Should have Kerry conceded the '04 election?

[WI_DEM]

Poll question: Should have Kerry conceded the '04 election?

From the day of the election to today there have been very viable reports that Ohio was stolen, like Florida. Of course the "official" vote in Ohio didn't indicate as close a race as Florida had in '00, but still as the RFK story indicates there is strong evidence that John Kerry won the Ohio popular vote if all the votes were counted.

From what I undestand John Edwards didn't want to concede, but Kerry decided to do so after, apparently, his legal team advised him that he had no hope.

Given the evidence known at the time and the advice of his legal team was Kerry right to concede the '04 election the day after?

[endarkenment]

1. Of course not. nt.

[ThomCat]

2. No, it cemented his image as a wishy washy politician

who didn't have the will to be president. He should have fought.

[robbedvoter]

3. Uh, is this a trick question?

[atomic-fly]

4. I ripped my Kerry sticker off my truck as soon as he conceded....

I was pissed.

[wizdum]

Hell no!!!

[Mass]

5. Any proof concerning Edwards! Because it is tiring to see irrelevant

threads stating unconfirmed opinions as facts.

For the rest, on what do you think Kerry should have based his non-concession?

But of course, it seems to be the period where Dems need to attack each others.

[WI_DEM]

7. it was reported on the news at the time that Edwards had reservations

I remember hearing it, but I don't have a link.

[Mass]

19. And of course, you believe everything the MSM says!

Sorry, I dont, and cant think of one time where Edwards talked about irregularities in Ohio (though I may have missed that).

[Adelante]

35. You know, Kerry DOES get attacked here too much

However, WI_DEM is not someone who attacks Dems. I have to think the question is sincerely asked.

[sandnsea]

6. Of course he should have

I still don't know what it is people think would have happened if he hadn't conceded. We had recounts in NH & OH. We have law suits. It wouldn't have allowed people who didn't get to vote to be able to vote. We wouldn't have found any hackers because we still haven't. Nothing would have changed at all.

[WI_DEM]

11. That might be so, but on the other hand

many people honestly believe that Gore did win the 2000 election. Not as many feel the same way about Kerry in '04. It might be because he didn't contest the Ohio vote the way Gore did in Florida and by doing so demonstrating on a national level the voter fraud in Ohio. By conceding the next day Kerry gave the impression to millions of people that Bush won--people who don't get caught up in politics the way we do on DU. But it could be also that Kerry didn't feel he had the same advantage that Gore had in 2000, namely, that Gore did win the popular vote where even with Ohio, Kerry would have still have lost the popular vote.

[sandnsea]

20. 500 vs 100,000+

If the vote difference in Florida had been over 100,000; Gore wouldn't have asked for recounts either. And there was a state-wide recount in Ohio which showed there were no votes to pick up that would have changed the outcome. It wouldn't have gone any other way whether Kerry had conceded or not. There would have been absolutely NO difference. In fact, I still believe if we hadn't screamed stolen election we might have made more progress in cleaning up the election process since then. We've got an election in Ohio where programming problems gave the votes to the wrong candidate, we could use that to show why we need open software. But because it's Republicans, it might discredit the Diebold conspiracy so we don't pay attention to that. Mean time, they're organized to change the registration process to exclude even more voters and we're so busy on the Diebold conspiracy quest that it's happening right under our noses with virtually no opposition.

Today, Kerry is introducing Iraq War legislation. It is getting next to no attention, but amazingly Kerry concession threads and IWR vote threads start popping up everywhere. Coincidence?? I think not.

[blm]

27. Gore had the FOCKING MATH on his side - you want to submit that Gore

would NOT have conceded if it were perceived that he was behind by 130,000 votes in Florida and perceived to have lost the popular vote by 3 million?

You really want to submit that Kerry - someone who took on battles his entire life - would NOT have continued if he was perceived to be behind by 1500 votes and was ahead in the popular vote by 500,000?

Try comparing thenm using the same math - it's absurd what people say here as if they are comparing an apple to an apple - you're NOT. The math was COMPLETELY FOR GORE, and the math was COMPLETELY AGAINST KERRY for continuing.

Come on - BushInc padded vote totals all over the country to achieve that popular vote win - they knew exactly what they were doing and had enough control and discipline in their infrastructure in every state to pull it off.

[truedelphi]

14. Ah You are cynical

But you may well be right.

On the other hand, what if he had said to the masses (ie We The People)
"This election was stolen. Too many people wer not allowed to vote. The way the machinery works indicates that hackers had a say in the results as well. Just as people in the Ukraine are out in the streets we should be out in the streets rallying. And not stopping until justice is done."

[Mass]

15. But the Ukranian president did not say something like that. On the

contrary, people went on the street on their own and the president followed.

US people did not go on the street.

[sandnsea]

22. They had evidence in the Ukraine

They had actual evidence of people being beaten in polling stations and ballots destroyed. Totally different situation. We STILL don't have any evidence of hacking actually occuring. Long lines isn't anything new, but that story is getting lost in the mass of just plain stupid fraud claims that amount to a ballot or two in this precinct or that.

[NJ Democrats]

8. No way

[Squeech]

9. Actually

there's nothing magical about a concession, nor has it any constitutional force. We only think it settles an election because of tradition. (Did Tilden concede in a public forum to Hayes?)

In 2000, remember, Gore called Bush to concede based on NBC awarding Florida to Bush-- then called back an hour later to un-concede, which sent Smirky into one of his many tantrums, telling Gore "You can't do that!" But there's no reason why not.

[yurbud]

10. the way to do it would be draw parallel to Bush in 2000 and then shut up

"President Bush was behind in the popular vote, and exit polls pointed toward his defeat in Florida, but he stood his ground. I am doing the same."

[William769]

12. NO FUCKING WAY!

That is all.

[Virginia Dare]

13. No, I was in favor of scorching the earth at that point...n/t

[Totally Committed]

16. Who the hell are the 6 yesses????

I said this on another thread, but I repeat: When I saw him concede the anger was so visceral, that I felt as if he had come to my house and slapped me in the face in person. I was pissed then, and all of this is stirring it all up again, I can tell you.

No way should he have conceded!

TC

[Mass]

18. I am - Tell me on what real basis he should have refused to concede.

Because he was not happy with the result? This is silly. No politicians (not even Boxer) is suggesting he should have conceded. Because they knew there WAS NO PROOF.

(and of course, I would have preferred he did not have to concede, but tell me on which basis).

Tell me what would have happened if he had not conceded! Do you think he would be president now? Seriously! Or do you think there were some interest in replaying Florida 2000 to end with a supreme court decision that would have gone in the same direction?

So, what is the point of this thread? Useless bickering when we need to be sure we win in 06.

[sandnsea]

26. Me

I still don't know what people think would have changed. There was a recount in NH where the exit polls didn't match; the vote was right, the exit polls were wrong. If the election was "stolen", it was stolen exactly the same way Republicans have been stealing elections for decades. Getting lost in stickers on ballots and damp ballots and whatever other stupidity only keeps real reform from happening.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. The (more than six, now) yesses,

are, I suspect, the people who have been thinking about what his not conceding would have done, rather than emoting.

If he had gone on fighting even though it was clear that he had lost, and that there was no good evidence of foul play, then he would have done considerable harm to both his own reputation and that of the Democrats, potentially costing them seats in 2006.

He chose to take the mature and sensible approach, rather than the feelgood one. It's a shame more politicians don't do likewise.

[LibraLiz1973]

47. I agree with you

about the visceral reaction. I was so sickened when he conceded I thought I'd throw up. He conceded far to soon to a man who was a known crook.

[seabeyond]

48. me. and i sat and watched the election stolen

i knew it was stolen. and it would have done nothing, as two years later there still isnt anything, that would have been accomplished with him not conceding. and as i said in posts below, we had jsut a small handful of people on a really busy board election night and the next day saying bush won, get over it. people getting kick off blogs suggesting it was stolen. few people would even entertain the idea that the election was stolen. where would kerry's support have been

now today that it is fashionable to suggest 2004 was stolen, all these latecomers are pissed kerry didnt get out there and not concede.

you tell me..... what would it have accomplished? one reasonable suggestion.

