« The Hate Amendment and Stem Cells | Main | The Real Five Stages of Grief »

Thursday, November 04, 2004

The Electoral College Did Matter

Posted by DavidNYC

Well, here's something else I was wrong about: The electoral college did wind up mattering. Even if Bush takes Iowa and New Mexico (as it seems he will), his final total will be just 286 electoral votes - 16 over the 270 he needed.

Bush won three states by a margin of 18* or more EVs: Texas, Florida and, of course, Ohio. Had any single one of these states gone to Kerry, we would have won. Obviously, the margin in Texas was enormous - we lost by 23 points. In Florida, though, we lost by just a little over 5 points, and in Ohio, by just 2.5 percent.

In 2000, as we well know, had any single Bush state of any size flipped, Gore would have won. However, the last time there was a single state a) whose outcome directly affected the final results and b) was as close as Ohio was this year, was California all the way back in 1916. So of the three narrowest victories in the past 100 years, we have:

1) Bush in 2000
2) Wilson in 1916
3) Bush in 2004

Bush takes the gold and the bronze. Mandate, my ass.

* Kerry would have needed 18 extra EVs to win. Had Bush's total been reduced by 16, he still would have won with 270. Had it been reduced by 17, he would have had 269 and then won in the House. So Kerry needed to take Bush down to 268 in order to win.

Posted at 04:08 PM in General | Technorati


I'm sure most of us are very disheartened about the election results. But I have a thought that I hope people will respond to.

I think the biggest mistake Kerry made was in who he targeted. Karl Rove knows that the way Bush won was to fire up the 4 million evangelicals who did not vote in 2000. He appealed to his base through the very end, and cruised to victory because of it. Kerry, however, spent so much time appealing to moderates and undecideds that turnout was as low as usual among blacks, Latinos, and young voters. He did not energize the base and lost because of it.

I hope we've learned a lesson here. It's not about crossover voters. It's not about being moderate. It's about getting our people (urban voters mostly - blacks, Latinos, white liberals, and college students) to the polls. We did some of that, but Kerry did not run a campaign using "buzzwords" like Bush did. Bush said things that he knew would turn on Christians who stayed home four years ago - "culture of life", "Massachusetts liberal", "faith in the Almighty", "convictions"...and their entire convention was a bunch of Christian code.

We need to play that game too if we want this country to be on the track of progress like it was in the 90's. We have plenty of buzzwords - the "Radical Right", "fundamentalists", and lots of ammo too - about the war (energizing young people), the inherent hate and bigotry in Republican policies (energizing big-city liberals), the way Republicans tried hard to "suppress the Detroit vote" (energizing blacks), and stuff like that. Also, Kerry's pro-war stance probably turned off much of the base, which is why I think California and New York should be the first in the primaries rather than rural states like Iowa and New Hampshire that don't really represent the base's choice.

We need to stop hoping that by getting conservative candidates (a la Brad Carson) we can make inroads in the heartland. We can't! That's why it's about energizing the base!

Thoughts, anyone?

Posted by: Nathaniel at November 4, 2004 04:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

You see... I think the progressive base DID come out. There's not a progressive that I know that didn't disagree with a bunch of stuff that Kerry was saying, yet still voted for him. That's because the issue for most of us was Bush, not Kerry. And, there isn't a progressive that I know that doesn't understand the pragmatics of politics and that their candidate has to appeal to the middle and moderates. But the hope is always the Trojan Horse type of hope... that is, once in office they'll end up veering a sharp left.

We didn't lose because didn't get our base. Hell, Kerry got the second most votes than any other presidential candidate in U.S. history... of course, Bush got the most votes. What this means to me... is that the country is, unfortunately, slightly conservative. And Bush and Rove were able to scare their base with what they felt it would be like if Kerry won the election, and not them. That is... they believed that there would be rampant baby-killing, people having sex with dogs, and Al Qaeda blowing up every city in the nation. Of course, I exaggerate... but, that's the slippery slope that the 'right' felt would happen if Kerry won office.
The problem with Kerry was that he was too liberal. That's unfortunate to me... cause I also want a very progressive candidate... but thats not how the Dems will win. They need another moderate... another Clinton. They need someone who is not afraid of expressing their religion and making religious values part of their platform. That, at least, is a start.

Posted by: lasloo at November 4, 2004 05:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Another interesting thing about the electoral college for this election...

As opposed to 2000, when Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 but lost the Electoral College narrowly-- This time, had Kerry gotten just 200,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won the Electoral Vote but lost the Popular by over 3 million. It would have been a great reversal of the irony of 2000, and gotten both sides campaigning to abolish this antiquated system, but of course Kerry would have been reviled in the media and had a HUGE uphill climb.

I never thought the E. C. could have favored Democrats in this age, since it tends to favor smaller, conservative states, but 2004 was proof that it could, when Republicans in red states vote in higher numbers.

And by the way--

"I earned political capital in the campaign, and now I intend to spend it." -- G.W. Bush, today

Capital, my ass. 51 percent of the popular vote gets you, in my opinion, exactly 2 percent of "political capital". At least Congress has a more significant majority to claim its "capital." Not that I'm enthusiastic about that either... You would never have heard Kerry saying those words with a 51% majority...

Bush acts as if this was a landslide, rather than the narrow squeak that it was. Kerry at least understood the narrow balance of ideologies in this county, and would have stepped up to the plate aware that he needed to reach out to the other side. Bush's acceptance speech gave the clear impression that the half of the country that DIDN'T vote for him would have to come to him, rather than saying that he would extend his hand first.

Posted by: pwoodson at November 4, 2004 05:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Also, on the subject of the final vote count:

Nobody seems to acknowledge in the media that several million votes are still being counted, mostly in blue states, and in high-population counties in red states. They won't change the outcome, but my belief is that the popular vote margin will be narrower. CA, FL, OH, and others are still counting.

My family and I all voted absentee this year and it's disheartening to think that our votes are not part of the "total" count, at least not in the public perception. 120 million total votes are supposed to have been registered; the news networks currently have only 115 million in the totals.

Posted by: pwoodson at November 4, 2004 05:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

First, I want to comment on Nathaniel's thoughts on activating the the big-city Liberal base. My question is, what Red state has a big liberal city? I can't think of one. Maybe MO, FL and OH if we really squeeze the definition. We need to win red states!

We need to expand our base. These neo-cons are every day working people who 'drank the Kool-Ade' and started voting against themselves. Find out what makes them tick. Give them some hope. Right now they don't believe they deserve a good paying job, health care or education for their kids. But you have to speak their language. As soon as Dems 'crack the code' of what these people want to hear they will start to come back to a more 'populist' Democratic party.

Posted by: Tom at November 4, 2004 09:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

GA and LA both have big Democratic cities.

Tom -- I hear ya, and you make sense. But right now, what I want to say to any poor slob who voted Bush for "values" and then loses his job to outsourcing in India or loses health care is this 'Fuck you, you brought this on yourself'

Posted by: erg at November 4, 2004 09:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

erg, I'm right there with you. I've said to some of my neo-con friends, 'I guess you haven't suffered enough. I'll check back in 4 years.'

I also had my 'gun nut' co-worker tell me at one point that 'gee we all hated Clinton, but I wasn't worried about my job back then. Maybe he was right.' I also remember the day that the NRA must have brought him back in line. He sputtered off some line about the guns used in Kerry's duck hunt are the ones that he would ban. Oh yes, the pain is building, but it has a way to go.

Posted by: Tom at November 4, 2004 09:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I believe that the blue state-red state thing is really an illusion. Most urban areas are blue or purple, regardless of what state they're in. I'll bet the majority of counties in most of the blue states were actually red, but their states' large urban areas were more than enough to make up for that. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the counties in PA, NY, MI, WI, MN and even CA were colored red. What won those states was the voter turnout in their major urban areas. If you look at a county map of the USA, it would probably be mostly red in all regions, save for large blue oases in the nation's urban centers and college towns. I'm sure there's a place to see such an county election map of the USA somewhere on the web. Anyone have a link so we can check it out?

Posted by: pepe at November 4, 2004 09:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


County map of the election here:


It amuses me that I've heard & read Republican-speak today boasting of all the red on the County-Map. Do they not realize that 90% of the red counties are vast rural wastelands where cattle and cacti outnumber voters??

Posted by: pwoodson at November 4, 2004 10:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Kerry won the election!

Kerry won Ohio.


Posted by: Shar at November 4, 2004 10:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

While I'm on the subject, there's also some "purple" maps floating around out there. It makes you think twice when you realize that even in places like NC, TN, AZ, and most red states, Kerry still pulled out at least 40%. Not a win, but still millions of votes are nothing to sneeze at.

The purple map is here:


And yes, on the above county map, and on CNN's by-county breakdown of the states, you can see that cities in red states, such as Denver, New Orleans, Atlanta, went overwhelmingly for Kerry. They're just not enough to balance out the rural conservatives.

Posted by: pwoodson at November 4, 2004 10:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

pwoodson - Of course Bush thinks he has "politcal capital". This time, he got more votes nationally, and didn't have to steal the electoral college. This was a landslide for him.

Quite frankly, all those people in Ohio who lost jobs and still voted for Bush are going to get what they deserved. They are concerned about gay marriage? I always here rural voters say things like that. I go back to what Jesse Jackson said to a black congregation who was concerned about gay marriage. He asked them, how many of you have lost a job or know someone who has lost a job? Everyone raised their hand. He asked, how many of you don't have health care or know someone without health care? Everyone raised their hand. Then he asked, how many of you know someone who is gay and getting married? No one raised their hand. So he said, how did this become part of the conversation? Why are you worried about something that doesn't effect you?

I think this was more a rejection of pop culture being forced on them than of the Democratic Party. This was as much a vote against Will & Grace as it was against Kerry or for Bush. That being said, in retrospect if Kerry had travelled to rural Ohio, and talked to the people about his faith, about his values, and maybe if we had gone down the nasty road, talking about Bush's habit with the white powder and his alcoholism, maybe we could have swayed enough of those voters. They agree with us economically, but not culturally. If we become culturally acceptable we can win them with fiscal policy.

