« Evening Open Thread | Main | The Only Poll That Counts »
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Yesterday
Posted by DavidNYCI was up from Monday morning until midnight last night. Yesterday, I spent the entire day doing poll watching in Philadelphia. I'll tell you more about it in a bit, but suffice it to say, it was a great experience.
Also, obviously, I was more than a little bit wrong about several of my predictions. I'll have more to say about that later, too.
And I lost a bet with a friend that we'd know the winner by 9am today. But for now, please use this as an open thread.
UPDATE: It's over.
Posted at 10:12 AM in General | Technorati
Comments
In addressing Ohio results, Sen. Kerry and his legal team must, must tackle the issue of "black box voting," or the use of non-auditable, no-paper-trail touch-screen machines which have proved to be unreliable, are designed in such a way that the possibility of corruption very much appears like an intended feature, and which (if adopted nationwide; they counted perhaps 30% of the overall tally this year) will render elections a complete farce by 2008.
Attorney David Boies (who represented Al Gore) is onboard for Kerry and his office fax is 914-749-8300. A few respectful faxes, asking that Kerry seek TRANSPARENCY and a full computer-geek examination of all touch-screen machines used in Ohio, might be in order.
In all events, I have heard there are perhaps 175K "provisional" and 75K absentee ballots as yet uncounted in Ohio. Ordinarily, one would not expect absentees to break greatly differently from the overall spread, but as many people nationwide cast absentee ballots precisely to AVOID Diebold, EMS and Sequoia touch-screens, there could be a real prospect of significant net pickup there for Kerry.
As for the 175K "provisionals," I would presume that most of those were African-Americans and others challenged by Repugs, that roughly 90% may prove to be valid, and a heavy majority should be for Kerry.
I despise Bush -- but Kerry must fight much, much harder than Al Gore did, or he does not deserve to be president.
Posted by: Geoffrey Pope at November 3, 2004 10:26 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ohio looks like a long shot. Kerry would have to win about 90% of the uncounted ballots. If Kerry wins the other uncalled states (perhaps less of a longshot than simply winning Ohio),it's 269-269. The other longshot scenario is the tie being broken by the maverick Republican elector from West Virginia. Still democracy is worth waiting for. It's interesting that the Republicans are playing the "We won the popular vote" argument.
Posted by: DavidOrlando at November 3, 2004 10:27 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
To see what Democrats should do to win back Congress in 2006, go to JABBS, at http://jabbs.blogspot.com
Posted by: DM at November 3, 2004 10:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
In the inevitable Republican Administration...I make the following predictions:
The first nominee for the Supreme Court will be Arlen Specter....no concern about Roe v. Wade...which will certainly be a hot topic.
Second nominee for the Supreme Court will be Michael Mukasey.
Just a guess...but both would probably win approval by both parties.
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 10:50 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This is only my second comment, the first being back in July when other posters were bubbling with confidence:
(quote from that post)
"...a long shot scenario for Kerry to lose..." Huh? No long shots in this race. It likely will be determined by a major event, or series of small events, beyond either candidate's control.
(end July quote)
And so it was. Mostly small events, like the 60 Minutes fiasco, which put the talk shows and Fox News back in full control of "the truth."
Nevertheless, as a Clark supporter, I must confess that Kerry put up a valiant fight. But he never had a chance to win without major outside events undercutting Bush. Northern Senators just don't win the White House anymore. Period. End of discussion.
Anybody for Hilary in '08?
Posted by: Bruce Borgerson at November 3, 2004 11:18 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
WTF happened in Ohio? When do the republicans start rounding up all the homos, sending them to south dakoka to be shot by rich fat cats "doing the work of Jesus". This sux. How soon for the national sales tax to be implemented? How many more rights will be taken away by the next Patriot Act? What will be the next country we will invade and occupy? How long before a draft? At least the state races in MN swung back to Dem with a great possibility of the Dem Farm Labor party retaking control in the State house of rep.
If republicans didnt have a fixation with oral sex the world would be so much better.
-D
Posted by: RoadinMN at November 3, 2004 11:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Northern Senators just don't win the White House anymore. Period. End of discussion.
What evidence supports this thesis? Clark would have won Arkansas? So what? Maybe he would have lost another state. Clark would have won Florida? No proof of that is possible.
Posted by: DavidNYC at November 3, 2004 11:27 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I feel like somebody just died...
Posted by: bigguy at November 3, 2004 11:37 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
How gracious.
Posted by: DM at November 3, 2004 12:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry has planned a concession speech for 1 p.m. EST.
Posted by: DM at November 3, 2004 12:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
CSI: The Swing State Project
Several threads back, DavidNYC asked for suggestions about what to do with The Swing State Project after the election.
The answer's obvious: document the crimes.