[Mass]

17. You still have not answered - On what legal basis? Because he was not

happy with the results?

We should be fighting to get change in the election system, not rehashing the same stories that give us nothing.

[WI_DEM]

23. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer

but I'm hearing that there is evidence of fraud and wonder if he should have fought on like Gore did or have conceded. I'm also hearing many Kerry supporters on DU saying that he won the election, I also believe he won it--electorally--but if that is the case shouldn't he have insisted that all the votes be counted?

[blm]

21. Can you tell us what legal evidence Edwards had that he would have used

to continue?

Because alot of people SAY that Edwards wanted to fight, but no one has yet to say what LEGAL EVIDENCE he had that day that could have been used to continue.

There is no evidence in the machines that have been rigged that shows up AFTER the vote. The machines need to be secured before the vote.

[WI_DEM]

25. I have none

I'm just saying that there were reports he wanted to continue. But I concede to you that I don't have first hand knowledge of this. It is irrelevent anyway because in the end it was Kerry's decision. Do you believe that Kerry won Ohio? I do. I just think that with everything we are hearing that it might have been a good idea if Sen. Kerry had contested the results and even if he hadn't been successful (like Gore) he might have made a good case about the problems with elections we are having in this country.

[blm]

28. Gore had all the math WITH him - Kerry had all the math AGAINST him.

Apples and oranges.

[ProSense]

43. Gore actually called Bush and conceded 13 hours earlier than Kerry!

Election Day, 10 p.m.
Networks retract projection that Gore wins Florida; state reverts to too close to call.

Nov. 8, 2:20 a.m.

Gore calls Bush to concede after networks report the governor leads by 50,000 votes in Florida. Networks project Bush to be the winner in Florida.

Nov. 8, 3:30 a.m.
Gore calls Bush back to retract his concession, after receiving reports that the vote difference in Florida is less than 1,000. Networks retract projection that Bush wins Florida; state reverts to too close to call.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/c2k/amazing_race/timeline.html

So with 87,000 votes less than Kerry to make up Gore conceded.

[seabeyond]

24. i was on board nov 2nd and 3rd. majority here did NOT believe

the election was stolen. a strong majority went after those of us that thought election was stolen harshly and swiftly and in group fashion. we were a small number being told in no uncertain terms that kerry lost...... bush won...... get over it

now, really. do tell.

the people here demanded we all feel shame for even thinking it. all blogs would kick people off for suggesting it. the dem leaders were opposed to the idea. the media said if they suggest there is a problem they are wacko leftie conspiracy theorists..... before it could be suggested

a reasonable person that now believes it was stolen, but didnt at first...

kerry was suppose to NOT concede? as 80% of nation, his own people, media, republicans tore him apart?

be real. even a little

[marions ghost]

32. absolutely ! correct, seabeyond

I remember those days just after the election when just about NOBODY would even consider that the election had been stolen. For those who knew what happened, it was very lonely in 'conspiracy theorist' hell. DU was one of the few places where the skeptics were allowed, and it has been a herculean task of many people around the country to get to the point where we are now, where the average person will at least subscribe to the possibility.

I agree with you thet 80% of the country would NOT have supported Kerry if he had not conceded. It would have been suicidal. What Kerry did reflects on the fact that there is no effective mechanism for contesting a presidential election in a system with no transparency. But people want to make him the scapegoat for their frustrations.

It's not about Kerry--it's about the system.

[seabeyond]

46. yes... and not a single person today will be HONEST about what

happened way back then. cowards, wink
ok, maybe a hit harsh. but it pisses me off that today so many think it "was" stolen and diss on kerry now. when if he had done it in the past, those very same people would be dissing on him then. that takes a certain amount of tenacity to be so dishonest with self.

