Please Vote!

No, in 2000 he won because of stupidity too. Nader voters are stupid in their own way, too, for not getting that voting for him gets them the polar opposite of what they want.

Originally posted by chaz:


I'm some states, prison inmates can actually vote from prison.

since when?

Why don't Democrat's admit their shortcomings. Pussies have to blame their losses on others instead of themselves.

Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
No, in 2000 he won because of stupidity too. Nader voters are stupid in their own way, too, for not getting that voting for him gets them the polar opposite of what they want.

Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
No, in 2000 he won because of stupidity too. Nader voters are stupid in their own way, too, for not getting that voting for him gets them the polar opposite of what they want.

Nader voters in battleground states maybe.

But even that isnt as stupid as thinking anybody who thinks differently from you is wrong.

Originally posted by pollard:
But even that isnt as stupid as thinking anybody who thinks differently from you is wrong. [/QB]

BINGO

Originally posted by pollard:

Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
No, in 2000 he won because of stupidity too. Nader voters are stupid in their own way, too, for not getting that voting for him gets them the polar opposite of what they want.

Nader voters in battleground states maybe.

But even that isnt as American as thinking anybody who thinks differently from you is wrong.

BINGO

There are stupid people all over the world, the fact in the US is that this country is a very conservative one on social issues and a group of far-right people have taken advantage of it to undertake a crazy (to say the least) foreign policy. What Democrats need to do now is try to get part of those social conservatives in their party. How are they going to do it? No idea.

As for criticizing Nader for the loss of the 2000 election, you can blame it on him in some key states or at least in Florida, but the guy has the right to do it and you can't criticize the arguments that made him run for president, he sees Republicans and Democrats as very similar and I can't criticize that belief. Rather than blaming Nader, Democrats should have looked at the possible mistakes they did in that election.

Originally posted by Barcelona:
As for criticizing Nader for the loss of the 2000 election, you can blame it on him in some key states or at least in Florida, but the guy has the right to do it and you can't criticize the arguments that made him run for president, he sees Republicans and Democrats as very similar and I can't criticize that belief. Rather than blaming Nader, Democrats should have looked at the possible mistakes they did in that election.

exactly

Democrats also need to find a message other than, "We're not them."

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Why don't Democrat's admit their shortcomings.

I think most of your prominent Democrats have. I think Kerry did too by not demanding recounts, lawsuits, etc. There are many Deomcrats who last night and today said that the Party is in real trouble right now due to lack of a common vision and serious downfalls in the red states.

The Party currently has no voice in the midwest and the south and was beaten badly in the swing states on the Same-Sex Marraige issue. They also lost badly on the three G's - God, Guns and Gays - which they have since the founding of the nation (obvioulsy I'm not saying that the gay issue has been around that long, but right now gays is the current puritanical hot button issue). Areas that were once deomcratic strongholds based on a platform of Health Care, Social Security and other domestic agenda issues have now gone to the Republicans based on the three G issues. Kudos to Karl Rove and, to a lesser degree, Newt Gingrich for taking this voting block from the Dems.

Where the Democrats have always fallen short is in voter turnout, and I think what bothers most democrats today is that the notion that if there was huge voter turnout, there was no way the Dem's could lose. This notion has been shot now with 112-115 Millions voters coming out, and the Dems still losing. Everybody knew that the Republican stronghold would come out, but most are surprised that Bush's stronghold was 8 Million more than 2000, and I for one was shocked to see it. If you would have asked me on Monday if 115 Million voters was enough for a big enough Democratic turnout to win, I would have taken it without blinking.

As far as calling folks stupid, that's just the bitterness of losing a long, hard fought battle. I'm angry and depressed today. I can't fathom how this election was lost on four issues I see clearly in the Dems favor: Iraq, terror, gays and Bush's moral values. The Republicans drove the agenda and Kerry did little but succomb to their agenda. Thirsty's right, it's values, but it makes me feel much better to call them stupid today. I don't believe it, I don't think it, but I feel better saying it.

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Note to Democrats in 2008: Pick a Southern candidate. And not Al Gore or Hillary Clinton.

How about this (and mind you, this kept me up all night)? What if Kerry had picked Gephardt instead of Edwards?

Edwards did little for your electoral college, the party had already let you down in the South, but with Gephardt, you likely gain the 11 EC votes in Missouri, where he is beloved.

Now with Wisconsin going to Kerry, take away Bush's 11 votes from Missouri and give them to Kerry, giving Bush 268 and Kerry 263. That leaves us waiting on Iowa to count their absentees where the difference in votes is about 13,000. I'm not saying the outcome would have been different, but strides in the midwest would have been just as important as the potential for strides in the south with Edwards, who didn't get you Florida.

Anyhow, as for 2008 - name one good southern democratic candidate? And that's not me disagreeing with you, I just don't know of one, other then Edwards, and I'm not sure how much weight he carries in the south any longer.

The Dems have much to do before 2008. Hillary cannot win.

Since I don't know when. Each state has it's own laws stating who can and can't vote. I don't know them all by heart, but in some states even incarcerated felons can vote.

Originally posted by palahniukkubrick:

Originally posted by chaz:


I'm some states, prison inmates can actually vote from prison.

since when?

Originally posted by vansmack:
Edwards did little for your electoral college, the party had already let you down in the South, but with Gephardt, you likely gain the 11 EC votes in Missouri, where he is beloved.

Gephardt is not beloved, he is from the blue collar part of st. louis, which means he is not liked by the wealthy parts of st. louis and he is from st. louis, so he is not liked by the rest of missouri

Originally posted by chaz:
I think you've interpreted the numbers incorrectly. 18-30 year olds only acccounted for 17% of all voters. Identical to 2000.

The actual number of young voters was up, given that overall voter turnout was higher:

17.85 Million voters aged 18-29 in 2000.

20.4 Million voters aged 18-29 in 2004 (this is roughly half of all eligible 18-29 year old voters, I don't have the percentages of registered voters however).

Originally posted by pollard:
Gephardt is not beloved,

Beloved might be strong, but it was mentioned on at least three channels last night and has been written about:

The New Republic's Gregg Easterbrook second-guesses the biggest decision of Kerry's campaign:


"When I look at the electoral map, my eyes are drawn not to Florida or Ohio but Missouri. And that makes me wonder if Kerry made the right decision by choosing John Edwards as his running mate.

"Yours truly is a big fan of Edwards as a person and as a future leader. Like Bill Clinton, Edwards has the gift–he's a rare talent. What Edwards does not have, and was never likely to have, is the ability to deliver North Carolina's 15 electoral votes. Polls show George W. Bush leading in North Carolina by ten points. That Edwards may not be able to bring his own state's vote to the Democratic ticket is no criticism of him, nor does it mean he can't win national office himself. It just means North Carolina has lately been voting Republican in presidential contests–in 2000, Bush carried the state by 13 points–and Edwards was never likely to be able to change that.

"Contrast this to Missouri, where Dick Gephardt is beloved as a favorite son. Bush is leading by a small margin in Missouri; in 2000, he carried the state by three points. The Show Me State has many times demonstrated its love of Gephardt–had he been Kerry's running mate, he might well have been able to deliver Missouri and its eleven delegates. Yours truly is also a fan of Gephardt, who might have brought to Kerry's candidacy not only Missouri's votes but moderate populism, labor ties, bipartisan credentials for his help to Bush in the days after September 11, and none of the negatives associated with Edwards's trial-lawyer calling. If Kerry loses by a margin smaller than Missouri's eleven electoral votes, his choice of Edwards over Gephardt may come to be seen as a historic blunder."

Originally posted by chaz:
Each state has it's own laws stating who can and can't vote. I don't know them all by heart, but in some states even incarcerated felons can vote.

Permitted to vote while incarcerated:
ME, VT

Voting restored after release from incarceration:
HI, IL, IN, MA, MI, MT, NH, ND, OH, OR, PA, SD, UT

Voting restored after release from incarceration and completion of parole (probationers may vote):
CA, CO, CT, NY

Voting restored after completion of sentence, including parole and probation:
AK, AR, GA, ID, KS, LA, MN, MO, NJ, NM, NC, OK, RI, SC, TX, WV, WI

Voting restored after completion of sentence for first felony, permanently disfranchised for at least some second felonies:
AZ, MD

Voting restored for certain ex-offenders convicted of felonies, others permanently disfranchised:
AL, DE, NV, WY

Voting restored after completion of sentence, except those convicted of felonies before a certain date who are permanently disfranchised:
TN (pre-1986 disenfranchised), WA (pre-1984 disenfranchised)

All convicted of felonies permanently disfranchised:
FL, IA, KY, MS, NE, VA

(I just had training on all of this)

From John Kerry's concession speech:

"It was a privilege and a gift to spend two years traveling this country, coming to know so many of you. I wish I could just wrap you in my arms and embrace each and every one of you individually all across this nation."

This, to me, shows the difference in the 2 candidates, and why Kerry (to me) is much more sincere, human and down-to-earth.

I can never imagine smug President Bush saying the same things, nor saying (as Kerry did at the beginning of his speech today) "I love you" to the crowd, blowing a kiss and nearly breaking down in his speech.

It makes Kerry's loss all the more poignant and sad.

Oh well.

Time to make the best of things now.

Cheers

DJ Medusa.

Personally I wouldnt want my leader telling me he loved us and wanting to wrap us up in his arms…..Thats probably what he woulda told Osama Bin Laden as they drank milk together and to Sadaam as he sets him free to go back home to Iraq.

I dont give a crap about hugs, but I would not read much in to it.

<img src="http://www.washingtondispatch.com/artman/uploads/faulkner_001.jpg" alt=" - " />

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/faulkner.asp

Originally posted by Medusa:


This, to me, shows the difference in the 2 candidates, and why Kerry (to me) is much more sincere, human and down-to-earth.

And 51% of the American voters still buy the joke of the "compassionate conservative" thing. It's incredible.

Originally posted by Barcelona:
What Democrats need to do now is try to get part of those social conservatives in their party. How are they going to do it? No idea.

Is this the same as the Moderator Republicans? Because I totally agree on this one. I know my father who is a long standing moderate voted for Dukakis because he didn't hear anything from Bush Sr. Healthcare was the biggest concern of my parents this year. The biggest hurdle I think is how to handle social welfare programs and making them appeal to the both "core" democrats and the moderate Republicans. That is going to be one tough order of business.

The Democrats need to get an candidate established now! Instead of spending wildly on the outdated primary system, where two small states get a say for the rest of the nation, use the money spent there towards the final presidential race.

Democrats also need to start verifying voter rolls. Ensure that everyone who thinks they are registered are on the rolls. Put those voter rolls to the test in every election between now and 2008. Track any discrepancies reported. In heavily contested districts absentee and early voting is needed to flush out problems and ensure that every vote is count.

There also needs to be better coordination between the GOTV orgs. On top of all the attack ads, people were hammered with calls from so many different orgs. Little wonder there was resentment towards voting.