Please, DavidNYC and all y'all, make this site the go-to place for election 2004 criminal evidence from the swing states!
Posted by: snorfbat at November 3, 2004 12:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Was there any exit polling in Ohio to determine how effective the gay marriage initiative was at getting pro-Bush voters to the polls? In other words, was there a large number of voters who voted against gay marriage and for Bush who might have stayed home if the initiative had not been on the ballot?
Posted by: Sue at November 3, 2004 12:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Was there any exit polling in Ohio to determine how effective the gay marriage initiative was at getting pro-Bush voters to the polls? In other words, was there a large number of voters who voted against gay marriage and for Bush who might have stayed home if the initiative had not been on the ballot?
Posted by: Sue at November 3, 2004 12:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Was there any exit polling in Ohio to determine how effective the gay marriage initiative was at getting pro-Bush voters to the polls? In other words, was there a large number of voters who voted against gay marriage and for Bush who might have stayed home if the initiative had not been on the ballot?
Posted by: Sue at November 3, 2004 12:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I am glad to see Senator Kerry do his concession speech today instead of wait 11 days. There is no way he is going to pick up 130,000 votes in OH. He still should send his lawyers to OH just to make sure that the provisional votes are correctly counted though.
I doubt it would have made a difference, but I think the OH shenanigans by the Republican Party need to be investigated. They deliberately put too few booths in Democratic strongholds. This caused some Democratic voters to get sick of waiting in line and leave. Their voter challenge (harassment) rules are also pretty ridiculous. This election should teach us once again that we shouldn't put all our eggs into baskets owned by the Republican Party. Some of those eggs can magically disappear and not be counted.
Posted by: DFuller at November 3, 2004 12:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Sue,
To me was the undecided voters only went marginally to Kerry. Kerry needed a higher percentage of undecided voters to win.
WHEN DID YOU DECIDE WHO TO VOTE FOR?
Election Day (5%) Kerry 52, Bush 45
Last Three Days (3%) Kerry 55, Bush 42
Posted by: DFuller at November 3, 2004 01:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I can not believe some of the people on here. Talking about lawyers, challenges, etc. Is that what the Democrat Party has come too? The majority of America spoke yesterday and a message was sent - We want George W. Bush. Look at John Kerry and see how he acts with class in his defeat. I think it is time for some of you to move on and get an agenda that matters to the people. America Values! Minorities, women, Catholics, came out to vote Bush. The Senate and House went more Republican and Tom Daschle is gone. Something happened last night - it was the death of liberalism.
Posted by: Howie at November 3, 2004 01:07 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
A 3% difference in a national poll was the death of liberalism ? And the House result was foreshadowed by the redistricting.
Incidentally, minorities, both Hispanic and African Americans, voted strongly for kerry. Think about that as the Hispanic population in the country increased.
I do agree that the democratic party needs to retool itself, both organizationally (which probably cost it some close states like Ohio and made PA and MI closer than necessary this time) and with its message. But there's no big mandate here, much as Reps would like to pretend otherwise. 49% of voting Americans did not believe in Bush.
But Bush has to clean up the fiscal mess and the mess in Iraq by himself now.
Posted by: erg at November 3, 2004 01:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This has been a great site and after my initial post-loss depression I am ready to start fighting again.
I hope you keep the site running, no retreat no surrender no matter how long it takes!
Posted by: The Other Rob at November 3, 2004 01:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Howie,
You make no sense.
A. The Republicans lawyers are the ones trying to suppress the vote in OH. They are the ones who sent lawyers to Democratic precincts to challenge ballots and force them to vote on provisional ballots. We must send our lawyers to protect our voters from their lawyers. We can't let the Republicans push us around.
B. Minorities voted Kerry not Bush. 88% of African-Americans, 54% of Latinos, and 58% of Asians voted for Kerry.
This election was about fear. Bush ran a campaign of fear and enough Americans bought into it. He certainly could run on his record. A million lost jobs, record surplus turned into a record deficit, and an ill-advised war in Iraq.
Posted by: DFuller at November 3, 2004 01:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I put a lot of time and energy (and money) into the Dem campaigns here in the SW corner of Colorado, and I feel that it had an effect: La Plata County (which is 35% R, 27% D, 36% U, 2% minor party) had a Dem sweep of Kerry, K. Salazar, J. Salazar, and White (county commissioner). We had tremendous turnout, especially among the college-age group.
But I do worry that all these enthusiastic young voters will look at the state and national results and decide, "Well, I might as well have stayed home." I sure hope that doesn't happen.
Posted by: Ilana at November 3, 2004 01:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"I feel like somebody just died..."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/03/iraq.main/index.html
Someone did.
Posted by: Dan Hogan at November 3, 2004 01:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ilana,
I would like to think you for your efforts in CO. Ken Salazar's victory over Beer Man was a key pickup for us yesterday in the Senate.
Posted by: DFuller at November 3, 2004 01:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Well, now that Kerry's conceded and we've officially lost, it's time for evaluation and fixing problems. The Democrats need some serious changes if they want to win the presidency again, and to take back control of the Senate (the House is and has been a longshot). So here's my suggestions:
1. Fire Bob Shrum. He's never won a damn race in his life, and we keep hiring him.
2. Kerry obviously put up an excellent fight against a powerful enemy. His loss was by only 3 percentage points; with Daschle gone, he should be made Senate Minority Leader. We need his leadership skills.
3. Howard Dean needs some role. I don't care what, but we need him as much as we needed Clinton.
4. We need to convince the moderate Republican Senators in the Northeast to join our side; if they don't come to us, we pound the hell out of them when they run for reelection. We should also look to Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina; Senate candidates should be likable people, not dull like Erskine Bowles.
5. It's time to come clean; the Democrats are liberal (gasp!). Dean came out of the gates saying he's a liberal and proud of it. He came close to winning, too. If we stand up for something and stop catering to the far right of society, we will be much better off. People like honest politicians.
That's all I can think of. Any other ideas?
Posted by: Dale at November 3, 2004 01:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I guess we can let the 2nd guessing start. Any objections?? Good! I'm going to give you 2 words and I want some reaction. I always viewed the selection of Edwards as the #2 man on the ticket as a tactical blunder. At the time, it looked as though the Kerry campaign decided to run a strategic national campaign, which in retrospect, was a huge tactical error. My two words are: Dick Gephardt! It was always my hope that Gephardt would have been the running mate from a tactical perspective. I have a sense that Gephardt would have neutralized Bush's support among lower working-class social conservatives in Ohio and Missouri. Then again, one wonders whether the #2 guy could have made any difference at all. My gut tells me that Gephardt would have given Kerry Missouri and Ohio. Any thoughts?
Posted by: bigguy at November 3, 2004 01:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bigguy,
We are in agreement about Gephardt. I thought that we should have not conceded the southern part of the Mississippi River so easily. To me, we need to work harder on the states that border west side of the Mississippi River: MO,AR,& LA. Our other focus for expansion is NV, AZ, NM, & CO.
Bush should consider himself lucky. Just think how angry his supporters would be today if he lost OH. He was spending all his time in NJ, MI, & PA. There was no way those states were going red. He should have spent more time in OH.
Posted by: DFuller at November 3, 2004 01:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Required reading for all good liberal activists is "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Tom Frank. This will sum up why core Democratic supporters have left our party over the past 30 years or so. It will explain why the blue collar is going Republican and why labor is just about dead. It will bring you down a bit, but folks on the coasts need to get into the mind of the people in the 'heartland'.
Posted by: Tom at November 3, 2004 02:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
By the way, I know I've been carping about abortion a lot today, but the only part of the country with >50% church attendance is the mid-west. Every person who went to church on Sunday 10/31 had Bush fliers on their car. If you want these votes then soothe the moral dilemma of these voters. If you don't, don't plan on winning in the South or Midwest.
Posted by: Tom at November 3, 2004 02:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Dfuller --- I doubt that Gephardt is that popular in MO outside of his own district. If he had been, he would have been Senator, not a Rep.
PA and MI actually came uncomfortably close, closer than they were. I think the Karl Rove strategy of reaching out to Evangelicals worked and gave the Repubs around 2-3 points more in many swing states. Thats why MI and PA came closer than the 5% from the Gore time. ANd thats why Bush won Ohio. [ He would probably still have won FL]
Posted by: erg at November 3, 2004 02:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
First FL, then OH. Then a the concession. The bleeding doesn't seem to stop. The Senate now has what, 54 Republicans? Plus the Alaska race is too close to call, thought that GOP incumbent (daughter of the governor) is in the lead. To top that off, a Democratic Senator from RI, Lincoln Chaffe (spelling?) is making noises about switching to the GOP. Meanwhile the GOP also has a majority in the House. And I'm extremely worried about what the Supreme Court is going to look like if Bush appoints anywhere from two to four new justices. When will it all stop?
Some food for thought: I'm afraid a New Englander has little appeal in the South. I also have written on this site that OH has never its history voted for a New Englander for president. I am originally from OH, and I call it the "most northern Southern state." It's true. It's GA on the Great Lakes. We need someone who folks in the Midwest and South can identify with. Anyone who does well in at least part of the South will also do well in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain States. We don't have to win them all, but we definitely do need to make some inroads. The GOP will continue to win so long as the South stays solid. The South has always had a great deal of clout, and it's only growing in power and influence. The Democrats eschew it at their own risk. Over the next four years I hope the Democratic think tanks will make a better effort to get to know the South and what makes it tick. Only then can they try to woo at least some of it away from the GOP. It's painfully obvious that New England and the West Coast are not a road map to victory if you have the South and most of the Midwest.
