Hang on, haters, I'm not done yet!

[rockymountaindem]

Keeping it on rolling...

Kerry was in a worse position than Gore for another reason. Gore won the popular vote. At least Gore could be viewed as a rightful winner, while in 2000 Bush was kind of a luck loser, winning by a technicality. Kind of like in the 30's when Max Schmelling became the only world heavyweight champ to win when his opponent (and current champ) was disqualified for throwing a low blow. Gore could at least say "well, we're checking into the Florida vote, but hear me out because I did get half a million more votes than my opponent". The fact that Bush won the popular vote put Kerry in a much more disadvantageous position than Gore was in 2000.

Kerry didn't win the popular vote. He lost it by more than Gore won it. This is because the Bush campaign made it a priority to run up the score in safe Republican states such as Texas and Oklahoma. The Kerry campaign didn't have the resources to do that. In fact, voter turnout in Democratic strongholds such as NY and CA was below the national average. We didn't have the money to run big-time GOTV operations in states we knew we were gonna win. Which brings me to another point...

Bush had way more funds than Kerry. This was for a couple of reasons. First of all, Bush didn't have any primary opponents. Secondly, he had 4 years to raise all that cash. Thirdly, he had big corporate donors and lots of millionaire pals shelling out cash. Kerry had to rely mostly on small donations from individuals. And lastly...

Despite these disadvantages, Kerry won the vote in the "swing states" by 2%. We carried Minnesota and Wisconsin by a larger margin than 2000. We came a lot closer in Nevada. We also won New Hampshire, Michigan and Pennsylvania. We got a wider margin in the swing states that we won than Bush got in the swing states that he won. So, in the targeted states that we tried hardest to win, we did win. As Kerry himself pointed out in a post-election interview, half of Bush's popular vote margin was comprised of his winning margins in, you guessed it, Texas and Oklahoma.

And as for the "he lost to the worst President ever", that's easy to say when you're living in Manhattan, Chicago or San Francisco where everybody agrees with you. Move to one of the most conservative cities in the country like me and you'll see the other side. There were plenty of people who, for reasons I won't explain now, are die-hard Bush supporters that we'll never reach. There are still more who will vote Republicans no matter what because, despite their feelings about Bush, just hate Democrats. So, even though it may astound you blue state/blue city types, Bush did, does and will have a lot of fans (sadly).

So, again... put that in your pipe and smoke it, haters.

[TayTay]

1. I have some disagreements with you on this (small ones)

Money was not the problem in 2004. The Democrats were highly competitive with the Rethugs for the first time in decades in terms of fund-raising. (Or ever, maybe.) And there were more small-donor contributions to the Bush-Cheney ticket than to the Kerry-Edwards tickets. (Sad but true. Check the FCC.gov site.) This may have had something to do with the selling of Bush-Cheney in churches across America. But they got huge numbers of $25 contributions.

I don't spend a lot of time in the GD forums. I simply don't think that the people who post 'Kerry-hatings' are worth the effort. They employ a circular form of logic to defend their position that is completely immune to any outside influence. Their typical logic stream consists of:
A poster says something about Sen. Kerry and an action he has taken that is positive;
The disrupters enter the fray and post a standard dissent like 'why didn't he contest the election results last year;'
Other posters attempt to engage the dissenters in a positive conversation about something good the Senator has said or done;
The dissenters dig in and refuse to acknowledge that anything good has ever happened and that the Senator is forever tainted because he didn't contest the election;
The thread degenerates into name-calling and gets locked.

Nothing happens. No minds were changed. No information was exchanged. Both sides believe the other side have been 'drinking the kool-aid' and are immutable in their opinions.

I don't get the appeal of doing this. We don't need these people. They represent only themselves and their own personal agendas. We need to be taking info from DU (genuine info) and trying to figure out how to appeal to the small group of voters who are open to changing their minds. Most of the people we fight with don't go into this category. They exist to push their narrow agenda and waste your time and make you angry. Why let them succeed? (What am I missing here?)

