Read my lips: Kerry never lost!

[PresidentObama]

I'm sick and tired of some DUers ignoring the facts that have surfaced that Kerry, like Vice President Gore, was cheated of the White House. Don't ignore reality, don't ignore facts.

Whether you think he was a good candidate or not, he never lost!

I'm sick and damn tired of this bullshit. People who want to bash and bash Kerry have the same right wing talking points to say. Whether he deserved to win or not, he sure as hell was cheated. Period.

If you want the evidence, I'm sure some DUers would love to come to my aid to post the evidence.

[Major Hogwash]

1. I put you on ignore - you're in denial, Kerry is not in the White House.

And the fact that you're talking about it today means you have nothing to say to me about the future.

[PresidentObama]

4. Gore isn't in the White House either, he still won. Am I still in denial?

Or are you?

And put me on ignore, you have no reasoning behind it.

[slick8790]

11. Gore won the popular vote, and arguably would have won the electoral college if the supreme court

didn't stop the recount. Kerry lost the popular vote, and didn't even believe he won Ohio enough to wait for a recount. You ARE in denial.

[dugggy]

57. The recount had satisfied all "legal" requirements

So strictly legally speaking SCOTUS was correct. But from moralistic
point, votes should have been recounted until there was no doubt who
won. It was too close in Florida to have stopped the recounts.

[Usrename]

62. The county I live in was the only county that had a hand count.

So what do you mean that the legal recount requirements had been met? Basically, the SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional to count legally cast ballots. Except, only for that one election. That's what happened.

[dugggy]

63. I am no lawyer, but I recall that Florida is by law required to

recount statewide votes TWO TIMES when a recount is justified.
My understanding is that was done and therefore there was
no "legal" requirement to count it 3rd time. Like I said for
the sake of avoiding any question of who really won Florida
and thereby the presidency, one more recount would have been
morally justified even if outside of the prevailing law.

[Usrename]

65. The law here says that when it's that close, there's an automatic recount.

That automatic recount is state-wide. If the results don't change, then that's the end of it. But if the automatic recount has different results from the first count, and if it's different enough to change the outcome, then a hand count can be requested by either party. Gore requested hand counts in the four counties that had differing recounts, per the statute.

Mine was the only county that complied by doing both the automatic recount (due to the close results statewide) and the hand count (requested because the count was different when they did the automatic recount). Orange county (Orlando) never even performed the original automatic recount. It was total rabid partisanship in much of the state that just ignored a whole lot of existing laws and statutes.

I hope that makes sense. In any event, Bush sued in state court to have the entire state recounted (claiming Gore was cherry-picking counties, when in reality Gore was hand counting everything that he was legally entitled to). Without any objection from the Gore campaign, Bush was awarded the relief he sought (even though he lost the case), which was to hand count the whole entire state.

Then Bush went to the SCOTUS and claimed that down there in Florida they were changing the rules after the election, by hand counting the whole state, which isn't in the statutes. This was after he argued for it in the FL Supreme Court, and was awarded the relief he sought, unopposed by Gore at all.

No, I am not making this up. Then the SCOTUS said that Bush might be damaged irreparably if the hand counts were completed, so they stopped the counting. They eventually ruled that even though all the ballots in question were legally cast ballots, and even though it was un-controverted in the record that the hand count was the most accurate method of counting ballots known to man, it was unconstitutional in this case (Bush v Gore), and only in this case (Bush v Gore), to count the ballots.

The end.

(or the beginning of the end)

[truedelphi]

118. Uh, the vote counting was stopped, and due to its being stopped

You cannot say that the recount was done twice.

It may have been attempted twice.

BTW, Gore did win the election - at least according to NYT on Sept 12th 2001.

[DangerDave921]

131. It was 7-2

Remember, the Florida Court had only ordered recounts of under votes, not all the votes in the entire state. That was the issue before the SCOTUS. And on a 7-2 vote, the Court held that the Florida Court had erred in ordering such a recount. It was a violation of equal protection because there were no uniform standards as to how votes would be counted. In other words, a ballot may be counted as a vote in one county, but the same ballot would not be counted as a vote in the neighboring county. By a 5-4 vote, the Court essentially closed down the recount because there was no time to complete such a recount and have the votes certified by the date required.

Will we ever know who truly won Florida? No. But Gore fought it, he had his day in court, and we have to live with that.

[Usrename]

133. There's no doubt that Gore won FL.

None at all VNS called it while it was happening. 25,000 spoiled ballots for Gore in just Palm Beach and Duval counties. He won.

[DangerDave921]

136. he won?

What is your definition of "won"? You say he had 25,000 spoiled ballots in just two counties. If they were spoiled ballots, they can't count as votes.

If you mean that more people went to the polls intending to vote for Gore, then maybe so. But I don't think we'll ever know the ultimate question of who got more legitimate votes. It was just too close.

My primary point is that Gore fought the good fight and we have to let it go.

[DangerDave921]

129. Sorry to be impolite

But hey, the guy just had to win his home state of Tennessee and the world would never have had to deal with the whole Florida thing.

If I could draw an analogy to sports, if you miss an easy field goal in the first quarter that would have made the difference between winning and losing, you can't scream and shout about a bad call late in the game. You never should have been in that spot in the first place where the ref's call had so much impact on the game. While Florida certainly was a huge event, Gore never should have been in that predicament. He was an incumbent VP running against a newbie. And to be blunt, he should have run away with that election. You can't blame the whole thing on SCOTUS.

[mod mom]

82. Pls put me on ignore as well as I spent the last years investigating OH election and I too

know KERRY WON!

[Hersheygirl]

140. Sorry man,

You are the one who needs to put on ignore. Thank you for helping me out.

[BootinUp]

2. Even Kerry doesn't believe that

I think it doesn't help to refuse to accept reality even if it is painful.

[PresidentObama]

6. Maybe Senator Edwards does...

Was just recently that he said Kerry shouldn't have conceded, that something fishy was up. I agree.

Kerry is a class act, I don't expect him to dwell on the past. He's busy working on bettering the future, and for that he'll always be one of the good guys.

[MelissaB]

10. I do believe his wife stated otherwise.

[MelissaB]

25. Here:

...snip

COUNTING THE VOTES: Heinz Kerry is openly skeptical about results from November's election, particularly in sections of the country where optical scanners were used to record votes.

"Two brothers own 80 percent of the machines used in the United States," Heinz Kerry said. She identified both as "hard-right" Republicans. She argued that it is "very easy to hack into the mother machines."

"We in the United States are not a banana republic," added Heinz Kerry. She argued that Democrats should insist on "accountability and transparency" in how votes are tabulated.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/Connelly/214744_joel07.html

[karynnj]

39. Read her entire quote

She is saying the same thing as her husband. Both have spoken of the various means that were used to suppress the vote and both have spoken of reported machine problems - neither have stated definitively that they know with 100% certainty that had there been no problems he would have won. (Nor, is there a point blank comment from Gore saying he won - in a far more provable case.)

THK is making the point that it is wrong that the machines could be hacked.

Note, she and Kerry were pushing this issue in 2005 and 2006 - when the Edwards were quiet. (JRE made many speeches in 2005 - none on elections issues - either on 2004 or as a going forward issue.)

THK's comments there match the point her husband made on the floor of the Senate.

[MelissaB]

44. I guess we're interpreting it differently.

...

Heinz Kerry is openly skeptical about results from November's election...

:shrug:

[karynnj]

71. Those are the reporter.'s words - not Teresa Heinz Kerry's

I don't disagree with you, both THK an JK have listed problems - and the inference is there in both cases. In Ohio, the easiest case that can be made is that things like not having a reasonable number of voting machines and other means to lower the vote in inner cities diverted enough votes. My point was that neither John or Teresa Kerry are saying publicly that the election was stolen, but they are saying there were problems.

I see Teresa's comment as boldly stating that there is a huge potential problem here. Teresa is very correctly pointing out that there is a potential that elections can be stolen using the machines, mentioning the people who own the 3 companies, suggesting they could be motivated to influence things in the same direction. She is NOT stating it definately happened in 2004.

Here are problems Kerry listed in the Senate - where very little has been done on any legislation to fix the process - no bill has been voted on. This is from the extention of the voting rights act.

From the Senate record:

"Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his discussion of an important way of having accountability in voting . I must say that I saw how that works out in Oregon. It works well. It works brilliantly, as a matter of fact. People have a lot of time to be able to vote. They don't have to struggle with work issues or being sick or other things. They have plenty of time to be able to have the kind of transparency and accountability that makes the system work. There are other States where you are allowed to start voting early--in New Mexico and elsewhere.

It is amazing that in the United States we have this patchwork of the way our citizens work in Federal elections. It is different almost everywhere. I had the privilege of giving the graduation address this year at Kenyan College in Ohio, and there the kids at Kenyan College wound up being the last people to vote in America in the Presidential race in 2004 in Gambier, at 4:30 in the morning. We had to go to court to get permission for them to keep the polls open so they could vote at 4:30 in the morning.

Why did it take until 4:30 in the morning for people to be able to vote? They didn't have enough voting machines in America. These people were lined up not just there but in all of Ohio and in other parts of the country. An honest appraisal requires one to point out that where there were Republican secretaries of state, the lines were invariably longer in Democratic precincts, sometimes with as many as one machine only in the Democratic precinct and several in the Republican precinct; so it would take 5 or 10 minutes for someone of the other party to be able to vote, and it would take literally hours for the people in the longer lines. If that is not a form of intimidation and suppression, I don't know what is.

So I thank the Senator from Oregon for talking about the larger issue here. He is absolutely correct. The example of his State is one that the rest of the country ought to take serious and think seriously about embracing.

This is part of a larger issue, obviously, Mr. President. All over the world, our country has always stood out as the great exporter of democratic values. In the years that I have been privileged to serve in the Senate, I have had some extraordinary opportunities to see that happen in a firsthand way.

Back in 1986, I was part of a delegation that went to the Philippines. We took part in the peaceful revolution that took place at the ballot box when the dictator, President Marcos, was kicked out and ``Cory'' Aquino became President. I will never forget flying in on a helicopter to the island of Mindanao and landing where some people have literally not seen a helicopter before, and 5,000 people would surround it as you swooped out of the sky, to go to a polling place where the entire community turned out waiting in the hot sun in long lines to have their thumbs stamped in ink and to walk out having exercised their right to vote.

I could not help but think how much more energy and commitment people were showing for the privilege of voting in this far-off place than a lot of Americans show on too many occasions. The fact is that in South Africa we fought for years--we did--through the boycotts and other efforts, in order to break the back of apartheid and empower all citizens to vote. Most recently, obviously, in Afghanistan and Iraq, notwithstanding the disagreement of many of us about the management of the war and the evidence and other issues that we have all debated here. This has never been debated about the desire for democracy and the thrill that everyone in the Senate felt in watching citizens be able to exercise those rights .

In the Ukraine, the world turned to the United States to monitor elections and ensure that the right to vote was protected. All of us have been proud of what President Carter has done in traveling the world to guarantee that fair elections take place. But the truth is, all of our attempts to spread freedom around the world will be hollow and lose impact over the years in the future if we don't deliver at home.

The fact is that we are having this debate today in the Senate about the bedrock right to vote, with the understanding that this is not a right that was afforded to everyone in our country automatically or at the very beginning. For a long time, a century or more, women were not allowed to vote in America. We all know the record with respect to African Americans. The fact is that the right to vote in our country was earned in blood in many cases and in civic sweat in a whole bunch of cases. Courageous citizens literally risked their lives. I remember in the course of the campaign 2 years ago, traveling to Alabama--Montgomery--and visiting the Southern Poverty Law Center, the memorial to Martin Luther King, and the fountain. There is a round stone fountain with water spilling out over the sides. From the center of the fountain there is a compass rose coming back and it marks the full circle. At the end of every one of those lines is the name of an American with the description, ``killed trying to register to vote,'' or ``murdered trying to register.'' Time after time, that entire compass rose is filled with people who lost their lives in order to exercise a fundamental right in our country.

None of us will forget the courage of people who marched and faced Bull Connor's police dogs and faced the threat of lynchings, some being dragged out of their homes in the dark of night to be hung. The fact is that we are having this debate today because their work and that effort is not over yet. Too many Americans in too many parts of our country still face serious obstacles when they are trying to vote in our own country.

By reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we are taking an important step, but, Mr. President, it is only a step. Nobody should pretend that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act solves the problems of being able to vote in our own country. It doesn't. In recent elections, we have seen too many times how outcomes change when votes that have been cast are not counted or when voters themselves are prevented from voting or intimidated from even registering or when they register, as we found in a couple of States, their registration forms are put in the wastebasket instead of into the computers.

This has to end. Every eligible voter in the United States ought to be able to cast his or her ballot without fear, without intimidation, and with the knowledge that their voice will be heard. These are the foundations of our democracy, and we have to pay more attention to it.

For a lot of folks in the Congress, this is a very personal fight. Some of our colleagues in the House and Senate were here when this fight first took place or they took part in this fight out in the streets. Without the courage of someone such as Congressman JOHN LEWIS who almost lost his life marching across that bridge in Selma, whose actions are seared in our minds, who remembers what it was like to march to move a nation to a better place, who knows what it meant to put his life on the line for voting rights , this is personal.

For somebody like my colleague, Senator TED KENNEDY, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who was here in the great fight on this Senate floor in 1965 when they broke the back of resistance, this is personal.

We wouldn't even have this landmark legislation today if it weren't for their efforts to try to make certain that it passed.

But despite the great strides we have taken since this bill was originally enacted, we have a lot of work to do.

Mr. President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on this particular component of the bill, there is agreement. Republicans and Democrats can agree. I was really pleased that every attempt in the House of Representatives to weaken the Voting Rights Act was rejected.

We need to reauthorize these three critical components especially: The section 5 preclearance provisions that get the Justice Department to oversee an area that has a historical pattern of discrimination that they can't change how people vote without clearance. That seems reasonable.

There are bilingual assistance requirements. Why? Because people need it and it makes sense. They are American citizens, but they still may have difficulties in understanding the ballot, and we ought to provide that assistance so they have a fully informed vote. This is supposed to be an informed democracy, a democracy based on the real consent of the American people.

And finally, authorization for poll watching. Regrettably, we have seen in place after place in America why we need to have poll watching.

A simple question could be asked: Where would the citizens of Georgia be, particularly low-income and minority citizens, if they were required to produce a government-issued identification or pay $20 every 5 years in order to vote? That is what would have happened without section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Georgia would have successfully imposed what the judge in the case called ``a Jim Crow-era like poll tax.'' I don't think anybody here wants to go back and flirt with the possibility of returning to a time when States charged people money to exercise their right to vote. That is not our America.

This morning, President Bush addressed the 97th Annual Convention of the NAACP after a 5-year absence. I am pleased that the President, as we all are, ended his boycott of the NAACP and announced his intention to sign the Voting Rights Act into law.

But we need to complete the job. There are too many stories all across this country of people who say they registered duly, they reported to vote, and they were made to stand in one line or another line and get an excuse why, when they get to the end of the line, they can't vote. So they take out a provisional ballot, and then there are fights over provisional ballots.

There are ways for us to avoid that. Some States allow same-day registration. In some parts of America, you can just walk up the day of an election, register, and vote, as long as you can prove your residence.

We have this incredible patchwork of laws and rules, and in the process, it is even more confusing for Americans. We need to fully fund the Help America Vote Act so that we have the machines in place, so that people are informed, so that there is no one in America who waits an undue amount of time in order to be able to cast a vote.

We have to pass the Count Every Vote Act that Senator Clinton, Senator Boxer, and I have introduced which ensures exactly what the Senator from Oregon was talking about: that every voter in America has a verifiable paper trail for their vote. How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?

How can we have a system where the voting machines are proprietary to a private business so that the public sector has no way of verifying what the computer code is and whether or not it is accountable and fair? Just accounting for it.

Congress has to ensure that every vote cast in America is counted, that every precinct in America has a fair distribution of voting machines, that voter suppression and intimidation are un-American and must cease.

We had examples in the last election of people who were sent notices--obviously fake, but they were sent them and they confused them enough. They were told that if you have an outstanding parking ticket, you can't vote. They were told: Democrats vote on Wednesday and Republicans vote on Tuesday and various different things.

It is important for us to guarantee that in the United States of America, this right that was fought for so hard through so much of the difficult history of our country, we finally make real the full measure of that right.

I yield the floor. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague for her forbearance.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before Senator Kerry leaves the floor, I want to thank him. The issues he raised absolutely have to be a part of this debate. I will address them after he leaves. The reason I stood up and objected to the Ohio count is because I knew firsthand from the people of Ohio who came and talked with me through STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES that they were waiting in lines for 6, 7 hours. That is not the right to vote. I think Senator Kerry's remarks and the remarks of the Senator from Oregon are very important.

So let a message go out from this Senate floor today that we are not stopping our efforts to make sure people can vote with the very important passage of this very important legislation. I am very pleased to follow him in this debate.

[MBS]

80. I heard THK say the same thing this spring at a book-signing for their book,

This Moment on Earth, in response to a question about fraud in the 2004 election, and it was crystal clear to me that she was convinced that the election was stolen. She was picking her words carefully, but there was no doubt in my mind about her meaning. Her husband worded his reply even more cautiously (there were reporters present. . ), but I also had no doubt that he agreed with her.

I'm convinced that both Kerrys know full well that they were robbed (as we were robbed) in 2004, and they've known this from election day November 2004. The problem has always been: what to do about it when, say, the Democratic governor of New Mexico (yes, Richardson) refused to allow a recount ih his state, and, with the help of turncoat James Carwell and his spouse Mary Matalin, Blackwell and similar ilk in Ohio did everything in their power to supprress voting in minority areas (despite the unprecendented placement of 5000 lawyers in Ohio on voting day by the Kerry campaign) and , afterwards, to withold access to the data that were needed to fight the fraudulent results (including the recent destruction of the 2004 ballots in key precints in Ohio). This task was made morally even more difficult by the "fact" (not) that Kerry was supposedly behind in the nationwide popular vote. Personally, I'd guess that Kerry also won the popular vote, too (definitely if everyone had been allowed to vote who wanted to. .)and I won't be surprised to find out in a few years that Rove. Diebold and ilk had tweaked the vote tallies, a few votes per precint across the country, not just in Ohio. As things stood, the Kerry campaign did not have the smoking gun they needed to

What THK also emphasized in her answer that day, though, was the future: that is, that a functional, trustworthy voting system is essential to a democracy and that we MUST FIX THIS PROBLEM. . . that what a disgrace it is that we STILL HAVEN'T FIXED THIS PROBLEM. Eight years since the stolen election of 2000, and wiith 2008 elections looming, we STILL HAVE NOT fixed problems with electronic voting, vote-hacking, selective voter-registration suppression (remember when the Nevada Republicans destroyed the registration forms of thousands of Democratic voters in 2004? remember the continuing Republican obsession with supposed "fraudulent' registration among poor minority voters?) , with voter-suppression (Ohio)).

[defendandprotect]

110. Absolutely! Kerry evidently heard immediately that it was a very powerful steal in Ohio . . .

and elsewhere.

Keep in mind, the bad guys have most of the weapons now ---

[MelissaB]

3. I don't visit GDP a lot, but

info is here if anyone asks or isn't too lazy to search. All they have to do is head over to ER. We documented it all play-by-painful-play.

Count the effin' votes! :grr:

[slick8790]

7. You mean the votes where Kerry lost by 3 million popular votes?

We nominated the one person running who couldn't be george bush. I'd go as far to say as one of the few people over 35 and natural born who couldn't beat GWB. 2004 was OURS. and we blew it.

[MelissaB]

13. I'm talking about Ohio, FL, NM, and other states

where there were clearly problems.

[slick8790]

20. But as shitty as it was, the popular vote said otherwise.

George bush is one of the worst presidents in the history of this country, and it did a vast disservice to democracy when he won in 2000 without winning the popular vote. John Kerry being elected by the electoral college without being chosen popularly would be a similar disservice to democracy. naturally i voted for kerry, but the end does not justify the means. we should have nominated a better candidate. but that's how democracy works, as shitty as it seems.

[PresidentObama]

22. We don't choose the President off of popular vote. If we did, Gore would have won easily.

[slick8790]

24. But should we?

Gore won. The people wanted him, and he may or may not have won Florida, he took it to the supreme court and was denied.

Kerry did not. The people did not want him, and he may or may not have won Ohio, he didn't care to find out and conceded.

[MelissaB]

26. That's a very simplistic way of looking at it.

[slick8790]

28. You could put it that way.

But isn't that what democracy is about? The people pick their leaders?

[PresidentObama]

27. We should, I agree. And that's fair to argue.

If so, we would have avoided the Bush mess completely.

But that doesn't change the reality that Kerry was cheated based on the system we use. And it's unfair to say the people didn't want him when he gained the most votes of ANY Democratic candidate in HISTORY.

[slick8790]

34. We'll never know if he was cheated or not.

He conceded way early. And I don't think it's fair to compare the amount of votes he got to the amount of votes of a dem in another election. it's apples and oranges. by that token, you could say bush was wanted by the most amount of american people ever. when more people vote than ever before, and there's two main candidates in a close race, you're obviously going to get each candidate having more than ever before.

I think we'll just have to agree that kerry would have been a million times better than bush, and whether he won or not (popularly or electorally), he should have. I hate to argue like this with another edwards supporter. :)

[PresidentObama]

37. Kerry is one of the "Could have beens" that really gets me down.

We can't let it happen in 2008. Whether you think he lost or not. Good guys don't always finish last, and we're going to prove it in 2008. No more lost elections, stolen or not stolen. We can't let it happen. No way, no how.

And to your Edwards supporter comment, I just want to say....

Go Edwards, go!! :)

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

86. Get A Fucking Clue

THE POPULAR VOTE WAS HACKED AS MUCH AS THE ELECTORAL VOTE!!

You don't actually believe they just SWITCHED only certain votes, in certain states, do you?

THEY HACKED THE WHOLE FUCKING THING!

Kerry would have WON the Popular Vote as well, if there hadn't been tampering.

[OnTheOtherHand]

87. and you know this how? n/t

[slick8790]

108. Uh huh.

And your proof of this is?

Ever heard of occam's razor? The simplest explanation here was that we nominated an unappealing candidate and it wasn't enough to be "not bush" to win.

[OnTheOtherHand]

109. I think some folks are too harsh on Kerry

He wasn't gonna waltz right into the White House, but he did a lot of things well IMO. Bush's popularity hadn't tanked yet -- it figured to be a pretty close election.

[rosesaylavee]

31. Ummm. Have you not been paying ANY attention the

last couple of years re: election fraud? The machines are fixed. We do know that the machines gave the vote to * in Ohio and Florida and possible a couple of other states.

Wake the fuck up and read... that is if you like democracy and the freedom to vote.

[PresidentObama]

33. A-FUCKING-MEN!!!

[slick8790]

36. I don't give a shit about the electoral votes.

The people did not want John Kerry, for whatever reason. Are you saying 3 million votes (almost 2.5% of the total vote) was fraud, and it was all for John Kerry? I consider that a loss in my book.

[PresidentObama]

38. So if John Edwards is the nominee in 2008 and wins the election by electoral college but not...

...popular vote, in your mind he lost even THOUGH he won?

I hate to bring up you and I's candidate, but think about it. The system is what it is, despite what you think it should or shouldn't be.

I do agree we should go with the popular vote, if we would have...we would have prevented Bush altogether.

[karynnj]

42. If the election were not by the electoral congress, Kerry would have played to win the popular vote

Think huge rallies in NYC, Boston, Chicago, LA, etc. If the popular vote were the method that determined it - it would be easier for Democrats as you can reach people in the big urban areas better.

You also neglect that Bush had most of the media on his side.

[rosesaylavee]

45. Nimrod

I am not talking about electoral votes. Are you really that dense or just jerking our chains here?

I am talking about the actual voting machines. Wake up.

[OnTheOtherHand]

72. sorry, no

We do know that the machines gave the vote to * in Ohio and Florida and possible a couple of other states.

Actually, the machines are most likely to have determined the outcome in New Mexico, although I don't know of any evidence that they were 'fixed' there. You can believe what you want about Ohio and Florida, but the evidence is very weak.

[Stevepol]

90. Watch Freeman's power point and then tell me Kerry lost.

The evidence is all on the side of Kerry winning, not on Bush winning.

Bush did not win in 04. It didn't happen. The only evidence that Bush won comes from the voting machines. The rest of the evidence, including the exit polls, says that Kerry won, and he won handsomely as well, by 6-7m votes and about a 4-5% margin of victory.

Here's Freeman's power point:

http://www.hotpotatomash.com/2007/10/video-exclusi-1.html

[OnTheOtherHand]

91. OK... Kerry lost (no time-back guarantee, huh?)

Freeman really ought to be ashamed of himself. I think he must know that it isn't a "mathematical impossibility" that the recorded response rate could be lower in the high-Bush precincts even if Bush voters participated at a lower rate overall. Either he doesn't want to think about the ecological fallacy, or he doesn't mind committing it when he thinks he can get away with it with a naive audience.

If you take away his unfounded assumption that the exit polls were right, then his entire case falls apart. Nothing else he presented comes close.

As far as I could see, nothing in his argument has improved since I tackled it point by point here. Oh well.

[truedelphi]

119. Thanks for this citation. Will watch as soon as CA quits burning up.

[karynnj]

41. In December 2003, Dean polled 20 points behind Bush

Kerry was not perfect, but he used the few opportunities he had well. I doubt that other potential candidates would have come close to Kerry's 3 debates.

[slick8790]

97. what was kerry polling in Dec. 2003 against bush?

Kerry's problem was that he wasn't kerry, he was "not george bush". Howard dean actually had more substance, and i believe, could have ran a campaign not based on who he's not.

[Major Hogwash]

103. He wasn't even a blip on the radar then. Kerry was in the single digits with Democrats in Dec 2003.

Kerry hit 9% in Democratic polls in mid-December of 2003.

[slick8790]

104. exactly.

it's impossible to use what was found in those polls to what would develop 11 months later.

[Major Hogwash]

106. I don't know why she brought it up in the first place, slick.

It was irrelevant, because every election campaign is different.

Gary Hart was the front runner in 1987 when somebody asked him if he was involved with any monkey business, so he challenged the press to follow him around and see if they could find any.

Took them exactly 1 day!

[karynnj]

125. Look at the post that I was responding to

The point was that 2004 was never going to be easy. There is absolutely no reason to thing that Dean or Edwards would have done better - and much to suggest they would have done worse.

[karynnj]

111. He wasn't polled period - only Dean was in the poll I found

Kerry was polled only after he won Iowa - and he polled far better agains Bush at that point in time than Dean did. Howard Dean did not have more substance - Kerry had the foreign policy experience and the connection to the military as an advocate for veterans for 30 years. Kerry did run as Kerry - too bad you didn't bother to see who he was. Kerry had many many accomplishments over a more than 20 year career. (Kerry was better on Foreign policy, the environment - it was Kerry, not Dean who got the NE Governors to put the first cap and trade program into effect. Even on healthcare, Kerry wrote the bill that after modifications became S-CHIP. Not to mention he was a war hero.

One of Kerry's accomplishments in the 1990s benefited Dean directly. Kerry chaired the effort to investigate POW/MIA in Vietnam. Kerry was the person who pushed all the governments in that area to put a large amount of effort into finding and repatriating the remains of Americans. Kerry, Vallery, who headed a MA veterans organization and Kerry's SFRC staffer drafted the Vietnam treaty. Dean in all his December interviews never credited Kerry - nor did Kerry ever make that point in relationship to Dean's brother.

[Major Hogwash]

122. Come to the light, karynnj - the 2004 campaign is history - Kerry lost!!

You keep talking about Kerry - Kerry is NOT, repeat, NOT running for President in 2008!

Kerry wasn't even polling well amongst Democrats in December of 2003!
He wasn't a threat to Bush at all at the time.

[karynnj]

124. Dean is not either - yet I note you do not correct the poster I am responding to

I know Kerry is not running in 2008 - and I resent the fact that people want to steal the successes he did have from him. Kerry in 2003 was UNKNOWN to most Democrats. ONE month later, he was known and polled better than Dean or Edwards against Bush. Why are YOU stuck in December 2003?

this ENTIRE thread is on 2004. I responded here to a comment I thought unwarranted AND a right wing slur that Kerry had no substance - when in fact he was an unusually qualified candidate.

[OnTheOtherHand]

134. I agree: there's lots of revisionism

Sure, some armchair quarterbacks think they could run a better campaign than John Kerry did. Most of them simply have no clue. Probably most of them don't even have the physical stamina to do it.

I was never much of a John Kerry fan. He had to earn my respect, and he did. Some second-guessing goes with the territory, but some of the stuff on this thread is just over the top. Things would have ended differently if Kerry had found a tank to climb on? Not so much.

[mod mom]

83. We blew it by conceding the election and not fight for those votes. Carville's role:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

IF KERRY/EDWARDS WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TAKE OFFICE WITH THEIR WIN IN 2004, IT WOULD HAVE KILLED HRC CHANCES IN '08 AND 2012. IT ALSO WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE AGENDA AWAY FROM ONE THAT BENEFITS THE CORPORATIONS.

[peace13]

5. He never lost but he did not stay and fight.

As someone from Ohio who stood on the Statehouse steps that fateful December, I am fully aware that Kerry asked for donations for his legal defense fund and then proceeded to lay down before the fight had begun. That is how it played out and he is not currently electable as P or VP as far as I am concerned. You can't undo the damage, sorry. Before you flame me, I sent him money, campaigned for him, even had my yard signs burned. But we were there for him. I can not say the same for him. Peace, Kim

[PresidentObama]

8. That's your opinion, and it's respectable. I just wish DU wouldn't ignore the fact he won.

[MrSlayer]

9. Cheated or not, he is not in the White House.

And that goes down in the history books as a loss.

[PresidentObama]

12. Sadly you're right. Him and Gore will never get the chance they earned.

[MrSlayer]

16. Yes to the detriment of us all.

When Gore "lost" we all lost.

[PresidentObama]

23. And it only got worse and worse didn't it? If only is all I have to say to 2000 and 2004.

Two great candidates. Both robbed.

It sucks. But let it be a lesson, we CAN'T let this happen again!!

No more.

[wisteria]

40. One thing I have learned in life is to never say never. n/t

[truedelphi]

14. Autorank discusses this over at -- http://tinyurl.com/34b8pu

And it is true that he never lost.

There were 93,000 ballots that were proven to be stolen in Ohio.

Additionally, there were 250,000 ballots that were never counted.

Supposedly, on November 5th, he was told that he needed 136,000 (or 139,000 depending on which account you believe) in order to win Ohio.

He was also told that there were only 150,000 to 160,000 ballots outstanding and that it would be nigh impossible to achieve 136 to 139 K votes by his demanding a count of the 160,000 ballots. And it was not yet known that the 93,000 votes had been stolen.

Now do the math: let's say he did need 139,000 votes. But we first delete 93,000 votes from the George Bush column - as these are overvotes (In other words, they come from the fact that a county with for example 4,300 voters instead registered the high number of 7,000 votes for Bush -not a possibility!)

So once you erase those out of the George Bush column - Kerry is only behind by 46,000.

Then he needs to get 55% of the remaining uncounted quarter million ballots - probably do-able, since those ballots came from the more progressive areas and sources. (Some of these were provisional ballots and provisional are most often people who have recently moved nd not been correctly assessed to the new precinct. These were in some cases the people that the RNC deliberately tried to purge from getting to vote.)

[OnTheOtherHand]

73. a lot of this isn't right

There aren't "93,000 ballots that were proven to be stolen in Ohio." I think that's a figure for ballots without a presidential preference.

But we first delete 93,000 votes from the George Bush column - as these are overvotes (In other words, they come from the fact that a county with for example 4,300 voters instead registered the high number of 7,000 votes for Bush -not a possibility!)

That's not what "overvotes" means. An overvote refers to a ballot with too many votes -- for instance, a vote for Kerry and for Badnarik. Some of the 93,000 uncounted ballots are overvotes; that doesn't mean that they were counted for Bush, or anyone else.

[truedelphi]

93. You are correctin my misusing the term "over votes"

I should have said "extra votes"

Now I may be wrong about other assumptions as well.

Please refer to my new comments and remarks posted below this reply to yours.

Any information that you have is valuable.

[truedelphi]

92. Here is the article wherein I get the notion of 93,000 extra votes

My comment: Take any one of the precincts below. What this article is saying is that for instance in Bay Village - There should have been (if there had been 100% turn out - almost an impossible occurrence in our country) 13,710 votes cast. But there weren't. Instead, Rockwell finds that 18,663 ballots were cast. And who do you think the excess votes went to? They certainly never went to Kerry.

Here is the Article
Extra Votes In
Cuyahoga County -
Outrage In Ohio
By Teed Rockwell
Philosophy Department, Sonoma State University
11-12-4

<snip>
29 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, reported votes cast IN EXCESS of the number of registered voters - at least 93,136 extra votes total. And the numbers are right there on the official Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website:

Bay Village - 13,710 registered voters / 18,663 ballots cast
Beachwood - 9,943 registered voters / 13,939 ballots cast
Bedford - 9,942 registered voters / 14,465 ballots cast
Bedford Heights - 8,142 registered voters / 13,512 ballots cast
Brooklyn - 8,016 registered voters / 12,303 ballots cast
Brooklyn Heights - 1,144 registered voters / 1,869 ballots cast
Chagrin Falls Village - 3,557 registered voters / 4,860 ballots cast
Cuyahoga Heights - 570 registered voters / 1,382 ballots cast
Fairview Park - 13,342 registered voters / 18,472 ballots cast

Highland Hills Village - 760 registered voters / 8,822 ballots cast
Independence - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast
Mayfield Village - 2,764 registered voters / 3,145 ballots cast
Middleburg Heights - 12,173 registered voters / 14,854 ballots cast
Moreland Hills Village - 2,990 registered voters / 4,616 ballots cast
North Olmstead - 25,794 registered voters / 25,887 ballots cast
Olmstead Falls - 6,538 registered voters / 7,328 ballots cast
Pepper Pike - 5,131 registered voters / 6,479 ballots cast
Rocky River - 16,600 registered voters / 20,070 ballots cast
Solon (WD6) - 2,292 registered voters / 4,300 ballots cast
South Euclid - 16,902 registered voters / 16,917 ballots cast
Strongsville (WD3) - 7,806 registered voters / 12,108 ballots cast
University Heights - 10,072 registered voters / 11,982 ballots cast
Valley View Village - 1,787 registered voters / 3,409 ballots cast
Warrensville Heights - 10,562 registered voters / 15,039 ballots cast
Woodmere Village - 558 registered voters / 8,854 ballots cast
Bedford (CSD) - 22,777 registered voters / 27,856 ballots cast
Independence (LSD) - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast
Orange (CSD) - 11,640 registered voters / 22,931 ballots cast
Warrensville (CSD) - 12,218 registered voters / 15,822 ballots

[OnTheOtherHand]

95. OK, that's a different 93,000 votes, but this article is obsolescent

This guy was pretty confused: as may be obvious, these aren't "precincts." And it's far from obvious that 93,000 extra votes in Cuyahoga County -- even outside Cleveland -- would have benefited Bush. But it's moot, because these numbers came from double-counting of some turnout figures at the ward or municipality level, but didn't affect the vote counts. I think a DU thread documented this in excruciating detail. If you look at the final vote totals from Cuyahoga, you'll see that there's nothing like any of these ballot figures -- nor did 93,000 presidential votes get taken away. Some weird things happened in the Cuya count (like the few precincts where third-party candidates got hundreds of votes)*, but this seems to have been just weird reporting.

I think there were actually about 94,000 residual votes (undervotes and overvotes) statewide -- of course different figures were reported at different times.

*ETA: Almost certainly attributable to 'caterpillar crawl' -- most of those votes probably were intended for Kerry, cast using the templates for other precincts at the same polling places.

--Oh, I should've said: now I understand exactly why you said what you did. I never noticed that these two figures were so similar.

[truedelphi]

117. Okay so the article smells old (According to your spelling!)

You say: "I think a DU thread documented this in excruciating detail."

WOuld you happen to ahve a citation??

[OnTheOtherHand]

123. well, here is part of it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=111276&mesg_id=111353

Upthread from there a bit are several links, one of which I think points to a fuller discussion on DU.

[Skittles]

15. he didn't fight it so in my mind he did

he gave up

[LittleClarkie]

98. If we can't even agree here that he won, what chance did he have

and the party wasn't even on his side.

[saracat]

17. Very true. And some want to "believe" he lost because it justifies the fact that

the Clinton's worked behind the scenes to ensure he "lost". Remember Carville election night? Hmm. Making "sure" Ohio was screwed up? But some just dismiss the evidence in Woodard's book. A Kerry Presidency would have meant that Hillary would never be president and that was not going to happen. John Kerry was elected President as was Al Gore. We can't let this happen again.

[rhett o rick]

58. So how are you going to stop it from happening again? The Democrats in Congress

seem to be ok with it.

[MonkeyFunk]

84. Ah, the anecdote with no point

people love to tell that Carville story, but they never say what it means.

First, why was carville told? He didn't work for the Kerry campaign. Did they WANT him to convey the message? We don't know.

Was it meant to be a secret? We don't know.

What changed once Matalin knew about it? We don't know.

Did the White House learning about it a few hours earlier change anything? How? We don't know.

But boy, it sure is some story, isn't it?

[smalll]

18. (inadvertent dupe - sorry!) /nt

[smalll]

19. Um, read mine, yes he did.

The polls just before the voting predicted Bush winning with about 3% over Kerry in the popular vote. He ended up with about a 2.5% margin. So you tell me (amongst other things)

1) How did they know they would have to steal Ohio? In the last few weeks of the campaign, the key putative "swing states" bounced around - Ohio was just one of many at the time.

2) How did they have the foresight and skill to both plan and manage to "run up the score" around the country as well (to get those couple extra winning percentage points in the popular tally)?

LET THIS THREAD BE A LESSON for the more passionate of the anti-Hillary types: some people never get past denial, years and years after the world has passed them by, they're still fighting for the Emperor of Japan in their minds from the god-forsaken jungles of some island in the Pacific. Banzai!

[PresidentObama]

21. WTF? I'm NOT anti-Hillary or anti-Clinton. Where in the hell did you get that?

Stop putting words in my mouth.

[smalll]

29. No no no! I didn't mean to imply that about you - what I meant was that I see a certain parallel -

between people who STILL think that Kerry actually won 2004, now three long years after most people have come to terms with the loss and healed, and people who (at least today) declare that they will NEVER vote for Hillary -- most, almost all of them will come around in the end after all, but there will be a few who will reach January 20th, 2009 - that day when Bush finally ceases to be President, and when a Democrat will re-take the White House -- and they'll still feel bitter and hateful and feel that they've "lost." In my mind, both of those are really very sad little dead-ends to find oneself in. Don't go there! -- is what I'm trying to say.

[PresidentObama]

32. I think it's fair to argue Kerry didn't lose, because the evidence is there.

People who suggest they won't vote for Hillary are crazy. We MUST elect a Democratic President. The "loss" of Kerry only shows us how painful it is when a Democrat loses to an idiot like Bush. We get stuck with the mess just like in 2000, when Gore was robbed.

[MelissaB]

30. Well, I think you need to have a look at the ER forum

for a little education and what was known before the election and how things played out afterward.

I've got to get my kids in the bed or I'd point you in the right direction.

[wisteria]

35. 60,000 votes.That is what stood between Sen Kerry and the White House.

There was massive disenfranchisement, faulty voting machines, Republican SOS's in place in Florida and Ohio to make sure all advantages were given to Bush and exit polls that had Kerry winning -until late in the evening- and after Rove was said to tell worried staff that their base would be voting later and not to worry.

"Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House."



http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

[David Zephyr]

43. I agree with you and Ohio was stolen.

Kerry won just as Gore won before him.

Stealing elections to perpetuate the Bush Dynasty is staus quo. Don't count the Bush family out yet.

[Fly by night]

46. As were New Mexico, Nevada and Iowa (and likely Florida as well).

In addition, votes were flipped in dozens of other states to create a false sense of "mandate" (the only "mandate" Bush ever had was with Jeff Gannon).

Any poster on this thread who believes Kerry lost should spend the next week reviewing the archives of the DU Election Reform forum. There's more than ample evidence (and citations) there to help you kick the Rethug flying monkey minion kool-aid.

[mtnsnake]

47. He should've beat the worst pres in history by a landslide. Instead he got throttled by an imbecile!

How embarrassing was that. John Kerry did the impossible, he got outsmarted by a total idiot. Kerry and his handlers ran the worst campaign at the most crucial time in American history. Pathetic!

Yeah, Kerry never lost alright. That's why he's sitting in the WH, eh.

[wisteria]

49. I'd reply, but why bother,you don't really want to know the facts. n/t

[ProSense]

48. Bush does anything he wants to! The current candidates haven't done/can't do anything to stop him.

Americans got what they deserved, and didn't work hard enough to avoid: Two terms of Bush.

[wisteria]

50. Good points. n/t

[ProSense]

51. We see a lot of comparisons of Hillary to Bush, but here is what Obama is doing

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama ripped a page straight from the Bush campaign playbook with his announced upcoming three date barnstorm tour through South Carolina with notorious gay basher, gospel singer Donnie McClurkin.

The Grammy winning black gospel singer's last effort on the political scene was his song and shill for Bush's reelection at the Republican National Convention in 2004.

[wisteria]

53. What is that old saying, politics make strange bedfellows? Or something like that.

I am surprised he would do this-I actually thought better of him. What a shame.

[ProSense]

52. Interesting tidbit

But two big Bush 2000 states where Kerry pulled close stayed in the red zone: Florida and Ohio, with their less than ethical governors, sleazy secretaries of state, and voter suppression tactics, proved to be insurmountable...

http://www.bigleftoutside.com">more

If Bush had lost two those states, the electoral outcome would have been Kerry 299 to Bush 239.
New Mexico would have given Kerry 301 to Bush 234.

I find this interesting because the dirty tricks robbed Kerry of what would have been a landslide victory.

Ohio alone would have been Kerry 272 to Bush 266.

[wisteria]

54. It is sad to have to go back and see how the results came about. n/t

[rhett o rick]

55. Wrongo bongo my friend. The definition of "winning" in this case is who ends up in the White House

and it shur aint Kerry. If I remember right he conceded. The definition of concede is to give up. John Kerry gave up, he conceded. Even to this day he concedes. Read my lips, John Kerry lost. He didn't even put up much of a fight.

[ProSense]

56. So Al Gore lost!

Congrats Bush!

Happy?

[rhett o rick]

113. Happy? Don't take out your frustrations on me. I did all I could. Al Gore

conceded. That means he accepts defeat. I didn't accept defeat. In sports if you concede the game, it don't matter what the score is, you loose.

[wisteria]

59. Winners don't always get what is rightfully theirs. n/t

[bleever]

60. John Kerry, and America, were cheated.

.

[wisteria]

61. You are so right! n/t

[rhett o rick]

114. Agree, and we all took it like good little subjects. nm

[Rhythm and Blue]

64. Yes, he did. John Kerry did not win the election.

Please, can't we just leave desperate clinging to wisps of conspiracies in the post-defeat depression of 2005?

[kster]

66. The Americans that voted for him got cheated, John Kerry not so much

he was a corporate selected candidate he took his loss like a corporate toady, he took it just like a corporate toady is expected to do.

[karynnj]

94. There are few politician of his standing who are less corporate toddies then John Kerry

He was among the first Senators to reject PAC financing - even though that made fund raising harder. He never - in any of his 4 Senate races took PAC money. He stood alone to fight BCCI. He authored the Clean Money, clean elections bill with Wellstone.

He was also not "selected". He won Iowa with no media people thinking he had a chance. If the corporations choose him don't you think they would have given him money - he was in real money trouble in December 2003 - he mortgaged his house for money to continue competing in Iowa. That is just an attempt by disgruntled Dean supporters to find a scapegoat rather than admit that Dean imploded in the last weeks before the caucus.

[Major Hogwash]

67. Our votes are no more secure this time around as they were the last time!

Because the Democrats in Congress haven't done a flippin' thing to secure the sanctity of our voting system!!

[Rhythm and Blue]

89. Nor are they any more secure than in 2006, where you may recall that we won. nt

[Major Hogwash]

102. Who's "we" paleface? The Democrats won local races, not a national race.

And the last time I looked, the Presidential campaign was a national race!

Kerry has not done ONE DAMNED thing to secure our vote since he lost in 2004.

And yet the Democrats are in charge of Congress now!

[Milo_Bloom]

68. We know there was gop hanky panky, BUT

is there proof that there were absolutely enough votes to put him in the white house, the way there was with Al Gore?

I don't think it has even been proven that even minus the BS, the votes were absolutely 100% there.

[LeftCoast]

69. So?

:shrug:

[Echo In Light]

70. The biggest aspect of this issue is how the mainline media omitted/obfuscated info...

Whoops...suddenly those exit polls don't count for anything!

...Sort of an odd tactic for our so-called "liberal" media. I've noticed that, often times, those who don't understand that there isn't a "liberal" media, and that this oft heard talking point is merely a right-wing stratagem used to limit dissent against corporatism, are usually the same ones who strongly disagree with reality: Bush/Cheney were never elected.

The biggest problem Dem's have is how they continually allow right-wingers to establish and dictate the framework of the debate. Had the fourth estate done its job, there'd be no Bush/Cheney regime, no 9/11, and the U.S. wouldn't be in Iraq.

Read Greg Palast and Mark Crispin Miller. Others have written books on this also.

[OnTheOtherHand]

74. yeah, there are plenty of people writing books

A preponderance of the evidence says that Kerry lost. But that doesn't make a very interesting book concept. :shrug:

[Echo In Light]

76. Other? Sounds like the same RIGHT hand to me...

...and who exactly do you cite for your "preponderance of evidence?"

I get a kick out of this: if anyone doesn't espouse the mainstream view of any issue, they're either a "crazy conspiracy theorist," or of course are merely hoping to cash in and turn a quick buck based on hysteria and 'nonsense' i.e. anything that falls outside of the mainstream. Quack...

[OnTheOtherHand]

79. that's a typically reasoned response (not)

Hey, you can post veiled accusations that I'm a winger if it makes you feel good.

If you want to discuss exit polls, you could read this and get back to me if you want. There's lots of stuff you could read about 2004, some by political scientists, some by journalists, some by statisticians....

I don't think that folks like Mark Crispin Miller are cashing in -- you made that up. My point is that there are more books arguing that the election was stolen than arguing, explicitly, that the election wasn't stolen because it's inherently a more interesting argument. By now there are probably hundreds of books by political scientists that seek to explain, rather than to deny, the Bush victory. As far as I can tell, most of those scholars don't consider Miller interesting enough to refute. That's just how it is, even if it happens that he is right and they are wrong. But I've spent a lot of time on the issue, and I think they're right.

If you think you know otherwise, go ahead and present it yourself.

[GeorgeGist]

75. No, but he did quit.

[truckin]

85. One fact about the 2004 election is that no one can say with any

certainty who actually won the popular vote since so many votes were cast on paperless touch-screen machines. Whole states, including Georgia, Maryland and others, only used these machines. It is impossible to prove whther these machines counted votes accurately since no one has access to the code used in them. What we do know is that the companies that manufacture these machines are run by Republicans, one even promising to deliver Ohio to Bush.

There is no proof that Kerry won Ohio but there is much circumstancial evidence and the way the recount and subsequent lawsuit turned out we will never know what really happenned.

I believe that Kerry did not contest the results because he had little chance of changing the outcome even if he had been cheated and he did not want to look like a sore loser and jeapordize a run for President in 2008. Just my opinion, but I don't think Kerry not fighting the outcome proves anything.

[MBS]

88. exactly n/t

[LittleClarkie]

100. He was a former prosecutor. I don't think he'd go to court unless he had solid

evidence of wrongdoing. Circumstantial wasn't going to cut it. So I agree with you. He didn't even have as good a case as Gore.

And looking around here, I reckon if WE can't come to a consensus on whether he won or lost, I can't see where he had much support from the party to pursue it anyway.

[karynnj]

139. I agree on everything here, except Kerry's likely motivation

I doubt he saw 2008 as anything but a long shot. As to being seen as a sore loser, if he had a case that could be made in November or December, I assume he would have fought it.

The time is so short that only a clear conclusive case would have any chance at all. Consider that in NH, where Republicans are in jail for jamming the GOTV lines in 2002, it took until late 2006 to get the case through the courts - and Sununu is still in the Senate. The time from November to January is sufficient for recounts, but not close to adequate to deal with outright fraud.

[cosmik debris]

77. And how long will it take you to get over that?

We have more important battles to fight than the ones we lost years ago. Yes, we did loose, because we did not win.

Now quit acting like a die-hard Rebel yelling that "The South will Rise Again!" Get over it, move on, and fight today's battles.

[lojasmo]

78. Kerry lost by a wide margin. EOM

[mod mom]

81. CORRECT KERRY & GORE NEVER LOST! It was silence from a powerful group within

the Democratic Party that helps perpetuate this falsehood:

I am convinced that the failure of the DLC to acknowledge Gore's win in 2000 (in fact they blame his "loss" on breaking with the DLC and becoming a populist-i'll post a link below) and their active role in keeping Kerry from challenging Ohio in 2004(thanks to Clinton ally James Carville (also posted below) was calculated as to allow a HRC run in '08. If either would have taken the office they won, then HRC and her corporate cronies would not have had a chance in 2008. Also look how they try to undermine Howard Dean. Anyway, here are some links:

FIRST..GORE BROKE WITH THE DLC TO BECOME A POPULIST:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner
A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

SECOND, AFTER GORE'S WIN THEY BLAME HIS 'LOSS' ON BREAKING WITH THE DLC:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.
Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

AND FINALLY, CLINTON ALLY JAMES CARVILLE'S ROLE IN THE QUICK KERRY CONCESSION:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

RESEARCH THIS FOR YOURSELVES, BEFORE YOU CAST A VOTE FOR ANY DLC CANDIDATE!

[LittleClarkie]

96. He gets it both ways it seems

He was a lousy candidate, and lost, and so he is put down.

He won, but didn't fight, and so he is put down.

Lose/Lose

[JNelson6563]

99. But unlike Gore, Kerry never fought

Therein lies the difference. In 2004 Team Kerry packed up and moved by what...? Mid-day the day after elections? Something like that.

While I agree Bush "won" through shenanigans both times, Kerry kicked up n'ary any dust. I will never forget or completely forgive that.