Posted by: sam at November 4, 2004 10:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

As far as the "Kerry Won" article, I've already read it. I really can't see it as more than pure conjecture. And even if it were true, it was the Dems' job to make sure well before any election that vote "spoilage" is taken into account when determining how close a race calls for a recount. If vote spoilage is really 3 percent, then it's our job to see that a recount is done at 3 percent or lower, not 0.5 percent. If spoilage really were that high, why haven't we done anything about it sooner??

That's the main reason I question that whole article. I'd be more likely to believe electronic voter fraud than the "spoilage" issue.

BTW, preventing the e-vote machines getting in without forcing them to create printed records was our responsibility, too. It's time for the Dems to re-examine the election process and find out why we continually let ourselves get screwed.

Posted by: pwoodson at November 4, 2004 10:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Thanks for the links to those maps, pwoodson! It confirms what I suspected. There were only five states that had more blue than red: MA, CT, RI, VT, and NH. Most states were mostly red. But as you say, most of those red areas are very sparsely populated. Still, it helps debunk the whole "blue state/red state" label. I live in NC, and while my state sadly went for Bush, my county voted overwhelmingly for Kerry: 60/39. There's no red in my neck of the woods, and that percentage for Kerry is much greater than most counties in "blue" states like NY, PA, CA, OR, WA, IL, MI or WI.

I liked the purple map, too. It shows that we're not as polarized as many of us imagine. For the most part we are not blue and red, but rather varying shades of purple.

Posted by: pepe at November 4, 2004 10:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I don't know where to place this, but has anyone heard anything from Michael Moore? I wonder what his take on the election is? Do you think his film F-9/11 helped or hurt Kerry, or do you think it was inconsequential? I've often wondered if a lot of these fundamentalists get themselves and others like them all fired up to vote for the GOP when they see Michael Moore sitting next to Carter at the DNC or when Whoopie Goldberg is making extremely vulgar comments/jokes about Bush in Kerry's presence. Are these folks helping us or hurting us, or are they insiginificant? One thing I've learned from this campaign: college students are not to be counted on for coming out to the polls in significant numbers. So many of us thought they were going to really make a difference this time. And they could have, too, had more than 15%-20% of them bothered to come out and vote. I'm not as surprised that there was no appreciable increase in the black vote this year. Kerry never really excited African Americans, and he's fortunate that their numbers didn't actually go down this time around.

Posted by: pepe at November 4, 2004 11:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think these Michael Moore types hurt us. They make the party seem elite and out of touch. We need to give up the whole hollywood thing.

Posted by: Sam at November 4, 2004 11:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Pepe, you left out a couple mostly blue states. Hawaii, Maine, and even New Jersey scored more blue counties than red. In addition, huge swaths of relatively rural parts of Wisconsin and Iowa voted blue. I think it's important to not get too hung up on the train of thought that Dems can only win in cities. Democrats still win all areas of New England and are competitive in most parts of the upper Midwest.

Posted by: Brett at November 5, 2004 12:18 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

And I agree with Pepe and Sam that Michael Moore and celebrities did more harm than good. Angry college kids and minorities were going to vote anyway, Moore and celebrities just drove up republican turnout in middle america.

Posted by: Brett at November 5, 2004 12:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

On one hand, Michael Moore does hurt the party's image. He provides an example for the conservatives to point at and paint all Dems with the same brush: outspoken, elitist, irreverent, critical. Ironically, he tries to speak for the common man, the kind of people the Republican machine is hurting-- he even does it with a goofy sense of humor-- but here's the main thing: for all his spin and personal bias, he does tend to try to sway people with FACTS, arguments, and intelligence. Sure he's biased, and he baits his audience and subjects, but there's an underlying logic in his arguments.

--And that is what I learned in 2004: a majority of the country doesn't give a damn about logic, intelligence, or facts. Kerry had those in spades (I think most Dems operate from this perspective) and it didn't help him enough. Kerry tried to sway America with his detached intelligence, and America didn't want it. Well, 51% of America, anyway.

But back to the other hand (about Moore et al.):
On the other hand, if the right can have their Rush and his Dittoheads, their Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, FOX News, Swift Boat Veterans and so on, they WHY THE HELL SHOULDN'T we have a Michael Moore to stand up for the left?!

I think more leftist-populist personalities have cropped up during this decade because the Democrats have been getting more and more tired of lying down and being "reasonable" when they have to put up with the Republicans' brutal attacks. And let me tell you, they know how to attack better than us. And it very often works for them.

Democrats generally consider themselves above such low blows by their very nature of being Democrats, and yet perhaps "sinking to the Republicans' level" is what we need to do for awhile. Only recently have the Dems developed some real balls: throughout Kerry's campaign, I was immensely relieved to see him slapping back at every false accusation Bush threw his way instead of "nobly" ignoring them. I believe one of the reasons Kerry was the nominee was because people knew he wouldn't be a punching bag for conservatives like so many other Dems. We may be upset now, but I am encouraged by all the determination I've seen here, and on the other left-leaning election sites this year. Dems are mad and getting madder. We need to take our anger and our intelligence, and put them together to work for us.

That said, I AM curious to hear Michael Moore's take. My guess is he's probably in Ohio right now working on a documentary about voter fraud. (I know he was in Ohio on the 2nd, so it follows logically... oh, wait. No one cares about logic. Forget it.) I'm also eager to hear Bill Maher just go nuts on Real Time tomorrow.

Posted by: pwoodson at November 5, 2004 12:28 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The problem with the Michael Moore et al is that they don't play in Middle America. Yes, the right wing has their Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. And you know what? That does not play in blue states on the coast, which we win. But Bush' people are smarter than ours. They don't go campaigning with Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. We have campaign rallies with Whoopi Goldberg. For appearances sake, we need to disassociate ourselves from that crowd. The right-winged elite fires up there base, but is not associated with the Republican Party. It seems that the Democratic Party is in lock step with hollywood. This causes a huge problem when John Q. Public is watching the Super Bowl and Janet Jackson has a wardrobe malfunction and blames that on the Democratic Party not having moral values. That is why Al Gore railed against Hollywood violence and sex in movies and video games. He came from a red state and understood it.

That being said, there are a lot of people that you can't sway. I saw one Bush voter say he voted for Bush because he wanted prayer in schools. Someone might want to hand that man a copy of the Constitution.

Posted by: Sam at November 5, 2004 01:03 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

If you are looking to convince people from the south to help us, you are crazy. The country which our founding fathers tried to make better is now the same country it was created in the first place.

My wish is for Ohians to keep losing jobs then will see if their GOD can help put food on the table. If in fact 70% in military support Bush, let them die in Iraq. It sounds cruel but that's how I feel today. Let them die in Iraq. Let them die for Halliburton. Let them die for Cheney.

Posted by: pat at November 5, 2004 01:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Ohio stats:

Bush won Ohio by 138,000 votes

155,000 provisional ballots have not been counted
92,672 discounted ballots (spoilage)

247,672 total ballots not counted and discounted

That's 109,672 ballots more than Bush's win of 138,000 votes

Posted by: Shar at November 5, 2004 01:53 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


That is cruel. And what about the 30% of the military that does not support Bush? They are also going to die for Halliburton and Cheney. It is our job, even with diminished numbers, to not forget those soldiers. To keep fighting for them.

Posted by: Sam at November 5, 2004 01:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

There are 2 perspectives on what went wrong:
1) we lost a couple of points on logistics -- swift boats, $87 billion -- folks, we could've won this with a better strategy.

2) We need to build a Democratic majority so we don't need to worry about these tight elections.

Two things we will hear now is that we need to go more liberal to "energize" some base, or that we need to somehow reach out to cultural right-wingers. I think neither is true.

1) The base: 25% of Americans consider themselves liberal, 40% conservative -- we don't need to isolate our party further, but rather isolate the Republicans into the deep south and wild west.

2) Forget about the cultural right wingers. We need to win over some more middle class moderates.

We need to take strong stands. There are many "progressive" issues I support that are not "liberal" in image: protecting the environment, clean energy, higher minimum wages, a right to job training, reducing corporate welfare. Even civil unions get majority support. Let's take some bold stands like a medical program to cover all children in America or legislate 4 weeks of vacation for all workers. Hell, lets make progress in this country. And lets see the promise in ideas like Charter schools and personal retirement accounts as a supplement to social secuirty. Call it a "progressive middle" if you like -- which beats either going back to old guard liberalism or becoming "republican light". The Democrats can even be the aprty of fiscal responsbility with pay-as-you-go provisions. What do you think?

Posted by: Marc at November 5, 2004 03:21 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

why is the media buying into this bs of a bush mandate.he got a lousy 51% of the vote the lowest of a re-elected president except for truman and he had a 3rd party to deal with.
the bottom line is still most of the country doesn`t like bush, they were just scared of kerry.
we have to stop this mandate talk, mark my word in 6 months a lot of people will have buyers remorse.one final thing most of bush`s popular vote majority came from texas, the rest of the country was pretty even and he barely won the electoral college, and who know`s how do we know the elction wasn`t stolen!

Posted by: JOEL at November 5, 2004 08:27 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Yeah. I have come to the conclusion that the Democrats need to at least give the impression of putting some distance between themselves and Hollywood. After doing some reflection, and reading several thoughtful posts in this thread, I think celebs like Michael Moore and Whoopie Goldberg do far more harm than good. They don't galvanize the young, at least not enough to come to the polls and vote. They do, however, successfully galvanize the opposition into coming out to vote against the Democrats. I'm sure many of you hear understand the irony of this!

If this election really was largely about "values,"(such a joke--but that's another topic) then I conclude that Michael Moore and Whoopie need to continue their support for the Democrats, but from the sidelines. The less visible they are, the less likely they are to fire up the evangelicals and other conservatives, who I think use them as propoganda tools for their flocks. The Democrats should not divorce themselves from Hollywood, but they should not flaunt the close relationship so publicly. Some here might argue but if they are less visible, they won't be as effective in motivating the Democratic base. My response is that I don't think they got us more votes than they cost us. It's something to seriously ponder.

Posted by: Pepe at November 5, 2004 08:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

What mandate? There were more votes for the losing candidate this year than any in history.

Has Bush looked at the map? Two entire sections of the country didn���t want him: the Northeast and the West Coast.

What does he mean by political capital? Does he think that getting 51% of the vote means he can ram anything through Congress he wants? I got news for him: we still have enough votes in the Senate to kill his Right Wing agenda.

In my opinion, his second term will fail for the same reason of his first term. He has no leadership skills. A good leader listens to others before making decisions. A good leader can convince others to support what he wants. A good leader knows how to convince his allies that an action is correct (Iraq War). He is a dictator who tries to force his will on the people and listens to no one.

In my opinion, this is what Kerry needed to focus on: in three years Bush turned a united country and world into a divided country and world. The only way to reunite our country and retake our place as leader of the world is to change leadership. How can you expect someone who has spent three years divided everyone to try to reunite it.

Posted by: DFuller at November 5, 2004 09:32 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


President Clinton only got 49% of the vote in 1996.

Posted by: DFuller at November 5, 2004 09:39 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Bruce Springsteen did a fantastic job supporting Kerry. I went to 2 Vote for Change concerts and he was articulate and respectful. He also wrote a great Op-Ed piece in the NYT. I know Bush supporters who went to the concerts because they are Bruce fans. They didn't change their minds but it got them to give $75 to ACT!

Posted by: Sue at November 5, 2004 09:48 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

First off. The election is over and BUSH won. I have no idea what democrats believe, because I do not think like you. RAW NUMBERS: Bush will probably end up winning by four million votes when it is all said and done. He increased his percentage in 46 of fifty states since 2000. He lost PA, MICHIGAN, WI, and NH (51 EVS) by three % points or less. And, he lost PA by less votes than Kerry lost OHIO. Maybe we should be counting provisional, absentee, and overseas ballots in these closely contested states. By the way, Wisconsin needs to update their election laws because voter fraud is rampant in this state. Bush won NM, IA, NV, and OHIO (37 EVS) by three points or less.
What does this all mean?
1. Metro areas continue to be dominated by the democrats because a majority of the people in these areas want the gov't to run their lives with handouts. Individualism and the American Dream lives in the heartland.
2. Values are still important in our society!
3. Thank god!
4. The system is not flawed in any way. We need to keep it.
5. Michael Moore and George Soros are sad!
6. Canada has a wait to get in, but you are welcome to go!
7. Pelosi and Dodd are my best friends. Libs like them are a Reublican's best friend.
8. I was ready for a defeat based on the exit polls and the other polls that were taken. The news media was out of control also. Everyone was wrong that was reporting a Kerry victory because the American people, 60 million strong have voted for DUBYA! Bring it on Hillary!

Posted by: Jess at November 5, 2004 09:56 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Are you aware that the red state receive more money from the federal government than they send to Washington? And the blue states actually send more to Washington than they receive?

When you speak of "values" what are they. Don't use empty words and phrases. It is a moral value for people to earn decent wages. It is a moral value for people to receive health care. And it is a moral value that our elderly population is not living in poverty.

60 million people may have voted for W but 56,000,000 did not. John Kerry received the second greatest number of votes of any presidential candidate in US history. You can shove your agenda down our throats because you are able to do it. Sooner or later the people who voted Republican this time because they bought the spin will realize that having a job and having health care and having an income when they are over 67 is more important than wheter 2 men can get married.

Posted by: Sue at November 5, 2004 10:08 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Man, I really love those hearty welfare queens in Montana and Wyoming. They've been grazing on Federal lands for years, getting Federal crop subsidies for years. Now, they're suddenly preaching self-reliance.

Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 10:12 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

First, "The system is not flawed in any way. We need to keep it." Are you nuts? There is no paper trail. I am not suggesting this happened, but it will be extremely easy to steal an election. You could change the code to do what is called vote flipping, where it takes every 5th Kerry vote and counts it as a Bush vote. With no paper trail, there is no accountability. Did you know that the reason Florida was called prematurely for Bush in 2000 was because they were counting votes in Volusia County and the counting machine (made by Diebold, big suprise) started subtracting votes from Gore's total instead of adding them, so his vote count was about 16,000 votes lower than it should have been? You know how they fixed the problem. They took the ballots, and they counted them. You can't do that now, because there is no paper trail. So of course there are people out there saying that Bush didn't win, and this is going to happen with every election regardless of who wins, until there is some way to verify the results. WE NEED A PAPER TRAIL!!!

Metro areas don't vote Democrat because they believe in handouts. They vote Democrat because they believe in TOLERANCE. I live in Miami. I know there is nothing wrong with being gay, because I know gay people. I have gay friends. I am not afraid of them getting married, because I know that the world will not come to an end if they do. People are afraid of what they don't know. The Republicans played off the fear of the unknown. It is the same way you guys won the south in the 1960's with Richard Nixon's southern strategy. You scared all the Southerners telling them that black people were a threat to them. Eventually, common sense and tolerance beat back your bigotry. And now, you have a found a new minority group, homosexuals, to scare Middle America with. Oh my God, gays are going to marry each other, and then who knows what will happen next. BOO!!!!!!!!!!! Well, congratulations, the Bigot - in - Chief won 4 more years by appealling to the worst in the American People, not the best. And this will be seen as a dark period in our history. And 25 years from now, people will say, why were we afraid of gay people getting married? What was wrong with us? And George W and the Republican Party's bigoted stamp of approval will be on it.

Posted by: Sam at November 5, 2004 10:21 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The county map is strong evidence that the red states of Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico are on the cusp of turning blue. Las Vegas is the fastest-growing city in the country; Colorado's growth is on its Front Range and the (liberal) ski towns on the Western Slope, and both it and New Mexico have large Hispanic and Native American populations. New Mexico's growth patterns mirror Colorado's. Arizona is a little bit of a longer shot, but as urban growth continues and the retiree demographic changes, it might go blue as well.

Colonevexico has 19 EVs, putting it in the same league as Ohio. Colonevexizona has 29 EVs. Forget the Southeast - look southwest.

Posted by: Ilana at November 5, 2004 10:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The values of the Republican Party:

1) Discriminate against the minority.
2) Pass anti-abortion laws that do not have an exception for endangerment of the life of the mother.
3) Waste time trying to put a hate amendment into the Constitution which they know will never pass the Senate while there are more important and bigger issues which the government needs to work ��� Social Security and skyrocketing deficits.
4) They are not the party of family values. True family values doesn���t mean passing on your debts to the next generation.

Bush's luck streak continues. He would have not won in 2000 if Jeb would not have disenfranchised 40,000 black voters or people in South Florida would have figured out how to fill out a butterfly ballot.

He would not have won this year if the Massachusetts Supreme Court didn't hand him the election by declaring the state's marriage law unconstitutional.

Posted by: DFuller at November 5, 2004 10:27 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Re: The Michael Moore effect.

I disagree strongly over the idea that he helped to increase Republican turnout. Firstly, Moore is not even a Hollywood type, a lot of his work has been blue-collar economic populism.

Look, the Republicans have their Ann Coulters. They have their Rush Limbaughs (and we have Cheney appear on Liumbaugh show). This is a man that uses terms like Feminazis. And please don't tell me that Limbaugh does not occupy a honored position withtin the Republican Party.

The Democratic party needs its own bomb-throwers, its own Al Frankens, its own Paul Krugmans, its own Michael Moores. They form a useful, motivated group. Think about it -- without this group helping to mobilize, we would probably have lost PA, MI, WI, MN and would have been wiped out in OH. It does need to keep them off the podium, and by and large they did that, I think. This does not mean agreeing with everything they say.

As far as Hollywood celebtries go, we had the boss, the so-called blue-collar hero. You can't get less Hollywood than that. I agree that Whoopie's comments were crude and uncalled for, and those comments we should stay away from at a a political rally. If she says that in a comedy show, thats fine.

Incidentally, we saw Republicans swooning over a philandering, groping, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, pro-abortion Hollywood celebrity. So again, I dispute the notion that Republicans are seriously turned off by 'Hollywood' perse, it just makes a useful excuse and whipping boy.

In 1992, we had the attack by Murphy Brown on Quayle. And Quayle was probably right at that time. Yet Clinton won handily.

So don't blame Hollywood celebrities. No, we don't want crude jokes at a political rally, we don't want true hatemongers, but I think other Hollywood celebrities are useful in terms of fund-raising etc., although the impact on votes is probably minimal.

My real concern though has always been over the Al Sharptons. In some ways, the man is a true hatemonger, and I was displeased to see him on the Democratic convention speech schedule. We need to get more moderate blacks, people such as Obama and others, so we don't need to get such people.

Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 10:29 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

DFuller -- the thing that frightens me is that Bush doesn't consider this luck. He didn't consider it luck in 2000 either. He considers it a sign that he is doing God's work on Earth.

On the Hispanic Vote: This time, it seemed to go 43-57, with kerry taking a 14 point lead. That seems good, but in 2000 Gore took nearly a 30 point lead. I actually think the numbers from 2000 polls were probably a little too high for Gore overall owing to sampling error, but there's no doubt that Bush made up at least 10 pts in the Hispanic electorate overall.

Now, this election it didn't matter. Other than NM, no other state would have changed because of a change in the Hispanic vote. I've no doubt that security and values were factors here. Also, the Republicans did good marketing.

The Democrats have to counter this strongly. The republicans have done a good job pushing their nativist wing (which was out in full force in the 1990s, leading to huge numbers for Gore and Clinton among Latinos). Pete Wilson probabyl delivered California Latinos to the Dems for a generation. Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo and others are being put by the Repubs in the cellar with David Duke.

The Dems need to counter this, and not just at election time, but at every level. ALberto Gonzales will probably be nominated as a SC pick. The Dems have to go along with him -- it'll kill them in the Hispanic community if they don't. They have an advantage on the ground in some states NJ, NY, CA with large Hispanic populations. But these aren't the true battlegrounds. NM, NV, Co, AZ, are the battlegrounds. The Bush family influence will ensure that Fl remains out of reach. The Dems also need to try and cultivate Latino leaders in all these places, and in Texas as well. Even in FL, Puerto Rican groups can throw up Dem leaders.

Whats needed ? Aggressive marketing, reaching out on the values issue etc. The economic issue sis something the Dems have an advantage in. Health care and Education. Some good old-fashioned demagoguery, showing the likes of Tancredo and Republican nativists in Texas. Issues such as biliingual education and affirmative action. Neither is a good issue for Democrats, but they are lethal for Republicans.

I wonder too if the Dems could push the Puerto Rican State issue. There are large Puerto Rican populations in PA, FL, NJ etc. Pushing the statehood issue (if Puertro Rico agrees in a referendum) would put the Republicans in an awkard position.

Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 10:47 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

We also need to propogate the idea that it is worth sitting back for a few days (or even ten if it is needed) to find out who the real winner is. There's no real reason why we have to know who won on that very night.

If I were Kerry, on not just some guy posting to this page, I would have promised not to litigate the election process. I would have also said that I wouldn't conceed until all of the votes in states like OH, FL, and even close Blue states were counted. It wouldn't have been refresing to see all of those absentees ballots and provisional ballots counted without the two candidates arguing over who has won.

Posted by: Dan Hogan at November 5, 2004 10:48 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


We need to explain to Bush: The reason the election is held in early November is to ensure that there is time to properly count the votes in time to select electors for January. If Kerry would have won Ohio and Bush wanted to wait for Wisconsin I would have no issue with that.

Kerry conceded because Ohio was out of reach. If the difference was 30,000 instead of 140,000, then I would have been for him to press on. Unfortunately, that would have created another media circus like 2000.

Posted by: DFuller at November 5, 2004 11:00 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

This has really shaken my confidence in the vote count now. Before I read this, I was sure everyone saying Bush cheated this time was a conspiracy theorist. Now I don't know:

Computer error at voting machine gives Bush 3,893 extra votes

Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A computer error with a voting machine cartridge gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in a Gahanna precinct.

Franklin County's unofficial results gave Bush 4,258 votes to Democratic challenger John Kerry's 260 votes in Precinct 1B. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct.

Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, said Bush received 365 votes there. The other 13 voters who cast ballots either voted for other candidates or did not vote for president.

Damschroder said he received some calls Thursday from people who saw the error when reading the list of poll results on the election board's Web site.

He said the error would have been discovered when the official canvass for the election is performed later this month.

Damschroder said after Precinct 1B closed, a cartridge from one of three voting machines at the polling place generated a faulty number at a computerized reading station.

The reader also recorded zero votes in a county commissioner race.

Damschroder said the cartridge was retested Thursday and there were no problems. He couldn't explain why the computer reader malfunctioned.

Workers checked the cartridge against memory banks in the voting machine Thursday and each showed that 115 people voted for Bush on that machine. With the other machines, the total for Bush in the precinct added up to 365 votes.

Information from: The Columbus Dispatch

Posted by: Sam at November 5, 2004 11:00 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Jobs update:
GO to fox news for jobs report. Another positive for the Bush campaign. 450,000 new jobs. Check out the stock surge this week also. I think the economy is doing better now! Of course it is.

Those red states cover a lot more territory than the blue states. We cover a lot of ground that blue state people fly over and drive on every year. We have to keep these areas up. Healthcare is OK. Get a job! Work your ass off, and quit crying about what you don't have. Maybe the rich libs can pay for these people's programs.

If a person cannot fill out a ballot, should they be voting. Hopefully, not for my party. If we are discriminating against minorities, why did the black, latino, women, Jewish, and Evangelical vote side more with Bush this time than in 2000. Had to be scare tactics.

As far as tolerance goes I have no idea what you are talking about. But I am sick and tired of tolerating TV today. Reality shows, MTV, and everything else out there. Our values are becoming worse and worse. Senator Kerry like a song by eminem that says the f word in it. As far as scare tactics that goes both ways I think. Hey let's have a draft or your social security is gone.

Posted by: jess at November 5, 2004 11:18 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Term limits in the House is one thing that would truly make it more representatives of the states. FL is pretty evenly split among Republicans (41%) and Democrats (37%) but the Republicans have a stranglehold on their state's representatives. Only 24% (6 of 25) of their members of the House are Democrats.

Posted by: DFuller at November 5, 2004 11:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


There are two buttons on your remote control that you might want to learn how to use. There is a "power" button, you can turn it off. There is another button that will change the channel. Give it a try. If you don't like eminem, don't watch his video. There are shows that have good "moral values", you can watch Joan of Arcadia or Touched by An Angel. No one is forcing anyone to watch reality TV. And if you are worried about the children, president Clinton mandated that all TVs have v-chips in them, so if you learn how to use your TV, you can block out a lot of that programming.

And finally, scare tactics? We said that President Bush was going to privatize social security, and the Republicans said no, you are scaring old people. Well guess what Bush announced his first priority is going to be?

And if you have a problem with the F word, maybe your party should tell Cheney to stop using it to address the distinguished senator from Vermont, you hypocrite.

Posted by: Sam at November 5, 2004 11:27 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Dems found themselves at the wrong end of the cultural divide, though i do not think it is as grim as it seems. The fundamentalists showed that they will vote regardless of world, social events. They will ignore social ills to vote Pro-life, Pro-gun and anti-gay at the expense af everything else. The dems still have cultral issues that a majority of americans believe, it is just, i don't think, those middle of the road americans vote simply for that issue. I think terroism mitigated the Democrats social issues. Regardless, the democrats have to learn to appeal to a broader spectrum of the american public. They need to learn, as Dean has argued, to restore the world liberal and they need to stem the conservative tide at least to a more moderate and gradually to a more liberal dialogue and policy. The senate is gone for a long time. With around 30 solid red states, the democrats will have real problems gaining any new seats. Perhaps there is hope in the house. As for Bush having a mandate with over 50% of the vote, that is just not true. For one, the electoral college makes the popular vote irrelevant. The Dems ignore the south and the republicans ignore the west and Northeast, keeping turnout low and not giving an accurate account of the popular vote. Second, the reason Bush had over 50% of the vote, was because there was no real third party canidate. Whereas in 92, 96 Perot took votes away from both canidates and kept Clinton from winning 50% of the vote, and in 2000 Gore was unable to win 50% because of Nader. It is a dark day but I still have hope. The south remains a real problem as well the middle states. The Democrats must learn at some level to appeal to the Rural vote or at least changing the margin of the Republican victory there. I hope the Southwest slowly moves left, which it seems to be doing.
Thanks for the Great site, and keep up the fight.

Posted by: Jonathan at November 5, 2004 11:38 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

GO to fox news for jobs report. Another positive for the Bush campaign. 450,000 new jobs. Check out the stock surge this week also.

Ah, the bigotry of soft expectations. Firstly, its 337K jobs last month, secondly the trend line is around 225K in the last 3 months (probably more accurate than the full report since it was inflated this month and depressed the last 2 months because of the hurricanes). To put matters in perspective, the economy needs 150K jobs just to keep up with growth of the labor pool. In his 4 years, there are fewer people employed than when he started office, let along creating new jobs. This despite spending money like a drunken liberal democrat and running up huge deficits.

So the jobs report is good only with the low expecations that Bush has set.

By contrast, Clinton created 10 million jobs, generated a surplus.

As far as the stock rally, a large chunk of that is just relief that there is no 2000 redux. The market hates uncertainity.

Those red states cover a lot more territory than the blue states. We cover a lot of ground that blue state people fly over and drive on every year. We have to keep these areas up.

Talk about welfare queens. Sucking off the Federal tit and Federal grasslands. And self righteous to boot.

Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 11:44 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


I don't even think term limits will help. In 2000, whoever was in charge of the statehouse in each state, that party redistricted everything to make sure that they could maintain control. 99% of districts are either really safe for a Democrat or really safe for a Republican. Shame on both parties. There should really be a congressional investigation, and lines should be re-drawn to reflect who lives where.

The only way to make up ground in the house is to have a unified party theme, like the Republicans did with their Contract with America. We need a sweeping in of our party. It is not going to be done one seat at a time.

Posted by: Sam at November 5, 2004 11:47 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

First thing Dems have to do: make blue states BLUER because that's how W won. The red states are redder today than they were in 2000.

We have WA and OR now solidly in the blue corner so must keep them there.

It looks IA abd NM are still within reach but could go to the dark side in 2008.

I still can't figure out what the hell happened down in FL. Lost by 400K votes ?

Posted by: pat at November 5, 2004 12:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

This is what happened on November 2:


I urge you all to check it out.

Posted by: AnthonySF at November 5, 2004 12:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

You want to talk about lack of faith in the vote count? I found some disturbing figures being tossed around at dailykos.com. It could be nothing, but at first glance seems rather alarming...

In Palm Beach, Volusia, Broward, Miami-Dade, and several other counties, the total voter turnout (absentees included) is LESS than the combined total of votes for Kerry, Bush, and the others combined.

Miami-Dade Co.-
TOTAL TURNOUT: 716,574 (67.7%)

BUSH: 358,613
KERRY: 406,099
OTHERS: about 3,000

Anyone want to explain why there are about 50,000 extra votes in this county???

Or this figure:
TOTAL TURNOUT (FL): 7,350,900


These are the Florida Dept. of State's OWN FIGURES. There may be an explanation, but something smells fishy, especially since the distortions are primarily in heavily Democratic counties.

Please don't take my word for it. You have to do a little math, but it's there: more votes than voters. Go to:




Posted by: pwoodson at November 5, 2004 12:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I am a Kerry fan. I thought he was great. And I'm glad he's from MA so that he'll get reelected in 2008. However, I think we would have won if we'd had Howard Dean.

Yes, I know he was controversial and had a temper, but no other candidate impassioned the base like he did. And yes the Republicans would have called him a New England liberal, but he would have gotten more Democrats' juices flowing. He never would have been accused of flip-flopping, and he was anti-war, which 2/3 of Democrats are.

Kerry was fabulous, and I hope he fights for us in the new fascist Senate.

BTW, I've been strategizing about 2006 now that we have little good news for 2004 (although the defeat of Phil Crane in IL-8 was a nice upset). I have decided to join the local Democrats where I'm moving to, and become quite active in the midterms. I'm so angry about where the party's headed trying to embrace evangelical rednecks that I am going to go all-out in a Rove-esque campaign.

My new mantra as far as the Senate is Lott-Santorum-Frist-Talent. Those are the four I am determined to unseat in 2006.

I'm going to be working a fabulous campaign with the local Dems in 2006, and I hope a lot of you will too. I now feel like the ends justify the means...we need a Democratic Congress like we had for 40 years.

Meanwhile, we should all watch for retirements from Dick Lugar, Paul Sarbanes, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, or Orrin Hatch. I'm especially worried about Kennedy and Byrd, though they're such scrappers they could be there till they die.

In the House, my top four are Harris-DeLay-Hastert-Taylor. That is, Katherine Harris, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, and Charles Taylor. Jim Ryun, Henry Hyde, and the four gerrymandered Texas seats are also targets.

Which are your top four for 2006 in each chamber?

Posted by: Nathaniel at November 5, 2004 12:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The Florida Data might not be as suspicious as I thought, as the smaller numbers may not include early voters. All those conspiracy theorists at Dailykos got my blood pumping hard enough that I jumped to conclusions.

Besides, if they stole the election, they'd never have gotten caught in such a clumsy, obvious fashion.

Posted by: pwoodson at November 5, 2004 02:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


The ballot should be made to where it is not confusing because I am a strong believer that all U.S. citizens 18 and older have the right and should vote. I do not want to go back to the days of Jim Crow where a literacy test was required to vote.

I am not blaming Jeb on the ballot confusion. The butterfly ballot was designed and approved by the local Democrats in order to make the names big enough for the elderly to see. I am just saying Bush got lucky because it helped him.

I do blame Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush on disenfranchising thousands of voters in 2000 because their names were similar to names on out of state felony lists. Some of the alleged crimes where people got their names purged from the voter registration were committed either in the future or before the ���felons��� were even born. They took people of the roles if their names were similar and race matched. No one should have been taken off unless there was proof that they really were the felon like Social Security numbers matched. I though in this country we were innocent until proven guilty prior to the Patriot Act. The problems in Florida were the reason for provision ballots. The people who had their names purged in 2000 had no recourse. At least now they could vote on a provisional ballot and fight out eligibility afterward.

Posted by: DFuller at November 5, 2004 02:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


Bush won FL in 2004. Four hurricanes help him build a lot of goodwill, especially in the I-4 corridor. He did a great job rallying his troops around the nation by his Gay Hate Amendment.

Posted by: DFuller at November 5, 2004 02:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I am in Florida. There are all sorts of rumors flying around here about what went wrong. The bottom line is we got whipped. I don't think they cheated. At least not in Florida.

Pat -- We are all trying to figure out what happened here. It was not that we lost Florida, it was that we lost, as you said, by 400,000 votes. I had friends calling me and freaking out about the vote totals in Florida. I said, don't worry, we get all our votes from 3 counties, they probably haven't counted those yet. Then I looked and saw they had counted 88% of Broward County. I turned to my friend and said, How is Ohio looking, because we lost Florida, bad. We are all a little stunned at the margin, and how quickly it fell. We always feel like we are a purple state, especially in South Florida, which is so blue. I think we are all coming to terms with the fact that we have become a red state. We now have 1 Democratic Senator, and all the other statewide offices are held by Republicans. In 2008, it might be wise to look elsewhere for votes.

Posted by: Sam at November 5, 2004 03:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Sam -- actually, I think FL may be becoming less conservative in general. But the reason it went red is simply the strong Bush influence in the state. A non-Bush sibling could still be beaten here if there were no hurricanes. Even betty Castor came close. The state's demographic changes are moving it centreward. The hispanic population is becoming more Puerto Rican.

We do need more grassroots work at the local legislature level. A state that split its vote in 2000, and had only a small advantage for repubs this time despite family connections and hurricanes is not a lock-up, and we should be able to get more local seats.

Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 03:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


I left for a couple of days and you guys are already spinning out of control! Man...

First of all..Joel...Clinton did not win over fifty percent of the vote in EITHER of his elections (43 percent and 49 percent...and he would have lost if Ross Perot hadn't taken 18 percent of the vote the first time...which at least two/thirds of would have been Republican).

Sue...as far as the red states/blue state money issue goes...I would bet that the blue areas of the red states receive a disproportionate amount of the money sent back to those states. For instance...I know in Gary, Indiana, the government is dumping an ungodly amount of money. It is definitely more money than Gary is sending to Washington. Your statistics are skewered because they don't take into consideration local regions...only statewide red/blue.

Pat...go FUCK YOURSELF you silly BITCH. If it weren't for the red-blooded Americans fighting terrorism over in Iraq...we might be fighting them here...I know there is an ideological difference between Ds and Rs on this subject, but put that aside...you are a sick mother fucker. They are dying to provide you the right to post your bullshit on this website. And my brother is over there now...AND I'm a veteran as well. I hope you say that in person to someone with the balls to punch you in the fucking face you coward bitch.

Sorry...to everyone else...I had to get that off my chest. People like that piss me the fuck off.


Posted by: John at November 5, 2004 03:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Guys Ohio is to blame for all of this misery. I tell you I hope they loose 2,000,000 jobs. I wouldn't care if OBL hit Texas because they make it seem like Bush will protect them from anything. If Al GOre was pres when 911 happened the republicans would be screaming impeachment. The red states for the most part are very narrow minded and racist. The blue states are open minded and respectful of diversity and culture. Let them have 4 more years of death in Iraq and loss of World wide respect and more outscoring. This is so disgraceful guys. Its like the Union vs. The Confederate when you look at the map of the US.

Posted by: godfrey at November 5, 2004 03:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


You need to see a psychiatrist to deal with your issues. Wishing an attack would happen to your fellow Americans is insane. You (like Pat) are a sick mother fucker. I don't even wish for your demise...and I had the balls to fight for your right to say what you have to say.

Also, to suggest that people in red states are narrow minded and racist vs blue states which are open-minded and respectful of diversity and culture creates a paradox. In case I have to explain a paradox to an elitist member of the intelligensia (such as yourself), I will break it down for you: A paradox is a seemingly contradictory sentiment. In other words, your statement, in and of itself LACKS RESPECT for diversity. Anyone who doesn't cling to elitist views like yourself MUST BE a racist????!!!! You need to grow up. A WHOLE LOT of people voted for Bush...If being cultured and open-minded meant voting for Kerry...I guess I'd rather be narrow-minded. Actually...you sound like the narrow-minded one...

And for the eighteen percent of African Americans and the Forty-some percent of Hispanics that voted for Bush...how do you reconcile THAT for lack of cultural diversity and/or racism....

Oh yeah, that's right...none of those people voted for Bush...there votes were stolen...we all know that AA and Hispanics can only vote for Kerry. Maybe if some of the Dems didn't act like such parsimonious pricks, they might appeal to a majority at some point.

Posted by: John at November 5, 2004 04:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Sam - I was driving when ABC radio came on w/ the news that W was ahead 55-43 w/ 35% in, I knew FL was gone because Kerry can't recover from that margin.

I can only think of 2 scenarios:

1. Kerry's pollsters suck big time because they did not detect what was happening on the ground and Kerry's people also did not scout FL as much as OH I believe. It seems Kerry's team believed they could take OH so they sent Kerry and Edwards to OH

2. Kerry's team misread the situation in FL and the GOP's GOTV in FL completely. DNC did not help either. T-Mac should go now, he sucks.

From the beginning, we all know whoever win 2 out of the big 3 states OH-FL-PA would win the contest. It appears to me that Kerry's team was more confident in winning OH than FL.

Posted by: pat at November 5, 2004 04:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

First of all..Joel...Clinton did not win over fifty percent of the vote in EITHER of his elections (43 percent and 49 percent...and he would have lost if Ross Perot hadn't taken 18 percent of the vote the first time...which at least two/thirds of would have been Republican).

That is nonsense. I know it is an article of faith among Republicans that Clinton would have lost if it had not been for Perot, but its wrong. In the first place, Perot took a lot of his vote from people who came to vote just for that. Secondly, exit polls showed that in other races, the Perot voters voted 1/3rd Dem, 1/3rd Republican and others. If Perot had not run, Clinton would have gotten a majority easily (and remember he was running against a well-funded incumbent with a strong foreign policy record). In the electoral college, a few states would have been lost (where Perot got a large chunk of the vote), but Clinton would still have won easily. And when he was an incumbent, he did even better.

Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 04:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Incidentally, John, I agree with your comments about Pat. [ Although I disagree strongly over the idea that we'd be fighting terrorists here if we weren't fighting them in Iraq]

Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 04:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Jess said;

"1. Metro areas continue to be dominated by the democrats because a majority of the people in these areas want the gov't to run their lives with handouts. Individualism and the American Dream lives in the heartland."

This is so absurd, it just laughable. Still, a response is required. Corporatism, the antithesis to individualism, is the centrepiece of the Bush agenda. Are you aware of how many small business owners and their employees have been crushed under the expansion of mega-stores like Wal-Mart in smalltown America? Every time Wal-Mart opens up an outlet in "the heartland", there goes the mom-and pop operation, the locally-owned and staffed store and with it the sense of community that has existed for decades. Most ppl. who lose their jobs due to mega-store expansion ususally end up being displaced or end up working at the Wal-Mart where the wages paid only allow them to purchase foreign (Chinese) made goods from the Wal-Mart. And the local mills and factories that helped build communitites, sports facilities, and a sense of community and bond amongst small-town America lies in shreds. The growth of individualism under Bush and the Republicans? Go back to your Rove-woven fantasy world, Jess.

Posted by: bigguy at November 5, 2004 04:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


I figured someone would call me on the perot thing...it is not a matter that can be proven one way or the other...the fact is...a strong third party challenger garnered a large percentage of the vote...I personally believe Bush would have won absent Perot...everyone I KNOW that voted for Perot (myself included) would have voted for Bush,otherwise.

Also...in the second election he was running against bobdole. Enuff said...I didn't pick him to run, either.

Posted by: John at November 5, 2004 04:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Godfrey -- its not very open minded and diverse to call people with different views racists. Yes, there are the David Dukes on the fringes of the Republican Coalition, but there are also all types of other people.

Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 04:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Actually, it can be all but proven that Clinton would have won without Perot. Lets look at all states Clinton won that Perot could have influenced:

OH, CO, GA, MT, NV, NH, Nm for sure.

Even if we're very generous and assume that a couple of other states such as MO and ME would have gone to Bush without Perot, Clinton would still have won.

People point to PA: But


Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 04:25 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

so if terrarists explode something here then what Bush's supporters will say then ? stupid arguments that we don't have to fight here if we fight them in Iraq. STUPID ARGUMENT. Take a moment to think about that logic. STUPID.

hey serving in the army is nothing. my dad served in VN and when he came back, he was treated like shit by his own people. supporting the troops mean providing them armors, VA benefits when they come back, providing health care for their families and Bush did not do anything like that, in fact Bush cut VA benefits and health care for soldiers. my friend served in Iraq and was disabled and now he just received notice that his benefits will GO DOWN, DOWN , not UP.

Posted by: pat at November 5, 2004 04:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Darn sent the message before finishing.

Anyway, I was saying that in PA, Clinton took 45 to Bush's 36. Perot took 18.2. Given what we know of PA's history, is it plausible that Bush would have taken the Perot vote 3 to 1, as we would had to do to win ?

Where did you vote in 1992 ? is it a conservative state ? If so its very plausible that a lot of voters there went Peror.

But in MA, Perot took 23% of the vote. Can you claim he took that from Bush ?

Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 04:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


the sick thing about your thinking...is that you actually HOPE the terrorists will blow something up here to prove your point.

The thinking is NOT stupid. It is actually supported by the military heirarchy, which are probably in a better position to know...again it is an ideological point, there is no clear answer.

And serving in the military is NOT nothing. It is the way we guarantee our way of life...as a "good" Democrat, I'm sure you heard of Kennedy's quote that to maintain peace we must prepare for war. And I'm sure (based on your "logic") that you didn't vote for Kerry, since he voted against funding the troops that needed armor, that didn't have it.

Posted by: John at November 5, 2004 04:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

And I'm sure (based on your "logic") that you didn't vote for Kerry, since he voted against funding the troops that needed armor, that didn't have it.

You know, I really don't want to resurrect this point again, but

Kerry cast a protest vote because he wanted this money to be paid for out of tax cuts ? Was it politics ? Of course. Would he have voted for the money if there was any chance the bill would not pass ? Of course. Protest votes are far from unusual, so are protest vetoes.

Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 04:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Wrong again, john. W threatened to veto the same 87bil bill that Kerry voted against if Dems removed the tax cuts for the rich. Kerry wanted to be a loan instead of freebies. Remember, Cheney and Wolfie said Iraq's oil money would cover our expenses, no sweat and it would only cost 2 billions. They fired their own guy who said it would cost 200 billions. You are uninformed.

Please go read it, because you are uninformed. The bill Kerry supported DID HAVE ARMOR MONEY, please man, read it. Don't watch W's negative ads.

Tell me why my friend who served in Iraq, lost a leg now received less money and benefits than before they sent him to Iraq. Please explain that to me, john.

Posted by: pat at November 5, 2004 04:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

In my opinion this is what Kerry should have said about Iraq:

Saddam Hussein was evil and the world is a much better place without him. I voted for the war because our intelligence said that there was WMD in Iraq. It was later fund to be untrue. I made the right call based upon the facts and circumstances at the time.

What I would have done differently than Bush would be to spend more time trying to build a coalition of more of our allies. I appreciate the help that Britain, Spain, Japan, and thirty other countries have done in Iraq. I would have tried to convince other nations to enter the coalition before starting the war. If after exhaustive efforts, I couldn���t convince other nations to enter the war, I would have gone in with the coalition I could have built up.

The administration was not mistaken to go into war with Iraq but was mistaken in going into war before its troops were available in proper numbers in strategic places. We did not have enough troops on the ground when the war stated to control looting of ammo dumps. It is also regretful that the current administration chose to rub salt in the eyes of Germany and France after Iraq feel by announcing that they couldn���t bid on reconstruction. That was an opportunity to pass out an olive branch to our allies.

We now lead fresh leadership to convince our allies to help us finish the job in Iraq. I agree with Bush and will not leave Iraq until democracy is secured.

I voted against the funding of the war because I thought we needed shared sacrifice to fight it. I did not feel it was in the best interest of our country to push the $200 billion to fight this war to our future generations.

I think the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place speech worked against us as much as for us.

A) It is not good for troops in harms way for a presidential candidate to be saying that they are not fighting for anything good. To be honest, I had a hard time stomaching Kerry���s approach. I do believe though that we need strong international alliances to fight the war on terror because it is an international war where terrorists hide everywhere.

B) It inspired the pro-war people to get out the vote. I imagine middle American was especially angry to see one of their own come home in a body bag and a presidential candidate saying it was for the wrong war.

Posted by: DFuller at November 5, 2004 05:07 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

To change the subject momentarily. Having been a regular to this board for many months now, I have gotten the sense that most ppl. contributing here are closer aligned to the DLC wing of the party. Up till now, I have been as well. After Nov. 2, that changed. I am now seriously considering aligning myself with the Dean wing of the party, and would encourage everyone else to do the same. Here's why. It has become apparent since the last successful election cycle for the Dems, 1992, that working within the structures and utilizing the mechanisms as they currently exist are FAILING us miserably. There are many factors to point to for this failure, including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of gov't being controlled by the enemy at so many levels. Secondly, the manner in which election campaigns are run have radically altered over this period. We just witnessed Rove and his band of Brown-shirts run a marketing campaign, selling FEAR like it was a soft drink. And we have watched while a MAJORITY of voters purchased it. The traditional playbook has been thrown on the growing flames from the radical right book burning party. It is time for a new strategy.

First, we must take a HARD turn to the left. And we must get more militant! Now let me maker this clear. We must get MORE MILITANT. It has become clear that this war must be viewed in the long-term as opposed to fighting it from election cycle-to election cycle. I say we concede right now the next two cycles! It's either that, or we sell out our values in order to become an election machine. I think that would be a big mistake. In my opinion, we need to mobilize, take to the streets with real passion, espousing the TRUE beliefs of the progressive movement, and cultivate a culture of activism amongst the youth of today, from high school students to the working poor between the ages of 18 and 35. I believe we fan the natural rebelliousness of young ppl., using their passion to promote our cause. And we do this by marketing FEAR. Only the difference between us and Rove is we promote actual reasons to be FEARFUL.

What I am going to say now will not please a lot of you. Oh well. This strategy will alienate us from the mainstream for the next few election cycles on a national level. So be it. The goal is promote a long-term progressive mindset in the overwhelming numbers of today's youth. I think that this strategy would doom the current Republican doctrine within 20 years.

I realize that most of you will disagree, but I just wanted to give you my honest opinion.

Posted by: bigguy at November 5, 2004 05:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Part of me is feeling pragmatic, the other part of me is just angry. Personally I think the Dems should give one big shot at moving to the right in the next two elections, and if in 2008 the GOP has large majorities in congress and the presidency than they should go militant. If we can't win going towards the right we should go down fighting.

Posted by: Brett at November 5, 2004 05:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place speech worked against us as much as for us.

I don't know. At the time Kerry made that speech, he was nearly 5-8 down in the polls and getting creamed in OH, and losing PA and WI. He had no choice, other than to take an aggresive stance. Your alternate speech is great, but in this age of sound-bites, would he have got a chance to deliver it ?

Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 05:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

John bro you need to calm down guy. Enough of the F_ bombs. Sorry if I offended you but no need to get personal with me. I don't even know you. And be careful what you ask for guy.

Posted by: godfrey at November 5, 2004 05:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


Your statement doesn't make sense to me (about your friend who returned from Iraq).

If he lost a leg, he would be entitled to a disability, which the miliatry figures as a percentage. He would get preference for a government job, and would be very high on the list for A - being a veteran, B - being a combat veteran and C - his being on military disability. I don't really understand your point...it isn't clear...I think I'm missing a piece of information.

As far as the Idiocy of fighting terrorists over there...your beloved Thomas Jefferson was the first. He sent LT Presley OBannon and his band of Marines to fight the Barbary Pirates (Mujahedeen) over in Tripoli, after they continualy terrorized our shipping industry.

How many times do we have to be attacked before we defend ourselves aggressively? Let me see...off the top of my head...the Bojinga Plot (Yousef) the 1993 WTC Attack, the second WTC plot that included the lincoln and holland tunnels, the third WTC (Atta) attack, the NYC Subway bombers that were caught, Richard Reid (shoe bomber) the Millenial Bomber, the Dirty Bomber, Khobar Towers, The USS Cole, the African Embassies, the Saudi hostage takers, the list goes on and on. We have every right to defend ourselves.

Posted by: John at November 5, 2004 05:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


Sorry man...I am normally level headed...I'm still a little pissed about the comments regarding our service members.

Posted by: John at November 5, 2004 05:24 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

We cannot move farther to the right. Will it help us get elected? Maybe. But what kind of party will we be? We are the part of Lyndon Johnson, who sacrificed the entire south for the civil rights movement because it was the right thing to do. We must stand on principle. We cannot sellout gay rights to get elected. Let the Republicans continue gay bashing if it allows them to get elected. We will know we are on the side of righteousness, and that is more important. We must continue to fight for gun control. We have let the assault weapons ban expire. It is time to stand up to the NRA and push for a new, stronger ban. How can we live with ourselves if we don't stand up on this issue, and then poor inner city kids have to literally bite the bullet for our lack of courage? It is time to return to our status as a party of principle and conviction. Then, let the chips fall where they may.

Posted by: Sam at November 5, 2004 05:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

How about pushing a socially inclusive, republican (little r) society of indiviual freedom whether in the bed room, dr office or coporate board room. Roll back taxes to flatter code, cut social funding except education. "You want to cut taxes, I'll cut them more."

Then after the "new democrats" isolate the the right wing social conservatives, spring the Howard Dean undercover leftist on them ($100 million in Internet funding, independant campiagn to reach 35+ strategic states) . . .only partially joking . . .resurect the Whigs, too parties forces too much of a binary choice. The American poeple are more complex than our current system can account for and as a result you have 40% of population disenfranchised and 20% of far right controlled the swing vote.

Posted by: Brendan at November 5, 2004 05:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

As far as the Idiocy of fighting terrorists over there...your beloved Thomas Jefferson was the first. He sent LT Presley OBannon and his band of Marines to fight the Barbary Pirates (Mujahedeen) over in Tripoli, after they continualy terrorized our shipping industry.

Our beloved Thomas Jefferson ? Why not yours ? In any case, the issue is not and never has been fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. I suspect you'll find the vast majority of Democrats support it.

The issue is the war in Iraq. This was a country that did not threaten the US, barely controlled his own country, although it was ruled by a thug. Now, our actions in iraq have probably created thousands of new terrorists. At least some will probably try to strike us in the US, if they can.

A key point of figthing terrorism or any insurgency is not to create more terrorists than you kill. Historically, terrorists who have some sort of support among their 'community' are very had to kill -- it took several decades for the Brits to defeat the IRA (still not completely done) despite several political settlements.

There are hundreds of millions of young Muslim men in the world. In the Middle East, but also in pakistan, India, Indonesia, even Europe. They have Al Jazeera and other channels sending them anti-American prpoganda. Unless we're willing to exterminate all of them (and how would we do that in friendly countries anyway), our goals have to be to
-- Kill the terrorists, and track down the cells
-- Not create any more terrorists when doing so
-- Try and remove the conditions and sore points that stimulate terrorism.

Our actions in Afghanistan were wholly compatible with that. I supported Bush fully then. I might even have supported him if he had dropped a nuke on Afghanistan, I was that angry.

Our actions in Iraq were not compatible with that overall goal. Its cost us blood and treasure. It is for Iraq, and only for Iraq, that I've voted against Bush. We might be able to salvage something out of it, but thats making lemonade out of lemons.

John -- you know about the barbary Pirates. Also study why the Soviet and the British Empires collapses. There were several reasons, but the major one was futile wars and spending in places where they got no strategic value.

Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 05:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

We must continue to fight for gun control

I disagree strongly. Consider this -- without gun control, we would not have lost in 1994, we would have won in 2000, Ann richards would not have lost to Dubya. Do we still think we should push this issue ? How many deaths occur because of assault weapons ?

Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 05:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Brett, I don't think we should move to the right. We've moved enough to the right already. We should stop running away from the word "liberal" and instead we should embrace it. Do you want to know how Merriam-Webster defines the word "liberal"? Here it is (edited to give only a few definitions because the entry goes on forever):

Marked by generosity
Broad-minded; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

Synonyms: generous, bountiful, munificent

Gee, sounds horrible. We need to stop falling into the Dukakis trap of defending ourselves and dissociating from the word liberal. Without liberals, there would be no minimum wage, no surgeon general's warning, no 8-hour work day, no nutrition chart on food...liberals are the reason this country grants its citizens so many freedoms and rights (at least in theory)...without liberals, we would have no rights and the fat cats would not owe us anything (though that is the direction we're headed in now with the Radical Right's monopoly of the U.S. government).

We should not move to the right. The Republican Party is already to the right of mainstream America, much as they like to claim they are mainstream and moral and we are godless socialists. Most Americans want women to choose whether they have kids or not, want to be able to protest without being imprisoned and called enemy combatants, and don't want religion dictating the law of the land.

We should proclaim a strong liberal party platform and unite the base in a Howard Dean fashion. If we want to win southern states, we can have moderate candidates (like Bubba)...that's fine - after all, the Radical Right chose a moderate in 1996. But our normal platform should be pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and anti-war...without a cohesive platform, the base will be divided and will not turn out.

We also need to adopt a platform of fiscal conservatism and forever shed that stupid label "tax-and-spend liberal". After all, the Republican Congress has not been shy about spending billions that we don't have and plummeting us into a deficit after the first surplus in 30 years. So I think social liberalism and fiscal conservatism should be our platform - it is representative of most Americans and it is right. If we have a strong party stance on every issue and not too much division, the American people will have a clear choice, and we will easily take control of Congress that way in 2006.

Posted by: Nathaniel at November 5, 2004 05:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

For the Democrats to move further to the left of the mainstream would be political suicide at this time in history. If we sacrifice the next two election cycles to the far left, the Democratic party will make itself completly irrelevant, except for a few large urban enclaves. We'd proably lose all the blue states except CA, WA, VT, MA, RI, NY, and IL. Such a strategy would most likely give usa three-party system within 20 years. A significant number of more pragmatic Democrats would splinter off the Democratic party and form a new party or join an existing one. Thus we'd be divided and weakened: two little parties against one united and powerful Republican party.

Sometimes we have to do things that are not appealing to us in order to achieve our ultimate, long-term goal. We must look at the big picture, and realize it's not such a terrible thing to compromise our beliefs a little if that will lead to getting all that we want over the long haul. Remember, Rome wasn't build in a day.

Posted by: pepe at November 5, 2004 06:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Just a couple of final points on my above post. I know it seems silly to identify militancy with the Dean wing of the party. I only posit this as a starting point in which to steer the party in a new direction within the framework of an organized body. No point in abandoning the party while trying to organize something from the ground up. I think this is where the Nader bunch made their big mistake.

Secondly, the time is ripe for action. I have sensed a real despair this time around over the election of Bush. This negative energy could and should be channeled into acts of civil disobedience against the existing order. Leadership for such a movement can only come from the Dean wing of the party. NO WAY IN HELL could you ever get the Clintonites to lead such a movement.

Third, I truly see this particular method of venting as counter-productive, meaning blogs and the net in general. I think we need to utilize this forum as more of an organizing mechanism and less of a discussion board. We can reach millions of young ppl. via the net. Let's start by organizing real meetings, discussion groups, rallies, etc. We need to put a face to the movement. And we need to invoke real passion. This can only come from group interaction. We can use this forum as a means of communicating meeting times and places to our comrades.

I hope you all realize it is time to abandon civility in this struggle. If we truly believe in the ideals we espouse, the time is ripe for putting into action the forces of change and progression. I mean seriously, joking in the green room prior to engaging in a hollow and meaningless debate about shallow causes can be left to Begala and Carville. Dedicated progressives need to promote our ideals through real action!!!

Posted by: bigguy at November 5, 2004 06:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


I would agree with you except we have tried that already. There is no left in American politics right now. The Democrats are in the center, and the Republicans are on the right. We used to be on the left. Unfortunately, we did what you suggested after the 1994 ass-whooping. And you know what? It did not work. It has been one bad election cycle after another. And after each defeat, we say we have to move to the center. There is nowhere left to go on the right. We can either stay where we are or we can move left. Moving further right is not an option. We have moved right enough.

Posted by: Sam at November 5, 2004 06:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Sam -- it did work after 1994. Bill Clinton won handily in 1996, we made some comebacks in the House and Senate. Had it not been for some bad campaigning in 2000, Gore would have won.

Talk about small events that make big differences. If Elian Gonzalez's mother had not tried to bring him to the US, the standoff in FL between Reno and the Cuban-Americans would not have happened. Gore would have taken FL and been re-elected. There would be no war in Iraq. And we would be celebrating Gore's re-election.

Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 06:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

There are a lot of what-ifs with the 2000 election. Despite all that, all Gore had to do was ask for a manual recount of the entire state to begin with. Then, the Republicans would have had to allow it. Instead, he selected Democratic countries and asked for a recount. This resulted in making it seem like he was trying to steal the election. The irony is that if he had just gotten the selective recount, he would have lost but by recounting the entire state, he won.

Posted by: Sam at November 5, 2004 06:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

We can reach millions of young ppl. via the net.

Bigguy, I really like and agree with much of what you say. However, you are putting way too much hope on young people. They were supposed to come out in droves this election. They were energized. They were excited. They came out for campaign rallies with Kerry, Edwards, Bon Jovi, Bruce and others. They cheered. They energized all of us. They raised all of our hopes. Many here felt the pre-election polls were under-counting them since the only phones they have are cell phones. We could not lose with all of their palpable enthusiasm and energy. And then when all is said and done, we learn that 82% of them didn't bother to vote, same as in 2000.

Posted by: pepe at November 5, 2004 07:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

By Ted Rall

"NEW YORK--How interesting, Democrats watching the election results at a high-rise hotel in midtown Manhattan commented, that the rest of America thinks it understands terrorism better than we do. New York bore the brunt of 9/11 yet CNN's exit poll found that New Yorkers considered Iraq (news - web sites) a bigger issue than terrorism when casting their votes for president. Midwesterners and southerners felt the opposite, motivated by fear of the unknown--literally, as they are neither likely targets of terrorism, nor did they feel or smell the horrors of that terrible day. Ranking terrorism their number one concern, they nevertheless supported an incumbent for whom the war on terrorism is nothing more than a marketing slogan."

Sorry, I ripped this off the AP newsite moments ago. Here is why:

"I appreciate that, Sam. However, it still doesn't explain why little threatened Middle America can buy into the notion that they are somehow in danger from terror, and trust idiot to keep them safe. I think it might have something to do with the fact that Rove and his pack of dogs ran a MARKETING campaign, not a political campaign. Wanna know what they marketed? FEAR!!! Pure, visceral, primordial FEAR!!! And the corporate media played right along with them. If anyone of you can argue that America has not began a steep descent into Fascism, fascism being defined as powerful corporate forces working in cooperation with government, with the media being willing bystanders, I ask you to do so. The descent is not complete, but it is quickly becoming so. Somebody, prove me wrong. PLEASE!!!"

Don't mean to be smug, but this was my comment in this blog yesterday. Think Ted Rall reads this stuff? Lol, just couldn't resist. Sorry guys.

Posted by: bigguy at November 5, 2004 07:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


I disagree with your assessment of Iraq...at this point in time I cannot fully address that issue...but I will be proven right within the next two years. When the WMD is dug up from near the Syrian AFB's in the Bekaa Valley (after Syria pulls out of Lebanon), and when the full extent of Ghadaffi's Nuclear Program is discussed...I think people will come to find that Saddam had more than anyone will currently admit.

Posted by: John at November 5, 2004 08:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

but I will be proven right within the next two years. When the WMD is dug up from near the Syrian AFB's in the Bekaa Valley (after Syria pulls out of Lebanon)

Just curious, but in that case why did the CIA, the Senate, British Intelligence and others who issued tons of reports on this topic not reveal this startling fact ? In fact, the CIA report specifically says that weapons were not moved abroad.

Posted by: erg at November 5, 2004 09:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


I stand by my statements.

Posted by: John at November 5, 2004 09:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Boy, that really shows why Bush won. People just won't admit facts. He did not have weapons and he was not a threat. That is a fact. I know it's hard to admit because no one wants to say our soldiers died for nothing, but they did and they are. The evidence was skewed to show Sadaam had weapons. There was as much evidence to show that he didn't have weapons. There were holes in the evidence. But some people won't face facts. By the way, before you claim otherwise, Sadaam didn't plan 9-11 either.

Posted by: Sam at November 5, 2004 09:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Good news! The Congressional Democrats will no longer be wimps. I see no need for the Democrats to work with the Republicans. Bush and Cheney are lame ducks.

Godfrey, i agree with you and Pat, I get so angry that I do share some of your sentiments.

About Ohio, http://www.cleveland.com had a graphic that showed how Bush won the state. I can't seem to find it on the website because it's a day or two old, but Bush made the light red areas of the state more red. Clinton won the southern counties (appalachia) of Ohio in 1996. while Gore and Kerry failed to win those counties and that's the other reason why Kerry lost Ohio. Clinton was able to win so many states because he reached across the aisle and co-opted Republican ideas.

Hopefully, all of the votes in Ohio will be counted, the errors corrected, and we'll see the real results. I am quite sure that the Ohio voting machines had paper trails.

You wonder about the election's outcome if Sen. Graham of Florida or Gephardt from Missouri had been the vice presidential candidates.

Posted by: Shar at November 6, 2004 02:26 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The U.S. always goes to war with the most defenseless countries, like Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Grenada, and Iraq, after it was placed under sanctions for 15 years, bombed in established no fly zones, and its WMDs destroyed.
Those Iraq WMDs were destroyed shortly after the first Gulf War.

You'll never hear about the U.S. going to war with a nuclear superpower.

Posted by: Shar at November 6, 2004 02:38 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

One last post - Did Jeb Bush rig the Florida opitcal scanners? Will Ohio's recount certify Kerry as the winner? I found this really interesting website:


Posted by: Shar at November 6, 2004 02:46 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

It is impossible to prove something to the negative. It is also impossible to say that Hussein did NOT have WMD...it has not been found, and the official statement is that he did NOT have them.

He did. For those of you who think I don't know what I'm talking about...that's fine. You will see. I am actually not an ostrich with my head in the sand, as you will believe for a while.

Eventually...if they go public with it...which I believe they will...you will see. We have to get Syria out of Lebanon first. And for those of you who are going to say..."oh great...now we go to war with Syria." I would say...that's probably not going to be how we get in. We will use diplomacy...and the WMD will be captured, so that Terrorists don't have access to it....I GUARANTEE our "allies" don't want the terrorists to get it either...there is probably a hell of a lot going on behind the scenes.

Posted by: John at November 6, 2004 08:55 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I have seen several posts on this site about concern over voting machines, etc., and also been alerted to these issues from other media. I have been so angry over this possibility. How can we ever heal if we can't even trust the voting process? Well, there is an organization that is doing something about it.

Please go to www.blackboxvoting.org.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, they are demanding voting data from all across the country to analyze. They are also calling for all those voting machines to be audited. Although I am crushed that my candidate of choice lost and that there may have been fraud committed in favor of the other side, this goes beyond partisanship. This is about our democracy. We absolutely must have a voting process we can all trust. Period.

This is my top political priority at the moment. I plan to contact my legislators to address the issue, and humbly ask that you all consider doing the same.

If we are to accept the "will of the people," we have to know what that will is. Although I would still be crushed, it would be easier to accept defeat if I had absolutely no doubt about the fairness of the process.

In either case, though, whether it truly was 51% of votes cast for Bush, or only turns out to be 49% (or even if it were only 40%), it is still a sizable number that see the world very differently than most of the people on this site. I want to win badly myself and appreciate the strategizing about how we can do that. However, if we want to make progress as a nation, I think we simply cannot avoid talking to eachother. That's right. We need to start trying to understand eachother. I sure wish Bush would do that instead of claiming "mandate." But that does really seem to be asking more than he is capable of.

Posted by: WisVoter at November 6, 2004 09:47 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

John, I honestly hope you are right. I desparately want to see some meaning in all this beyond arrogance, bigotry, ignorance, hatred and fear, and lately that's been a challenge for me.

Posted by: WisVoter at November 6, 2004 09:53 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


I wish JEB rigged it and we could prove it, but I don't see it. That graph is flawed in that the 3 most Democratic counties in FL use e-voting, so it makes sense to have an uptick in Democratic voting over expected due to registration in those counties. In optical scan counties, they are largely Republican, and it appears Karl Rove found his religious conservatives in those counties and turned them out, hence the large discrepency.

Posted by: Sam at November 6, 2004 10:52 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Oh, and by the way, Optical Scan machines leave a paper trail, so if they really rigged them, we can go count the votes and find out, since they are public record due to Florida's sunshine laws.

Posted by: Sam at November 6, 2004 10:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


No mandate at 51%?

I suppose that's why the Nov 3, 1992, cover of Time magazine was this:


Amnesia is not a Good Thing.

Posted by: conelrad at November 6, 2004 12:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

It is not percentage of vote that gives you a mandate, it is margin of victory. Winning by 2% in the popular vote and 30 electoral votes is not a mandate. In case you were wondering, in 2000 when he lost the popular vote and the electoral vote, but JEB, Katherine Harris, and the Supreme Court stole the election for him, he did not have a mandate either.

Posted by: Sam at November 6, 2004 12:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I went to the Office of Management and Budget website to see where the federal budget dollars go. About half (I didn't do the math but this is an eyeball estimate) of all discretionary spending goes to defense and homeland security. Talk about a red state/ blue state issue! The red states were so insistent that homeland security money be allocated per capita rather than to where the threats are greatest that police departments in North Dakota are better equipped to fight terror than the NYPD.

Posted by: Sue at November 6, 2004 01:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

More vote problems:


Posted by: Shar at November 6, 2004 08:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Machine tallies to exit polls - you must read this!


Posted by: Shar at November 6, 2004 09:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Instead of revamping the platform as a whole, let's just revamp the way that things are presented to the general public in an effort to put more of a moderate face on things. Instead of simply fighting for abortion rights and gun control, let's add things to that part of the debate that present a more thought-out approach.

On the issue of abortion rights, let's stand for a woman's right to legal and safe abortion (obviously nothing new here). But, let's add to that discusion (1) new funding to track down dead-beat dads, (2) more accessible health care for low income parents, (3) more financial support for low-income parents, etc. We should make these things part of the debate on abortion. (Safe, legal, and rare.)

On gun-control, we push for tough controls on guns but give the opposition something in return. Off the top of my head, (1) a national registry that somehow allows gun owners to transport guns accross state lines, (2) tax credits for gun safes or trigger locks.

I'm sure a similar approach could be taken to all of the issues that Republicans attack us on. Maybe just framing these issues properly is the change that we are looking for here. Not wholesale changes.

Posted by: Dan Hogan at November 8, 2004 02:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


Posted by: WistheOne at November 8, 2004 04:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Wistheone wrote;


Well, I am glad to see the intellectual wing of the Republican Party is beginning to weigh in on this debate. Such poignant analysis, coupled with the uppercase font will, in my opinion, help many ppl. who opposed Bush and supported Kerry and the Democrats see the absolute wisdom inherent in the Republican position. Thanks, wistheone. Much appreciated. Tell me, wistheone, does your inspiration come from C.S. Lewis? Perhaps Thomas Hobbes? Maybe Jimmy Swaggart?

Posted by: bigguy at November 8, 2004 05:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment