Alright - Am I the only DU'er who thinks Kerry actually lost?

[liberalpragmatist]

I'm a huge Kerry fan and there were definitely irregularities in Ohio. Still, while I fully favor a recount and the full counting of provisional ballots (what's the harm in counting the votes) as well as investigating allegations of fraud, frankly, I just don't think the votes are there. BBV definitely should be investigated and we need to get a verifiable paper-trail in place.

It's also very possible that more Ohioans intended to vote for Kerry but were turned away b/c of lines that were too long. But you can't count votes that don't exist. It should be a voting-rights suit and states should be mandated to provide equal ratios of voting machines to all areas of a state - but that's a fight for the future, not one that can change the election retroactively.

All this being said, nothing I have read indicates to me that the outcome can change. It will not. At the end of they, I'm sorry, I have to believe, as heartbreaking as it is for me, that George W. Bush got more votes that John Kerry in Ohio and Florida. This isn't a 538-vote difference; this is a 130,000-vote difference. I'm sorry, the numbers just don't bear our a Kerry victory.

I'm getting a little annoyed at the constant carping on any strategy thread about how Kerry didn't lose - we will destroy ourselves if we singlemindedly keep telling ourselves he didn't. Yes, there were serious problems in voting that need to be corrected, but those alone will not win us an election.

Frankly, I believe Kerry was right to concede. I do believe his lawyers should be more involved in the recount effort, but the numbers just don't bear out a scenario for a Kerry victory. There's no justification for a suicide campaign - and that's what a defiant Kerry nonconcession would be. We would probably STILL lose, and we'd be branded sore losers. The Democratic Party would be destroyed. The country would be even more against us. Over 80% of the country believed Kerry did the right thing in conceding. We have to pick our battles - and a battle after Nov. 3 in which Kerry declared he had a chance of victory would be futile and suicidal. And sometimes you have to think long-term and look at the broader spectrum.

If you disagree with the opinions expressed in this thread, I would appreciate it if you would respond respectfully. I'm not interested in a flame-war.

[Syrinx]

1. absolutely not

But you are, respectfully, wrong, in my opinion.

[JohnKleeb]

2. I dont know

I do agree with your point that is totally different from Florida in 2000 though and with that, I do see your point about Kerry being right to concede. Sure does hurt that he won't be number 44, I really would have liked to see him as president, aint never was that man ABB For me, I canvassed for John Kerry not anyone but bush.

[liberalpragmatist]

6. Kerry would have made a FANTASTIC President

I truly think he'd be a great president. I was really looking forward to a Kerry presidency and I still find myself often just shaking my head in disbelief.

But I can't be in denial. I would love to believe all the theories about Kerry actually winning, but while it interests me and I read all that I can about it, I just in the end, cannot bring myself to believe that he actually won. None of the math adds up.

It's sad, but sometimes you have to accept something and fight a new battle. Endlessly fighting the last battle will win us nothing in the future.

[JohnKleeb]

10. I know, I agree with you

I dont know if we won or not, they stole to win it last time so they may have done it again but if they did, its not as obvious so its really hard to prove there was thievery.

[pnorman]

45. Here's what Supreme Court Justice Stevens said

about the 2000 election: "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of the law."

It's a near certainty that Karl Rove did the same thing with the election procedures this year. To paraphrase the above quote: "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the VOTING MACHINES as an impartial indication of the wishes of the electorate".

Barring an Ukraine-style protest movement, we're STUCK with that smirking, strutting Chimp, for the next 4 years. So it's absolutely NECESSARY to know what we're up against --- and plan suitable measures with the means available. That's OUR Mandate.

pnorman

[JohnKleeb]

47. I wish I could see it this year

2000 was so much more clear to me but 2004 doesn't seem that way. Either the American people really are that stupid, or they were smart enough to steal it again, or something else is going on here.

[pnorman]

49. Karl Rove is getting better at it.

No surprise there. And he had near total control of federal resources, all during that 4 year election campaign.

pnorman

[okieinpain]

55. well then we should work toward taking his banana away from

him in 06. we don't have to win back either house, just pick up some seats in both places. and then rub the repugs nose's in it that the people have spoken and that they don't like what they see.

[GFGOHR]

56. Worry about future

We as Liberal Dems need to take a deep breath and realize that the fight started Nov 3. We need to start getting ready to stop Bush when ever and where ever we can. Write the local news papers, sit in and discuss politics with the locals at the barber shop, just give them a few ideas to think about. The fight must go on.

[newyawker99]

62. Hi GFGOHR!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ModerateMiddle]

73. I agree, and I would add

that while Kerry would have made one of the best Presidents this country has ever seen, most likely because of his ability to heal the wretched divide in this country - he is not the best campaigner, especially against the mud machine. As one person put it one time - he just didn't have the will to go for the jugular. As a true patriot, not someone obsessed with power, Kerry wanted to be sure not to do damage to our country in the process of running a campaign. He could have said all the things that another dem candidate might have said, but it would have been devastating.

I am extremely sad about the outcome. But I would prefer, I think, that we lose an election rather than lose our integrity and become as nasty and as hateful as the Bushies were this time around.

John Kleeb - though it's by no means a given - Kerry still could be the 44th President. Bush remains the 43rd, he just gets two terms.

The dems made a lot of progress this time around. The repubs just made more. It wasn't close, well, it was close, but not close enough to contest. I agree, it would be worse for dems as a party to insist that the election was "stolen".

[Mojambo]

3. Of course not

But you can lose fairly and you can lose unfairly.

I think he lost unfairly, but I can't prove it.

[alittlelark]

4. You are not the ONLY ONE

but you are indeed in the minority.

[Freddie Stubbs]

96. In the minority?

Isn't it a bit strange that those in the minority here on DU are often in the majority in the US as a whole? And people wonder why we lost.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Yupster]

46. What happened ?

Well voting has gotten a lot more complicated is what happened.

When you were a kid, everyone voted on election day and the votes were counted that night or by the next morning at least.

Now we have absentee voting for two weeks before the election.

You can have your ballot show up a week after election day and it's still good, so of course the voting won't be done as quickly.

