2004 is The first presidential election democrats lost in 12 years

[Proud2BAmurkin]

and it was razor close. Why is there so much over the top gloom? The country is split 50/50. Repukes gained power in other ways through gerrymandering but the country hasn't changed much since Clinton or Gore won their elections. THERE'S NO REPUKE MANDATE.

If democrats go to the left trying to get the imaginary huge number of liberal voters who stayed home in 2004 they're nuts. If those people didn't vote against Idiot Son they aren't going to vote for or against anyone, they're lazy idiots.

[BikeWriter]

1. Who says we lost it? It was stolen! n/t

[Proud2BAmurkin]

2. maybe but point is it was close as hell!

.

[BikeWriter]

5. Close nothing, Kerry won! Our votes didn't count. n/t

[Warpy]

3. They didn't lose it, they threw it away

by their pigheaded, shortsighted, greedy and stupid insistence that everything was hunky dory with the voting process.

To hell with them.

[BikeWriter]

7. Every Democrat in Congress should have demanded a recount, yes!

Why they did not is beyond me. There was plenty of evidence of fraud. I know I'll not give up!

[bloodyjack]

4. Three out of four ain't bad.

[Selatius]

6. Aside from Gore, we haven't won a majority of the votes

I think that should also be examined as well, and even if the shenanigans in Ohio tilted the election in Bush's favor, Bush still beat Kerry nationwide by 3,000,000 votes.

[BikeWriter]

8. Before or after the minorities votes were trashed? n/t

[Selatius]

11. Well, yes that issue is an important one

And as I said, even if it was enough to tilt the election in favor of Bush, how can only a couple of Democrats in any office anywhere notice that 3,000,000+ votes were shaved off the Democratic side? If that was the case, then either you'd have to believe that Democratic leaders are really that ill-informed and completely in-the-dark over the amount of voter fraud in this country, or they really are aware of it and choose to ignore it, which opens some whole new doors about what the Democratic Party really is about.

[BikeWriter]

12. We'll just have to convince them of that, won't we? n/t

[Selatius]

14. Convince whom?

The Democratic leaders in Congress who largely remained silent except for a brave few? Do you honestly believe that that many of them were completely in the dark over voter fraud? Or do you believe they actually know about it and tacitly accept it for fear of jeopardizing their careers by speaking out? Given that they generally know a lot more crap about what goes on in the country, what seems the likeliest answer?

[BikeWriter]

15. What seems the obvious answer is we'll have to back the people who...

...demand our vote count and aren't afraid.

[Blue Wally]

16. Gore didn't get a majority

Because of third party votes, Gore didn't get over fifty per cent, even though he got more votes than Bush.

[Tactical Progressive]

9. I doubt Bush won

I can easily believe that there was electronic vote fraud that flipped the election to Bush. The reason I can believe it is simple: the obvious Republican willingness to commit and excuse vote fraud in various other ways in both 2000 and 2004. Did they have some invisible demarcation where they wouldn't cheat electronically while cheating in any number of other ways? Sure they did.

So I'm not so certain on the first point, that we lost, though I grant it may have been close enough for Bush to win with just more than half the vote. Either way it was probably relatively close. Either way Bush has no mandate.

It's your second point which I see as larger, and I agree with it. Ever since the election my fellow progressives have been jaunting around like Bush's election is *their* mandate, for moving left. It's anything but. The logic is specious.

'We said the DLC must move left and cater less to the center.'
'DLC Dems lost, so we were right - Dems must move left.'

That logic works great. For any position.

'We said the DLC must focus soley on the danger of flying saucers.'
'DLC Dems lost, so we were right - Dems must focus on flying saucers.'

They weren't right just because Dems were wrong. We lost, if we did, because either BushCo cheated, very possibly, or because America is simply more of an asshole country than a decent country. Also very possible.

I'm not saying we shouldn't move left. I'd like us to in some ways. But what I'd really like is for Democrats to grow a backbone. Those aren't the same thing, though progressives often conflate the two in their minds. Standing up to right-wingerism, which is actually growing the willingness to go down into the gutter with them, is what Dems need in my opinion.

Moving left isn't a mandate, and as you say, I doubt there were many voters this election who didn't vote for Kerry because he wasn't 'left' enough. They understood the score.

[GRLMGC]

10. Dems do need to grow a backbone

They accomplish nothing by backing down and being bullied by the Repubs. They're the "loyal opposition". They need to oppose something, damn it!

[BikeWriter]

13. Freak'n A! We have one, we need to convince everyone else they do! n/t