Talk Elections

Just wondering... I did think he would win... please be honest.

Yes

He had momentum going into election day.  I thought it was going to be close, but Kerry was going to win close in Ohio.

I can see Dems thinking they might win in Ohio.  However, Virginia and West Virginia?  With  Kerry's Senate voting record?  That's, well, optimistic.

Yeah, he could've and should've won.  I'll admit, he wasn't my favorite choice for candidate, but he was indeed an excellent candidate, and should have won.  He had the support to do so.

I thought he would win Florida and Ohio, yes.  Florida shocked me, it wasn't even close.

No. If you had changed the question to have COULD in it instead of WOULD, then yes. I was actually impressed by how well Kerry did. I suspected that the polls, which were giving Bush a 2% lead or so, were underestimating GOP support due to changes in the voter registration balance, overestimation of turnout and stronger GOP GOTV efforts. I had Bush sweeping most of the swing states. The only prediction I can be somewhat proud of is calling MN as lean Kerry when most people thought it was a tossup.

Hard to say.  If, as Gustaf says, you changed "would" to "could", then yes, definitely.  I definitely think that the possibility was there.  I was kind of optomistic the morning of November 2, so I said yes.

COULD yes. Read my little essay on Uncertainty ;-)

Aha... now WV is a state that Kerry should have won or at the very least come close in. The Kerry campaign in WV deserves to be framed as an example of what not to do and [ah... I'm ranting again. Sorry. Basically the Kerry campaign (which led in WV until the RNC) began to slowly pull resources out starting, perversely, in the early summer despite the solid poll numbers. They also pissed off the local union and party bosses (some were secretly aiding the Bush campaign), failed to listen to Byrd's advice ("get coal dust on your face"=hammer Bush on the probably relaxing of mine safety regulations, the cancelling that church visit, a crass and pointless gesture, was the last straw]

A liberal voting record's not really a problem in WV. You just need to stress economic issues and the D after you're name usually gets you in. Ask Senator Rockefeller (although now is the time for a little known fact: the reason why Dukakis squeaked by in WV was because of Arch Moore's corrupt activities tarnished the GOP in WV, Moore was up for re-election and got slaughtered by Gaston Capeton who ran well ahead of Dukakis in the state).

WV is a reliably Democratic State - at the local, state, and congressional level.  No longer at the presidential level.  Things like partial birth abortion and gun control have finally done the national Democratic nominees in.  Nominate a Va governor Warner and it's a different story.  However, someone like that is not going to get the nomination.  Democratic presidential primary voters are just too liberal.

BTW, Hillary gets killed there in 2008.  Take it to the bank.

Warner has a good chance at getting the nomination if he runs.

If the party was rational, I'd agree with you.  However, these are not pragmatic people that show up to vote in presidential primaries.  (in either party) They are the ideologues.

How true. Which is why Dean won a landslide in Iowa (with his scream really firing up those damned whacko commie liberals) before surging to victory in New Hampshire and every other primary...

There would be little point in electing someone who would please the likes of the born agains in a state like West Virginia.  If the Democratic Party were to truly abase itself to the voters in Jesusland, it would loose its base in the enlightened areas of the country.  Even if it did elect a 'conservative' Democrat Southerns and that ilk would like, how would that be any better than a Republican?

Senator Al, you are assuming that Kerry was a rational choice.

He was "rational" and electable to the ideologues who vote in the Democratic Party.  Incredibly, to them, he was pretty moderate.

In reality (outside the lefty cacoon) America didn't see him as so electable. or moderate enough.

Nominating a Warner is a much bigger leap than nominating a Kerry in the very liberal Democratic Party.  The two are vastly different on many issues.

Kerry was moderate.  Funny how things change, but say 40 years ago he would've been comparable to a Rockefeller Republican.

Umm, liberals already disagree with Kerry on perhaps half of the issues.

Come on opedo.  Moderate?  With that voting record?  Well, only in  today's Democratic Party would he be considered a "moderate".

And that's the problem with the Democratic Party these days.  Too far left.  If only they didn't have to have the nominee go through that pesky damned general election.

However, I agree with you that the Democratic Party should remain ideologically pure.  (probably for different reasons).

Fern, please tell me on which issues Kerry split with liberals.

47-48% is pretty respectable IMO. I agree that he wasn't the best candidate (that was Gephardt but, as in 1988, his campaign ran out of money) but it's not as though he was hammered nationally.

No, he wasn't buried or anything like that.

Nope.

No!

It's funny, I suppose, that this poll is going a lot differently than the comments, so I'll be one of the few to be honest.

I did. I did on November 2nd. I did thanks to the exit polls, thanks to Tradesports. And people put their money where their mouth is - Tradesports clearly showed that I wasn't the only one fooled.

I did not on November 1st. I thought we were going to lose it unless we were going to be amazed by some sort of movement we never realized. A lot of Republicans said pollsters were significantly underestimating the GOP GOTV machine. They weren't. In the end, the polls were pretty much right. Bush would win solidly, but not hugely.

My general feeling was that Kerry could win, but not necessarily. I never thought that a Kerry win was certain. At some points, when Kerry was up nationally by a good margin, I thought he was in good shape.

Was I ever convinced Kerry would win? No way. Did I ever thing Kerry had the advantage? Absolutely.

And like anyone, no matter how much they talked, I was not certain who won until shortly after 7 PM PST.

I was nervous as a cat.  I could see it going either way.  Sometimes, I'd feel better after looking at the Rasmussen poll, but then there was always Zogby lurking with his "it's Kerry's to lose" comments.  Always felt fairly good about Florida, but nervous about Ohio - and an Ohio loss without a compensating Wisconsin and Iowa win meant the election could go Kerry's way.

Glad it's over.

He could have won, he needed 175,000 votes more.

My point was that the media-generated idea of what is 'moderate' has changed radically since the 1960's.  In those days Kerry would've been considered a moderate, not very liberal - I'd say comparable to the Rockefeller Republicans.  Since that time the national discourse has been skewed, partly by the rise of the cults, and partly by media bias.

The Democratic party hasn't moved left since the 1960's.. in fact it has moved a good deal to the Right.  But the general perception of the political spectrum has moved very far to the Right in the US.  Of course historically and intellectually speaking, both Kerry and Bush are very right wing.

Big mistakes by Kerry:

Not responding immediately to the attacks about his Vietnam service.
Declaring that he would have gone to war even if he had known that Sadam does not have WMD.
All his criticism over the war was about poor performance and not about the main issue – the deceit.
He probably could have done more to prevent (or at least to delay) the decision of the Massachusetts supreme court about gays marriages.
 

Responding to the swiftboat vets would have been easy as pie.  Just sign the forms releasing his military records.  Nope, he didn't want to do that.  Such a phony.

Now let me see, was Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968 with the CIA man who gave him a 'lucky hat,' as he previously claimed?

Disappointed as I am in Kerry, the possibility was definitely there. He came out of no where, had at least the potential to compete with Republican spending and was generally considered the winner of all three debates. However, when it comes down to it, "anybody but Bush" apparently just wasn't enough.

I honestly don't think Kerry tried to win.. it really looked as though he were throwing the election.

Depends on when.

I supported Kerry against Bush and would do so again. In fact, I would have endorsed a monkey had it run against Bush. He shouldn't have even made it through the primaries unopposed he's that incompetent

I predicted narrow Kerry win 291 to 247 - but deep down I had a gut instinct the incumbent would pull it off!

Dave

There's a certain type of gaffe a candidate makes that reveals when they really, really want to win. For example-

Ford 1976: Eastern Europe is not under Soviet domination.
Carter 1980: If Reagan wins it will turn groups against one another such as Jew against Gentile.
Mondale 1984: Reagan will raise taxes but he won't tell you... I just did.
Dukakis 1988: completely stumped on the death penalty question.
Gore 2000: not a gaffe, but going sleepless the last 48 hours of the campaign and staying up to the wee hours of the morning, (then endorsing Dean in 2003...)

All these losing candidates (or tying in the case of Gore), wanted to win badly. These three I'm not so sure

George HW Bush, Bob Dole, John Kerry

I think these candidates may have simply gave up at one point and played the 'role' of candidate from then on out. Just actors play roles in plays... we do what is expected of us.

I thought that he could have won the election, infact i had a bet on that he would and lost €20. I thought that he would get ohio and florida. karl rove earned his salery.

I never really thought he was going to win.

Nope, due to conventional wisdom.

I felt the same way.  I did expect Kerry to make it competitive in Virginia with the addition of Edwards to the ticket but they cut funding the campaign in the state sometime in August 2004.  Likewise in West Virginia.  I was surprised when Kerry lost Ohio and failed to come close in Florida, though.  So yes, I did think he would win.

Something many forget about things here in Ohio...the big cities make the state a swing state...75% of Ohio is country...trust me, I've driven through it. I never had a doubt that Bush would win Ohio, and I never doubted Florida. However, Bush's 5 point Florida win was a bit more than I expected.

Pennsylvania was a letdown. I always thought Kerry would win it...but, really...it sucks.

You never had any doubt, even when he was up in the polls?

I wish I had your stalwartness.

Nope. Im dead serious. I always knew he would win Ohio and Florida.

I guess you have pretty high confidence in those Republican secretary of States.

I was the guy who was consistently saying, "Kerry should pull out of Florida (and put money into WV and OH)."  We might have had a different result (in OH at least) had my advise been taken.

Naso, you thought Bush would win 40+ states, something you were always bringing up as a possibility. DOn't try and sound like you were a good predictor.

I figured Bush was gonna win, I actually over-estimated his win by quite a margin. On election night though, I got my hopes up, seeing the high turn-out. But it died quickly.

He probably would have...until that disasterous first debate. Bush gained a large amount of poll momentum after the convention...and held it for most of September. He won 31 states....add in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire....36 states. So...not all that farfetched...considering what a phony dork Kerry was considered until October.

To get 10 states Kerry would need MA, RI, VT, NY, MD, IL, CT, CA, HI, ME. Then Delaware to reach 11. In a country this polarized, that's a ridiculous idea. You seriously think Bush would have reached 60% of the popular vote (the required swing), performing the best result since LBJ, beating Reagan? You think Bush is more popular than Reagan was?

Yes, I did -up until he lost Florida and Ohio.  It was particularly heartbreaking to see that Bush won by a larger margin than he did in 2000, especially considering that we gave it our all, and this was the best that we could do in terms of voter turnout. 

Yes, mainly because his opponent was Bush. I misunderestimated the stupidity of the American populace, perhaps. Then again, only 60% voted, so that's a bit unfair.

Not a very nice comment, hugh.  Very elitist.

If I used that stupid eye-rolling icon, this would be the place.

^^^^^

Yes, I thought that he would. I tend to be an optimist, though.

I honestly did up until Election Night. Then I realized Ohio would vote for Bush and send him back to the White House. But I'm the world's biggest optimist. :)

I knew he would all along.  My elation peaked when I saw the exit poll numbers, only to have it all crash down as the night wore on.

I thought so until they called West Virginia.  Then I was like sh*t.  Then he lost Missouri, Arkansas, and Tennessee and I was like oh hell no.  i was having an election party with my liberal friends and none of us had heard exit polls so we assumed it was still close, but it was still very sad.  My hopes picked up when FOX was the first to declare a Kerry win in New Hampshire, which Gore hadn't won and the fact that Kerry was leading late in Nevada.  Then NBC called Ohio.  And I was frantically searching the other networks for answers, but they hadn't called Ohio and so I went to bed since it was late and I was depressed as hell assuming a Bush victory.  Almost didn't make it to school on Wednesday I was so dejected.  Then I heard Kerry still had a chance in Ohio, except in my Computer class I saw on CNN.com that Kerry was going to decide.  And finally I decided Kerry wouldn't win.  So there's my election story. :)

Actually, I was one of the people who thought about 3PM in the afternoon, when Bush tanked on Tradesports that I should wager about $100 on him, remembering that the exit polls also screwed up bigtime in 2000 and could well do so again (Florida didn't look right, per my conversations with Vorlon).  Didn't do it.  Should've, could've....

Anyway, I thought most of the time that Kerry could win, not would.  I thought that Bush would win, had he put in a great performance in the 1st debate, but that didn't happen.  The Republican base was riled up all along, the Democrats not necessarily.  As Vorlon said, a +5% Republican lead could turn into +10% based on some of the turnout models.  But Bush blew the 1st debate and that never materialized.

The time when I became convinced Kerry would lose was about 9 PM (EST), when the Florida results became obvious through examining county totals.  Then I started to examine Ohio's and the numbers from Cuyahoga were not simply enough to pull through.  It was over then.

In my prediction right before election day, I got only one state wrong. However, that was the critical state of Ohio.

Same here, as can be seen with the link to my prediction maps under my avatar. I did think Ohio would go for Kerry due to the poor economy there; otherwise I got the other 50 states right.

You actually though Kerry was going to win West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee? Haha, what an idiot.

I guess. I dunno, 50/50. I always figured it'd be close (shocking, huh?)

I didn't follow any state by state polls at the time leading up.

But really, I thought he might pick up one, but the real issue was how quickly they were called.

Yes, if you were surprised by that you obviously didn't pay that much attention throughout the whole election.

This was my prediction about 4 hours before returns came in.

()

Kerry - 289
Bush - 249

FYI This was my prediction in 2000

()

Gore - 287
Bush - 251

I stand by that. Americans did something really, really stupid, or at least 60% of them did.

I love that, criticise the wisdom of voting for Bush... it's elitist. Criticise the wisdom of voting for Kerry or Gore or Clinton... it's perfectly understandable.

100 percent of voters chose Bush?

Using your poor logic, 30% of Americans did something really, really stupid.

fair enough. Although I could expand it to meaning everyone who took part in the farce that was the 2004 election ;)

I wish I still had the file of the "Mike Naso Show" from November 1, 2004 when I made my predictions. I remember I said:

- Kerry will win Pennsylvania
- Bush will win Florida
- Bush will win Ohio

Everyone kept saying that "Ohio's bad economy will swing the state to Kerry." I was like, I live here...it's clearly for Bush. That's why I'm beginning to doubt the naysayers who say that Ohio will "almost certainly go to the Democrats in 2008".

Didn't you predict that Ken Blackwell would win?

I always knew Bush would win - I was never in any doubt.

Ohio in 2008 should be interesting since there are no statewide offices up that year.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say the result will be heavily dependent on Strickland's approval rating during the election even though he won't be on the ballot.

You're very nice, aren't you?

For a time, Yes, because my parents thought that he would win (I was 12 at the time).

I thought that John Kerry would win... until just before I went to vote, I flipped through the channels and found some televangelist telling his audience to vote "as if your salvation depends on how you vote". Then I came to the conclusion that people being raped economically could vote in favor of the puppet (Dubya) of those raping them.

America still has voters who fall for that pitch; not so many any more.

I can see it right now. Kerry flying around Vietnam on Air Force 1.

Kerr couldnt have done any worse as president than the train wreck we had

I still never worried about such a thing.

I thought he had a chance, though he was still the underdog. I figured it would come down to Ohio. It became pretty apparent as the night went on that Bush would probably pull it out.

That night started out looking like a landslide but as I predicted it came down to Ohio figuratively. The same can be said for Texas or Florida in that case too. I'm still happy to have picked every single state right.

Based on the exit polls of that day I thought Kerry was gonna slaughter him, guess I should have learned my lesson from Florida in 2000.

You actually believed an exit poll? You know Republicans purposely don't participate in those. Did you really not know how biased exit polls were to the left in 2004?

Well I guess its pretty obvious now, I mean the exit polls had Kerry get 55%, 56% of the vote. I didnt think they were gonna be off that bad.

I remember telling an exit poller to piss off.

Why?

Stop bumping old threads.

Alas it makes me miss some older posters :(

Because he would've been a democrat.

Goldmined.

Derek that makes no sense, but yet agian that doesnt suprise me.

Why would it surprise anyone? It's liberals who work for the media.

Wow I could have sworn that everyone on fox news were right wing nut jobs, had no idea they were liberal. Thanks for straightening that out.

No problem. Juan Williams, Bob Becktel, Susan Estrich, Alan Colmes. Look up more if you want.

He was being sarcastic.

Why are you trolling on a thread that hasn't been used in over a month? Did someone hack into this guy's account?

You're the troll here.