With hindsight, I believe there were two major differences between the two parties during the runup to the election, one over the base, the other over message.

The Base - The almost total concentration by the Democratic presidential campaign on the battleground states was a mistake. The false premise underpinning this decision was that these states are almost hermetically sealed from the other blue states, and that a campaign could be waged in them but not in the rest of the states. If the Democrats wish to win the national battle, they have to wage a national campaign. There is a difference between a lower intensity campaign in some states, and the almost total neglect which the Kerry-Edwards ticket had towards these states. If the campaign had focused more attention on the so-called Blue states, the Bush-Cheney ticket would not have won by some 3 million votes. Excitement in all the Blue states would have percolated into national consciousness, forcing the Republicans to fight in all the states as well, and would have resulted in a massive majority for the Democratic ticket. Energizing the whole Democratic party in all the states would have shown that the party had the backing of the majority of Americans. It would have generated thousands of foot soldiers, who could have been used to fight in other states.

The solution to this mistake? Fight in every state, with the intention of racking up massive votes for the party. And have each Blue state “adopt” a battleground state (one, but preferably two), as part of its own fight, contributing money, canvassers, phone callers, email campaigns, letter writing, and all else needed.

The Message – The Republicans had a clear message, the Democrats did not. This difference came about because the Republicans had clear principles, supported by most members, and a ticket which concentrated on repeating the message derived from these principles time after time, and very clearly. The Democratic ticket had no one message. Why? Because the campaign was not based on a clearly accepted set of principles which the majority of Democrats supported. Kerry lacked simplicity, lacked clarity of principles, and wavered back and forth until even his best supporters were confused by what he actually stood for.

The solution to this mistake? Two answers. First, the Democrats should spend the next 3 years hammering out a body of principles which they can adopt and carry into battle in 2008. They can do this by forming groups in each state to discuss the bedrock principles underlying the party, culminating in a National Convention in early 2007 where the principles and resulting program is adopted. The second, is to choose as candidates for the two offices, men or women who clearly have accepted these principles as forming the basis of their administration should they be elected president and vice president.

The result of these two initiatives will be the unleashing of a stunning level of energy amongst Democrats, uniting behind agreed principles, and fighting in every precinct in every state for these principles to become the program guiding America’s four years under a Democratic presidency.

The Democrats will never win another election if fraud is allowed to continue without exposure. I personally believe that Bush has stolen two elections now, and the Republicans will be even more brazen in 2008. I think Kerry probably did not lose this election, but fraud was the winner. Between the fraud and the media, that is why we lost.

I think Americans should get over the learned helplessness of looking for the group (the party) or a party savior, for leadership or even action.

We should just act, individually if necessary. With luck, the group will follow. But not acting plays perfectly into the hands of corporatists and against the interests of the populace.

Judith,

I couldn't agree more. I wrote to the New York Times yesterday for the first time ever, saying, all that bogus Judith Miller reporting in the runup to the war and they can't write about all the disturbing stories of voter disenfranchisement, unverifiable paperless ballots, etc. I guess they keep their jobs this way, as our so-called democracy suffers.

Um... we're forgetting one important thing: Kerry DIDN'T lose. The election was hacked and stolen. Doesn't this make all comments moot?

Sharon:

w/ luck, Mrs Chalabi aka Judy will be in jail soon when her appeals in the Plame case fail.

The media whores won't cover the fraud issue because that would invalidate their polls and coverages.

The most pressing issue to me is how the GOP was able to implement their voter suppression dirty tricks like putting fewer voting machines in BLUE counties while puttting more machines in RED counties.

Have you heard of long lines in RED counties ? NO, did not happen.

This entry is cross posted at MyDD.com -- much easier to open, since it doesn't have the 400+ comments at dKos.

KBL --

I think that Bush did receive the majority of votes nationwide -- but there was also vote hacking, voter suppression, and voter intimidation in key battleground states like Ohio and Florida. John Kerry may actually have received the most votes in one or both of those, but good luck getting the votes counted.

But even if Bush got the most votes -- if his team tried to steal the election, doesn't that present the opportunity to kick the bums out like we did with Nixon? Good luck on that, too . . .

Ck. No it doesn't give us the change to "kick the bums out like we did with Nixon". WE HAD AN INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA THAT WENT AFTER NIXON AND WASN'T AFRAID TO LOSE THEIR FRIGGIN JOBS! YOU REMEMBER, BACK WHEN THE MEDIA WAS ON THE SIDE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND NOT LAPDOGS.

Today, if a Woodward or Burstein started to reveal the truth, they would meet with untimely deaths or be institutionalized for insanity.

YES -- MATT BAI IS COMPLETELY FULL OF IT
just like his big lie article in the NY Times Magazine Oct 10. He is a front-line justifier of the lying. On Oct 10, his main point was to insist that Kerry was less willing to militarily confront terrorism than Bush -- but in FACT, Kerry had repeatedly stated his intention to vastly INCREASE the size of the special forces to INTENSIFY the military confrontation with Al Qaeda. This highbrow demagogy formed the basis of weeks of daily columns often magnifying Bai's distortions (see eg Dick Morris, "Nuisance Nonsense" Oct 12 NY Post), AND the main theme of the last weeks of the Republican campaign, superceding the flipflop spin. Note that the DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA were a chorus of hounds that didn't bark about the bogusness of EITHER in any timely or effective way -- and characteristically that goes for the so-called media "watchdogs" as well.