Julie

[wisteria]

101. Comparing Gore's response to Kerry's is wrong headed. The results were different.

The response had to be different too. Fighting a close vote is one thing, trying to fight a subjective conclusion of loss due to unlawful activities and theft without air tight proof immediately available, would of been folly. I have no doubt that VP Gore would not of fought had he been left in the circumstances Senator Kerry found himself in. In other words, Gore had something to fight with-Kerry had nothing.

[Major Hogwash]

107. How are the results any different? Bush was in the White House both times.

Seriously, you guys need to focus on the future, not the past.
Arguing the fine points about whether Gore did the right thing, or Kerry did the right thing is history.

It's a waste of time - and the Iowa caucuses are only 73 days away!!

[wisteria]

112. It is not reliving the past ,but defending it. And, some may feel our best candidates are behind us.

Also,there is such a thing as multitasking. One can still defend the past and support the future.

[JNelson6563]

115. Could've at least waited till votes were counted.

But no, we don't want to make a fuss or anything. :eyes:

Julie

[RebelSansCause]

105. Where Can I Find the Evidence on DU? I believe but want to see n/t

[Fabio]

116. Let it go.

[Vektor]

120. It's hard sometimes.

It seems such a shame. When you look at the direction this country has gone in under the thumb of corrupt leadership.

America deserves so much better, ya know? ;-)

[Fabio]

142. I dont disagree.

Believe me, I wanted JK to be president. Worked fairly hard at it, in fact. its just that i see so much wasted energy on this issue. But this is a larger problem with DU and blogging now in general IMHO. Energy wasted on words -- particularly dem in fighting.

[Vektor]

147. Very true.

I find the Dem infighting rather disconcerting myself, and yes, the blogs, DU included can get ugly with it, and it's a shame.

I too worked very hard at getting JK to be president, as I'm sure you also did. I guess it's rather maddening when you look at how hard we all worked, and that the specters of e-voting and a corrupt election system still looms, making us unsure as to whether or not we'll ever see a "genuinely elected" President, or our hard work rewarded accordingly.

Even those of us not inclined to subscribe to "tin-foil hat conspiracy theories" can safely cast a suspicious eye on the way we count votes in this country.

I know I'm not telling you anything you're not aware of. You know the score.

I do see where the frustration comes from for so many, like this poster. And yeah, words won't get a whole lot done. We all know what happened in 2000 and 2004, we can talk about it until we're blue in the face, and it's not going to remedy the problem. We need to work together and Congress needs to work with us to bring change.

A tall order, I know, but worth fighting for - just not among ourselves.

[Totally Committed]

121. Read MY lips: Then he shouldn't have conceded.

I believe he won the popular vote. Unfortunately, that makes me feel worse, not better, in light of the last 3 years.

Remember Boris Yeltsin outside the Kremlin, standing ontop of a car with that bullhorn? He wasn't going anywhere until the Russian people got what they wanted.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/04/24/yeltsin_meg_wideweb__470x303,0.jpg



If Kerry had pulled as bold a move, I know I would have supported him. I would have taken to the streets until every last stinking vote was counted -- even if it took weeks... months, even.

Instead, he skulked off only hours after saying he wouldn't and conceded to Bush before all the votes were counted -- I'm talking absentee votes, military votes from overseas... every stinking vote.

I would have backed him.

But, it is time to put this shit to bed. He won, but he conceded. LET IT GO.

TC

[McCamy Taylor]

127. Exactly. Kerry won the vote but he lost the greater battle for democracy.

He is a loser where it counts. All he cared about was himself. "Did I win? Did I win? What if the press turns nasty on me like they did on Al Gore? Will that mess up my chances for a second run for the White House? What if I look like a sore loser?"

Hundreds of thousands of people in Ohio were stripped of their lawful vote, and he knew that the DOJ and the Republican Congress would do nothing to restore their rights. He knew that he was the only one who could stand up for them. Did he? Hell no! He chose to stand up for himself only.

Some hero. Thomas Paine would have known just what kind of "patriot" Kerry was. A summer patriot.

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

[karynnj]

137. Kerry had no basis to stand on and the party did not support a challange

He, unlike Edwards, did speak of the the various ways votes were suppressed. He also sponsored with Feingold legislation to correct some of the problems in Ohio. It would have required that paper ballots - to be counted as regular votes, be available to be used if lines were too long or machines failed.

The problem was that many things couldn't be rectified after the fact. Gore had punch cards to get examined for more votes - Kerry had people who abandoned the effort to vot because they could not wait 4 hours. (I am in awe of the Ohio people who waited that long or longer often in the rain. That dedication tells you something.)

[Totally Committed]

138. F*ck the Party! The people would have supported a bold-ass move by him

on election night. He would have been a hero. He would have revitalized and rejuvenated the Democratic Party. But, he didn't.

Instead, he is what he is now: someone who ran for POTUS and LOST. (You admit defeat when you concede. He LOST)

Get over it, and move the hell on.

No revisionist bullshit should be allowed while another election is taking place. It's 3+ years after the fact. Move on.

TC

[karynnj]

144. I agree that he lost - even if there was potentially cheating

Nothing I am saying is revisionist history. I'm saying nothing that was not said in November 2004. There clearly were problems, that may or may not have changed the result - but there was no proof.

He would most definitely not have been a hero - and it would not have revitalized or rejuvenated the party - which would have quickly abandoned him. I did not start this and was responding to others. I have as much right to my opinion as you to yours.

As to the next election - what is being done to secure it? - Now, before it is too late. Dodd is on the correct committee - and he has done nothing. HRC introduced a bill and has done little. If it was all Kerry's responsibility in 2004, then it will be the responsibility of the 2008 candidate. There seems no real effort. The lesson of 2004, is that even having lawyers in place, finding and establishing fraud after the fact in time to "correct" the results is impossible. To me, this means the only solution is insuring it doesn't happen. So, the issue is relevant - and both Gore and Kerry were the victims.

[Totally Committed]

145. I agree with you about securing the next election.

It seems as though the only "securing" that has been done is by the DLC and their Corporate friends making sure Hillary "secures" the nomination. The "fix" is in, I think.

But the GE is still up for grabs. It should be an election night similar to the child's story "Toadies's Wild Ride". If she wins the GE, I will know the Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/ Clinton plan for America is ontrack, and after two terms we can expect to see Jeb win. I think they'll make sure the machines elect the correct candidate. Mustn't rock the boat by making sure everyone's vote actually counts... :sarcasm:

TC

[LittleClarkie]

130. I still love the guy, but he's not a bold move kinda person

He would have needed hard, take it to court, uncircumstancial evidence to no concede. He didn't have it.

But I still support him nonetheless.

[BigDDem]

126. 3 words:

Let it go.

[PresidentObama]

128. Three words: He never lost.

So fuck no I won't let it go. I'll move on forward, but I'll NEVER let it go. Same with 2000.

If we forget about the past, we'll see the same mistakes in the future!!

[BigDDem]

132. Alrighty!

Good luck with that!

[PresidentObama]

146. So if we're cheated in 2008, will you be saying let it go again?

History has a way of repeating itself, doesn't it?

I guess you like "losing" then.

[BlueIris]

135. Kick.

[itcfish]

141. Exactly

Both Gore and Kerry won, Bush stole, and the American people lost.

[Imagevision]

143. Read my lips: Kerry never lost! --> neither did; "Skull And Bones"...

[Freddie Stubbs]

148. Regardless of wheather or not he lost, he certainly didn't win