Why Kerry Lost.

[Don1]

Yes, it's true about Ohio...BUT could Kerry have gotten more votes in another way?

What about if he came out against the Iraq War? Then, he definitely would have had the support of the far left.

I believe there is a chance he also could have gained the support of many Catholics. The official stance of the Catholic Church was not to support him for his pro-choice view. However, the Catholic Church was also against the Iraq war. The Pope spoke about it 56 times, saying there was not enough evidence of WMDs and being against a pre-emptive war. So, if Kerry had come out against the war, then he could have gained more Catholic support than he had. There is a chance he could have gotten more support from other people, too, who were pro-life and anti-war.

The danger of this strategy may have been how the moderates would take it and how the news media would cover it. BUT at least there should have been an analysis of this strategy.

[KarenS]

1. Diebold is why Kerry "lost",,,,, n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

54. EXACTLY!!! watch this video......

http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm

[KoKo]

84. Maybe...but it was the Crappy Dem Convention Organizers who lost it for

him. I posted on a thread earlier this week about how misguided and awful I thought our Democratic Convention was. So, I'll post again, because our Convention hurt us! It was before the Dem Convention and we used the same Clinton folks...but this time...America was in too serious a mode for Dems to do the "Reality TV thingy." Chimp & Co. copied us and even the ditzy Bush Twins couldn't trash what they did with the Purple Band-aids. :-(

........................

The Democratic Convention Organization and Coverage was a disaster...

They went for a worn out Clinton Style "I feel your pain" convention instead of a subdued, serious, ISSUES format.

Democrats are sick of being "pandered to." They wanted "Meat on those bones." Instead it was a "reality TV kind of fest" with "Reporting for Duty" crap that really didn't show Kerry for the candidate he might have been. Was Kerry misused by these old tactics, complicit, or clueless. I don't know.

But the Repugs copied him and even Kerry's wonderful daughters couldn't compete with the antics of the Bush twins that seemed to cheer the Repugs.

We've got to get away from these Hollywood Produced Convention Extravaganzas and get back to some meat and bones.

Repugs got away with their crap because their base wouldn't care if Chimp raped someone on the platform...But a Dem comes off as whiney and too much "feeling your pain" or "trying to reach out to poor, disenfranchised Americans." (Most DEM Americans didn't see any "disenfranchised Americans because they are all in their Churches and voting for Bush) Only the DLC would stoop so low as to mock us Convention after Convention. Speaking down to us...and pandering to every person with a constituency they can find and then ditching them once the Convention and failed election is over.

I've had enough! And alot of Americans didn't buy it even though they went the "ABB" way ...it was hard to explain to folks WHAT we stood for when McMansions were being built down the street and everyone was so happy with their WalMart purchases. I walked for Kerry...I heard what folks asked me...It was hard to answer what we stood for as a difference from Bush when no pain was being felt and the true poor and disenfranchised were disenfranchised at the polls or before so they didn't even bother to vote when they were contacted with voter outreach.

[FreedomAngel82]

102. I remember reading an article

after the election that interviewed Kerry's ex-wife Julia. She was talking about various things and there are two I remember reading. One was how Kerry wanted to go after the SBVT people but the DNC wouldn't let him and they also wouldn't let anybody bash Bush at the convention. Remember when Al Sharpton went with a different speech then what he gave the convention? I'm sure he made some people mad as well. Wasn't Terry McAullife in close connections to the DLC? He also had some ties with coroporations I believe. One day my dad made an interesting comment. He's an old fashioned republican but it did make me think about it. He said that the democrats wanted Kerry to lose so that Hillary could run this next time. But now that we have Dean as our chairman he answers to nobody but the people. :shrug:

[Eric J in MN]

127. I don't think it was the DNC so much as Bob Shrum,

Kerry's campaign advisor, who stopped his ex-wife from speaking out against the Swift Boat Liars.

[karynnj]

129. You have a pretty weird view if

you really thing that the Bush twins beat Kerry's daughters. Many Republicans I know - who did not vote for Kerry - thought his daughters were great and Bush's were an embassment. But they weren't voting for first daughters.

I think the biggest problem was the drastic cut in the anount of coverage from about 9 hours for Gore/Bush to 3 hours. In retrospect, the need to really introduce Kerry should have led to changes from what was normal with more time. Edwards and Kerry had the last two days' coverage and Bill Clinton the other hour. There was no need to give Bill Clinton an hour - his speech was great but was almost as much Clinton as Kerry. If he had maybe three quarters of an hour and concentrated on Kerry's Senate accomplishments (esp those like the Cops program work that was for him) it would have been more helpful. Having him talk about Kerry going to VN was dumb - Clinton didn't go and was very happy about that, so his comments just seemed insincere.

The extra time could then have been used for a Kerry biography - using Kerry's theme of a life time of service. (The 5 min quick picture biography was cute but of little substance.) Clinton's life was nowhere as dramatic as Kerry's, but the movie gave meaning to it. With Kerry, his biography was incredible - he really has done a lot. The Republican smears that he did nothing in the Senate, that he just married money etc. would have been countered.

[ChiciB1]

99. That's About ALL You Need To Know!!! n/t

[bowens43]

2. Kerry lost because he ran a lousy campaign.

As soon as he started his soldier boy routine it was over.

[Benhurst]

4. He lost votes when he started his soldier boy routine; but

the election was stolen. George Walker Bush: Twice "Selected" President of the United States.

[LTRS]

118. If Kerry lost because it was stolen, it was still his fault

He ignored the people who warned him that might happen. AND he ran a shitty campaign. Not responding to the swift boat vet smears killed him, as did his "voted for it before I voted against it" comment and his comment at the Grand Canyon that he would have voted for the war again if given a new opportunity to do so.

Shitty candidate whose team was no match for Karl Rove and company. The candidates and the folks running the campaigns are pussies, and that is why we lose. Think Hackett with someone else in the camp making the untoward comments instead of the candidate. That is what will win. Apparently Hackett can't find a single dem party operative in OH with balls, so he has to do it himself.

Dean is a step in the right direction, but stupid party insiders are constantly trying to silence him. Until we rid the party of those dumb asses we are doomed to failure. Trust me -- I have worked with these folks. They have to go before we can win.

[barb162]

119. excellent analysis

And I agree with everything you are saying because I have been saying it for about a year now. The pugs put up a monkey and he has won twice now. Kerry should have won by a mile because he had the issues but there were so many strategic mistakes made in his campaign.The Dems were always letting themselves get caught in a defensive position instead of attacking hard. Cahill was a disaster. The Republicans have a much better marketing team and they were playing hardball while the Democrats were playing old style gentleman campaigning. If we don't switch tactics we will keep losing. And that is exactly what I think will happen.

[acmejack]

21. Concur, I knew when he threw that salute!

A lot of people never forgot that Congressional testimony and never forgave it either. And they, for the most part, were the people we needed to swing to our side.

