Just read where one precinct in N.C. had Bush getting 11,000 more votes than those cast. There are also questions in Ohio and Florida. Isn't any Democrat Leader out there concerned that all of the over votes are for Bush?

Thinking back on the campaign, can anyone say what Kerry's message or vision for the country was? I sure can't.

Shared sacrifice for a stronger America.

Carville and Greenberg have an agenda. Let's get rid of them once and for all. We will only be better.

Hard to believe he won on "greed and materialism" or "Poverty and economic justice". WHAT?

I'm running on fear. Fear and God. That's fear and fear of God. And fear of gay people. Can't forget being afraid of gays. So fear of things, and god. So I'm running on cultural values...and fear.

I don't think that Kerry really had a plan or a message or at least one that was properly communicated. I not going blame to MSM for this either because I don't recall seeing any real alternatives in the TV ad buys. I think this election was very much like the 96 election where Dole's campaign consisted simply of I'm Not Clinton". It didn't work for Dole and "I'm Not Bush" didn't work for Kerry. I saw nothing in the Kerry campaign that would lead me to believe that he had a solution for Iraq or that with Kerry as President I would be more likely to get a good job.

Another poll? Give it up.

As fars as differentiating Kerry from Bush -- if the Dems posting here can't see that, then we're truly fucked. It doesn't make any difference what Kerry's "solutions" for Iraq might be - at least we could count on getting rid of the neocon influences, Condi, the Hallibuton VPrex, the Right Wing justice dept., and Right Wing Supremes.

Get rid of Michael Powell. And a whole bunch of others who are set to privatize public assets, not to mention turn Social Security over to the wolverines on Wall Street.

Jeeprs. Kerry's message was "I'm not a right wing conservative, and I'm not under the influence of neocons." Too bad that message didn't register.

Polls we fucked up before, why believe them now?

It was the fear, stupid.

Even though we did not lose because of our "failing" morals, I think, as others have said, that we should talk to all conservatives we know as if this were true. Ask them how we should fit into their James Dobson world that's apparently just around the corner. If abortion is murder, is the local community ready to have multiple trials of young girls etc? Where do we put the gay folks that are around, who are perhaps in our own families? How about Sunday laws?

It's the media, stupid!

Message and tactics, indeed. As if there was anything resembling a "fair and balanced" media in this country.

We ain't going to win until we have a way to get our message out, whatever that message is.

And the vast web of corporate media does a very good job of not letting us get the message out.

Just look at how they treated Kerry!

Forget the spin, the message, the values meme. That's the media spinning us.

We've got to go on the attack, and the prime target is the corporate media machine.

Sixteen percent cited abortion, and 12 percent named same-sex marriage.

So, 28% voted for what they think were the "the" moral issues, sounds to me. That's close to 1/3. It wouldn't matter if they were only 1% of the vote, they control the government. I think some people are trying to convince themselves that the country isn't going theocratic and fascist, which it is. You have Schumer talking nice about an AG nominee who rationalizes torture. He should be saying, "This is not a good man." (Where have I heard that before?)

The ballot issues brought them out. Divide and rule. Bush will have named half the judiciary by the time he leaves office. They will make it all nice and legal. The United States of America, like the Republican Party as we once knew it, is gone, does not exist anymore.

We are the Theofascist States of America.

Really good interview on the subject of "morals" found here: on NOV 7 Ian Masters

I think your diagnosis is right on. I think this was a grinder of a race, where Kerry was never able to erase a structural 2-3 point lead which Bush had had since August. The bulk of people voted according to party affiliations, but the margins were large and decisive.
Kerry, or any other Dem with national ambitions, has four years now to highlight what Dems would do differently in foreign policy. There are tons of voters out there which could be pulled in with just a bit more definition.

Great. Let the story be the Republicans owe the Christian right, while the insiders know the real story. Too late to change the story now. Let's all keep the Christian right reminded how the Repugs never deliver what they want. They sure didn't think they were voting for a national sales tax.

It just get me horribly down.

"What this poll indicates is that an alternate values message will gain traction in the electorate."

Jesus Christ. Ya think?

Kerry never argued the war on moral grounds. No kidding.

I'd run screaming from the room if it would help. Nothing will help. What I am going to do?

I don't know.

Well, this would certainly seem to support the thesis I’ve been advancing that the ISSUES are not the problem; it’s the IMAGE CAMPAIGN that wins it for the Republicans every time. Republicans strategists are experts in marketing savvy and in understanding the psychology of the Swing Voters.

Again, the typical Swing Voter knows he does not understand the subtle details of the issues well enough to make an informed decision, so he relies on his “impressions” of the candidates. (Is this candidate someone I can trust to not screw me over?) So the Republicans focus all of their efforts on defining Democrats in the minds of the Swing Voter in a negative, vaguely threatening way. They do this by relying on negative campaigning.

Republicans know that making an accusation or insinuation is good enough to get you elected because the Swing Voter is primarily a headline-reader and a sound-byte-nibbler. If the media reports that a Republican has accused a Democrat of having a character flaw, the average Swing Voter will believe it unless it is successfully answered. Not only do these attacks create a negative image of their opponents, they also implicitly suggest that Republicans are not guilty of the character flaws they accuse the Democrats of having. As they attack, they indirectly define themselves as noble & virtuous.

Republicans understand precisely what they are doing when they tell the Swing Voters that they are “not like those Democrats.” It’s a variation of the “us vs. them” social comparisons that are so common in high school. Throughout October, swing voters constantly saw clips of George Bush standing in front of his adoring supporters, ridiculing John Kerry with his smirky smile. People do not tend---on a natural level---to want to be associated with anyone who is being laughed at.

Average Americans who put Republican candidates into office with their votes do so because they are identifying with those whom they intuitively perceive to be social “winners.” They don’t understand all of the nuances of the issues, but they do have this impression that there is something “defective” with the Democrats. Once they’ve become invested in their identity with the Republican Party, they will instinctively defend Republican policies even when those policies will actually harm them. In order for the Democratic Party to win these Average Americans back, they must begin to fight fire with fire.

Democrats need to define The Republican Politician as DECEIVING, MANIPULATIVE, SCHEMING, MEAN-SPIRITED, CON-ARTISTS who willfully and gleefully assassinate the character of any innocent victim that stands in the way of their rabid lust for power. We need to create an image (deserved) of The Republican Politician in the minds of the Average American that they instinctively fear. In defining The Republican Politician as essentially manipulative, we will also indirectly be defining ourselves as The Protectors of the Average American.

Democrats tend not to want to do this, but they really have no choice. Every attack and accusation made by the Republicans must be used to define the Republicans as smiling weasels. We must express both derision and wisdom and show an eagerness to explain what the Republicans are up to. We need to take the time to point out and explain in television commercials the misrepresentations, the deceptions, the intent, and the strategy of the Republican attacks. We must define ourselves as the ones who are trying to protect the American People from a Great Evil.

The key point is this: whenever Democratic politicians catch Republican candidates misrepresenting the truth, they need to drop everything (all the issue points they wanted to make) and seize upon the deception, making IT the issue of supreme importance, using IT to define the Republicans as evil people that voters need to be protected from. We’ve got to understand that, while there are many important things we have to say re: The Issues, the #1 issue that we need to keep bringing everything back to is the mendacity of The Republican Politician.

In addition to this, we need to start ridiculing the stupidity of Republican policies and---implicitly---those who embrace/defend them. Democrats need to learn how to socially isolate those who belong to the Republican Party. Until we are able to play this “social game”, we will not be able to become the majority party again. Until we do this, the Average American will not even listen to what we are saying because they will have an image of us that they do not trust on a visceral level.

James J. Kroeger
www.taxwisdom.org

James, and they all said "Amen" and "Amen."

Who has defined the loss due to "values"? It seems to me that the news media is playing into the hands once again of the Rethuglicans. Now, they can go into the next election reminding people that we have no values as human beings. The set-up is complete. The only way to combat such beliefs is to hit them first and hard and never stop hitting.

This is of course the same James Carville who whined to the media about how rotten a job Kerry was doing instead of doing what Repubs do. Keep your mouth shut and get the guy elected.

