Bush most certainly did steal the 200 election.
Kerrys remark, " I voted for it before I voted against it’ was a dumb thing to say.Hard to erase that.
Huerta88, here’s a piece of wisdom that will go over well in all aspects of your life, but especially well on the internet: Don’t say you don’t want to debate something, and then give your opinion on it.
IdahoMauleMan writes:
> He won the rich educated elite vote, and the poor urban vote.
Not true. See this summary of the 2004 election statistics:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Kerry won the majority of the electorate making less than $50,000. Bush won the majority of the electorate making more than $50,000. Indeed, it’s almost true to say that the richer the voter, the more likely that Bush won their vote. I would say that $50,000 is about halfway through the middle-class vote. So it would be truer to say that Kerry won most of the poor through the lower half of the middle-class voters and Bush won most of the upper half of the middle-class through rich voters. You know, you really ought to look up the voting statistics before you make claims like the one you made above. It took me all of five seconds to find that webpage with the 2004 voting statistics.
You’re right. I should.
I was thinking about education instead of income. Although the stats you show aren’t exactly what I think I remembered, anyway. I thought I remembered seeing a little 2x2 matrix with income on one axis, and something on the other axis. And Kerry pegged the corners with blue and left the middle in red.
But since you provided real data, and I provided none, you’re definitely on the stronger ground here.
Bush barley won the 2004 election. Both in 2004 and 2000, the president was perceived by many Americans as being illegitimate –- not exactly a mandate or even a blessing for Bush.
When elections are close, dirty tricks have the greatest impact. In 2004, the GOP went to great lengths to suppress voters, especially in Ohio. The GOP purged voter rolls, challenged voters because of clerical errors, placed too few or broken voting machines in traditionally Democratic precincts, and purposely told voters to report to the wrong place. Then there were the exit polls that didn’t support the outcome. The push to suppress voters makes a difference on the margins, which makes the close 2004 and 2000 elections questionable.
I guess I’ll put on one of those tin foil hats because I don’t believe Bush won either election fairly.
But when elections are really close, all that tells me is that one result is pretty much as good as the other.
Even if you ignore possible minor shennagins, how FAIR can you be?
So, its REALLY close, but one guy wins because he is a smidgen better looking…
Or, the other guy wins because his spin/lies campain works a little better.
WTF do either or those or many other reason have to do with getting the “correct” president?
There are a gazzillion ways an election can be unfair to one side or another.
IMO, unless you have rampant “unfairness/cheating” that is enough to overcome something that is MORE than a statistical/political dead heat…well…meh is all I can say.
In 04 I voted against bush, and not for a third party… so I checked the kerry box. There was no hope or joy in that vote, just desperation, and disapointment in the democratic party.
I think that election shows very well why we need instant runoff direct vote presidential elections. I would have appreciated more than just those two viable options.
Kerry was that bad. Although no I have to wonder which would be worse.
Kerry was a very weak candidate who emerged from a poor field, and he ran a bad campaign. Public sentiment on the war was divided, not strongly against, as it became a few months later: many people apparently felt it was a war that was winnable (just not won yet), so ending it would have been a mistake.
It’s funny. The way Democrats felt about Kerry and the way that Republicans felt about Bush is the same as the way Republicans felt about McCain and Democrats feel about Obama. There’s definitely an enthusiasm gap that people have touched upon in a few of these comments.
Really it all boiled down to Kerry stance on the Iraq War. His position was that after he was elected the Europeans would all rush in and help us win the war. Who on earth would believe such a thing? If he’d had the courage to say that the war was wrong and that he wanted to end it, he would have won.
I think he had to say that because he couldn’t say that he wanted to end the war. He had to demonstrate that the war was going to end relatively quickly, but couldn’t say that he was going to end it in the way that many wanted him to.
I for one never figured out why & how it was that Howard Dean was eliminated as a candidate on the basis of one silly “yeeha” whoop. Compared to the general ilk of what had been emitted by GWB’s lips, … ??? Would you rather a prez who may pretend to a degree of enthusiasm and confidence that looks a bit phony, or one who promises to help you put food on your families and makes Dan Quayle sound erudite in retrospective comparison?
That kind of bs, at least, was not a factor in '08. No one got wiped from the list of candidates for a 10-second bit of screen time, whether crying or making a verbal flub or odd gesture. But in '04 Howard Dean was erased from the playing field and I never could figure out why.
I agree. Obama owes a LOT of his success to the steps of Howard Dean. Dean might have made a pretty decent president, too.
I’m starting to accept that history is always going to believe that’s why Howard Dean lost when it was not even the beginning of the problem. It’s frustrating because it’s obviously wrong if you look at it for a minute. Dean was the favorite going into the Iowa caucuses. He finished a distant third because he didn’t connect with people there - at least that’s how it seems to me; his backers in the state were seen as outsiders - and Kerry and Edwards thumped him in terms of organizing support. That’s why he finished a surprise third, which was a disaster for him. The whoop helped turn him into a joke and it was covered in an idiotic fashion, but even without it, he was probably toast.
All this talk about dirty tricks and John Kerry being weak, and so on, and something else needs to be mentioned.
It seems we have overlooked that most Americans *like * war. They like torture. The empire. Tax cuts. Baby Jesus. They like a smug asshole throwing shit in every other country’s faces. They hate gays. They knew all of this about GWB and endorsed him. It wasn’t all Karl Rove’s magic tricks. There’s plenty more responsibility to go around.
I’m more inclined to view Obama’s election as a fluke than GWB’s. I see Bush’s as more reflective of the Americans I know. :smack: If the economic shit had hit the fan any later, America would probably have voted for four more years.
So true. I remember watching it live and thinking, “Did anyone tell him he lost tonight?” He was freakishly excited, even for a winner. I still think he’d have been a better candidate. /shrug
Yep, I’ll agree with those sentiments.
You too, make some valid points. The Beast inside of me loves war and that we can kick ass against any army in the world. The rational guy thinks that is stupid. But I keep re-reading Thucydides over and over. Redundantly. Yes, this country has a lot of assholes, and they love their own. They love Christian chauvinism and bigotry, but reject Jesus’ teachings as non-essential, because they are saved by Grace alone. I’m a Protestant myself, but I think that acceptance of the Holy Spirit opens our minds up to the teachings, which are the practical salvation. Frankly, I could care less about the hereafter.
You can’t explain the 2004 results without a critical look at Ohio. Minority voters purged from the voting rolls or forced to stand in long lines for hours while white voters waltzed through without a problem. Voting machines that malfunctioned, turnouts that made no sense (way over expectations in Bush areas, way under expectations in Kerry areas), opportunities for manipulation of the electronic vote, etc. Throw in the anti-gay backlash exploited by the Rovian robot army and there was just enough to steal the election.
I agree that the economic meltdown may have prevented a different result this year. McCain had some momentum, but the economic collapse was the coffin nail that he couldn’t pull out.
IIRC, in 2004, 9/11 was still relatively fresh in our minds. G.W. Bush was still cemented in our conscience as the guy who dared to address the nation from the White House that very night, and climbed on top of the WTC rubble with the bullhorn a few days later. He was our face in that low point.
Now, just three years later, there were bits of doubts about his ability: no WMDs in Iraq, the deficit growing, spending soaring, so we were taking a hard look at the opposition. Bring on Kerry:
He voted for the war in Iraq, so if we shouldn’t have went in there, then Kerry shares the blame as well. Deficit spending, higher taxes? Check and check for Kerry. Plus he just seemed like a wishy-washy (and painted so very effectively) slimeball who would say or change any position to get elected.
So, when it came right down to it, the swing voter decided to stay with what we had instead of the promise which seemed to be unknown and untested, uninspiring, with shades of looking very imcompetent.
I also agree with previous posters regarding Dean’s scream. In retrospect, the media makes it seem like he was riding high and that the scream brought him down.
In fact, he had falled from his almost insurmountable lead and lost badly that night. We were waiting for a solemn speech, and he comes out, rolls his sleeve up and yelps and screams like a 15 year old boy who just got his first piece of tail. It was so silly and so obviously false that everyone felt their intelligence was insulted and that Dean was out of touch. That scream only hastened his fall.