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

25. The people still angry at Kerry

for his anti-war activity thirty years ago were the people writing checks to the Swift Boat whores. Most average Americans admit we lost in Vietnam and that we should never have been there in the first place. The Swift whore supporters are in the slimmest of minorities who think we won in Vietnam, that it was, in Reagan's words, a noble effort and wouldn't have voted for Kerry anyway.

He lost because of a poorly run campaign which didn't go on the offensive enough and because of questionable election results in Ohio.

[emulatorloo]

42. He was on the offensive - The TV didn't show it. . .cherrypicking

I saw Kerry on the campaign trail -- he gave great speeches - challenging Bush and also filled w hope for the future.

However on news -- cherry pick the worst Kerry quotes, cherry pick the best bush quotes.

Or cherry pick the best Bush quotes, and poorly summarize in voice over what Kerry said.

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

78. I saw the speeches

and was impressed at times but he should have released his records which proved the claims of the Swift Boat whores wrong.

I don't doubt the media characterizations and their insane desire to create a defined narrative for the election but also don't feel Kerry did enough to disprove this image.

[FreedomAngel82]

104. During the election

I remember reading the Navy okay'd his records.

[FreedomAngel82]

103. Exactly

Don't forget how well he did in the debates. I personally loved the convention and sometimes watch it when I'm bored. :) I thought Kerry was great. He did an interview on MTV and one on BET and he was great on those. On an MTV poll about the election Kerry won in a landslide (with a bit over 60% of the votes). If the media wasn't so owned by the rightwing the public might have gotten to know Kerry for how his supporters know him.

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

115. Kerry did win the MTV watchers

but unfortunately many of my 18 to 24 year old peers still didn't vote. Kerry did give good speeches, not great, but good. He should have released his records and worn them on his t-shirt to dispell the lies of the Swift Boat Whores. That started just as he was really gaining momentum and ended the momentum quick.

[bullimiami]

3. i honestly believe that they flipped millions of votes in many states

if kerry would have gotten a few more million they would have just flipped more.

i think the fixing has been in for sometime in many ways from the start to the count and there was no way kerry was going to win.
i also believe it was done to a lesser extent in 2000 with gore and in house and senate races.

if we had honest elections i truly believe that sane people would be the majority in the house, senate and the WH.



Now you see why I dont care to discuss or theorize on how kerry or any dems could get more support or attract more votes or to hear how the fascists have done it right or have support.

[Benhurst]

5. ...

:thumbsup"

[mopinko]

9. what he said

they skimmed what they needed to skim. they would have skimmed more if they had to. you can't "lose" a rigged election.

[emulatorloo]

45. Ohio, Florida, and MUCH MUCH PADDING in Texas

and other states to get the popular vote up.

[Robeson]

76. Agree.

[ChiciB1]

100. This Is Exactly How I Feel... It Was Done All Over... n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

105. Oh yes

If you go to http://www.cspan.org and in the video search engine type in Cliff Arnebeck. Watch his interview. He basically says what you do. That any republican in Ohio who voted for Kerry got their votes switched. Also go to pbs.org and watch the Karl Rove documentary "The Architect" and the first segment which is about the election. Also sometime this next week (Monday I think) Matt Tabbai is supposed to have out an article about the last election. If you haven't visit the 2004 forum and you can find it there.

[James T. Kirk]

6. Abortion vs. Iraq War

I think that for Catholics, abortion is a bigger deal than the war in Iraq. Abortion is a matter of long standing teaching and doctrine. Opposition to the Iraq war is more of an opinion of the leadership of the church and not an a written in stone sort of thing. A good comaprison would be something written in the US Constitution as opposed to the policy of a particular administration.

[Don1]

13. I agree with you.

However, I am not talking about movement of the whole church, just more Catholics voting for him...

And also there are many other issues, too, like charity for example. Catholics believe in charity, so Kerry already had that in his favor over Bush.

[James T. Kirk]

23. I'm not so sure. Bush did have some charity stuff going on.

Remember that Bush I had the Thousand Point of Light program that focused on volunteerism and Bush II had federal support for faith-based groups to do community work.

[James T. Kirk]

7. I think the Swif Vets controversy was also mishandled.

If Kerry had handled it differently, the election may have been very different.

[rfkrfk]

98. what would you have suggested?

Keep in mind, anything Kerry says about the Swiftvets,
brings more attention to his anti-war activities, 1971 era,
which some view as controversial.

[James T. Kirk]

111. Well for starters, he should have released all records..

...to the public and not just some records to handpicked journalists and historians. That led to suspicion that he was hiding something, even if there was nothing to hide.

You will recall that he did not approve the SF 180 until 2005. The Swift Vets asked him to do it in 2004. I suppose he didn't want to do it then to avoid appearing to so in response to them, but it would have been the right thing to do. But even better would have been to release the records in 2003 so by then anything in them would have been old news by the time the campaign got going.

[rfkrfk]

124. 'released', but not publicly released {2005}

a few months ago, Kerry 'released' his
records so that some reporter could look at them.

released means, Kerry designated some reporter
as the recipient, the public can't look

[James T. Kirk]

128. True. He won't even campaign corectly when the campaign was over.

Imagine how poorly Kerry would have done against a stronger Republican candidate, instead of a weak one like Bush.

[wishlist]

8. Lousy media coverage, lost momentum at end due to Bin Laden tape too

His campaign failed to cut off the Swift Boat attacks that hurt him so badly and media coverage was disgraceful to allow those malicious unfounded attacks while ignoring all his massive great rallies.

However, I sensed he had good momentum and was closing the deal during the past two weeks when a lot of bad news surfaced for Bush. But Kerry's momentum came to a dead stop when that Bin Laden tape came out on the Friday before the election pushing people into the mindset that they should support Bush in order to not be supporting the terrorists. The release of tape right then was most certainly a brilliant strategy by the Bushites.

[FreedomAngel82]

106. That wasn't BinLaden

If you watch this video and older video's of him you can tell it isn't him. Plus they left out a lot of stuff from the tape either way. And with the swift boats the media gave them tons of coverage. John O'Neil of course. Kerry didn't ever get to defend anything with these asses. Plus the SBVT person who is in charge has a LONG history with Bush.

[eridani]

131. RE bin Laden tape faking

It looked much more like him than Mr. Kandahar Chubbycheeks in one of the prior videos that was definitely faked. He looked too damned healthy for someone supposedly hiding out in the northwest frontier area of Pakistan. Has anyone ruled out the possibility that it was an old video redubbed with a new audio?

[BornaDem]

10. Maybe there was an analysis...

that's what a candidate pays all those professional campaign people to do, or at least one of the things, look at polls, decide stuff like this. Perhaps polling showed it would be an overall loser, not winner. I don't believe Kerry could have gotten more anti-abort votes, Catholic or otherwise, by taking a firm stance against the war. I think in most red states, those two issues were separate items for most voters. Kerry was a crummy candidate (remember the camo hunts that were laughed at in Ohio?) with a message so undefined that he could be nailed as a flip-flopper. The chances of a liberal N.E. Democrat winning the presidency in today's era of news everywhere are zilch and none.

