2004 Presidential Election Poll

danbo wrote: Kerry was the WRONG candidate. Period. No one believed he could do the job and the other people were operating off mob mentality. Ewwww, Hilary? Come on GDUB, no one could be that stupid to throw her Socialistic arse into the mix. The Dems need to redifine their objective. MCcain and Miller. I'd be happy with either man.

The democratic party and voters are. She frightens me more than Kerry. I hope you're right Danbo. Zel Miller is likeable enough, but REALLY old. Almost as old as Threefates.

My point is that the Dems threw out a despicable candidate, tried to dress him up as a messiah and fell flat on their faces. Clinton politics gotta go. A shiney turd is still a piece of sh*t. If you are going to choose the lesser of two evils, you damn well better know what BOTH of those evils are about. Kerry didn;t even have a platform other than, "I'm not Bush." He rufused to say what he was about without leaving himself and out.

Check out Democrat Zel Miller or even Joe Lieberman. Those guys had a much better stand on the issues.

Moderation is the key, in life, social aspects and politics.  

What you people fail to understand is sometimes you have to vote against something rather than for something. Right wing politics are divisive, elitist,racist, xenophobic and yes, homophobic. You might not like the alternative, in this case Kerry or for that matter the Democrats, but if they are the best way of defeating Bush and his cronies then so be it.This is voting for the lesser of two evils and has worked remarkably well in the UK where people who are not Socialist by nature have used their vote as a protest to oust the Conservatives (ie right wing=Republicans) who represented the worst of British politics with their croneyism and institutional corruption.

Danbo, you are a smart guy and very likeable but what you say above sounds like you excusing yourself for doing something naughty. You are emotional (hell I didnt like your outburst against me but at least you had the balls to write it!) but sometimes you have to be practical about these things. Based on what you wrote above, you should have voted Democrat as a vote against Bush. The Democrats may be "pussies" but they have one major advantage: THEY ARE NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY,JOHN KERRY LOOKS LIKE A PRAT BUT HE IS NOT GEORGE W BUSH! That should suffice. Government takes care of itself most of the time-tax returns keep getting filed, routine bills still get passed, but at least you wouldnt have the biggest threat to world safety we've ever seen still in office. That is what it is all about-THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS given the realistic choice of two options. No doctor likes amputing a limb but sometimes it is the only choice that is available.

How funny is it that the biggest margin in the election (90% Kerry, 9% Bush) came from DC...the same place that once again re-elected that crack-smoking whoremonger mayor...maybe the left really does have a morality problem.

kinda makes me think of that line from Annie Hall: "The rest of the country looks upon New York like we're Left-Wing, Communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers. I think of us that way sometimes and I live here!".

Personally I'm glad that it's not so tight like 4 years ago.

Had it been 50:50 then the mandate for Bush to preceed on the course it has gone would be very weak, and a schism in politics and a forthcoming devidence in amerika's people could set it all off course. though I definetly do not agree with GWB, I think a united amerika is still of big importance. (excuse my english, in dutch it makes more sense I suppose)

For good or bad GWB is president.  I saw someone say that the Libretarian and the Green party had better ideas and they would have made better preidential candidates.  OK, if you really feel the system holds them down from people finding out about them I disagree. The internet is there and there are plenty of places to go to find out whatever you want about any one of the issues or candidates.  You get a voter booklet ever year that has a wealth of information on the candidates and propositons.  If you base your choice on political advertising, mailers, TV news than you are a fool.  It comes down to this simple fact instead of trying to blame it something else you just have to see that for most of this country GWB represents them and the way they think and feel about a lot of things. Not only GWB but the Republican party in general. I am not saying I agree but this is the way it is and no one here or in Europe or Asia or anywhere else is going to change it. Not this year.

As for America and this election the one thing that really stood out for me was the congressional races in this state who’s name the governor cannot pronounce (California). Here is an area where the two party system does hold things down. Not one of the incumbants lost!  Only in two of the races did the incumbent have UNDER 60% of the vote! Of those two only one was under a 10% margin and it was 8%. Most of them were in 65-69% range for the incumbent some over 75%. That is truly insane. Why even vote? Just have the parties appoint the next representative for life? It would save a lot money.
Redistricting is political and wrong it has nothing to do with being fair or even being part of a democracy and somehow it has to change. In this state we would have to change the makeup of our legislature but because of the redistricting lines that will never happen. How can we call ourselves a democracy when this is allowed to go on.

Garion81 wrote: James Lee wrote: Long-term blow for democrats: not only didn't Kerry win, but the next presidential race will probably feature Hilary Clinton. Maybe the dems should just disband and pursue solo careers. I agree unless they can find a sinister dwarf to lead them to land of popular acceptance.

There is! His name is Reed Lover