Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

milestogo

(16,829 posts)
Thu Sep 14, 2017, 09:29 PM Sep 2017

We were robbed in 2016, in 2004, and in 2000.

The voters spoke but the system was broken. We were robbed of 3 of the finest people ever elected to the presidency: Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton.

We HAVE to fix the system.





20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
We were robbed in 2016, in 2004, and in 2000. (Original Post) milestogo Sep 2017 OP
Seems only way Republican Presidents get elected. Madam45for2923 Sep 2017 #1
Agreed MFM008 Sep 2017 #2
What a different world we'd be in if these 3 had won. annabanana Sep 2017 #3
3 major heartaches blue cat Sep 2017 #4
We won the 2012 congressional elections too, but were robbed and lost seats stevenleser Sep 2017 #5
We were. SammyWinstonJack Sep 2017 #6
Yeap, ALL THREE there was something OVERTLY AND OPENLY WRONG ! Would NOT be surprised if Russia was uponit7771 Sep 2017 #7
So every time a DEM didn't win we were robbed? m-lekktor Sep 2017 #8
Do I really have to explain this? milestogo Sep 2017 #10
+1. Thank you lunamagica Sep 2017 #12
WTF are we going to do about it? world wide wally Sep 2017 #9
An argument can be made that Mondale and Dukakis were unjustly deprived of their presidency. egduj Sep 2017 #11
If so, the American people were the ones who were deprived. milestogo Sep 2017 #13
Does Kerry run for president in 2004 PDittie Sep 2017 #14
If Gore had won in 2000, he would run for re-election in 2004, he would be favored to win in nkpolitics1212 Sep 2017 #15
Great question and great fodder for PDittie Sep 2017 #19
And they'll do it again in 2020 if we don't stop them. Initech Sep 2017 #16
tell it to our "leaders." nt TheFrenchRazor Sep 2017 #17
Gore, Kerry and Clinton are free to run for Senate/Congress in soon midterms. RUN VS Republicans. Sunlei Sep 2017 #18
That is more than half the presidential elections I've voted in crazycatlady Sep 2017 #20

annabanana

(52,791 posts)
3. What a different world we'd be in if these 3 had won.
Thu Sep 14, 2017, 09:37 PM
Sep 2017

You know that attacking Iraq wouldn't have been even suggested.
There might very well have been less loss of life in Katrina

It goes on and on

uponit7771

(90,335 posts)
7. Yeap, ALL THREE there was something OVERTLY AND OPENLY WRONG ! Would NOT be surprised if Russia was
Thu Sep 14, 2017, 09:58 PM
Sep 2017

... involved in those elections too.

milestogo

(16,829 posts)
10. Do I really have to explain this?
Thu Sep 14, 2017, 10:43 PM
Sep 2017
2000: This was the second closest presidential election (1960 was the the closest) in the nation's history, with a .009% margin, 537 votes, separating the two candidates in the decisive state, Florida. The narrow margin there triggered a mandatory machine recount the next day, after which Gore requested hand recounts in four counties, including three in populous South Florida, as permitted by law. Litigation ensued in numerous counties in both state and federal courts, ultimately reaching the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. The high court's contentious 5–4 decision in Bush v. Gore, announced on December 12, 2000, ended a statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on December 8, effectively awarding Florida's votes to Bush and granting him the victory. According to Lance deHaven-Smith of Florida State University, based on "the definitive study of the uncounted ballots" (the Florida Ballot Project by NORC at the University of Chicago), if all the legally valid votes in Florida had been counted statewide, Gore would have been the winner."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

2004: Ohio made the difference between a win for Kerry and a win for Bush. "A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004 -- more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes. In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots. And that doesn't even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.

https://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm

2016: Clinton received about 2.9 million more votes nationwide, a margin of 2.1%. On January 6, 2017, the United States government's intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections. By the time we know exactly what happened in this election Trump will have finished serving his term. But I don't have any doubt that there was enough interference to swing the election to Trump. When all the evidence is in, it will be overwhelming.

PDittie

(8,322 posts)
14. Does Kerry run for president in 2004
Fri Sep 15, 2017, 08:49 AM
Sep 2017

if Gore is president in 2000? Are we suggesting that Gore does not run for re-election in '04, or that Kerry primaries him and defeats him?

Perhaps Kerry would have run in 2008, after Gore's two terms. Or perhaps the Democrats would have nominated Vice President Joe Lieberman. (Doubtful Obama could have defeated either one, IMO.)

And the way this country does things, it's possible John McCain could have won in 2008; Americans tend to tire of the same party in the WH after 8 years. Remember that the Great Wall Street/Housing Market Depression of '08 would not have been at Bush's feet, but Gore's (or maybe some Republican not named Bush who had defeated Gore in 2004).

Traveling back in time can create a few unintended consequences (a paradox, I think they're called).

nkpolitics1212

(8,617 posts)
15. If Gore had won in 2000, he would run for re-election in 2004, he would be favored to win in
Fri Sep 15, 2017, 11:00 PM
Sep 2017

the Democratic Primary and his 2004 Republican challenger would have been McCain. Who would have won in 2004?
Gore/Lieberman-D?
McCain/Hagel-R?

PDittie

(8,322 posts)
19. Great question and great fodder for
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 05:55 AM
Sep 2017

the kind of fantasy history revision game that gets spawned from these digressions. So I'll bite.

It probably hinges on 9/11: whether Gore was able to (give the appearance of being able to) stop it from happening, or if he wasn't, assume a tough guy posture and execute a military response, like W. I doubt whether Gore would have invaded Iraq, of course; that was its own Bizarro World one-off.

(I don't think, having lost the presidency in the Supreme Court in 2000, that George W. Bush would have ever sought the presidency again. But we might have seen Jeb pop up a lot sooner than 2016.)

Let's assume 9/11 happens as previously scheduled, historically. Gore gets blamed for being lax, and unlike Bush, does not start a war in Iraq but does go after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and does not capture or kill him prior to November 2004. In other words, history unfolds essentially as it actually did, without Iraq as a backdrop or distraction. No Abu Ghraib, no yellowcake in Niger, No Dick Cheney, no Scooter Libby outing Valerie Plame, etc.

Just 9/11 and no Osama in hand nor at the bottom of the sea, as it was thirteen years ago.

I would say more than likely, in this scenario, you would have seen John McCain sworn in as president in 2004. That the winning argument was: we need military men in charge in order to prosecute this War on Terra, or some such.

Extend that out and a Vice President Hagel would have eventually been a GOP nominee for president, perhaps in 2008 as MCCain retired but almost certainly in 2012. Hagel would be very difficult to defeat, given his prior four (or eight) years as VP. We might even be sitting in the middle of Hagel's second term, an unprecedented 13-going-on-16-year run for the GOP (only 12 years of Reagan-Reagan-HW Bush in the '80's and early '90's comes close in the modern era).

Pretty demoralizing for the Democrats, through that lens. More importantly, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois might still be waiting his turn, and no one had ever heard of Sarah Palin.

Then again, maybe Hillary would have been the nominee in 2008 or '12 and been elected president, because Captain McCain and Sergeant Hagel had screwed up the war so badly and the country was fed up? Who knows what scandal, misjudgement, or bad turn might have prevented four consecutive Republican White House victories between 2004 and 2016? Certainly something would have. Presidential politics is wildly unpredictable, as someone once said.

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)
18. Gore, Kerry and Clinton are free to run for Senate/Congress in soon midterms. RUN VS Republicans.
Sat Sep 16, 2017, 05:08 AM
Sep 2017

please. The Obamas also, run vs Republicans.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We were robbed in 2016, i...