[Lone_Wolf]

11. Kerry lost because of a few reasons...

The media coverage favored * over Kerry. How much media attention was given to the Swift Boat Liars even though they were debunked? The media treated these vermin like they had a valid point of view. Compare this to the media's coverage of *'s deserting the TANG. Dan Rather broke the story and was viciously attacked and forced into retirement. It didn't matter that the gist of his story wasn't disproven. If you think about it, it is amazing because Kerry was a war hero and * was a deserter.

The was vote suppression going on in many of the swing states like OH, FL, and PA.

Finally, I think there is enough evidence to say that vote tampering went on in OH.

[Don1]

15. Don't forget

that some of the blame is on the Kerry campaign, too. They surely told him not to fight the Swift Vets too hard. It seems like the same strategy as the Iraq war strategy...don't fight it.

I wonder if it was DLC advice.

[Lone_Wolf]

27. I think he fought it... the media just didn't get his side out fast

or as good as the Swift Boat Liars' side.

[FreedomAngel82]

107. Oh I believe it was

See a post of mine above about the DLC and Kerry's ex-wife's interview.

[liberalmike27]

19. Yep

With control of the media, and the voting apparatus, there doesn't seem to be much hope. Only a glimmer exists in the fact that perhaps all of the states aren't coopted by the right.

The South needs to be unlocked by some real populism, which is the only thing that might have some chance of bringing all those people who've given up on voting for lack of a good candidate who represents them. Not only do compaign positions have to reflect things that the poor working class need, but some delivery mechanism has to be there. What I don't know, as many poor folks still don't hvae the Internet, and most of this group haven't watched any news show for years, not that it would do any good since the media pretty much cooperated by Bush.

There is no way that I believe Bush got 3 million more votes then Kerry, but he did have money left over, a lot of it, at the end of his campaign, so what's up with that. I'd agree he was one of the worst. Until the end, when he took a loan of 7 million (boy, that should have been a sign to most people to not support him)and the media got behind him, knowing with the current political climate that when they got rid of threats like Dean, it would be easy to turn on him with the revisionist Vietnamese history that went on.

[Lone_Wolf]

33. Kerry should have used that money to fight the OH election results...

Kerry could have came out and said that he thought voter suppression and vote rigging went on in OH, but he didn't address it. Likewise, Gore also could have said that what went on in FL in 2000 was vote rigging and voter suppression. This probably would have led to mass protests and constituted a threat to the Power Elite because it would have temporarily shut down the System.

Instead Gore and Kerry chose the easy way out to protect the System and preserve the current social "order."

I wish they fought it. Since 2000, things are going to Hell in a handbasket.

[FreedomAngel82]

108. With Kerry and the money

I have read he has given some of it to canidates who he is supporting. I've also read that in Ohio there is some lawsuit that is being held up because Kerry wouldn't sign it. :shrug: Does anybody know about that and if it was ever signed and why not?

[fedupinBushcountry]

12. So you are saying

that because he voted for the IWR, (Bush brought us to war) and so Catholics didn't vote for him. so in your anaylsis they voted for * instead.

I am pro-choice and anti-war and Catholic, I voted Kerry. Sorry but you should be thinking of 2006 and how we can win back the Congress, so finally we can get a voting rights bill that counts all the votes, not just the ones the GOP wants counted.

[Trillo]

14. The Catholic Church, embroiled as some of its priests were in pedophelia,

may have been a political liability.

There's no reason any candidate shouldn't win if they receive a majority of votes, enough to win the electoral vote, and if they count the people's votes honestly and correctly, and allow eligible voters to vote without playing various political games designed to prevent them from voting.

Buy honesty is too much to expect from many in this world.

[GoreDean2008]

16. I Knew Kerry Was Least Electable When...

...the corporate media and the Clintonista right-wing Democrats sang in unison that Kerry is the most electable candidate right before the Iowa Caucus because he served in Vietnam. Besides the GOP, these two corrupt groups were the ones least interested in helping a Democrat win the White House in 2004. Kerry's base was not Internet-organized from the start, which made the corporate media easy to screw a Democrating candidate down the road during the general election, and the Clintonista right-wing Democrats had no reason to win in 2004 because Hillary can't run until 2008. Although it is true that Kerry later absorbed lot of Dean's Internet-based supporters, he lacked clear and honest messages and had to do a lot of explaining on his previous stance on key issues. And he focused too much on swing voters, thinking that the core Democratic base will just follow along with him. It's true that Ohio could change the election result in favor of Kerry, but still Kerry was the least electable candidate.

It's time to focus on unseating the Clintonista old guards and elect true progressives. I voted for Kerry last time, but if Hillary Clinton ever runs for the White House in 2008, I will just sit at home and let the Republican win the White House again because before we unseat the Republicans, we have to make the DLC completely ineffective and irrelevant in American politics.

[1932]

32. I think Kerry was most electable of the bunch who ran.

But he wasn' the most electable possible candidate.

The one bright spot of 2004 was that the democratic primary voters got the candidate they wanted and not the candidate the media told them for whom they should vote.

The corporate media was trying to bury Kerry until January 19, 2004. What anyone did after January 19 was inconsequential. Kerry won it right there.

[newblewtoo]

52. How sad but true...

I always thought it was the 'pubs behind Kerry's primary selection. They did not want to run against Dean and marginalized him beyond believe in the primary. NH has an open primary so with no opposition, 'pubs were free to cross over and select the Democratic candidate they wanted to run against. That candidate was Kerry. What ever else anyone might think about rigged elections, that is a fact. In Iowa neither Gephart nor Dean ever stood a chance. People from Iowa will have to explain that one.

Once Kerry was the nominee Rover and company trotted out Kerry's long senate record and dirt from the past. It was like watching an fatal car crash in slow motion. Jane Fonda still does not play well with veterans. Very few blue color workers appreciate 'nuanced' speech, but know guns and hunting. The puppet master just pulled the strings.

Could Dean or Gephart have done better? We will never know.

It is without a doubt time to focus on 2006 or the Democratic party will be gerrymandered out of existance..... The house provides the best opportunity to begin taking back government.

[fedupinBushcountry]

55. HOGWASH

:boring:

[newblewtoo]

67. A great expression or exasperation?

In New Hampshire independents are allowed to choose which party ballot they will take in the primary. You can choose on the day of the primary and then change back to independent. With no opposition to Bush many 'independents' voted for Kerry. It was pretty much the end of Dean. Gephart was done before he left Iowa, although he had spent lots of time in New Hampshire. I was surprised at how poorly he did.....

