Dems: Did you really think Kerry would win?

[qwerty]

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

[True Democrat]

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.

[agcatter]

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.

[Josh]

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.

[HockeyDude]

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

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gabu]

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.

[Sibboleth]

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

[Sibboleth]

West Virginia?  With  Kerry's Senate voting record?  That's, well, optimistic.

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).

[agcatter]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[agcatter]

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.

[Sibboleth]

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...

[opebo]

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.

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?

[agcatter]

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.

[opebo]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

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

[agcatter]

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.

[Sibboleth]

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.

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.

[agcatter]

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

[ilikeverin]

Nope.

[CARLHAYDEN]

No!

[Grad Students are the Worst]

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.

[agcatter]

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.

[phk]

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