Now we have a new thing called provisional ballots. Individual voters, tens of thousands of them have to be checked one at a time to see if their vote should be counted or not.

Why don't things go as quickly as they used to go?

Because with early voting and absentee voting and provisional voting, things are a lot more complicated today.

[indigolady]

78. Absentee Ballots have to ARRIVE on election day to be counted....

that's why I hand deliver mine to the ballot box myself on election day.

[Blue Wally]

91. Depends on the state

Some places they only have to be postmarked on election day.

[missouri dem 2]

7. I respectfully disagree. The Exit Polls were right and the vote was

rigged. Only a recount will prove it and Kerry needs to step up to the plate and demand that every vote is counted. He repeatedly stated that EVERY vote would be counted.

[lthuedk]

8. Only if the media propaganda worked on you.

[LOSTintheSOUTH]

9. No. Kerry lost. I hate it but he did.

I am a John Kerry supporter, not an any-body-but-Bush-er. And, he lost. He didn't stick to his guns. Blast the Swift Boat Ads. Call Bush on his connections to the Saudis and the Bin Ladens. Don't let him spit out the world liberal as if it were coated in battery acid without giving the moron a piece of your mind. This is what I would have told John Kerry.

Hopefully it will only produce a stronger Democratic party in the years to come.

[Erika]

11. Ah, what's the point of your post?

Where did you get your 80% figure from? Why are you talking about futility and suicide? Kerry can do what he wishes to. Or have you forgotten about free speech? He and his wife and kids carried out a great campaign. Let them be.

I don't see your paranoia how the country is against Democrats. What proof do you have? I guess I don't know where you are coming from but I refuse to let you try to intimidate democrats from speaking out against election fraud by the GOP.

[liberalpragmatist]

12. I never said the country was against Democrats

I said that a poll - and to be honest, I can't find it, so you're free to take that with a grain of salt - showed that 80% of Americans thought it was right of Kerry to concede. And most Democrats, anecdotally, that I've talked to feel the same way.

My point is that if Kerry were to actively come out and declare that he refused to accept the election results and that he actually won, to most Americans he would look like a raging fool and he'd instantly discredit the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, for us, this isn't Ukraine, where international nonpartisan observers found heavy fraud to tip the outcome. There was clearly some irregularities, but not enough to change the outcome, and if Kerry were to claim otherwise, in defiance of all reason, it would be disastrous. We wouldn't win and we'd blow ourselves into a crater.

[Erika]

14. I disagree totally

This is the country where our rights should demand accuracy in voting. For some to assume that those who challenge results are sore losers is an insult to democracy. But then so is Bush and those who are intimidated and blinded by him.

[liberalpragmatist]

The problem with the analogy is I don't see any credible case ...

... that the vote was hacked, at least not enough to change the outcome. Clearly there were dirty tricks, but I don't believe it would have changed the final outcome. And even if there were steps that would've changed the outcome, such as the suppression of black votes by the long-lines, you can't count votes that don't exist. For that reason, many of the abuses are things that need to be corrected for next time but which cannot change the current outcome.

For that reason, refusing to accept the result is suicidal. I respectfully disagree that the irregularities changed the outcome - the math just doesn't bear that out. Now, that doesn't mean I don't support investigations and recounts, simply b/c I believe hat all the votes should count. But if Kerry were to be defiant and declare that he was the actual winner, he would not be supported by any facts and would still lose and have led the Democrats down a suicidal path.

[Julien Sorel]

60. You will never convince these people.

Many of them are in full conspiracy theory mode, and it is impossible to wedge them out of it. Again, it comes down to a simple psychological reality: it is easier to blame Kerry or BBV voting and so on, than it is to figure out what is wrong and fix it. Some of them have partisan reasons for blaming Kerry -- outrage at a "weak" candidate makes their "strong' candidate look more appealing. Those people are no more interested in the facts about the election than a cow would be in chowing down on a pork chop.

I had a physics instructor once, and he used to play a little game with his brighter students. He would posit a theory, that the laws of physics as we knew them were bunk, and that instead smart gremlins that were totally undetectable were responsible for every movement, every action, everything in the world. Our task was to convince him he was wrong, using our knowledge of physics. In the end, it was impossible. When we nailed him down to a specific point, his trump card would come out: the gremlins know what we think the laws of physics are, and they make things work in that fashion to perpetuate the illusion.

That was a loooong time ago, but I think about it every once in a while when reading one of these threads. The gremlin itself changes -- sometimes it's Rove, sometimes it's the media, or Republicans in general, or the corporations: whatever it takes at the time. But the principle is the same.

[Carson]

67. Thanks, Julien, that was one of best posts I've read in awhile

and spot on regarding the most rabid of the theorists.

[scarletwoman]

103. The gremlins did it!!!! Great post!

Yes, the voting system needs fixing, there is no doubt that it's an important priority. But it's just one of the many SYMPTOMS of a corrupt government, not a basic causal factor.

I have no patience with those who would shut down all conversation about future strategy by insisting that the vote fraud issue is the ONLY issue.

It is not, it's just one node of the corporate-state cancer that is bent on destroying democracy altogether.

Especially relevant right now, imho, are discussions about reforming/re-forming the Democratic party -- this cancer has grown under their watch as well. Do they intend to oppose it or not?

Party leaders who are more intent on preserving their places in the power structure of the status quo are NOT going to be moved by cries of "fixed election" from the internet. We need to be attacking the roots of the power structure itself. (Imho, of course)

sw

[Truman01]

106. I hate to admit it but I have been feeling the same way

reading these posts. It isn't that there is no vote fraud, of course there is. Neither can we say that there was no irregularity in the voting, of course there was. However, it is very improbably that 3.5 million plus votes were rigged, or that even OHIO was a successful conspiracy. Every time someone posits this theory that we may have just lost, we get long drawn out conspiratorial stories about how the boogie man Rove has his little gremlins all across the US stealing a few votes here and a few votes there.

I have a question, how did they know how many votes to steal? You couldn't have predicted the exact size of the election turnout. Bush got 11 million more voters than he did in 2000 were all of those fraudulent?