[WI_DEM]

29. While I still have some questions the folks who voted "yes" and posted...

their reasons give pretty valid explanations about why Kerry did what he did. He didn't know what we know today and as one poster said 100,000 votes is alot harder than 537 to reverse. My question was regarding the evidence Kerry had at the time not what we know today.

[SavetheUSA]

30. NO! and he should have helped pay for the recounts

as it was the green party had to scramble to come up with the funds and the had to drop the recount in New Mexico due to lack of funds.

[SavetheUSA]

31. ALL the math required was in the exit polls!

Exit polls are the canary in the mine shaft. When the election results were vastly different, there should have been an immediate recount...obviously....that is what exit polls are for.

Remember the Ukraine?

All eyes were on Kerry after the election and all he had to do was mention the exit polls, not to mention all of the other anomolies....all pointing in Bush's favor....it was all so freaking obvious. There was no excuse. I cannot believe he wants to run again. It is an insult!

[CTyankee]

34. I would love to believe that the disparity in the exit polls would

have stopped the whole thing in its tracks until a great big investigation had been conducted. That, of course, would never have happened.

I personally believe that the election was rigged as hell. And I am just as pissed as anyone. But saying the math doesn't work and even having math PH.Ds prove it, would not have washed. It would have beenheld up to ridicule by the righties as pointy headed professors acting nerdy and no one likes a nerdy mathemetician.

The vast majority of people frickin didn't care. And we weren't prepared for this kind of vote fraud. Kerry's 10,000 lawyers at every polling place made absolutely no difference (and I never heard about anything that they did do).

I don't think Kerry should have conceded, but frankly I can't think of a way he could have made the rest of America believe him and demand at least an investigation.

[blm]

37. You prefer someone who DOESN'T know enough to secure the machines BEFORE

the election? Right now we have precious few who even believe in machine fraud.

And newsflash - the exit pollsters were the first to come out and deny their own work almost immediately.

[Balbus]

33. Well, that is the normal thing to do when one loses an election.

Yes *gasp* I actually said "loses" :wow:

Let the obligatory whine-fest about stolen elections commence here...

[SavetheUSA]

36. He also should have called Bush out on cheating in the debate

Bush was so obviously wired....the man can't even answer a question on his own.

Kerry should have exposed this and the election wouldn't have even been close enough to steal.

[ecstatic]

39. Maybe eventually, but NOT before counting the votes

And at least giving his supporters time to heal. No matter what anyone says, its hard for some of us to forgive him for that. We had dared to get our hopes up behind this man and that is how he repaid us.

[Raine]

40. No, no, no

ABSOLUTLEY NOT! :mad:

[SoCalDem]

41. Seeiing as how he was never going to be "allowed" to move to 1600 Penn.

What choice did he have?

The fix was IN... 2K was the product launch..'02 was the fine-tune, and '04 was the pay off..

The time for protestations was in 2000...but they time '04 rolled around, it was already too late..

We all might as well accept the fact that "oooh so close...(but you still lost) " will be the norm for elections to come.

The one saving grace might be that the venezuelans seem to have bought an election company, and the freeps are LIVID.. Perhaps THEY might actually "save" future elections.. Delicious irony..

[Tansy_Gold]

42. Bush v Gore, Exit Polls, and a 5000-mile road trip

I got furious with John Kerry during the swift boat fiasco because he didn't fight it. There were things he should have said and should have done, and he didn't do them. He didn't fight. And for a man who was running on his war record -- regardless what other issues there were, Kerry clearly was running on that -- to just walk away from that fight pissed me off.

I always have and always will give Al Gore the benefit of inexperience. Not his own inexperience but our collective inexperience with contested elections. I don't think he and/or his campaign team had any clue the GOP would be as filthy dirty as they were, especially with regards to the riot in FL. I think Gore was blindsided, and I think he did the best he could under the circumstances.

Do I think he made mistakes in the campaign? Yes. But I also think that in spite of Gore's mistakes, he still won.