I realize I'm not offering any solutions here, but before we have solutions, we need to address the problems and obstacles that are making national victories increasingly difficult to downright impossible. We are in a terrible situation, and I'm very fearful of what the next four years will bring us under George Bush.
The other thing is that he absolutely does not have a mandate. However, I'll bet he thinks he has one. He probably figures he won not only because he got more votes, but because it was God's will. Is that not scary or what? On top of it and compounding matters, he will enjoy a Senate that could be 56-44 or even 57-43 GOP majority. And his party controls the House, and again, he might get to appoint Supreme Court judges. He certainly didn't have a mandate in the last election. Far from trying to work with the Democrats, I fully expect him to be out of control during his second term with his agenda, ordained, no doubt, by God. Canada is looking better and better.
Posted by: Pepe at November 3, 2004 02:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe-
Chaffee is in the GOP already. He has come out and said he would not vote for GWB.
Posted by: Leanne at November 3, 2004 02:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe -- you have it wrong. Lincoln Chafee is a liberal Republican from Rhode Island who was flirting with the Democratic Party. He may shift before the next election, I think.
As far as the SOuth goes, other than discarding gun control, I doubt the Dems can do much. Demographic changes will eventually place these in play, but it will be a few decades. There is no great poll of Southern Democrats left too to use for a Presidential bid .
I continue to believe that the West is the real source of new votes for the Dems (NM, NV, AZ, CO). They have to consolidate the Midwest though. Also, a good Dem can take FL (against a non-Bush), which is becoming less and less Southern every day. But MN, WI, IA -- Dems needs to remain competitive in these states. You can win without the South, but not without the SOuth and the Midwest.
Posted by: erg at November 3, 2004 02:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Minnesota and Iowa did better for Kerry than for Gore, so not all hope is lost there yet. Most of the South is lost to us now, but give it a few years and VA, NC, and especially FL will be blue again. Obviously we can't win Bible-thumping blood-red states like Alabama and Mississippi, but we can get the hot-pink states. It takes time. Remember, Republicans spent 40 years in a Congress with a veto-proof Democratic majority. And they didn't give up once. Whereas everytime we lose, we start digging our graves a little further. We need to stop lamenting every single loss, because it emboldens our enemies.
Posted by: Dale at November 3, 2004 02:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
My synopsis is that it will get far far worse before it will get any better. The so called "moral issues" will be resolved by the Republicans to their satisfaction within the next 4 years. This will cause such an outcry by the American people but that truly is what is needed to wake people up from the '90's coma most are still in. There is more to life than a fat 401k plan and a gas guzzling SUV and homesteaded property in suburbia. Expect this: partial birth abortion ban, tax 'relief' and higher deficits, gay marriage and civil union ban at minimum. Foreign policy will be its own disaster. If 4 yrs of termoil is what it takes to snap people out of the self delusional unrealistic world they live in, then that is what will happen. See you on the march on Washington in October '08.
Posted by: RoadinMN at November 3, 2004 02:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
We did pretty decent in the House all things considered. We lost 2 seats, won 2 seats, and got redistricted out of 4 seats.
Posted by: DFuller at November 3, 2004 02:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe-
I think you may be wrong about the Supreme Court. My personal prediction that (unlike John Kerry), George Bush does not have a litmus test for his appointees...I don't think he will be looking at Roe v. Wade or other hard corps issues...I truly believe that he will appoint the best guys...and the two I can think of are both extremely moderate (Arlen Specter and Michael Mukasey).
Bigguy-
As much as you and I disagree...I think it's kind of funny that you came to the same conclusion that I posted earlier on the other thread about Gephart. OH and MO....
Yankees continue to invade the South and the Baby Boomers seem to be retiring in droves to states like NC, SC, GA and FL. With the influx of retired Union Workers and other Northern Democrats, who can enjoy warm weather and lower cost of living benefits, I think the South will be more hotly contested in the future.
IMHO
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 03:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bigguy-
Maybe you can pull some strings for some of the guys that are distraught enough to join you up there....
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6704292
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 03:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
DFuller - thanks! It was a lot of fun, up until the bitter denoument.
And erg is right - the Dem party needs to look west. I mean, consider my schizophrenic state. Colorado's EVs went to Bush - but we picked up an open Senate and an open Congressional seat, making us 1/1 and 3/4 Democrats/Republicans. We also took back BOTH the State House and State Senate for the first time since 1960!
There are complex issues at play here, but if the Democrats ever figure out just what combination of pragmatism and emotion works, I think Colorado will be in reach. Nevada and New Mexico, too. And heck, add all our EVs together and...we still have less than Ohio does! Oh, well!
Posted by: Ilana at November 3, 2004 03:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
First time posting to this site, but I definitely want to say thanks for all of your efforts over the last several months. Born in Minnesota, raised in North Dakota and a current resident of Washington, I was a strong Kucinich supporter this time around. I felt Kerry did a creditable job as a campaigner, but was hurt by the perceived inconsistency on Iraq that stuck the label of flip-flopper on him. However I was also struck by the inappropriateness of his response to the abortion question during the 2nd debate. He tried to sound empathetic, but the question was about federal tax dollars used for abortion. It would have been fine to talk about his personal moral opposition to abortion, but he needed to clearly say he supported Medicaid payments for abortion for those who couldn't otherwise afford what is a legal medical procedure. At the same time he could have quoted some recent analysis showing abortion rates rising under the Bush administration compared to the Clinton administration when they consistently dropped. (Counterintuitive at first, but probably due to increased economic insecurity and lack of health care insurance under Bush.) I, for one, echo Clinton's mantra on abortion. "Safe, legal and rare." But I definitely don't buy the idea that my daughter can't get prescription medicine without my knowledge as a minor, but can get birth control or even an abortion in many states. (Allow judicial permission in cases where incest or physical harm from parents is a possibility.) Thomas Frank's basic argument is correct. The Democratic Party has adopted an elitist moral agenda, while sacrificing its basic class-based economic stance. If our economic policies aren't genuinely progressive and our positions on social issues are repulsive to 50% of the populace, what are we offering. Republicans have "moderates" like Schwartzenegger and Giuliani who don't mind going against the national Republican social agenda to better mesh with their constituents. Democrats need better articulation of the basic social agenda along with a bigger tent to allow Pro-Life Dems on a national stage.
Posted by: Tim at November 3, 2004 03:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Guys, Thanks for the clarification about Lincoln Chaffee. I was misinformed, obviously.
Posted by: Pepe at November 3, 2004 03:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I wish not one iota of disrespect to any of you who have posted today, but electoral strategies are meaningless if a significant (and now, probably, greatly increasing) part of the electorate votes on can't-be-audited-no-paper-trail touch screen voting machines that issue no receipt and can be hacked my modem.
Although corporate media have been nearly silent on the issue, critics like Bev Harris have been screaming about how corruptibility is not a mere defect, but an intended feature of the "New Voting Technology" -- made mostly by three companies that are controlled by people close to the Pentagon, the far-religious right, and the Repuglican Party.
If Karl Rove or his successor-in-interest can sit in the Roosevelt Room, and at each election cycle hack just enough votes to produce right-wing control while preserving an illusion of a "republican form of government," we are reduced to the status of (in Madison's words) slaves and, in my modest opinion, fools, if and to the extent that we continue to participate in what threatens soon to become, if indeed it has not already become, a futile exercise to fool the rubes who vote for the men (and a few women) who are destroying our country.
If we should have 3 priorities, IMHO they are 1, working to repudiate the Bush Doctrine of "preventive" war (a thin veneer over thuggery for political control and control over energy and other resources), 2, struggle to restore some semblance of fiscal sanity, and 3, to ensure a fair and transparent electoral system. We are on the verge of becoming something very much like a fascist country.
Posted by: Geoffrey Pope at November 3, 2004 03:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Not everything about this election was bad. The 1 state Bush visited more than any other and the number 1 target for Republicans was my home state, Pennsylvania. Bush failed here, and it wasn't that close. Kerry has over a 120,000 vote lead here, and the only outstanding precincts are from Philly. I saw State College mobilized far more than it has recently before, and I still see many more Kerry signs, bumper stickers and buttons on this day of defeat. I am convinced Pennsylvania is a presidential stronghold for the Dems and nothing in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic will flip in the foreseeable future. What can we win in the future? Colorado is the big target, and Virginia isn't too far off. Win in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada next time and it's possible to win without Ohio and the south.
Posted by: Brett at November 3, 2004 03:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I have come to the conclusion too that the Dems should not try to tbe party of fiscal sanity. The electorate may say they favor lower deficits, but what they really want is lower taxes and higher spending. So fuck fiscal sanity.
Posted by: erg at November 3, 2004 03:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"The Republicans lawyers are the ones trying to suppress the vote in OH. They are the ones who sent lawyers to Democratic precincts to challenge ballots and force them to vote on provisional ballots. We must send our lawyers to protect our voters from their lawyers. We can't let the Republicans push us around."
I, and I am sure the rest of nation, is tired of the crying about Voter Supression. The Provisional ballots were established to help people vote who were not registered and counter any 'supression'. And, I am talking about the people here wanting to keep the fight alive with Lawyers and court cases. It's over. Do the classy thing like Kerry and step aside and continue your work some place else. Does it mean so much to you that you have to tear the nation in half?
"Minorities voted Kerry not Bush. 88% of African-Americans, 54% of Latinos, and 58% of Asians voted for Kerry."
I do believe those numbers are up from the last election. Also, Bush had more votes from Catholics and women this time around too.
"This election was about fear. Bush ran a campaign of fear and enough Americans bought into it. He certainly could run on his record. A million lost jobs, record surplus turned into a record deficit, and an ill-advised war in Iraq."
The fkip side to your argument could be that people were not convinced by John Kerry. And one more thing, Unemployment Average is lower now than in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, Bush mentioned that a deficit would happen if we went to war, and your candidate, John Kerry, voted for the war too.
Posted by: Howie at November 3, 2004 04:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Tim said: (Allow judicial permission in cases where incest or physical harm from parents is a possibility.)
Do you seriously think a young girl who has been violated, threatened, etc. by a parent is likely to have the ability, the trust, the knowlege, etc. to go through a process to get judicial permission? If we truly want to reduce abortion, we need to empower and support young women to stand up for themselves wrt sex and to know they have unlimited potential for their own development.
Posted by: WisVoter at November 3, 2004 04:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"I, and I am sure the rest of nation, is tired of the crying about Voter Supression."
Howie, maybe you wouldn't be so tired of it if you were the one unfairly turned away or fed misinformation.
I respect and support John Kerry for conceding the election when he did, but I do think these things need to be investigated. We have to clean these things up. What's tearing us apart, among other things, is that our election processes are not as fair and as transparent as they need to be! What will help us to heal is for all this stuff -- the truth! -- to come out and for us to deal with it.
And I do think we need to count all the votes, even if it won't change the outcome, and that all the final numbers should be very visible. I just read on cnn.com that Cheney just introduced Bush as now having a mandate... It's all about transparency. How can we heal if we don't really know what's going on?
Posted by: WisVoter at November 3, 2004 04:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
WisVoter,
Not wanting to turn this thread into a abortion discussion (my larger point being that Democrats need to nuance their discussion of moral values instead of being monolithic on the national level with the NARAL agenda), I would say a young girl who has been violated by a parent will eventually turn to some professional, either in the education or medical system, who it turn could assist her in jumping through the proper legal hurdles if her situation was such that parental consent for an abortion would be too burdensome. If she is too scared to seek out a professional, she obviously wouldn't be getting a legal abortion anyway.
I definitely agree that we need to empower and support young women to stand up for themselves wrt sex, etc. Contrary to what the religious right would have us believe, it seems that credible health education classes reduce rather than exacerbate abortion rates. But alienating parents who should be on the progressive side by insisting just because a young women is physically capable of getting pregnant means she is mentally ready to make a choice concerning abortion without any parental involvement seems silly to me. There is good reason that minors are treated as minors in all sorts of legal discussions.
Abortion rights activists constantly refer to a slippery slope of any and all restrictions inevitably leading to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. That isn't necessarily true and I don't believe the broad center of this country wants to criminalize abortion. I genuinely believe discussions based on compassion, factual analysis of abortion trends, and seeking common ground combined with an insistence on concerns of public as well as private morality are the only way for Democrats to regain the upper hand as the party of authentic family values.
Posted by: Tim at November 3, 2004 04:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Well, I said it in a drunken fit of maudlin last night. Today, I did it. I renounced my U.S. citizenship at the U.S. Consulate in Vancouver. America is headed down a dangerous path of religious zealotry openly confronting another religious zealotry. There are no place for moderates in neither Bush's America nor Bin Laden's brand of Islam. They can gladly have and destroy each other. The rest of us will be willing observers.
Posted by: bigguy at November 3, 2004 05:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Link to an article with great talking points on abortion rates by Dr. Glen Stassen in Sojourners.
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013#5
Posted by: Tim at November 3, 2004 05:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
BigGuy -- you are entitled to whatever decision you make, but we need voters like you to bring sanity to America. If liberals desert America, who is left ?
Also, for Howie --- the actual job creation record under Bush is worst of any President since Hoover. The unemployment rate is generally considered a less reliable index of jobs (because its built from a separate and less reliable survey and excludeds people who've been out of the labor force for a while).
YEs, Kerry failed to convince enough voters. In wartime, a sitting PResident is rarely defeated (although some like Truman and LBJ have the decency to acknowledge failed wars and refuse to rerun). That combined with the gay marriage issue and organizational strength (which probably tipped the balance in OH) was key, not some huge mandate.