The whole idea that the election was stolen by grand design is not very probable. Yet, as you say, we can never get rid of the gremlin story chiefly because we all WANT to believe it.

TC

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Erika]

16. Yes, Bush is a King George

And he gained an odd lot group to keep him in power. With a little help from his friends at Diebold.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Blue Wally]

94. No, 2000 wasn't "rigged"

In 2000, win-lose came down to Florida which was a virtual tie. The lawyers from both parties then went on a full court press to manufacture/maximize votes for their side and disqualify votes for the other side. In the end, the courts put a stop to the chicanery. If either side had won Florida by 100,000 votes in 2000, no one would even have questioned the process.

Now because of the Florida fiasco, we look for signs of fraud even when we have huge margins. While cheating probably took place (both ways) at a local level, there is sufficient bi-partisan oversight at the polling places adn the counting places that it is highly improbable to pull off massive fraud to the tune of 100,000 vote in Ohio or 300,000 votes in Florida without major legal complaints filed by CREDIBLE people.

Our energies would be better used to discover why 51% of Americans voted against our presidential ticket (and why most of our gubernatorial and senatorial candidates ran so far ahead of our presidential candidate in the election..

[Truman01]

108. OMG a voice of cold reason.... What are we to do?

Blue Wally, as one of the lawyers in Florida in 2000 I couldn't agree with you more. The fact is that we were trying to maximize our votes and minimize theirs. It just so happened that we all ran out of time because we chose the strategy of not recounting the whole state but just three counties. By the time the SC came down and ruled that the recount could continue but it had to be the whole state, they and we knew damn well there wasn't that kind of time.

Here in 2004, you know on both sides, especially at the local level there was as much hankypanky as could be gotten away with. However; as anyone that has tried to lead a group of people knows, a vast conspiracy among many people and places is near impossible to pull off and is blatantly impossible to hide.

You certainly don't find it by looking in private international banks for copies of 29million dollar checks. If there are technicians that didn't get paid that are in this conspiracy, or anything else for that matter, we will eventually find them. But, like you say, 100,000+ votes is not a small margin. I doubt, in the grand scheme of things it made any difference.

We need to look to the future, hone our message, and pick a candidate that represents that message clearly and without equivocation.

TC

[John BigBootay]

119. Wow! Is this DU or Freeperland?

Just kidding-- I agree with you guys.

[saracat]

15. I disagree But you are entitled to your opinion.

What I have a hard time with is all this fear that we will look like sore losers. To whom would we look like that too? The Republicans , MSM? the Fundamentalists, Bush voters? I just don't get it. Why should we care what we look like to them? They will NEVER VOTE FOR US. And isn't that placing appearances over principles and isn't that the real reason we lose?

[Erika]

20. I agree

Who cares how we appear to the right wing fringes who elected Bush?

Average family income decreased $1,500 annualy under Bush. Our uninsured rates have never been higher, health care costs have never been higher, tuition costs have never been higher...but someone wants to complain that we may be seen as sore losers for questioning election results to an administration who sent our kids off to die for global profits? Get real. Let's get priorities straightened out.

[gumby]

17. This might be some kind of relevant argument

if elections ACTUALLY MATTERED after 2000.

All of these arguments are just spit into the wind.

[realisticphish]

18. I'm in between

Honestly, I have no idea how it's going to turn out. Was it rigged? I believe it was, in a lot of cases. But was that alone what swung the votes? Who knows. In any case, even if we DO win, we will have won by a tiny percentage, and something's wrong with that in my mind. While I totally support recount actions, and hope they will make a difference, I'd like to look at why it was not a landslide for Kerry, which IMHO is what would have happened in an intelligent nation


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[sushi]

38. I agree!

It should have been a landslide for Kerry.

...which IMHO is what would have happened in an intelligent nation.

Again, I agree!

[autorank]

19. That's because you're a....PRAGMATIST. Nice post, don't agree.

But, hey, you could be right. I seriously doubt it however. If these guys will start a war, kill several hundred thousand, and bankrupt the country, what's a little electoral fraud. In order to understand these people, you need to go beyond the barriers of your imagination and assume the worst. Iraq is the objective correlative to the algorithm that drives the * administration. It's a very, very dark operating system.

[JohnKleeb]

23. We're all pragmatists and idealists, but we're never each

at the same time, sort of like Heisenberg's uncertainity principle. I for one am not sure what to think what happeneed, if we lost, god are people really that stupid and if they stole it, to me its harder to see than last time honestly.

[liberalpragmatist]

24. eh, I kinda wish I'd called myself "Pragmatic Liberal"

The word "Pragmatist" has too many negative connotations of someone whose baseless and has no guiding principles. That's not how I am. I consider myself pragmatic b/c I believe strongly in liberal goals and means and am interested in finding practical ways of achieving them. If that means working one step at a time, that's fine with me. That's why I call myself a pragmatic liberal.

I would've changed my sn after the election when they allowed that, but I didn't want to abuse the right - the administrators made it clear it was mostly to allow DU'ers whose names had to do with the '04 election update their sn's.

Sorry to get totally off the main topic. Just a little thing that you brought up I thought I'd like to address.

[JohnKleeb]

25. Ive been calling myself a progressive realist for the past month or so

My philosophy is, disagree, agree what have you but I think we all have idealism and pragmatism in us but we seldom show both at the same time.

[autorank]

28. Idealism=Raiders; Pragmatism=Steelers

[JohnKleeb]

30. nah

I am a steelers fan because I have strong links to pittsburgh and I like the team. Don't you be bringin football in to this anyhow. My football preference has nothing to do with my philosophy.

[autorank]

33. OK, so explain the logo? Just kidding.

Did you hear, the Raiders and the Steelers are going to play a special post season game in Heater-Hellmouth CA...calling it the Toilet Bowl.

P.S. I was specifically looking for YOUR response to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=2088373&mesg_id=2088373

[JohnKleeb]

41. ha

I dont have anything to do tommorow so there is no bed time for me tonight.

[sangh0]

74. False Dichotomy

which implies one cant' be realistic and idealistic at the same time.

The refutation of that silly dichotomy is revealed by studying MLK Jr or Gandhi. Both were pragmatic and idealistic

[autorank]

27. Pragmatist tradition, e.g., William James, John Dewey...

Something to be proud of, secular, science and education oriented. Still don't agree with your argument but I, for one, admire the Pragmatist tradition.

[JohnKleeb]

32. weren't those guys also behavioralists

I know a little psychology and I consider myself a behavorialist.

[autorank]

80. Good point but you're a bit early.

The "pragmatist" tradition spanned behaviorism which argued that there was no real internal life (intra psychic) worth studying because all we need to know about human psychology is encapsulated in the study of human behavior. There are two types of behaviorism: classical(Pavlovian) and operant (B.F.Skinner) but that's for another day.

Dewey's focus was on applying pragmatism to education. I'm not sure what this meant but conservatives hate him.

William James (of the famous family) wrote a classic book "Psychology" which is really amazing. He was not a behaviorist per se. He did lay some of the foundation. His more interesting chapter in that book was 'The Varieties of Religious Experience.'

If you have Mrs. W, you can toss some of this out and she'll be impressed (although I'm sure she already is with you).

[Fovea]

21. There is a large difference between think and know.

In an election this close, and this election, amazingly fouled with Rovian spoor, is not over.

I don't know if Kerry actually got more votes or not, but I do know that Ohio Stinks, Florida Stinks, New Mexico Stinks, etc.

If the GAO is allowed to act as an honest broker (which I doubt) someone will go to Leavenworth, or get a big fat pResidential pardon.
I want to see my old Party make sure that Rove does not work in politics, ever again.

[NoodleBoy]

26. nope

what I was afraid of happening for a while happened-- a while back, I read Rove said that 4 million less evangelicals voted in 2000 than in 1996, and that the Republican strategy was to get them out and voting. it worked.

[LibeMatt]

29. Several bad scenarios, and what to do...

I think the jury is still out on whether there was enough election flummery to tilt the election to Bush, although I'm certainly not yet convinced there wasn't. Setting aside questions of vote suppression, intimidation, false voter purges, and other non-actual-vote-counting-related ill deeds (which themselves may well have eliminated enough Kerry votes to tilt the election to Bush) we are left with two bad options:

1) The election was stolen. Again.

2) The election wasn't stolen. There really are that many willfully ignorant kool-aid drinkers in this country.

What is virtually certain, barring a surprise of science fiction proportions, is that Bush and his Politburo will be reinstalled on the 20th of January.

As many others have said, we have to limit the damage as much as possible while planning and working to get this gang AND THEIR BACKERS away from the levers of power.

What amazes me is that the elections is even close enough to see. Most polls I read show that the majority of Americans are in our camp; we should have won this thing at least 55-45 (300-238 EV) and probably more like 60-40 (with at least 375 EV), especially given the state of the economy, the corruption of the gang in power, their poor actual performance against terror, and their lies and bungling in Iraq. Our task is to persuade enough of the 59 million Bush voters that they really need to stop voting against their own interests and take an active interest in informing themselves.

[Blue Wally]

95. Start persuading them

"Our task is to persuade enough of the 59 million Bush voters that they really need to stop voting against their own interests and take an active interest in informing themselves."

A good place to start is to listen to them and understand them. Quit referring to them as sheeple, knuckle-draggers, mouth-breathers, bigots, etc.

Read the book "Born Fighting" by James Webb. It just might give you an understanding of the red states and why unions have gotten weak.

[BansheeDem]

31. At the risk of being berated again for being a low-post count "newbie" ...

I will be the first to agree with you on your premise that there is no massive election fraud. Every election has its issues, and this one was no exception. But the scale of the anomalies is just not great enough to turn this election - now or in the future.

As a party, we have only so much political capital to spend on any one issue. It is my firm belief that we should be using that capital to build on the issues that truly matter; Education, a living wage, and raising the basic standard of living for all of our citizens. These are the issues that brought the Democratic party to dominance, and they will serve us well into the future.

Why in the world we have been squandering this capital on battles over election fraud is beyond me. Are those issues important to many personally? (of course they are) but do they appeal to a broad spectrum of voters across this country? If we are honest with ourselves, we already know the answer. Sure, we can be defiant and stand in front of the bus (known as the Republican party) and shout about fraud and how we just won't take it anymore. But in the end, we will still get run over.

The true bread and butter issues for the Democratic party have been clearly defined for many years. I think it is time to get back to basics and deliver our candidates some victories for a change. Wouldn't that be refreshing?

[liberalpragmatist]

35. Welcome to DU, and thanks for your post!

I do have a nuanced disagreement with you. I fully think we should investigate allegations of vote fraud and irregularities and I believe we should fight for a recount in order to get all the votes counted. We need to ensure that all Americans are able to express their right to vote. And there's nothing wrong in double-checking the results (RE: recounting).

But I agree we need to look forward, not backwards. We were right to concede b/c it allows us to look forward. If a victory were possible, then refusal to concede would've made sense, but it isn't possible and we need to pick our battles and think broadly and long-term.

[BansheeDem]

51. Actually, we are not in disagreement ...

I do have a nuanced disagreement with you. I fully think we should investigate allegations of vote fraud and irregularities and I believe we should fight for a recount in order to get all the votes counted. We need to ensure that all Americans are able to express their right to vote. And there's nothing wrong in double-checking the results (RE: recounting).

I also believe that an investigation of the allegations of election fraud and a count of All votes should occur. Placing that issue on the front burner and having Kerry use up valuable political capital on it, by refusing to concede, would have been a huge mistake; and as you said, would have given the impression that we were sore losers. I'm sure that issues will be worked in the background and a full accounting made. But in the meantime, let's look toward the future.

[Erika]

36. I think insuring election cedibility

would be the first priority of any American.

[Eric J in MN]

53. Valid elections are fundamenal to a democracy.

That is why it's the number one issue.

We can't win or accomplish anything as long as Republicans can keep Democrats from voting, with phony felon lists, diverting votng machines from the cities to the suburbs, and so forth.

[Silverhair]

58. Excellent post.

Unfortunately, as soon as you start talking about focusing on the basics, you are automatically talking about dropping some issues. And that will set off howls of anquish, so it won't happen.

[Erika]

34. Still waiting as to quoted poll figures

Eighty % of Republicans and the majority of Democrats felt it was right that Kerry concede according to the poster. Still waiting for that confirmation. And why they think Kerry challenging would be suicide for democrats? Can you post any supporting stats or articles? If not, I suggest you consider an apology for the post.

[liberalpragmatist]

37. I concede I don't have the figures readily at my fingertips

I read that after the election and I cannot find it. So you're free to take that with a grain of salt or discount that. And if you find something that contradicts that, I'll acknowledge being wrong.

[Erika]

39. You throw out figures that you cannot confirm

and then say you'll change them if they can be disproved. How PavRovian of you. You find no obligation to verify your post that 80% of Americans thought Kerry should concede and that the majority of Democrats agreed.

[Leilani]

44. I will vouch for liberal pragmatist

I read or heard the same poll results, & I think it was discussed here at DU, because people were shocked at the results.

It might have been Gallup, or reported by CNN, because there was also a general feeling that the poll results were bogus.

Gallup? found 58% approval for Bush. Might have been in the same poll.

[Uzybone]

118. Ill vouch for the OP as well

I remember seeing a poll showing that around 80% of Americans agreed with Kerry conceding. The outrage and the idea that this election was flat out stolen isnt out there. Many people may thing some shenanigans went on, but there is no solid proof of it.

[WI_DEM]

40. you're not alone. most democrats do think Kerry lost

I'm not talking about people who regularly post here on DU, but I would think that most democrats who voted for Kerry accept that he lost. Why? because there is very little outrage outside of DU and some other internet sites--unlike 2000. Because the media has accepted Bush's victory and isn't really telling the other story. Also most democrats took their cue from Kerry when he conceded.

[Lexingtonian]

42. You're a daring one, LP

And you're not alone. Yes, Kerry is a good politician and knew perfectly that even winning the Presidency on technicalities, at best, against a popular vote margin of the kind couldn't possibly work out well for him.

But you can see his team poring over their charts and numbers that night, all muttering: "Lordy, Rove and Reed did manage to turn out every single f-ing conservative leaner and idiot this time." And I wonder about the people who thought that Ohio and Florida wouldn't in some ways live up to their cultural reputations of embarrassing schemings or corruptions, overshadowed by some flagrantly thoughtless incompetence and indefensible sloth. They're still Ohio and Florida, folks.

As for nondiscriminatory behavior by (state) government (in election practices)- the centerpiece of our domestic argument is how seriously to take and enforce Equal Protection guarantees. Republicans are the people who by operational definition, and in explicit political distinction, don't believe in its spirit or much of its letter. How could anyone possibly expect a Republican state government to not engage in abuses of it?
(Of course, they have to act in ways such that no evidence can be discovered of any outright violation- the media spotlight is too strong these days for them to survive any real exposure. Hence their wierd glee at any election they win legitimately.)

The level of denial enforced around here is pretty amazing. Personally, I don't see why no one notices the moral victory and cultural victory within the Kerry voting, and how terribly hamstrung a Presidency- how close it is to abject partisan failure- it is that Bush is about to begin if Democrats just work to keep their 48% together. And if you look at what Bush voters want from Bush, it is either in effect to do nothing or to fix up things as Kerry intended to, while the leadership elite wants all kinds of relatively radical crap that puts a hole through the bottom of the ship of state immediately. Dubya's still recapitulating his father's Presidency, but now it's the misere/decline part of late 1991 and 1992- pressure to raise taxes, go for detente in the Middle East, and his Party going into schism as the economy bottoms out and the culture brushes off the Religious Right as wackos.

[Krocksice]

43. With some many possibilities for fraud...

how is it possible to really believe that free elections are going on in this country... sorry, but I think anyone who believes we live in a true democracy is misled. I tried to cover my eyes also... but now it seems so trivial. All of our politicians are bought and sold... including Kerry. Even if we could bring a third party candidate to the stage, there's no way he could win because the actual voting system is rigged! These are sad times indeed. I guess we'll just have to do the best we can inside of the lie.

[newyawker99]

63. Hi Krocksice!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[fujiyama]

48. The provisional count in OH has given me closure. This election is over

for me at least.

I don't know if this election was stolen or not. There definetely have been irregularities and oddities.

There may have been fraud as well.

Now I'm not saying we should stop investigating what went on. We definetely can't keep having elections that have no paper trail. We have to pressure our politicians to do something about that.

That said, for all practical purposes, the result is not going to change. In January, George W. Bush will be innaugurated for a second term.

I said it. It pains me to say it, but I said it. Up until now I knew that the result wouldn't change but I held out hope. But now I see the provisional ballots won't make a difference in the outcome.

The reason I say this is because I saw a thread on the 2004 results forum which had the results of the provisional ballots. Bush may actually end up GAINING votes, when all is said and done.

I don't know what the situation is with electronic voting. I'm not completely convinced that exit polls are fullproof. I heard that early exit polls in '88 said Dukakis was leading.

I see that most people have admitted reality. We shouldn't give up in trying to get a recount and an audit, and paper trails. These are vital and absolutely necessary. Democracy cannot function if about a quarter of the population do not even trust the validity of an election.

But while those problems must be fixed, at the same time we must look to learn from our mistakes and mistakes were definetely made.

[jadedcherub]

50. Dunno. this data tends to shut my trap whenever I get uppity about the

exit poll data:

The unweighted – completely unweighted – data from the last four presidential elections before this year are as follows:

1988: Dukakis, 50.3; Bush, 49.7

1992: Clinton, 46; Bush, 33.2

1996: Clinton, 52.2; Dole, 37.5

2000: Gore, 48.5; Bush, 46.2

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20530 /

-------

1988: Dem projected lead: +0.6%

Actual: -7.7%

1992: Dem projected lead: +12.8%

Actual: +5.6%

1996: Dem projected lead: 14.7%

Actual: +8.5%

2000: Dem projected lead: +2.3

Actual: +0.5%

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20...
-----------------------

must be fraud...

Will Presidents Dukakis and Gore please step forward?

.jc.

[Eric J in MN]

52. It violates the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution

to have fewer voting machines in black neighborhoods than white neighborhoods.

If Kerry brought a lawsuit based on that issue, at least it bring up the illegitimacy of Bush's victory.

As to whether more votes actually cast in Ohio were for Kerry, it's unlikely, but we need a hand-count to find out.

[robcon]

54. I agree with you, liberalpragmatist.

Kerry lost. We need a better candidate in '08.

[Zynx]

59. I agree too.

[robbedvoter]

57. Denial is a river in Egipt. tell me who were the 11 million extra voters

W got over his 2000 numbers and I'll join you. You'll probably have to account for more than 11 million, as we know of numerous 2000 voters that voted Kerry/stayed home. 9and no Gore voter that voted W)

Sure it's hard to accept democracy is gone so, I understand your flight from reality....After all, this is one of the recognized signs of fascism:

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a
complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns
against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of
legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries,
and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their
judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm

[driver8]

61. I agree

There are too many things about this election that don't sit right...too many shifts for Bush, Bush's huge turnout of voters, unexplained numbers, tampering at polls, vote suppression.

If Bush won fair and square, these guys should have nothing to worry about. A recount will show this. Right now, especially in Ohio, there seems to be a lot of people involved with this election that are trying to prevent a recount.

Let the numbers speak for themselves. I, personally, do not have confidence in this election.

[Truman01]

98. The problem is that the numbers already speak.......

To get a recount we have to have good enough reasons to recount. Usually that means the margin is really close, or we can show that for some reason a recount is expected to put the outcome in jeopardy. We have lots of speculation, lots of enthusiasm and hope but not much proof.


:kick:

[deutsey]

64. I really don't know if he lost, but I sort of lean toward accepting he did

There are many reports that bother me about the election, especially in Ohio and Florida. Thus far, however, I haven't seen any evidence of anything as widespread and blatant as what happened in 2000.

In my gut I think they did enough little and not-so-little things around the country to tilt the balance toward the GOP; I just haven't seen enough convincing evidence to support that gut feeling. I'm looking for significant patterns and solid evidence that shows how the "irregularities" and "glitches" swung the election. Maybe it's been reported here, but I haven't seen it yet.

However, the battle we should have fought was in 2000, imo. Once they got away with that they knew they could do anything and that there weren't enough of us to stop them and that the Democratic leadership would meekly go along.

[KerryDownUnder]

65. Imagine what would be happening right now if Kerry hadn't conceded

There would be many more articles/interviews/air time given to the BBV issues, the lack of paper trials, and other issues that go out the foundation of our democracy (including whether or not Bush stole this thing). But I do agree, to a point, that while that coverage is much needed it would have been prefaced with Tweety and every other talking head asking over and over and over again "How's he going to pull this out". I have no confidence that the media would be able to set aside their bias and look at this issue without beating Kerry and the Democratic party over the head with it at every opportunity. That said, the recounts - although I have zero confidence that they're going to overturn anything - are a good way to spotlight the folly of how we're conducting elections.

[Carson]

66. You're not alone.

Sadly, the facts don't add up toward a Kerry win.

[mainer]

68. I'm starting to think I'm in a liberal bubble -- the country IS rightwing

Since i live in liberal New England, all my friends are also liberals, so we aren't in touch with what's really going on in the rest of the country. But since the election, acquaintances on my email loops are far bolder about stating their opinions, and I'm discovering that yes -- this country IS rightwing, it IS Christian, it IS in love with Bush. I am so depressed.

I know a lot of novelists, and recently in the Romance Writers of American magazine, there was an article about a writer who had been doing extensive research on Al Qaeda, had surfed Al Qaeda websites and borrowed books from the library about terrorism for one of her novels. Early one morning the FBI raided her house, took her computer and discs and papers, and terrorized her and her dogs. Only months later did they return everything -- and never told her that she was charged with anything. She thinks it's because her borrowing pattern at the library was reported, courtesy of the Patriot Act.

I was outraged on her behalf.

But on writers' loops, many writers reacted with: "The government MUST have been justified! This woman must be guilty of something!" I am just appalled that the first conclusion they jump to is that their sister novelist is guilty! These are WRITERS for god's sake, and our freedom to conduct research is at stake. They are idiots with their heads in the sand if they are going to blindly trust the FBI.

I am so so so depressed.

I think Bush DID win. And I am starting to get scared.

[janx]

69. I raised that possibility once.

But I was flamed mercilessly and the thread was locked as flamebait--something that was definitely not my intention.

[Truman01]

105. Ironically you have to becareful......

Here in the bastion of free thought about expressing unpopular views. People tend to get angry.

[The Flaming Red Head]

70. The American people lost

And Kerry was very WRONG to CONCEDE.

[Padraig18]

71. No, I've reached acceptance, too.

We just didn't get our troops out.

[Julien Sorel]

86. Actually we did get our troops out.

There were simply more of theirs.

There was an article in, I think Slate, where a field guy who did GOTV in Ohio talked about the election. At the end, he said there wasn't a thing more he or the organization could have done to get more votes. They'd knocked on every door, made every phone call (more than once), rented every van -- they did everything. There were simply more Republican voters.

One thing I noticed from the exit poll data is that Republicans tied Democrats in party identification this year. When that happens we are going to lose, because Democrats cross over and Republicans don't. We either have to get more Democrats, or get more Democrats voting Democratic.

[Padraig18]

88. Good clarification.

:thumbsup:

[liberalpragmatist]

90. Yeah, their turnout completely rewrote the game in Ohio

In the NYT last weekend, they had an article "Who Lost Ohio?" The formula for a Democrat winning Ohio called for winning Cuyahoga County by at least 150,000, tying in the Columbus area, and holding losses in Cincinnati. They got 250,000 more votes than Bush in Cuyahoga, won the Columbus area comfortably and pulled nearly even in the Cincinnati area. But they were swamped by evangelical turnout in rural areas of Ohio.

[Blue Wally]

100. Not sure we got out the vote

I got a lot more phone calls and literature drops from the Republicans for my wife (Independent) than I did from the Democrats for D-me or I-my wife. Jeb Bush called twice and left messages on the answering machine and George Bush called once.

[CarbonDate]

72. The country *is* right wing

You have to have lived in a red state to understand.

[Truman01]

99. We assume many times that we are in the majority....

I tend to agree with Carbondate, we are not in the majority. I don't think we are far from it, but none the less intelligence is rarely in the majority.

[ktowntennesseedem]

75. I'm still not sure, but agree the recount efforts are for future elections

I keep thinking back to 2000 and imagining Gore winning his challenge. As much as I longed for that, it would only have meant the Republicans would counter-challenge ten-fold. You think they picked on Clinton, just imagine how they would have treated Gore after having the election overturned against them. I thought then that with the country as divided as it is, may as well let Dubya tackle the impossible task of uniting us. He did a lousy job of unifying America, although Osama more than made up for it.

I don't really see anything coming of the recount efforts to change the outcome of this election. The uproar from the right would make the situation in Ukraine seem like a playground scuffle between pre-schoolers. I'm convinced there was plenty of fraud, enough even to make Kerry the winner, but I almost prefer to see irrefutable evidence of such fraud coming to light in the first few months of term-two. That storm cloud would hang over his head and bring into question everything he says and does for the next four years--couldn't happen to a more deserving person. And we will hopefully benefit as soon as mid-terms in '06, and definitely by '08.

Back to the original question of whether Kerry won, which brings me to my question: Which is worse? 1) a so-called democracy in which elections are stolen through fraud and we are powerless to prove it and prevent it, or 2) a country that actually has that many stupid, gullible people calling the shots, dancing and making music on the deck of a sinking ship. (think I'll start a post of my own with this one)

[shawrick]

76. kerry lost because he had no message

The party needs to develop a message, a story to tell Americans about the future of the country. Social issues doesn't cut it. I mean, what is gonna be our message--We see a country where women are free to have abortions and gays are free to marry.

You have to offer something to the average white voter, one who lives in a rural area or an exurb.

Nationalized universal healthcare would do the trick. But how do we pay for it? This stuff needs to be explained in detail.

[noiretextatique]

83. it's the counter-message that democrats keep failing at

like why there is no reason on earth to be "concerned" about gays getting married, or a woman having an abortion. what ever happened to people minding their own business? as long a republicans can continue to convince folks that their business is NOT universal health care, clean water and air, a living wage, etc...but making sure gays don't get married, and "protecting" the unborn...we will continue to lose.

[sandnsea]

84. Big guvmint health programs

Choosing your doctor for you and rationing your health care? Aaaaccckkkk, nooooooooooooooooooo.

Did you even pay attention to what they were telling the voters about Kerry's health plan?

I'd say more but your second sentence is so sick and twisted I won't bother.

Did you make a wrong turn?

[noiretextatique]

77. how is it that democrats KEEP excusing disenfranshisement?

how can an election be "fair" when people (coincidentally, most of these people seem to vote for democrats, or would if they could) aren't allowed to vote because of something as ridiculous (and fixable) as not having enough voting machines to accomodate voters? it's outrageous that we continue to accept that as something normal, as just a part of the process. it's high time OUR PARTY addresses the problem vs. leaving it to individuals or organizations like the NAACP.
btw, this is a general comment...not directed at you.

[Truman01]

101. I agree we should address the issues

But I look at our polling place, and I live in a suburb that is very RED and upscale. I waited 2 hours to vote at 11am in the morning. People that came before and after work waited for more than 4. I don't think having to wait in line is disenfranchisement. If the cops were standing out front checking for warrants with dogs, then we could talk disenfranchisement.

Everything isn't a race issue.

[noiretextatique]

107. did i SAY it WAS a race issue?

no, i didn't. but, i do think the problems of lacking machines and waiting in lines are more prevalent in minority/poor communities. regardless...it IS an enfranchisement issue that needs to be addressed...in all communities. i wish american would start having greater expectations of their government and stop accepting all the "glitches" like long lines as being normal, don't you?

[Truman01]

109. Certainly but I don't think long lines are a disenfranchisement. n/t

[noiretextatique]

110. what are they? if people "can't" vote because of long lines?

candidates spend millons on campaigns, but we can't manage to create enough polling places. it seems our priorities are out or order.

[Truman01]

113. I voted, and thousands of others did too

with long lines and waiting. In GA we had 6 days to vote, the only reason you didn't vote was that you didn't want to badly enough. I'm not going to excuse not voting because you wouldn't wait some length of time to get to the box.

If they turned you away while you were in line, disenfranchisement. If they harassed, intimidated, or hindered you disenfranchisement. Making you wait in line is GOVERNMENT. Ever been to the DMV?

TC

[noiretextatique]

115. as i said...perhaps we need to raise our expectations

of government. as i said, candidates spend milliions of dollars to get elected, yet people have to wait in lines to vote, or to get a car registered...well, some people do. in california, we don't have six days to vote, btw, just one, but plenty of time to file an absentee ballot.
as i said, it seems an enfranchisement issue to me...all of the "glitches" that are allowed in every election. the idea should be to encourage more people to vote, to make it fairly simple to do so, and to have faith in the election process. of course, none of that favors one party, in particular.
surely, you can concede THAT is not happening.
our voting system SUCKS.

[Truman01]

116. I certainly concede that point. n/t

[mbee]

79. The repugs would be going ape if these things had happened to

their voters. If we fail to get to the bottom of this situation we deserve to lose. Bush does not have the American People's support and does not deserve to serve another 4-year fradulent presidency. Otherwise I would say don't bother having elections at all. Just announce who the latest dictator will be!

[driver8]

114. well said, mbee

That is what I think, too. The numbers may add up to a Bush win, but there are too many questions that need to be answered before I will accept this. The exit polls alone should make people suspicious.

Right now, a citizen of our country can vote in an election and not be certain that his/her vote will be counted. WTF? What type of democracy is that? Democracy in this country is fucked if that is what we are willing to accept as the standard.

[ramapo]

81. No . Kerry LOST.

Hard to believe but true. Delusion won out over reality. Not surprising really, is it?

[AngryAmish]

82. Your kidding, right?

No way. It was stolen. Plain as day.

