ACT Analysis: Why Bush Won Ohio (Steve Rosenthal's Words, Not Mine)

[KerryDownUnder]

Some interesting anaylsis on the myths and facts of what happened in the Ohio ground game according to the CEO of Americans Coming Together. Some conclusions:

The Bush campaign was able to persuade some voters who supported Gore in 2000 to turn to Bush in 2004 on the issues of terrorism, strength and leadership. Bush bested Kerry among those who voted in 2000 by five percentage points -- Bush bested Gore in 2000 by three points.

The other major factor was our side's failure to win the economic debate. Despite an economy that was not delivering for many working people in Ohio, the exit poll results show that voters in Ohio did not see Kerry providing a clear alternative. Just 45 percent expressed confidence that Kerry could handle the economy, compared with Bush's 49 percent.

The GOP put on a strong mobilization effort, but that's not what tipped the Ohio election. They did not turn Gore voters into Bush voters by offering a ride to the polls. Instead, it was skillful exploitation of public concern over terrorism by the Bush team -- coupled with Democrats' inability to draw clear, powerful contrasts on the economy and health care -- that pushed Bush over the finish line.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34157-2004Dec3.html

[acmavm]

1. Whatever.

.

[Leilani]

33. There's a lot of truth in that article.

EOM

[blm]

2. There are only 2 truths: Repubs own most of the media + most vote machines

And until there is balance and honesty in dealing with those areas, no Democrat will ever win.

[Toucano]

15. Thank you!

More people need to remember that.

[robbedvoter]

18. Bingo. Plus Kerry actually won Ohio and the election.

[Radical Activist]

3. So economic populism would have worked

if we had motivated people on economic issues. We tried so hard to cast off our weak on defense image that we lost points on what should have been our strongest issue.

This analysis sounds smart. The entire Bush campaign theme was one message: Vote Republican or the gays and terrorists will get your children!

[sampsonblk]

4. Makes sense to me

If you look at Bush's approval numbers on the economy, jobs, healtch care and education, they all went up every time terrorism became the most important issues. Right after 9/11, Bush's approval on the economy was as high as Bill Clinton's. That tells me there are a lot of stupid sheep out there who just can't separate one issue from the other.

Knowing that, we should have also known that winning the economic arguments wasn't going to get it done for us. Of those 49% who think Bush is good on the economy, if you ask them what specifically he's going to do (or HAS done) they'll probably say "Well, I know he's a good man and he's doing his best. After all, he has to protect us at the same time." THAT is pathetic.

We should have known this election was going to be about war and terrorism.

[KerryDownUnder]

11. I agree

how many times did we hear that Kerry was going to "pivot" from the war on terra and start talking about domestic issues where he had a clear advantage only to have that not happen?

[saracat]

5. So translation, the voters are dumb as a rock?

[Cheswick2.0]

9. That's it and because Kerry's campaign was not good

at telling them a plain simple truth they could believe in. Kerry was perfectly suited to lose this election with the considerable help of the media.

People are as dumb as a rock. They always have been, but they are getting dumber due to this phony war on terrorism. And the democrats just kept agreeing that bush was right, only they could do it better.......... UHG!

[Kurovski]

10. And I just don't buy that.

Underestimating the VOTING public is always a mistake.

We had voter suppression we had dirty tricks, we had fraud in this election.

Americans aren't stupid, nor are they crazy. They don't vote to send their kids to die in an unnecessary war they were lied into. They don't vote to make themselves poorer.

Kerry made it plenty clear that
being poorer would be the outcome of another Bush presidency.

[Old and In the Way]

19. The crowds didn't lie.

Remember the turnout for Kerry for his campaign speeches? And remember how the Bush crowds were never shown? Only friendly "intimate" venues where the photographs were tightly controlled.

In fact, I've never seen any rally approaching popular support for this pResident.

[Kurovski]

25. Yep. That's one more detail to add.

Hi there, Old and In the Way!