My district went two to one for Kerry in November and probably provided the margin which carried the state. NH Democrats voted for Kerry in the election there is no denying that. Many 'independents' who voted for him in the primary and also in the general election. But many 'independents' also voted for 'Bush'. There is a lot of gaming in the primary system by the incumbent party.

For disclosure, I supported Dean until the convention. He makes a fine chairman.

I do not think there would have been as much for Rove to attack had the nominee been Dean. But we will never know. Hogwash, well that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

[AntiCoup2K4]

80. Vilsack got the DLC payoff for something.

Doesn't take too many guesses to figure out what.

[leyton]

88. "least electable candidate" - Ha!

Maybe Graham or Clark could have done better (if they had run truly fantastic campaigns) but you cannot seriously think that the voters would have rewarded Kucinich, Moseley Braun, Edwards, Lieberman, or Dean with the White House. All of them have greater flaws than Kerry's.

You complain that Kerry's base was not internet-organized. Tell me - what good did internet organization do for Howard Dean? He had the backing of much of the online community during the primary (where activists have a lot of clout) and yet had only a poor showing. In contrast, online fundraising was what allowed Kerry to compete with George Bush financially. Internet organization has nothing to do with media coverage.

I agree that Kerry had his flaws, but I think it is ridiculous to say that he was at the bottom of the pack. I don't expect that any of the 2004 candidates - or anyone else, really - would have in the end defeated George Bush. You can play up Kerry's flaws and the virtues of your preferred candidate all you want, but in the end Kerry was a good if imperfect choice.

[TheWatcher]

17. One More Time

Why Kerry Lost:







And why we will continue to lose until this issue is addressed.

[Old and In the Way]

18. So the "far Left" stayed home and didn't vote?

Please cite your evidence for that. Nader got less than 1/2 is 2000 totals and we had the highest turnout ever for an election.

Lets see-

Bush lost by 500,000 in 2000. In 4 years-

(1) He took a $500BB surplus and turned it into $500BB deficit.
(2) He ignored pre-9/11 warnings and 3000 innocent Americans paid the price.
(3) He lied about WMD in Iraq and started an unethical/immoral war that's turned into a quagmire.

And for this he was rewarded with a second term by the American people? How many popular "rallies" do you recall for Bush? Everything I saw were tight in shots that never allowed you to see the size of the audience. OTOH, I saw huge rallies for Kerry.

Saw, I don't believe the American people are that stupid. I do believe,however, that if you control the broadcast media and voting machines and corrupt state politicians, you can turn a big loss into a win.

[Don1]

20. Nader is not the only far left candidate.

Some lefties also voted for Cobb. Then, there would be less well-known Commies and Socialist candidates.

Besides this, YES some people stayed home. 40% of the voting population did not vote.

Analysis and polling has already been done on why people stay home and do not vote. Only about 60% of the voting population voted in 2004. And the reason cited by some was that they saw no difference in the candidates.

Would it have been enough votes to make a difference? An analysis would need to be done to determine that without any hand-waving, right?

[Old and In the Way]

43. True, 40% didn't vote.

But I suspect that anyone who defines himself as "far left" would be politically energized to vote. That 40% are primarily the apolitical or people who can't vote (felons, infirmed, or couldn't make it to the polls on 11/4 for any number of reasons. Those who would politically identify on either side of the political spectrum are more motivated to vote, IMHO.

Fact is, Kerry essentially ran the table in the primaries. He was overwhelmingly the choice of the Democratic rank-and-file. Assuming he was "too moderate" because the DLC liked him, or whatever, he ought to have been quite a palatable candidate to the Republican moderate. And I suspect he was. In fact, I think the voters who got ripped off en masse in the 2004 election were the registered Republicans. Their votes were the easiest to steal.

[Don1]

86. Over-Generalization.

"But I suspect that anyone who defines himself as "far left" would be politically energized to vote."

I never voted until 2004 and I am far left. I never saw the point and saw little difference between the candidates, except the leftists who could not win.

I decided in 2004 to vote because the fascism of Bush is so apparent to me now. But there are others who still have the view that I used to. It's in the polling.

[Old and In the Way]

114. Than you were apolitical.

You were part of the problem in 2000. Guess I can't take your opinions on Kerry too seriously. Glad you've woken up, though.

[bornskeptic]

56. 2004 was the first time since 1968

that the voter turnout was over 60%.
Kerry got 8 million more votes than Gore got only four years before, an increase of over 15%,while the US population is increasing by about 1% per year, or 4% over four years.
Gore got 2.18 million votes in Ohio. Kerry got 2.74 million, an increase of over 25%. Kerry got almost 400,000 more votes in Ohio than Bush got in 2000. He got 100,000 more votes in Iowa than Gore got when he won it in 2000. These are states with very low population growth. Any election analyst in 2000 who predicted that the Democratic candidate in 2004 would get 59 million votes and lose would have been regarded as crazy.
Kerry's vote total, as a percentage of the voting age population, was the highest of any Democratic candidate since LBJ in 1964.
The question shouldn't be why Kerry ran so poorly, because he didn't. Sure he made some mistakes, but every candidate makes some mistakes. The question that needs to be answered is how a President with approval ratings hovering around 50% managed to come up with 12 million votes more than he received four years earlier.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/

[sandnsea]

59. Who helped them believe the "no difference" nonsense?

The far left, that's who. The same people who apparently see the difference between Kerry's voting record and Lieberman's now, but still can't bring themselves to admit it.

It's amazing to me that people who reject the corporate whoring for everybody else, eat it right up when it comes to John Kerry. Someone ought to do a sociological study, it's quite fascinating.

[Don1]

87. I don't think it's nonsense.

It's a matter of perspective. Whether one sees little difference between two candidates or not is relative to how far away in the political spectrum one is away from the both of them.

[sandnsea]

94. Reveling in cynicism

That's all that is. Not impressed.

[ClayZ]

22. Kerry did not lose!

Kerry got the votes, bu$h stole them. It is as simple as 2 + 2 = 0

[Don1]

28. I know that!

It's the first thing I said. Ignore that for a moment and ask the question of whether regardless of voting machines in Ohio, if Kerry could have won other states.

[pat_k]

36. Lamenting a loss that did not happen is buying a false frame

Lamenting a loss that did not happen is buying a false frame. When we say, "What could he have done to get more votes?" is a concession that Kerry did not get "enough."

We don't know how many votes he got. And we don't know because the election systems in nearly every state are wide open to corruption by systematic vote suppression, data manipulation, human and machine error, and consequently, willful fraud.

We must always push our representatives to do a better job of speaking for us and leading, but I am tired of the post-facto analysis based on an utterly false premise.

As far as we know, he got every single vote he could have. He could have won by 60%. The election systems are so fouled up that no one can prove the <b>he didn't</a>!

Yes. Democrats will do better if they fight the fights to the bitter end, whether or not they think the fights are something they can win. If they don’t fight the battles, they are complicit in the outcome. Bolton may be appointed in the recess, but they fought so they are not complicit in his appointment.

We must keep pushing them, but PLEASE don’t start the discussion of changes we should work for by accepting "their" frame. We will only win when we operate in the real world.

The number 1 reality we must deal with is the fact that we can have NO CONFIDENCE in the results of our elections. And we won't be able to have any confidence until we implement a world class election system.

The most productive action is to push the Dems and the Reps – the party and our elected officials – to lead an election revolt.

If the Democratic Party fights for our most fundamental principle – the consent of the governed – they will win.

[madrchsod]

24. kerry lost because the governor of ohio

sat on the coin gate scandal for over a month before the election.. you don`t need a weatherman,do you?
look at at all the players and their connections to the scandal and the whitehouse. do you really think the whitehouse did not know what would happen if ohio found out the state republicans "lost" tens of millions of their money?

[BillZBubb]

26. Kerry re-ran the Dukakis campaign.

And he got the same results. Dukakis got Willie Hortoned and didn't respond or fight back. Kerry got Swift-liared and failed to respond and fight back.

Until Democratic candidates in national elections learn how to fight fire with fire, they will continue to lose. Diebold didn't run Kerry's campaign like a loser, Kerry did.

[LittleClarkie]

72. Not the same results

he didn't talk the summer off, and he didn't crushed like Dukakis did.

If it had been like Dukakis, I don't think the Republicans would have had the suppression campaign they did during the election. They were scared. Kerry had the big mo' going into the election. I heard the fear in their voices on the radio, begging the president to be the cowboy they loved so much. He was on the defensive too much they said.

It was fun while it lasted.

And then there's Diebold, which we see here is still being debated and looked at.

[pat_k]

29. We have no idea how many votes Kerry got...

We have no idea how many votes Kerry got. People have all but ignored the Blue states. I have no doubt that hundreds of thousands of votes were manipulated in states like CA or NY. Big numbers allow for big fraud -- and it is more likely to happen in the places few were looking.


I know one thing. There is no way that Kerry won NJ by only 8 points. I'm sure the true spread was more like 15 (about 100,000 transferred from Kerry to Bush with an increase in the spread of 200,000).

[1932]

30. I think Kerry campaigned in too few states. Kerry, being a NEaterner

without appeal outside the Blue states had nothing to say to OK. He pulled out of Missouri when it was close (and it remained close, so it was winnable by Dems). He didn't have anything to say to Georgians or Mississipians.

The Democrats have a message for all Americans so they need to run a candidate who is competitive in all 50 states. I understand having to focus on the states you can win, but I don't think Democrats should even bother running candidates they know don't have appeal in every state in the country.

[Gregorian]

31. Kerry won.

But enough Americans are stupid enough to vote for a criminal that the election was close enough to steal through threat, electronic machines, and a bunch of other stuff, some of which I'm sure we still don't know.

[bunny planet]

34. Diebold and voter suppression in Ohio and other states. Sproul and

Associates etc. The mistakes Kerry made in his campaign contributed to the closeness of his win and the ability of the Bush/Rove crime family to manipulate the vote more easily. If JK had won in a landslide, it would've been much harder to pull off. To believe that Bush actually won, you would have to believe that every single person who voted for him in 2000 voted for him again in 2004 and that he got millions more votes over that. I personally know dozens of 2000 Bush supporters who were so disgusted that they changed their votes to Kerry and practically everyone I know also knows dozens who didn't vote for Jr. the second time around either, that adds up. Exit polls, exit polls, exit polls. I was watching the returns on tv with 5 other friends, we all turned around to each other at once, and said, HE STOLE IT AGAIN.

[Lone_Wolf]

37. I also know of many longtime Republicans who didn't vote for *

My Grandparents were fed up with *'s lies, were upset about the Iraq War, and voted for Kerry. Heck, they even had a Kerry/Edwards sign in their lawn. I'd say roughly 50% of my Republican co-workers voted for Kerry. The others in my place are brainwashed Bushbots who would apologize for him even if he sacrificed a baby live on T.V.

[Q]

35. Democrats had a chance to do something about ELECTION FRAUD...

...in 2000...when it was SO OBVIOUSLY stolen in broad daylight. But the RWingers were more 'careful' in 2004 and it will be more difficult to PROVE. The point is that Democrats LOST THEIR CHANCE in 2000 to do something that may have prevented further fraud in 2004...and more than likely in 2008. RWingers will keep on cheating until the Democrats stop them.

It wasn't just Kerry's saluting and promises to 'kill more terrorists' than Bush that got him in trouble. The DLC advised him to assure 'Big Business' that he wasn't a 'redistributionist' Democrat. And his smugness in regards to the Dem base was transparent when he outright admitted that he was taking their votes for granted as he ran after 'swing' voters.

Like Gore...Kerry's problem was the Grima Wormtongues in the DLC giving him bad advice on 'how to win'.

[pat_k]

39. If we don't push our representatives to lead an election revolt...

If we don't push our representatives to lead an election revolt, and make THAT our number 1 focus, we will continue to have elections we cannot trust.

When elections fail to measure the will of the people, figuring out how to persuade people is pretty pointless.

[Cassandra]

38. Why couldn't Kerry have said...

that he voted for the Iraq war because Bush lied to Congress and if he had known it was a lie he would have voted against it? Why was that so hard to say?

[sundancekid]

47. can we hear a big AMEN to that??? eggsactly - no guts, and then no glory.

The man had ABSOLUTELY NO CIRCUMSPECTION about how much caricature could be drawn off his way-too-many-words answers, and off his flip-floppable comments that the dirty machine would PREDICTABLY use!

... OF COURSE, the media did not help ... OF COURSE, a million other things -- and THAT WAS NEWS TO KERRY's CAMPAIGN????
where were the needed inoculations?? who was in charge of making themselves look into the mirrors and adjust strategies?????

[Cassandra]

49. You're missing my point, slightly.

Kerry could have explained his vote, apologized to the anti-war left and called out Bush as a liar in that one sentence. Why didn't he?

[Don1]

51. I have to wonder

if the reason was the DLC and/or corporate sponsors of the DLC.

[sundancekid]

58. BINGO! I didn't miss your point, I have desperately sought an answer too

and have had to conclude, IMHO, it's a case of no guts when it mattered. Period.

[Robeson]

75. I've wanted to know the exact same thing....

...it was not that hard to say. And yet he chose not to. He should have, and could have owned that issue.

[emulatorloo]

40. "Terra Terra Terra" & "John Kerry Won't Keep You Safe" won

Kerry was trending up, the OSAMA tape came out, BUSHBOTS 24/7 going "John Kerry Won't Keep You Safe"

And then there was that Ohio thing.

