Kerry Concedes Election To Bush

WilliamGeorge points to this MSNBC story "that presidential candidate John Kerry has called George W Bush to concede the election. So it is over, and without a lot of extra fuss and recounts."

Comments

Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Anonymous Coward]

And let us move back to our normal bickering of Linux vs. BSD.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[danheskett]

Everyone wins, but in the long term, a redefinition is needed of the rules of the game.
Bush got more votes than any American in history.

No matter how you slice it, he won this election. Electorally, popular vote, plurality of states, plurality of precincts, plurality of counties.

What exactly do you want to change in regards to the rules of the games?

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Frymaster]

Bush got more votes than any American in history.

true. so, now when the american government makes aggressive and belicose blunders in the middle east the rest of the world won't just despise and deride the president. they'll hate the american people too.

congratulations america! you've completely alienated yourselves from all of your former allies and friends and earned the distrust and emnity of the rest of the planet.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[EddieBurkett]

Kerry got more votes (55 million) than any other president in history too. (Previous leader was Reagan in '84 w/ 54 million.)

Bush may have won a clear majority, but this election is still close, and there is still a large portion of the population that despises him. I'm sure Bush will interpret his victory as a mandate and do what he wants (not like his lack of a mandate was stopping him before), but this country needs some serious help closing the divide, and I don't see how Bush is going to address that.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[pixelpusher220]

Perhaps change so that either Popular vote decides the election, or in a compromise do it like Maine & Nebraska where it's by congressional district, so winner doesn't take all in a particular state. Seems to me to be a true representation of the people's will doesn't it?

Saying Bush won with more votes in history is downright misleading(sp?). He won with more votes in history in an election with MORE VOTES CAST than any election in recent memory. Show me he got a higher PERCENTAGE than anybody else and I'll be impressed.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Methuseus]

How about changing us away from a 2-party system. How about counting *every* absentee vote, regardless of whether the race is close or not. How about not announcing even preliminary results until all votes have been made and all absentee votes have been counted. It's way too open in the US. People getting ready to vote at 3 or 4 PM may watch the news, see that one candidate is winning (when about 25% of the vote has been tallied, if that) and not go to vote when they could have possibly made a difference seeing as the votes they saw were from a different state or district.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Golias]

I disagree. We are better off as a federal union of states in which the government of that union is presided over by somebody elected by the states. If Bush had lost Ohio and Iowa, then it should have meant a Kerry presidency regardless of the popular vote.

Not that it matters this time around. The parent to your post is correct: By every measure, Bush won, so there is no case made by this particular election that there's something which needs fixing.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Surt]

Except that the current system actually resulted in neither candidate visiting quite a few undisputed states.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[EllisDees]

> If we worked it by popular vote, only fewer than 10 states would be needed to win the election. That is not very representative either.

And how is that any different than the situation right now? Instead of the 10 most populous states, they run around to the 5 or 6 'swing' states.

>The electoral college assures that each candidate will visit every state, not just the ones needed to win.

But they don't. At all.

> If we did it by popular vote, a Democrat would win nearly every time because CA, NY, and a couple of other states have the most population.

Umm, Bush *did* also win the popular vote this time, you know.

>Fair would actually be like the Senate. Each state gets (1) electoral vote.

So someone in Alaska's vote matters more than someone's in New York? If a state only has 1 million people, their vote is more valuable than a state that has 10 million.

1 person, 1 vote is the only fair system.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[SpaceLifeForm]

Unfortunately, it's under 50%. Even with a record turnout, it was just too scary for many people to change presidents now. The status quo feels 'safer'.

It's strange, but too many Americans no longer understand the strengths of the U.S. Constitution, and fail to realize that those strengths actually allow the country to function in a time of 'war', and change presidents.

Well, guess what? They *WILL* have to do that in four years.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[E_elven]

The reality is, when you are a leader, you are NOT doing what everyone else thinks you should be doing. You are doing what needs to be done.

That sure worked well with Hitler, Napoleon, Lenin, Stahlin [sic], etc.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[the morgawr]

we need to expand the House (at minimum) to more fairly represent the population

The problem with doing this is that as the house gets more representatives it becomes harder to get things accomplished. That's why Congress capped the number of seats.

I would propose that the real solution is to reduce what the federal government does. If the individual states started doing Social Security, Welfare, Education, etc. and the national government mostly did foreign and monetary policy, I think there would be a lot less need for having "better" representation.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Dashing Leech]

Nope, it likely includes most of the rest of the world. It certainly includes Canada, the closest neighbour, ally, trading partner, and most culturely similar country to the U.S. Based on surveys, news, and workplace discussions, we can't understand how anyone could vote a major fuckup like Bush back in. On Sept. 11th, 2001 the U.S. had the sympathy of most of the world. Within a year Bush pissed off everyone and thumbed his nose at the international community. He's taken away freedoms of the American people in the name of security. He started a war for reasons that the world told him were wrong, have since been more than proven wrong, and it has turned sour just like everyone said it would (except Bush and friends). And he still says everything is fine. And the American people voted him back in.

We could understand that Americans didn't know he was a fuckup when they first (barely) voted him in, but it's hard not to know he's a fuckup now. Although I work with a number of Americans I respect, I've generally lost quite a bit of respect for American "intelligence" in general.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[zurab]

There was a _reason_ the electoral college came into being: so that populous states would not "drown" out the less populous ones.

This reasoning fails to make sense since right now less populous battleground states are "drowning out" the bigger ones that lean one way or the other in a way that they are deciding who is elected. In other words, a more committed majority state can be disregarded for the benefit of winning the minority battleground states.

Moreover, the federal elections should not be about states, but about all citizens in the country. You cannot make a compelling case to anyone that if you live in one state your vote = 1 vote towards presidential election, but in another state your vote = 1.2 votes towards the same election. And besides that, your vote will not count at all towards electoral vote because most of your *state* leans the other way.

It should always be that 1 citizen = 1 vote towards the federal election, not a state all-or-nothing tally; no matter where you live. Sure, people living in more populated areas will have more effect on less populated states or counties. The principle here is majority rule, minority rights. The electoral college doesn't guarantee that.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[surprise_audit]

But neither Bush nor Kerry was able to win over a significant proportion of the voters that bothered to show up. Bush may win, but the popular vote is still quite close, which means that roughly half the voters didn't want Bush .

CNN.com is still showing Ohio as "to close to call", so Kerry either knows something is going to push Ohio towards Bush, or he's a really dumb sonofabitch for conceding before the final tally.

Which reminds me - if Kerry wins Ohio, and therefore the Presidency, does his concession still stand?? Or does Bush have to suck it up and start packing up his stuff??

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[macdaddy]

I'm another midwesterner. I'm an actual midwesterner, not from the so-called Midwestern state of Ohio or Michigan (that always pisses me off). I'm from Kansas. Fortunately I'm atypical and don't match the other poster's list. Whew. We should start a support group for people who live in state's where their vote doesn't count. We might as be voting for Nader in these states because we'll never outnumber the people voting strictly down the party line. That has always disgusted me. I can't think of a more irresponsible way to vote than by voting down party lines. Toeing party lines is the ignorant man's game. It's easy for him. He doesn't have to pay attention to what's going on around him. He just has to remember which party he always votes for. People like that don't cherish their right to vote. In my honest opinion they shouldn't have that right if they misuse it. The whole system is screwed up. I don't know what a possible fix would be like but there's got to be some better way of doing things. Uh oh. There's a black hellicopter landing in my front yard; men dressed in black are heading towards my front door. I guess I shouldn't have questioned the status quo....

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why America is the ONLY superpower left in the world... and why our economy makes the economy of your piss poor, back water, know nothing country look like piss in a bucket.

I know this is a Troll, but this is EXACTLY the attitude that the scares the rest of the world. First off the grandparent didn't even specify what country he was from. Therefore we must conclude that you find all other countries besides america "piss poor, back water, etc". A scary thought indeed.

If your way of doing things is so great, why do they ALWAYS lose out to the socialist-leaning countries in the UN Human Development Index?. Not to mention having the highest number of criminals per capita, the worst medicare in the developped world, rampant obesity, etc..

Do yourself a favour. Buy yourself a plane ticket and see how the rest of the world lives.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[xThinkx]

"The most powerful and successful country in the world"

Wow, those are some nice blinders you've got on, where can I get a pair? What standards are you using for power? We've got the biggest military, and that equates to what? Sure we could destroy the whole world, so could several other countries, are we more powerful because we could nuke the same area 7 times? What about diplomatic power, which is the way things really get done in the modern world, we're certainly not #1 in that category.

Most successful eh? I guess all of those countries with lower unemployment rates, longer life expectancies, and shorter work weeks are just green with envy.

Treating "everyone else" as a few countries that are easy to make examples of is a hallmark of stereotyping and short-sightedness.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[hb253]

You're right about voting for someone new in 4 years, but my fear is the damage this administration (with the help of a right-wing Senate and House) will inflict that could last 20 or 30 years. This is what I foresee:

• ultra conservative supreme court appointments
• ruining of Social Security
• relationships with allies severed
• inability for Americans to safely travel overseas
• the imposition of fundamentalist christian morality on all citizens (prayer in school, no abortion, discrimination and violence against gays, teaching creationism, etc)
• bankruptcy of the Federal government due to grandiose overspending and insufficient tax revenue

The list goes on...

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Analogy Man]

A coworker was just moments ago saying that when he goes to India he tells everyone he is from Canada. A cab driver yelled at him all of the way from the airport to his parents home on a previous trip when he said he was coming from US.

I don't know why folks get so down on Europe. They collectively looked at the 100,000,000 folks killed in wars in the 20'th century and decided there had to be a better way. Europe has successfully prosecuted more Al Quida than the US. They just happen to distiguish the murderous thugs from the millions of other folks knuckle draggin' Joe 6-pack wants Bush to "kick some ass" with.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Scrameustache]

Well, as one of the apparently meaningless midwesterners, I will be praying for you and your ignorant view of the midwest.

Well, my view of the midwest was that it was full of religious nuts with superiority complexes...

That...sorta confirmed it.
;-)

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[greenrom]

There are a number of good reasons to keep the electoral college. Here are a few that come to mind. I'll leave out the ones about ensuring representation for rural states, since that one usually comes up in the discussion.

It isolates voting irregularities to a single state. This can be important. For example, if Diebold voting machines showed 3 billion people voted in Montana, it wouldn't have a drastic effect on the outcome since Montana only has 3 electoral votes.

It balances differences in voter turnout. New York is roughly twice the size of North Carolina. However, lets assume that New York gets hit by thunderstorms and has massive flooding on election day making it less convenient for people to vote. As a result, New York might have 30% voter turnout while North Carolina might have 60% voter turnout. This would mean North Carolina would have roughly the same representation as New York -- a state twice its size. The electoral college reduces the impact of weather, disasters, and even regional voter apathy on the final election results.

Not everyone that lives in a state may be eligible to vote because they may not be citizens. If a state has a large immigrant population, it is important the state's interests are represented in proportion to its size even though many of its residents may be unable to vote. The electoral college ensures this since electoral representation is determined based on raw population data from the census. A nationwide popular election would short-change states with lots of immigrants, or lots of children, or any other sizeable block of ineligible voters.

The electoral college ensures elections will always have a definite outcome. Even in 2000 when election results were unclear and court challeges delayed the outcome, the electoral college ensured we would eventually get a result that could not be legally disputed. Even if Gore had continued the court challenges and things were undecided until the day the electors cast their votes, once the electors voted, the outcome would be definite. By having the votes of a few hundred electors chosen by the states determine the final outcome, there is no room for errors in voting or tabulation. It is always clear how each of the electors vote.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[schon]

If I gave my children the vote, it'd be candy for every meal, and staying up all night. Requiring vegetables and a bed time isn't popular, but it is the right thing to do.

You can't *possibly* be arguing that the US is a "grown-up", and the rest of the world's countries are children, can you?

Perhaps it's *you* that needs to get some historical perspective.

The reality is, when you are a leader, you are NOT doing what everyone else thinks you should be doing. You are doing what needs to be done.

The thing is that the US is *NOT* a leader. In the context of your analogy above, it would be like one of your children being a 3-meter tall, 500KG mutant spoiled 6-year-old, and *TELLING* you that they want candy for dinner, and beating the shit out of you when you try to tell them to eat their vegetables.

And the sad fact is that you *think* that invading another country for no reason is "leadership".

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[tverbeek]

By every measure, Bush won, so there is no case made by this particular election that there's something which needs fixing.

Yes, it seems to be the democratically correct outcome. But some would argue that it demonstrates that the critical thinking skills of the voters themselves need "fixing".

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Skjellifetti]

If the rest of the world does not like what we do then take care of your problems yourself and stay out of our way.

To expand on the parent's theme, why did Dutch "peacekeepers" stand aside and let the Serbs massacre Muslim Bosnians in Srebrenica? What has Europe done to solve the civil war in Rwanda and the Congo? Why has Europe has nothing to stop the rapes and killing in Darfur? I don't know which pisses me off more -- unilateral US intervention and our pretensions of moral superiority or European complacency and their pretensions of moral superiority.

1. I did not vote for Bush. I do not even like him.
ditto.
2. I am not a Republican.
ditto.
3. I do have a passport and it has stamps in it from the EU to asia.
ditto.
4. I did server in the millitary and have seen combat.
Fortunately, I never saw combat.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[EinarH]

But some would argue that it demonstrates that the critical thinking skills of the voters themselves need "fixing".

First let me say that allthough I had hoped that Kerry would win, Bush victory was the most likly outcome. Disappointed? Yup. But it's _not_ the end of the world. USA will continue to be a somewhat decent country to live in compared to many other countries, even if the differences among people within USA will increase as well as the social mobility. Some folks may get insanly rich other might get a job in growing areas like small bussiness, debt collecting, flipping burgers, homeland security and security personell in the next rouge state to be liberated. The big losers will be those in the middle class that don't get to participate in the party and get their share of the economic growth.

The most disappointing thing though with respect to critical thinking, and the part I must addmitt I don't fully understand, is the irrationality and shortsightedness of US voters. According to the CNN exit polls (off by 2-3%) the most important issue for voters where Moral values 22% and Economy/Jobs 20%. If I understand US politics right that "Moral values" here means issues like Abortion, Gay marriage, christianity/religiousness, "family values" and and qualities like steadfastness and itegrity as well as "trustworthiness". How peolpe manage to prioritize these areas above Economy/Jobs, Iraq and terrorism is beyond me. Some of them are classic conservative areas but historically not to the extent that GWB has campaigned on them.
And those few qualities that I find magnetizing; fiscal responisbility and a small to medium sized effective non-intrusive non-religious state, they are _completely_ abandoned.
Do people expect a second Bush administration to win the "war on terrorism" on these qualities? And do they belive Bush can create a stronger economy while at the same time winning the "War on Terror" _and_ keeping the deficit from sliding into an almost unrecoverable state?
The voters will get what they requested on the "Moral value" issue essentially on gay marriage and abortion but my prediction is that they will _not_ get what they want on Economy/Jobs and "War on Terror".

The fact that people are voting increasingly on "values" leaves little room from critical thinking, unpopular/controversial choices and nuanced viewpoints. Among the people that said "Will bring change" (25%) is the most important quality Kerry got 95% of the votes. But among those that said "Strong Leader" and "Clear stand on Issue" are important Bush got 86% and 78%. So people voted for Bush because they belive he is the right Leader. To me as a foreigner that looks like a classic case of a country both divided and unsecure about the further course. People belive the President as a Moraly and Strong Leader can accomplish things that realisticlly are unlikly to happen.
Througout history many citizens have voted for the strong commander to miraculously lead them out of the trouble and a lot of the times it has only brought the into more problems. (To avoid long flamewars I will avoid naming any specific country and leave that to the historicans.)

I have seen this for a long time that USA is turning more right than the rest of the world. I will expect to see even more focus on the Wars (Crime, Drugs, Terror,), increasing amounts of security and surveilance creep and religion afflicting more of the public life. Bush needs to cut somewhere in order to finance the war on terror and my bet is on either health care or social security. Not drasticaly, but steady. Civil liberties will remain mostly intact but will have to cease in those areas where they threaten to disturb important policies. I'm not looking forward to the USA Bush will create as it's clarly not in the interest of most americans nor the rest of the world.

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[number]

Nobody is pushing for compulsory prayer. Just the freedom to pray. That is an exercise of religion. Congress shall make no law prohibiting it.

I have no issue with allowing prayer in (public) school, as long as all religions are allowed - with say excerpts from the Koran on the wall alongside the 10 commandments. Time in the day allowed for prayers towards Mecca, etc. If all religions (wicca, satanism, etc.) are given equal time things could become unwieldly. Which is why it would be stupid for the school itself to conduct prayers, but let kids do whatever religious activities they want outside class time so as not to take time out of the other student's learning time.

Creationism is a widely held, not disproved, and scientifically sound theory. Teach it as a theory. Teach the other theories as theories as well. Show how they may coexist and how particular theories conflict with each other.

I suppose you could teach it as a theory. But how would you fill a lesson? "Some people believe that an invisible being created everything, by methods we do not know or understand. Any questions you have about this process cannot be answered because we don't understand the invisible being's methods. Lesson over."

Re:Now, let's all have a big Slashdot group hug

[Lumpy]

I've generally lost quite a bit of respect for American "intelligence" in general.

that's ok. so have many americans.

let me be the first to say....

[Ishkibble]

what a shame, kerry would of lead the country in a better direction. it is truly a shame we have to wait another 4 years for some improvement to happen to this country

Well,

[brilinux]

So we saw this coming, I suppose, and while most of us do not like it, it is finished. This is a testament both to Kerry's character as well as America's democratic process. I wish the candidates the best of luck now that it is over, and I hope that America does not go to hell.

Re:Well,

[cje]

um... actually, most of us DID like it - the plurality of the vote went for Bush, after all. .. I know, I know - 43% to 18% of /. readers apparently like Kerry vs. Bush ..

I suspect that's what he meant by "us" .. Slashdot readers, not Americans in general.

Thank you Mr. Kerry

[kuwan]

It's being widely reported by the AP, CNN, Fox News, CSPAN, ABC News, CBS News and others that John Kerry has already called Pres. Bush to concede defeat. Apparently he'll speak to the nation at 1:00 PM EST.

I personally am glad that Kerry has done this. My opinion of him has gone up and I am glad that he will not try to divide the country further by dragging us through a contested election. Mr. Kerry, thank you for that.

And congratulations to Pres. Bush.

Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry

[pavon]

I agree that conceding is a very gentlemanly thing to do, but comming from one of the states who hasn't even finished processing our ballots I am a little annoyed. At this point, the electoral votes in are 254 to 252, with 32 votes out. Even if the exit polls showed that it was likely that Kerry would not win, it is the votes that determine the election not the polls. It wouldn't have divided the country any more to have given those states time to complete their tallies and then concede. But oh well, splitting hairs I guess. I am glad it is over, and here's to hoping the next 4 years will be better than the last.

Re:Thank you Mr. Kerry

[woodhouse]

Strange. In the UK at least, we count all the votes before working out who has won, and then if the results are close, we count them again. What a warped system you have in the US.

Re:one nation under god

[the_2nd_coming]

wal-mart nation? surly you mean Born-again nation.

if you heard the Bush supporters calling up, they voted for him because of religion, no other reason.

so, now that Bush thinks God wants him to be president and he things God is telling him how to govern, we are in deep shit during his Legacy term.

took the high road

[Ubergrendle]

Looks like Kerry took the high road and decided to avoid a long drawn out affair. New Mexico and Iowa don't mean anything at this point, with Ohio representing the presidency.

I've seen reports of anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 provisional votes, plus absentee ballots, plus recounts where necessary, still all hanging in the balance. Its a slim chance, but Kerry could still possibly win it if he pressed ahead with a long, drawn out legal battle. I'm assuming that his concession is a statement that he will not lead the Democrats down that road for the good of the country.

Ohio still has the responsibility of counting those ballots, though.

Re:took the high road

[YrWrstNtmr]

Its a slim chance, but Kerry could still possibly win it if he pressed ahead with a long, drawn out legal battle.

Only if all of those prrovisionals are for Kerry.
Not happening.

Re:took the high road

[PMuse]

Kerry did the math, that's all.

He was down 136,221 votes. Kerry's single best county in Ohio was Cuyahoga (City of Cleveland), where he scored 67%. The most favorable assumption one could realistically offer would be that the as-yet uncounted provisionals would be as good as Kerry's best county. There are 135,149 known provisional ballots + perhaps 10% more that may yet be reported. So, 135149*(110%) provisionals *67% margin = 99605 votes possibly gained.

That's 136,221 - 99,605 = 36,616 votes too few.

I feel like going door to door and yelling at my neighbors. I feel worse that I didn't do it last week.

Only Good thing for the Dem's

[evilned]

Terry McAulliff will almost have to be fired as head of the DNC.

Re:one nation under god

[jayhawk88]

Yeah, because Big Business was really on the run during the Clinton years.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: The quicker we all figure out that both Democrats(Liberals) and Republicans(Conservatives) are both in it to fuck over the common man, the better off we'll all be.

Here we go......

[acoustix]

...with all of the conspiracy theories, about how the country will self-destruct, the world as we know it will end...

Aren't people tired of predicting the end of the world? Call me crazy, but I think we'll still be around 4 years from now with another successful election taking place.

Independant voting not spoilers

[SuperKendall]

One note from looking at the results is that it seems like in vrey few (if any) races were independant votes any kind of factor. I fear that third party candidate vote totals were lower than ever.

So the next time you feel compelled to vote for a major party, consider this - would a vate for Nader or Badnarik really have been wasted given that Kerry did not win anyway? If anyone really wanted to vote for a third party but instead voted for Kerry they essentially wasted thier vote twice over.

"Immature"

[kmmatthews]

Haha, I love it when you tell someone else they're immature AND pig-headed in the same sentence...

Re:Oh Canada!

[DogDude]

It's damn immature and pig-headed.

No, not at all. Personally, I don't want to live in a religious police state. I'm getting my financials ready and will be ready to go probably in the summer of 2005.

Let me tell you why

[Reality Master 101]

There will be much ranting and raving and cries of how stupid the American people are, but there are some very simple things at work here.

Bush didn't win, Kerry lost.

Kerry was a TERRIBLE candidate. He took both sides of every issue. He would tell people whatever they wanted to hear. When people can't get a sense of where a candidate stands on anything, the incumbent wins. Really, it's as simple as that. I don't think many people were enthusiastic Bush supporters, but most people couldn't stomach voting for Kerry.

Instead of asking why the American people voted for Bush, ask yourself why the Democrats couldn't come up with a better candidate than Kerry.

Re:Let me tell you why

[Sigh Phi]

I disagree strongly with this analysis. First, I'm a middle-of-the road independent (don't declare affiliation with any party). Most of my friends are Democrats. I have many friends and relatives who are Republican. Most of them voted for Kerry. I live in California.

Kerry did everything right in my opinion, which is why I am so disconcerted by the outcome. He ran against his opponent's record, not against his opponent's intellect or morality. He stuck to the concrete and the tangible, and hammered it home. He showed calm under pressure and demonstrated a command of nuanced and complex issues. His platform was pragmatic and populist. He had a record of bipartisanship and a history of public service. Kerry was a great candidate. Who would have appealed more to moderate Republicans? Not Dean. Who would have appealed to Environmentalists? Not Lieberman. Who would have appealed to people who initially supported war but were now having second thoughts? Not Gephart.

Exit polling showed that the #1 "issue" for a large number of Bush voters was "morality." They were voting on abortion and religion. Kerry voters were voting on war, the environment and the economy. Kerry didn't lose because he was a terrible candidate. He lost because evangelicals and secularists have dramatically different priorities, and there are more people who identify with the former group than the latter. This was a very important election with two strong and extremely different candidates. The outcome is a reflection of America, not of John Kerry.

In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote but acted as if he had a 60% mandate. I shudder to think what the next four years portend, with Bush's very real 51% victory, a subservient House and Senate, and an increasingly conservative federal bench.

The devious Gay Marriage measures

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Something that wasn't covered very well on the news was the number of Gay Marriage measures in different states.

Bush won the vote in many of those states because Christians showed up to vote to ban Gay Marriage.

Very clever on part of the Republican Strategists. It is doubtful that the "Evangellical Christians" would have voted if the anti-gay measures weren't on the ballot.

Evangellical Christians only show up when they can vote a fool into power or restrict personal liberties. I left my home town because of those fascists...

Wow.

[Gannoc]

I'm not ashamed to be an American, but I'm embarassed for our country.

Its not even that Bush won.

Its that it is official: You can lie, mislead, and divide, and sucessfully win an election.

He's also the first president in many years (perhaps ever?) that won because he openly advocated limiting civil rights of an etnic group, and used it to divide the country.

When you saw people on CNN saying that their primary concern was "moral values", that was just code for "we REALLY don't like gay people."

It wasn't really in people's minds until he brought it forward and made it an issue.

"A vote for Kerry is a vote for buttsex in our schools!"

Christ.

It sickens me to think that people who never voted before said "Whoa, nothing else has mattered to me in the last 20 years, but the QUEERS WANT TO GET MARRIED! Jarlene, find me my votin' hat!"

Re:Wow.

[Professor Oompa]

This is too accurate. According to CNN, 22% of voters stated that "Moral Values" were their primary concern in the election. Of those, 79% voted for Bush.

Since when was George W. Bush the poster child for Moral Values?
Did I miss it when John Kerry said that he wanted cut expenses by using babies as speed bumps?

I guess no abortion and no gay marriage is the ticket to being a morally sound individual.

11 of 11 states that had "define mariage" proposals on the ballot passed them, most by a landslide. Maybe I'm naive, but I learned something new about this country last night.

Re:Sad sad day

[koi88]

So true. This is a sad day for billions of people in the whole world who will be affected by this election without any possibility to take part.
Well, four more years of the rich getting richer, the middle class losing jobs, civilians all over the world and American soldiers getting killed for nothing, more hatred against Americans and less freedom in the US.
But certainly it will be four very good years for Halliburton.

The rest of the world must think we're idiots

[Junks Jerzey]

Seriously, Bush is the worst president in the last 50 years. This is widely accepted and discussed; it's not my simple-minded view. He does things that no one would tolerate in the person running the company they work for, let alone a powerful country, like completely ignoring all the facts presented to him and making calls based on unfounded instinct.

So how the hell did he get elected? A combination of:

1. People, especially people over 50, who blindly vote for "their" party candidate.
2. A bizarre, misguided group who regard Bush as having high morals. I'm as dumbfounded as anyone here, but just watch how often this comes up in analyses.
3. A similarly bizarre, misguided group who seem to think that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and Bush is keeping them from attacking us again.
4. Voting for the status quo is safer than a new guy.
5. Nobody really liked Kerry all that much. The anti-Bush people latched onto him because he's all we had.

This is a good argument for changing how a president is elected. For a good read, see Peter Norvig's Hiring a President.

A sad day indeed.

Re:disappointment

[Bull999999]

I am disappointed that the younger crowd (18-25 age group), who bitched the loudest, ended up with the piss poor voting record as usual. I'm also disappointed that Kerry was foolish enough to court that group of voters while Bush was busy courting older voters which proven record of voting and won.

So if any of you out there (of legal voting age) who bitched but didn't vote, please stop bitching, as some other foolish candidate in the future may end up running supporting your cause thinking that you may actually vote.

My generation

[falcon5768]

FUCKING SUCKS....

Seriously, the youth vote was just as bad this year as it was four years ago..... What do we have to do make it a video game to make you stupid fucks vote? Your lives and the direction the country your going to be in charge of one day doesnt mean jack to you? Im sorry but they should just take away voting for 18 year olds and bring it back to 21 year olds.... if you guys cant use your right to vote, you shouldnt have it.

Agreed, a real alternative badly needed

[Ars-Fartsica]

Both parties to quote Gore Vidal have simply become two branches of the Property Party. Both parties are primarily interested in feeding the special interest groups that they rely on for funding (yes, this goes for Democrats too).

The situation for Americans wanting a real choice is becoming more bleak with each election. We need new parties.

Re:Oh Canada!

[hey!]

Are you sure you want to be a victim of America's foreign policy?

Tell that to the marines.

Liberal Flip-flopping?

[CtAhBeAbNoAy]

WOW - what a difference a day makes. Yesterday was how un-American it would be to vote for Bush and how he divides the country and now with Bush winning, it's "America is going to HELL" and "I'm moving to Canada." Who is really dividing America? I understand having passion for your beliefs, but now it is time to join together!!! America is great because of its individuals and its morals.

Re:Oh Canada!

[Izago909]

Please, PLEASE GO! Don't hold back. Liberals LOVE threatening to leave when their horse finishes last

I still don't get why liberal means pussy, yet conservative doesn't mean poorly educated white trash. Who writes these damn definitions? Besides, any good liberal should stick around to give GW a deadlocked congress. That means no more former oil and logging executives in charge of environmental protection, no more reducing pollution regulations and calling it a reduction in pollution, and generally all the other ass backwards slides America has taken. Vote for congress, povided y'all live that long.

This is the story when bad meets evil

[rattler14]

So that battle between socialism (nationwide health care, expanded government welfare, progressive income taxes) and facism (patriot act, patriot act II?) will be faught again another day. Each side doing what's "best for america", meanwhile eroding our liberties away.

And somewhere... my man michael badnarik is crying :)

T'is a sad day for me indeed. Support instant runoff voting! This 2 party crap has got to go.

alright, now flame away. But I had to get that off my chest.

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[gamgee5273]

While you could have been a little more subtle about it, I think you are quite right. At this point there is no one to blame but those who voted for Dubya. He is no longer an unknown commodity... people knew what they were voting for going into this...

Thus, I agree: I no longer blame Bush for the situation we're in. I blame the American public.

The votes reported by the precints say Kerry loses

[raehl]

It's not the exit polls that they're using. Both candidates need less than 20 electoral votes to win. Ohio has 20. Bush is going to win Ohio, it's a near mathmatical certainty based on the COUNTED BALLOTS. Bush wins the election.

Additionally, Bush has a SIGNIFICANT edge in the popular vote.

Democracy doesn't mean the best man wins, it just means the majority is responsible for who they pick.

Re:Key items to note:

[EngineeringMarvel]

Nice to see someone looking at the bright side of things for once. This is only the 2nd time I have been eligible to vote (age) for the president and both times I felt important and very powerful after I walked out of the voting booth. Not so much about the presidental election, but the more local ammendments, congressman, and senator elections. Only a small portion of this planet's population really gets the satisfaction of that feeling and it is a shame that so many Americans take it for granted.

Yes, there is a lot of BS and bureacuracy in American politics and government, but to me it is still so much better than what a communist or strict republic government has to offer.

Re:Sad sad day

[sjwaste]

There's a lot of economists that tend to believe Kerry would be awful for the economy. Six of them are nobel laureates. Have a look at this:

Economists against Kerrynomics

Besides, we were already in a recession when Clinton left office. The surplus was dissipating as the tech bubble burst and the market took a dive. The subsequent accounting scandals didn't help. 9/11 didn't help. I'm not saying Bush didn't overspend, he did. What I'm saying is, he's planning to spend less than Kerry. To be quite honest, that's the main issue I voted on.

Re:I need directions . . .

[Jerf]

Can someone tell me where I can sign-up for the upcoming Civil War?

That was it, last night. Every election is a bloodless civil war.

In all seriousness, continued attempts to start a bloddy one one are going to be met with overwhelming hostility. The solution to losing an election is not to start a war, and anybody who truly acts like it is shouldn't be moving to Canada, they should be moving to central Africa or something where that sort of barbaric behavior really is the expected result.

I'm not a "love it or leave it" person; I'm a "love it, leave it, work within the system to change it, or shut the hell up" person. But if you really think this is worth killing people because an election didn't go your way, then I offer you two other choices: Shut the hell up about "civil war" and grow up, or yes, get the hell out.

Good lord. You can demonize conservatives as much as you want, but when Clinton won, nobody talked about civil war.

Grow up, kiddies. You lose sometimes. Now is a chance to rebuild and refocus. Start a war and I'll be first in line to stop you with all necessary force.

LeftWing Propaganda Machine needed to match Right

[Cryofan]

The reason we lost is because we have not justified and defined a real leftist agenda. The Rightwing, on the other hand, has spent 30 years or more defining and justifying the RIghtwing agenda. We all "know" that low taxes are good for "The Economy" and we all "know" that productivity should be ever high and we all "know" that low labor costs are good and we all "know" that welfare states are bad and we all "know" that government managed healthcare is a disaster, etc etc etc. And why do we "know" all these things? Because the rightwing propaganda machine has been pushing them down our throats via the teevee, radio and newspapers for the last 30 years.

THe rightwing propaganda machine starts with nonprofit foundations and think tanks that pay for studies and write articles based on those studies. Of course, because there is no criminal penalty for cooked, bogus studies, and no money to check these studies and news articles that are based on these studies, the rightwing propaganda machine is able to dominate the media agenda. THey have the money. THey are funded into the billions by billionaires and global corporations.

THe news articles based on these studies are propagated to media outlets (tv radio papers) where they reach the public.

The rightwing propaganda machine also does many other things, such as fund up and coming rightwing media talent, e.g., giving grants to promising rightwing radio talk show hosts, authors and reporters, consultants etc.

Also, because the rightwing propaganda machine has so much money to give, most high profile media figures, reporters, etc, know that after they quit working at their current job with the networks, newspaper, etc, if they are ideologically "suitable, they can get lots of fat consultancy gigs with the rightwing propaganda machine, as long as they do not piss them off.

So the rightwing propaganda machine is like a huge planet in a solar system, or maybe even like the sun itself.

If liberals want to change America, they need to fund a LEFTwing propaganda machine. It costs money. Unfortunately, the entities with the money want to keep their money. So they are not about to fund a LEFTwing propaganda machine. So it is up to us.

Once we do get a a LEFTwing propaganda machine, we need to make sure it pushes OUR agenda, and it needs to get down to the nitty gritty of the issues. We need to make the case to the American people that high taxation is where it is at. And it really is. All we have to do is show people that high tax welfare states are a great place to live. Look at countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, France, etc. Do you see a lot of citizens coming over here from there to live permanently? No! Yes, some of them (the cream of the crop) came over here doing the IT boom to make more money, but they know they have a good deal there.

We need to make the case that America is a partnership and we are getting ripped off by the richest Americans.

Crank up a LEFTwing propaganda machine. Start generating facts and figures. Start with healthcare. Show Americans exactly what is going on with nationalized universal healthcare in places like Canada, Sweden, Denmark, France etc.

Show how West Europe and their unions and restricted trade benefits the people. Hell, in Sweden it is quite difficult to expand a business. But there are reasons for that. Show Ameiricans that having corporations get their fingers into every pie disempowers the average person.

Teach America the game theory of politics.

To change America, we need to define our issues and an agenda. The problem is that we have simply moved along to the right with the GOP, keeping ever so slightly to the left of the GOP. No wonder white suburban and rural middle class Americans do not trust the Democrats. They seem to simply see the Left as a tool of the minorities for ripping them off for the welfare checks of the urban minorities.

But to do all this we need a LEFTwing propaganda machine. But we have to pay for it.

----All about Leftism

Re:Oh Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trying to be funny? Or is this just another case of "stupid uninformed american, opens mouth, half truths and bullshit spews forth".

The line is

"I stand on GUARD for thee"

Close.

If I was God, I'd be like "Hey, stupid Americans, quit quoting me, and holding me up as your guiding light, if you stood before me in judgement, I would send you all to burn. You are being ruled by a man, who claims to have spoken with me. Trust me, if I was going to speak to someone, it would at least be someone who would be able to hold an intelligent, and meaninful conversation. Do you really think I would break eons of silence, to speak with Bush! Please. Who would believe him anyways, don't you think I would pick someone with enough credibility to at least have a half a chance of having someone believe him? I mean, every time Bush opens his mouth, he is lying about something."

Re:Oh Canada!

[Dr. Hok]

Are you sure you want to be a victim of America's foreign policy? (Score:5, Funny)

No way this is funny...

Re:Oh Canada!

[Valar]

Not to pick on you, particularly, because I know you are joking, but that is exactly the wrong attitude. Stick with America. If the people who have cared about our democracy in the past become so frustrated that they remove themselves from the process (geographically or mentally), there will be _no_ way for the entirety of american values and ideals to be represented. My number one fear right now is that the democrats, greens, libertarians, etc just surrender now, because I don't think America and the democratic process can survive without the attention of all well meaning Americans right now. Democracy isn't just about majority rule-- it is about reaching a compromise that maxmizes societal welfare.

Re:Congratulations

[gorbachev]

"I sincerely hope that he will take great steps to heal the wounds on this country inflicted by both the events of the past 4 years and a VERY bitter election."

Bush promised in 2000 that he would act as a president that would unite the country.

Four years later, and the country is even MORE divided than before, largely due to the acts of Mr. Bush and his administration during his presidency.

I believe as strongly as the Bush supporters believe Bush is the one man terrorist busting machine that he has no intention of ever acting as a unifier. You just need to listen to his rhetoric on any issue and you can not come to any other conclusion. It's always us against them, no matter the issue, small or large.

You can argue about everything else about his presidency, whether or not the war on Iraq was justified or not, or whether or not the economy is better off now than 4 years ago, but on the point of dividing the country, there is no argument. He has failed, miserably, in uniting the country.

Further I believe that he has done so because that is his true nature. He calls it being steadfast, I call it a stubborn inability to make compromises whether due to his ideology (right-wing Christian), partisan hackery (Republicans are right, Democrats are wrong, no matter what) or just plain lack of diplomatic skills.

To me this is more of an issue than anything else, it goes to the heart of what Mr. Bush is like and how he governs.

In a country like the United States that was founded on the principals of freedom, free exchange of ideas and diversity among other things, it is truly unbeliavable someone like Mr. Bush could ever become a president.

Re:Key items to note:

[CommieOverlord]

1) There were no riots in the street.

And you're proud? A nation is heavily divided against an administration that is destroying the economy, civil rights, foreign relations, and the environment.

Under different forms of government of government this would have seen an armed upraising or states fracturing off and declaring independence. Instead, because of democracy and voting people just shrug it off and decide to suffer under 4 more years of this just so they can vote again.

Sometimes the proper thing to do _is_ to riot in the streets, launch a coup, or succede.

Perhaps the British parliment should have granted the Americans some form of elected representation in their houses. Then there wouldn't have been a Boston Tea Party or armed revolt. Instead the founding fathers would have just ran for parliment and 200 years later the US would still be colony. Maybe.

Re:Oh Canada!

[krog]

I can accept that Bush won the election. What I have a hard time swallowing is that I live in a country where more than half the population is willfully ignorant, politically obstinate, religiously prejudiced, and embarrassingly gullible.

Perhaps New England and Quebec could each secede, and merge. All I know is that I want nothing -- nothing -- to do with any of the red states.

Re:Why did Kerry lose to Bush?

[jafomatic]

I'm horrified to agree, but I really believe you're correct in this last statement. I think this is precisely the ONLY type of campaign that can ever hope to "win" (not end, win) any war on terrorism. Not just in fallujah, or any part of one specific country, but throughout the region.

I don't think a candidate for re-election would've stood a chance in committing what are, I'm starting to think, necessary atrocities. I'm thinking the war we've seen in iraq (thus far) has been nothing more than groundwork for a larger and startlingly brilliant campaign.

For a moment, let's say that's all wrong and this isn't "the plan." Things get worse rather than better, and there will be no arguments in 2008 of "Well if he'd had 4 more years."

Let's say someone else had won, kerry or not, and now has the job of cleaning up. Let's say the guy needs more than 4 years to perform all the repair to our international credibility, relationships, etc. How does that person get re-elected?

This decision may end up causing more damage to america and the nations in the middle-east, but I wonder if it's not better to allow the process to finish before trying to roll it back (or, in the case of a real victory over terrorism) building fresh in new places.

Maybe I'm feeding a troll, maybe I should've posted anonymously, but I don't think it's worth the loss of political currency, right now, to be blamed for what will be a failed cleanup after W's presidency.

One last note. George W. Bush didn't outwit anyone. His campaign manager did, perhaps, or Kerry has defeated himself.

Re:Oh Canada!

[squidfood]

81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion according to national studies.

That's what fucking scares and alienates me in my own country. Tolerance in U.S.? Fuck no. From Canadian news One-fourth of Ohio voters identified themselves as born-again Christians and they backed Bush by a 3-to-1 margin....Bush was favoured among ...evangelical Christians who view him as a messenger from God in a titanic fight to quell terrorism and spread liberty around the world...

Why is it that America and the fucked Middle East are the fundamentalists and problem-causers, while the rest of the world has gotten over it? The middle ages are over, fellow Americans. Figure it out. (ps. my viewpoint: I'm 2nd-generation Turkish American, committed atheist: after seeing what fundamentalists (muslim and christian) are doing to both of my otherwise lovely countries.

Re:Oh Canada!

[binner1]

Doesn't it make you sad that in one state (can't remember which) only 17% of the votes actually counted? That's downright pathetic!

As a Canadian, I have to admit that I'm not entirely pleased with the outcome of this election either. I don't think Kerry would have made a spectacular leader by any means. I do think he could have reversed some (not all, by any means) of the damage done in the last 4 years...That and any monkey couldn't be worse than Bush...

Having one of the dumbest men to ever lead a country be _re-elected_ should scare the rest of the world. Sleep tight, don't let the WMD bite!

-Ben

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, F***

[dmccarty]

Uh, hello. How was this modded anything but the flamebait expletive-laced troll that it is? A bunch of pissed off moderators today, maybe?

Re:saddest day in my life ...

[Bromrrrrr]

We bail you European & British Empire folks out of wars constantly. Than when we are fucking attacked you guys do this

Stop playing with your GI-joes little boy, that war has been over for 60 years and believe you me you are NOT your grandfather.

The people that liberate europe (not just US soldiers you arrogant little shit) are still venerated but united states credit has been running out steadily for years and Bush will spend the rest.

The conservative segment of America is the one leading for the war, defense of American ideals, and so on. The irony, most of the conservatives tend to personally agree with the Muslim stances on homosexuality, banking, sexual licentiousness, etc. (The degenerate culture we export around the world that is the number one reason Osama attacked.) And the irony, is we are defending the rights of people like you to have the freedom to be things we do not believe in.

Maybe we should let the extremists come to power...

Ow but you have let the extremists come to power. I can recognize them from far away no matter what flag they are wearing, Bush is no defender of any kind of freedom anywhere.

We're defending your asses...and you're to pompous and full of yourselves to realize it.

No, you're screwing with our asses and we'd love for you to stop doing it.

Re:Sad sad day

[deltagreen]

Most Bush-voters think the Iraq war was justified, but many purely on the grounds that they still believe Iraq had WMD and/or Saddam was behind 9/11. Some of these voters might be disappointed by what they learn during the next four years.

From http://www.pipa.org/:
A new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll finds a consensus among the American public that if Iraq did not have WMD and was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda, the US should not have gone to war with Iraq. Seventy-four percent overall have this view, including 58% of Bush supporters, 92% of Kerry supporters and 77% of the uncommitted-those who have not made a definite commitment to vote for one or the other candidate.

A majority also rejects the argument that the US should have gone to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein had the intention to acquire WMD. Presented two arguments, only 35% endorsed the one that said, Even if Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, the US still should have gone to war with Iraq, because Saddam Hussein had the intention to acquire such weapons at some point in the future. Rather, 60% said that if Saddam only had a desire for such weapons, instead of invading Iraq, the US should have made sure he did not get the capability to make them.

Overall, support for the decision to go to war has eroded slightly, so that a bare majority of 51% now says that it was the wrong decision, and 46% say it was the right decision (as compared to August when 49% said it was the wrong decision and 46% the right decision).

Steven Kull comments, It may seem contradictory that three quarters of Americans say that the US should not have gone to war if Iraq did not have WMD or was not providing support to al Qaeda, while nearly half still say the war was the right decision. However, support for the decision is sustained by persisting beliefs among half of Americans that Iraq provided substantial support to al Qaeda, and had WMD, or at least a major WMD program.

Despite the widely-publicized conclusions of the Duelfer report, 49% of Americans continue to believe Iraq had actual WMD (27%) or a major WMD program (22%), and 52% believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

Advice

[fizban]

My advice to the Democrats:

Let the Republicans do whatever they want. Don't fight them on any issue. Let them pass any legislation they want, appoint any judges they want, spend any money they want, cut any taxes they want. Let them have free reign of the government. They want a chance to prove their system works? Give it to them. In fact, whenever they ask you to support them on an issue, go willingly, go gladly and give them everything they want.

In 4, 8 or 12 years, let's see how things turn out. If it's really that bad, then the Democrats will easily be able to regain control of everything. If things are going well, then we'll know for certain that the conservative agenda works and we will have a clear mandate for the future.

It's time for the democrats to fall back and watch for a while. It may be a lot to suffer, but I think it's the only way for us to get past the divisiveness. If the Democrats continue to fight the Republicans, they will continue to get blamed for the lack of progress in this country and continue to be labeled as whiners and obstructionists. By not making challenges, then they can't be blamed for mistakes, and if there are costly mistakes, it will be easy to turn the country in a different direction and start again. For the liberal America, this is your trial by fire.

Re:TIME TO PLAY THE BLAME GAME, FUCKERS

[Gogl]

No, not quite.

Regarding the terrorists, yes they actually do the attacks, and they are wrong to do so, but it is still largely caused by the asinine and boorish foreign policies embraced by the Republican party.

Regarding the draft, well, the Republican party may say they don't want it, but those same foreign policies may necessitate it. The Dems who are pushing for it know they won't get it, they're trying to make a political point.

And you think we've established .5 of a democracy with Iraq? All we've established is a full quagmire.

Conservative judges actually look at the constitution? Damn, they must be missing that amendment that talks about "equal protection under the law"...

And while we shouldn't be accountable to the rest of the world, you might think something is awry when 80% of the world doesn't like what you're doing. Considering the thoughts of others doesn't mean you're cowtowing to them, it just means you're not an arrogant asshole.

Lastly, the whole "full of steaming hate" thing, well, yes, they're often frustrated and even hateful. But that's just ad hominem, you should decide based on the actual issues. And frankly, the frustration and hate is quite understandable, if you bothered to actually look at the issues.

Re:Key items to note:

[williamhb]

This is the process that the founding fathers envisioned. In an election where more people voted than ever before we should stop and think what we have accomplished . It is great to be an American

You're talking as if the US is alone in terms of being a stable democracy. In fact, if you look anywhere from Australia to Ireland to New Zealand to India to the UK to South Africa... there seem to be an awful lot of democracies about, and most of them don't owe their system of government to an American heritage.

I'm sorry to sound a bit of a moaner, and gripe about your very noble patriotic sentiment, but Aussies like me actually get a bit irked when we hear Americans talking as if they owned democracy. (And we then normally mutter and grumble amongst ourselves about how Rumsfeld, Powell, etc did not have to stand for election, whereas Australian and many other countries' government ministers do at least have to be elected to parliament or the senate first)

Re:Oh Canada!

[hey!]

They believe in what they're doing over there. Why don't you?

Because, as a citizen, it is my job to reason why.

Defeat means it's time to regroup.

[Skyshadow]

This is probably far enough down the thread that it'll never get read, but:

Congrats, Bush supporters. You side won, and won relatively definitively compared with 2000. You also picked up some house seats and a Senate seat (two if you count Zell Miller as a Dem). It's your day, and despite my personal views I honestly hope that the US electorate made the right decision.

To my fellow dems, well, here we are. Take a couple of days to lick your wounds and feel shitty -- it's always tough to lose, especially when it's a close one. But no matter what, and especially no matter how much crap you take in the next couple of days, don't lose faith. There are two things I've learned about politics: (a) there's always another election and (b) things are never as bad as they seem.

In retrospect, I believe it was to our detriment that we didn't lose the popular vote in 2000 because it gave us and excuse to not stop, admit defeat and regroup -- instead, we figured we could just steamroll to the next election and win. Well, now we know better.

Back in 1992, the GOP suffered the same sort of defeat we're facing now (actually, a worse defeat). They did the right thing with it, though, and in '94 they came back and were able to be highly successful by presenting a new look and new promise.

I know. I was a Republican back then. I was at a victory party for a GOP house member named Scott Klug whose campaign I'd worked on when the wind shifted. You could *feel* it happening -- it was the dawn of a new day for a party that had strayed away from its roots during Bush I.

Well folks, this is our 1992. Even now, the GOP is drifting away from its core ideas of fiscal responsibility and keeping its nose out of people's business. It's our opportunity to retake the soul of our party and demand a new look and better people, and they're out there right now -- Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, Barak Obama in Illinois and dozens of other good Americans around the country ready to be the new face of our party. It'll happen, but it can't happen without our determination and our hard work.

I won't give up, and neither should you. At the risk of sounding cheesy, we'll pull this off for the same reason the GOP did a decade ago because of a fundemental commonality we share with them: We're Americans. We don't give up, we don't quit, we don't go quietly.

Re:Oh Canada!

[mike_the_kid]

They believe in what they're doing over there. Why don't you?

If I believed in what they are doing over there, I'd be over there, why aren't you?

Re:Oh Canada!

[__aanebg9627]

The real problem is not that Americans on the losing side are frustrated, it's that the U.S. is so bitterly divided now. The radicals on each side have been vilifying the other, so much that it's gotten difficult to have a civilized discussion. Most of the people on either side love their country, but we have trouble remembering that in the midst of all the vitriol. Loving your country includes loving the half of the citizens who disagree with you, after all. Or at least recognizing that they're just as much part of the country as you are.

As a nation, we need to start accepting the other side, and try to figure out a way to live together with people whose views and lifestyles we don't especially like (and even abhor). Not a meeting-in-the-middle kind of compromise (which neither side will accept), but some kind of cohabitation agreement where we come to some arrangement that keeps us out of each others' faces. I honestly don't see either side changing their minds about what they don't like in the other, so we need to move beyond the battle for hearts and minds (and laws), and try to accommodate each side.

As for leaving the country, it's not at that point yet. The checks and balances in the system were designed expressly to avoid the evils of majority rule, and it's up to those on the 'blue' side to make sure their senators and reps use those checks to the fullest. The checks and balances have already reined in the worst excesses of the Bush administration, like the attempted end-run around the court system.

A dim outlook for the next 4 years

[cOdEgUru]

Why did Kerry lose? Why did Democratic pary lose more of its share in the senate?

The White house and the Republicans were smart and farsighted enough to realize that by galvanizing the religious, the evangelical community, it stands to gain the most. And they did. As much as Democrats gained by getting the youths out to vote (even then it wasnt a total success as less than 1 in 10 voter was between 18-24), Republicans reaped the rewards of getting Rural america to vote. Thus, being slanted towards the left that I am, I believe Poor people, uneducated, mostly white as well as blue collar americans decided to stay the course with their president. Reasons are quite a few. And has a lot to do with how the Republican's stayed the course, kept their message clear and did not waver, did not admit any mistakes (though they were made all over).

But most of all, Bush won four more years, because they were able to equate Democratic party and Kerry with a Sinful party, a party that is elitist, that looks down upon their religion and cares more about the environment than their jobs. All of which the white house and the Bush administration were eager enough to portray Kerry and his cohorts as least interested in the commmon man and his values. People who voted for Bush, atleast a significant portion, voted overwhelmingly for his virtues (though there are seemingly none) and the values they believed he will uphold.

Republicans also were smart enough to include the Ban for Same Sex marriage on the ballot, thereby once again drawing a parallel between morality and the Presidency. As Republican party seemed more and more the party that cared about religious values, about people's jobs, about tax cuts(though for wealthy), and about the nation's security, The Democratic party seems more and more elitist, belonging to the yuppies, caring more about tree huggers than about the loggers and their jobs, caring more about gays and their rights than about "preserving the sanctity of marriage" and ultimately wavering all over the place with their message and their views on foriegn policy. Kerry also couldnt put forth a consistent and coherent plan on Iraq. I almost wish he had said: "We will pull out of Iraq in six months, regardless of what the cost, to save more american lives, and we will let a Global coalition sort out the mistakes of the previous administration", that could have been a start. But he didnt and as time wore on, there wasnt much of a difference between Bush and Kerry on the war on terror and the war in Iraq and the differences they did have were on moral grounds, on values, on tax cuts, on environmental rights, that majority of Rural america dont give a hoot for.

It will be interesting and we will all be watching the road ahead with trepidation. There is a possibility that the current administration, takes the permission to rule fairly for the next four years, as a god given right and squander it, infact, its not a possibility, it is certain. This President had a chance to unite the country 3 years ago, but he didnt. I dont think he will start now. We will have 4 more years of the same, but more over, we will look back on this day and wonder why we voted to give him 4 more years.

Flamebait, my ass!

[Deagol]

Whoever originally modded this as flamebait is a moron.

It's those very issues that won the election for Bush.

The vast majority of Americans are some Christian derivative. Nothing wrong with that.

These Christian folks have some strong-held beliefs. Nothing wrong with that.

But what tangible affect on the day-today lives of those Christians do those issues really have? None. None at all. They're not gonna get an abortion, nor will they marry a same-sex partner.

So... does having a president in office supporting those views really change much? Not a whit.

Never mind his obvious lying and the smear campaign during the election. Never mind the dubious war we're waging, the jobs fleeing over seas, or the the US's growing debt. Nevr mind that Molly Morman's kids can be sent to war next week, so long as we have a president strong on "morals" who might get R. v. W. overturned by the supreme court and amend our most important rights-protecting document to exclude a segment of the population.

So let's recap: War good. Fags bad. Huge deficit good. Personal choice in medical care (abortion) bad.

As much as I liked him as a President, I think Clinton is the reason we're in this mess (that whole scandal thing). People hold party faith like they hold religious faith -- without any thought or intelligence put into it. They go with the flow, 'cause it's the easiest thing to do.

For fuck's sake. Kerry was no shining star, but we had 4 years of Bush. I'd pick an unknown for the next 4 years. I can't praise Dems for thinking Kerry was the right choise, but I can fault 'Pubs for not knowing Bush was the wrong one. Why go with Bush again? Oh yeah, he hates fags.

We deserve to get attacked again. We really do. We're such sheep.

Well of course they do!

[Merk]

How many Marines do you think there are that think that military force is the wrong way to solve problems?

The Marines absolutely have to believe they're doing the right thing. That absolute, unwavering belief is part of what keeps them alive.

The thing is, Marines are generally not political scientists. They're not experts on foreign relations, and they don't know the nuances of the different branches of Islam. They're the pointy end of the stick, and they're damn good at being that.

The problem is, the person weilding that pointy stick has to use that stick effectively. They're supposed to be the ones who *do* know about diplomacy, who *do* know about the history of the region, the culture, and everything else. Loyal marines should *not* be wasted on something that is not going to make the country or the world safer.

What many of the "liberals" think is that not only is it awful that US soldiers are being killed, the bad part is that it is making both the country and the world a less safe place. It's the job of the Marines to do what the Commander in Chief says to do, including dying. Its the job of the voters to choose a Commander in Chief who won't send them to die unless it's absolutely necessary.

If you disagree, and think that their deaths are necessary to help save the world, why not enlist. It's something that far more of the current democrat politicians have done than republicans. Maybe that should tell you something.

Re:one nation under god

[vinniedkator]

I find it interesting that in the areas of the country at the highest risk of terrorism most people voted against Bush. New York City voted almost 5:1 against Bush and D.C. 9:1. However, in rural America people feel he's the best one to take on the terrorists. Funny how things become clearer when it's your ass on the line.

Stop whining -- something about it!

[bshroyer]

Wow. What a sad, sad bunch of whining losers.

My family (wife and three kids) supported Bush this year. Not because he's the magic bullet which will fix America's problems, but because he's much less dangerous than Kerry. Last night at dinner, the kids were watching the early returns, and were worried that Kerry might win. I told them, "Kerry might win. If he does, he's going to be our president for four years, and we'll do our best to support him. Everything will be all right."

Kerry was a very, very poor candidate. He was, as it turns out, unelectable. The Democrats were given the "Perfect Storm" election:

--A sitting president engaged in an unpopular war, with no clear extraction date
--An incumbent who can't reliably speak the English language
--Job loss statistics pointing to millions of lost jobs
--Massive healthcare cost inflation
--A swing from huge budget surpluses to huge deficits
--A "charged-up" base who felt that the 2000 election had been stolen
--Hundreds of millions of $ in 527 support

The Democratic party should have had no trouble presenting a candidate who would have been able to crush the incumbent. Instead, they chose Kerry.

I understand you're mad at the results. I think it's time to look inwardly, and reform the Democratic Party. Learn from this mistake. Show the American people that you're not run by left-wing nutjobs, and field an electable candidate, and I can't see how you lose in 2008.

Unless you try to nominate Hillary.

The most important what?

[MasTRE]

This was said to be the most important election of our lives. Does anybody still feel that way, considering the outcome?

Let's think with a clear head here. Most Americans, the ones that voted for Kerry included, have no idea what's going on in the world. You can try to figure out why that is (media is f-d up, people being taught to lead selfish materialistic lives from the day they are born, etc.), but that's irrelevant to this discussion. The popular vote was for Bush, and that's who won. So, at least in this election, you could say that the will of the majority was expressed. I am not concerned with why more than half of the people who voted did so for Bush. They did, and he won.

Change is not as simple as having P. Diddy start a campaign. Real change is very hard. Near impossible. You have to educate people, in such a way that they seek out information. You do not teach people what they should think. You teach them to think, and show them what methods are available for gathering information. What they think afterwards is up to them. This is not even close to being a reality in the USA. Most people are simply concerned with their well-being and materialistic things - I want an iPod, I want a bigger truck, I want this, I want that. I want. It is very easy to control such people, because they are short-sighted and distracted. And Kerry would not have made any difference whatsoever in this respect. The imperialistic foreign policy America puts forth would have been relatively the same, albeit probably with a much less arrogant and aggressive façade.

The rest of the world pretty much lives in ignorance too, much like the people of the US. As long as you don't add insult to injury, like Bush likes to do, they have their own local problems to focus on. Granted, their problems are a bit different from yours and mine - we're worried about what Apple will legally allow you to download to your iPod, while some of them are worried about where their next meal will come from. In the end, none of it matters, although you do need food for basic life support.

Killing people, however, is unacceptable. And probably the biggest tragedy of all this is that most of the people who voted for Bush don't realize what they support because of the distorted view of the war. Make no mistake, Kerry was no great leader - far from it. But a) my personal opinion is that he is at least barely more intelligent than Bush and, more importantly, b) I think a few more lives would have been spared around the globe were he president.

Please note that lives are lives, and it is morally wrong to make a distinction between innocent foreigners and innocent Americans when it comes to dieing. Yet this is accepted as common practice in this country.

Hug this

[|/|/|||]

Yeah, I was pretty sure that Kerry would win because of the high voter turnout. Guess not.

Yes this election is still close but I doubt that a large portion of the population despises him

I think you underestimate how many people hate GWB. He's fucking over our country pretty royally, and showcasing just how ignorant and gullible half of our population really is.

Before the election I was disgusted by Bush, but now I'm disgusted by our entire country. I can only hope that he'll break things so badly that people out in the midwest/south will be forced to start thinking.

The Democratic Party Lost

[FJ]

Look at what happened to the Democratic party as a whole.

- They spent more money on Kerry than on anyone else in their history. I even heard the out-spent the Republicans.
- The conservative religious people in 11 states (including Ohio & Nevada) banned gay marriages which helped get out the religious vote. These people are traditionally anti-abortion republicans. Kerry is a well know supporter of abortion.
- The Republicans gained seats in the Senate
- The Republicans gained seats in the House of Representatives.
- The Republicans hold the majority of governor's seats.
- Democratic Senator Tom Daschle was defeated. The first time a party leader was defeated in 52 years.
- The Democratic party spent a good deal of time in court in keeping Nader off of the ballot in some states. If you were a Nader supporting Democrat it was a tough pill to swallow.

The Democratic party was hit hard in this election.
It will be interesting to see what the restructuring effort will be.

Axis of Evil

[TamMan2000]

Yup, Iran is pleased with this outcome...

Anybody else?

As a Canadian, here's my take

[DG]

I'm a Canadian who works in the US, and I'm retired military to boot, so I've been following this election with some interest. Here's my take.

The Democatic Party nominated THE single least electable canditate they could have laid their hands on.

You could have had General Clark - impeccable personal integrity, proven leadership ability (he ran NATO fer crissakes!) super handle on foreign policy - can you imagine Bush debating him? And no Senate voting record to dog him around.

You could have had Howard Dean, and gone for the young rockstar angle. New and hip vs old-skool and scary. Look at Illinois for how effective that can be.

You could have even had Al Sharpton and gone for pure shock and entertainment value.

Instead, you wound up with the Democratic version of your opponent - old-skool, big money, old boys club, pork-barrel, professional weasel-featured politician.

You made an election that _should_ have been a simple decision between good and evil into a choice between the lesser of two evils. What the HELL kind of strategy is "our guy may suck, but he sucks less"?

The American public is CRYING out for simple, strong, effective, and HONEST leadership. You actually sucker a decent man into the job, and you'll carry the country in a landslide. What the HELL were you thinking when you let Kerry get nominated?

My advice to you and your fellow confused and befuddled Democrats is to get active in the internal politics of your own party, and to work like mad to make sure the next guy you present to the electorate actually stands a chance at being elected.

DG

Re:Oh Canada!

[Karma Farmer]

Liberals LOVE threatening to leave when their horse finishes last, so DO IT and leave us to fail miserably in our "fascism" and "right-wing extremism".

This election really wasn't about liberal values vs. conservative values, at least not in a way that would be recognizable to the nation even ten years ago. This election was, in many ways, a referendum on a fundemental change in the political landscape of America, with the new dividing line between liberal values and moral values.

Frankly, for a lot of us here in the blue states (liberal and conservative alike), the issues that matter to the moral values crowd just seem alien. Most of us honestly believed that this election was going to firmly and decisively prove that only a very small, very vocal group of people really give a damn about about moral value issues. We believed that the moral values crowd would be swept off the national stage, and the country go back to the debate between old fashioned liberal versus conservative values.

We were wrong.

I'm guessing that y'all in the red states have known how important "moral values" are for years. In the blue states, we were completely blindsided by it, and it scares the shit out of most of us. The fact is, nearly a third of the electorate believes that "moral values" are an important issue. We honestly had no idea it mattered to anyone, and most of us us are scratching our heads trying to figure out why it would matter to anyone.

The issues that suddenly matter suprise us. In the blue states, we might disagree on abortion, or same-sex unions, or the words "under God" in the pledge of allegience, but for the most part we really just don't give a shit about them. They may all get talked about on the "news" networks, but we view them as filler in between the ceasless prattle about the Peterson trial. They're certainly not an issue that anyone would base a vote on.

It turns out that same-sex marriage is a very important issue in America. In the blue states, we had no idea that anyone gave a damn.

It turns out that the words "under God" in the Plege of Allegience is a very important issue in America. In the blue states, we just can't see how it really matters.

It turns out that public displays of The Ten Commandments is a very important issue in America. In the blue states, we might individually be for or against it, but collectively we really just don't care.

It turns out that abortion is a very important issue in America. In the blue states, we may have strong feelings one way or the other, but for the most part we thought the issue was decided twenty years ago.

In other words, this election heralds the arrival of a whole new set of important issues on the national political stage. And, frankly, in the blue states the fact that any of these issues are even being discussed scares the living shit out of us.

When I woke up this morning, it was to the news that the United States of America is not the country that I thought it was when I went to bed last night.

Re:Oh, shove a sock in it.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04 /html/new_10_21_04.html

"Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points. Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found."

Americans may not be dumb, but a large percentage of them are surely living under a rock! And that's certainly not the fault of "liberal" Democrats.

Fundemental misunderstanding.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

You are correct, Europe and the US have seperated ideologically. And as you state, "respect" is in short supply. But, rather than "whine" about how wrong the "others" are, why not try to gain some fundemental understanding of why people think the way they do. Far too many people in this country ( USA) and across the world get caught up in this "Us" versus "Them" mentality without even stopping to debate the real issues at hand. I had hoped that slashdot's political section would be a place for such a dialog to take place, but it seems that we get the same crud here as everywhere else.

Re:Hate

[Politburo]

Assuming your tale is accurate, I would like to inform you that you based your vote based upon the opinions of others. Next time, why don't you analyse the candidates and issues, instead of listening to what everyone else is saying.

Re:Oh, shove a sock in it.

[SanLouBlues]

At one time, the majority of American citizens were pro-slavery. That wasn't right. Bush isn't right. Different reasons, same effect.

Personally, I just can't shut up because I didn't think a Bush victory was even remotely conceivable. I have fundamental problems with any chain of reasoning, either moral or ethical, that leads to supporting Bush as the correct result. The decisions of so many other people do not affect my decisions in the least. Otherwise we'd be voting because of peer pressure, the country would be full of sheep, and there would be no differences of opinion (or new opinions on new subjects).

You see, what's funny

[fluxrad]

Is that you think that hate and fear-mongering are exclusive to the left. Interesting to say the least, being that tactics perpetrated by the right exhibit the same properties you claim to be so discusted by (read: voter intimidation in 2000, swift vets for truth, the assertion that the bible will be outlawed and gay marriage will run rampant...just to name a few.)

Let me tell you why I strongly dislike George Bush.

• Discouraging stem-cell research.
  
• Invading Iraq and only paying lip service to the UN
  
• Tax cuts primarily for the wealthy while running up the budget defecit by ridiculous amounts.
  
• Passing No Child Left Behind and then not funding it (terrible act to begin with).
  
• His neoconservative cabinet and sub-cabinet members (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Ashcroft)
  
• Violations of the Geneva Convention under his watch (no one has yet resigned or been fired.)
  
• He supported amending the constitution to outlaw gay marriage (But ran to the left as soon as he realized it wasn't going to get him votes).
  
• The PATRIOT Act.
  

These are just a few of the many reasons I think George W. Bush is entirely unfit for the office of the president. Also, please bear in mind that the above proposals were done in his first term - a term where he knew he would be seeking reelection. What's the man going to do now that he knows he's got nothing else to run for?

who will be our allies

[chrysanthalbee]

when bush totally alienates the USA from the rest of the world. this is one of my biggest fears. the brand called "America" has been tarnished by this administration's bullying and selfishness. if we cry wolf (read "WMD") next time who's gonna help?

Well...

[xeon4life]

If you're really concerned about politics than vote at a local level. Local representatives can do a whole lot more to your life than the president can.

You are wrong

[nycsubway]

Your contender in the meeting was saying that Bush has authorized the rape and murder of millions in Iraq. The number is much lower than that, but her interpretation of what has happened is akin to Hitler in WWII. He personally did not kill millions, but he authorized it. If you feel that Bush was innocent, then you feel that Hitler was innocent.

Also, you are doing exactly what you say you dislike: voting for someone specificaly because of 'hate'. You dislike the hatred from democrats so much that you voted against them. You're a hipocrite!

You Are the Center of the Universe

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

I'm often baffled by people who can't conceive of anyone seeing issues differently than themselves, and who can't understand why someone might have different priorities than they do.

Here you've got 51% of the population who wants George Bush to be president. You voted against him. So all those people (51%) must be stupid right? After all they don't agree with you. If you honestly think like this, you probably stopped developing mentally at the tender age of 6.

There are a lot of issues that people disagree on vehemently. Your first step should be to understand why the people you disagree with see things differently than you do. Is it because they are stupid/crazy/bastards/wackos? ... possibly, but probably not. If you assume they are just stupid and there can't be a good reason to disagree with you, then you alienate yourself.

I've noticed this trend a lot here on slashdot. And if you'd like to keep thinking this way, by all means continue. But if you do, you'll see the next election decided by 4-5% instead of 3%. People don't like it when you look down on them because of disagreement. And that is enough to influence a vote.