[sampsonblk]

22. I respectuflly disagree

There are a whole lot of people who are uninformed. For many of us in red counties, it was an uphill battle. I had a heck of a time getting people to remember who Condi Rice was. Or what the first Gulf War was about. Or why it matters that there aren't any WMDs. They just didn't care. Bush is a great guy, he kept the country together after 9/11 and he loves Jesus, and that's all some of them needed to know. Very. Very. Sad.

I agree with you on underestimating the voters. But this time around, the facts suggest no other way of looking at it. Some people don't even know that we went from a record surplus to a record deficit. ?????

[Kurovski]

24. I see your point, but I still think More people

voted for Kerry.

Getting information out to people is a problem, it doesn't always mean they're stupid. (ie, your point on the economy.)

[sampsonblk]

28. Some are stupid, some are ignorant

Some of them are just uninformed. I don't know everything either. I have no problem with that. All we have to do is get them information. But the ones who are uninformed and know it and prefer to stay that way - well I call that stupid.

[Career Prole]

13. As dumb as a coin, anyway.

At least the coin will get it right half of the times. :shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Somewhere around half of them are.

n/t

[Citizen Kang]

6. Yeah...

and don't forget that the GOP controls the voting machines.

[demgrrrll]

7. I do not want to read a postmortem from ACT today. I worked with them

during the election and I and many others told them that they needed to make sure that there were adequate ballots and machines to vote to avoid long lines and other problems. They said it was a good idea and that they would pass it along and make sure that someone acted on the information. I don't think that happened. Any article written by someone from ACT that does not mention that they dropped the ball in this area isn't worth crap. So Kerry did not get his message across? Well you didn't completely do your part either. Man this pisses me off. I hope I read through the article quickly and missed the part where they take a teeny bit of responsibility.

[KerryDownUnder]

12. True points

Especially about the number of voting machines. No one should have to wait in line 8 hours to vote. Has anyone compiled the number of new voting machines deployed from 2000 to 2004 (or even more importantly, from 1992 to 2004)?

[Cheswick2.0]

14. Excuse me but I worked for them too and you are very confused

the machines and the polling places were way beyond ACTS sphere of influence. The only people that could have done anything was the DNC working through the local political system to get the problem looked into. In other words the democratic coordinated campaign.
Were you staff or did you work for them as a volunteer? How could you possibly think ACT had ANY control over the polling places? They register voters and GOTV. That is all they had the power to do. They said they would pass on the information but who were they going to pass it on to? They couldn't coordinate with the campaign or the DNC or any of the local politicians.

[demgrrrll]

17. You are right about not being able to talk to anyone on the campaign

No one was allowed to talk to anyone and that was a problem. My point is that the article reads like they did everything right on the ground and that Kerry did not get his message out. Maybe I am misreading the article. Without going into election day I can tell you that that wasn't the only problem as I am sure you know. I can't and really don't want to go into all of the specifics. My point is what is the purpose of a strong GOTV effort if you are going to be hamstrung by voting machines and ballots. I am expressing my frustration at the process. Whether you think I am right or wrong that's my opinion.

[Cheswick2.0]

21. I understand your frustration

but ACT did what they could. They could only be responsible for their part. If you read the article they did indeed turn out the democraic vote. They got new voters and infrequent voters to the polls. No matter what you think the problem was, ACT did it's job. Don't blame them for what the campaign and the party didn't get done. The fact is that Gore voters did switch because they did not understand what Kerry's message was.

They waited in line because the party didn't take electronic voting seriously and did not follow up on the voters righst act to make sure the polling places were covered with enough machines.

I don't know what you think the problems were on election day. I can tell you that in the office I worked in there was always a handful of volunteers who thought they knew what all the problems were and that they knew better than ACT employees what had to be done. It was amusing but annoying as hell too because most of the time they had no clue what they were talking about. They also had no idea of the job that was being done behind the scenes so that they could be handed a walk list on election day. Don't get me wrong, I was grateful to every person who showed up to help us. But there wasn't time enough in the day to educate a few of them about all the things they did not understand.

ACT is basically SEIU. SEIU is one of the most if not the most effective GOTV organization in the country. But amazingly enough people who never did GOTV in their life could pop into the office on the last few days and think they knew better. I would love to know what you think was done wrong on election day considering that we increased the turnout in a massive way over recent past elections.

[demgrrrll]

29. My My My but we are condescending. Bet that went over well with

your volunteers. You have just made my point for me but since you insist on details which I did not want to write because they would be demoralizing here ya go. By the way I spent weeks with the walk lists going from door to to door with my partner and phone banking. I did not "just show up on the day of the election" Worked like a dog for months in 2000 and 2002 too.
On election day I was the only person at my precinct charged with literally chasing down all the voters as they walked away from the polling place to see if they had been contacted by ACT. I met the supervisor
the night before at 10 pm and was told that she did not have a map for me to get to my polling place, since I left my house at 5 am and it was dark it was hard to read the street signs and I was a little late which was stressful. Some new partner was there and she left after an hour or so leaving me alone until around 1 I had no breaks and no assistance. They sent someone over who stayed for 15 minutes.
and said they had to go home. I am not even complaining about that because it was even more disorganized in 2000. I talked my sister in law in into doing some paid work for ACT she took off election day and they took her all around town in a van and then said they were done but the driver told them if they stepped outside of the van that they would not get paid so they sat inside the van for almost two hours, she said it was a nightmare because the people in the van kept getting angrier and angrier and she was scared. Great day for her.
When I called my ACT supervisor she said it was my responsibility to continue to call her and that I had an easy precinct and I was overreacting. I had been working for 8 hours straight with no break and none in sight.
I still worked until 7 that evening after they found some relief for me. My point is that the Kerry campaign was not perfect ACT was not perfect, Move On was not perfect either and to dump all of this on Kerry's doorstep isn't entirely fair although a majority of the responsibility is his/DNC. Another point is it will be hard to get people to come out again if they have bad experiences with a group or if they think their activities are futile. I am done with you and this issue. bye.

[Cheswick2.0]

46. I had no problem with my volunteers

The ones who were full of ideas about what ACT should do, (things that were not with in ACTS power to do)got told "Yes thank you, I will pass that information on".

Your big complaint was that you had no driving directions to your polling place? What city were you in? I was in one of the smaller county areas and we had 1000 volunteers to coordiante. In the larger cities like Philly they might have had 6000 volunteers to coordinate. Maybe after printing hundreds of thousands of maps and directions the printer ran out of ink. Also there was no reason for you not to take a break. I am sorry you ended getting ditched by other volunteers. You hung in and did the job, good for you. But election day is like that..it always is.


I was a little confused about the story about your sister's van. You started the story by saying election day was even more confused in 2000. I wondered if the story was about 2000 because there was no ACT in 2000. But I assume you are talking about this year and all I can say is, each team was supposed to make 3 passes in their precincts. If people were getting paid then of course they were expected to stay for the whole time. As for keeping them on the van...I am sure they weren't imprisoned, just told they wouldn't get paid until the end of the day.

My point is that you are holding ACT responsible for things that were not ACTs responsibility. We were to turn out the vote, we turned out the vote. ACT was very successful. It was the things the DNC and the Kerry campaign should have done that did not get done.

[KoKo]

26. Cheswick is correct. It was up to the Democratic State Party to get on

this right after "Selection 2000" and in most cases they dragged their feet. The DNC/DLC are to blame for not alerting the State Dem Parties as to what would be a huge problem if "Early Voting" was a reality.

We have our DNC/DLC Leadership to complain to and right on down to our State Dems. Those here who had Repug Governors had REAL problems, but our state has a Dem Governor for 14 years and STILL the Dem State Leadership was clueless. Too few machines in Polling places for early vote and not enough ballots to go around.

NEITHER ACT nor any other agressive action to register and sign up new voters, Dem or Repug could have controlled the machines, type of machines or the wait lines.

Our Leadership has failed us by not getting their act together. (no pun intended) and I wonder why...because it has me and others who canvassed and paid out of pocket for copies of flyers and leaflets and gave up our time to get the Dem vote out and it was hindered by our own!

[sandnsea]

8. Big government health care

When Bush was the one supporting a government run clinic in every county.

Republicans lie and the media helps them. That is all.

[cyn2]

16. I have to agree with you.

What struck me in this analysis was that fact that the voters in Ohio were reflecting the view of the mainstream media (which was definitely parroting the Administration.)

Could Kerry have been clearer in his view? Yes.

Did Kerry deliver many domestic policy speeches. Yes, but they were not covered by the press.

Between the mainstream criticism and stonewalling lay the victory for the repubs.

[Old and In the Way]

20. "not covered by the press"

Absolutely correct....I don't see how it would be possible to cover cover our campaign less. Think back to our convention, MSNBC had Republicans providing commentary. The same ones who covered the Republican convention.

I'll never forget one of Kerry's last campaign stops, I think in Madison. The crowd was easily 80-100K. The CNN newsreader says "hundreds and hundreds". You can't steal an election unless you properly prepare the story. The corporate broadcast media is complicit in this stolen election.

[sandnsea]

27. And leftstream criticism

While the bloggers claim to be the alternative to the MSM, in restrospect, they did little more than complain about the story of the day or join in the criticism of the day. If they really wanted to be the alternative voice, nothing stopped them from relentlessly pushing whatever Kerry policy or record that the campaign or the media ignored.

[Eric J in MN]

23. It sitll doesn't add up.

More new voters supported Kerry.

More people who voted in 2000 switched from the Republcian to Democratic ticket than vice-versa.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Impeach Dubya's analysis of why we lost Ohio: (my own words)

Just twelve of 'em, in fact:

Easily hacked Electronic Central Tabulation machines,

and

Lots of Dumb Fucking People.

[Leilani]

32. IMO, Kerry was a flawed candidate....

Were there voting problems? Sure.
Was there voter syppression? Sure.
Should there have been more voting machines? Sure.

But step back & look at the big picture. Bush is not universally loved, not even in his own party. This was a lesser of 2 evils election.

Put Ohio aside, what about the other states, where Kerry should have done really well? In many states, traditionally blue, Bush got a lot more votes than he did in 2000, which accounted for his popular vote.

Two examples: New Jersey & Hawaii...both safely Dem, but have experienced the results of terrorism. N.J. because of proximity to NY & 9/11, Hawaii because of an economy that took such a nosedive after 9/11. Also, Hawaii has had some terror scares, & as it's location puts it in threatened situation. (remember plot to blow up planes over the Pacific? I do, because I was flying out of Honolulu that day.)

Why was Bush able to increase his vote in all these safely Dem states?
Because Kerry never gave an answer to what he would do about terrorism. Kerry's background as a Mass.lib, including his Senate voting record, did not assure many people that he could be efective in keeping us safe.

Kerry didn't show any passion or anger. He remained remotely aloof, as when he went wind surfing. He stayed on vacation when attacked, & those Swift Boat Ads were seriously damaging. As the Plaid Adder wrote, she knew Bush...she never knew John Kerry.

But look at the grass roots...they worked their hearts out, not for Kerry, but for their country. They made Dems competitive financially for the first time in ages. And if it wasn't for this massive grass roots effort, I believe Kerry would have been trounced. The ground troops kept him competitive, where it came down to 1 state, Ohio.

John Kerry is a cautious politician...everything must be weighed, discussed, polled. People wanted a leader, & they didn't see that in Kerry. And if you want additional proof, just look at his behavior since the election. He never does anything, unless it's politically expedient.

Look at his left over money. When negative stories hit the press, he donated money to the DNC. And the same for the recounts...he didn't help until he had to. He's running for 2008. And he still doesn't understand that so much of his support was for getting rid of Bush.

So flame away, if you'd like. I've been angry about this campaign & election, & instead of cooling off, I'm getting angrier. The next 4 years are going to be pretty ugly. And we should have had a blowout of an election. We had the troops, we just didn't have a leader.

My final rant: Americans think they're at war, & Kerry's FIRST major decision of his candidacy is to select a Personal Injury Attorney as Veep, with almost no experience in foreign affairs, nat'l security.
Why? He polled best. A politically expedient decision, after he said he would choose the most "experienced" person. What about Biden, Graham, etc.? It showed he doesn't mean what he says.

[demgrrrll]

34. You make good points. I find myself increasing angry too. I did work

my heart out. Every spare minute I had I worked on this campaign and gave every dollar I could afford. I won't flame you that's for sure.
The only thing I wonder is if anyone can win with the media covering for Bush at every opportunity and the voting machine issues. Did you happen to watch the Sundance channel program on Bush and the evangelicals? One of the best things I have ever seen. I think it was produced by the BBC. Really shows you what we are up against. But I still wonder if they really have the numbers to overcome our numbers. Hindsight is 20/20. If Kerry had pulled it off we would all be patting ourselves on the back for our great strategy so who knows. I do know something isn't right and we are in for a wild ride.

[Leilani]

38. Sorry, I don't have Sundance

butI saw a good piece on Bill Moyers, & CNN had a 1 hr special.
Remember 1 thing, if Dems & Repubs are both at about 40%, & 20% is Indie, the religious fanatics represent only part of their 40%, maybe 1/3. I think they have a louder voice than numbers.

As far as media goes...that's a problem, & one I've ranted about for a long time. Repubs are disciplined...they have a meeting every morning, & develop talking pts for the day...which they then spread on FOX, Drudge, Washington Times, etc.

Dems don't do this...they need a CLEARER message, & need to get together & put out the word, consistently. They also need to get some liberal media outlets.

Remember, The Dems had the majority for 40 years. And Repubs had a long time to get good at this stuff.

[karlrschneider]

35. I preferred Clark in the primaries (my state was the only one he won), but

if he had gotten the nomination and been "beaten" in the same way JK was, and behaved similarly in the aftermath, would you be hammering on him the same way? Not a flame, just a question...
edit: added a word I inadvertantly out
;-)

[Leilani]

40. Honestly, if Clark had run the same campaign that Kerry ran

I'd be railing on him too.

And the Republicans would have slimed Clark, or any other Dem, just like they did Kerry.

But I have a feeling other candidates would have been more effective, or at least have gone down fighting.

I'd rather lose, knowing I spoke out, remained true to principles, & didn't pander or parse.

I don't know if Clark could have won, but I think he would have fought harder.

I think if Dean or Clark was the candidate, & voter fraud was an issue, they wouldn't have remained silent. They would have given more of an effort on behalf of their supporters.

[Disturbed]

36. Leilani, you nailed it.

Plus the Corp. Media is pleased with the Right Wing, sugar daddy, and pushed to the right.

[Old and In the Way]

39. Flawed because he trusted the American people to vote intergrity

and competence over criminal arrogance, incompetence, and stupidity?

If Kerry had had a Democratic House and Senate, if he had a neutral media, and he did not have such a politically divided country, perhaps he'd have "told it like it is". But those preconditions don't exist today. If he had dropped the A-Bomb on Bush, he'd have won the battle, but lost the war.

He took a calculated risk in running a high road campaign. He counted on the vast majority to vote for principles and integrity.....and providing a clear mandate for change in which to govern. Unfortunately, way too many still voted Bush, apparently disregarding the disgraceful record of the past 4 years. And this divided electorate provided the cover for the Republicans to steal the election again.

[Leilani]

42. I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

I agree there was fraud, but was it in every state? My post makes the point about blue states.

Look, I supported Kerry, because intellectually, I agreed with him on just about every issue, & disagreed with Bush.

But why did others, who agreed with Kerry on issues, vote for Bush?
Because they believed Bush is a leader, has strong convictions, & acts on them.

Many people were underwhelmed by Kerry. If you don't know anyone who felt that way, then you need to get out & about more. I know plenty of people who held their nose & voted for Bush.

[Old and In the Way]

44. Oh, I believe it.

But I don't believe we could have picked a better candidate than Kerry. Any one of our choices would have had their own unique set of faults and exploits. Kerry was the overwhelming favorite of Democrats.....and I know plenty of Republicans that voted for him. I believe he did win, in fact, so I'm not turning inward and second guessing his choice. We have a structural issue with our system and until that is fixed, we won't be electing Democrats.

So just who wouldn't vote for Kerry? Other than the wacko RW? I'd love to know the voting bloc of people who are Left?Democrats that didn't vote for him. Actually, it doesn't exist because, in spite of the rigged election, he gained more votes than any other Democrat in history. So the problem we have is that there is a sizable amount of koolaid drinkers and until they smarten up, we're in trouble as a country.

In fact, I think we're past rational party politcs......if people were rational about their politics, they'd have voted for Kerry this election. I suspect that voting Republican is like identifying with your religious persuation or even the home team. It doesn't matter what your Party/Team/church does to negatively impact your life.....that person will never vote Democrat, root for the away team, or attend another church because he/she identifies with those institutions, totally. It's simply an article of faith, facts be damned. I'll never vote for a Republican again....and there's really no rational basis for my decision, either.

[saracat]

50. Amen.

[saracat]

45. This rant makes me too angry to respond coherently..

Kerry actually got more votes than any Democratic candidate in history. He did exceptionally well against an incumbent president , It is, in fact, possible that he won. The selection of John Edwards showed a true leader, and how confident he was as a man ,and a candidate. Could you imagine that pos Shrub having the guts to pick someone as good looking and charismatic as Edwards and not feel threatened? Of course he picked him because he polled best! You would have been an idiot not to pick him . You dare even mention foreign policy experience with what squats in the WH? Sorry , as a member of the Intelligence Committee, Edwards had more foreign policy experience than Shrub will have in a million years. People clearly weren't voting for competency. And since when did Bush show any anger or passion? There were many occasions where Kerry reflected both passion and anger. You just don't choose to remember. It would not have mattered who our candidate was. The election was going to be given to that moron even if Jesus Christ was our candidate.

I, too am angry in the aftermath of this election. I also wish they had spent the money on this campaign. But my understanding is that legally, they could not, once Kerry took public funding. Bush and Kerry at that point were both subject to the same spending limits. Bush had over a month more to spend the private funds while Kerry had to make the public funds stretch.But it would not have made a difference. The fix was in. We either have to do something about this system or get the hell out of here.
I think John Kerry was a superb candidate who campaigned his heart out. His problem was the Democratic Party ,who are also part of the problem. They did not support their own candidate. They had the worst ground campaign I have ever worked with. They were almost totally staffed by kids who had no experience. BTW that was a DNC decision. It is the same decision they always make. Ed Rendell claims that when he was Chair, they took the decision out of his hands and the "kids" cost Gore the election. Anyway, end of rant. I am tired of all the people who want to second guess Kerry.

[Leilani]

47. I truly respect your admiration for Kerry.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I feel as a member of DU, I have a right to express my opinions.

I won't make a counter argument to your post, because I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. And if I try to explain it further, I'll probably anger you more, & that wasn't my intention.

[greenohio]

37. Huh?

some Gore voters voted for Bush in 2004???? WTF.

This just doesn't sound right.

[magellan]

41. Maybe it's down to ACT's disorganization

My husband and I volunteered with ACT to GOTV on election day. We were quite happy to volunteer for the first time, until we were on the way there. Turns out that not only were we given the wrong address to report to, but after finding the correct meet-up place we were told there was no afternoon GOTV.

Absolutely disheartening first GOTV experience, especially considering what happened that night.

[Gyre]

43. Possible, but not likely. The likely truth (fraud) hurts to believe.

Yes there are ALWAYS things a campaign could do better. But, I believe the Kerry campaign went "the distance" in both states and turned out voters like never before. The campaign did very well in that regard.

The two possibilities are that: 1) Kerry lost the popular vote. 2) Kerry won the popular vote but fraud skewed the results and disenfranchised the Kerry voters.

These are two choices which are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE; it's one or the other, not both. I believe that the circumstantial evidence is very strong that this election was stolen in Ohio and Florida. That belief would reasonably preclude any effort towards making the dems "more effective with their message". Why? Because the effect of repug vote stealing is not going to change if we just "work harder", now is it?

This author, chooses to believe that Kerry lost the popular vote. THAT is the EASY position to have. It does require something akin to religious "faith" in the system. But, that "faith" pays you back by letting you believe that "everything is bascially ok", and the system works. An added benefit is that get fewer "funny tinhat looks" when you talk politics. Problem is, the benefit (of that faith-based belief) is outweighed by the cost of it IF you're wrong and there was a successful criminal conspiracy to steal the election.

Because there is strong evidence suggesting systematic computerized fraud, and because we DID run a strong campaign it would be illogical and extremely dangerous to adopt the author's "feel good about America" assumption that we just "need to work smarter". That equates to just going limp and having "faith" in the repugs to not steal the election, when there is overwhelming evidence in the proven facts of "Watergate", and "Iran-Contra", that they are ready, willing, and more than likely able to do exactly that. (BTW, those prior "bad acts" would be admissible evidence of motive, modus operandi, lack of mistake, intent in a criminal court of law).

For those reasons, I believe all proponents of "we'll do better next time", who don't even consider fraud, to be active or unwitting agents of either Satan or Bush, cowards, or stupid, or some unholy and contrived combination of the above possible character flaws. In other words, not helpful and "red-herrings" (leading us off the correct trail).

No matter how uncomfortable it is, we absolutely need to assume that THIS election was stolen. If we're wrong, then we're out nothing. If we're correct, then we won't be wasting our time and money in 2006 and 2008 trying to get a democrat elected when the election is RIGGED, and maybe, just maybe, the persistant question (about the guilty looking elephant in the corner) will get answered somehow.

The question will certainly NOT get answered if we just "assume" that the playing-field remains level, despite evidence to the contrary.

Gyre

[robcon]

48. The analysis shows what many believed for a long time.

It's the terrorism/foreign policy/defense policy, stupid. That's how Kerry would have won - if he had credible, consistent poilicies.

[robcon]

49. For a great analysis of the weakness of the Kerry campaign...

on foreign/defense/terrorism policy, see Beinart in THe New Republic...

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041213&s=beinart121304

[IStriker]

51. My 2 cents....

I think Kerry ran a crappy campaign in addition to being a less than credible candidate. Why would they not respond to those Swift Boat ads for weeks while they continued to damage Kerry and they had to see it in their polling? All Kerry had to do was release all his military papers to put a stop to the damage, and he did not. Lots of older vets who always vote Democrat were effected by those ads and convinced that Kerry was guilty when he didn't respond. I don't live in Ohio, but I live about 5 mis. from W Va and 9 mis. from Ohio.

[vol5516]

52. agree

I totally agree. I'm keeping an open mind, but I don't see any evidence of significant fraud..yet. And do you think thr Republicans would leave any evidence around for us to find?? As much as I don't like them, I'll admit they're smart, clever, sneaky and good at not getting caught!