As for the "I thought Kerry shoulda done this crowd". 55 million votes in spite of the constant backbiting and the lack of groundwork by dem leadership.

Bravo James Kroeger!

Once again you assume we lost. OK if the Right didn't come out in droves because of the gay issue, then how did W all of a sudden win with a charge of late afternoon votes. Do you really think Zogby and Dem Corp and even Fox could be that far off in the Poll numbers?

Hard to believe he won on "greed and materialism" or "Poverty and economic justice".

He didn't. People who identified those issues favored Kerry.

This whole "moral values" nonsense got started because exit polls asked voters to choose their biggest issue from a "menu" written by the pollsters. The top menu choices were:

1. "Moral values" - 22%
2. "Economy/Jobs" - 20%
3. "Iraq" - 15%

Naturally, voters whose top moral concern was "greed and materialism" or "poverty and social justice" were more apt to choose #2 or #3 in the exit poll, since #1 was (correctly) perceived as code for "homophobia." Voters who picked #2 or #3 went strongly for Kerry.

Which is a speck of good news: only 2 in 9 voters are homophobes, and Kerry still won 20% of their votes. Which means Democrats don't need to pander to the homophobic vote to win.

But it does show how the MSM use badly-designed poll questions to skew the debate toward their own preconceived notions.

James you are correct that , whenever Democratic politicians catch Republican candidates misrepresenting the truth, they need to drop everything (all the issue points they wanted to make) and seize upon the deception.

However in this game , he who plants the seed harvest the crop all to often . Rebuttals even when true, don't have the impact of the initial (defining) charge , it will always come off as excuse making to many headline nibblers, as you term them . Offense trumps Defense in politics, it sets up the canvass that gets the paint and sucks energy out of your opponent , we like aggression in this country . It’s best to define yourself and your opponent .

While I think the first poll plays around a bit with its numbers and analysis, the Zogby one's easier to decipher.

But the poll I'd like to see would expand the moral values and military decisions more where apparently neither side wants to tread, asking:

1) Which candidate provided more misleading reasons for going to war with Iraq?

2) Which was the proper course to the Iraq war (choose one or as many that apply):

a) Permit UN inspectors the 3-6 months they requested to complete their WMD inspections.
b) Refrain from starting till 100% of the troops had the best body and vehicle armor.
c) Provide proper advance planning before the invasion to ensure the security of the populace after Saddam's troops were beaten.
d) Take more time to build a larger allied coalition before the invasion.
e) The planning and schedule used was the best way.
f) We should have eliminated Hussein in the 1980s when he gassed the Iranians and the Iraqi Kurds.
g) We should have just nuked them, to limit our troop casualties.
h) we should have avoided the Iraq war entirely and kept our military in hot pursuit of the top leaders of Al Qaida.

3) Regarding the Bush administration's principal decisionmakers and war planners, which of the following do you believe to be true (check all that apply):

a) Most advocated the elimination of Hussein because of 9-11.
b) Most advocated the elimination of Hussein in the first 100 days after Bush's inauguration.
c) Most advocated the elimination of Hussein several years before Bush was elected.
d) They had intelligence reports that indicated Hussein helped plan 9-11.
e) They had intelligence reports that indicated Hussein had his agents contact Bin Laden 2 or 3 times in the previous decade.
f) They had intelligence reports that indicated Hussein and Bin Laden had agreed to an alliance.
g) They had intelligence reports that indicated Hussein had WMDs or was within six months of completing them.
h) They believed the forged document that said Hussein tried to buy uranium from Nigeria was real.
i) They had evidence they're keeping secret from us to justify the war.
j) They were trying to protect Israel.
k) Most had ties to oil companies or other corporations that would help them profit personally from the war.
l) After a decade of sanctions and multiple bombings of military targets in Iraq during the Clinton administration, they considered Iraq the easiest Middle East country to overthrow to send a message to others that are hostile to us.
m) They wanted to keep our oil supplies safe.
n) They were worried about the terrorist group that was operating in the northern Kurdish region of Iraq that Hussein lost control of after the first Gulf War.
o) After Ahmad Chalabi had been determined to be unreliable by our intelligence agencies in the 1990s, they decided to believe him again and his information proved to be false again.
p) They wanted Iraqis to have a democracy even if they vote in someone else unfriendly to America.
q) They wanted Iraqis to have a democracy to vote in only candidates they screen and judge to be acceptable.

