Why Did Kerry Lose? - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-29-2004, 05:32 PM   #106
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BOCAGATOR


..Then take back HOLLYWOOD!!!
From who?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-29-2004, 11:45 PM   #107
The Fly
 
Stonewall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Manhattan, N.Y.
Posts: 152
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Let's be Gayly klear!

Quote:
Originally posted by MacFistoWannabe
If he didn't do that, I wouldn't have voted in this election.
M.F. Wannabe: It's not like U not to be clear -- is it? The CHENEYS have two daughters. Oddly, KERRY didn't mention that fact nor the fact that the other daughter, LIZ, is straight and who is married with 1-2-3-4 children! He gave the false impression that the CHENEYS had one daughter (to make it 'worse') and she is Gay. It was KERRY "outing" and being shamefully gratuitous of the other daughter, publicly stating on national t.v. that the CHENEYS have a "Lez-bean" daughter! He could have said the un-harsh term "Gay" but that would have lessened his intended =shock= value. And, KERRY, of course, left out her name -- MARY -- making her even less of a person and removed. Yes, even so MARY is openly Gay within her community and in business, it nonetheless was not known to over 50,000,000 television viewers! This unnecessary and inappropriate gesture unquestionably showed the sleazy side of KERRY! Mama LYNN CHENEY fixed his flat ass. She held a press condference about it. As I recall, she said that "KERRY was not a good man" at least three very separate times. Trust me, that resonated with folks. Anyway, when KERRY pulled that lowdown stunt in that presidential debate, my immediate reaction was: "He lost the election!" And, he did.

Thanx, M.F., for bearing the fruit on that one. A lot of people had your same raection.
__________________

__________________
Stonewall is offline  
Old 12-14-2004, 10:50 PM   #108
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Quote:
Several factors contributed to 'lost' voters

By Michael Powell and Peter Slevin
The Washington Post

Updated: 11:31 p.m. ET Dec. 14, 2004

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Tanya Thivener's is a tale of two voting precincts in Franklin County. In her city neighborhood, which is vastly Democratic and majority black, the 38-year-old mortgage broker found a line snaking out of the precinct door.

She stood in line for four hours -- one hour in the rain -- and watched dozens of potential voters mutter in disgust and walk away without casting a ballot. Afterward, Thivener hopped in her car and drove to her mother's house, in the vastly Republican and majority white suburb of Harrisburg. How long, she asked, did it take her to vote?

Fifteen minutes, her mother replied.

"It was . . . poor planning," Thivener said. "County officials knew they had this huge increase in registrations, and yet there weren't enough machines in the city. You really hope this wasn't intentional."

Electoral problems prevented many thousands of Ohioans from voting on Nov. 2. In Columbus, bipartisan estimates say that 5,000 to 15,000 frustrated voters turned away without casting ballots. It is unlikely that such "lost" voters would have changed the election result -- Ohio tipped to President Bush by a 118,000-vote margin and cemented his electoral college majority.

But similar problems occurred across the state and fueled protest marches and demands for a recount. The foul-ups appeared particularly acute in Democratic-leaning districts, according to interviews with voters, poll workers, election observers and election board and party officials, as well as an examination of precinct voting patterns in several cities.

In Cleveland, poorly trained poll workers apparently gave faulty instructions to voters that led to the disqualification of thousands of provisional ballots and misdirected several hundred votes to third-party candidates. In Youngstown, 25 electronic machines transferred an unknown number of votes for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to the Bush column.

In Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo, and on college campuses, election officials allocated far too few voting machines to busy precincts, with the result that voters stood on line as long as 10 hours -- many leaving without voting. Some longtime voters discovered their registrations had been purged.

'Disenfranchsing people'
"There isn't enough to prove fraud, but there have been very significant problems in running elections in Ohio this year that demand reform," said Edward B. Foley, who is director of the election law program at the Ohio State University law school and a former Ohio state solicitor. "We clearly ended up disenfranchising people, and I don't want to minimize that."

Franklin County election officials -- evenly split between Republicans and Democrats -- say they allocated machines based on past voting patterns and their best estimate of where more were needed. But they acknowledge having too few machines to cope with an additional 102,000 registered voters.

Ohio is not particularly unusual. After the 2000 election debacle, which ended with a 36-day partisan standoff in Florida and an election decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002. The intent was to help states upgrade aging voting machines and ensure that eligible voters are not turned away. To a point, it has had the desired effect.

"Viewed dispassionately, the national elections ran much more smoothly than in 2000," said Charles Stewart III, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a specialist in voting behavior and methodology. Because of improved technology "nationwide, we counted perhaps 1 million votes that we would have lost four years ago."

But much work remains. Congress imposed only the minimal national standards and included too few dollars. Thousands of precincts -- including 70 percent of Ohio's machines -- still use punch-card ballots, which have a high error rate. A patchwork quilt of state rules governs voter registration and provisional ballots. (Provisional ballots are given to voters whose names do not appear on registration rolls -- studies show that minorities and poor voters cast a disproportionate number of such ballots.) Ohio recorded 153,000 provisional ballots. But in Georgia, one-third of the election districts did not record a single provisional ballot in 2004.

In Florida, ground zero for 2000's election meltdown, professors and graduate students from the University of California at Berkeley studied this year's voting results, contrasting counties that had electronic voting machines with those that used traditional voting methods. They concluded, based on voting and population trends and other indicators, that irregularities associated with machines in three traditionally Democratic counties in southern Florida may have delivered at least 130,000 excess votes for Bush in a state the president won by about 381,000 votes. The study prompted heated critiques from some polling experts.

Stewart of MIT was skeptical, too. But he ran the numbers and came up with the same result. "You can't break it; I've tried," Stewart said. "There's something funky in the results from the electronic machine Democratic counties."

Berkeley sociologist Michael Hout, who directed the study, said the problem in Florida probably lies with the technology. (Florida's touch-screen machines lack paper records.) "I've always viewed this as a software problem, not a corruption problem," he said. "We'd never tolerate this level of errors with an ATM. The problem is that we continue to do democracy on the cheap."

Heated run-up
By October, the Bush and Kerry campaigns knew that this midwestern state was a crucial battleground. Each side assembled armies of 3,000 lawyers and paralegals, and unaffiliated organizations poured in thousands more volunteers. Both parties filed lawsuits challenging rules and registrations.

Two decisions proved pivotal.

Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, who was co-chairman of the Bush campaign in Ohio, decided to strictly interpret a state law governing provisional ballots. He ruled that voters must cast provisional ballots not merely in the county but in the precise precinct where they reside. For cities such as Cleveland and Cincinnati, where officials long accepted provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, the ruling promised to disqualify many voters. "It is a headache to take those ballots, but the alternative is disenfranchisement," said Michael Vu, director of the Cuyahoga Board of Elections, which includes Cleveland.

Earlier this year, state officials also decided to delay the purchase of touch-screen machines, citing worries about the security of the vote. That left many Ohio counties with too few machines. County boards are split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, and control the type of machines and their distribution. In Cuyahoga County, officials decided to quickly rent hundreds of additional voting machines.

Other counties decided to muddle through. At Kenyon College, a surge of late registrations promised a record vote -- but Knox County officials allocated two machines, just as in past elections. In voter-rich Franklin County, which encompasses the state capital of Columbus, election officials decided to make do with 2,866 machines, even though their analysis showed that the county needed 5,000 machines.

"Does it make any sense to purchase more machines just for one election?" asked Michael R. Hackett, deputy director of the Board of Elections. "I'll give you the answer: no."

On Election Day, more than 5.7 million Ohioans voted, 900,000 more voters than in 2000.

In Toledo, Dayton, Columbus and Akron, and on the campuses at Ohio State and Kenyon, long lines formed on Election Day, and hundreds of voters stood in the rain for hours. In Columbus, Sarah Locke, 54, drove to vote with her daughter and her parents at a church in the predominantly black southeast. It was jammed. Old women leaned heavily on walkers, and some people walked out, complaining that bosses would not excuse their lateness.

"It was really demeaning," Locke said. "I never remembered it being this bad."

Some regular voters filed affidavits stating that their registrations had been expunged. "I'm 52, and I've voted in every single election," Kathy Janoski of Columbus said. "They kept telling me, 'You must be mistaken about your precinct.' I told them this is where I've always voted. I felt like I'd been scrubbed off the rolls."

Aftermath of Nov. 2
After the election, local political activists seeking a recount analyzed how Franklin County officials distributed voting machines. They found that 27 of the 30 wards with the most machines per registered voter showed majorities for Bush. At the other end of the spectrum, six of the seven wards with the fewest machines delivered large margins for Kerry.

Voters in most Democratic wards experienced five-hour waits, and turnout was lower than expected. "I don't know if it's by accident or design, but I counted a dozen people walking away from the line in my precinct in Columbus," said Robert Fitrakis, a professor at Columbus State Community College and a lawyer involved in a legal challenge to certifying the vote.

Franklin County officials say they allocated machines according to instinct and science. But Hackett, the deputy director, acknowledged the need to examine the issue more carefully. "When the dust settles, we'll have to look more closely at this," he said.

In Knox County, some Kenyon College students waited 10 hours to vote. "They had to skip classes and skip work," said Matthew Segal, a 19-year-old student.

In northeastern Ohio, in the fading industrial city of Youngstown, Jeanne White, a veteran voter and manager at the Buckeye Review, an African-American newspaper, stepped into the booth, pushed the button for Kerry -- and watched her vote jump to the Bush column. "I saw what happened; I started screaming: 'They're cheating again and they're starting early!' "

It was not her imagination. Twenty-five machines in Youngstown experienced what election officials called "calibration problems." "It happens every election," said Thomas McCabe, deputy director of elections for Mahoning County, which covers Youngstown. "It's something we have to live with, and we can fix it."

As expected, there were more provisional ballots, and officials disqualified about 23 percent. In Hamilton County, which encompasses Cincinnati and its suburbs, 1,110 provisional ballots got tossed out because people voted in the wrong precinct. In about 40 percent of those cases, voters found the right polling place -- which contained multiple precincts -- but workers directed them to the wrong table.

In Cleveland, officials disqualified about one-third of the provisional ballots. Vu, the election board chief, said that some poll workers may have also mixed up their punch-card styluses -- that would account for why a few overwhelmingly Democratic precincts recorded large numbers of votes for conservative third-party candidates.

Still, state officials saw little to apologize for, particularly in the case of provisional ballots. A recent count of provisional ballots sliced 18,000 votes off Bush's margin in Ohio. "In Washington, D.C., a voter who casts a ballot in the wrong precinct cannot have that ballot counted," said Carlo LoParo, a spokesman for Blackwell. "Yet in Ohio, it was 'voter suppression' and 'voter disenfranchisement.' "

In the days after the election, as voters swapped stories, anger and talk of Republican conspiracies mounted. "A lot of folks who, having put an enormous amount of energy into this campaign and having believed in the righteousness of their cause, can't believe that we lost," said Tim Burke, chairman of the Hamilton County election board.

Most senior state officials, Republican and Democratic alike, tend to play down the anger. National Democrats -- including the chief counsel for Kerry's campaign in Ohio -- say they expect the recount to confirm Bush's victory.

But that official view contrasts sharply with the bubbling anger heard among rank-and-file Democrats. While some promote conspiratorial theories, most have a straightforward bottom line. "A lot of people left in the four hours I waited," recalled Thivener, the mortgage broker from Columbus. "A lot of them were young black men who were saying over and over: 'We knew this would happen.'

"How," she asked, "is that good for democracy?"

Slevin reported from Cincinnati. Special correspondents
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-14-2004, 10:57 PM   #109
Refugee
 
knox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 1,611
Local Time: 06:03 AM
The line here at Purdue was about two hours long; thankfully, I voted absentee in Chicago.

The problem is that they don't have enough machines. The solution is clear: buy more machines.

Any county that experienced these problems in 2004 that has the same problem in 2006 is not being adminstered properly.
__________________
knox is offline  
Old 12-15-2004, 09:52 AM   #110
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: OC
Posts: 711
Local Time: 11:03 AM
Re: Why Did Kerry Lose?

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
To the Kerry supporters, why did he lose the election? I ask this question in the context of "what would you do differently?"

(this is not a place to troll with yet more stupid people voted for Bush comments - the idea is to re-focus the message, re-draft the game plan, outline the qualities of the best candidate if the DNC is to take the White House in 2008)

Neither candidate championed the poor as a "moral value" or made the war in Iraq a religious matter.
by Jim Wallis

A flawed exit poll question has sparked an enormous and important political debate in America, one that will be with us far beyond this election. Asked to name the most important issue that influenced their vote, 22 percent of voters chose "moral values," just edging out terrorism and the economy. That poll result has sparked a firestorm in the media and in Washington’s political circles about who gets or doesn’t get the "moral values issue." Conventional wisdom holds that the Republicans do get it and the Democrats don’t, and that the "moral values" answer on the survey simply indicated voters who are against abortion and gay marriage.

But of course a Christian who cares deeply about peace likely would have checked the war in Iraq (one of the choices) instead of moral values, and a Catholic coordinator of a food pantry likely would have checked the survey’s closest thing to poverty, which would have been the economy or health care. The single "moral values" question was a whole different kind of choice to the rest of the "issues," ignoring the moral values inherent in those other concerns.

An important poll taken several days later bore that out and actually had the war in Iraq rated as the highest issue of moral importance for those who voted this time. The greatest moral "crisis" was named as "greed and materialism," followed closely by "poverty and economic injustice." (See "Seeking Common Ground)

Almost a year ago, I wrote in Sojourners and in an op-ed piece for The New York Times that too many Democrats still wanted to restrict religion to the private sphere and were very uncomfortable with the language of faith and values even when applied to their own agenda. And that Republicans wanted to narrowly restrict religion to a short list of hot-button social issues and obstruct its application to other matters that would threaten their agenda.

Well, after a year of political campaigning we ended up at about the same place. While some Democrats are now realizing the importance of faith, values, and cultural issues, a strong group of "secular fundamentalists" still fight to keep moral and spiritual language out of the liberal discussion. And while some Republicans would like to see an expanded application of faith, the "religious fundamentalists" still want to restrict religious values to gay marriage and abortion, and a very smart group of Republican strategists effectively appealed to both the faith and the fears of an important conservative religious constituency.

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne covered our "God is not a Republican or a Democrat" campaign as a real sign of hope. Days after the election, he said, "What’s required is a sustained and intellectually serious effort by religious moderates and progressives to insist that social justice and inclusion are ‘moral values’ and that war and peace are ‘life issues.’ As my wife and I prepared our three kids for school the day after the day after, we shared our outrage that we in Blue America are cast as opponents of ‘family values’ simply because we don’t buy the right wing’s agenda. No political faction can be allowed to assert a monopoly on the family."
__________________
cardosino is offline  
Old 12-15-2004, 05:23 PM   #111
Acrobat
 
jammin909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 429
Local Time: 07:03 AM
I think part of the reason is because the lower income brackets do not vote. It is proven that more people with more money vote more often. They vote more often and they vote republican to protect their own self interest i.e. less taxes means they get to keep more of their money. With the rising income inequality gap that America has that means more people are moving into the upper income brackets and could save significant amounts of money by having a republican president promoting making the tax cuts permanent.

With the rising inequality, as more people move up, more people move down as well. This is symbolic of the slogans “we have two Americas” and “the middle class is being gutted.” So one would think that as more people are moving up voting republican, the people that are earning less and the normal low income earners, would represent a similar growing base, voting democratic. However, this is not the case. The low income bracket of America, have the lowest voting turnout percentage and they typically vote more democratic.

Just my 2 cents. I think more effort has to go into energizing the lower class, but they shouldn’t have to be energized I feel. If they feel like they are being given a raw deal, do something about it. Maybe they don’t feel this way and in that case my thought process is flawed.
__________________
jammin909 is offline  
Old 12-15-2004, 06:46 PM   #112
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: OC
Posts: 711
Local Time: 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by jammin909
I think part of the reason is because the lower income brackets do not vote. It is proven that more people with more money vote more often. They vote more often and they vote republican to protect their own self interest i.e. less taxes means they get to keep more of their money. With the rising income inequality gap that America has that means more people are moving into the upper income brackets and could save significant amounts of money by having a republican president promoting making the tax cuts permanent.

With the rising inequality, as more people move up, more people move down as well. This is symbolic of the slogans “we have two Americas” and “the middle class is being gutted.” So one would think that as more people are moving up voting republican, the people that are earning less and the normal low income earners, would represent a similar growing base, voting democratic. However, this is not the case. The low income bracket of America, have the lowest voting turnout percentage and they typically vote more democratic.

Just my 2 cents. I think more effort has to go into energizing the lower class, but they shouldn’t have to be energized I feel. If they feel like they are being given a raw deal, do something about it. Maybe they don’t feel this way and in that case my thought process is flawed.
The lower income states voted overwhelmingly for Bush. Hmmm. The higher income ones voted for Kerry. Hmmmm again.
__________________
cardosino is offline  
Old 12-17-2004, 12:54 PM   #113
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by cardosino


The lower income states voted overwhelmingly for Bush. Hmmm. The higher income ones voted for Kerry. Hmmmm again.
That's right. My state, Alabama, is one of the lower-income states. It voted very solidly Bush. I knew my vote for Kerry wasn't going to count in the EC. The Southern states are the lowest income states in the U.S. and they all went for Bush. The high-income states, like New York, Massachusetts, and California all went for Kerry.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com