This is crucial because the same pack-of-hounds-that-didn't-bark defines the media situation in the election fraud issue. Unlike during the campaign, when TOTAL silence was possible in response to lies and pure arbitrariness (see, on the flimsiness of the flipflop spin, with a flimsy explanation of why the press was silent for 5 months until after the Republican Convention, "The Invention of Flipflop" Jonathan Chait, Oct 18 cover story in The New Republic, posted Oct 7). The operative phrase is: JUSTIFYING THE LYING.

And that's what Bai is doing about Ohio. He had plenty of time to read the determinative stuff coming out of freepress.org and widely disseminated on the web showing that a systematic lack of adequate voting machines in Democratic precincts, including FEWER than in previous elections despite expected heavy turnout, was what got Ohio in the Bush column. He could not but have known that he was spreading disinformation, as in the article on terrorism 6 weeks earlier.
In the article, he even DESCRIBES the huge lines in Democratic precincts on election day, and the empty polling place, yet with record turnout, in an outlying Republican precinct. Why? Because the Republican precincts had plenty of voting machines and the Democrats lacked them.
THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT WE HAVE THE SMOKING GUN THAT PROVES THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN. But the question is what to DO about it -- the subject of future STRATEGY oriented posts

YES -- MATT BAI IS COMPLETELY FULL OF IT
just like his big lie article in the NY Times Magazine Oct 10. He is a front-line justifier of the lying. On Oct 10, his main point was to insist that Kerry was less willing to militarily confront terrorism than Bush -- but in FACT, Kerry had repeatedly stated his intention to vastly INCREASE the size of the special forces to INTENSIFY the military confrontation with Al Qaeda. This highbrow demagogy formed the basis of weeks of daily columns often magnifying Bai's distortions (see eg Dick Morris, "Nuisance Nonsense" Oct 12 NY Post), AND the main theme of the last weeks of the Republican campaign, superceding the flipflop spin. Note that the DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA were a chorus of hounds that didn't bark about the bogusness of EITHER in any timely or effective way -- and characteristically that goes for the so-called media "watchdogs" as well.

This is crucial because the same pack-of-hounds-that-didn't-bark defines the media situation in the election fraud issue. Unlike during the campaign, when TOTAL silence was possible in response to lies and pure arbitrariness (see, on the flimsiness of the flipflop spin, with a flimsy explanation of why the press was silent for 5 months until after the Republican Convention, "The Invention of Flipflop" Jonathan Chait, Oct 18 cover story in The New Republic, posted Oct 7). The operative phrase is: JUSTIFYING THE LYING.

And that's what Bai is doing about Ohio. He had plenty of time to read the determinative stuff coming out of freepress.org and widely disseminated on the web showing that a systematic lack of adequate voting machines in Democratic precincts, including FEWER than in previous elections despite expected heavy turnout, was what got Ohio in the Bush column. He could not but have known that he was spreading disinformation, as in the article on terrorism 6 weeks earlier.
In the article, he even DESCRIBES the huge lines in Democratic precincts on election day, and the empty polling place, yet with record turnout, in an outlying Republican precinct. Why? Because the Republican precincts had plenty of voting machines and the Democrats lacked them.
THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT WE HAVE THE SMOKING GUN THAT PROVES THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN. But the question is what to DO about it -- the subject of future STRATEGY oriented posts

YES -- MATT BAI IS COMPLETELY FULL OF IT
just like his big lie article in the NY Times Magazine Oct 10. He is a front-line justifier of the lying. On Oct 10, his main point was to insist that Kerry was less willing to militarily confront terrorism than Bush -- but in FACT, Kerry had repeatedly stated his intention to vastly INCREASE the size of the special forces to INTENSIFY the military confrontation with Al Qaeda. This highbrow demagogy formed the basis of weeks of daily columns often magnifying Bai's distortions (see eg Dick Morris, "Nuisance Nonsense" Oct 12 NY Post), AND the main theme of the last weeks of the Republican campaign, superceding the flipflop spin. Note that the DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA were a chorus of hounds that didn't bark about the bogusness of EITHER in any timely or effective way -- and characteristically that goes for the so-called media "watchdogs" as well.

This is crucial because the same pack-of-hounds-that-didn't-bark defines the media situation in the election fraud issue. Unlike during the campaign, when TOTAL silence was possible in response to lies and pure arbitrariness (see, on the flimsiness of the flipflop spin, with a flimsy explanation of why the press was silent for 5 months until after the Republican Convention, "The Invention of Flipflop" Jonathan Chait, Oct 18 cover story in The New Republic, posted Oct 7). The operative phrase is: JUSTIFYING THE LYING.