[zalinda]

41. Kerry lost because of 2 things

the voting machines and the talking heads. Just think, how many dem talking heads are out there and how many repub? If every day, all you here is Kerry bad, Bush good, how would you vote? Kerry could have ran the perfect campaign, and still lost.

Did Kerry make mistakes, yes, and his mistakes were magnified 20 times over. Did Bush make mistakes, yes, but his were swept under the rug. My friend thought Bush was more popular because of the video coverage of the campaign crowds. He only saw small crowds at Kerry's video coverage on TV. For the most part, people still respect and believe their local newscasts. If I see it on my local news, it must be true.

Considering ALL the factors that Kerry had to run against, be did damn good, and didn't sink to their level. Let's run over again what he had to beat.........a war president, a constant terrorist warning, news media reporting only what Bush wanted them to report, repub talking heads on all the "news" channels, talking heads on RW radio stations, voter suppression, and less we forget the swift boats.

20/20 hindsight is wonderful, and there were many things that could have been changed. But, there is not ONE other dem who could have won or even came that close, with that deck stacked against them.

zalinda

[emulatorloo]

44. TV - show bush's best quotes, show Kerry's worst quotes

Continuously I saw that in coverage. Or they would show a great Bush quote, and then show footage of Kerry while the talking head news anchor inaccurately summarized what Kerry said.

When Kerry was presented unfiltered in the debate, people responded to him. When he was filtered by the coverage as I have described, you get these notions that "Kerry was lousy."

[Nimble_Idea]

79. An amazing and accurate assesment!

Very nice indeed.

[wyldwolf]

46. Kerry got the second most votes of any candidate in history

Then, he definitely would have had the support of the far left.

If they DIDN'T support him, here is their reward:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. Your much-hated "far left" DID support Kerry

in 2004, almost exclusively. The Greens got only a fraction of what Nader got in 2000.
We swallowed our doubts, listened to conventional wisdom, and were out going door-to-door for Kerry. I worked for Kucinich in the primary season, but all but two or three of the people from the campaign switched to working for Kerry.

That's one accusation that won't stick.

[wyldwolf]

69. ooh... so touchy! If you'll look at the opening post in this thread...

...you'll see that it was HE who implied the far left didn't support Kerry.

Right?

hmm?

Apology from you forthcoming?

P.S. - one of the reasons the far left (and far right) have such an image problem is their tendency to be reactionary.

[Don1]

82. Nope.

That's exaggerating what I wrote. I wrote that he definitely would have had the support of the far left. In other words, he would have picked up much, much more support from them. This is not to say that some far left was not already supporting him.

Why think in such absolutes of everything? It's not what I wrote.

[wyldwolf]

85. riiiight!

At the very least you are implying Kerry MAY not have had the support of the far left.

But the context you wrote it in really leaves no doubt.

[loudsue]

73. So true, Lydia: The Greens REALLY stepped up to the plate for

Kerry, and these green-bashers need to *%^#ing back off.

I, for one, really did appreciate how so many Greens held their noses and worked their butts off for Kerry... huge numbers of them. :hug:

Kerry won the 2004 election by a HUGE margin, if the truth was known. Karen Hughes had gone in and told Chimpy the bad news, that he had lost.

So Karl Rove said "no. This ain't over yet." And at 1:00 a.m. on Nov. 3rd, Rove went into gear calling all his hackers, and

:shrug: miraculously! :shrug:

The vote totals turned around. And this is even AFTER there had been over 70,000 reports from different States where people had been complaining ALL DAY LONG that they would touch a vote for Kerry on the "touchscreen", and it would show a vote for bush!

So EVEN BEFORE KARL ROVE CALLED IN THE HACKERS, because of the "default" bush vote on all the computers, Kerry was STILL AHEAD of Bush by 51% to 49%....BEFORE KARL CALLED IN THE HACKERS but AFTER THOUSANDS OF MACHINES HAD ALREADY DEFAULTED TO BUSH!

Kerry won by a HUGE margin.

:kick::kick::kick:

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. Didn't McGovern run on an anti war platform in 1972?

Didn't work for him and Nixon was (if I remember correctly) a lot less popular than Bush at the time of his re-election.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. No, Nixon was not unpopular in 1972 except among anti-war activists

Among older voters especially, he still had some of the glow from the Eisenhower years, when he seemed like a nice middle-class guy with two cute daughters and cocker spaniel, and the Watergate scandal had just broken. Few people knew how bad the Watergate scandal would get--it was just a mysterious burglary.

Those in the know thought Nixon was sneaky and treacherous, but no one ever doubted that he was competent, and unlike Bush, he got along well with world leaders. In some ways, he was more liberal than the DLC. It was on his watch that the EPA was formed, and food stamps were moved from an experimental to a full-fledged program.

I've said this before, but the defeat of McGovern was a cultural backlash against the youth revolution and against black militancy. Nixon deliberately played to the "forgotten American," by which he meant white middle-class and working-class people, and emphasized "law and order." He told everyone that he had a plan (unspecified) for ending the Vietnam War.

The average uninformed American had no reason to be unhappy about Nixon's 1968-72 administration, and middle-class and working-class whites were tremendously unnerved by the youth movement and by racial unrest in major cities.

McGovern was unable to shake his image as "the hippie candidate."

[proud2BlibKansan]

65. I am embarrassed to admit this now

but I did not vote for him. I was offended when he dropped Eagleton over the history of depression nonsense.

But I didn't vote for Nixon either. I wrote in Pat Paulsen.

[eridani]

132. Good overview, but you left out one thing--

--the average American family's income in adjusted terms peaked in 1973. Deindustrialization at that point had mainly affected only black people and some other minorities. The Vietnam war did not have nearly the economic impact on working class white men that the current war is having, combined with deindustrialization and outsourcing as it is.

[sleipnir]

50. He was supposed to lose, so says the high leader of Skull and Bones.

Beware Citizens, beware.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

53. BULLSHIT!!!! ....here is why Kerry lost and NO other reason..watch VIDEO..

http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm

[Don1]

62. Chill out.

I mentioned the Ohio vote as the first thing in the op.

I then asked if Kerry could have gotten more votes by being anti-war.

[McCamy Taylor]

57. Election Fraud, Dirty Tricks, KARL ROVE needed a Presidential Pardon

This is why Kerry Lost.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Kerry lost because

instead of being a leader....he listened to his high powered paid consultants.

How can one lead when one is allowing others to tell him what to do?
:shrug:

[Totally Committed]

68. And, he lost because, simply...

he conceded and walked away. Ultimately, that choice was his, and Bush "won" the minute he did it.

The minute he conceded,

It didn't matter that the Ohio election was stolen.

It didn't matter that he ran a weak-ass, shit-poor campaign.

It didn't even matter that he allowed himself to be "Swift Boated".

NONE OF THOSE THINGS MATTERED once he conceded. HE LOST BECAUSE HE CONCEDED. And he left us here living with the consequences every day while he plans his 2008 Campaign. At least be honest enough with yourselves to admit that.