Posted by: erg at November 3, 2004 05:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
would have went with grahmm instead of edwards,
Posted by: larry at November 3, 2004 05:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I agree Edwards didn't add anything to the ticket. I am from Florida, and Graham is extremely popular here, usually winning re-election with between 60-70% of the vote before retiring. But as a VP candidate, I don't think even he could have made up the margin that Bush won Florida by. I was shocked that he won by that much. I thought it would be a nail biter. When the returns started coming in, I knew we were dead. I really don't think there was a member of the Democratic Party that we could have put on the ticket with Kerry, or even at the top of the ticket, that would have brought in an additional large state to put us over the top. I guess if Graham was the candidate he would have taken Florida, but he is really quirky (he writes down everything he does in a little book), and I don't know how that would play. Incidentally, one thing is for sure and no one disputes this. Had Al Gore picked Bob Graham instead of Joe Lieberman, he would have won Florida by such a wide margin in 2000 that none of those recounts and that entire mess would not have been necessary.
Posted by: Sam at November 3, 2004 05:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Thanks, Tim, for your thoughtful post. My following comments are simply for discussion purposes.
"I genuinely believe discussions based on compassion, factual analysis of abortion trends, and seeking common ground combined with an insistence on concerns of public as well as private morality are the only way for Democrats to regain the upper hand as the party of authentic family values."
I also would love to see more nuanced discussions based on compassion, factual analysis, and seeking common ground (not just on abortion but on other issues too). I admit to perhaps having some bias, but it seems to me that the right is more monolithic on this issue than the left. Yes, on the left there is a fear of that slipperly slope to overturning Roe v. Wade, but on the right, there is not even a willingness to put in an exception to a women's health to get a ban on late-term abortions. And it also seems that one person's nuance is another person's wishy-washy-you-don't-know-where-you-stand-flip-flopper trait.
I do want to, and think we need to, find common ground. And I think it will come in preventing unwanted pregnancies. But I realize this still doesn't directly address abortion.
Posted by: WisVoter at November 3, 2004 05:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Very nice article, Tim. Thanks for the link.
Posted by: WisVoter at November 3, 2004 05:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
As one of only 16 left-leaning neo-Confederates in the entire country (by "neo-Confederate" I mean decentrist, as the mid-19th century South was wrong on slavery, but right on the Constitutional principles secession included) let me inject a few controversial but perhaps mildly useful notions.
First, every year we get deked out on the issue of abortion. Except around the edges (parental notice, late-term procedures) maybe 10% of the Repubs truly want to make all/nearly all abortion illegal nationwide. True, many more SAY they are for a "culture of life" or such shit (see photos of how we are promoting "life" in Iraq and in our secret prisons worldwide!) but the truth is that the real Repug view is that PRETENDING to oppose abortion pisses off conservatives and Christians against liberals who, as I'm afraid many do, give the impression that pro-choice is their #1 issue, and triggers an anti-liberal, anti-Democrat reaction.
Most Repubs know serious efforts to stop abortion nationwide would lose elections. So they haven't tried it, and won't.
All non-lawyers amongst you might be interested to know, also, that whether you life the OUTCOME of Roe v. Wade or not, the LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL UNDERPINNING for Roe was awfully weak: the early 1970s Court really just made it up, and whether you are pro-choice or not, the Constitution is properly SOMEWHAT elastic, perhaps (e.g., does the "right to bear and keep arms" include weapons the Founders could not have imagined? I say no -- although I am against even registering guns, other than those that can be concealed on the person, at least up to the firepower of standard infantry issue) the Constitutional basis for Roe was nonexistent, the precedential support very thin, and the decision as a whole cynical.
I didn't come to argue abortion -- but this relates to the broader issue of Two Nations. By making Roe v. Wade the virtual centerpiece of Democratic politics (try to get nominated as a Democrat for dogcatcher if you are not dogmatically pro-choice, against any curbs whatsoever) we are saying to the South and Midwest: you have to believed as we do. Legally, abortion under the Constitution IS subject to state regulation -- and, today, I doubt mlore than a handful of states would outlaw it in the first trimester.
I am so disheartened that if I were younger than 54 and my wife willing, I would emigrate. If Blue-State America and Red-State America are to coexist as one (frankly, I believe the world would be better off with a less centralized or, better, politically fragmented America less inclined to moral absolutism and wars of aggression) we have to better distinguish what matters most, and what matters somewhat, and how we can repulse the ultra-right while being responsible (ergo I disagree with "fuck fiscal responsibility") and not selling all principle for expediency. IMHO.
Posted by: Geoffrey Pope at November 3, 2004 06:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bigguy. It's only a matter of time. If we can't stop them here and now, then when and where? You're only delaying the fight and if you're gone by the time it arrives then your kids will have to fight it. Only this time they'll be 10 times as entrenched and 10 times stronger. The greatest country on the planet needs your help. It needs it now. Get back to that consulate and cancel it.
As to strategy. We have to nip at the edges. You see there's still a great divide between blue states+ the borders and the south. We can still be the party of fiscal discipline. We can go ahead and cut taxes. Instead of yelling how are we going to pay for that, yell we need to cut spending to cover the defecit. But we can selectively cut spending on Red State Welfare. Isolate a program that helps some southern states only and go after it. Then if midwest conservatives or border conservatives pork it for their southern friends, we have the WELL MY GOP OPPONENT HERE IN NEW MEXICO TALKED A BIG GAME WHEN HE SAID WE NEED TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT, BUT WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO IT, HE DIDN'T WALK THE WALK, HE BALKED. And keep doing it every time.
Then when they start in with the social issues like an amendment defining marriage. THERE YOU GO AGAIN. I SWEAR IF YOU DIDN'T KEEP TELLING US YOU WERE A CONSERVATIVE, I'D SWEAR YOU WERE A TAX AND SPEND BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERAL!!! WHY SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGULATE THAT? ISN'T ALABAMA BETTER EQUIPED THEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER GAYS SHOULD MARRY. GET THE GOVERNMENT OFF THE PEOPLES' BACKS....
Hide the issue in state's rights. That's what they do on issues they know they lose. Use their own tricks against em.
Divide it up and conquer.
One of the things we probably should have done is not filibuster the bill to decrease overtime and allow companies to declare more and more workers are on salary and thus exempt. We should have let a vote come to pass on it, let them vote it up or down and live with it. That would have made some of the moderate Rep's in blue states very very vulnerable and it likely would have won us Ohio. The Unions would have been Po'd big time and wouldn't blame us because we voted no. You see it's awfully easy to vote morality issues when you know the Rep's can't actually get their draconian ajenda through. It's alot tougher once you're faced with an example of them.
Frame the issue. Bush. I won't appoint "activist judges" BUT I WON'T HAVE A LITMUS TEST.
Now activists on both sides know what that's code for. BORK LITMUS TEST but the vast majority of the ill informed (50% of the electorate) don't.
Our equavalent should be. I won't have a litmus test. But I wont appoint "obstructionist judges."
And of course the underlings should go on to define a strict foundationalist as an obstructionist a-la the ones that upheld the seperate but equal doctrine.
But instead Kerry blew it and said he won't appoint one that will overturn roe v wade... AHA!! A LITMUS TEST!!
Posted by: Joe at November 3, 2004 06:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"Howie, maybe you wouldn't be so tired of it if you were the one unfairly turned away or fed misinformation."
Part of the right ot vote is knowing how, where, and who. For example, I registered for an Absentee Ballot. It never made it to me, but I voted via an SF-186 (Federal Write In Ballot). As for people unfaily turned away, there are the Provisional Ballots and Misinformation was done on both sides. Anyone who did it should be fined, punished, etc., but do you think that the dirty tricks played by either side would change this election? Do we need a court case to determine who the next president is? That is what I am hearing here.
"the actual job creation record under Bush is worst of any President since Hoover."
But we were also in a recession, that happened to one the shortest in history and small business growth is up.
Posted by: Howie at November 3, 2004 07:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I just wrote a piece about the 10 things we learned from this entire election travesty, on my website...check it out. It made me feel slightly better to write it, so it might help reading it --
http://www.awardspeculation.com/election2004.html
Posted by: AnthonySF at November 3, 2004 09:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'd like to add some of my thoughts. I worked very hard to GOTV in North Florida. I am shocked and devastated by the results.
I think religious zealots came out in record number for Bush. They were manipulated by the Bush mantra of 'terror and gays'. It will be difficult to overcome such a narrow-minded voting block in the future so Dems need a different tone.
My husband and I propose a 'Liberterian' tone (not philosophy). Let's tell the public that gov't wants to tell them how to run their lives, they want to decide who gets healthcare and who does not, who goes to college and won't, take their privacy away from them, force them to abandon public schools, spend their money, send their children away to fight in wars, and end abortion (again invasion of privacy).
We need gov't out of our lives and it is the Dems who stand for freedom, small business,and privacy.
We need a message that is simple and pervasive. We also need to come out swinging. Kerry did a fine job (a few mistakes made though) given his geographical origin and his wealth (which might have turned off those of us who work too hard to make ends meet).
I thought about giving up after the hours and hours of hard work. My family hasn't had a decent home-cooked dinner in about a month. I am relieved that half of the voters stood up for the Left and we shouldn't abandon them. However, in my heart I'd rather go to Canada or Northern Europe to be with like-minded people.
Posted by: spike at November 4, 2004 09:20 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment