s VASTLY outspent the Democratic ones the last month of the campaign, whereas the Dem ones greatly outspent the RWers the 8-9 months before that. MoveOn ran a bunch of great ads in January-March of 2004. But, the Republican 529s were cranking out ads round the clock that last month when those undecideds were paying attention. And, there were more undecideds out there than many think, I believe.

Please.

and Va is a fairly red state. We also won handily in NJ when most polls had it closer. I'm pretty sure NJ has electronic voting... how about Virginia?

My point was that if Kerry, the Democrats & the 529 had been able to pound home a consistent message, he would have been so far out front that not even Diebold could have won it for Bush.

All I know is this: I felt this election was stolen shortly after it was stolen. Since my little feeling, substantive reports have come in from careful people that have come to the same conclusion.

Look -- Kerry's campaign screwed up in many directions. And despite that, he won.

So, there's more than one issue here.


But, until we have a transparent elections process, we're screwed.

Ohio was no hologram. Maybe start there?

But BY LAW the 527s could not and did not follow. The 527s mainly exposed Bush - likely helpful at the beginning to get those people to thing who weren't sure - but possibly ineffectual and likely NEGATIVE once the genera campaign began.

Exit polls showed that people perceived that Kerry attacked more than Bush. The problem is people combined the 527s and Kerry positive campaign while they considered the SBVT seperate from Bush. By the beginning of the GE campaign, Kerry's biggest need was to get his message out and the 527s couldn't help with this.

He needed 1 consistent message.

and, while I know they could not coordinate with MoveOn, ACT and others, the Republicans seemed to have no problem following the leader. As soon as Kerry nailed down the nomination, Bush went on the attack and called him a flip-flopper. EVERY Republican talking head, radio host, politician, etc followed suit right on cue. (I believe it was coordinated, but not proveably coordinated.)

We should be doing something similar.

I would blame the lack of Democratic support - not on Kerry but on the egos of many other Democrats. You are right that the Republican media attacked en mass and protected Bush. I was constantly frustrated by people like Carvelle and Begala, who attacked Bush well but then complained about Kerry, not being Bill Clinton. I didn't see a single Republican commetator ever suggest Bush wasn't perfect - when he was wired for the debate, made no sense, or made very poor decisions.

The Democratic comentators had a brilliant well spoken Senator with an amazing life story. He has proven himself to have honesty, integrity and courage. He had experience in diplomacy and may, given his past, have been uniquely suited to getting us past this period where our nation is hated around the world. You would think that the PARTISAN commentators would look past their obvious regret that he wasn't a Bill Clinton type person to focus on the comparison with Bush. (I honesty think they really preferred the way it worked out - with Hillary possible in 2008. I hope she rejects them.)

over...

but you're right about lack of consistent theme .. essentially all the reasons you pointed to.

Do you remember how every single DP rep on the talking shows were mealy mouthed, easy to push around, easy to talk over and easy to beat up on like they didn't know how to talk about the issues before us..


I think the main problem was the issue on the War. Had the Dems held a better position on that, it's possible we wouldn't be here talking about what happened. But the fact is there was voting fraud and rigging and I'm convinced that despite Kerry's terrible campaign, that he actually did win.

But, in the last month of the campaign, the RW groups greatly outspent the liberal groups like MoveOn, ACT, etc. So, while MoveOn got a lot of publicity for being the first, their money was spent early, often during the primaries. While many of their ads were terrific, they were basically overwhelmed in the last month.

once a dem revealed him/herself as effective, s/he was never seen in M$M media land again

but then you say the problem id that they distorted Kerry's image - which they did.

I had meant, "Leaving out Diebold, it was Rove and the Media that did it"

There needs to be an arc, a plot, conflict, humor, pathos, a couple of hooks...

Mostly those were missing. For example, Kerry played guitar one time during an interview. I forget the exact number, but it was some "show tune" (and not something cool from "Rent"). If he had played "Born in the U.S.A." he would be president right now -- the long dong president of the U.S.A.

The Dems are still a party without a story, IMO. It's a drama problem. We're floating out there in empty space trying to find a fresh theme and compelling actors. I think people like Al Franken, Larry David, Green Day, Wes Clark, Arianna Huffington, and a whole bunch of others have the ear for what we need. It's not something artificial or fictitious, not something Madison Avenue/Machiavelli like the GOP. We need expression.

Clinton was a master. He was "writing a great story." Even HillaryCare was compelling if unsuccessful on the small screen. Then he had to go and write himself a private sex scene. When it turned public, it changed the entire show. People can't even remember how great things were under Clinton because of the sex scene. Really screwed up the movie... hard for us to write our way out of it too.

That's why I keep saying ad nauseum (and getting roundly smacked for it around here) that we need to do something to leverage/reconcile the Clinton drama. If we had an actor compelling enough, he or she could find a way for us to laugh at ourselves, laugh at Clinton, and laugh at the Republicans who snicker at Clinton (between acts of pederasty). We don't have such an actor (except maybe Clark), and we don't have a plot tool to convert the stupid sex scene into something organic to a success story or redemptive like a lesson.

so they must be doing something right.

What ON EARTH is the MATTER with you guys? I'm a GREEN and even I know both Gore and Kerry were ripped off.

Is it more scary to think you didn't win or to know that you won AND BUSH STOLE IT?

Bush definitely stole the election in 2000, but that doesn't mean Gore won it. There is no referee beyond the Supreme Court. By definition, if not by justice, we lost. Gore should be president, of course, but there is only one world, and it is not particularly just. Nor is the trend with respect to justice encouraging. To solve a problem, you have to begin with where you are, not where you should be in a "just" world.

:)

And I am a huge believer in shared reality.

Gore won, Kerry won. Our elections have been stolen. THAT IS REALITY.

Until we get that, until we're willing to know that, we won't get any where. Not with all the money or GOTV or slick PR campaigns.

Reality: our elections are corrupted.

The problem is getting the story out. Frankly Kerry had a bigger than life story, far more interesting than that of Clinton. He was a reluctant hero, who saved lives; then he was a hero who spoke out against a corrupt administration; he was an outstanding proscector who won a case against a mob figure while also adding a victims' rights and a rape counseling team in the office (the first for each in MA - they were well enough done to be used as the model elsewhere); he was a lt Gov, who having read that acid rain was becoming a problem went to Europe where the problem (and solutions) were more advanced and then proposed a solution that was accepted by the Notheatern Governors (and some Canadians) that became the basis of Bush I's clean air act. Then he was a Senator - and his accomplishments have been listed before -

The point is if you can't make a story out of Kerry's life - the others have NO CHANCE (including Clark).

The biggest problem was not recognizing how little the media would help. Clinton and Gore had at least 9 hours of prime time network coverage at their convention. Bill Clinton's story in fact was doen by Hollywood friends and was shown on his night. It cast his life as the man from Hope. Kerry got 3 hours of coverage. One for Clinton, one for Edwards and one for his speech. In hindsight, it would likely have been good to cut Clinton (who made a good speech which was as much about himslf as about Kerry) to a 1/2 hour and put on a very good film (comparable to Man from Hope) to both get Kerry's biography out there and to let people see who he was.

Was HUGE.

He basically did what SO MANY other DLC type Dems do- he legitimized an abominable bad Republican policy, sounded weak in the process, and punted away a major set of issues. (of course, the timing didn't help- this came after he'd been pummelled for weeks by the swift boat liars with no response).

Kerry's campaign was a microcosm of all that's been wrong with Dem campaigns over the last 10 year- and it's why they lost 6 times in a row.

Til we get rid of (or shut up) Republican enablers like Lieberman and Bisen- we're going to keep losing.

Over and over.

I truly believe that Senator kerry won the election however he declined to accept the nomination because the catholic church would have had him excummunicated. Or that by electing a liberal catholic that he would have caused such a split within his church that the bishops "persuaded" Senator Kerry to step down. Just my opinion.

It must be some pretty good stuff to come up with nonsense like that... :smoke: :crazy:

Fear and election fraud, which includes everything from the glitches to voter suppression, that's all that happened.

This stuff about "Kerry won, but having said that" is nonsense. Either he won or he didn't.

You can't win if you completely screwed up.

Now if the idea is to say he won, but here are some things that he could have done better, that's different.

It's possible to win having made a few mistakes.

And if you don't think he won, damn it just say so. I will vehemently disagre. But the notion that Kerry won, but compeletely screwed up doesn't cut it. You don't get 59 million votes if nobody got the message.

There is a good sign for 2006 in the 2005 election, a sign that more people are getting the message. Saying the Democrats have no unified message is a RW talking point. I challenge anyone to go to the site of any of the organizations under the DNC umbrella or any candidate's site and show me significant differences on the issues. And many of the sites are pretty comprehensive. The other day the Democrats unveiled an excellent energy strategy: Energy 2000. It's worth checking out at the senate Democrats site. Stop repeating the RW point that the Democrats don't have a unified message.

By election 2005, the GOP's machine was falling apart. The best thing to do is take advantage of that weakness.

Back to whether Kerry won or not, here is what I noticed after the election: a whole bunch of people screaming at the likes of Begala, Brazille and Carville for saying Kerry lost in the weeks after he conceded.

So which is it did he win or did he lose? The reality is he's not in the WH, and there are things that need to be addressed: electronic voting machines, suppression and finally, the people who do the party no good by shooting off about imaginary or RW endorsed flaws attributed to the party.

How will Democrats win? Focus on how the Republicans are getting through to people---blocking the channels, that's how, and that's why the grassroots works. If the Democrats had one national network (like Fox) serving as a shill for the Democratic agenda 24/7, I bet the equation would be a lot different. Then you'd notice the battle of messages (and actions) on a more even playing field.


JMO.

or just don't bother.

(slaps forehead)

The Rethugs were so desperate to win that they had to literally resort to lying as a final destination, and the only way to do that was to promote a book that was basically full of shit.

the GAO report, Mark Crispin Miller's book.

Last December, we just had a lot of speculation. THIS DECEMBER, we have a lot of data that has been worked over by careful people who care mostly about our elections, not about Kerry.

Visit the Election Forum -- leading the way on shedding light on the 2004 Election.

:hi:

First of all, let's get our assumptions in order. Kerry won. Check out these links.
To believe otherwise is to believe that the laws of math and statistics were suspended for Election Day 2004. They were not. Even the most ardent "intelligent design" advocate can't make that case.

Second, sure, I'd like to have seen him fight back harder on the swift-jerks. But he did and they didn't cover it. I did a lot of field work in VA for Kaine. People were repulsed by the swift-like ads of the Republicans, disgusted and angry. I think that was the case in 2004.

IT WAS STOLEN. Get used to it. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Get Dean to be Dean!

Kerry Won!!! Statistical Tools Everyone Can Use

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0512/S00242.htm

The 2004 Election Controversy will not stop. Statistical analysis
of polls is now more accessible with free interactive Excel-based election
models available on the Internet. Plus an interview with TruthIsAll.

Special for “Scoop” Independent Media
from Washington DC
Michael Collins
Dec. 21, 2005

# The Law of Large Numbers & Central Limit Theorem: A Polling Simulation
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllPollingSimulation.mht
# Excel Polling Simulation Model
http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/MonteCarloPollingSimulation.xls
# 2004 Election Model Projection; Exit Poll Collection; Excel Interactive Election Simulation; Other links.
http://www.truthisall.net/

The Kerry concession speech on November 3, 2004 marked the beginning, not the end of the controversy over the 2004 election. Just hours before the speech, Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards emerged and said that, “John Kerry and I made a promise to the American people that in this election every vote would count and every vote will be counted."

Democrats were in a state of shock. 2004 was a banner year for new registrations, party financial support, and activism. Reported new registrations favored Democrats all over the country. Democrats were well ahead of Republicans in new registrations in Ohio. South Florida, the “scene of the crime” in 2000, saw major Democratic efforts and a lackluster Republican response.

Democrats matched and exceeded Republicans in funds raised. For the first time, the internet proved to be a highly potent form of fund raising. The Democrats collected $10 million a month for the Kerry Campaign on the Internet alone. Other groups supporting the Democrats raised substantial funds. MoveOn.Org and New Democratic Network ran parallel campaign commercials and provided other support with the $25 million they raised during the election cycle.

Activism was at an all time high. People who had never worked in elections volunteered in large numbers and local Democratic parties throughout the country saw a surge in citizen participation.

While Kerry may have conceded the election at 2:14 p.m., Nov. 3, a large portion of the population failed to accept the final results. They knew something was wrong.
As one Virginia activist said, “This is simply not possible, the national results or here in Virginia.”

and it's difficult to say that Kerry "won" when he's not there in the White House and the asshole is. So I guess the best thing to say is that he 'not-won' but even better he was cheated.

What kind of Family Values does that teach our children?

Washington and others in the colonies used to buy rum for the voters saying it was a refreshment after their long travel. Madison took exception to this and refused to do it in one election. He lost.

We need to recognize that 2000 and 2004 were not new, they were just televised.

Our record of "free and fair" elections simply does not exist in the aggregate (only in particular areas). Saying Kerry won would be perfectly understandable to those in the colonies. There response to him not taking office would have been, "Should have bought them rum!"

A lot of people, when they talk about voting out bad Democrats, are talking about the primaries. Most people here will still vote Democratic in the elections.


And, BTW: Just for the record, Kerry lost for the same reason that Democrats everywhere lose: Republicans lie. Shamelessly.

As long as people continue to pursue this stolen election foolishness, strategy for 06 and 08 is going to be pushed to the back-burner, unfortunately.

The relentless smearing by the GOP, the complicity in it by the MSM, the Kerry campaign's general ineptitude, disenfranchisement of voters/"technical glitches" in a number of Diebold machines, the general malaise of many Americans when it comes to politics and voting, and fearful reaction and exclusion seem to motivate people more than do courageous vision and inclusiveness...

My take anyway.

first time I voted (state elections) all machines were papered. When the Presidential election rolled around, I was shocked when I went to my polling place and found paperless electronic machines--there were more paperless than papered. Where my in-laws voted, there were only two papered machines and one was out of order, the rest were paperless. I thought Nevada had passed a bill that all electronic voting machines had to have a paper trail. And, Voter Outreach was in Nevada--they tore up democratic registrations. A judge in this state determined that those whose registrations were destroyed could not re-register. Nevada was a swing state. Between election dirty tricks and our corporatized media, what does anyone expect? We watched the debates, the conventions and the interviews and noticed a very blatant political prejudice in the media. I blame the media most of all. The corporate CEOs probably pat themselves on the back at how they can bamboozle the public. I question the OBL tape before the election. It is so contrived, all of it. It always seems like perfect timing. We are being fed BS and the public is eating it up.

talking about the problems of 2004, but rather kept talking about his background. What he did 30 years ago. We got no real bounce out of our convention. Then the entire month of August was focused on Swift Boaters--with no rebuttal from Kerry until it was too late. Yet they were getting millions of dollars of free media attention. Kerry never recovered.

to avoid the blatant voting irregularities. Pretend they didn't exist. Well, let's see Nevada, New Mexico, Florida, Ohio all had voting high jinx, but some want to remain blind that it occurred. Kerry was not my first choice, but being in Nevada, I know what went down here first hand. Keep pretending they play nice and they aren't thieves. That will sure help us in the next election! Keep pretending that the media isn't actually picking our leaders. Now that's a real danger. They can sell a war to people and sell a BS'ing fake cowboy. Hopefully, we can wake up!!!

He got plenty of bump out of that convention and would have rolled right over Bush if it weren't for the media lying about the how well he was doing in August. Sorry, you're just another sour grapes pot-stirrer who either didn't pay attention last year or who spread as many lies then as you are now.

http://pollingreport2.com/wh2004a.htm#2way

There were less than 100 words relating to VN. In a one hour speech, he had to introduce himself, explain his background (in terms of his skills/values/experience), speak about the issues, and give a vision. The speech was very well reviewed the day after it was given. In fact there was a very positive feeling about the whole convention.

Until the Republican hate fest began. Then the media rather than critisizing the nastiness - mocked the Democrats for not fighting. (Note: if Kerry would have had a bash Bush bash - it would have been all over. Commentary about how non-Presidential it was and how wrong Kerry was for the Presidency would have been the talk of the day. % weeks later, Bush would have had an up- lifting convention that would have been praised for at least a months.