It doesn't matter if he "won" once he conceded. By definition, concession means you agree that your opponent has won. Period.

[paulk]

92. even in a stolen election

Kerry got the second highest vote total ever

that's your "weak-ass, shit poor" campaign.

why do you keep repeating these right wing talking points?

Are you already fighting the 2008 primaries?

You seem to have an agenda for trashing Kerry.

Why?

[Totally Committed]

97. He's my Senator. I supported him for 30 years.

When the fall from grace comes, it comes hard. Especially when familiarity can breed such contempt. I feel so profoundly let down and disappointed in him personally and politically, I can't even communicate it most days.

Most days it comes out as rage, others, just plain anger. Maybe someday, I'll just cry until I feel better.

These are not RW "talking points", these are genuine thoughts and feelings so profound. Feelings of squandered potential. Feelings of wasted resources. Feelings of time I'll never have back. Feelings of betrayal. Believe it or not, I manage to avoid most of these Kerry threads. When I don't, I speak my mind. MY mind.

You feel about Kerry as you feel. You're entitled to those feelings, as I have earned every feeling of animosity toward him 1000 times over. Believe that, don't believe that, I don't care anymore.

Never again.

[paulk]

112. it's a right wing meme that lets the MSM off the hook

for their pathetic and biased coverage of our election.

It doesn't just hurt Kerry repeating it, it hurts the party. It hurts Wes Clark, your avatar, if he decides to run in 2008, because it takes our eye off the real problem.

The media.

And their refusal to report the truth - the truth about any Democratic candidate.

[Old_Fart]

64. Who told you that he lost?

Kerry didn't lose the election diebold won the election for *.

[wli]

66. bull, it was Diebold/ES&S

The electoral fraud going on is massive. I'd not be surprised to hear that even the exit polls were defrauded against Kerry, merely insufficiently.

[dr.zoidberg]

70. I agree.

If Kerry would have come out anti-war, he would have won. I don't know why he didn't say it, but he didn't and he lost. That's the way it goes, I guess.:shrug:

[NAO]

71. 40 Yrs of Intense Ideological Indoctrination by the Right + the Religious

Reich.

There is nothing on the left (or on the right, for that matter) that even remotely compares to the mature, highly organized, disciplined structure of the churches.

They can mobilize vast armies to vote for a candidate. What other organization do you know of where millions of Americans meet every week to listen to people talk about ideas? That is what a church is, in essence.

[Lexingtonian]

74. Sigh.

Every thread of this sort fills up with 99% bullshit. I laud the people who actually have evidence and gave their time and energy to Kerry, especially the 2000 Nader voters.

Almost everyone seems to have a religious and anecdotal rationalization of what happened.

Read the fucking exit polling and interviews. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

-The votes that won it for Bush were from relatively passive swing voters.
-They were ashamed of Bush and resorted to saying stuff to interviewers about Kerry they didn't actually believe.
-They held thin, but real, magical beliefs about Republicans and Dubya.
-They thought Kerry was a good man but that Democrats weren't up to ruling. This because of the unresolved and crude factionalisms in the Party, as demonstrated by Deaniac phenomenon and the internally percieved necessity/compulsion for Kerry to appeal to the Lieberman variety of Democratic voters, which took the energy out of his argument.
-They by preponderance thought Republicans had made the case for two things more important to them than economic fixes and such: letting Republicans give the social conservative agenda another shot, and continuation of the War On Terror.

What has happened since:
-These voters have started giving up fully on Bush as a person and reputed mage.
-They've given up their neutrality on partisan ethics and Iraq.
-Republicans have lost them entirely on the social conservative agenda, via the Schiavo idiocy.
-Republicans have lost many of them, if not all, (yes, polling shows this) due to the London attacks. These demonstrate to them that the continuation of the Global War On Terror is ineffectual.
-The Democratic Party is slowly diminishing its internal differences and factionalism/inconsistencies, finally accepting its role of being the party that leads into Modernity.

The basic fact about this election is that Republicans were able to appeal to some tenuous but definitely present magical beliefs this voter demographic held. The only way to disprove these beliefs in the minds of these people was to allow a full, unimpeded, test of them in the real world. IOW, let Republicans try to demonstrate the efficacy of their claims without distractions or excuses.

This election result is, paradoxically, the worst result that could have taken place for Republicans. It showed that all of their remaining political utility to The People at large was very limited in November 2004- just good enough for 51% vote- and certainly not great enough for the GOP to survive four years in power. At this point survival of their Party is at stake and two years in complete control is looking too long. There is nothing worse The People could have done to Republican power, in retrospect, than reelect them to full control. S.S. GOP is running into the rocks at full speed, no room remains to evade them, and there's a gale at its back- the destruction is going to be spectacular.

[wiley]

91. Exactly

That and the fact that people were told in extensive church and social networks that voting for Kerry meant that you supported forced acceptance of gay couples who would act superior and tell you (and especially your children) that your life was a joke. They went for the LCD and found it.

[omega minimo]

77. Fantastic

flamebait.

Thank the RW god for cut and paste.

:hi:

[Don1]

83. I don't understand this.

Seriously, it was just some speculation and I wanted to hear what people would say.

We have more than half the people repeating what I already prefaced the op with about Ohio.

Most of the other half are just still very angry about it.

And only a couple people are calm enough to post some rational analyses, which are good. We should look at those. I was expecting more of this type to have a rational discussion. I do not think it is possible now.

[paulk]

123. what don't you understand?

this is the sixth thread in this forum that you've started today - each one calculated to be as divisive as possible, either starting a DLC flame war or a Kerry flame war.

[bornskeptic]

81. Let's look at what happened in the swing states.

First of all, according to the bureau of the census, US population grew by about 4.2% from 2000 to 2004. The percentage growth from 2000 to 2004 for the states I want to consider:
Colorado 7.0
Florida 8.8
Iowa 1.0
Missouri 2.8
Nevada 16.8
New Hampshire 5.2
New Mexico 4.6
Ohio 0.9

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2004-02.pdf

Now look at how Kerry's vote total in each of these states compares with the vote total of the winner in each state.

In Colorado, Kerry got 13% more votes than Bush got in 2000, and lost.
In Florida, Kerry got 23% more votes than Bush (or Gore) got in 2000, and lost.
In Iowa, Kerry got 16% more votes than Gore got in 2000, and lost.
In Missouri, Kerry got 6% more votes than Bush got in 2000, and lost.
In Nevada, Kerry got 31% more votes than Bush got in 2000, and lost.
In New Hampshire, Kerry got 24% more votes than Bush got in 2000, and barely won.
In New Mexico, Kerry got 29% more votes than Gore got in 2000, and lost.
In Ohio, Kerry got 17% more votes than Bush got in 2000, and lost.

In all of these states Kerry exceeded the 2000 winner's total by more than the population growth, and in six of the eight he exceeded it by more than 14%. Nationwide, he got about 15% more than Gore's 2000 total. People here love to rag on him as a lousy candidate, but the truth is he was supported by the highest percentage of the voting age population of any Democratic candidate in 40 years. The reason Kerry lost was because Bush somehow accumulated 62 million votes-even though his approval rating was in the 50% range. I have a real hard time believing that he did that legitimately.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/

[The HL]

89. The Real Reason Kerry Lost.

http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/136.htm

The Hollywood Liberal

[bvar22]

90. Kerry never learned the importance of speaking in bumper stickers.

John Kerry and the Democratic Party continually over estimate the intelligence and attention span of the American electorate. I will state this clearly:

It it doesn't fit on a bumpersticker,
It won't get you elected!

Hell, I only have one graduate degree, and Kerry lost me on long winded, nuanced explanations of his positions, like the fameous explanation of "For it, before against it".
(I do understand the difference, but I had to study the issue. Most of America just laughed and said "Flip/Flop)

Arguing BOTH sides of an issue in front of the American voter, and then explaining why one choice is more advantageous than the other is GUARANTEED to lose the American voter. Kerry did this repeatedly, pointing out the strong points of the opposing argument.

There were many contributing factors for the election loss, the above is only one. The Democratic Party still believes that Americans vote on issues and positions. They don't. They haven't since the first televised campaign.

America votes for the most attractive TV spokesperson who can state his position if Direct, Exclamatory, 1st Person sentences of 5 words or less!


My vote went to Kerry, of course. But I knew the election was lost after I saw the Pro-Corporate, Pro-WAR Democratic Party Platform 2004 with which the Kerry campaign was saddled.


For those blaming BBV, the Democratic leadership was warned REPEATEDLY about this issue. The FACT that they did NOT address BBV is a failure of Party leadership.
BBV is not the issue.
The Failure of Democratic Party Leadership on BBV IS the issue.

[mbee]

93. The reason why Bush won was he cheated plain and simple. Presidents

Gore and Kerry were denied their Presidency and for that we all should be ashamed. The millions who voted for them should have gone to the White House and stood there until these theives were escorted out. We are too lazy and scared to make the necessary demands of our democracy. So now these frauds have gotten away with breaking every law on the books. We the people have just stood back and watched while they destroyed our country.

[doc03]

95. The DLC lead by Bill Clinton lost it for Kerry in Ohio and WV

when they passed NAFTA and failed to help the steel industry when it was getting killed by illegal imports. In Ohio for instance we lost over 300,000 good paying Union jobs in manufacturing and they were Democratic voters for the most part. You could take that number and at least double it if you count their families. Bill Clinton disgracing the Presidency in the Monica Lewinsky affair didn't help either.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

96. Even IF Diebold was "the reason,"

Kerry should have been able to garner enough votes to keep it out of reach. It's easy to steal an election when it's close. There's no way Kerry couldn't have won if he had fought the Swift Boat bastards tooth and nail.

Something like "While I didn't agree with the war, I am proud of my service, and to attack me for my service is loathsome. It also shows our troops serving in the field now that some will praise their service while stabbing them in the back - whether questioning their well-documented records, or denying them veteran's benefits when they return home."

[karynnj]

130. He did say that he was proud of his service and offical Navy

records that had not been challanged for 35 years were accurate. His team in fact got relevant people to provide their views (which backed Kerry). There was NOTHING honest in the smears - and the fact that they put out hundreds of charges (which even contradicted themselves) made the entire issue a tar baby. When it was attacked, it only got more visibility.

Even NOW there are people who say that he hid something.

[FreedomAngel82]

101. Do you think you could've done a better job?

Then you run for President against the GOP machine. Specifically Karl Rove.

[wyldwolf]

110. he probably does think he could have done a better job

Don't you know the DU internet warrior armchair candidate 2%'ers have all the answers?

[EndElectoral]

109. I don't think he did lose...bush's approvals today show that

[lonestarnot]

113. Lost on a cheat watch the video!

[Nye Bevan]

116. One huge reason why Kerry lost: John Edwards

Picking John Edwards as his running-mate was a huge mistake. All Edwards contributed to the campaign was a boyish smile and the same old stump speech.

If Kerry had picked Wesley Clark or some other military running mate such as General Zinni, envisaging that they would have a REAL national security role in his administration, I think the outcome of the election could have been different.

[LSdemocrat]

117. Didn't discredit Swift Boat Liars soon enough

That alone cost him any momentum from the convention to the debates and cost him his biggest selling point, namely, his years of military and political service to the United States.

[second edition]

120. Did Kerry really lose?

As time goes by, I not so sure. There were to many issues in Ohio and I would like to know why Richardson in New Mexico refused to cooperate with recounts and investigations for a fellow democrat.

The votes he did not get were mostly due to the Iraq war and people's fears in changing command at this time. The Swift Boat Veterans contributed to and played along with people's apprehension and the media offered Kerry no help in trying to appeal to people's sensibilities and reason. (This is why I find it so hard to believe that Rove was not involved with this set-up,the way it all worked so well together, this could not have been an coincidence, this was very well coordinated) You could also say he lost the moral vote due to the manipulation of Rove and promises made by Bush to the Pro-Lifers with the help of some influential American Catholic Bishops.

You can also say our party let him down. He suffered because of the indiscretions of Bill Clinton, and John Kerry had to alone, be the voice of explanation for a Democratic party that had been ineffective for a long time in getting it message out to people as to what the Democratic party stood for and whom and what it supported.

It's a shame, John Kerry ran a good, honest and reputable campaign. He should have won. Mistakes were made, but that is what happens in all campaigns. Bush actually didn't even run a campaign as much as a fear fest with questionable tactics.

[fedupinBushcountry]

122. "The Architect"

Have you watched this hour show on PBS, on Karl Rove " The Architect", it to me proves that once they saw John Kerry was winning Rove had to put the fix in. This is a stunning hour of Rove and his dirty tricks.

You can watch it here :

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect

[KerryReallyWon]

121. Need I say more....

[T Town Jake]

125. The reason Senator Kerry lost, sadly, is the fact that...

...he didn't get the most votes.

I don't like it any more than any one else around here, but there it is.

Democracy doesn't always yield the desirable result from one's own point of view; but yapping nonstop about "stolen elections" is the provenance of juveniles at a high school football game who think the reason their "team" lost is because the refs made repeated "bad calls" - and not because of the fact that their "team" was perhaps not as talented or motivated as the opposition.

I've long ago discounted such murmurings as the intellectual pitter-patter of angry children, and immature minds.

Let's try harder in '08.

[eridani]

133. Howthefuck do you or anybody else KNOW how many votes both candidates got?

Did you analyze all the secret software? Were you there when votes were counted without any public oversight?

[leftofthedial]

126. but kerry is not against the war

he lost because that is how the script for his "campaign" was written