And that's what Bai is doing about Ohio. He had plenty of time to read the determinative stuff coming out of freepress.org and widely disseminated on the web showing that a systematic lack of adequate voting machines in Democratic precincts, including FEWER than in previous elections despite expected heavy turnout, was what got Ohio in the Bush column. He could not but have known that he was spreading disinformation, as in the article on terrorism 6 weeks earlier.
In the article, he even DESCRIBES the huge lines in Democratic precincts on election day, and the empty polling place, yet with record turnout, in an outlying Republican precinct. Why? Because the Republican precincts had plenty of voting machines and the Democrats lacked them.
THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT WE HAVE THE SMOKING GUN THAT PROVES THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN. But the question is what to DO about it -- the subject of future STRATEGY oriented posts

YES -- MATT BAI IS COMPLETELY FULL OF IT
just like his big lie article in the NY Times Magazine Oct 10. He is a front-line justifier of the lying. On Oct 10, his main point was to insist that Kerry was less willing to militarily confront terrorism than Bush -- but in FACT, Kerry had repeatedly stated his intention to vastly INCREASE the size of the special forces to INTENSIFY the military confrontation with Al Qaeda. This highbrow demagogy formed the basis of weeks of daily columns often magnifying Bai's distortions (see eg Dick Morris, "Nuisance Nonsense" Oct 12 NY Post), AND the main theme of the last weeks of the Republican campaign, superceding the flipflop spin. Note that the DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA were a chorus of hounds that didn't bark about the bogusness of EITHER in any timely or effective way -- and characteristically that goes for the so-called media "watchdogs" as well.

This is crucial because the same pack-of-hounds-that-didn't-bark defines the media situation in the election fraud issue. Unlike during the campaign, when TOTAL silence was possible in response to lies and pure arbitrariness (see, on the flimsiness of the flipflop spin, with a flimsy explanation of why the press was silent for 5 months until after the Republican Convention, "The Invention of Flipflop" Jonathan Chait, Oct 18 cover story in The New Republic, posted Oct 7). The operative phrase is: JUSTIFYING THE LYING.

And that's what Bai is doing about Ohio. He had plenty of time to read the determinative stuff coming out of freepress.org and widely disseminated on the web showing that a systematic lack of adequate voting machines in Democratic precincts, including FEWER than in previous elections despite expected heavy turnout, was what got Ohio in the Bush column. He could not but have known that he was spreading disinformation, as in the article on terrorism 6 weeks earlier.
In the article, he even DESCRIBES the huge lines in Democratic precincts on election day, and the empty polling place, yet with record turnout, in an outlying Republican precinct. Why? Because the Republican precincts had plenty of voting machines and the Democrats lacked them.
THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT WE HAVE THE SMOKING GUN THAT PROVES THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN. But the question is what to DO about it -- the subject of future STRATEGY oriented posts

YES -- MATT BAI IS COMPLETELY FULL OF IT
just like his big lie article in the NY Times Magazine Oct 10. He is a front-line justifier of the lying. On Oct 10, his main point was to insist that Kerry was less willing to militarily confront terrorism than Bush -- but in FACT, Kerry had repeatedly stated his intention to vastly INCREASE the size of the special forces to INTENSIFY the military confrontation with Al Qaeda. This highbrow demagogy formed the basis of weeks of daily columns often magnifying Bai's distortions (see eg Dick Morris, "Nuisance Nonsense" Oct 12 NY Post), AND the main theme of the last weeks of the Republican campaign, superceding the flipflop spin. Note that the DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA were a chorus of hounds that didn't bark about the bogusness of EITHER in any timely or effective way -- and characteristically that goes for the so-called media "watchdogs" as well.

This is crucial because the same pack-of-hounds-that-didn't-bark defines the media situation in the election fraud issue. Unlike during the campaign, when TOTAL silence was possible in response to lies and pure arbitrariness (see, on the flimsiness of the flipflop spin, with a flimsy explanation of why the press was silent for 5 months until after the Republican Convention, "The Invention of Flipflop" Jonathan Chait, Oct 18 cover story in The New Republic, posted Oct 7). The operative phrase is: JUSTIFYING THE LYING.

And that's what Bai is doing about Ohio. He had plenty of time to read the determinative stuff coming out of freepress.org and widely disseminated on the web showing that a systematic lack of adequate voting machines in Democratic precincts, including FEWER than in previous elections despite expected heavy turnout, was what got Ohio in the Bush column. He could not but have known that he was spreading disinformation, as in the article on terrorism 6 weeks earlier.
In the article, he even DESCRIBES the huge lines in Democratic precincts on election day, and the empty polling place, yet with record turnout, in an outlying Republican precinct. Why? Because the Republican precincts had plenty of voting machines and the Democrats lacked them.
THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT WE HAVE THE SMOKING GUN THAT PROVES THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN. But the question is what to DO about it -- the subject of future STRATEGY oriented posts

I too agree with Judith - I don't care what you call it (voter irregularities; voter suppression; voter dis-enfranchisement; machine disfunction; count tampering; or fraud), the very fact that the media has not and does not cover the subject is in itself evidence of a form of coverup.
Unless there is thorough investigation of all aspects of the suspicious counts, Bush is not my President, and never will be.