John Kerry didn’t lose. ABB did.

[F.Gordon]

When Zogby was on The Daily Show predicting a Kerry victory he mentioned that it was more of an ABB win than a Kerry win.

Look at any pre-Election tracking poll OR any Election day Exit poll. They all back this up. While some are as high as 60%, the average seems to fall in the 40% +/- range. In contrast, bushwad voters were voting ABK in the 10%-15% range. (Sorry, I don't have any fancy graphs or charts....)

Kerry never had a solid base. Bushwad did. I was a Kerry supporter from the beginning, but IMO he was fighting not only bushwad but also a large group of voters that had no interest in him as a candidate. They just hated bushwad. He was torn between drawing swing/moderate voters into his camp and appeasing those that really didn’t care about him as a candidate, they just wanted Kerry to attack bushwad and expose him as the truly evil person he is.

That’s a lose-lose situation.

I should have probably waited until next February to post this since "voter fraud" is the current topic du jour, but I just wanted to throw this out to the 1 or 2 DUers that don't have "voter fraud" at the top of their list of reasons why Kerry lost.

Sumtin' to tink' bout.

[shoelace414]

1. Ask most Bush Supporters

and they deny it, but they were definitally ABK

[seaj11]

2. True.

I know one.

[Verve]

9. I know one too.

[New Earth]

3. WTF IS ABB?

OOPS nevermind i get it. Anyone But Bush.

[F.Gordon]

4. Anyone But Bush. n/t

..

[jhgatiss]

5. Of course they were!

That's the way Rove programmed them back in March!

[F.Gordon]

12. That's definitely the other side of the coin

The ABK vote. I'm just basing this observation on "polls" and the same exit data "polls" that some use to prove fraud.

[On the Road]

42. Yes, But ABK Would Have Been ABD for the Same People

if Dean had been the nominee. The Bush team did what a lot of people around here said they would do to any nominee, namely turn them into a caricature.

It is possible to fight this. It's the one part of the campaign that Kerry did not do well.

[F.Gordon]

44. Completely agree. 100%

Would have had the same problem no matter who the dem candidate was. Varying degress of ABB, but still the same problem. Since (by my own fault) I've already let "fraud" leak in this thread, I certainly don't want to bring Dean into it.

In 2008 there won't be a ABB voter, so maybe then we can focus on the strengths and positive qualities of the candidate and not as much on how evil bush is....duh??!! I think Kerry was screwed this year no matter what he did or said.

[Hobbes199]

6. Before the election we'd say that _anyone_ would be better than Bush

Why do you not think that's enough of a reason to believe that fraud took place. Whether we thought it was about Kerry or just about not having Bush, there were enough of us Dems and Repubs, to vote him out. Don't be so quick to change your mind, or condemn yourself for being wrong. If you thought were really right before the election, you probably were. Nothing changed, except your perception. My intuition tells me something foul is the only reasonable explanation, and there is much evidence to support it and none to the contrary.

The government voted to use these machines, they should be the ones to prove that they're reliable. That's what we hire them for.

[F.Gordon]

7. This isn't a discussion about "fraud"

I really thought Kerry would win. I'm trying to bring a different issue to the table.

[Truman01]

8. Careful man, you are speaking blasphemy

But you are right. The more I hear about this voter fraud the more I believe we are pissing in the wind because we wish it was raining. We have worked so hard, for so long, that we just can't believe that it is over and we lost. Kerry wasn't my candidate, Dean was. But I voted FOR Kerry not AGAINST Bush because it is the way I am. I don't like a negative vote because if I do that I end up with a candidate I didn't really want.

I am anxious for the day when we can put all this conspiracy stuff behind us and focus on the things that will truly win elections for us: Being totally consistant about being Liberals, and focusing on what we believe.

:toast: To the man who had the guts to say it.... As much as I wish it wasn't true.

[F.Gordon]

10. Thanks

IMO Kerry had to walk a fine line that no candidate can walk. If he tried to appeal to the moderate/red state voters he was attacked by the ABB people.

[bunny planet]

16. Dp you really believe if they get away with TWO stolen elections that we

will ever have a free and fair election again. We have to prove fraud this time, and relentlessly try to prove it (even if Bush takes office officially) otherwise fraud will be forever hardwired into the system and we will have lost our democracy forever. I just hope it's not too late already. 2000 was really the time we should have stuck with it, even after the Supremes annointed His Fraudulency. But better late than never.

[Truman01]

20. I hate to tell you this. . . . .

I think we LOST this election. :puke:

[realisticphish]

24. i dont think we lost

BUT it was definately WAY too close. just like in 2000. there are a lot of problems to fix


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[bunny planet]

26. I really believe B**h lost, whether we will ever be able to prove it is

another story.

[F.Gordon]

31. Here's the problem with that

I'm 110% FOR Election Reform. Just one tiny item. 3rd Party candidates should be the same in all the States. How come Texas (a red state) has only 1 3rd party candidate on the ballot but Colorado a (sorta kinda) swing state has TEN 3rd party candidates on the ballot? There should be federal standards applied to all the States in a National election. As much as I hate Nader, he should have been allowed to be on the ballot in all the states.

The efforts to prove "fraud" are doomed to failure. Why? Because they address every problem, mistake, or "anomaly" as proof of fraud without objectively looking at the evidence.

[TangledThorns]

50. Youth

I think if Kerry was a little younger or any candidate that was youthful could have beat Bush. Face it, Kerry was not a very strong candidate.

[realisticphish]

11. that may be true

but, not to be rude, but so what? i mean, if you didn't like kerry as a candidate, you just don't. i did, but i know a lot of people who didnt, and you really can't blame them for not liking someone when they just didnt like them. this caused a problem for kerry, obviously, but theres really nothing anyone can do; if we had run lieberman, i know i would have been ABB. not hating on you, just my 2 cents


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[F.Gordon]

14. The real question is....

this caused a problem for kerry

So, what were those "problems"? For one, precious money and volunteers were diverted AWAY from the Democrats and to anti-Bush activist groups.

And, you aren't being rude. I'm glad you took the time to respond. You voiced your opinion. It's called a "discussion".

[realisticphish]

23. good point

and ive been treading lightly recently, it seems like ANYTHING starts a flame war these days :)

the orgs like moveon were great, but IMHO they should have done their work THE WHOLE TIME, rather than this past year. by then, people might understand how much of a dipshit shrub is, and could have focused on how good a guy kerry is. some coordination between these groups and the party would have been great, but im pretty sure thats a violation of election law.

along with that, people spent so much time on "anti bush" that there really was a negative air to the campaign. If everyone had seen going upriver, or just listened to kerry's speeches. The average joe looked at all this and though, "this is just those evil dems being negative." i think negativity has a place in politics, after all, what shrub has done is BAD. but it should be balenced by the positive side, which i think it was not this time.

we definately need to figure this stuff out before 08

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[F.Gordon]

25. Aint that the truth

it seems like ANYTHING starts a flame war these days

I've gone through my ANGER, depression, ANGER again, depression again, and finally to my "why the hell am I doing this to myself" stage.

[a new day]

13. I agree, but I see a different solution

To me, the important statistic that isn't talked about enough is that Kerry got 88% of the Democratic self-identifiers, and Bush got 94% of the Republican self-identifiers.

Find an appeal to the base and the election results change. Don't look to people who side with the Republicans first, get the people who would, in years past, side with you. Hold on to them, the consider which ones of the people that brung ya you can abandon.

[F.Gordon]

19. Excellent point

And you're right. This isn't talked about enough.

To me, the important statistic that isn't talked about enough is that Kerry got 88% of the Democratic self-identifiers, and Bush got 94% of the Republican self-identifiers.

We also aren't talking about why Republicans voted in higher percentages than Democrats. I've looked at a number of "Blue Counties" all over the country and voter turnout sucks compared to the "Red Counties". There are obvious exceptions to this, but it is something to look at. Question. Think.

[rhite5]

35. Be careful when making that comparison .....

More and more evidence is showing that electronics inflated the R turnout numbers. So we really do not KNOW that a much higher percentage of Rs turned out than the percentage of Ds. And of course after all LOOK at the Af-Americans and the college students that were disenfranchised at the polls, either by impossible long lines or over aggressive challenges. The effect of those things depressed the percentage turnout of Dems.

You just can't compare two percentage figures and draw any conclusions about them when you know both percentages are likely faulty.

We also need to wait and see how many provisional ballots end up being accepted. Most of those were Dems. Whatever comes out of that will improve the percentage turnout of the Dems.

[F.Gordon]

37. You're talking about Ohio?

And of course after all LOOK at the Af-Americans and the college students that were disenfranchised at the polls, either by impossible long lines or over aggressive challenges. The effect of those things depressed the percentage turnout of Dems.

At this point I'm not going to reach a solid conclusion on this comparison. But, I believe it is something that should be looked at.

And, neither you nor I know for a fact that "both percentages are likely faulty" on a Country wide basis.

[a new day]

52. % from LA Times nationwide exit poll

But, the gap in Dem for Kerry GOP for Bush was pretty constant, as I recall.

This is a sampling of people who actually voted. Fraud is a factor in that some people were kept from the polls, but Ohio wouldn't alone doesn't remove the gap I observe between GOP and Dem voters.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

15. Why do Democrats seem to "eat their own"?

I found Kerry to be intelligent, honorable and articulate. I voted for him and still believe he would have made a great POTUS.

On the bright side, the Democrats can't be blamed for the current/future mess that the this administration has/will create.

[ClassWarrior]

28. Why do the Radical RW eat their children?

NGU.

[emulatorloo]

17. TERRA TERRA TERRA won and "John Kerry won't Keep You Safe" won

and "How can we change president in the middle of a war won.

Or in comic form:

[MominTN]

18. Kerry didn't lose

The voters were disenfranchised in the battle-ground states by both the registration process and the voting process.
The states who did predominately vote for Bush did so for all the wrong reasons. The primary reason was fear. The republicans played on this fear constantly: fear of terrorism, fear of another 9/11, fear of a decline of the morals of our society demonstrated by the liberal media, gay movement, and increase in abortion rate. Secondly the voters wanted to support our troops and be patriotic. Kerry didn't lose this election; his party did. The Democrats didn't show the voters how they can make this country a better place for everyone. They didn't take up the cause of the working families.

[Truman01]

21. That is true. . . . . . . . .. .

But Kerry didn't WIN either. WE have to face it, figure out what to do about limiting the damage Shrub can do, and then WIN the next one.

[F.Gordon]

22. I do agree with this part.....

The Democrats didn't show the voters how they can make this country a better place for everyone. They didn't take up the cause of the working families.

But, why was that? IMO the Party was fighting a rogue Anti-Bush army that was sending conflicting messages to the Voter.

And, IMO the "fear" element was used to solidify the mindless Republican base.

[ClassWarrior]

27. Kerry didn't lose. And the only folks talking about ABB anymore...

...are Limbo, Insanity, and the rest of the Radical RW.

NGU.

[F.Gordon]

33. I don't listen to the RW chattering teeth

And I really don't care what they think. If you want to believe that I'm voicing RW "propaganda", then so be it. And if you want to believe that "Kerry didn't lose".... that's fine. I believe he did. So, we disagree.

[JI7]

29. Republicans pushed ABB because they knew it helped Bush

even though it was Bush who mostly ran the "anti" campaign. the anti massachusettes liberal campaign. the "anti" campaign works mostly for republicans and it helped bush get the base out to vote against the guy from the state which supports gay marriage and everything that is against their "values".

some dems called kerry a wimp for not being tough enough against bush but kerry knew he had to make a case for people to vote for him. he knew there was not enough ABB out there for victory. as challenger Kerry had it tougher also since people didn't know him.

[bullimiami]

30. Actually the losers (or the defrauded actually)

were EBB.

Everybody but Bush and his cronies got screwed. Around half of us know already, the other half will someday realize you cant eat big pious talk, and you cant pay your bills with it : that a true godly man wouldnt destroy the environment, kill masses of people because they are in his way or bankrupt society on the backs of the poor. The gullible half will realize eventually that a jesus fish an american flag or a declaration of religiosity is no proof of honesty.

[bobbyboucher]

32. Nonsense.

If and I say if, Kerry lost, it is because of the media. The anybody but Bush thing was a product of the media too, and you fell for it.

Don't be so simple.

[F.Gordon]

34. I know that everything that the media says is a lie

:eyes:

But Zogby who predicted a Kerry win also said it. Maybe he was really a bush operative?
:shrug:

[David Dunham]

36. The gay-marriage amendments helped W and hurt Kerry a lot

Especially in Ohio

[F.Gordon]

39. It most certainly did

Like I said. Kerry was fighting a two front battle and he couldn't take on the GMA battle without losing the ABB voter.

[politicasista]

40. Yes, they tricked us with that.

I don't care what anyone says. Bush is an illegimate president.

[bobbyboucher]

45. More nonsense.

Quit with the straw men. How many people vote ABK, or some derivative of that? I have seen and heard reference to many, but it wasn't formatted as "Anybody But Kerry" and shouted from the rooftops now was it?

Get a clue. We need more posters with clues.

[Matariki]

38. forgive my ignorance

but, what is ABB & ABK?

nevermind. i get it.

[Eloriel]

41. ABB didn't lose either

VOTE FRAUD LINKS - A DU Compendium - Thread #3
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x4927

VOTE FRAUD Links Compendium - Thread #2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x3223

VOTE FRAUD Links - a DU Compendium
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=201&topic_id=1984#

[F.Gordon]

43. Ahhh.....the "F" word

Fraud

Yes, I've read all these. I think it was around the 342nd time you included them in one of your posts. I still haven't seen proof of fraud. Well, there was that one guy who met a FBI agent in the girls locker room of a High School in Florida. :eyes:

You know, I held back in my Volusia County "story" response. I was trying to be as nice as possible and point out the importance of "fact checking" before you reach conclusions. But.... I could have tore the shit out of that "story" and I didn't.

Maybe I shouldn't be "nice" anymore? What do you think I should do?

[ClassWarrior]

46. I think you should find another forum to frequent...

...and quit trying to disrupt and demoralize the motivated good folks posting here.

NGU.

[bobbyboucher]

47. I think you should

take off the mask.

[Overseas]

48. The Two Facts Can Easily Co-exist

There were problems with the campaign AND there was massive election fraud.

I don't feel it is necessary to accept that because the Kerry campaign was badly managed that means the election was fine and dandy and the horrible president just has more fans than Dems do.

Why this desperate attempt to forget about the clear and mounting evidence of voting irregularities and look elsewhere so soon?

Why do so many say-- Those exit polls were just wrong about the presidential vote-- but hey-- they were right about the "moral values" thing, etc. etc.?

The Kerry campaign acted as if it had never heard of Karl Rove and took the high road, avoiding much criticism of Bush, which was terribly dumb IMHO,
AND
the 2004 election shows evidence of wide-spread fraud & vote suppression.

BOTH CO-EXIST. Both problems need to be remedied.

[F.Gordon]

51. They can not co-exist

I wasn't going to respond anymore because I screwed up and let the "F" word hi-jack this thread. My Bad.:spank:

The only good thing is that I now have a couple of new people on my ignore list.
:evilgrin:

But, since the damage is already done...

"Fraud" trumps any rational dialogue every time. You say there is "evidence of wide-spread fraud". Show me. Prove it.

I've been called a troll, a conservative, a freeper, a dumb ass ... forget all the rest.... for questioning anything to do with "fraud" evidence. Why do I question it? Why don't I just start singing with the choir? Because I fear what it will do to the Democrats in future elections.

I just downloaded about 2,000 pages of exit polling data. I can't post it here, but I'll share a couple of statistics with you.

Question: Do you think your vote was counted accurately?

Nationally / those that answered YES
Democrats: 57%
Republicans: 94%

Florida / those that answered YES
Democrats: 27%
Republicans: 96%

Do you understand why throwing around the "fraud" word WITHOUT any evidence can be a bad thing? Probably not. Fuck it. Give me my robe. What's the key we're singing in?

[heyokabear]

49. Faulty premise --> faulty conclusions

Analysis of the preliminary numbers from this election - given the vast amount of serious issues With those numbers - is foolish.

What really strikes me is all the new conservatives who almost totally transparently are jumping on the Republican bandwagon like teenagers who realize its more fun - and in their self interest - to root for the team that won the last super bowl. Oblivious to the vacuous nature of their thinking, they're the first to "rub it in" to their "loser" brethren.

I'm content being skeptic of the results as they are (hopefully reasonably thoroughly) re-examined, and I'll make up my mind how to respond past that examination after we see more scrutinized results.

The last thing it makes any sense to do is dismiss all these warning signs and simply move on to analysis of questionable numbers. After all, one clear possibility is putting any energy into a fatally flawed election process is a total waste of energy, and the real question will become how do we regain our integrity as a nation given that sad fact.

bear

[WI_DEM]

53. I think you are right

Kerry never really had a solid base, he was deemed the "most electable" by the media and through his victory in Iowa that the bandwagon effect began. Dems wanted to defeat Bush--that was the overriding concern and they were convinced that Kerry was the one to do it through the constant drumbeat that he was the most electable.

[Unionman101]

54. My Two Cents...

I don't post often (as I only get on-line when I'm at my son's house) but here goes...
Kerry lost because of several reasons.
1) He lost because of "Guilt-by-Association". Face it, most of Hollywood is considered extremely bizarre by the red states. Whatever they said that was Pro-Kerry was one thing, but when you have...Oh, my wife and I were watching "Oprah" a few weeks ago, and Cameron Diaz stated yelling about how if you didn't vote, rape would be legal, or some such nonsense. My wife and I (FDR Democrats, both of us) looked at each other and thought the same thing: If enough swing voters listened to her, they were completely turned off by her hysterics and either didn't vote, or voted for Bush. There are a number of cases where celebrities went over the top in their support for Kerry and turned off many, many more voters, in my opinion.
2) Kerry lacked Charisma. FDR. Truman. Kennedy. Reagan (Yes, Reagan.) Clinton. They all had charisma, and lots of it. Kerry? None at all. I really, really don't want to say it, but Bush projected more of it to the swing voter than Kerry did. It's one thing for you or I, committed Democrats, to disagree on this point, but even here in California, I knew a number of swing voters and they all told me pretty much the same thing in regards to charisma and the two candidates.
3) First Ladies. Probably a minor part of it, but my lovely 78 year-old young wife is even more of a committed Democrat than I am, and when even she says that if it was a vote between Teresa and Laura, that she would choose Laura every day of the week and twice on Sunday, then there's a problem. I do not know if it affected anyones votes, but I'm sure some of the behavior Teresa exhibited on the trail turned off more than a few.
4) Leadership. This pains me so much to say. Kerry was successfully painted as an inconsistent leader. Part of that problem was in the fact that Kerry, having served in the Senate, really has no leadership points to speak of. In the Senate, you agree on a consensus, compromise, and work out solutions. That's all fine and well in a body like the Senate, but when it comes to divining leadership skills out of a legislative body such as that, unless you're the Speaker of the House, you won't find too much, and when it comes to the Office of President, leadership skills are what swing voters look for. Bush, whether you agreed with his leadership direction or not, was viewed as being a leader by the swing voter, and Kerry was not. Part of this was Kerry's fault. How much did he talk about his time in the Senate? I, for one, wanted him to talk about it but rarely heard him refer to it.
5) Hatred. This is the part that hurts the most. I remember candidates being vilified, but I don't remember Humphry calling Nixon "Hitler", or Carter calling Reagan that, or Clinton calling Bush or Dole that. What scares me the most about the Democratic Party that I have supported for well over 50 years is how much vitriol I see pouring forth from some of it's members. I was too young to serve in WW2, but I remember the films of the concentration camps that we saw afterwards, and Bush, whatever his many flaws, is no Hitler. There are no death camps waiting for those who disagree, otherwise Michael Moore would be the first inside one. Yet, plenty of swing voters saw and heard Democrats harp on "Bush is Hitler!" and knew it not to be true. That kind of disconnect makes it easier for swing voters to vote Republican, because they are voting against some of the wild accusations they hear about them which they know are not true.
Well, that's all for me for now. Forgive the ramblings of a tired old man. I have been a Democrat since I was old enough to know what politics was (and that was a long time ago, children!) and hope only the best for my party. I hope someone is listening.

Unionman101

[F.Gordon]

55. Looks more like 2-bits

You've touched on a number of points that I heard, but just dismissed for one reason or another. Maybe you are right on all counts. I don't know.

Personally, I wouldn't place so much of the blame on Kerry himself. As I've already written in these "boxes with words" my opinion is that Kerry was forced to speak to two different groups during the election, and the message had to be tempered to appease both groups. Quite a daunting task for any politician.

And please don't be so quick as to bury the Democratic Party quite yet. They had no control over those people and groups that you've singled out in your reply. Hopefully we can start building towards 2008 where everyone is behind the candidate.

You obviously put quite a bit of thought into this, as we all have. It's been tough to figure out. Thanks for taking the time to "ramble". Hope you'll do some more rambling soon.

Stay Young!!

[blue agave]

56. 2) - Kerry lacked Charisma ... this one resonates with me

and I have brought it up before. When I would see video coverage of his speeches, I almost wished that nobody would be watching. Intelligent and articulate, but boring delivery.