We lost for 2 reasons & 2 reasons only

[mtnsnake]

Reason #1: THE WAR- Bush's criminal war and how people are so afraid of changing presidents in mid-stream is what overcame all his many deficiencies. Okay, that one's obvious.

Reason #2: BECAUSE of the war, we needed to come up with the perfect candidate to win. His sub par campaign aside, Kerry was capable and presidential enough, but he lacked the one quality that I think made the difference: PERSONALITY. John Edwards wasn't picked because of his influence on the South; he was picked to make up for Kerry's shortcomings in the personality department.

Our next candidate not only has to be TOUGH and uphold ALL our Democratic convictions and principles, but he or she has to come off as being PERSONABLE, and in a way that inspires people. Yes, he needs to be tough AND personable. By personable, he needs to come off as being friendly, cheerful, compassionate, and last but not least INSPIRING...so everyone is impressed, not just us.

Tough as well as personable. Go down the list, one by one. We had candidates in the primaries who were one or the other, or something in between, but none who excelled in both. If we find the next candidate who fits the combination of both traits, whether it's Obama or someone else, we will absolutely trounce them next time.

[Atman]

1. We lost for 2 reasons & 2 reasons only

#1) Vote fraud

#2) Election theft

All other points are nice intellectual excercises, but not germane to the facts at hand.

[zulchzulu]

Exactly

We can play political parlor games on who would be stronger, who was louder yet more marketable...or whatever... but as long as we are gamed again by Diebold and other BBV technology and other voting fraud, we can run Superman and still lose. And if we do nothing about these issues, we will certainly lose again in 2008.

It's like racing in the Indy 500 except that our car needs to run on flat tires.

[ooglymoogly]

131. not exactly

vote fraud and corperate press

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[ooglymoogly]

139. eyes wide shut

why do stupid people think they have all the answers or any answers at all for that matter... alas they don't, they are just plain dumb..so take your sixpack jump in your truck... and ease on down the road...oh and yes you are right we should have chosen zell miller or ed koch...right

[mtnsnake]

9. That didn't take long. Sorry, but I'm not going to sit pat & whine about

voter fraud when we need to start figuring out how to win and why we lost.

[Atman]

14. "we need to start figuring out how to win and why we lost."

I just told you. What more do you need to know? Is fighting for your country WHINING? What the fuck difference does it make for you to try to figure out something that has already been pre-determined?

You don't appear to understand...be a chameleon if you want, get walked all over, capitulate, change what you stand for. In the end, the people who stole your vote won't give a flying fuck, because they have an agenda much bigger than our whiney ass political hand-wringing.

They STOLE the election. Changing who you are or what you're about only means you've changed, and they haven't. Thieves will be thieves, especially when their control of the world is at stake. Wakey wakey. Time to stop playing and get serious about what is at stake.

[mtnsnake]

23. So let's just roll over and play dead until fraud is proven.

Sorry, but until it's proven, and I would love it if it is, we can't be crying in our sleep and sitting around doing nothing else to improve us while we're waiting.

I've got some news for you. Fraud or no fraud...our party and its candidates are broken.

[Atman]

25. Excuse me, but YOUR approach is rolling over and playing dead

Changing to be what the theives want you to be strikes me as fundamentally misguided expenditure of energy. Considering, IF we are correct, which I 100% believe we are, then there is SIMPLY NO NEED TO CHANGE US. We need to change THEM. To correct the abuse, fix the system, NOT to change our belief system and kow tow to a bunch of anti-democracy, anti-constitutional, war-mongering thugs.

[mtnsnake]

34. Read again. I never said we should change a thing. I said we need to

get a candidate who "not only has to be TOUGH and uphold ALL our Democratic convictions and principles, but he or she has to come off as being PERSONABLE, and in a way that inspires us."

[SteveIrving1]

142. Let them screw up some more.

I say let the Republicans screw up for 4 more years eventually there supporters will get wise to the republican tricks. the
American people aren't stupid it ill admit its amazing how much crap were willing to take but eventually they'll wake up and
smell the coffee.

[Kipepeo]

29. I think you're both right

I think our party and it's candidates are broken, in the sense that they are running based on polls, and trying to appeal to the middle by changing our party instead of changing the way we present our party.They need to get back to appealing to our base and running on liberal ideals.

But I also think the election was stolen and that Kerry actually won and that vote fraud will come out at some point. :shrug:

I think both things need to be pursued.

[Turn CO Blue]

144. Agree.

[gtar100]

78. Election Fraud AND Reaching People are BOTH important

#1 Issue is to fix the damn machines counting the votes, else we haven't a prayer.

#2 We need to trumpet what it is we are willing to fight and die for.

I think if more people heard, they'd probably agree with liberals, progressives and democrats. The fascist right wingers have done a superb job of crapping on our values. But a diamond is never soiled by what covers it. It is liberals and democrats who care about this world, who want good things for all people and who have fantastic ideas about how to get these things accomplished. What stands in our way are the lies and greedy policies concocted by these right-wing, selfish assholes who have been conspiring to take over our public and political systems at any cost by any means.

We have a beautiful vision for the future at the center of our work. What do they have? They're own selfish greed and fear. We can unite because we have a vision that unites. They have a vision that splinters and only joins when selfish interests intersect.

[Turn CO Blue]

145. Agree.

[ooglymoogly]

132. the fact that our candidates are broken is meaningless at this stage

this is fraud...we have to scream louder than the repubs. we have to fight harder and dirtier than the repubs. and we must never stop yelling, screaming from the top of our lungs FRAUD!!!!!!!FRAUD!!!!!!!!!FRAUD. we must scream at the cooperate news and stop buying the products the string pullers of the media are hawking www.choosetheblue.com and we can't stop doing it until a new and honest voting system is in place and we have a voice in the media. without that it doesn't matter how many candidates we put up they can just pick the dems that cause them the least problems and maybe let them win a few elections to keep the appearence of a democracy. so forget about the theft?.......thats just plain stupid........so not a chance...we have to remember that the republicans by screaming louder than the dems over monica, impeached our president and won the house over a merital infidelity....by screaming loud and owning the press....and we are whimpering about fraud...100,000 and counting dying..over lies by this pres.

[LiberalAndProud]

107. How to win

1) We hack the vote better than they do

or

2) We keep them from hacking the vote.

Beyond that:

We need to help to define our candidate. Our party was so busy being ABB, we forgot to fall in love with our candidate. I did finally, but too late to infect others with my enthusiasm for Kerry.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

113. Too late for 2004

And I say this wearing two layers of asbestos underpants...

The time to worry about the integrity of the voting process is NOT on the day after the election. The Election 2004 train has already pulled out of the station and you're not going to get it back. Face it. We're stuck with the chimp for four more years.

That being said, we should demand that the State of Ohio be turned inside out and backward looking for examples of active or passive election fraud. Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell should be held accountable for spending more time acting as Bush's Campaign Chairman than he did managing a clean election. Then do the same in Florida. NOW. Then do the same in any other state where there's even a whiff of impropriety. NOW.

We can't wait until 2008 (if we're still having elections by then) to start worrying about the security of the ballot box.

[The Doctor.]

155. Plenty were worried before....

The problem was that most of us thought that if we just said, "Hey - we can't let these machines steal Democracy in America!" that people would be on guard for fraud- but listening is not an American skill.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

161. An army of lawyers...

doesn't do any good after the battle is over. We need to be filing discrimiation lawsuits by the truckload (did I mention NOW) so that the 2005 municipal elections (in Ohio, anyway) and the 2006 elections will be fair and honest.

[pacalo]

26. Are you serious?

NEWFLASH! PEOPLE WERE HUNGRY FOR A CHANGE!



















AND THIS MAN STOLE OUR VOTES!

[Atman]

30. Thank you, 8 year

I defy anyone on this board to find a photograph of a Bush rally with more than a thousand people at it. A thousand SCREENED, INVITED, LOYALTY-OATHED people.

USE SOME COMMON SENSE. People DON'T wait in line for 10 hours to affirm what they already have. That is simply not human nature. That is a protest action.

[pacalo]

38. You're right: It's COMMON SENSE.

We've got voting problems, not character issues.

But the freepers will never get it that they're the ones with the character issues. They use the tag "moral values" as a brainwashing tool only, to make themselves feel prettier than they are:

[gaviapacifica]

141. Reality

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/oct04/264987.asp">7000 people at Bush rally in Wisconsin, see requested image below

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-14-post-debate-rallies_x.htm">No image for this one but it claims Bush rally had 44000 attendees while Kerry only had 10000

You've been defied. Did you really think Bush couldn't get anyone to show up at his rallies?

How about a new reason we lost. Because too many of us refuse to deal with reality.

[Atman]

148. That picture shows maybe 7 HUNDRED

And that is the ONLY one. I did see a stadium rally toward the end of the campaign, though, I must admit.

A stadium full of screened, loyalty-oathed, invited guests.

As opposed to downtown Philly with 100,000 people. Come on...look at those Kerry pictures again, and look at the one you showed. No comparison.

[gaviapacifica]

154. You have to read, not just look at the pictures

You only asked for one and I showed you one that was 7 times your claim. Wasn't trying to say Bush drew more people to rallies than Kerry just pointing out the absurdity of your claim. How can we beat them if we so ludicrously underestimate them.

Of course, as we found out with Dean large rallies don't equate with electoral victory so none of this really matters.

[Atman]

156. Dear God, another NOOB drops by to tell us Bush won

Y'all got your marching orders on the same day or what? Your FIRST post on DEMOCRATIC Underground is to post a picture of "huge" Bush rally with a comparatively miniscule crowd; your second is tell ME I'm being absurd.

Didn't they instruct you to try to blend in before you go makin fools of yourselves?

[gaviapacifica]

171. So much for us having a big tent...

Don't worry I'll go now, put your attack dogs back in bed. My head is hurting from this lack of intellectual discourse.

And if admitting the truth, no matter how painful, is makin a fool of myself then I'll proudly call myself a fool.

[angrydemocrat]

59. AMEN!

Kerry won this election! This is election was stolen! OUR ELECTION PROCESS IS BROKEN AND UNTIL WE FIX THIS ELECTIONS WILL CONTINUE TO BE STOLEN! People didn't stand in long ass lines to vote for a DUMBASS CHIMP THAT CAN'T CHEW BUBBLE GUM AND WALK AT THE SAME TIME THOSE PEOPLE STOOD IN LONG LINES TO VOTE FOR CHANGE THOSE PEOPLE WERE VOTING FOR KERRY! You people can spew your garbage, deny all you want that fraud occurred, deny that there was voter intimidation, deny that peoples votes weren't counted because they decided the signatures didn't match (these people are not professionals at handwriting analysis),ect. You can deny and play the blame game all you want but the fact is it happen! Will they be able to get enough evidence to overturn this election probably not. Will they get enough evidence to prove all this happen where something can be done about it YES, meaning people losing jobs on election boards, charges brought up on those they can prove were involved, and something being done to fix a process that is broken.

[Catherine Vincent]

106. love those pics! (except the last one, of course)

Bushie defiitely looks like a punk ass chump thru that window!

[pacalo]

122. And evil. It was taken in the morning of the election.

[merh]

41. Feel free to do just that, we will continue to focus on the issue

that is important to us, election fraud, vote theft.

I would find you much more credible if you were slightly concerned with the theft/fraud. As it stands, your opinion is yours, but plllllllllbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb.

[Trajan]

42. Fishing for disagreements ? ...

What did you expect ? ...

Sheeesh .... a DU troller ....

[mtnsnake]

49. Is that the best you can come up with?

How about instead of whining about anyone with an open mind, you come up with something specific to improve things? Oh wait, you can't, you can only call throw labels around like "troller". I'm impressed...

[Dhalgren]

54. Then you should step back from your breathless,

irate-ness and consider what it is that you are saying. You are saying that the Emperor won the election fairly and that the reason we lost is our own fault for supporting a candidate like Kerry. Anyone who voted for Bush against Kerry would have voted for Bush against anyone you put up - you have to realize that. What everyone has been trying to get through to you is that Kerry won - Kerry won the election - he didn't lose it. Now, I think that he hasn't done very much to fight against the fraud, but neither have the DLC or the "mainstream" Dems and, apparently, neither have you.

Take a pill and watch some cartoons, you'll feel better.

[mtnsnake]

57. No, you're the one who needs to step out of your closed-in hideaway

and start facing the reality that there are other things that JUST MIGHT HAVE caused us to lose besides voter fraud.

[m berst]

159. false dichotomy

Why is the assumption so often made, as you are doing, that people are talking about the stolen election at the expense of discussing other issues? What makes anyone thing that the two are somehow mutually exclusive or contradictory? It seems to me that the precise opposite of your assumption is true.

I have observed that the people who are the most aggressive in going after election fraud, are also the members who have the best ideas about the party's future, as well as the clearest views of where the party went wrong. Yet they are told that they are in denial, that they should grow up, that they are living in a fantasy world, and I don't know what all else.

On the other hand, I have observed that the people who are calling for us to move on into the future have very few new ideas for moving into the future. The idea that we should move on and the idea that the party should keep on the same track - or go more to the right and more into the world of electoral demographics and sound bites - in short all of the failed DLC policies - seem to go hand in hand.

[mtnsnake]

163. I'm really surprised

how you can deduce all that. You're wrong.

Why is the assumption so often made, as you are doing, that people are talking about the stolen election at the expense of discussing other issues?
First of all, that wasn't the purpose of my thread. It was meant to bring about debate of the two reasons I gave for Kerry losing AND to imply that vote fraud is not the ONLY reason we lost. Second, if you happened to notice, people ARE talking about the stolen election at the expense of discussing other issues. All they do is hijack anyone eles's threads where people are trying to help solve OTHER problems...problems just as real as the possibility of vote fraud, maybe even more real. What, only the vote fraud people are allowed to have opinions as to why we lost?!? Gee, I didn't realize this was a "Vote Fraud Only" forum when it comes to why we lost.

I have observed that the people who are the most aggressive in going after election fraud, are also the members who have the best ideas about the party's future, as well as the clearest views of where the party went wrong.
I won't say you're wrong, but I've also noticed that there are plenty of other people who have CLEAR AND SPECIFIC IDEAS of solutions THEY think would help, and too often THEY ARE DROWNED OUT by hordes of vote fraud passionados who don't allow them to deliver their message. Maybe THAT'S why you only notice the vote fraud people....because they drown out everyone else whenever it comes to someone else trying to discuss relevant issues OTHER than fraud.

Yet they (the vote fraud people) are told that they are in denial, that they should grow up, that they are living in a fantasy world, and I don't know what all else.
Oh come on. They're told something like that because of a remark THEY made, to begin with, to the person who ended up telling them that. Did you happen to read the commments made to that lady who told that person to grow up? I don't blame her one bit for telling that poster to grow up, after getting lectured in such a condescending manner as she was.

Just for the record, vote fraud to me is a distinct possibility as to why Bush is still president. However, the two reasons I listed in my OP are the two reasons I believe we lost the battle.

[m berst]

168. probably both are happening

The election 2004 forum is a nightmare, that is for sure. I haven't seen people hijacking threads to talk election theft, but that doesn't mean anything because no one can get to all the threads, and if I saw it I would probably tune it out. If they are doing that they should quit it, agreed.

On the remarks, they may be aimed more selectively than it seems to me they are. I have seen "grow up" used more than once, and was surprised because it didn't seem responsive.

One thing I notice a lot lately here is people having radically different ideas about who is "starting it" who is hijacking threads, and who is out of bounds. I gave my sincere observations, and they differ from yours quite a bit. I don't know which one of us is right. I think we are looking at the same threads maybe and seeing different things.

...there are plenty of other people who have CLEAR AND SPECIFIC IDEAS of solutions THEY think would help, and too often THEY ARE DROWNED OUT by hordes of vote fraud passionados...

That would not be good.

I will watch for what you are seeing. I may just be missing it.

[Mr_Spock]

77. That's a foolish statement you have made - wake up & smell the coffee man!

Amazing, just amazing.

[Trajan]

58. Mr. 'Open Minded' ignores the E-Voting issues ...

like the proverbial elephant in the room ....

Practice what you preach, boy ....

[mtnsnake]

60. I never ignored the e-voting issue so give me a break w/your pretentious

self-serving rhetoric for the purpose of flame-throwing bullshit at anything non-voter fraud related.

[RetroLounge]

115. Wow, you're a bit touchy. Why is that?

oh, yeah, of course...

RL

[pacalo]

123. See how easy it is to spot them? ;)

[m berst]

160. check this out

There is a great conversation going on about the future of the Democratic party that has some fresh thinking and new ideas about the state of the party and what we can do.

Tolerance is a two-way street
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2795077

Most of the posters there are intensely interested in the stolen election, I think, but they don't happen to be talking about that subject there. And no one has come there with "pretentious self-serving rhetoric for the purpose of flame-throwing bullshit at anything non-voter fraud related" and disrupted us.

[TruthIsAll]

83. Whine? You call investigating and prosecuting the fraud whining?

n/f/t

[mtnsnake]

93. I only call it whining when it's taken to the level

that it's often taken here.

Investigating fraud is/was very important. It shouldn't be the last word, though, in every single thread whenever someone tries to come up with OTHER ideas that might help us.

[bobbieinok]

101. OK,: perfect candidate and program...but WHO COUNTSTHE VOTES???

[Old and In the Way]

12. Amen.

:thumbsup:

As if Kerry has a personality deficit compared to Dimson.

[Nordic]

52. yeah but the Democratic Party had FOUR YEARS to deal with e-voting

and they didn't do squat.

[paulk]

75. Democrats introduced legislation

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003

1) Requires all voting systems to produce a voter-verified paper record for use in manual audits and recounts. For those using the increasingly popular ATM-like “DRE”(Direct Recording Electronic) machines, this requirement means the DRE would print a receipt that each voter would verify as accurate and deposit into a lockbox for later use in a recount. States would have until November 2003 to request additional funds to meet this requirement.


2) Bans the use of undisclosed software and wireless communications devices in voting systems.

3) Requires all voting systems to meet these requirements in time for the general election in November 2004. Jurisdictions that feel their new computer systems may not be able to meet this deadline may use an existing paper system as an interim measure (at federal expense) in the November 2004 election.


4) Requires that electronic voting system be provided for persons with disabilities by January 1, 2006 -- one year earlier than currently required by HAVA. Like the voting machines for non-disabled voters, those used by disabled voters must also provide a mechanism for voter-verification, though not necessarily a paper trail. Jurisdictions unable to meet this requirement by the deadline must give disabled voters the option to use the interim paper system with the assistance of an aide of their choosing.


5) Requires mandatory surprise recounts in 0.5% of domestic jurisdictions and 0.5% of overseas jurisdictions.



This legislation was killed by the Republican House. But it's so much easier to blame the Democrats, isn't it?

[Nordic]

92. They didn't do enough. They should have sued Diebold

or whatever it took.

Listen, we at DU knew all about this. We knew they would and could steal the election.

bottom line: The Democratic party failed.

There's no arguing that.

[paulk]

97. the Democratic Party failed!

BAD

BAD

BAD

Democrats!


:spank:

[Atman]

86. Well then, vote fraud is okay. Sorry. Our bad.

I mean, we had four years of non-cooperation from the four republican-owned voting machine companies, and a totally hosed HAVC. Since we couldn't get them to go along with us, oh well. It's all cool.

Thanks for opening my eyes. How foolish I was to think stealing an election is actually wrong somehow.

[Nordic]

94. oh for chrissake

get off your high horse.

Vote fraud and the failure of the Democratic Party are two separate, but related, issues.

The Repubs stole the election with vote fraud.

Bad. Very bad.

The Democratic Party let them do it.

Also bad. Very bad.

The only thing worse than an evil person is a SPINELESS person that lets them get away with their evil.

The Democratic Party (and I'm talking about the party leaders, not us) are a bunch of spineless enablers, ass-kissers and panderers. And if they're none of those, they're incompetent idiots.

They have "led" us right under a rock.

[SammyWinstonJack]

55. Pretty much

Also, we didn't "lose" and the chimp didn't "win"

[Cookie wookie]

109. I second that

No point in doing the deep soul searching for why * supposedly got more votes. We knew they had set up the theft of the election before it happened. And they stole it. Someday (soon I hope) we'll prove it, and down down down will come chimpty dumpty and all the king's horses and all the king's men. And no one, not even rove will be able to put them together again.

[hinachan]

150. Bingo!

Christ Himself could've been our candidate (last I heard, he's a pretty popular guy), but if every third Christ vote was diverted to Bu$h, ol' Jesus isn't going to be President any time soon. He'd better hang on to that Son Of God day job.... O8)

[From the south]

2. Actually.....

next time won't be as hard. Our next candidate won't be running against a incumbent

[Atman]

15. Our next candidate won't be running against a incumbent

Nope. He'll be running against the incumbent's brother. And the same war machine that stole it before will steal it again.

[From the south]

18. Do you really think.....

Jeb Bush will run? I dont....

[Yupster]

47. I don't think Jeb will run

but I believe next time there will be Republican 527 organizations ten times the size of the Democratic ones.

[Bouncy Ball]

3. Ah I see.

So it is now against the grain to mention voter fraud?

See, I don't believe bush truly won.

Which makes your argument a bit....moot. I'm not trying to be testy, so I apologize if this comes off that way. But until we know our election problems have been rectified.......

And for the record, I think we could have had the most personable, toughest candidate around....hate and fear always trumps those things with certain people. And those certain people tend to vote for candidates like bush, dealing out hate and fear in spades.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

11. Agreed....Kerry earned my respect and admiration.

I don't want to vote for the candidate who would "have a beer with me". I want someone to LEAD this country! I don't want an intellectual equal or, worse yet, an intellectual inferior as the POTUS.

[mtnsnake]

28. It also shouldn't wrong to blame something OTHER than fraud

Sorry, but my argument is NOT moot, and until the outcome of the election is reversed, it will NEVER be moot.

[Redleg]

129. Agreed, and Kerry will be a stronger candidate in 2008

because he will learn from his experience. Why must we Dems discard our candidates if they don't win? We kick them to the fucking curb and punish them.

[mtnsnake]

135. Redleg, please, NOoooooo........I'd rather run The Mummy in 2008

than John Kerry again. Don't get me wrong, I liked Kerry and thought he was qualified. But it was going to take a candidate who was more than just qualified to beat an imcumbent wartime president. He also had to resonate with personality and inspiration, which he didn't. Add to that a mistake-filled campaign, and I think we've seen enough. No need to go down that road again.

I know you and I differ on this, but IMO Kerry has NO charisma. Nada. Now I know that shouldn't be a qualification, but the reality is that it most certainly is. It's all a big game, and we'll never win if we don't come up with a candidate who 1) is TOUGH when it comes to sticking to our issues and NOT moving to the right and who 2) has personality, the kind that inspires. Why do you think everyone has so much hope in Obama? He's about the only thing we've got right now that looks to me like he has both those qualities in him. The rest are somewhere in between.

[Redleg]

152. We do disagree on that.

Remember- Bush "the War time president" won't be running for re-election.

[bullimiami]

4. wrong and wrong. we lost for 1 reason only.

FRAUD.

They would done whatever was needed to take the election. Massive fraud, more massive fraud if need be probably emergency powers act and no election as a last resorr.

Any democratic candidate would have beaten Bush, the Senate and probably the House should be ours as well. All rigged.

RIGGED.

My issue with Kerry and the Dems. They should have been prepared for it. They were not.

[mtnsnake]

16. We need to stop using fraud as a crutch for all our REAL deficiencies

and get off our asses and figure out how to beat the daylights out of them next time. The right candidate needs to be personable and tough to our convictions, so he/she can inspire almost ALL people in this country.

[Nordic]

53. I agree. The Dems failed on the vote-fraud issue and the media

which are the two areas where they got their asses kicked.

Blaming vote fraud for the loss is not helpful.

We need to deal with vote fraud - it's the biggest challenge our democracy has faced since, well, probably ever.

But to blame this for the election loss is pointless.

Yes, we would have won without the fraud, but this election should never have been close enough to steal.

Bush should be in JAIL, he never should have had a chance to even RUN for election.

[ohioan]

66. Hear! Hear!

THANK you!

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[The Wielding Truth]

72. Fraud in every arena. Not just the vote but the media.Has anyone

checked to see if subliminal messages are being used . I'm serious it's illegal and should be checked. The thing is they were petty straight forward with their lies and yet they weren't prosecuted.What part of government is in charge of truth in advertisement ?Anyone know? I will write them.

[ComerPerro]

5. 9/11 happened for a reason

I mean, honestly. Think about it.

[zanana]

6. I don't think George W. Bush is "charming"...

I think his accent is annoying and he has a cruel mouth. I don't buy into the "personality" argument. He preaches to the choir, that's all.

[mtnsnake]

10. Bush's lack of personality has nothing to do with. He was the incumbent

sitting in a wartime atmosphere. We needed to come up with the perfect candidate and the perfect campaign to overcome this and we fell short.

[Old and In the Way]

17. An incumbant who created a wartime atmosphere for personal gain.

That should be part of the warcrime charges against this guy. Future Presidents best not be using the blood of Americans to further their narrow political/personal agenda. No justification for invading Iraq.

[mtnsnake]

20. Thank you. I agree, and we need to come up with a solution for that.

Coming up with solutions for my reason #2 is a lot easier than figuring out how to overcome something like reason #1, the war thing.

[driver8]

103. Bush is about as charming as a case of the clap...n/t

[TwentyFive]

7. What about Bush?

Interesting analysis.

I'll give you that Bush comes off a tough (although in a phony, puffed up, pseudo macho sort of way)...but I've never thought of him a personable. He's obnoxious, arrogant, stupid and criminal.

I think the person closest to the 'tough and personable' character was Howard Dean.

[mtnsnake]

40. I don't think Bush has any personality at all. I despise the fucker.

Bush was the incumbent wartime president so he had such a huge advantage that it was OUR party who needed to come up with the perfect candidate and I don't think we did by any means. I'm not saying he wasn't the best one we had, but the best one we had was no nearly good enough this time.

As far as Howard Dean, I think he was perhaps our BEST candidate but not necessarily the most likeable one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Lord the DLC is busy pusing this line

look

It does not matter who casts the votes, but who counts the votes.

Joseph Stalin

[Patiod]

13. Hello? What about the rign-wing media?

We don't have our own cable or broadcast networks, AirAmerica is still in its infancy, and NPR stretches WAY too hard to try to be fair and balanced.

Not enough liberal voices that the average Joe will encounter on a day-to-day basis like they see on Faux, MS-GOP, and (in my opinion) CNN, John Stocil, or like they hear on hate radio.

I really believe our lack of voice to counter the nonsense is what did us in.

[mtnsnake]

19. I totally agree with you and we have to keep working on this so

our next candidate won't be at such a huge disadvantage. Air America is young and it's going to eventually help put us on a more level playing field. Just the same, we have to come up with a candidate who has BOTH qualities I mentioned or we'll lose again.

[pberq]

27. Nice points, BUT

I must agree with the people who say that fraud is what won the election.

Look, we know the 2000 election was stolen. They just had four years to refine things so that Kerry would have to concede right away, rather than after a big recount battle.

I just cannot accept that Bush won Ohio after they lost a couple hundred thousand jobs. Add to this Diebold machines, Blackwell, and all the reports out there about various "discrepencies", and it adds up to one thing: FRAUD!

[pacalo]

21. We lost for ONE reason only! The election was rigged. Period.

[mtnsnake]

24. So does that mean we should give up trying to win the next election

by improving and coming up with an ideal candidate?

Oh, we lost due to fraud, so we're going to win the next election without even trying because fraud will be proven and we're the perfect party already. Yeah right.

[Atman]

33. No, it means we try to win the next election by exposing the fraud

NOT changing who we are in capitulation to the perpetrators of that fraud.

[pacalo]

35. You can't get much better than John Kerry or Wesley Clark as a

candidate. Both have high integrity & strength in character. We'll NEVER win if we don't fix the voting problems! If Bushitler ran against Billy Graham (figuratively; I realize he's too old to run), Billy Graham would have lost.

[Dhalgren]

39. There is no such thing as an "ideal" candidate.

However, even if there were, the Democratic party would have to nominate him or her and there are no guarantees that the Dems would. Also, if you keep saying that the reason the Dems keep losing elections is because, as a party, they don't know what they are doing, I don't see how that helps. And you are saying that the Dems do not know how to win an election, whether you realize that that is what you are saying or not. As long as you think that it is the Democrats' own fault that the Democrats keep losing, then you are playing into the hands of the neoNazis who have taken over this country. Now you may be right, that the Dems are simply too inept or corrupt to win an election; if so you should consider another party to support. These elections are not one person against one person, but party against party. Jesus, it isn't worth trying to explain this stuff...

[mtnsnake]

43. Look, don't be putting words into my mouth and don't be telling me to

support some other party. The reason I'm bringing this stuff up is because NOBODY cares more about this party and what it stands for than me, and that includes YOU.

[Atman]

45. If this were true...

"NOBODY cares more about this party and what it stands for than me, and that includes YOU."

If this were true, you would not be so concerned with dismissing the vote fraud issue out of hand while trying to come up with solutions that don't recognize that fraud. The fraud means we won, which means we should NOT be wasting energy trying to change, it means we need to be fighting the usurpers of democracy. You may feel strongly, but it is misguided energy, as I said before.

[mtnsnake]

48. So you're saying I shouldn't believe in other reasons besides fraud that

might have caused us to lose. Okay, I get the picture.

As far as the voter fraud thing, I supported the notion of hoping it was discovered so the election could be overturned, but I also think there are other reasons that could just as well be why we lost and if we don't address ALL of them, we'll continue to lose in the future, regardless of whether or not fraud is ever proven.

[charlie]

51. Well, when you say there are *only* 2 reasons

you've gotta expect that folks who've decided other causes are more likely are gonna disagree, don't you think?

[mtnsnake]

56. Yes, in retrospect, I guess I should've left "only" out of it.

I didn't realize that 99% of people here are convinced that voter fraud is the ONLY possibility why we lost, and that nothing else is worth mentioning as ANOTHER possibility as to why we lost. LOL

That's okay, I wasn't expecting confetti.

[charlie]

61. Heh

Yeah, you reaped a pile-on.

But consider for a moment... IF vote fraud put Dubya back in office, there's no reason to bother with other causes. It's the one possibility that trumps all others. I can understand their fervor.

I'm middlin' on the issue -- certain there was a lot of criminality by the Repubs, not sure if we'll ever uncover enough of it to nail them on it, or at least stir some outrage from the public.

[mtnsnake]

62. I have to admit that your reasoning is dead on.

I can understand their fervor.

Maybe the wording of my thread title was a little too exlusive for everyone's tastes, but my point is that I believe there are other distinct possibilities as to why we lost, just as much as they believe there are NO other possibilities.

This wasn't intended to be a flame about whether or not I think voter fraud will be proven; it was intended as a SPECIFIC idea of something we can do to improve our chances for the next election. I appreciate your level-headedness though.

[charlie]

65. Sure, I agree

You're right. We need to talk about it -- ALL of it. We're in the midst of a disaster, out of power at the moment when we're needed the most.

I think it's good to keep in mind though, that we have no idea of what the electoral dynamic will be in 4 years. As bad as our situation is, the Republican position is nearly as precarious. They've climbed aboard a runaway train, and may well wreck the country and their party's prospects with it. Their audacity could be their undoing. Whatever we think we need in a candidate today probably won't matter a whit when the time comes.

Myself, I think the best thing our candidates and representatives can do in the meantime is get an attitude adjustment. No more bending to accomodate what pundits deem to be the mood of the electorate. Quit being reactive and go active. They need to say FUCK YOU, I'M A DEMOCRAT. Not out loud of course, but internalize it so they can express it with conviction and congruence. Act like winners for a change. Whack those fucking Republicans. Hard. It'll be fun and good for the country.

[stopthenoise]

80. I do not believe that the election was rigged

I have a hard time believing that if the election was rigged John Kerry would've quit so soon. We lost. Simple as that.

[leesa]

118. Keep those blinders on...it won't matter what you do or who you

run if the polls are hopelessly rigged. Kerry was pulling 15000-30000 people to his rallies...Bush was pulling hundreds. Go figure!

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[stopthenoise]

169. I think those numbers are inflated but. . .

it really is irrelevant how many people show up for a rally. Most Americans are too busy to go out and listen to a guy run through a speech that they've heard a thousand times on television. One of the reasons that Kerry was pulling more people at his rallies may have been because a large number of his supporters are young people (college students, yuppies, etc.) who have both the time and energy to go out and listen to a political cadidate repeat a stump speech. Bush had more votes. Sucks. Being paranoid isn't going to accomplish anything.

[comradebillyboy]

22. kerry lost because he never gave anyone a reason to vote

for him, as opposed to voting against bush.

how can someone get elected who has no coherent position on the iraq war other than "i have a plan"

kerry coasted along thinking bush would fuck up the campaign. bush may be a shitty prez, but he's a capable pol and didn't ever get off message. kerry had no message at all

[4democracy]

31. Even if we could build the perfect candidate, they CANNOT win if

our votes are not counted or changed during the counting. What part of that is so hard to understand?

[driver8]

102. I disagree, comrade

Based on what we saw prior to this election, Kerry should have won in a landslide. Kerry was drawing 30k to 40k people at every campaign stop. Bush was not even close to half that number. Kerry buried Bush in the debates and showed the country what a President should look like and act like. Bush's approval rating was in the sewer and Kerry's was climbing. People waited in line for 8 hours to vote for Kerry...the people wanted a change and were ready for change. The exit polls reflected this.

This election was a scam; a fucking fraud. Kerry did his job and had the people behind him. What he didn't have behind him were the voting machines and voting machine makers. This country was riled up and behind him like they haven't been for years.

This is all going to come out eventually...and Bush and his cronies are going down.

[GOPBasher]

32. No, these are the two reasons: Die and Bold

This election was stolen by way of the voting machines, which are impossible to verify. The exit polls were not wrong.

[4democracy]

36. You are absolutely correct except they can find evidence during audits

[4democracy]

37. Cliff Arnebeck said on C-Span last week, they have proof

you can see the video on C-Span home page

[Atman]

44. THE AFFADIVITS WERE FILED TODAY

Maybe some people on this thread missed it. The affadavits were filed today, a programmer actually involved in writing the vote-rigging program. People are stepping forward. This isn't a matter of IF...it is a matter of how we proceed. It is not a matter of how we become more likeable, it is a matter of exposing people who have no business being liked at all.

[pacalo]

46. Is Clint Curtis the programmer?

[rocktivity]

50. We lost for THESE reasons

1. The mainstream media was not on Kerry's side.
2. The Kerry campaign didn't do anyting about the media not being on Kerry side.
3. The Kerry campaign didn't factor the role the Internet would play.
4. Kerry didn't figure any of this out until it was a little too late.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[T Town Jake]

68. That's simply not true...

...the MSM gave *W a pass on just about everything, but every time Kerry went windsurfing or some Swiftboat Vet idiot had something to say they were johnny-on-the-spot with plenty of coverage and camera time. I don't think we were watching the same election campaign.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[stopthenoise]

85. I bet

you guys were watching Fox and the like. I do it too. I can't help but watch what these idiots have to say. But CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN were all very fair to Kerry. Only FOX and then Scarborough on MSNBC were really tough on Kerry. Not many votes lost there.

[ruggerson]

87. really. who do you think you're fooling?

remember. we actually have iq's over here.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[w4rma]

67. We lost for 1 reason only: Big media

The vote fraud would not be tolerated if we didn't have a pravda press. The BS that Bush and Repukes pull every single day would get exposure if we didn't have a pravda press.

The U.S. consulate bombing in Saudi Arabia is a good example. Did you notice that it was not treated as important news by any corporate news outlet in America, while even Mudoch's Sky News outside of America made it their lead story?

The perfect candidate does not exist so give up looking for one.

And until wealthy Democrats invest in a media takeover this country will continue to go down the drain. There is a reason that FDR and Democrats, directly after the Great Depression, put in the media laws that they did, such as the Fairness Doctrine and controls on media ownership.

[mtnsnake]

74. Interesting and informative

Great points about the media.

As to me looking for the perfect candidate, I'm not looking for Mr Perfect. I just think we need to do better, and I cited a way in which I thought we could do that. I honestly think we need to come up with a candidate who not only stands tough to our convictions, but one who also delivers those convictions with personality. We need someone who can inspire us, not confuse the hell out of everyone.

I think that's why so many around here including myself have high hopes for Obama. Right now, he's the only one I can see that has close to both qualities it takes to win.

[stopthenoise]

81. Don't blame the media

I just can't agree with the idea that the media is the reason GW won. While I think that O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and the like are awful and have no business providing Americans with the information that they base their vote on, only six million people tops watch O'Reilly every night and he has the highest ratings of these clowns. That's six million votes that are going for GW regardless. There were 120 million votes cast. Those people who watch the conservative talking heads are not the deciding factor. I'm not sure what it was that lost the election, but I don't believe it was the media.

[Atman]

89. You DO realize "the media" consists of more than Fox and Rush...

ABC, CBS, and NBC still make up the largest share of the "mainstream media" by far. Fox, MSNBC, et al, don't even come close. Not by a long shot. And while CBS was the closest to showing any sort of investigative balls, it was complacent, and Rather didn't begin to speak up until too late. Only to be shot down by the REST of the media, who were far more concerned with his memo than the charges.

The vast majority of Americans STILL get most of their news from the three broadcast networks. And if you really think they did any serious reporting during this election you're only fooling yourself. And maybe those 59,000,000 Bush voters (minus the fake ones).



1st Amendment Shoppe

[stopthenoise]

170. I simply don't agree

While ABC, CBS, and NBC weren't awfully tough on Bush, they didn't let him slide on most of his garbage. People chose to ignore the information and the stories that I assume you believe, as I do, proved Bush is a poor president. Just because we don't have a "Left Wing" channel that spews propaganda doesn't mean that the news was unfair to the people. The three major networks did their job. The people didn't do theirs.

[JNelson6563]

69. Here's two reasons

1. Lack of spine.

2. Crappy campaign due to crappy advice.

It's all so simple.

Julie

[mtnsnake]

71. Long before the campaign was even over, I cringed

at the way things were going, and at so many of the decisions Kerry's campaign managers and advisors were making.

I couldn't agree more with you that those 2 reasons contributed greatly to us losing. In a year where we needed to run a near-perfect campaign, we did nothing of the sort.

[hannah]

76. To JNelson6563

Don't you ever say that Kerry lacks a spine. Don't you ever say that about any Vietnam Veteran. No, it's not all so simple. Veterans of war have more spine than you can ever imagine..

[JNelson6563]

100. I will say as I please

and if you don't like it don't read my posts.

Let's talk about three weeks before responding to the swift boat liars. Let's talk about only happy talk allowed at the Dem convention. Let's discuss the spineless IWR vote and the subsequent, Oh Yes I'd Do It Again Even Though It's A Disaster. That's just for starters.

So tell me, how's life on Denial?

Grow up.

Julie

[mtnsnake]

110. Yes!

Well said, Julie.

[cdp]

70. We can talk about more than fraud.

This forum is big enough to talk about voter fraud AND what the Dem party should be doing to get elected.

I think Kerry ran a campaign that was incredibly far from perfect. Does anyone think he handled the Swiftboat Vets well? Does anyone think he explained his stance on Iraq clearly from day one? I don't, and many other DUers don't.

I think that Democrats have a tough time making their message connect with people that it should connect with.

I know many many people who voted for Bush. Gay people, black people and poor people. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE VOTED FOR BUSH. MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS. Democrats need to learn why. Is it because everyone who voted for Bush is evil? No. Are they all stupid? No.

If you think Kerry ran a perfect campaign, and the Democrats message is perfectly articulated, then I guess there is no reason for you to talk about what Democrats should do in the future. Many people on DU disagree with you.

[mtnsnake]

73. Sorry, but I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing

I certainly think this forum is big enough to talk about the possiblility that voter fraud WAS the reason for our loss AND the possibilitiy that it WASN'T the reason for our loss as well. I can't speak for everyone else, but anything that comes out of my fingers in regard to what caused us to lose the election is sheer opinion and nothing else, despite how I or anyone else may come across in presenting that opinion. Right now, it's all speculation by ANY of us, despite the claims any of us are making.

As to your last paragraph of your post, of course I don't think Kerry ran a perfect campaign and so on.

[cdp]

105. I am agreeing with you

I was addressing other DUers who get on almost every non-fraud related thread and say "fraud is the only thing we need to fix, so don't bother talking about anything else." I am sure that you have noticed that almost anytime a DUer doubts a vote fraud theory, s/he is met with Freeper Madness. I have been told that I belong on "another board" (freerep) and that I am not a "serious Democrat" more times than I can count.

What is funny/ pathetic is that the one thread I have actually read at conservativeunderground.com, which was about gay marriage, actually had a DEBATE that didn't result in anyone being told to go to "another board" (DU) or anyone being told they are not a "serious Republican." Plenty of gay bashing though... one of the reasons I came here.

[mtnsnake]

111. Thanks for the clarification.

BTW, it's not right if you're being unfairly accused of not being a serious Democrat. That's gotta hurt. Sometimes I think people are just trying to protect what we've got, though, and maybe they're just not taking chances or something. I don't think they intend harm, but are just looking out for the place because of past experiences with freeper pests who come here to cause trouble. Just the same, they should be more careful when they point the finger and place labels where they don't belong. Maybe they just need to get to know you a little better. Keep the faith.

[chaska]

79. Fraud aside (because we don't have enough proof so why waste time)...

It is clear that we had a fool proof case. Too bad the election proved that we are a nation of fools (59,000,000 of us anyway). We should have won by a landslide, and yet we lost - possibly even fairly. So why on earth are we talking about fraud? We'd better be figuring out why the fools voted for Bush, and how we can prevent such calamities in the future.

We lost because the pugs have stolen our working class base. No, actually we gave them those voters freely.

We'd better get back to basic Democratic values again. Oust the DLCers.

[FrenchieCat]

82. I agree....

Bush should have gotten about 3 million votes, at the most...if MSM Presstitutes did their actual jobs and voting machines were outlawed and replaced by pen and paper.....

We also wouldn't have gone to war if MSM acted (shall I dare use the word?) fair.

MSM was the one setting the agenda instead of the Kerry campaign team.....

I do beg to differ with your ream on the DLC.....cause the DLC had nothing to do with this lose. Clinton and Gore were both DLC, and the GOP and the MSM probably went after them just as much if not more than Kerry.

.....Oh, plus both prior DLCers won their election (yes, Gore won by a larger margin than Kerry).

So the bottomline is elected Democrats everywhere should be standing on their chairs and demanding election machine reform. Everytime they put their face on the Teevee...it should be to utter words about the election machines and the procedures (like having enough voting apparatus in voting precints).

They need to be on MTP and if asked a question about Iraq's election, respond as such when ask about elections in Iraq..."well Tim, I think that our election system is broken...so we better make sure not to import any of the diebolt machines to Iraq"...etc, etc..

When asked about elections in the Ukraine...same song
Election in afghanistan....same song
The economy....same song
The War on Terror....same song

Every chance, every opportunity, same song.

Each Democratic Representative, Governor, Mayor, etc... should go to their constituents and ask them to write letters to each of their Senators. The 527s should be airing commercials featuring the difference between our voting machines and other countries's (like Canada's, all of Europe).....etc, etc, etc..

Well you get my point. Make it THE issue....a broken record.

That's how the GOP gets what it wants done. Calling the MSM "liberal" whenever they get a chance, calling the war on terror the War in Iraq, etc., etc., etc.

We need representatives that are bold and have balls to do this. To just keep speaking out. Pretty soon all of the "stick your finger in the wind Pink tu-tu" Democrats would be doing it. It would be the rage...the in vogue thing to do.

Have all celebrities do it. When they go to accept their oscar...talk about voting machines vs. pen and paper.

The liberal press (the few there are), Bloggers, activists, Air America should all should start talking about it.

We should send letter to all over to Editors of domestic and foreign press.

THIS SHOULD BE THE ISSUE!

When the GOP starts talking about whining Dems crying about the voting machines, Dems need to have a come-back ready, like......
"300,460 of my constituents are demanding that I discuss this. I am here to represent them....so you can call it whining, I call it "doing the people's business".

We could do this!

Anyway, if the DNC/DLC/ACT and move-on.org and George Soros want to reach me.....please give me an Alert. I have other ideas as well.

Duh....

They should make their signature issue....cause unless that changes...everything else is for naught.

[LittleClarkie]

88. My friend at the pub, a Libertarian

didn't decide until he got into the booth. In the end, he feared that men would die as a result of the transition from one prez to another, and he couldn't face that, even if he thought Kerry would do a better job in the long run.

It was good to talk to him. I couldn't fault him for his reason, even if I disagreed, and as a veteran he stated unequivocally that he didn't believe the Swiftee bullshit and that the Swiftees didn't affect his vote in the slightest.

After listening to the chickenhawk regulars at the bar make fun of Kerry's medals, it was good to hear that from another regular.

[FrenchieCat]

91. is it possible...

that this ONE GUY that you spoke with was talking for himself and not for those OTHER GUYS that "made fun of Kerry's medals?"

I think that it is.

[LittleClarkie]

95. I know that

He was in the military, so he knows. When I told him about the other guys, the first words out of his mouth were "Did they serve?"

He was indeed speaking for himself. Even so, I live in Freeper central, so any whiff of common sense is like a bit of fresh air.

[CarbonDate]

90. I am sick and tired....

...of the voter fraud people hijacking every thread. I hate to say this, but I don't see anything coming of all this talk. I really, really don't like ascribing our defeats to something I have no control over; it really seems, well, defeatist.

To quote the man that so many are claiming won the election: "Quit crying in your tea-cups. It's not going to change; get over it."

[mtnsnake]

96. Me too. It's almost a waste of time to try to discuss anything productive

around here the way that so many of the voter fraud people "hijack every thread" as you say. It's almost like there's a signal or something they all send out to each other, so they can all pounce at the same time. RED ALERT: Time for some thread bustin!!

LOL

[robbedvoter]

99. One needs to have a 2 track mind on this to be productive

without free elections, nothing you say is worth anything. And , OTOH, in parallel with restoring the voting rights, it makes sense to look for a candidate. But to learn the right lessons from 2004, you cannot ignore the BFEE media&Diebold.

[driver8]

104. You're the one that said, "we lost for 2 reasons and 2 reasons only

What do you expect the response of the board to be when you make a statment like that? Knowing how the emotions are running on this board right now, how could you not expect people to respond against what you have said? You have pretty much told everyone that believes in fraud that they are full of shit and to quit wasting their time with this.

So, if you expected to make a definitive statement like the one you made and not expect the thread to get hijacked, I've got some swamp land in Florida I would love to sell you...

[mtnsnake]

108. Oh give me a break. You act like I did something

illegal or something just by the nature of the title of my thread. A few of you are so thin-skinned it's really amazing.

BTW, just like Kerry didn't appreciate the swift boat lying fuckers, I don't appreciate you accusing me of saying that I implied anyone here that believes in fraud "is full of shit and that they should quit wasting their time", to paraphrase what you just said. If you think that's what I meant, then you better take a course in Reading Comprehension 101.

I stand by what I said up on top. That's my opinion, just like everyone else is entitled to theirs, and I meant no disrespect toward anyone who's passionate about voter fraud. It was meant as a specific way to improve the party. Jesus Christ.

[driver8]

124. You act like you did nothing...

I'm not implying that you did anything illegal. But, you are the one that made the definitive statement that we lost for two reasons and two reasons only. Don't you think that makes people feel that the talk of fraud and vote suppression is seen as nonsense? Of course they are going to react the way they did. You cannot tell me that you expected everyone to just swallow what you said as the absolute truth.

Maybe you need to take a course in English Composition 101...

[robbedvoter]

133. The words "We Lost" tend to do that to me. Elliot Spitzer lost my vote

for writing stuff like that on his website announcing his run. Before reading, I was going to volunteer. Kerry was the last candidate who shat on my voting rights and got my vote anyway.
NEVER AGAIN.

[robbedvoter]

98. 1. We won 2. perfect candidate is an oxymoron such as "close enough

to steal". There's no limit to what they can steal, there's no reality basis needed for smears . The war was already unpopular by election time.
But I agree with the qualities you ask for. It just has to go with some free media/fair elections or else, God himself would lose too.

[c4550]

112. agreed

I agree almost completely mtnsnake. Kerry was not a strong candidate. Offsetting him with Edwards backfired though. Though Edwards has personality, he's the poster child for lawsuit reform.

[Disturbed]

114. Even if there was fraud...

would not a candidate that had charisma and a VP that had War Creds, such as Clark, garnered more votes than fraud could have upset? Kerry/Edwards did not have what enough voters wanted as oppossed to a sitting Pres. and VP that brainwashed millions with lies and half truths. If the ticket was B. Clinton and Clark would we be talking about fraud now?

[Atman]

137. No

You're completely missing the way this would work, and thus the larger point itself. Let say that on every tenth vote -- or third-and-a-half vote or whatever -- three votes are added to the Bush column (I don't know how the software was written, obviously, I am just trying to illustrate the flaw in your logic). Or fake votes were consistently added to keep Bush just ahead. Since a central republican-owned computer did all the tabulating after the electronic machines uploaded their data, it would also have been just as easy to skim extra votes from one state and add them to another. The variations are so simple to imagine, and there are endless varieties.

So, even if Jesus Christ was running on a ticket with Bill Clinton, there would still have been NO WAY to beat that system. Christ/Clinton could have garnered a trillion votes, and the software would simply have tallied up X number more for Bush. Simple as pie. You don't rig an election and risk civil war or jail or any of the other unknowns, unless you had that angle figured out. That is the whole point, and why any talk of "better candidates" is moot if you are to place any credence in the vote-rigging theory at all.



1st Amendment Shoppe

[Catchawave]

116. Several million Vietnam Veterans ?

Who have held a grudge against JK since 1971. There's a few votes. Running him as a War Hero was the biggest mistake of the campaign, IMO.

[leesa]

117. Nonsense. We "lost" because of voter fraud on a massive scale

We "lost" because the Republicans control all media in the US and THEY tell us Bush "won". Don't play their game.

[tngledwebb]

121. Thats just the MSM CW BS, mtnsnake.

Why you spreadin it when you know this election was rigged just like the last two or three. The illegal immoral Iraq 'war', aka the new ME holocaust, is precisely why Kerry got the 2 million plus majority that the riggers flipped to Bush. Or do you think Americans are stupid?

[rolleitreks]

125. Sorry to see this obsession with fraud.

Fraud was not decisive in the election. We lost, and blaming it on fraud is like blaming terrorism on freedom, self-serving and myopic. I think the original poster is right; we lost becasue of the war (and security in general)and because people didn't like Kerry. In hindsight, the campaign was abysmal, beginning with the failure to address the SwiftBoat Vets and continuing through the convention, which should have been four days largely devoted to pounding home Bush's responsibility for the administration's failures and disasters. Despite the strong closing, it was too little, too late. I hope John Kerry continues his good work in the Senate but, like Lieberman, I hope he will abandon presidential ambitions. He's simply not the man.

[wellstone]

126. Threads like this give me hope

Blaming the BBEs and claiming voter fraud is exactly what the Republimuggles want us to do. It makes us looke like we're all wearing tin foil hats and it distracts us from the real reasons we lost. Face it, in 2004 we found our version of Bob Dole. Kerry was a lousy candidate. He did say (correctly) that Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. But he also (very wrongly) voted to authorize force and said that he would have invaded Iraq even if he had known there no WMDs to be found. He voted for "No Child Left Behind" (what an underfunded joke that thing is...) and then criticized it. He (wrongly) voted for NAFTA and other free trade agreements, then complained that W and his ilk we shipping jobs overseas. He voted for the PATRIOT Act (insert the sound of the Constitution being shredded here...) then complained about its enforcement.

Hells fracking Bells, I voted for the guy and even I wasn't sure what he actually thought about Iraq, the National Debt, the PATRIOT Act etc.

In many ways he was exactly what the Republimorons accused him of being: a flip-flopper.

All this mewling about voing machine just makes me depressed. DAMN IT ANYWAY! Our ideas are BETTER than theirs. Out values are BETTER than theirs. Our understanding of history and of humankind is BETTER that theirs. Better for the world. Better for the USA. Better for individuals.

We don't need to mewl and pule about voter fraud, we need to find a candidate who will stand up and say "This is what we believe about Choice, about church and state, about third world debt, about the environment, about military intervention around the world and if you stop to think about it, you'll see that we're right". (Paul, we could really use you now...)

Do this in clear, unwavering, confident terms and it'll be the Red Staters left complaining about rigged ballots after the next election.

[Redleg]

128. Why are Dems so eager to discard their candidates?

After 2000, Al Gore was given the heave ho. After 2004, Kerry is being given the bum's rush. We have to stop punishing our people because they don't win. Look at the experience Kerry gained in this election. I believe he will use it and learn and be a much better candidate next time around.

[tngledwebb]

158. Bs, Bs, Bs,

Bs, ad infinitum. Fraud was decisive in this and at least the last two elections.

BushCo's utter failures- Iraq, the economy, the so called 'war on terror' were so glaringly obvious that despite the constant barrage of MSM pro-Bush propaganda, John Kerry STILL won by a huge majority.
( Just flip the numbers and add a few hundred thousand more for a start on the real total.)

There were certainly too many Bush supporters, but most of them, like some of my friends, relatives, and neighbors had only an inkling of the utter evil they were actually voting for. They will find out soon enough.

[Redleg]

127. Let's stop this "Kerry doesn't have a personality" stuff.

You are just channeling the anti-Kerry spin points. Anyone who actually watched Kerry at the rallies and at the debates saw a passionate, articulate, engaging, and knowledgable leader. Bush, on the other hand, came off as whiny, immature, and ill-informed.

[wellstone]

130. I was at the Kerry rally outside the Metrodome

in Minneapolis. 30,000 strong. It was great. And yes John was, and is, intelligent and compassionate and right on the issues.

But he kept shooting himself in the foot ie the "I would have voted to invade Iraq anyway" comment and others. That's not spin, its fact.

I was lucky enough to hear Paul speak here in Minne. IMHO, FWIW, Paul was the Real Deal. Talk about intellect merging with passion! That's what we need; a firey righteous liberal. That would connect with people in this country.

As you might have guessed, I wanted with all my heart to have Paul be our candidate for Prez in 2004. I really don't have animosity towards John. He strikes me as truely good man who would have done us proud in the Oval Office. But if Paul had been on the ticket I believe the outcome would have been different. A lot of dreams died in the Minnesota woods when the plane went down...

Sigh.

[robbedvoter]

134. Guess what? I heard the same about Gore as well.

But people here love absorbing the imperial truth


''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And
while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Bush aide to Ron Suskind

[dolstein]

138. Sorry, but you gloss over the real problem

First, the reason why it's so hard for the Democrats to run against a Republican incumbent during wartime is that the Democratic Party has little credibility on national security issues. The Democratic Party, in the eyes of many people (and not simply right-wing Republicans) is the party of war protestors, not commanders in chief. It's sad that the image of the party that led American successfully through two world wars was so radically transformed by LBJ's Vietnam fiasco, George McGovern's disastrous 1972 campaign, and Jimmy Carter's weak and timid response to the hostage crisis, but that's what happened. And it will take a different kind of Democrat (perhaps a certain four star general) to change that impression. Obviously, nominating one of the leading opponents of the Vietnam War probably wasn't a wise decision.

Second, the reason why Kerry had a personality problem is because he had spend decades representing an overwhelmingly Democratic state. Democrats from red states (I'm including Edwards here) need to have personalities that are acceptable to more moderate and conservative voters.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[mtnsnake]

143. Maybe, maybe not, but I like the point you make

and thanks for sticking to the REAL topic of this thread, which is something I think needs as much addressing as vote fraud does. I agree with everything you said, and find the historical background you gave as being an eyeopener.

As to Kerry's personality, I don't think you can blame it on the fact he's represented one of the most liberal of all states. What I'm talking about is his natural personna, which is pretty stiff and boring. He's intellectual enough, but that's about it, and he's terrible at explaining himself to the point where you can say, "geez, I can relate to that". IE, he doesn't inspire.

Anyway, is there anyone we have in mind besides a future Obama who encompasses both traits I was talking about? We really do need someone next time who's not only capable, but who INSPIRES. Someone who makes you jump off the couch when he speaks.

[dolstein]

149. What I meant regarding Kerry's personality . . .

is that someone with that kind of personality would have found it difficult to get elected in a state with a more competitive partisan balance. But in the state of Massachusetts, his personality simply wasn't as big a liability as it proved to be in the presidential campaign.

I hope you aren't under the impression that Obama is the cure all. Sure, he's got a winning personality. But I don't see how he's going to establish credibility on national security. He is, after all, a liberal who never served in the military. If Kerry couldn't make the grade despite his service in Vietnam, I don't know how Obama could. And while a red state Democrat might get a pass on national security (after all, we elected draft dodger Clinton twice), a liberal Northern Democrat is going to get a lot more scrutiny.

[mtnsnake]

151. At the very least, Obama is a hopeful example of what we need to

get people excited again. I'm not by any means jumping the gun and saying he's a "cure-all", but I can certainly understand all the hype he's getting. So far, so good.

One thing I think you might be doing is putting a little too much stock in the importance of a miltiary background for our next candidate. Yes, it's a time of war, so it's hard not to consider, but consider what we've got running the country right now!

[dolstein]

153. It's a double standard, but it's real

Republicans, for whatever reason, have built in credibility on national security. True, this credibility isn't based on fact, but it exists. And the Democrats have to deal with it. Perhaps there are otherwise to establish this credibility without nominating someone with a strong military background, but I'm not sure what it is. One thing we don't need to do is nominate another candidate who has a record of consistently opposing the use of military force. Again, if we don't nominate someone who can credibly portray himself (or herself) as a "different kind of Democrat" on issues like moral values and national security, they aren't going to get the opportunity to make the case on economic issues, health care, etc. If we nominate someone who can't clear that initial hurdle, we're screwed.

[cdp]

164. After 9-11 Dems have an uphill battle

You say "consider what we've got running the country right now" and to most deep thinking people, you have a point. However, most people vote for very simplistic reasons. Many people feel that Democrats are typically pussies, Republicans are typically tough, and it ends there. Someone mentioned Carter's timid handling of the hostage crisis, but what about Osama killing 3000 people and getting away with it while our President is distracted somewhere else? For some reason (the fact that he is a Republican) Bush is barely criticized for that. If Gore was President, and Osama was still alive making home videos and watching movies, Republicans would have no problem painting him as a pussy.

In summary, Dems really do need to run a candidate who is going to come across to Joe Average Simpleton as "tough." A Dem who has 4 stars on his uniform is a good start.

[cdp]

165. Here is one strike against Obama

mtnsnake, I agree that Obama is inspiring to many people, while Kerry was less so. I know that it is early to talk about 08, but you seem to be thinking strategically about it, which more people need to do.

I strike against Obama, in my opinion, is that his home state is a Dem stronghold. We need help in other states. Have you looked at http://www.PresidentElect.org or my thread about it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x118028 ?

[mtnsnake]

166. What about a Clark/Obama ticket then? Or Obama/Clark in 2008?

I think Obama's home state is actually an asset, but I know where you're coming from on this. I just got done reading your thread, btw. Interesting.

When you think about it, it's not like he's in that oh so dreaded northeast, lol, and I'd rather have him coming from a state that will be in his pocket if he runs, than from a state that might not be. At the least, I don't think southern voters would be as turned off by him being the senator from Illinois as someone being the senator from a state in the northeast.

I've heard suggestions of a Clinton/Obama ticket in 2008, but ya know what? Maybe an Obama/Clinton ticket would be even better. Or maybe a Clark/Obama or vice versa would be very nice.

[gjb]

157. A Canadian view

I agree that Kerry was hamstrung running against a War President,given the Democrats anti-war history. But the point is when the US is at war the incumbent has the advantage because of he's the Commander in Chief.

To the Canadian ear the idea that the nations leader is the supreme military commander is completely baffling. A supreme commander is a military leader not a democratic representative. Given the wartime powers awarded to the President (once Congress assents) the President rules by virtual dictat during foreign conflict. Subsequently, the strong emotions of patriotism and loyalty take over the powers of reason and common sense go out the window.

In parliamentary systems such as Canada and Britain military status is not formally granted even in war. In part this is a fear left over from Cromwell's Grand Revolution which was both bloody and dictatorial.

Canada had it's own experience with abuse of power during war when Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act in the seventies to counter the FLQ. The Constitution was suspended and the RCMP rounded up ever leftist journalist in the country.

The conflation of the roles of democratic leadership and military authority are fundamentally incompatible with a free and democratic society.

Also the idea that the nations leader must have served in the military is just as bizarre to us folks 'up in the attic'. The last Canadian Prime Minister who was a war veteran was John Diefenbaker who was PM in the early sixties and he served in WWI.

Unfortunately you folks are stuck with the Commander in Chief due to tradition and the framing of the US Constitution.

What Democrats should do is nominate an aggressive economic hawk and take the high ground on fiscal conservatism. That shouldn't be hard since the RW have thrown budget constraint out the window. Also, avoid social issues like the plague because it's too easy for Reich Wingers to convert 'social issues' into 'socialism'.

The reason I emphasize the economy is that when Clinton was in power and the Gingrich Horde got control of Congress the Balanced Budget Amendment became the conservative mantra. As a result a lot of pressure was put on Canada to reduce our budget deficit. We eliminated the deficit and have had $3 Billion surpluses for eight years running.

So hit the Republi-can'ts where they're weakest. By destroying America's economy Bush is destroying the very country that he has sworn, in the name of God, on the Bible, to defend.

On that note. I think Americans should take away his Bible because he doesn't deserve to have one.

Love and Peace my American friends.

[tngledwebb]

162. Bs, Bs, Bs,

ie, see my previous post.

[UVASAM1]

146. why

1. National security issues

2. Candidate flaws/flaws in strategy

3. Poor leadership from the DNC. Everyone knew what * stood for. The Dem party has no clear message and very few people know our policies anymore.

[XemaSab]

147. Voter fraud

The problem with the "voter fraud" theory is that polls coming up to election day were predicting a VERY tight race.

If all the polls had shown Kerry in a walk in every state, then I'd believe in massive massive voter fraud, but the plain fact is a lot of people voted for Bush.

There may have been small scale voter fraud, but the election never should have been close enough to steal. We should have won this one by 20 or 30 points, seriously.

In 2000, we also should have won it handily, but Gore ran a poor campaign. I really like Gore and I think he would have made a terrific president, but he ran a lackluster campaign and just didn't convince a clear majority of the people. That election was close enough to steal, and steal it they did, but it shouldn't have been close in the first place.

It's the same thing this time around. It's like my man Henry James said, "People can be perfectly good, but not good for what one wants." Saying that Kerry ran a bad campaign isn't a nasty personal attack on Kerry, and acting like Kerry ran a perfect campaign is not helpful for winning elections in the future.

I agree that there need to be clear paper trails on these machines, and I think some of us need to dedicate our time to fighting that fight. But, I think looking at how to run an effective progressive campaign and get our message across is the best strategy for most of us to focus on for 2008.



("Don't think of an elephant!" is a terrific book, btw.)

[oasis]

167. Election fraud. The corporate media played a major role in pumping up

Bush's appeal. The pre-election media polls made it easier for Bush to steal it again.