4) John Kerry voted to authorize Bush to use troops to counter Saddam Hussein for the following reasons (check all that apply):

a) to use the threat of force to persuade Hussein to permit UN inspectors in to search for WMDs.
b) to be a declaration of war as required by the Constitution.
c) to be (a) with the expectation that Bush would return to ask for (b) if Hussein didn't comply with (a).
d) for one or more of the reasons listed in #3 (specify which ones)____________

5)After Hussein was overthrown, when Bush asked Congress for another $87 billion to use in Iraq, Kerry voted against that. Why? (Check all that apply)

a) he wanted a better accounting of where the money would be spent.
b) he wanted to bring the troops home immediately.
c) he was concerned about reports of favoritism towards certain companies awarded multi-million dollar rebuilding contracts.
d) he was concerned about reports of overcharges and/or potentially fraudulent charges made by certain companies.
e) he was trying to disarm our troops and leave them unprotected because he's a peacenik at heart.
f) just out of spite because Bush is a Republican.
g) because he proposed an alternative funding plan that he thought would be better or more cost-effective.

6) Who advised the Bush administration within 2 months of our invasion that no evidence existed so far that Hussein had resumed development or production of nuclear weapons (check all that apply):

a) Howard Dean
b) John Kerry
c) US inspectors that had been in Iraq on the UN inspection team up till 1998
d) UN inspectors in Iraq until a couple of weeks before our invasion.
e) the International Atomic Energy Agency responsible for tracking nuclear development worldwide.
f) the CIA
g) previous national security officials, generals and defense analysts.

7) If you are opposed to gay marriage, the biggest reasons for your opposition are (choose one or two only):

a) My minister/priest or church leader says it's a sin.
b) It sends the wrong message to children that being gay is okay.
c) I don't want my child to become gay.
d) the Bible says being gay is an abomination in the Lord's eyes.
e) It will spread AIDS.
f) The purpose of marriage is to have and raise kids which homosexuals can't do or shouldn't do.
g) It would threaten my marriage.
h) Gay people are evil.
i) Reducing gay rights is the only way to get gays to reform their lives and return to heterosexual choices.
j) I'm not opposed to partner benefits, but gay marriage is just too much.

Yeah, some of this is push-polling, but they only push things that have been reported, not clearly invented stuff. And they don't clearly push one point of view.

These questions, and more on other issues (gas prices, war profiteering, due process for POWs, torture of POWs, where improvements in national security have or haven't been made, etc) would yield a better blueprint of what people are thinking or being motivated by. It would help us to know if misinformation needs to be corrected, if information is lacking, if bigotry or partisanship is driving their choices,or if Democratic candidates are simply out of touch with mainstream Americans.

Considering the hundreds of millions spent on campaigns, isn't it worth the money to commission polls that truly dig for details like these? I really think so.

1) Which candidate provided more misleading reasons for going to war with Iraq?
That Frenchie huggin Kerry!

2) Which was the proper course to the Iraq war (choose one or as many that apply):
e) The planning and schedule used was the best way. Except fer where we shoulda used nukes.

3) Regarding the Bush administration's principal decisionmakers and war planners, which of the following do you believe to be true (check all that apply):

o) After Ahmad Chalabi had been determined to be unreliable by our intelligence agencies in the 1990s, they decided to believe him again and his information proved to be false again. Hell yes, Jebus says, “Turn the other cheek.”

5)After Hussein was overthrown, when Bush asked Congress for another $87 billion to use in Iraq, Kerry voted against that. Why? (Check all that apply)
none of the above, it was them Frenchies and Germans

6) Who advised the Bush administration within 2 months of our invasion that no evidence existed so far that Hussein had resumed development or production of nuclear weapons (check all that apply):
none of the above, it was them Frenchies and Germans

7) If you are opposed to gay marriage, the biggest reasons for your opposition are (choose one or two only):
how many fingers is one?