Kerry had no excuse. He knew how dirty the booosh-cheney-rove machine was (and still is). He had the benefit of seeing what happened in 2000 and all the subsequent analysis of the theft. He went through the swift boat shit and had personal experience of the attack campaign. He and his campaign should have been prepared for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, including massive follow-up of the booosh AWOL documents, aka Rathergate. Looking at Ohio in the hands of a booosh-supporting SoS should have warned them WELL AHEAD OF TIME. In a sense, it was another LIHOP. Oh, maybe not on purpose, but why didn't they see it coming?

For Kerry then to concede, after the crap in Ohio had made the news on that Tuesday night, was unconscionable. And whether Edwards wanted to continue the fight or not, the fact that there was even the suggestion of a difference of opinion means something was going on. Someone had doubts. Someone wanted to fight on.

At 9:00 the following morning, my husband and I left on a 12-day road trip. We drove from Phoenix to New Jersey, to Indiana, to Chicago, and back to Phoenix. We never put the radio on in the truck during the whole trip. We talked, analyzing what had gone on. And over and over and over and over again we came back to the question, "Why the hell wasn't the Kerry team prepared for this? What the hell excuse can they give?" As we talked with family and friends at our various stops along the way, those same issues kept coming up.

And of course part of the discussion was on what basis could they have challenged the results. Well, the exit polls were one thing. Why were the exit polls perfect except in Ohio? Why did the same pattern hold in both 2000 and 2004? If you know it's the same pattern, shouldn't the underlying facts be the same?

For Kerry then to say he didn't want to fight it because "we're at war" just made me want to puke. Whatever we are doing in Iraq, it isn't "fighting a war." We're an occupying force struggling to impose our will on a resistant populace (and steal their resources while we're at it). We aren't fighting an army, we don't have a military objective in mind. We're trying to do the impossible, even more of an impossible than in Vietnam, if that's possible. (mild :sarcasm:)

You can't beat someone if you're on the same side, if you won't fight AGAINST them. And that's what Kerry did, almost from beginning to end -- he lined himself up on the same side as booooosh on virtually all the issues and then didn't understand why he couldn't win.

Should he have contested the results of the election? IMHO, hell yes. Would he have won? Maybe, maybe not. Would he have galvanized his supporters? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never really know what might have happened, but at least he would have stood up for himself, and for us.


Tansy Gold

[lies and propaganda]

44. fuck no, that bastard

he won and he knew it. He fed up lip service about counting all the votes and then his bonesman ass slinked out of the room.

pretty goddamned cowardly for a war hero.

[wisteria]

50. You can't honestly believe what you just posted?: It is actually to

far fetched to even consider to have even a grain of truth to it.

[LibraLiz1973]

45. No.

The instant he did, he lost any chance that I will ever vote for him again.

[wisteria]

49. Yes, and those who think otherwise are not being reasonable.

Our party and Kerry would have looked foolish if we had attempted to contest the election. Edwards,if he did suggest not giving up, he was doing it for his own benefit and because he was unwilling to accept the loss.
Why does all this matter now? Kerry has come out supporting honest and fair elections and he still is out fighting the Republicans on our behalf. Have any of you contacted your Senators and other Senators about Kerry's amendment that may be introduced tomorrow in the Senate? Resolution 36 calls for bringing our troops home by the end of 2006. Please take a little time to do the right thing and contact your senators and other Democrat Senators.

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/call/senate/?sc=hp

[WiseButAngrySara]

51. Worst decision EVER! I am still depressed when I think about it.

Kerry would have made a wonderful president, just like Gore. It was the one of the greatest and most horrific mistakes in history! Look at the results! What has B* done in office to help the US, the world, the environment? Even Katrina, he profitted by. Kerry gave us a total disaster, and the world has suffered greatly as well.

[Guy Fawkes]

52. I don't want to be harsh..

but that was two years ago. Even if concrete evidence was suddenly put forward by an obviously non-partisan group, the election is long since over. Yes, I'm upset- I'm sure we all are- but he lost, and we need to look not to the past, but to the 2006 election and the 2008 election beyond that.