As far as the election last year, DU needs to get over it and move on. This topic never comes up outside of a tiny group of people who really don't matter all that much in the long run. Kerry recently made a great statement on the Voting Rights Act that contains all the initiatives that he favors through this years Senate bill:

“No one in the United States should walk out of a voting booth on Election Day and fear their vote might not be counted. No eligible voter should approach their polling place and fear that they will be intimidated or denied their right to vote. And no American should lose their chance to vote because the lines were too long due to a shortage of machines.

“Real election reform means passing the Count Every Vote Act of 2005, which seeks to end absurdly long lines, the erroneous purging of voters, voter suppression and intimidation, and unequal access to the voting process. The Count Every Vote Act would also incorporate a voter-verified paper trail for use by all voters, including those for whom English is a second language, illiterate voters and voters with disabilities – and mandates national standards in a variety of areas, including voter registration and counting provisional ballots.

“Real electoral reform also means fully funding the Help America Vote Act, funding the activities of the Election Assistance Commission, and helping states invest in better voting machines with paper trails. That means putting partisan politics aside and joining together as proud citizens to eliminate barriers to voting, encourage the greatest level of civic participation possible, and restore the confidence of the American people.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=243484

Ah, that is a laundry list of every single thing that the Conyers Report said went wrong in the 2004 national election. Every single friggin thing. What part of that constitutes walking away from this? The way I read it, Kerry is walking the walk as well as talking the talk. But this is the 109th (Weasel) Congress, so this important piece of legislation will probably go nowhere. But Kerry has not let this drop and continues to mention this even as late as 8/3/05.

Tell the doubters to piss off. And then ask them what their Sens and Cong people are doing and compare and contrast to what Kerry is doing. It is a simple statement of fact.

[emulatorloo]

8. thx for your post. . .EOM

[wisteria]

2. I really dislike that "lost to the worst President ever" rant too.

I live in Pa and in a conservative area, and I witnessed first hand this so called love of Bush. People just thought he was wonderful and most would bring up 9/11 (look how strongly he handled 9/11)and morals when expressing their opinion of him. People don't recognize the fact that Bush had much support and appeal in many states- even the ones Kerry won. I suppose you could call that not seeing the broader picture.

[Noisy Democrat]

3. Yes, exactly

People seem to assume that since *we* see Bush for what he really is, everyone else in the country does too, and yet somehow they preferred Bush to Kerry, and so Kerry must've been just dreadful. What a load of manure. People have been totally brainwashed where Bush is concerned. They think he's awesome. It doesn't make sense to us, and I guess the insanity of it is what makes some people think "It must be Kerry's fault that he lost -- no one could actually like Bush!" But it's manure. They should wake up and see what's really going on in this country instead of just bashing Kerry.

[karynnj]

4. I agree - I have family members who voted for Bush

who were making bizarre statements like, " the Democrats are trying to keep Bush from defending the country". Those of us Kerry people (most of my siblings)were kind of talking about it quietly - but were amazed at the intensity of feeling. For the sake of peace in the family we didn't talk about it more openly.

Prior to this I had thought that showing one specific person all he did for small businesses (she has one) would be good as a "too late" transfer of knowledge, but I was shocked at the intensity of her dislike for Kerry. (even to bringing up his grades - my brother quickly reminded her that he was the one speaking in good sentences making sense in the debates - even with no box on his back.) At this point, we all dropped the topic. If he runs, I will try to get her to read Tour of Duty, or maybe by then she will see Bush for what he is.

[wisteria]

5. I to have family members who insisted on voting for Bush.

Some have come to realize he is a bad President and not trust worthy, others will never admit to making the wrong choice on Nov 2nd.

[emulatorloo]

7. Bush is a horrible president/ but a great candidate . . . . . .and

he backed by a machine that will say or do anything to stay in power

[JohnKleeb]

6. Good points and hell I dont even honestly believe Bush is the worst

ever. That honor belongs to the 1920s presidetns.