[jsw_81]

85. No, Kerry lost

While there was almost certainly some fraud in Ohio and elsewhere, there just isn't any credible evidence whatsoever to suggest that Bush "stole" or "rigged" the election. The sad fact is that most Americans just preferred Bush to Kerry. I'm heartbroken by this outcome, but facts are facts and we don't accomplish anything by denying reality.

And although I hate to say it, the countless DU threads about recounts and Kerry's cabinet are getting beyond pathetic at this point. The inability of many DUers to face reality about what happened on November 2 is really disturbing, and I hope that they can move from denial to acceptance before long.

[mbee]

87. I'm sorry, but you seem to have have your head in the sand for the past

four years. Bush lost 2000 and had to cheat by bringing in the Supreme Thugs, he lost 2004, but knew he had to do some big time fraud so he rigged machines and disinfranchised minority voters! Frankly, it wasn't hard at all for him to do it, in fact, the Dems helped him by falling for the bogus idea that the touch screens were in perfect order. Yea, perfect order for good ole riggin!

[liberalpragmatist]

92. The Kerry cabinet threads really piss me off

Wake up!

[RegexReader]

112. yet * is so willing to point fingers at the Ukraine election

:wtf:


RegexReader
$USA =~ s/Republican/Democrat/ig;

[FubarFly]

89. Kerry had an opportunity to ensure voting integrity

before the election. If he lost because of voting fraud, then he is partially to blame. This country has a history rife with voting fraud occurring in almost every conceivable form. The difference now is that for the first time, this crime against democracy can subvert the will of the people on a massive scale. If you couple this with the most corrupt, immoral administration this country has ever seen, it's not hard figure out that if they could find a way to do it, and get away with it, they would. The Democratic Party's lack of foresight and preparedness on this issue is inexcusable.

So yes, even if he didn't lose, he still lost. Claiming otherwise won't overturn the results of this election. Even with definitive proof- in our current media climate- it still may be an impossible task. We can still get across the idea to the general public that the mere possibility of massive fraud isn't worth the risk to our democracy, which will go a long way to seeing that our next election will be more secure. But it would help if our chosen Democratic leaders didn't further undermine these efforts.

Kerry was correct to concede- but only because he didn't embrace the worthy issue of voting integrity before the election. If he stood on principle early enough, and our Party backed him, his non-concession could be portrayed as something other than him being a "sore loser."

[Cuban_Liberal]

93. No, you're not the only one.

I think that regardless of the problems we had with e-voting, Kerry lost.

[PrisonerLazy8]

97. Until I see some credible evidence he lost fair and square

No tinfoil or unproven black box paranoia is enough to account for 3.5 million votes. We need a smoking gun and until then we need to work on 2008 before it's too late.

[gordianot]

104. The smoking gun may be there, I doubt we will ever see it.

The roll over was/is being done to preserve the Union. Who thinks Kerry would want to walk into the mess the White House has created?

I also suspect there is much more going on that will make Nixon's cancer on the Presidency look like a hang nail.

Life is horrible now and will get much much worse.:mad:

[PrisonerLazy8]

111. Life is horrible now?

Please list the top ten lifestyle detractors that are horrible now.

I agree that being out of power sucks BIG TIME but I have not see one lifestyle item that has changed my comfort or well being other than the mental distress of being in the minority politically. This too will pass.

How has your lifestyle changed for the worse?

[gordianot]

120. I am living well, so far.

I do get around in my work. About the only thing I do not see so far is widespread starvation but there is hunger. I'm old enough that I have seen hard times but not the level of desperation I am seeing now.

Top 10 afraid not. If I could (which I am not allowed) I would be glad to show you some real desperation. Not numbers or theory but living breathing people. Some have crossed 2 to 3 paychecks into poverty and disaster. Six months ago they were middle class. People are making life and death decisions based on financial decisions, choices which no one should have to make.

Not only are people facing their own personal disasters we have a Government that is spending all of us into to the bone yard of debt. Some of the so called tax and spend Democrats are going along with the ultimate spend Republicans(they do not want to tax). The debts are going to catch up with us. Let's see if the ownership society is not a grand illusion. We may all need a parachute.

If you want to see this for yourself visit a few plant closings, free clinics, credit counseling offices, soup kitchens, and charities. Maybe some of church groups or labor unions would help you out.

This was not a normal election loss.

[robbedvoter]

102. Can't stand Kerry and fellow defeatists such as you, but ABB won!

How disgustung to be associated with such,,,,pragmatist you call it?
Roll in the mud and say uncle, bray with the fascists if you want. Why do you need to grab as many with you in the mud though?
because , you are not so unlike the bullies up whose ass you are crawling

[Generator]

117. Not by the numbers we've been given

I don't think we'll ever know the true numbers.

I (and I imagine many other DU'ers) would have accepted a much closer defeat as legitimate.

The numbers defy logic. It doesn't mean they defy all reality, because, of course, anything can and sometimes does happen.

But that still wouldn't excuse the great gaping hole of the electronic machines and their mystery ways.

And it sure as HELL wouldn't excuse the fact that so many that wanted to vote were once again discouraged from doing so.

So I guess it comes down to definitions, doesn't it?

Does losing mean that you believe that those that stood in line for hours to vote were voting for Bush?

Does losing mean that you accept what the mainstream media tells you, ie, exit polling and accept it if it doesn't make sense?

Does losing mean you have no faith in the people of this country?

Why I think it does. And I can't do that. I can't give up my faith in the people of this country-and I (still) believe the smart and decent ones OUTNUMBER the dumb and mean ones in term of actual numbers.

Call it denial. But I can't believe in a Kerry loss because that means America is lost. Maybe it has and we really are doomed for generations-I consider that certainly, and believe me when I fully embrace the concept and abandon my faith in the people of this country I won't live here anymore.

I'm not there yet.

And it became finally not about Kerry, whom I will never know and never truly know what he knew or the reasons for his actions.

For me it became about the essence of Democracy, the people, not the leader, not the party. The people. Us, and that I still believe in.

Damn I hope I'm right and damn I hope someday it can be proven how right we nutters were to believe in Democracy.