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

[johnkoer]

What bickering? We all know BSD is dead.

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

[RealityMogul]

That's because it conceded to a superior operating system... emacs.

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

[Hatta]

Emacs is an all right OS, but it lacks a decent editor.

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

[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

[minotaurcomputing]

"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

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

[Pentagram]

You might be a whiny left winger, but as today as a resident from another country I can tell you you "whiny left wingers" are the only americans for which we keep some respect.

Damn right. I had twenty quid riding on the outcome of the election. I said that Americans weren't so brain-dead and masochistic as to vote themselves another four years of Bush. My friend said they were.

I'm going to give up making bets whilst being stoned.

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

[bsane]

Geez, looks like I won't be vacationing in California for another four years.

Somehow I think we'll manage.

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

[schuster]

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.

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

[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

[endoboy]

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....

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.

Oh Canada!

[raehl]

I guess I better learn the rest of that.

Re:Oh Canada!

[Blindman]

I understand the sentiment, but wouldn't moving to Ohio be slightly more effective?

Re:Oh Canada!

[pete-classic]

For god's sake, would you take Alec Baldwin with you?

Four years later and he's still here.

-Peter

Re:Oh Canada!

[seestheday]

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

Re:Oh Canada!

[twbecker]

No problem. Just figure out where to insert the Eh's and you're all set.

Re:Oh Canada!

[RealAlaskan]

So: if you're a Slashdot reader who moved abroad because of the political situation, please post here, and tell us why, and how it's working out.

We hear a lot of threats to move from silly starlets and disgruntled geeks, but I've never heard of anyone who actually did it.

By the way, if anyone actually did move overseas, we miss you, and you can come back whenever you're ready. We won't wait up, but we'll leave the light on for you.

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:Oh Canada!

[been42]

Go ahead and move to the moon. We'll be up there to "liberate" the moon soon enough. Dubya wants to reduce our dependency on foreign cheese.

Re:Oh Canada!

[demachina]

I'm American and lived in Canada about half my adult life and am one of the disgruntled geeks getting ready to leave again. I loved Canada. I'm sorry I didn't stay there and get on a citizenship track. I'll probably go someplace even cheaper and warmer this time and try to retire early.

The people in Canada are consistently a lot easier to live with than Americans. They aren't nearly as arrogant, stuck on themselves, and aren't socialized to think its their prerogative to shit on the rest of the world. Canadians can spot Americans a mile away since they are routinely assholes when they visit Canada. Canadians, at least all the ones I know, are consistently nice level headed people, hard workers, great partiers, its no accident they churn out great comedians, and THEY HAVE GREAT BEER. American beer sucks by comaprison. They have pretty strong socialist leanings but there are right wingers there just like here, they just aren't rabid like the American right wing.

If you are going to be an expat you need to be ready to deal with the immigration system which is the biggest hassle. It depends on where you are going but you usually need a job waiting, with a visa, though many countries like Costa Rica have pensionero visas where you just have to have a clean record and a proven investment income. Its designed to draw wealthy gringos who are looking for a cheap place to retire and spend their money. I think its a couple thousand dollars a year in interest, social security or investment income so its pretty easy to do. It is only a visa though.

The big challenge to being an expat is if you are really going to do it you have to ditch your U.S. passport and citizenship and get citizenship where you are going. It takes a lot of time and work to get citizenship most places and you need to make sure you pick a country where you are going to be happy, fit in for the duration, and a place that isn't like to explode in a revolution for example. Americans are too fat dumb and happy to revolt but there are places where radical changes do happen, often with the help of the CIA.

If you dont renounce your citizenship you get to file income tax returns with Uncle Sam in perpetuity and that means you are still supporting the mad dogs that now rule Washington. If you make more than than the exemption limit on foreign income you get double taxed, where you live and by Uncle Sam. I think the annual exemption was around $70K but I dont know what it is now. I'd heard the Republicans were moving it and maybe even lowering it to tax expats more though I don't recall what actually happened.

All in all carrying a U.S. passport and flaunting your American'ness has always been a bit of a negative around the world, people tend to envy you some and resent you some more. After the last 4 years I imagine flaunting American, and especially bragging about, in most of the world is going to invite nothing but negativity and grief. Canadains treat most Americans reasonably well because they are generally nice people but they aren't likely to really accept you and frequently will do their best screw you given the chance, just because you live in a country that tries to screw the rest of the world at every opportunity in every way.

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.

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.

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.

"...without a lot of extra fuss and recount"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh, what am I going to do for entertainment between now and Thanksgiving?

Re:"...without a lot of extra fuss and recount"?

[Grey Ninja]

Watch Bush's speeches?

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

one nation under god

[h0mer]

4 years closer to Wal-Mart Nation... let's go get some NASCAR shit and go off to church!

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.

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.

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.

And the rest of the world...

[Flaming Halo]

...lets out a resounding "Aw, crap."

Repent, for the Apocalypse Draws Nigh!

[applemasker]

First the Red Sox win the Series, now this.

The only question in my mind is what form will the other two Horsemen take?

At least I don't have to update my .sig

Some silver lining.

Re:gore

[Issue9mm]

In related news, Bush made certain to call "No take backs" during Kerry's congratulatory phone call.

-9mm-

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

[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.

"Immature"

[kmmatthews]

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

It isn't over

[Bronz]

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.

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: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.

How to Entertain Yourself until Thanksgiving

[raehl]

- Calculate your share of the National Deficit
- Take up assault weapon collecting as a hobby
- Figure out how to best invest your $300 annual Bush tax savings to cover the social security benefits you'll never get
- Become rich, then get all your income from mostly untaxed dividends and capital gains income
- Join the guard and train for a one year tour of duty in Iraq
- Move so that the selective service can't find you
- Take some gay people and a girlfriend (work with me here) to Vegas. Taunt them by getting married and divorced inside of 12 hours.
- Make a sign saying "The Government should stay out of our lives!" and go protest in front of an abortion clinic.
- Pick up bow and arrow making to capitalize on the new corporate tax incentives
- Do something illegal, get arrested, and excercise your right to trial before 4 years of Bush-appointed, Republican confirmed Supreme Court appointees uphold the Patriot Act's elimination of right to trial.

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.

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.

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:Thank you Mr. Kerry

[truthsearch]

This is what annoys me. CONCEDING DOES NOT MAKE BUSH THE WINNER. He can concede and the election can still go the other way. It doesn't remove him from the race. Nothing's changed except they're announcing their predictions.

Here's an idea

[iceperson]

Why don't you just start a website and call it Send-a-Liberal-to-Canada.com and take donations. My guess is you could start chartering buses by the end of the week.

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

Immigration, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is Canadian immigration and citizenship information for those who need it.

ALL HAIL CANADA!

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: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: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: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.

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: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)

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.

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.

Moved abroad

[Anonymous Coward]

I moved from the United States to Finland a month and a half ago due to the political situation in the USA. I was born in the USA and so were my parents, I'm not a returning former citizen to Finland or any such thing.

I'm posting in response to RealAlaskan's request for information about someone who had actually done the move. If people want to be angry at the content of my post, or troll, or whatever, that's on them. I imagine there are people who will read this who actually want to know.

Question part #1: why?

# It was depressing to wake up every morning knowing that my tax money and support of the American economy was being used to effect morally unconscionable things such as killing people for no good reason. Furthermore, from the moment I realized this was happening, it was my responsibility to stop letting others use my money and resources this way.

# I've learned that I've been lied to both about America itself, and America's role in the world, for my entire life through the television, school, and the work-sleep-die culture that persists there, and I'm angry about it.

# It was frustrating to be forced to see, every day, so many of the people around me (and a few of them otherwise very intelligent) living in a quasi-reality that is based upon these lies, their indoctrination being so complete that it was impossible to communicate what I'd learned to them.

# There are better places to live, and I believe I am now in one of them.

# Most importantly, I became convinced that I and the other people in America who came to understand the problems and recognize the lies were powerless to fix the situation, in spite of the fairy tale image that is put forth in our culture about the nature of American democracy allowing individual heroes to rise up and save the day.

Question part #2: how is it working out?

So far it is working out fine. Part of that is in the details of how I was able to move. I'm a self-employed internet consultant and I have three years worth of business licenses to prove it, and Finland appears to like self employed people. In order to live here legally, I had to get a residence permit from the Finnish government, and in order to do that, I had to first get what is known as a "favorable" work permit opinion from them, which meant basically that I had to show that I could support myself here, either through having found a job that I was legally qualified for, or being self employed. Thorough documentation of my self-employment got me the 'favorable' decision on my work permit opinion, and everything else fell into place. Total money sent to Finland to get both things out of the way: $164 and couple passport-type photographs, and the application process took 6 months from beginning to end. The stuff is valid for 1 year, and I have to reapply each year until I can get citizenship.

To get citizenship here, you have to live here legally for 5 years, and be able to speak one of the primary languages (Swedish or Finnish) when you apply. We'll see how that goes, as that is my plan for the future. Finnish is a very hard language to learn, btw, but within 5 years I hope to be able to get good enough.

So I now live in the Helsinki area and continue to work for my American customers. So far it is working out fine. My rent for this 2 bedroom apartment is around 480 euro/month and it is a decent sized apartment. One does not need a car to do most things around here. Each road of any size has a huge sidewalk the size of a lane of road, and this is for both bicycle riders and pedestrians. City-maintained bike+pedestrian paths also cut through every imagineable area one could presume one might fit, and the ones that cut through the woods are used as ski trails when it snows. The area is an interesting combination of urban + suburb, there are woods everywhere but at the same time, it is a real city. This place is a jogger's dream come true, and people of all ages ride bicycles all over the place. Even old people ride bikes.

P

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.

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.

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

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.

The neocons still need public support

[egrinake]

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:

• American leadership is good both for America and for the world
• such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle
• too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership

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.

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.

Interesting.

[Bun]

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?

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.