Powered by TypePad

« David Brooks Goes To The Movies | Main | We Write Of Missing Persons »

December 21, 2004



The election was ABB, would have never realized that reading the Economist, the American Conservative, or Reason. Thanks Daily Kos. Might as well throw in the other two points from Kos, 56% think the Iraq war wasn't worht it, and Bush's approval rating is below 50%. Some MAN-DATE. Dumped already.


Yeah, well, that 56% was from the same folks who gave us the exit polls...

Blah Blah

Kos ought to change his blog name to Caustic Windsock.


I just want to say:


A clean Yuschenko victory would be a great Christmas present.

frank la may

Kerry lost because of the continue negative adds and negative input by both Kerry and Edwards. they had no platform and really had no idea what was happening in the world. and than the 87 Billion joke. how can you vote for soemthing after you voted against. not very inteligent. and your right it would have been a very bad presidence. and one last person who cost Kerry the election. his wife. what a joke.

frank la may


Kerry simply lost because the election was stolen no more, no less.

richard mcenroe

"but we've got an opportunity for long-term gain."

Yeah, in the sense that warming will turn your shabby desert shack into a tony beachfront bungalow...

Bryan C

I like how Bush won in spite of being the "the most unpopular incumbent". It couldn't possibly be because Bush actually was pretty popular, could it? Nah.


Reid, final exit polls were basically right on.
Bryan, yet his approval is below 50 again.
Dave, But Bush looked into his heart and saw his character. HIS HEART.


Kerry took a dive in the 10th. In 1971, Karl Rove *planted* John Kerry into the Democrat Party for just this occasion.

//(Repub decode alpha-niner-tango) Sorry, but the DU'ers are running out of conspiracy theory, so I'm pitching in to keep them writhing for our enjoyment.

Jim Rockford

Kerry lost because he fundamentally wanted to return to Clinton's policy of avoiding any military action in response to terrorism.

When the Cole was bombed, the reaction was ... nothing. Clinton never retaliated. The Democratic Party as a whole decided that the best way to treat Al Queda was a return to Clintonism, basically punting the issue away into the future in the hope that the bad man would go away and no icky awful force would ever have to be used, because that would make people angry.

Lest you think I'm being harsh, I voted for Clinton twice. I was on board with his policies then. I was wrong. 9/11 changed everything, the Dems never caught on to this. After 9/11 either Saddam or Iran was on the chopping block after Afghanistan (which most of the Democratic Party also opposed).

Lots of folks are not happy with Bush, but at least he WILL act at times. Kerry wouldn't. The vote was IMHO more Anyone But Kerry rather than Anyone But Bush.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party slides into national irrelevance as they refuse to offer a muscular alternative to Bush in PREVENTING terrorist attacks by military intervention abroad.

Guru George

I can't believe how some Dems are so dim they don't realise the leaked exit polls were the propaganda of their own dumb side.


The vote was IMHO more Anyone But Kerry rather than Anyone But Bush.

Right on, and that was a direct consequence of the Democrats running their campaign under the Anyone But Bush banner. For all the shrillness of the ABB'ers, they still constitute only a small part of the electorate, and asking people to vote for you based on basically nothing but a "We're not Bush!" platform produced the obvious reaction from the undecideds: "Umm, why?" Bush may have been the most unpopular incumbent to win reelection (I disagree, but it's open to debate), but by nominating an empty shell like Kerry, the Dems were just begging for a Devil We Know backlash.

Spear Shaker

Yes, it was a bad campaign for Kerry, especially with habits like these. . .

Angus Jung

"Bush's approval rating is below 50%."

What's Kerry's?


Bush's approval numbers are being suppressed by a relentlessly negative Main Stream media, and the residual effect of millions in negative advertising by leftist 527 orgainzations. The media has continued, in both new coverage and opinion columns, to take the most negative possible view of any event.


The "Man Date" comes from the pick ups in the Senate. (There has to be a funny joke there somewhere) Or did the Republicans steal all of those elections too?


Looks like the only stolen election will be the Washington governor's race.


Jamal how was the election stolen? You can keep believing this conspiracy that had more believability in the last election than this one. Kerry lost because he was not a good candidate. I am not a huge Bush fan but of all the people in the democratic primary this was possibly the most unelectable of them all (except maybe Kucinich). Dean at least had a core and stuck to what he believed and a lot of us may not have voted for him but have a lot of respect for him and how he stuck to his positions and didn't waffle to get elected. Lieberman was another good choice but even Al Gore coudlmn't be civil to his former running mate so what chance did he have.

When Nixon lost to Kennnedy through obvious vote fraud did he cry and whine about it for four years? No. He settled down and prepared for his next election. Did the republicans around the country whine for four years that the vote was stolen? No. Did we go to court to try and overturn the election? No.

My point is they had much more proof and even the 2000 election there was more evidence that things were not right. However this election there is no proof. The only proof they have in OH is that the exit polls showed Kerry ahead and they couldn't be wrong so the election must have been stolen.


Bush won because most swing and marginal voters realized Kerry and his voters hated Bush more than they did the terrorists and other enemies of America. You don't win elections in America running on a campaign predicated upon the notion the president is a greater threat to the nation than its enemies. But the ever-so-smug "reality-based" community will never figure this out...

David Erwin

Most unpopular incumbent President was Bill Clinton!!
In 1992 Clinton garnered 44.9 million votes. In the 1996 election he got 45.24 million votes, which is not even an increase of 1% over the 1992 election year!! In te 2000 election George Bush got 50.5 million votes. In the 2004 election he received 60.9 million votes, which is an increase of over 20%. I think that some people need to look at the facts before they state an opinion!!

Kool-Aid Drinker's Domestic Partner

I think that some people need to look at the facts before they state an opinion!!



Yes Bush is really serious on the WoT, thats why 1 in 10 people in NYC said they'd protests him when he came to MSG, and half a million people marched against him. HE got killed in NYC, like usual. Maybe he picked up a couple % over '00. But killed nonetheless. Apparently, you look at locales that are most likely to be hit by terrorists, almost all of them went overwhelmingly Kerry. On top off that, since Bush hates-America-first, he continues to underfund NYC, Miami, etc. so Bumblefuck, Idaho, can get some pork. The thing is, stupid welfare-queen, red-staters didn't care that bush forgot about OBL. The red-necks are never going to be attacked -- they don't represent American econonmic power, American Innovation, or Liberty. Get real. No one is attackin Wyoming, pop 500k.

Actually Bush won, cause the republican base is full of christian taliban, racists (2), and torturers.

Kerry might not have been a great candidate, but it didn't matter who was selected. The wingnuts hae no problem making up quotes about Kerry or ridiculing him for one idiotic utterance. The back-boneless democrats stayed away from the years-worht of Bush misquotes. Do you really want to comnpare all of Bush idiotic quotes to Kerry's? Seriously, get real.

Robert Speirs

Bush won because he's smarter than Kerry:




You could do with lessons in both logic and proofreading. Seriously.

Apparently, you look at locales that are most likely to be hit by terrorists, almost all of them went overwhelmingly Kerry.

How well did Bush do in these locales in 2004 vs 2000?


I gotta agree with Jim Rockford's comment. The election really was carried by the Anybody But Kerry voting block.


"The fact that Bush beat an out-of-touch, elitist, liberal, union-puppet, gun-banning, UN-rumpswab had VERY little to do with anything Bush was bringing to the table. It just happened the "Anybody But Kerry" contingency outnumbered the "Anybody But Bush" folks."


Wow this is all such a revelation! Thanks for the fact-loaded dissertation. I never would have know any of this stuff. Do you think Bush's behaviour is maybe because he's evil and against America? Sure sounds reasonable. As a life-long Republican, I hate to change parties, but I guess I have no choice - the facts are the facts. By the way, you're quite a salesman. Think about a position recruiting new democrats.

Bryan C

I know Bush's approval ratings numbers have been down. But, frankly, I think the only measure of popularity that really matters is the election itself. Kerry certainly wasn't a dream candidate, but he and his pollsters vasty overestimated the number of people who actively disliked or disapproved of Bush. And they vastly underestimated, I think, the number of people who lie to pollsters.


h0mi, I already compared Bush's '00 to '04 results. Marginally better in NYC (a couple % points) vs. 1/10 residents who went out to actively march against him. Overall, that sounds to me like the city turned much more against him. As someone who has lived in NYC, and travels there a lot, I have no patience for republicans who say democrats aren't serious on terror when Bush can't even get his f'n party in line to properly fund cities that are likely to be actual terrorist targets. (Many of these are blue, I wonder if that's why?)

DBS, how about the fact that he's an over-priviliged kid who never accomplished anything on his own merits. An alcoholic, a womanizer, a hard-drug user, a straight-c student, and a guy who can't be bothered to attend church. He can't be bothered to read a newspaper. A ton of his former advisors have described him as essentially an idiot -- easily tricked by the person he talks to last on any policy matter. Once upon a time, the republiican party stood for fiscal responsiblity and personal accountability. Now its a party about power and the christian taliban.


A correction: despite having told people for years that he was of Irish ancestry (not exactly a political liability in Massachusetts), John Kerry is in fact not Irish. When asked about it, he typically lied and said he had always been "straight" about people assuming he was Irish because his name sounds Irish. The pro-Kerry Boston Globe then found several speeches in which he said he was proud of his Irish heritage. Just one more phoniness about the guy.


Bryan, the polls were basically right. Bush had a small national lead in most polls going into the election. Ohio and Florida were teetering. Ohio was obviously very close. Zogby came out with a poll for Florida that showed Kerry ahead, but it used some very creative polling techniques, that in retrospect should have been dismissed as wishful thinking.

For all the talk about the infastructure the left built during htis election, there was a good article in Salon a few days ago regarding the abysmal ground game by the Kerry side. That definitely hurt in Ohio. The Bush side centralized it and appears to have been far, far more effective. Kerry's camp was split into three groups, that couldn't coordinate (campaign laws), and wound up overlapping and just being incompetent.


Kerry's not Irish?!?!?

You could knock me over with a potato.


As the right stops drinking "the few bad apple " kool aid on Abu Ghraib, I'm sure we'll all want to hark back to the halcyon days of TM saying potatoe, while I say potato. Could be going all the way to the top


Look at the calendar: Christmas is Saturday, and the election was LAST MONTH.

Your analysis--if that's what you call it--is a day late and a dollar short. Bush won, and Kerry lost. Simple facts, simple conclusions--despite your assertions.

Merry Christmas.

The Revolutionist

Looking objectively at the election, I agree with those that say that Kerry wasn't a good candidate. He said too many things that the Bush campaign used as a billyclub on him day after day. Still, it's foolish to think that the Democratic GOTV effort didn't do a terrific job. In the end, the Republicans had the better candidate & their GOTV ran circles around the Democratic GOTV.

That gap figures to widen in the midterms, too, with Ken Mehlman, President Bush's campaign chairman, being promoted to the RNC chairmanship.


Merry Xmas cause I don't want to offend anyone who has forgotten what americans believed and that Judeo-christian values were apart of our founding fathers beliefs.
John kerry lost because he had no principles and tried to pander all positions to get him elected. Swiftvets were the true HEROS because they felt america needed to know the facts about John Kerry and his statements slandering all troops serving in Vietnam. My father died in service to this country behind the front lines it would have been hard to be a part of the army of Gengis Kahn.. I won't forget his testimony in the senate. His right to protest did not give him the right to slander my father and all other soldies who have laid down their life to carry out their mission as ordered. Sometimes at the cost of their lives.

h0mi, I already compared Bush's '00 to '04 results. Marginally better in NYC (a couple % points) vs. 1/10 residents who went out to actively march against him. Overall, that sounds to me like the city turned much more against him.
Well your math is simply wrong. This "city turned much more against him" premise of yours does not mesh with the results of the 2004 election in NYC; if the city was as polarized against him as you describe, he'd never have gained 187,000 votes from 2000. He wouldn't have gained 6% (not "a couple") points in the final results from NYC. ( http://www.elections.state.ny.us/elections/2004/president04.pdf vs http://www.elections.state.ny.us/elections/2000/wpres2000.pdf )

This in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a ratio over 5 to 1 and "blank" registrants outnumber Republicans 7 to 5.

500,000 protesters during the convention? I could believe that. I'm certain many of them weren't NYC residents, though.


Oh and while continuing to struggle with the math, 10% of 8 million isn't 500,000.


People lie to pollsters? "Zogby came out with a poll for Florida that showed Kerry ahead, but it used some very creative polling techniques, that in retrospect should have been dismissed as wishful thinking ..."? Polls are actually wrong sometimes? I'm truly shocked!!

Somehow I remember being lectured in an earlier post that I should just give pollsters "the benefit of the doubt" when they opine, especially when they agree with Jor's points. I think I was reminded that "it's called statistics." I really appreciated that advice, since, being an idiot and all, I didn't know that before.

Jor, you definitely need to LIGHTEN UP. The acid drips from your posts. You simply can't just disagree with any of us on the other side, present your argument and disagree agreeably, you have to label us and libel us. You may think you're exceptional witty and wise, I don't know, but your ad hominem arguments are pathetic, especially given that you know none of us personally.

Christian taliban? That's pretty catchy - I'm still trying to figure out what you mean, though. Is it the Baptist beheadings or the Methodist practice of requiring their wives to wear burkas, are the Catholics doing human sacrifices or what? I think you have a really large problem with the "moral equivalence thing."

Personally, I hope the DNC continues with the conspiracy theories and the mean-spririted attacks. I can see a long term minority party in the works. You might try Zell Miller's excellent book "A National Party No More" for the take of a life-long Democrat on where the party is headed.

In agreement with Forbes: Merry Christmas


Harry, there is a difference between doing a standard survey and Zogby trying to account for cell phone users, the young, etc. by using creative sampling techniques. Like I said, if you don't know these basic differences, you shouldn't comment on the matter. Mark Blummenthal ran a blog during the election that you could have relied on to try and sift through different poll data.

On the christian taliban, did you follow the link? How about getting the senate majority leader to claim he didn't know if "HIV could be transmitted by tears". This guy was a former, well respected surgeon. Give me a god damn break. Republicans have no shame. That is why I have no tolerance for bullshit.

Between Mullah Robertson and Mullah Falwell, there is a lot of juicy material. Top of my head, how about blaiming 9/11 on the gays, abortionists, an libereals? Or how about repeatedly saying "Islam is a wicked religion". How much of that do you think led to Abu Ghraib? Now maybe you don't think sodomizing a minor and then killing him is morally equivalent to a beheading, but I think the analogy still holds.

h0mi: 1 in 10 NYC said they would show up, estimates of the crowd were at 500,000. Whoop -te-freakin do. BTW, I suggest you look up the definition of "a couple". m-w.com.


More of the right, starts wondering when the hell did Torture become an American Value? I'm sure TM will provide us the "I voted for it, before I voted against it" nuance for Bush if we ever get a hold of these memos


I do know the difference, oh wise one, but why bother?

More pathetic ad hominem.


From PowerLine quoting Chrenkoff:

"As Chrenkoff concludes:

Western societies are not perfect, their citizens are not all angels, and there are always people capable of committing crimes and human rights violations. But by contrast to other, non-free or less-free societies around the world, our Western societies possess powerful self-correcting mechanisms, such as the democratic system of government with a vigorous political opposition, free debate and free media, independent judiciary, and constitutional checks and balances, which mean that such aberrations from the generally high standard we all aspire to live up to are quickly identified, isolated and punished and the wrongs redressed and compensated by the authorities, the citizens or both. This doesn't happen in every single case, and not necessarily as speedily and thoroughly as some would want, but it holds well enough as a general rule."

For those who are having difficulty understanding the nuance of "moral equivalence" arguments.

The comments to this entry are closed.