Kerry has said that one mistake was not opting out of the campaign finance system in the GE. The schedule - determined before Kerry was nominated was a nightmare - the Democrats had 13 weeks of GE and the Republicans 8. The Republicans could use primary season money until their convention. Any money Kerry used in August - put them that much behind in money in the GE. (Kerry who had written a clean elections bill with Wellstone - that never was voted on, would have taken flack for opting out but that would have left him less defenseless in August. (The other idea that was floated was that he could stop short of accepting the nomination in Boston - which would have ruined what had to be the best moment (for Kerry) of the entire campaign and would have slighted his own home town.)

The swing vote was conned....

1. By Swiftboat
2. By putting the gay marriage as part of the vote.
3. By Limbaugh's overall demonization of liberals

they are only holding this country back.

bogus media polls, non-existent exit polls, "Tweaked" voting machines...take your pick

Bush was war president. They knew that he would get re-elected if he was. Why Rove told the Brits they had until 2004 to sign up for Iraq war. War had to happen in time for election. Afghanistan was not a big enough scare.

I also think Kerry did in fact win a majority of votes cast in Ohio, New Mexico, and possibly other states, and that votes were electronically flipped.

issue any time soon - this mistrust of voting machines plays well into their hands and divides us. Tis frustrating for both sides on the DU.

nothing to do with it. My father-in-law voted in an important mayoral race. You see, the mayor they had was arrogant and greedy, wouldn't listen to the people-built a third golf course that the people protested against (since they were paying for it). He did everything for big business against the will of the people. So, everytime he pushed for his candidate it automatically went to the candidate he was trying to vote against. He tried it three times and finally asked for assistance. The polling rep. told him that they were having problems with that machine all day. He asked them if they were going to retire it, and the answer was "NO." The mayor won by 14 votes!!!! No recount--how do you recount a machine with no paper trail? Questioning the machines does not split the party!!! That's BS!!! Wouldn't you rather have your vote counted, wouldn't you rather have a paper trail for a recount? If your answer is NO, then please explain to me--Why not?

Both ways. I agree transparency is necessary. I agree it is a mess. I just don't think there is a smoking gun on massive vote switching by diebold machine. Lots of evidence of other sorts of electoral malfesance. My pet peeve is exit polls released early during the day that gave the election to Kerry and would have kept thousands of harried Democratic mothers and poor (no access to daycare or transportation) away from the polls.

I don't know really. Neither do you. For now it is speculation. So call it that. We don't need to be at each others throats when people like you and I get together for the 2006 election and try and motivate others. I think we have to be careful. And agree to disagree.

Remember that the turnout in elections is 65%. There is much work to be done. And apathy is not going to help. Someone like Rove works in tiny increments of former democrats to win elections. A few who stay home because of faulty exit polls, a few African Americans who vote on their disgust of late term abortion, a few soccer moms afraid of terror, a few of this, a few of that, and they win elections.

goerge is a dictator, and will point a guna t anyone who votes democratic

remember when she caught the "flu" and had to go home during campaigning?

Recall the role of the wives, the formal signatories, the signers in all the scandals. Also the minorities being used as fronts ?. I think it is a psychological construct, a score, a con...an enabling device that perpetuates a myth that allows for scamming.

Anyway, my pet theory is that Kerry's wife was somehow used as leverage/collateral against him. (I think he would deliberately fumble to protect his wife, not himself). I think, somehow, his honour and his wife were used against him.

I think Theresea Hienz-Kerry would have made a hell of a first lady!

I think "they" are deliberately fronting women/minorities in the role of signatories as cover to avoid accountability...to mask direct involvement in these machinations... I think everyone should back-track and see what role the wives play.

finally, election reform is what's needed!

The image they painted of Kerry was just as false as the image they painted of Gore. My favorite site for finding out just how false that image was is www.dailyhowler.com

He made it too close so that it was easily fixed...if we could have had General Clark up there representing, he could have made the Chimp look like more of a fool and really swung some of those "on the fence" types.
The good thing is hopefully it taught us something for 2008.

Sorry, the original graph doesn't post anymore - I scanned this from my demonstrations sign.
I remember Randi Rhodes being so stunned by it, she actually described it on the radio!