I think Kerry lost the 2004 election

[Clintonista2]

I don't think 2004 was stolen. I think that Kerry ran one of the worst campaigns ever, and I think the RW noise machine was extremely effective. For the record, I believe that 2000 WAS stolen.

[Ian David]

1. Do you really have enough time to engage in that flame war, or are you just dropping a grenade? n/t

[bonito]

142. LOL!

:rofl:

[Fly by night]

163. The "joke" is the OP, and s/he's not funny. Rip Van Winkle(s), this is your wake-up call.

The 2004 Presidential election was stolen in as many ways as the Rethug thieves could think of to do it. I am glad to see that many people posted below to refute your delusion. I'm not going to take the time now. I would recommend you go to www.uncountedthemovie.com and order that DVD. It is a good starting point for the election theft-denying couch potatoes in our midst to review the evidence for the 2004 election theft.

Anyone who has an interest in this issue could do well to review the threads in the Election Reform forum here beginning after the 2004 election. The evidence has been laid out many times, the links to that evidence have been posted innumerable times, so it's not like you'd actually have to do any real work to find it.

But as we all know, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Ignorance is bliss. Until it isn't.

[bonito]

174. You don't have to convince me

The #1 post made me laugh is all. :shrug:

[Fly by night]

178. I linked with you to show I agree that the OP was laughable ...

... if I only thought that stolen election were funny. I also wanted my displeasure with the willful ignorance of the OP to be registered at the beginning of this thread and not in the end. But I agree with you: Kerry lost the election? Yeah, what a joke.

Now that 31 states have passed legislation to require voter-verified paper ballots, I think the last laugh will be on the Rethug election thieves. I just hope they keep doing the same things, because we will be happy to give them a different result.

By my reading of the Constitution, treason is a capital offense.

[OKNancy]

2. Lots of people agree

but you can't really argue it here. Good luck

[NoPasaran]

3. Not a popular view at DU

But I completely agree with you.

[Deja Q]

20. Popularity and reality are sadly two very different concepts.

[autorank]

143. But reality is very direct...this administration steals everything not nailed down.

Bush is the dirtiest President we've had in modern times. The list of his crimes and the damage he's done does not need to be enumerated here. But we're to believe, according to some, that despite the universal, pervasive, consistently demonstrated conspicuous corruption seen from day 1, during 2004, they played fair. Not likely, not likely at all...but keep supporting that notion.

Election 2004: The Urban Legend



Word doc download
Suitable to send to your Members of Congress

And part 1 of a follow up on the “Urban Legend of 2004” –

"Notes from the Underground"

Why the 2004 Presidential Election Still Matters. Part 1: The Legend

[OnTheOtherHand]

159. straw man

The OP doesn't assert that the Bush campaign played fair.

As for Urban Legend, I still say it's a reeeeally long argument that "The exit polls were wrong, so the exit polls were right." Oh-kay.

[karynnj]

171. But you can make the simpler argument

that the 4 hour plus lines in icy November rain did result in votes not cast. Cam and John Kerry both spoke of the fact that votes were lost by various means of suppressing the vote. They have also taken care to let others, RFK jr for one, to estimate the votes lost by various means. 59,000 votes is not a small number - but the number of ways the vote was minimized were many. It clearly brings it into a philosophical question. (You can use estimates of this to challenge)

One thing is clear - cheating or not - the election came down to 59,000 votes in Ohio. Had the OBL tape not appeared, the race may have continued the way it was going with Kerry asking how they could not guard known ammo dumps, leading to that ammo being made into IEDs and being thrown at "our kids". The momentum was with Kerry. (In fact, I would not be surprised if years from now we learn that that tape was fake or that the Bush administration sat on it for weeks to use it as a political tool.)

[OnTheOtherHand]

172. we're not far apart

RFK Jr.'s article has many big problems, but I don't question the premise that many people were disenfranchised, through various means before, on, and perhaps even after election day. I'm not convinced that it was enough to swing the election -- but then again, I think that efforts to disenfranchise people are despicable whether they can be proven to have altered an election outcome or not.

Somewhat similarly, I'm not convinced that Kerry had enough momentum at the end to win the popular vote minus the OBL tape, but I agree that the timing was suspicious.

If memory serves (it often doesn't these days), we already got a chance on another thread to agree that Kerry ran a pretty good campaign, and surely doesn't deserve all the armchair abuse he often gets. Who is most to blame for swiftboating? the swiftboaters.

[karynnj]

176. I think we very close

I agree that many things RFK jr estimated have no real valid estimator and that 59,000 is a pretty big number. I agree with you that the important thing is to work to prevent any intentional disenfranchisement. I thought Kerry's speech when he spoke on the voting rights act was very good because he listed many things that were done - that shouldn't have happened.

I do think the OBL could have made a big enough difference. The people tuning in just in the last minute - heard the Bush people saying Al Qaeda wanted Kerry and accusing him of blaming Bush for Al Qaeda being out there. The alternative was to continue to hear Kerry speak of IEDs. His numbers were moving with that and it wouldn't have taken a big move at all to make the Ohio number positive for Kerry. (I think that it was so effective, not just because of the incompetence - but in a weird way it validated Kerry's genuine closeness and concern for those fighting - because of how he called them "our kids". I know it affected a few women I knew - though they were already for Kerry. There was an emotional level there that was stronger than on other things - maybe because it directly dealt with the way the soldiers were being used.

[sendero]

31. As do I...

.. if Howard Dean had been nominated he would have been President Dean.

Kerry didn't have the stuff and he still doesn't.

And we're about to make a similar nomination mistake again. I'm really sick of Iowa and New Hampshire. They are killing us.

[tomreedtoon]

67. Well, you could've asked Florida, but it's too late.

Besides, Florida's Democrats are just a branch of the Republican Party anyway. They put up a token defense and weak candidates, then get mad when somebody like Dean calls them on their pretensions.

[MethuenProgressive]

4. I think he was one strong VP running mate away from victory.

Kerry/Clark would've won.
Clark would've pounded the Swiftboaters into the ground.

[cobalt1999]

11. I always thought a Kerry / Bob Graham ticket would have been unbeatable.

Especially in 2000, a Gore / Bob Graham ticket would have carried Florida by huge margins.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Maybe Hillary Should Take Bill Nelson

Heads would explode here...

[cobalt1999]

26. LOL, yes they would.

Too bad Nelson has a fraction of the popularity Bob Graham has here, it would have been fun to watch the aftermath.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

155. I Live In Orlando And Have Met Bill Nelson

He's not Bob Graham but he has made himself a "playa" in Florida politics...

[JCMach1]

138. Graham had some health issues... that's why he retired...

:(

[earthlover]

15. I agree...Clark as VP would have led to a clear cut victory, steal-proof

The stuff the swiftboaters used against Kerry was brought up by some of us before he was nominated. This sort of stuff was dismissed, however, because of the belief that Kerry was "electable".

I hope we don't have a similar miopia in 08 about nominating a candidate who could be swiftboated easier than the rest. The rationalization...ironically....and I read it all the time....the Reps would swift boat anyone so we may as well nominate the most swiftboateable of our choices. I shake my head, but some of us really want to believe that

[sandyd921]

5. Interesting hobby

listed on your profile. Can I assume the comment about your hobby is sarcastic?

[Clintonista2]

10. No, you can't

I geuss writing "**Eye roll** beside the comment didn't tip you off. Anyways, your point with regards to the OP was...?

[graywarrior]

6. *snort*

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[MrSlayer]

7. As he isn't sitting in the White House, I'd have to agree.

Cheated or not, the man is not the President.

[LoZoccolo]

8. I asked for a brief summary of the evidence right after 2004...

...because all I was seeing were those TruthIsAll charts which everyone said "thanks for posting" but I knew they didn't have the knowledge necessary to tell whether or not they were true. I wasn't really asking for the records, just where was the discrepancy was; for instance, the big problem in Florida in 2000 could be stated concisely as "a purge of felons from the voting rolls was grossly inaccurate, audits of inaccuracies were left out by order of the people commissioning the list, and this disenfranchised many more people than the official margin of victory". About 2004, people were just saying things like "if anyone doesn't think it was stolen, they are blind" so I gave up asking and figured that there wasn't really an argument.

[mtnsnake]

9. "I think that Kerry ran one of the worst campaigns ever"

Ya think?

[rainy]

12. OHIO nt

[Hissyspit]

13. Huge Corruption. Exit Polls. n/t

[JackBeck]

14. Caging lists. n/t

[JackBeck]

23. And for reference points, see: Greg Palast and Tim Griffin. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. My Memory Is Hazy

But I read if it wasn't for the influx of young voters he would have suffered a Dukakis like defeat...We acctually did better among African Americans and Hispanics in 00...

[Mz Pip]

17. I don't know what to believe

Were there attempts at vote fraud? Probably. But every mismanaged polling place isn't necessarily proof of fraud. I live in the most liberal region of a blue state and there have been times when my polling place has been changed at the last minute. One time I wasn't on the voter list even though I've always voted. I had to vote on a provisional ballot. Well, whatever. In a district where it's 90% Democratic it seems unlikely that there was any malfeasance occurring.

But if it happened and there was proof why the f*ck didn't Kerry fight this to the bitter end? He gave his concession speech pretty damn quick if I remember correctly. So I'll put the 2004 election in my "maybe" file. If Kerry had not caved and conceded and pressed the issue maybe I would feel differently. All in all I thought he ran a crappy campaign.

So maybe it was both. There was fraud and Kerry ran a crappy campaign. Maybe it was just one of them. I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[cobalt1999]

21. You're being way too reasonable and logical

Expect to trashed for that approach. :)

[Mz Pip]

27. Yeah, I know...

Usually I don't bother to post my opinions in these kinds of threads. But what the hell. I usually stay out of the 9/11 conspiracy threads, too.

My mantra, if I have one is: Correlation does not equal causation. Just because someone benefits from a problem doesn't mean they caused it. There are plenty of people in our government who are more than willing and able to take advantage of disasters, tragedies and incompetence. Doesn't mean they caused it. If that makes me a naive, head in the sand, stupid person, so be it.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Deja Q]

18. Kerry bombed in the debates

The flipflop questions against him were amusing, but he had every right to ask the same question in return.

His campaign was worse than Gore's, and as for Gore he had enough working against him before the Supreme Court decision. (His campaign was lackluster too...)

I do believe there was a problem because the popular vote, circa 2000, was not taken into consideration. But the idiocy in during the recounts alone...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. "Bombed In The Debates"

If there's a consensus about anything it is that Kerry slapped Bush* silly in the debates, especially the first one...

Somebody can google the post-debate polls...

[sampsonblk]

41. Debates aren't about that

Kerry may have seemed right on some key points. But he didn't gain any public support from it. He couldn't convince the public to vote for him, despite having all those prime-time appearances. He came off as a smart bore who'd say anything to get elected.

Edit: Obama is making the same mistake in this cycle. He win's the key points and Hillary gets a huge bump because people like her. Its like he's talking to a jury while she is aiming every one of her comments at voters.

[Paladin]

32. "Bombed In The Debates" My Ass

I'm looking at a tape dispenser on my desk at the moment. That tape dispenser could have beaten Bush at those debates, let alone an educated, articulate candidate like Kerry.

It's pretty obvious that you're toting around some sort of agenda, here. I don't suppose there's any chance of your sharing it with us?

[Adelante]

47. Kerry was great in the debates nt

[mvd]

61. Agreed

I do not think he ran a good campaign, but his debates (especially debates 1 and 2) were strong.

[RufusTFirefly]

106. Anybody debating against Dubya is going to look strong

After the first debate, I felt certain there'd be a TKO.
I believed there was no way that Bush would face Kerry in another debate that could turn into a rhetorical bloodbath.

How naive I was!

The deck was stacked. When Kerry quoted Bush almost verbatim about his lack of enthusiasm for catching Osama Bin Laden, Bush gave one of his fingernails-on-the-chalkboard "heh, heh, hehs" and suggested that what Kerry said was an exaggeration even though it was accurate and extremely damning. In other words, Bush had said he didn't lose sleep over Osama and then lied about it when Kerry confronted him. A sensational moment. The next day the lead story was about Kerry's mention of Cheney's daughter and pundits wrung their hands over whether the Senator from Massachusetts had stepped over the line. I knew at that point we were utterly screwed.

[mvd]

123. Kerry is a strong debater

I thought he creamed Bush in all three debates. But the media was not fair.

[Island Blue]

60. What debates did you watch and what were you smoking when you watched them? n/t

[wisteria]

90. What debates did you watch? Kerry won all three of them. n/t

[Sandaasu]

24. Yes, his campaign wasn't the best, but therewas still something screwy there.

The big sticking point is the unusual discrepancies in the exit polls. There was most certainly something wrong going on there.

In any case, we really need to do something about the computerized voting machines. There's simply too much room for abuse of them. Right now, as it is, we're at the mercy of a business, Diebold, to give us fair elections, and that's simply not how it should be.

[lojasmo]

25. Agree.

[DrFunkenstein]

28. I Couldn't Think of a More Timely Moment to Piss Off Kerry Fans

Just for yucks.

Of course, you could say that Kerry had the highest turnout in history for a Democratic candidate and only lost a very tight race because of a secretive grassroots effort of social conservatives to increase turnout against gay marriage.

Or you could also say that some people would make great candidates and some people would make great Presidents. Although some consider Hillary Clinton's campaign to be "flawless," I cannot imagine that a hawk like Clinton could ever match someone like Kerry on matters of policy - which, when you get down to it, is what all of this absurd theater is ultimately about.

[surfermaw]

29. I think the election was stolen from Gore , However if he

had chosen Edwards instead of Lieberman, he would have won the election by such a margin that the republicans and the Super Court couldn't have defeated him, My husband said he could have cried when he announced his choice, did I read someplace that Bill Clinton was in strong support of Lieberman

[jzodda]

30. Kerry fell victim to Swiftboat Scum

In political terms this is ancient history, especially 2000 and has been debated more times over the years then can be counted. Having said that Kerry made his mistake not responding to the swiftboat stuff. He didn't take them seriously till the damage was already done. The coverage of the swiftboat crap was enormous and consumed news cycle after news cycle. It always shocked me that he was not in front of this stuff right away. So many people who don't follow politics were believing this crap, and I think it really cost him dearly. That and Karl Roves strategy to put as may gay marriage amendments on state ballots.

I honestly believe that Bush is the worst president to ever get re-elected. His father was like a giant when compared to the son. In fact Grant's re-election is less surprising then history will look upon this presidents.

[karynnj]

36. Kerry thought the media had more than enough truth before the

attack began. In reality they did. Before August, they had:

had:

- 140 pages of his naval records, with glowing fitness reports spanning the entire interval, some written by SBVT

- the Nixon tapes that showed they investigated him 2 years after the fact in 1971 and found he was a war hero and clean

- None of the SBVT, many of whom were career Navy and likely not against the Vietnam War, spoke up to say Kerry was not a hero in 1971

- There was no "Kerry" story of why he got medals - It was the official Navy record.

- All the men on his boats when he got medals, were 100% behind him

- Doug Brinkley an academic historian's book - backed Kerry 100% and many of those he interviewed became SBVT 2 years later

There is NOTHING in my life I could prove as well as Kerry did his war service. Not grades, work, or even that I am the mother of my kids.

Kerry had every reason to expect the media to reject the alternative SBVT story because they offered no proof and they were against the official record. They also did quickly give the media 36 pages of points in the book that could be definitively shown as wrong and they linked the funding to Bush. The media in return, went from one false claim tpo another, demanding that Kerry disprove each - and they found many people who were there who further corroberated the NAVY's (and Kerry's) account of each event. The most impressive was a conservative Chicago Tribune editor who was the third boat skipper in the Silver Medal account. They did not ask the SBVT for one shred of proof though they were the one's countering the official account. The media was complicit in this character assignation.

For Clinton people to use this is beyond despicable. Look at any of the Clinton "bumps in the road" in 1992. They were mostly problems of his making - and the defense was to attack - and hope the media stayed on their side. In the SBVT lies, Kerry's actions were heroic and deserved praise. Nothing he did in Vietnam was the reason for these attacks. He was attacked on this because the Republicans knew they needed to destroy the idea that he really was a hero. He should have gotten a lot more support from Democrats - the proof was there and they should have seen how important it was - not because of what was done 35 years before, but because it did show Kerry's character.

[jzodda]

66. Well remember the media had all this info

and his people were out there talking about it, but HE was not and that's what hurt him. He waited far too long to come out himself-nothing is more powerful then the candidate speaking on his own behalf. Expecting advisers and allies to do it is never as effective, especially when its a devastating personal attack.

[karynnj]

78. He did speak of it - but there wasn't much coverage

of his speech before the Firefighters where he took it on. The fact is that I know of NOTHING that was so obviously counter to known facts that was given this amount of coverage. In general, surrogates answer these charges. It is easy to have hind sight, but McCain responded directly in 2000 and his campaign immediately imploded.

Had Kerry switched to it, if it were covered, the Republicans would have been praised for taking him off message. In any earlier year getting the truth out would have sufficed.

[jzodda]

135. Kerry has said that he should have responded directly earlier and more forcefully

and in some post election interviews he said he believed that was his campaigns biggest mistake. I agree with that, I also agree with you that its the surrogates job in most cases to respond, but I don't believe that should be the case with swiftboating. Possibly the most devastating attack in a presidential campaign in the history of modern elections. So devastating that the name itself has now developed a lexicon all its own. This attack went to the core of the man's integrity and for the uninformed masses it had a great effect on them. I remember having to set a number of my own co-workers straight on the issue who were mentioning "phony medals" and such. I was totally astounded that they would fall prey to this but they did. Your correct though, hind sight is fore sight and its too bad he didn't really see the damage these attacks were doing until it was too late.

[karynnj]

150. As a grown up, Kerry had to take responsibility for any

failures - and he did. Here, I am not sure I agree with him. He did not say he and his campaign did not respond, but that that they likely should have put more money behind it in the way of ads. Now, Kerry did spend all his general election money, so any money they would have spent would have eliminated something they spent money on downstream.

Even assuming they created an very effective ad, and ad is an ad. In these days, an ad is not taken at face value it would be seen as "his" story. The MSM covering the story - especially in cases like a USAToday article starting out that the truth will never be known is what hurt. Ads wouldn't diffuse that - Kerry was not hurt by the ads as much as by the TV media treating them as possibly true. People assumed if the records were both complete and clear - which they were - the story would never have been on TV. It was and the media played it because it was apparently fun for them. That Kerry had a very clean reputation and had risked his life in that war didn't bother them, though it should.

I agree with you that the attack was the biggest, most dishonest attack in modern history. The closest you get is the attacks on Dukakis. The biggest difference was that there was some underlying truth to the disgraceful race baiting Horton ad - there was a furlough program and he did leave and rape someone - that the program started before Dukakis was governor answered part of it. Here, the basis was a period of Kerry's life that he deserved credit for. The attack was completely false. That is why many of use who respect the Senator have rejected the claims that HRC, Obama and Edwards have been swiftboated, whenever negative things are said about them.

The fact is that by election time, there were very few people who ever would have considered voting for Kerry who believed them - likely because of people like you. Another reason Kerry had to accept the CW that they hurt was because he wanted to run again - had he argued that the information was out there and he had done everything right (which no one does), would anyone trust him?

There are 3 possibilities for 2008 if HRC is the candidate. One is that the media and the powers that be are for her - then any Republican attack will roll off as the media discounts it. The second is that they will favor the Republican, as they did Bush. Then we get a rehash of every Clinton flaw and some new ones - many not true, but a few with some truth, though not the worst interpretation. The third, which I would love but do not expect, is that the press will be fair to both sides. In either of the last two, Democrats might long for Gore or Kerry, with their genuine clean records. (Consider how much worse 2004 would have been if they had any REAL Kerry dirt to use that he could not refute.)

I actually think that the SBVT stuff fizzled out before the election - costing Kerry momentum. Two other ads he could have done in hindsight would have been:
1) As soon as the windsurfing ad was out - put out a quick ad that countered it by having a lead windsurfer (young, fit, NOT Kerry) be shown windsurfing, and have a voice over explain that you need strength, endurance, focus, and ability to go in the direct you choose, often going against the wind. Then allude to Kerry facing down nearly the entire Senate to close OBL's bank, BCCI an action that took the same strength of character, endurance, focus and intellectual ability.
2) In the primaries when he could use the primary money - had an ad that dealt with his and Teresa's environmental projects. It would first of all have defined Teresa, who for a dozen years has hosted a conference on women's oncology and environmental toxins and led the green building movement in Pitts burg by example. Then they were both at Rio for the environmental conference, which led to them working together on Second Nature which was a project to insure that college students learned about sustainable building. They became close friends before they started dating and married. The importance is that it would have shown Teresa Heinz Kerry as the incredible woman she is. In my county, a former Republican supported Kerry in the primary enthusiastically because she had followed Republican politics, adored Teresa and her comment was that Teresa would never have married him if he were sleazy. The Republicans "swiftboated Teresa and their marriage as much as they did his service.

[KoKo]

164. Good points....Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail...n/t

[jzodda]

166. Very good points all around

I enjoy reading your posts :)

[karynnj]

169. Thank you for the kind compliment

The tough thing about such a close race - will always be the "what ifs". The elections lost in a landslide, even for people who love the candidate, think McGovern for us, Goldwater for them, are in some ways easier to take. Here the cruelty of feeling on election day, that an incredible victory - though nearly impossible in September - was happening, made the result beyond painful. I think part of the Kerry bashing is partially that Kerry in October really made people believe in him - and their is some reaction that he failed them by not winning as he promised.

[wisteria]

133. It was the VP's job to go on the attack. The presidential candidate is suppose to stay above it all.

You didn't see Bush defending his war record did you? That was for Rove and the others to do, as well as Cheney. Edward's unfortunately didn't understand his job description.

[ileus]

33. GW won...sad day indeed when we couldn't beat an ID10T.

[Botany]

34. I live in Ohio

I saw "it" w/ my own eyes I heard "it" w/ my own ears.

bush cheated in OH in 2004

BTW fun fact the Ohio 2004 vote was counted in Chattanooga, TN by a company
called Smartech .... Smartech had three other accounts; Bush/Cheney '04, The RNC,
& gwb43.com

[wisteria]

65. Very interesting, I never heard that before. n/t

[cuke]

35. A reasonable review of the facts shows that the election was stolen

It doesn't take any bizarre conspiracy theory. We know that the machines were distributed on a political basis, not a demographic one. We know that voters were disenfranchised through caging, which is illegal. We know that there were a number of criminal activities surrounding the 2004 election. That it was stolen should be the default position

[Hippo_Tron]

44. It shows that all the Republicans as usual used all of their dirty tactics

However, it doesn't show beyond a doubt that Kerry would have won.

[cuke]

48. I disagree

There are dirty tricks in every election, and from both sides. However, the scope and scale were so great as to make election theft the REASONABLE conclusion, not the "beyond a doubt" one

I believe that in the absence of proof, one should go with the preponderance of evidence

[mvd]

37. Ohio had lots of problems

The voter disenfranchisement, intimidation tactics, having companies connected with the Repukes count the votes, the famous power outage, etc. I don't think there was an accurate count in Ohio. I even think Kerry might have won it. But with that much disparity in the popular vote nationwide, I remain unsure. I'd say 100% chance of a Gore victory in 2000, and a 50% chance of a Kerry win in 2004.

[mvd]

39. Oh, and Ohio also had a crooked secretary of state

Blackwell.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. That about sums up where I am

[wisteria]

85. There were other problems in other parts of the country too. And,

the popular vote isn't what necessarily wins elections- the electoral college is. Also, consider the events in 2000 and in 2004 when making any judgments about popularity. VP Gore was running during a time of prosperity and no war- the big issue was morality and he was running against the the newcomer Bush. Senator Kerry was running against a current president who manged to convince many people that the war in Iraq was necessary in order to protect the US. Many people still feared additional attacks and lived in fear- a fear which the Bush campaign capitalized on. Kerry had to challenge Bush on the war, calm people's fears and build trust in a very entrusting nation at that time. Oh, and throw in the gay marriage issue ,abortion, and morality issues too.- all associated with gaining more conservative members of the Supreme Court. I think it is amazing that Senator Kerry was able to win over as many people as he did. Frankly,in 2004 the popular vote was over-rated and can not be compared with VP Gore's 2000 slim popularity win.

[mvd]

94. I agree with some of your points.

But the magnitude of the popular vote loss still should be looked at when considering how many votes in Ohio could have been cheated from Kerry. There might have been enough, but I'm not convinced. Also, I thought Bush was quite weak for an incumbent.

[wisteria]

180. Weak, perhaps, but with fear, the war and the media and bin Laden helping him through the campaign.

Kerry had a tough uphill battle.

[rainy]

139. How do you explain all the exit polls being wrong only in swing states that

used electronic voting machines?

[mvd]

149. Not trying to explain discrepancies away

The exit poll accuracy has been strange ever since Bush took office.

[OnTheOtherHand]

160. totally untrue

One of the largest exit poll discrepancies was in New York, which wasn't a swing state and almost exclusively used lever machines. Most of the biggest discrepancies were in solid blue states, not swing states.

[Mass]

38. Hillary supporters going after Kerry: surprise, surprise....

Not sure what you are trying to accomplish though? How is this helping your candidate?

[sampsonblk]

40. Same here on all counts

Awful campaign.
He lost. Get over it.
Gore was robbed in 2000. The rest of us were robbed (by Kerry) in 2004.

[karynnj]

42. Okay, admit it - you are covertly working against Clinton

You had identified yourself with HRC and you are now trying to alienate one group of people not currently allied with anyone. You may well push me to the point that I will consider a write in vote for my dog, Punky, if she gets the nomination.

One reason I likely won't is that as annoyed as I get with HRC and BC, I know that I will get an email explaining why it is important that she wins rather than the Republican. It will have been written by Senator Kerry and will make a solid case. It will hurt seeing him being a better surrogate that all but a few Democrats were for him. I seriously don't see him putting out a book in July 2008 - even if he could take attention away from the candidate - he is a far better person than that.

How do you explain that the HRC camp thought the race unwinnable - and didn't enter.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Mass]

49. I never liked Hillary that much., so this thread does not make her lose my vote. but

I would hope that this is not an Hillary supporter, because I certainly will not vote for her in the general. It is clear this thread is a talking point from the CLinton campaign, so thank you very much.

[cali]

51. sad that you can't see that if hillary's the nom

not voting for her, is counterproductive.

[Mass]

52. Sad that Hillary's supporters start a Kerry bashing thread just for the fun of it...

I live in MA, so I can afford not voting for her if she is the nominee. I am getting tired of the campaign-orchestrated bashing campaign.

[cuke]

55. Sad that you missed all the Clinton supporters defending Kerry

including the posts I put in this thread

[Mass]

74. I had forgotten you are a Clinton supporter, one of my favorite, if I can say.

[cuke]

91. Why, thank you

No prob. I do it too. In fact, I did it in this thread.

[cali]

57. yes, that is sad but surely you're not affected by

some poster on DU.

[Clintonista2]

71. "Kerry bashing"? Huh?

It's bashing Kerry to say that we don't think the 2004 election was stolen?

[karynnj]

88. Was that ALL you said?

I don't think so. Unless you are very young and have read of few earlier campaigns, I think the comment that he ran the "worst" campaign is pretty excessive. Do you remember McGovern, Mondale, Carter (1980), Dukakis. I would also argue that Kerry ran a better campaign than Clinton in 1992 - Bush was below 40% most of the year and 33% by election time. This was one of the easiest years. The media gave him far more support and there were no teror levels to raise.

In late 2003, few thought that 2004 was winnable. Kerry made it very close, in spite of terror warnings, the media, the SBVT and a traumatized population. He was right on nearly every point he made on Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror. You may not recognize it, but when HRC now says that the Iraqis will not make difficult decisions without the leverage of a deadline - see is saying what Kerry said in June 2006, when the Clintons both vilified him for doing it.

[Clintonista2]

93. It was an expression

"WORST campaign EVER", kind of like "That's the WORST teacher EVER!" or "That's the WORST ice cream EVER." I really hope you're not as gullible/literal as I suspect you are in real life.

[karynnj]

118. words have meanings

Nor am I gullible. Seems like someone is trying to dance away from her idiotic flamebait OP.

[Clintonista2]

120. Expressions have meaning too

And if you take the phrase "(Blank) is the WORST thing EVER!" literally, then I would imagine that you have a terribly hard time in real life.

[karynnj]

125. Maybe to people still in high school

I never thought real people spoke that way. No one I know does - even my college age kids don't. Certainly, it is common in writing, where the infection is not there - and it clearly was not written in the op as here.

Dance, dance, dance

[autorank]

144. It's not Kerry bashing, it's just ridiculous.

Election 2004: The Urban Legend



Word doc download
Suitable to send to your Members of Congress

And part 1 of a follow up on the “Urban Legend of 2004” –

"Notes from the Underground"

Why the 2004 Presidential Election Still Matters Part 1: The Legend

[karynnj]

50. You do not need to be a Republican to agree with what

Still one wrote.

Why is it wrong for people to state the truth - Clinton's behavior with Lewinsky and other women was not commendable? It was extremely damaging to the Democratic party.

[cuke]

53. deleted

my mistake

[karynnj]

58. Excuse me - I don't think that and did not post on that thread

I don't think that "Sarah Ibarruri" and Karynnj look similar - other than that they both contain female names - but I did not post that.

I have been a Democrat since I was for JFK in 1960 as a preteen. The confusion is all yours.

[cuke]

63. You're right. I apologize

I screwed up.

[Clintonista2]

76. Yea, please don't make baseless accusations against karynnj!!!

God knows she would never do the same... :sarcasm:

[karynnj]

102. Actually, I don't think I do -

Aren't you being a bit defensive here. Think really hard what was your motivation was in posting this. The election was nearly 3 years ago, there has been no new information on it, and Kerry is not running. Kerry has worked incredibly hard to help the Democratic party and he is not attacking anyone. The entire party is more or less behind the positions he has taken on the war on terror, Iraq and the environment.

He will likely be a very good surrogate for HRC, who will likely be the candidate. Given all that what is your point in criticizing a near win in a year that the Democrats were very likely to lose.

[Clintonista2]

104. "admit it - you are covertly working against Clinton"

Nope, no baseless claims there... :sarcasm:

[karynnj]

121. Clearly sarcasm - you ARE a Clinton person

I figured that anyone could get the point - I can't believe you took it literally!

[Clintonista2]

127. Words have meaning you know!

I don't know a single person who talks like that, other than high school students, blah blah blah & etc.

[cuke]

109. I try to make my behavior conform to my moral code

and not someone else's

[wisteria]

96. All very good points. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

122. Writing in a candidate because of a DU post, lol. n/t

[karynnj]

126. I did say - I won't though

The situation is far too serious.

[Mass]

46. This thread is hillarious. Is Lirwin2 McAuliffe?

[karynnj]

54. Or Carville, Begala, Penn, Wolfson

so many to choose between.

[mtnsnake]

56. Lirwin2 is anyone w/common sense. Hey, it doesnt take a scholar to know Kerry blew it to an imbecile

The blame for losing to Bush lies at his feet and the feet of his inept handlers that he chose.

[fedupinBushcountry]

68. BS

Move down here in Bush country and get a good look at a bunch of friggin imbeciles. I just sat in a theatre of 700 people on Friday to support Max Cleland who was debating the likes of Karl Rove and Jeb Bush. You should of seen the imbeciles clapping for Mr. Evil.

Take your BS somewhere else, because all you do is blabber you are a Hat with no cattle.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Mass]

73. So, we cannot even disagree with you. For the record, Kerry got more votes than any Democratic

nominees, in a very difficult environment.

Of course, it could always be better and you can find some faults, but saying it is one of the worst campaigns ever is either a deliberate bashing OR the fact that you are poorly informed. Choose, but stop attacking people who disagree with you.

[Clintonista2]

77. Wait, wait, lemme see if I have your logic straight...

When I say that I don't think the 2004 election was stolen, I'm "Kerry bashing"?

[Mass]

81. Reread your OP and get off your high horses.

[Clintonista2]

83. Ok I reread it. My question remains the same.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[Clintonista2]

80. For the record, I really did like Kerry in 2004

And if you think: "I don't believe that 2004 was stolen" is "kerry bashing", then there's really no hope for you anyways.

[Mass]

82. So, you liked one of the "worst campaign ever"????

Or is it another of the McAuliffe's talking points: I am not bashing Kerry, just his campaign!!!

[ProSense]

86. Ah, the old

"I hate rap, but I have black friends" defense!

[Clintonista2]

87. So you think Kerry ran a good campaign?

I think his handling of the swift-boaters lost him the election. He did not run a good campaign.

[Mass]

89. Decide. You like him or not. Because saying he had one of the worse campaign ever is not exactly

a sign that you like him, particularly when he got more votes than any Dems ever.

Make up your mind. And good night. I have spent too much time in a pointless thread. Or is Kerry running and I missed that?

[Clintonista2]

95. I like Kerry as a politician. I think he ran a horrible campaign.

Sorry if you think the two are inseperable. That's your problem, not mine.

[Mass]

97. OK. I think there is no hope whatsoever.

If you do not see how the two parts of your posts are incompatible.

Good night.

[Clintonista2]

99. Ahh, sweet, sweet, fascism

"EITHER AGREE WITH ME OR YOU HATE KERRY!"

Le sigh.

[beachmom]

130. The Swift Boaters did not cost him the election -- I have yet to see

proof of that. That was the meme that came from guys like Begala after the election. What I remember is that by the fall, a lot of holes had been poked through the SBVT's "Truth".

[wisteria]

134. Yes, in fact, Senator Kerry made a strong showing in the debates that brought his numbers up again.

He was doing fine,although the race was still tight, until the Bin laden tape came out.

[ProSense]

84. Your opinion isn't fact!

Nothing you say about Kerry is going to make Hillary look any more attractive to people who don't like her. Frankly, except for Dems' desperation to win this election (even more than 2004), Hillary's campaign sucks. It's just that she's being compared to Obama. I remember the BS about flawless campaigns and inevitability last November. Since January, it's all been one misstep after another, but the past few weeks have been laughable.

Yeah, we're still in the primary. You ain't seen nothing yet.


Btw, Kerry won the primary.

[mtnsnake]

101. WTF does that have to do with Kerry losing to an imbecile. Stop you incessant whining

just because someone is spot on about Kerry's campaign being a mess. Wake up to the fact that your idol ran a piss poor campaign and get off the bitter pills. I swear you must go through a six-pack of kleenex per day in your feeble effort to avoid reality. Wahhhhhhhh

[Clintonista2]

103. Let's just be thankful some of these people aren't politicians

Opinion does not entail death. Opinion IS death.

[mtnsnake]

108. Let's also be thankful none of them will ever be future campaign advisors or we'd be sunk again!

The way some of them can't face the reality about Kerry's pathetic campaign and how he lost to a moron makes me wonder if some of them worked on the past presidential campaign. That would help explain why his campaign bombed.

[ProSense]

105. Don't you have an inept Obama campaign to prop up?

Remember how you swore he was going to run a flawless campaign with rapid response. It only took a week for him to respond to the McClurkin flap, and what a response it was!

Get over the envy!

[mtnsnake]

110. Gee, I didn't realize Obama had already started a Presidential campaign

I thought we were still in the primaries.

Don't worry, though, whether it's Hillary or Obama, neither one of them will run a boneheaded campaign like Senator Kerry...AND they'll fight back instead of ignoring rightwing attacks until they stick.

[ProSense]

111. Oh, you want to ignore the fact that one of them will not make it out of the primary,

Kerry won the primary, great campaign!

[Clintonista2]

114. Great campaign

Great loss.. err I mean WIN! Great win! Kerry's done a wonderful job as prez the past 3 years!

[ProSense]

116. Oh, poor thing, seeing green:

great campaign in the primary!

[Clintonista2]

113. Let's put this into perspective:

It took Obama a week to respond to the McClurkin thing, and Kerry um... a year to respond to the swiftboaters (has he even responded yet?)? Frankly, if you're actually defending Kerry against Obama on this one, then maybe you should stay away from the "It took Obama a whole week to respond!" phrase.

[ProSense]

119. Let me put it this way

facts

[karynnj]

124. Kerry had already given the media more proof

that the SBVT were lying BEFORE they attacked in August than Bill Clinton provided on ANY attack in 1992.

Before the attack, the media had:

- 140 pages of his naval records, with glowing fitness reports spanning the entire interval, some written by SBVT

- the Nixon tapes that showed they investigated him 2 years after the fact in 1971 and found he was a war hero and clean

- None of the SBVT, many of whom were career Navy and likely not against the Vietnam War, spoke up to say Kerry was not a hero in 1971 when he received a HUGE amount of coverage.

- There was no "Kerry" story of why he got medals - It was the official Navy record.

- All the men on his boats when he got medals, were 100% behind him

- Doug Brinkley an academic historian's book - backed Kerry 100% and many of those he interviewed became SBVT 2 years later

There is NOTHING in my life I could prove as well as Kerry did his war service. Not grades, work, or even that I am the mother of my kids.

Kerry had every reason to expect the media to reject the alternative SBVT story because they offered no proof and they were against the official record. When the SBVT came out, the Kerry team also did quickly give the media 36 pages of points in the book that could be definitively shown as wrong and they linked the funding to Bush. The media in return, went from one false claim to another, demanding that Kerry disprove each - and they found many people who were there who further corroborated the NAVY's (and Kerry's) account of each event. The most impressive was a conservative Chicago Tribune editor who was the third boat skipper in the Silver Medal account. In addition, Republican Senator John Warner said that as Secretary of the Navy he reviewed Kerry's Siver Star and he deserved it. They did not ask the SBVT for one shred of proof though they were the one's countering the official account. The media was complicit in this character assignation.

For Clinton people to use this is beyond despicable. Look at any of the Clinton "bumps in the road" in 1992. They were mostly problems of his making - and the defense was to attack - and hope the media stayed on their side. In the SBVT lies, Kerry's actions were heroic and deserved praise. Nothing he did in Vietnam was the reason for these attacks. He was attacked on this because the Republicans knew they needed to destroy the idea that he really was a hero. He should have gotten a lot more support from Democrats - the proof was there and they should have seen how important it was - not because of what was done 35 years before, but because it did show Kerry's character.

For Democrats to now perform a second swiftboating blaming him because he was the victim of character assignation by the media is pathetic.

[beachmom]

131. Oh, so you're ignorant of the facts. No wonder you wrote such a piss poor post. n/t

[fedupinBushcountry]

117. You wouldn't know reality

if it stared you in the face. Get over yourself.

[ProSense]

59. So? What about the Democrats' noise machine?

Clinton, before the publication of his book, in the middle of Kerry's campaign as as he made the case against Bush's illegal war:

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

link

Kerry's couldnt have been the worse campaign since he got more votes than any other Democrat in history and 8 million more votes than Gore and 12 million more than Clinton.

[CyberPieHole]

62. I have to agree to a certain extent...

I think there were some repug "dirty tricks" being played, but Kerry did run a terrible campaign. Bush WAS beatable but Kerry dropped the ball. And, yes, the 2000 election was stolen. I have no doubt about that.

[wisteria]

64. So? You have an opinion that many others do not share.Were you even following the campaign in 04?

Senator Kerry made a gallant effort to stop a president who was running this country and other countries into the ground. Where were other big name candidates willing to do what was necessary for the country rather than just for what was good for their own political benefit? Think what you will, but remember Senator Kerry came closer than any other candidate in our history to unseating a war time president. No other candidate in our history has every gotten so close- oh /or actually did it- like Senator Kerry.

[Basileus Basileon]

69. Agreed with every word. nt

[Awsi Dooger]

70. I'm sure Kerry lost

It was a very difficult environment to oust an incumbent. That's what DU always overlooked. An incumbent with his party in power only one term has massive advantage. Now 9 of 10 re-elections since 1900. Carter ('80) was the exception. Normally those are blowout wins.

In 2004 we needed at least one of several variables on our side:

* A very charismatic challenger (LOL. Not exactly the common description of John Kerry)

* A horrible approval rating for Bush (Only mediocre, slightly below 50%)

* A lousy economy (It seemed terrible to me but the reliable numbers that are typically the measuring point were not bad)

Minus any of those, Bush always had the edge. Many analysts and posters, including myself, were counting on a big percentage of undecideds rescuing Kerry. But the percentage of undecideds was very low. Plus, it was such a 50/50 environment that it was unrealistic for one side to gain 60 or 65% of the undecided block. The country was at 50/50 gridlock. Bush was basically at 50% approval. Kerry's favorable rating was in the 50/50 area. That led to a split of undecideds only slightly to Kerry, very logical when you look back.

The running mate stuff is nonsense. Unless Kerry identified someone from pivotal Ohio the election doesn't change at all. And there really wasn't a viable option from Ohio. I remember posting here before election day that Kerry would win if we had a John Glenn minus 20 years as a VP option. A VP is worth approximately 3 to 3.5 points in his home state. That's exactly what Edwards provided in North Carolina, in evaluating the partisan index (state margin compared to national margin) difference between '00 and '04.

No doubt Blackwell shaded everything in the GOP's favor in Ohio. Lack of machines in Democratic precincts, etc. But I doubt it would have made the difference in a 120,000 vote margin. Check all the states we won or lost by much less than that amount in recent cycles. If I started proposing we lost this state or really won that state whenever the number was below 120,000 the list would be ridiculous.

Ohio in '04 was turning in our favor due to a lousy state economy and GOP corruption, but it's still a somewhat conservative state and that election was probably a year or so too early for Kerry. Ohio in '06 was even more dismayed and now is several points in our favor, compared to the nation as a whole. In '04 it figured to mirror the nation, and did. Myself and many others posted here before the election that Kerry needed to win the national popular vote, since Ohio figured to be virtually dead even with how the nation voted. It turned out Ohio voted ever slightly more Democratic than the nation, but not enough to give Kerry its electoral votes.

I disregard exit polls. Not when they had so many laughable numbers, like the margins in New Hampshire and New York and Pennsylvania. You don't have to know much about politics to reject those margins immediately, in a 50/50 environment. I turned off DU and the TV and went to sleep early on election night, even while everyone here was still celebrating. Since every early exit poll was strangely tilted in our favor by many points from the logical projections, and the early exit polls showed only 1 and 2 point Kerry margins in vital Ohio and Florida, I was sure those numbers wouldn't hold up.

[CyberPieHole]

79. Off to the greatest page with you. K&R n/t

[The Doctor.]

92. Sad. Anyone care to explain away why Blackwell violated election laws then?

Or how about the bullshit 'terrorist threat' in Warren County?

The Sworn afidavits about the recount tampering by Triad?

They did all that just for the fun of it I suppose?

Ridiculous.

[RufusTFirefly]

98. Sorry, but this isn't religion. We're talking about facts here

Did you read John Conyers' book?



Oops. Didn't think so. Kerry was a liberal (or used to be), but he was also a terrible candidate.
Nonetheless, the danger of another Bush term put to rest the concerns that many of us had about Kerry's candidacy.
I worked hard in GOTV efforts but couldn't bring myself to defend his indefensible Iraq invasion views.
Nonetheless, I could tell that America was mobilizing to stop George W. Bush. The turnout was unprecedented. People lined up and sometimes waited for hours to save the nation. A shame many of them never got to vote and that many who did had their votes "Blackwelled."

[mvd]

100. I did read Fooled Again by Mark Crispin Miller

Elections in a free country should never be like they were in Ohio.

[YvonneCa]

107. Which round is this...

...I forget... ???

[provis99]

112. The 2000 election was stolen, the 2004 election was lost by Kerry

[yowzayowzayowza]

115. The Conyers Report pushed it to the edge, but...

the tried and true axiom known as the 'cockroach rule' clinched it for me. Either way Ohio was much closer than reported.

[beachmom]

128. You're wrong about his campaign. The very close result refutes your post.

The thing is that John Kerry has integrity, had all the right ideas (which, of course, your candidate has lifted), and was absolutely superb in the debates trouncing Bush all three times. I love the way revisionists try to forget the fall campaign, which started off with a foreign policy speech which was compelling and caught my ear, and never let up all the way to Election Day. I remember Kerry talking about how the Bush administration had failed to protect munitions dumps ONE WEEK before Election Day, and the Bush campaign absolutely scambling. If Kerry ran such a bad campaign, how come he got more votes than Gore or Clinton? If 2004 was going to be so easy (against a war time president who hovered at about 50% approval rating throughout 2004), why didn't your candidate throw her hat in? Oh, yeah, that's right: she deemed it unwinnable and opted out of running.

I am not saying there weren't valleys in the Kerry campaign -- August, Kerry was left with no money (he had to use public money once he accepted the nomination FIVE WEEKS before Bush had to go onto public money. This was a huge handicap). But he RECOVERED, and came damned close; take away the voter suppression, and who knows?
There were shenanigans in Ohio. A lot of it. The way I would state it is this: I cannot with full confidence say, in light of all the problems in Ohio, that George Bush won that state.

[beachmom]

129. "Worst campaign ever"? You're wrong, and the close result refutes your thoughtless post.

Your candidate has already borrowed heavily from most of Kerry's ideas from 2004. It would be nice if you and her other supporters would admit that. The truth is Kerry created a platform in 2004 that is now agreed upon by a large majority of Democrats, and actually the country as a whole. The second truth is that his campaign had peaks and valleys, and his peak was from September onward, when most people (besides political junkies) start paying attention. From a great foreign policy speech in September to 3 SUPERB debates, where he so completely TROUNCED George Bush, all the way to the end where the Bush campaign had to scramble when Kerry pounded them on their allowing munitions dumps in Iraq to be looted. I believe, if there was a kiss of death for Kerry, it was not the Swift Boaters, but the Osama bin Laden tape. OBL wanted Bush to win (per the CIA) and crafted his message accordingly.

As to Ohio, I cannot with full confidence, given the shenanigans that occurred there, say that Bush actually was meant to get more votes than Kerry. However, Kerry was right to concede because you can't contest an election on voter suppression (votes not cast) and a lot of the dirty stuff didn't come out until days, weeks, and months after the election. I think 2004 is a big question mark.

[beachmom]

132. Whoops -- I thought my first post failed, so I re-wrote it. n/t

[Awsi Dooger]

136. Both very good posts

I was impressed that they were slightly different. When I've done that the second post is always a sloppy and more limited version of the first. :)

I can't fault Kerry's campaign at all. His debates were indeed superb.

My theory is fairly basic, that to oust an incumbent you need charisma. Only Reagan and Clinton have prevailed over an incumbent in the TV era. I thought Edwards was our best hope in that regard.

Kerry was solid and would fit best in an open race like '08, not against an incumbent. When I traveled across country in summer '04 I sampled opinion on Kerry and no one was enthusiastic about him. The Kerry voters were primarily anti-Bush, not pro-Kerry. That's always dangerous, IMO. Negativity doesn't attract. ABB (Anyone But Bush) was the most masochistic political theme I've ever seen. It was hardly Kerry's fault. He didn't have quite enough natural pull, not against a wartime incumbent.

[beachmom]

152. I started out ABB, but Kerry won my heart during the general campaign.

I also think he can be quite charismatic, but it's a different kind of charisma sprouting from integrity, and yes, the pain of life experience like war. I would say that once the political consultants were done with him, and he got some rest and time to think, he came out with the best speech I have heard in my lifetime (I'm a GenXer) -- Dissent, which he delivered at Faneiul Hall on April 22, 2006. I know that people will scream too little too late, but that speech could not have been given before that date -- it was the 35th anniversary of his 1971 testimony, and he had made his decision that a timetable for withdrawal was the right path to take on Iraq. None of that was possible in 2004; he wasn't ready, nor was the country ready. Kerry's "performances" can be uneven, I will allow. But when he's on, he's on. I also will add that I always remember what he's said, which is not true about a Bill Clinton speech (where it is ALL about charisma, and less about substance).

[Inuca]

153. Kerry has

"intellectual sex-appeal" (something I read a while back applied to Robert Oppenheimer). Well... call it intelctual charisma. Not the kind that is so easily perceived by almost everyone, like Reagan or Clinton. But with way more depth and substance.

[gmudem]

137. Combination of both

Kerry ran a crappy campaign but still won. All you have to do is read "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast. Things like caging lists and simply throwing away thousands and thousands of minority votes is how Bush got re-selected. It's just one of many reasons Karl Rove is petrified of testifying under oath.

[ProSense]

157. I love these posts!

"Kerry ran a crappy campaign but still won."

They really shine a light on the ridiculousness of both sides of the argument.

Kerry ran an excellent, not perfect, campaign and the Republicans cheated! It's simple as that.

[MBS]

140. I read this thread with frustration and sadness

John Kerry was man enough to admit that he made some mistakes in his campaign; it's high time that WE , his fellow Democrats and fellow citizens, as well as the media (and Rove, and Bushco), were grown-up enough to accept our considerably larger blame for the outcome of the 2004 election.

John Kerry took on a hard battle in 2004, fighting (a) an incumbent president in wartime (no one has ever managed to do this before), (b) a shallow media eager to prop up Bush, eagerly nitpicking trivial flaws in both Gore and Kerry (Gore's clothes and sighs; two misspoken words by Kerry in 2 years. .), while refusing to cover Bush's pathetic record before the presidency (his thin resume, the story of his National Guard "service", etc) and the utter incompetence and corruption and destructiveness of his presidency; (c) a dysfunctional Democratic party establishment, including incompetent and self-serving operatives and supposed "strategists" who were (I'm trying to be charitable here) less than helpful to Kerry during the general election, at best (I have no love for Shrum, and don't get me started on McAuliffe and ilk. . ) , and , above all (d) an ignorant and indifferent electorate, confused and blinded by fear. (Yes, our country was STILL in the thrall of 9/11 in 2004, and, in some ways, still is. As a country , we, in the end, have cowered since 9/11, and it's not just Bush's fault: we, or at least half of us, have chosen to cower since 9/11, rather than rise to the occasion.)

While other 2004 candidates had their value (by the way, Howard Dean has done a great job as DNC chair, far surpassing the idiotic McAuliffe), none of them could possibly have done as well as John Kerry did in the general election.

The saddest part is that Kerry was the man for the time, and he would have made a first-rate president.
He deserves credit for his 2004 fight, and for the fight that he is STILL waging, across the country, and in the Senate, for our country, for the environment, for veterans, for clean and open government, for the Constitution, for the environment, for restoration of our moral authority in the world, for an end to the war in Iraq.

Why, after all this time, are people so determined to close their eyes and ears to the worth of this gutsy man?

I recently rediscovered an October 2004 post by Rude Pundit, http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2004/10/john-kerry-superhero-in-vicious-end-of_27.html
who pointed out

how tough a motherfucker John Kerry really, actually is, and it's got jackshit to do with hunting geese and killing the Vietcong. Kerry is a superhero, the kind of valiant son of a bitch who doesn't give a rat's ass about his own life in order to make the lives of others better. It's his post-Vietnam life that makes him a superhero. You don't know how much a superhero the man in the cape is by his origins. You know a superhero by his deeds. . . .

Kerry vs. Nixon: When Kerry helped organize the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he was directly confronting a hegemonic ideology in the country that said the people must blindly follow their leaders. . .. What people forget about Kerry's protest days is that he was defending the lives of soldiers and that he was right.

Kerry vs. Reagan: When Kerry faced down the Reagan administration in his dogged pursuit of the Contra-drug connection, he was a freshman Senator taking on one of the most popular Presidents in American history. Instead of backing down from repeated threats to his political career, Kerry had his staff stay on the case like a viper injecting venom into your leg. They would have had to cut off his head in order to get him to stop, and he stayed on it until he revealed that the Reagan administration allowed the Contras to smuggle cocaine into the U.S. in order to fund their CIA-led "war" against the legally-elected Sandinistas in Nicaragua.(And thus helping to cause the crack epidemic.) Kerry was called a conspiracy theorist, said to be interfering with other drug cases, and impugned throughout the media. But the part that rarely got told is that he was right.

Kerry vs. Bush I: When Kerry went after the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which was involved in laundering the Contra drug money, funneling money from the U.S. to Saddam Hussein (when he was our beloved dictator), and supporting illegal arms trade with terrorists and drug lords (including Afghanistan), it was his first chance to take on the Bush dynasty. . He brought down BCCI, and he cut off a vital funding source for terrorists. Again, Kerry was bucking the will of Democrats in Congress, as well as a Republican administration, in order to do what he knew was right. . ..

And, even after the outcome of 2004 (I won't call it a loss, since I believe that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen), Kerry is still out there fighting . He and Feingold, and 11 other brave souls, fought for a firm Iraq withidrawal deadline in June 2006 (where were Clinton and Obama then, or even Biden and Dodd?). He fought against Alito. He campaigned his heart out for congressional candidates across the country in 2006. Right now, he is taking on Blackwater, the telecom industry, attempts to compromise the internet; he is working hard, as he has for 35 years, to move forward on the environment (this very day he is giving a talk on climate change to the Council on Foreign Relations, and he is going with Barbara Boxer to the Bali conference in December). He has continued to speak out on the destruction of constitutional rights, on the economy, on health care. it's high time that we give this man credit .

What Rude said in 2004 is so sadly still germane:

Kerry's done a fuck of a lot more than pull a guy out of a river. And the fact that America doesn't know that says a great deal about how we negotiate our desolate political landscape.

Sure, strategy matters in an election. But in the end, an election is OUR job: to recognize a leader in our midst, and to lift that leader up. If we can't recognize a leader of Kerry's caliber, when he is right in front of us working his heart out for our country, then that's our problem, not his. We had a chance to put a man of courage, depth, and integrity into the White House in 2004, but we blew it. We -- we citizens, and the media-- not Senator Kerry, should feel ashamed.

I've totally lost patience with those who continue to take pleasure in bashing Kerry, rather than recognize and support him for the things he is still doing for our country. It's not a matter of who you supported in 2004 , or who you're supporting in 2008 for president. It's a matter of being mature enough to recognize who the good guys are, who the real leaders are, and supporting them, whether or not they're running for president. There are so few leaders out there right now: to try to take down the few out there who are really trying to help us is just beyond my comprehension.

[Inuca]

151. Thank you for your mature, rational, and

well-argumented post. I could not agree more with your last sentence. Why so many people decide to cheaply attack one of the best, most progressive and effective politicians out there is truly beyond comprehension. It's shameful and completely counterproductive. Not to mention idiotic.

[Adelante]

154. Thank you

Very well said and true.

[karynnj]

170. Wow, this is a fantastic post

This was what was depressing about November 2004, it wasn't just that we would have 4 more years of Bush or that "our team" lost, but that in Kerry, we had a chance for a true statesman, public servant, in an intensely difficult time. Had he won, he would have blamed for much that was already in the cards, but he would have used all his intelligence, heart and strength to do the right thing.

He might not have gotten credit for it, but he would have changed so much.

[mvd]

177. Good post, but I voted, supported, and donated to Kerry's campaign

Most of DU probably didn't miss out on a chance to put Kerry in the White House. I agree about Shrum (I blame the campaign managers more than Kerry,) and the media and too many Americans missed out on Kerry's many good points by listening to misperceptions (elitist, weak, flip-flopper, aloof, etc.)

[autorank]

141. Oh sure, and pigs live in trees.

Read this and this then see how you feel.

If that's not enough, read this highly specific documentation of election fraud in Ohio:

The Declaration of Richard Hayes Phillips

Better yet...nah, forget it.


Election 2004: The Urban Legend



Word doc download
Suitable to send to your Members of Congress

[Perry Logan]

145. Fun stat: In 47 out of 67 counties in Florida, Bush got more votes than registered Republicans.

In 15 of those counties, his vote total more than doubled the number of registered Republicans and in four counties, Bush more than tripled the number.

If Bush's totals weren't artificially enhanced, they would represent one of the most remarkable electoral achievements in U.S. history.

George W. Bush's vote tallies, especially in the key state of Florida, are so statistically stunning that they border on the unbelievable.

Statewide, Bush earned about 20,000 more votes than registered Republicans.

By comparison, in 2000, Bush's Florida total represented about 85 percent of the total number of registered Republicans, about 2.9 million votes compared with 3.4 million registered Republicans.

Bush achieved these totals although exit polls showed him winning only about 14 percent of the Democratic vote statewide - statistically the same as in 2000 when he won 13 percent of the Democratic vote - and losing Florida's independent voters to Kerry by a 57 percent to 41 percent margin. In 2000, Gore won the independent vote by a much narrower margin of 47 to 46 percent.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111004W.shtml

[BootinUp]

148. This argument never made much sense

You are taking statewide exit polls and applying them to individual counties. Secondly you are comparing an election with a relatively low turnout to one with a much higher voter turnout.

If there was a case for phantom votes then it wasn't made by those statistics.

[OnTheOtherHand]

161. Perry?! is that you?

As Jim4Wes says, who knows what these numbers mean? Gotta factor in Democratic registration (that will help control for the change in turnout), look at historicals more systematically, that sort of thing. Lots of people have looked for the smoking gun and failed to find one. (That isn't to say that there isn't one somewhere.)

[Apollo11]

146. So sometime between 2000 and 2004, the GOP suddenly decided to play fair?

If, like me, you believe that the 2000 election WAS stolen, then you cannot discount the possibility that the GOP went a few steps further in 2004, in terms of increasing both the extent, the variety and the sophistication of their dirty tricks.

I think the Bu$h-Rove machine decided that 2000 was too close for comfort, and so in 2004 they needed a decisive win that would put Bu$h well ahead in the official tally of the popular vote, plus the electoral college, so that they could prevent a re-run of the recounts that happened in 2000.

Everything I have read about how these people (Bu$h-Rove-Cheney) operate tells me that they are ready to use all the means available to win power and then hold onto it. We know that they have ways of controlling who can vote, how votes are counted and what results are published. Certainly in Ohio. To trust the official result means trusting the GOP to resist temptation and play fair.

My take is that the vote-theft and other abuses in 2004 were more widespread than in 2000. Especially in Florida and Ohio. The fact is we will never know what the election result would have been if the election had been carried out in a clean and fair way, if every person who wanted to vote had been able to vote, and if every vote had been registered and counted in line with the voter's intent. The best indication we have is from the exit polls that were carried out on the day, which had Kerry ahead in Ohio.

Was John Kerry the perfect candidate? I would say he was not.

Did Kerry run the perfect campaign? Definitely not.

But that does not mean Bu$h-Cheney could have won the election without dirty tricks.

I recommend that everyone read the articles that Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman have publised in The Free Press (Colombus, Ohio): www.freepress.org/departments/display/19

[eridani]

147. And you know this how, exactly?

I suspect, but don't (and can't) know, that it was stolen because they won't fecking let us look at the goddam ballots. How can we continue to tolerate the private "ownership" of the most public data that there is? (Agree with you on the Kerry campaign, though.)

[BootinUp]

156. Worst campaigns ever? overstate things much?

Kerry had a number of obstacles to overcome, running against an incumbent in a time of war, convincing Americans you have a plan for the war when there is really no plan that can fix the war only diplomacy that can be attempted. He is a Senator with lots of votes over decades to paint a confusing picture with, a Senator from the Northeast to paint as a far left liberal, a man who protested the Vietnam war, a position that many in America cannot accept. It was just too much to overcome. Even if Kerry had not made a couple of mistakes that some say where the reason for his loss, I still think he would have lost a close race.

His debate performances were nearly flawless.

Yes, he lost, that much is true.

[OnTheOtherHand]

162. what you said n/t

[Hawaii Hiker]

158. Sure, Kerry lost Texas, Utah, Idaho, etc.

& a host of other states, but he didn't lose that election, cuz there was no way he lost Ohio...

But having said that, Kerry still should have attacked those Swift Boat DRUNKS harder than he did, he let those degenerate fucks get awat w/their attacks...So yes, he could have run a better campaign, but it was NOT George "macca" Allen bad either...

[InvisibleTouch]

165. The key state was Ohio, and it was stolen...

...beyond any shadow of a doubt. I stood in those long lines in the icy rain with insufficient voting machines in Democratic districts. I saw people leave because they had to get to work, had to pick up their kids, or simply couldn't physically stand up any longer. Halfway through the day I came home to check the exit polls online, which had Kerry decisively ahead. By evening those polls had mysteriously vanished. Then there were those districts that recorded more votes for the Chimp than there were even registered voters in the district! Not to mention the CEO of Diebold's promise to deliver Ohio to Shrub, the corrupt Rethug establishment (governor, secretary of state, both senators at the time), and lots of other little details that all added up to massive election fraud.

Now, you could argue (as people did with Gore) that Kerry could have run a better campaign so it wasn't close enough to steal, but I can't think of what else he could have done. He wiped the floor with Dubya in all 3 debates, his running mate was perfect (IMO), his campaign had passion and energy, and in the end he recieved more of the popular vote than any Dem before him. The only thing that comes to mind is that he should have fired back immediately and overwhelmingly at the Swift Boat Liars, instead of ignoring them in hopes they would go away.

Could he have contested the results afterward? Sure - if he wanted to look like an idiot to the general populace and damage the whole Democratic Party in the process. He knew he was robbed, and he also knew he couldn't prove it, because the evidence had been destroyed. In fact he put aside his own ego so that we now have a shot - an excellent shot! - at winning nation-wide in 2008.

[yardwork]

167. The 2004 election was stolen in Ohio - there is no question about it.

[tiptoe]

175. You're making too much of 56 of 88 Ohio counties' 2004 ballots destroyed against court order...

:sarcasm:

http://us.share.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#Ohio

[Fly by night]

179. And in New Mexico and Nevada and Iowa (and probably Florida).

Votes were also flipped in many other states to create a false impression of a mandate for Bush.

The only mandate Bush ever had was when KKKarl Rove lent him Jeff Gannon for a weekend.

[William769]

168. I would have to dissagee with you on this one.

Kerry won, end of story.

[mvd]

173. Even with the just ok campaign run..

the disenfranchisement plus dirty vote counters could well have been enough to give him the election. It's too bad we can't get more concrete evidence.