DescentBB

Even though Ohio hasn't officially gone to Bush, the statistical chance it going to Kerry is pretty slim. New Mexico and Nevada, while close, are leaning also to Bush. The question now is, will Kerry gratiously concede and show the world that he is indeed a unifier as he claims? After all Bush, to the tune of 4 million votes, has won the popular vote.

Tom Daschle's inane leadership abilities is now at a end. Hopefully the minority senators will pick someone who can work with the idea of America'a people first instead of partisan pettiness as his guiding mantra.

Sadly John Edwards will no longer be in politics and will now go back to the kennel of trial lawyer-dom and start back into his tried and true method of health care reform. Don't suppose any worthy newsie will report on what he is up to...do you?

The Senate picks up a couple more republican seats, furthering the conservative trend sweeping America. Do you think the rank and file democrats will see the light and oust the far left leadership that has taken control and try to swing the party back to the glory days of the Kennedy era?

Exit polls have shown their worthlessness. As in the 2004 elections where Wills hero ( ) Peter Jennings tried to put Florida in Algores side of the win column, the early exit polls were so wildly off base that one has to think corruption with intent to influence late voters. My opinion is ALL polling should be banned from the airways. Serves no use at all to the voting public and at the late stages is just another tool with the potential for manipulating the masses.

The real losers here is the mainstream liberal bias news organs that tried their best to get Kerry elected. Don't suppose they will be bright enough to to understand falling subscription numbers and lowered Nielson ratings to realise the average american is brighter than they are?

Usama...we called your bluff.

Lastly, how many here think George Soros will actually head off to a monastery?

You have no idea how sick I was when I turned on the television and nobody has "really" won yet. Crap. It does look like another four years.

All of my other major votes went for the losing side. I voted for Betty Castor (D) over Mel Martinez for the Senate and that lost. There were a couple of state amendments that I voted one way and it went the other. Oh well.

AP says Kerry concedes.

Funny how only CNN is not reporting this.

Concession speech at 1:00. At last Kerry shows some real class.

And hopefully there won't be 4 more years of democrats whining about how Bush didn't really win.

woodchip wrote:Concession speech at 1:00. At last Kerry shows some real class.

I wonder where he was able to get that at such a late hour.. must have been a 24-hour shop. Happen to have any links handy? I was up 'till 5:00am (EST) last night, and last I heard they were still waiting.

Clayman wrote:And hopefully there won't be 4 more years of democrats whining about how Bush didn't really win.

It looks like a nice decisive victory (assuming Mr. Bush gets the electoral votes of Ohio), anyone who's in denial after this is really out there.

I hope Bush is smart enough to take a few pages from Kerry's campaign. I lament that the nation is so divided. Bush would do well to work as hard as he can to heal the rift.

bash wrote:I hope Bush is smart enough to take a few pages from Kerry's campaign. I lament that the nation is so divided. Bush would do well to work as hard as he can to heal the rift.

Better late than never eh?

*sigh*

Kerry conceeding now has just doubled my respect for him. I hope he gives a very clear and focused speech, asking the 'hate-bush' side to conceed this with him.

This was not a florida at all, Bush won the popular vote big.

I hope that this will make the DNC realize that Terry McAuliffe is NOT the man to lead them. Look at what he's accomplished in just a few election seasons. I can't remember when one party owned the Whitehouse and both houses of Congress.

EDIT: Forgot to mention the silver lining. Barack Obama easily beat that whacko Keyes. Obama will make a wonderful Democratic candidate in 2012. After Bush, who do the Republicans have waiting in the wings?

Well, I'm obviously disappointed. I guess I am just disconnected with a solid majority of my countrymen. I love and always hope the best for my country, but my optimism is draining, and my cynicism is growing. I'm wondering if I am doomed to a life of political outrage, and if that outrage is worth it. It seems so easy to just stop informing myself to the external world and live happily within my own realm as was the case before my political awakening. Maybe I should just bury my head in the sand, only to take a brief look around come election time. It seems to work so well for others.

deep breath..... *big Al Gore sigh*

Nah. What kind of patriot would I be if I did that? I think Bush has been a disaster for this country, and it will most likely get worse now that he has an actual mandate. It's time to roll up my sleeves and get to work. The 2008 election is just around the corner.

Pebkac wrote:After Bush, who do the Republicans have waiting in the wings?

Jeb Bush
Rudy Giuliani
Colin Powell

There are quite a few. They'll have to decide who will be the right one to defeat She-who's-name-we-don't-speak.

I've been feeling the same pessimism as you Vander, but havn't turned the corner like you have.

I'm ready to just stop caring about gay rights. I'm not gay. Stop caring about poor people who don't have health care, I'm not poor. Stop caring about those on Death row, I will never kill anyone. Stop caring about other countries that we Invade, I will never live there.

Since they allready have me on abortion and mostly have me on gun control, all I need to do to become a full fledged republican, is only care about me. Seems easy enough. I'm so ready to try.

I don't think Powell wants to be President. I'm pretty sure he's been quoted to that affect. I seriously doubt anyone named Bush will run right after W and have a chance to win. I guess Giuliani would be a good choice but I always saw his Presidential chances as a longshot.

As for your last sentence, I really think we might have seen the end of the name Clinton in Presidential politics. Bill went down to Arkansas to campaign for Kerry and the results weren't good.

get ready for some assasination attempts heh!

That was an extremely graceful concession speech by Kerry. And an extremely graceful thing to do, conceding once thigns looked reasonably sure. I think he was sincere about healing the country, and he certainly used his last few minutes of fame to further that cause.

Very graceful indeed. I respect that a lot, and I think it'll do a lot of good.

I agree. I don't think anyone in this country (except a few whackjobs) really want to hurt the US. They just have differing methods of helping it.

Wow, thanks to kerry for the concession. Good speech and I am glad he didn't drag things out. I think the biggest nation-healing part of the election was that there was no court battle. I think the 2000 wounds healed a lot even though bush won again. At least this time there is no argument.

You can't say "re-defeat" bush now, because bush clearly won. Personally I was surprised at how well he did, but in the end it goes back to bush makes you feel warm and fuzzy about america, kerry makes you face harsh reality. It makes sense.

Birdseye wrote:Personally I was surprised at how well he did, but in the end it goes back to bush makes you feel warm and fuzzy about america, kerry makes you face harsh reality. It makes sense.

That's just propoganda. What about Mr. Kerry's running-mate's childhood kitcken speech? That was warm and fuzzy. President Bush seems to have vision, and if his assessments are a little too up-beat for your taste, I think it's because he has a very optimistic outlook, and a lot of faith, personally, in what's being done. I think sometimes maybe he could be a little more staight-forward; and yet, there are a lot of people who, I believe, would only take advantage of that to attack him further.

I gained a lot of respect for Kerry because of his concession/speech. He did have the best interests of the nation at heart all along, but his methodology of upholding those interests wasn't what the American people were looking for. All in all, this election has turned out much better for both sides than I could have hoped. Hopefully, we can put the bitterness of this campaign aside and move forward.

Vander wrote:Well, I'm obviously disappointed. I guess I am just disconnected with a solid majority of my countrymen. I love and always hope the best for my country, but my optimism is draining, and my cynicism is growing.

Nah. What kind of patriot would I be if I did that? I think Bush has been a disaster for this country, and it will most likely get worse now that he has an actual mandate. It's time to roll up my sleeves and get to work. The 2008 election is just around the corner.

Damn straight, dude. Remember, the minority you're connected with is still actually 48% of the popular vote... and times always fade into history and change, as will this. AND, polls (and common sense, actually) indicate that the number of people dissatisfied with Bush's handling of certain issues is significantly greater than that 48%.

I truly hope McCain runs in 08. It'd be ironic if my first time voting I vote republican, but that's what would happen if he ran. Especially if the best that the democrats have to offer is Hillary Clinton.

McCain would be badass, but he may not run for many reasons.

Id look more towards Condaleza Rice or even Colin Powell, but Powell said he would never run for president.

Vander wrote:Well, I'm obviously disappointed. I guess I am just disconnected with a solid majority of my countrymen. I love and always hope the best for my country, but my optimism is draining, and my cynicism is growing. I'm wondering if I am doomed to a life of political outrage, and if that outrage is worth it. It seems so easy to just stop informing myself to the external world and live happily within my own realm as was the case before my political awakening. Maybe I should just bury my head in the sand, only to take a brief look around come election time. It seems to work so well for others.
...

last night the same thought occured to me. i'm weary from the conflict, and nothing budged as a result of my contribution, perhaps it was a useless exercise apart from further informing me on the ways of the world. i'm not designed for this kinda conflict.
i should turn a new leaf and leave this past 5 years behind me.

[quote Posted Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:39 pm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pebkac wrote:
After Bush, who do the Republicans have waiting in the wings?


Jeb Bush
Rudy Giuliani
Colin Powell

There are quite a few. They'll have to decide who will be the right one to defeat She-who's-name-we-don't-speak.


I think Beowulf just cursed himself.

Jeb Bush! Now that would look just a tad suspicious wouldn't it?

Ford Prefect wrote:Jeb Bush! Now that would look just a tad suspicious wouldn't it?

NO WAY!
we had a war with the british so WE COULD VOTE IN THE BLOODLINE... not just accept it as gods law.

these “patriot geniuses” really get it.

I heard that Jeb Bush said he would not carry on "the family legacy."

The problem with McCain, is that he first has to get nominated by the republicans. And anyone he runs against, will probably be "more conservative" then McCain.

Remember McCain ran against Bush 4+ years ago and lost.

McCain as president would be very healthy for this country. I voted for him yesterday, I voted for him the last time. And I have always been a democrat.

McCain has also had a skin cancer that has a very good chance of returning. As cold as this sounds, this could really be used to hurt him: People don't want to vote someone in that they think is terminally-ill.

The reason I mentioned Jeb Bush is because he was originally courted for the job before his brother was and is supposedly a very strong candidate for the repub's. After his brothers contentious term it may not be a good idea even if he would be a good choice otherwise.

I'd say that Powell may change his mind. I know he shot the idea down during the republican primary cycle leading up to the 2000 election but things are very different now, you never know what the next 4 years will do for him.

My gut feeling is Giuliani vs. Hillary in 2008.

I just don't think we will field Hilary. I wouldn't vote for her, and we would like to win one ya know.

To win, the Dems first will have to reclaim their party back from the fringe dwellers.

Speaking of which, I notice both Mike al-Moore's site and the Democratic Underground are closed today.

I think we all should start a write in campaign to McCains office since somehow I think almost all of us here can agree with him as a good person to be president. And I think America would agree with him as a President. I think if he ran, we would see an electoral landslide notseen since Reagan/Mondale since the democratic candidate would pale in almost all respects to McCain. ESPECIALLY IF ITS HILLARY.

So yeah, DBB'ers for McCain '08. How bout it?

I could live with McCain as president. Especially if he beats Billary. Of course, I think Rudy would make an amazing president himself, if he chooses to run.

Gooberman wrote:all I need to do to become a full fledged republican, is only care about me.

Check out this nice, color-coded state-by-state giving table.

As for the rest of the aftermath...

I have to say, the most disappointing thing about the aftermath of this election, so far, has been the reactions here in Seattle -- every time I go into the labs or into class, it seems someone's talking about "why we lost the election" and they're all repeating the same "gay marriage" or "Diebold" memes, rather than actually getting out and talking to Bush supporters and figuring out what they're about. Michael Moore deciding that not enough people bought the message of F911 so he has to make a new one... ugh. I don't know how many times I've seen a Democrat post his "why I voted for Bush" statements and basically be told "you're no Democrat" or "I hate you".

Democracy does best when there are (at least) two parties engaging in dialogue with each other and actively trying to address the concerns of the people. It fails when one of the parties can't get out of its name-calling, conspiracy-theory-mongering funk.

One of the most encouraging things about this election has been the response here on the DBB. It's so refreshing to come to a place where at least some of the people on opposite sides are on speaking terms. It's nice to see people on opposite sides actually attempting to address each other's concerns, instead of just dismissing them.

OK, so the most encouraging thing was the fact that my guys pretty much dominated the election. But the reaction here was pretty good too.

Lothar wrote:Check out this nice, color-coded state-by-state giving table.

First: Woosh on the issues I was actually talking about.

Second:

Definitions of Variables: "Percent of Returns with Itemized Charitable Deductions (ICDs): "

The percentage of taxpayers itemizing charitable deductions (call them "donors" for conciseness). This is the aggregate data from the Internal Revenue Service on taxpayers who itemize and take a charitable deduction for their contributions. This information however, covers less than 30 percent of all US taxpayers, as over 70 percent take a standard deduction and do not itemize. Although the proportion of itemizing taxpayers is relatively small, their charitable deductions do represent about 60 percent of the total estimated charitable contributions in the United States (The Urban Institute, 2001)

I seriously hope you are joking by drawing any conclusions about "generosity" based on this!

When I give a homeless person $5 on the street, the government knows nothing about it. When a poor man lends another poor man $100 to pay down his credit card bill, he doesn't claim it on his taxes. Honestly, I think even taking "charitable deductions" is an upper/middle class thing. But I don't care to argue about that.....please don't write me a five page essay....I'm seriously thinking of editing out that last remark now.

99.99% of your average Joeâ??s generosity, is not claimed on their taxes. To go further, even in comparing percentages of income: If a poor man gives 0.05% of his income that could really be a sacrifice for him because he is on such a tight budget. If a rich person gives 75% of their income it could not phase them one bit.

Both men are generous: However you certainly cannot make the claim that the rich man is more generous, you can only claim that the rich man has an easier time being generous.


"There are lies, damned lies, and then statistics" -Mark Twain

Who said anything about the rich? I never said the "rich" were more generous -- just pointed out that red states are more generous (if you'd read the table carefully you'd notice red states are also poorer on average.) I said nothing about "the rich"; that's your own stereotype about Republicans coming through. (And I agree that tax deductions don't show the whole picture... but they do show some of it. Don't dismiss them out of hand.)

With all due respect, Goob, I didn't "whoosh" on the issues you were talking about. I merely demonstrated a single example of this larger point:

Republicans aren't "less caring about the poor", for the most part. At least not in my experience (and I know a whole lot of Republicans and a whole lot of Democrats.) Rather, they mostly think it should be up to individuals, churches, and other local groups (rather than the government) to help out the poor. This includes those on health care -- I, as a Republican, would rather have health care for the poor taken care of on the local level rather than by the federal government.

Oh, and the poor aren't without *health care* -- they're without *health insurance*. There are still places they can go to get health care. I have plenty of poor friends who have access to the same health care as I do, only they don't get a disgusting bill for it at the end.

Really, I wasn't even so much addressing the generosity of Republicans as I was challenging your statement that you'd have to "give up caring about ______" if you became a Republican, as if the party is so shallow that we don't want people who care about those things. Either party you're a part of, you're going to disagree with some of what they stand for -- so why not come join the party that doesn't embrace Michael Moore?

"why we lost the election" and they're all repeating the same "gay marriage"

Tell these knuckle heads that in the states that voted on gay marriage amendments that something like 45% of democrats voted to oppose gay marriage. This typifys how out of touch many liberals are with what the average american thinks and believes. The democrats lost the election because far left or even far right ideology is not america.

woodchip wrote:in the states that voted on gay marriage amendments that something like 45% of democrats voted to oppose gay marriage.

I don't think it was that high... but the amendments all passed with large margins, even in states that went to Kerry by several points. Even Oregon passed a gay marriage ban by something like 57-43.

Yeah, the gay marriage issue probably hurt Kerry some -- but overall, it didn't provide anything close to what the margin actually was. The main issue I've heard (talking to a LOT of people) is the fact that the Dems embraced people like Michael Moore who think terrorism isn't a real issue, and put forth a candidate whose anti-war record makes him completely untrustworthy (and even a traitor) in the minds of a lot of people. The party simply had no credibility when it came to terrorism-related issues, despite the claims that "America is no safer today".