Slashdot Mirror
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."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I'm confused, the race is really close (252/254) with at least one major swing state still not finished counting and with the race there still at 50%/49% or so. I thought that if it was a tight race you didn't give up.
*sigh*
Well, Kerry conceded, but could he still win? At the time of this writing, Ohio still hasn't called in, (Bush-254 Kerry-252) so it is still up in the air. What if Ohio called in for Kerry? Would he win? Or is his concession legaly binding? Or does Ohio simply stop counting?
I can't find the right word. Annoyed? Depressed? Flustered? None of them carry the meaning for me.
This was not Bush's election to win. This was Kerry's election to lose. And man, did he lose.
When will the democratic party realize that they need to get in the game, play it tough? America doesn't want a smarty pants North Eastener with a fake politican smile a mile wide. America obviously responds to the aw shucks grin, the not too einstein but firmly resolved mindset.
When will we realize that whining about problems won't work when the majority of the population doesn't want to think about problems? They want a bed time story, and someone to turn the light on and off for them.
When will the democrats grow a fucking backbone and nominate a real candidate? I swear this makes me think of the axiom that, at heart, democrats are goths. They love losing, and lamenting about losing.
Kerry's campaign was self destructing a week before it won Iowa. I don't think they ever got a campaign together that worked. There was no clear delivery, no clear ideology, NO RESPONSE to the clear Republican attacks. When Kerry won the primary I was flabbergasted. I figured we probably wouldn't win then, but I held out hope, I stood on street corners, I called people, I campaigned.
A 4 million popular vote for an administration that admits no wrong, that has no coherent diplomatic policy, that has no coherent domestic policy. Why? Because 9/11 changed everything? Because we needed to "kick some ass abroad"? These are the responses I get from Bush voters. They don't even know what the Clear Skies act is. They're not familiar with North Korea. We have to find a way to dumb ourselves down into simple ideology. Easy digestible soundbites. It sounds ridiculous but I see no other way -- 1992 was "The Economy, Stupid", nothing else has worked. People don't want to think about problems, they want to eat McD's and watch Joey.
I'm so... frustrated.
Technically, an election isn't over until the electoral college meets on December 13, 2004 (the Monday after the second Wednesday in December). At which point the electors are not bound to the results of their state as to who to cast their vote towards. Even if Bush won 100% of the popular vote, and Kerry conceeded 1 minute after the first precinct closed, Kerry could still be elected president. Or Nader for that matter.
So I'm curious,
I think it's obvious that even the provisional ballots are not going to swing Ohio, but, if, and I mean really big if, what happens if they do?
Or will they simply be ignored?
What depresses me the most about this is when GWB was elected, we didn't know what he was going to do. Now, with this election the American people have said "I agree with what you've done and would like more."
I'm an American in London and used to be able to tell Europeans that I hope most of the American people don't approve of Bush and wouldn't have voted him in if they knew what he was going to do. Now I see that I am wrong and I despair.
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.
This is yet another case where I wish America was on the popular vote system rather than the electoral vote system. Bush clearly won the popular vote by a factor of 3,529,724. While I didn't vote for Bush based on these numbers I could move on. But the Bush lead in Ohio is 136,221, a margin lower than the amount of votes still left uncounted. I can not in good conscience say that Bush won our election so long as provisional and absentee votes are yet uncounted, to do so would be un-American.
This is a testament to the American democratic process, a process that serves to divide a nation rather than unite it.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Does anyone have any suggestions regarding where someone tired of living in a Christian theocracy might move to?
When the war between the fundamentalist Muslims and the fundamentalist Christians escalates into WW III, I'd rather be watching from the sidelines in a country that has advanced beyond superstitions.
"Bush got more votes than any American in history."
So I guess that means that Kerry got the second most votes than any American in history.
-m
Good way to start a civil war actually. This is exactly the case of what happened in the 1800's.
I think it was George Washington who expressed his fear that the country should be divided not only along party lines, but also along geographical lines.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
But I'm guessing me might disagree on what to do now. My idea was to buy time on a little light bulb AM station somewhere and air the voice of the independent radio show. Spend the next four years hacking everything the Republicans do, spouting conspiracy theories, stating absolute garbage as established fact and screening calls to make it sound like everyone agrees with me. Pretend to be an overall Bush supporter, then mention every piece of dirt that has plausible deniability.
I'd spend the next four years hacking back at them in the media like they did for eight years of Clinton's term.
Politics is a dirty game and it's time to start fighting dirty.
I'm guessing that may not be what you have in mind, but we've got nothing to lose going negative at this point. Light the flame throwers! You want division, we'll give you division and angry, unrelenting defensiveness until you're stuffed with it. We'll take our cues from Karl Rove's playbook and make winning a living hell.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I know that in my case, I'm no "whiny left winger". In fact, this is the first time I've ever voted democrat in my life. There are a few things that bother me about this election. First of all, when we had 9/11, for just a moment, not only was our entire country unified, but we also had the support of our allies as well. As it turns out, in his campaign the first time, Bush had promised to be "a uniter, not a divider", which was what convinced me that he'd be okay to vote for. I confess though that I should have known better than the whole "compassionate conservitive" nonsense. So, he's completely failed in every campaign promise he's made. I don't even blame him for the collapse of the economy, although I don't support the way he's handled it either. The other thing that bothers me is that we've now completely lost anything resembling a balance of power in this country. Finally, as far as the allies go, it doesn't bother me that we've done what we've done, rather I'm bothered by the way we've been ass-holes to the rest of the world and I'm bothered by the inablility of both Bush and apparently the "Americans" who voted for him to admit their mistakes. So, as someone who voted for Bush the first time, I will tell you that I never even considered voting for him in '04, no matter who the Democrats put up and I'm extreamily depressed by the lack of any balance of power in this country and I'm certainly not in favor of the idea of what apparently is an even smaller percentage (land-wise) of the country running the rest of the world. I think the northeast should just secede from the rest of the union.
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
Alot of organizations were running around registering people to vote. I was one of them, and even though we did it under the name of a non-partisan cause, we all knew that it was for the benefit of the Democrats. Most of us went around to the lowest voter turnout areas, which happened to usually be the more poorer sections of cities. We would register people to vote, and not ask them who they're going to vote for. But in the back of our heads, our thinking was that these people would be voting for the left wing choice...because most of them either were pissed off about the current situation and needed some convincing that their vote makes a difference, or another big reason was that they were a felon at one point in their lives and they had no idea that they can vote if they are off paper. Higher taxes are a pain for middle or upper class, but social services are a great benefit for the lower class, therefore if we made it easy for these people to vote, we thought they would be voting for Kerry.
This election had unprecedent voter turnout, so we succeeded in getting people out to vote! However, Bush beat Kerry better than he beat Gore. He even won the popular vote this time. So it seems that these people we were registering...well most of them chose Bush. The democratic party really needs to rethink their strategy, because that was a huge part of it.
My little theory, and this seems a little crude, is that if one opponent is using fear to win, well I don't think you can fight that with something else. I think you need to use that also, because the top voting issue was probably security. And if an opponent is using hatemongering tactics, you must do that same. You can't be nice and win in politics.
Nebraska voter here. As I very well know my state would not vote Democrat, I started to wonder why this is. Or why this country has been so strongly divided. I had a long conversation with my Grandma last night, and it showed a lot of insight.
Nearly every arguement she used had to do with religion or something the TV had told her. She was still hanging on to ideas that Iraq collaborated with Al-Queda and that there could still be WMDs.
And she's not even really a Fox watcher. When I mentioned the 100,000 dead civilians in Iraq, she still refused to believe that they were not happy that we came in, and that the only ones who didn't want us there were the "radicals".
My roommies on the other hand, had different reasons. They are all very intellectual and logical thinkers, but they also share a common trait: They're racist biggots and classic examples of upper-middle class white people who fear change. I know a lot of that has to do with upbringing, but I was raised in a Republican household, and I turned out completely different. I guess there's a lot there to ponder.
What really confuses me is how, even with all the grassroots campaigns, like the Rock Against Bush tour, the big names openly speaking out against Bush, and even with all the hard evidence on the news where the mistakes speak for themselves (Nope, no WMDs here), and even such a huge voter turnout, that it still wasn't enough.
It's really kind of depressing when you think about it. Call me a sore loser, but when you give it your all and it isn't good enough, you're still a loser. I'm going to be depressed for about 4 years.
you might want to consider a slightly broader historical context.
the Mexicans, and the American indians would disagree that "never in our history" has the US been in the mood for domination....
Alot of comments here seem to suggest that since Bush cannot be re-elected, he is now free to do anything he wants without regard for the public opinion. These comments miss a few very important points.
The Bush administration has a large interest in keeping public approval. Not so much Bush himself, but the neocons arounds him - ie Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Paul Bremer and Lewis Libby to name a few.
The neocons have had key positions in every republican administration since the mid-70s, including under Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bush senior and now Bush junior. They are an ideological group based in part on the philosophy of Leo Strauss, whose stated goals are to spread democracy around the world, by force, preserving Pax Americana and expanding the american economic and cultural empire.
To acheieve this goal, an organization named The Project for a New American Century was founded by William Kristol in 1997. Its members include all of the neocons listed above, and its basic principles are, according to its website:
The neoconservatives have had complete control of the US foreign policy in the Bush administration. The Bush doctrine is based on a document written by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992, called the Defense Planning Guidance. At the time, under Bush senior, the document was regarded as too radical and key propositions in it was rejected (including unilateralism and the use of preemtive strikes). These radical propositions now form the core of US foreign policy.
In addition, the PNAC released a report in 2000 called Rebuilding Americas Defenses (PDF download here), which outlines the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and installation of a US base in Iraq to secure the oil for geostrategic purposes after peak-oil (just consider the control it would give them over China, when they can control a large portion of their energy supplies), and to attempt to spread democracy in the region. According to the document, this would only be possible after, and I quote, a "catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor".
Now, this little project of theirs is quite ambitious, and will take a long time, so the neocons have great interest in keeping a republican presidency (puppet or not), so they stay in control of foreign policy. They attempted to persuade Clinton to attack Iraq, but without any success, so now that they are in power they won't give it up easily. Luckily for them, the american public seems more than happy to go along.
America 2004 = Britain 1900?
American 2054 = Britain 1950?
now I'm disgusted by our entire country
Exactly. I watched the election with a circle of people who had faith in the American public going into yesterday and were shocked by the result... truly stunned and flabbergasted.
And the conversation all night and well into today was quite simple, and its narrative thread over several hours and among people of various ages, genders, and backgrounds can be reduced to this: "How can we live here any more? It's now clear that we hate the majority and that they hate us. We're outnumbered by lunatics, warmongers, and crusaders. We hate America and we want to leave. And once we're away and living somewhere else, we're beginning to think we'll hope it falls or dissolves or is attacked by the rest of the world en masse."
Maps were actually brought out and discussions of what other English-speaking countries would take them went on for hours. The people I was staying with honestly seemed to feel threatened in their personal and familial safety by what is they now see to be a clear ultra-conservative American majority.
This is not in some political meeting or radical college club, mind you. It was in an average, suburban house in small-town California. There is a split in America, and it will destroy the nation before it is healed.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The American people voted for a president that presided over an economy that produced a record current account deficit, a record trade deficit, a record budget deficit and a national debt of such proportions that the IMF says they threaten the world economy.
Who ever said all that Americans ever care about is money?
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack