Kerry concedes
 

According to the AP.

It's Official: George W. Bush wins with a majority vote!
 

The AP is reporting that Senator Kerry has called the President to concede the race. The President has just won with the last plurality victory since 1988.

It's over. It feels good to have it over. It feels even better to have the President secure another term.

Just heard too

He will be making a speach at 1 pm EST to the public at Faneuil Hall in Boston

Good info Shanifaye.. Thanks

This just came up on the CNN ticker:

I guess that's it. Best of luck to my American friends.

Im so happy I could cry...I understand that there are those so upset they could cry too....Even though I think different from the Kerry Supporters...we all have one thing in common...we want the best for our country...we just see a different approach to get there.

Everyone that voted has a right to be proud today even if you dont like the results

Congratulations to Sen. Kerry for running strongly and showing a great deal of class in defeat. Here's hoping for the best over the next four years.

Where did you get your info, Mr. irateplatypus? The AP? Associated PRess? CNN says its still in the air as of 12:20 Atlantic Time

Can we merge this with irate's thread??

You should update your clock, Phantom Power. You posted at 11:20 ET.

CNN.com reports Kerry conceeded. Well, this sucks ass. Now we've got a Republican Party which thinks it has the right idea.

Congrats to Senator Kerry as well. He ran a tough campaign.

Yes he did djtestudo.

Kerry concedes
 

John Kerry has conceded to Bush. I hope Bush realizes that he won on the fact that he has good moral values, and not because of the war on Iraq. Kerry got 49%, in my opinion, because he was against the war.

Looks like Bush DID win because of the War on Iraq. If Kerry lost because he was against it, then Bush obviously won because he was for it. :) I do agree that it's Bush's overall morality that southerners and rural areas favored.

-Lasereth

Let me say this; I wouldn't have been particularly happy with Kerry as President, but I would have supported him as an American like we all should no matter who won (while doing my best to get a change in 2008, of course :)).

or perceived morality, at least.

I think it was a lesser of two evils for a lot of people. A lot of rural voters got out during this campaign, and I think it was because they just couldn't let John Kerry win. But most CNN exit polls showed that over half the country thinks the war in Iraq has gone all wrong.

well, I think John Kerry tried that throughout his campaign. But a lot of people see through that when you stand where you stand on issues. Bush was firm in all the debates on moral issues.

No offense, but what kind of sheepish thinking is that? Part of the problem with this country is the people who just follow the herd like that!

People act too patriotic with all this "pride, respect" stuff... sorry, but it's perfectly okay to not support the current US President.

It's not anyone's "duty" to just blindly follow regardless of issues or platforms, nor is it anyone's duty to respect those in office, especially if they don't even remotely represent what you think/feel.

I remember thinking the same thing for the past couple elections. You would think with such a great country to live in, we would be able to find someone that could really unite the country. Well, I keep hoping maybe next time!

I'd like to remind everyone that doesn't frequent the political boards:

Yeah they're saying Kerry is conceding victory to Bush now.

I'm very surprised Bush won. What this says to me is that there is more to the country than the Right & Left Coasts, and the constant vocalization of the Media's hatred for Bush. This was a solid vote of confidence for Bush from the heartland.

As far as Iraq, the end of this election should signal the start of a massive military campaign to pave the way for elections there in January. Fallujah, Ramadi and other insurgent strongholds are now going to be dealt with brutally and decisively.

Okay guys, lets not get too out of hand here. The dust will settle soon enough...

I disagree. You should respect the fact that he is President, and that the majority of the population elected him into office. You may disagree with his views, but George W. Bush is still President of the United States. He should be respected for that.

You may disagree with the man, but you should still respect the office.

But the majority isn't always right (nor educated).

Remember, the majority of people believe that Iraq had (or still has) ties to Al Qaeda and believes they had a part in 9/11 despite numerous reports against it.

The majority believes that gay marriage should be banned. Didn't the majority approve of slavery, or (nearly 100 years later), a segregated society?

I respect the position of president in terms of the amount of power that one has to do something good, but I don't respect the person holding it and misusing it or the people who put him there.

Well whether you like him or hate him, we have to try and work with him for another four years. I really hope things start getting better, I just don't see it happening. Democrats and republicans alike need to start working together, and they need to start NOW.

Actually, I believe Kerry could still win even though he conceded.

If it turns out that the votes in OH go to Kerry, he'll take office.

Following the majority will never amount you to anything in life. I will NOT support GWB under any circumstances, I voted against him and I will be against him till the day he is out of office. He will not receive my respect whether he is commander in chief or otherwise.

Gore conceded before weeks of legal challenges ensued. This doesn't mean a damn thing yet.

Ohio:

Bush
2,794,346 51%

Kerry
2,658,125 49%

It's going to be a long-ass court battle

FOR THE DEMS:

Reasons to feel better:
1.The Daily Show will be funny for another 4 years
2.Almost half of everyone in the country agrees with you
3.British Columbia isn't really all that cold....

I dont understand....they have already said the number of total provisional votes doesnt even equal the difference 136,221 votes seperating the two...so why isnt it over (not being sarcastic....just trying to understand if I am missing something here)

[a bit OT] this is precisely what I think is flawed/what I simply cannot comceptualise regarding America.
Morality should have nothing to do with public(servancy)/gov't/state/etc. Ethics, on the other hand...by all means, the more the better. ..but morality :confused: How can that have any place/bearing other than the private sector/religious sector? [/a bit OT]

...and that'll sum up my thoughts on the election, for the moment. :)

Bush not only won, he won with the largest % of the Popular Vote of any President EVER.

51% was the largest ever? I don't think so...

But still not over yet :)

No, I think it was the largest vote total: 58 million or however much it was.

There have been much higher percentages then 51%; see: Washington, George.

FDR first re-election, was 62 percent or something like that. Probably many more that contradict your fact as well


edit:factoid

I think maybe he was getting it mixed up

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ain/index.html

It's also relative. Kerry got 48%, which is actually as much, if not more, than what the average winner gets.

i think powerclown meant to say that Bush won with the greatest number in the popular vote (a function of voter population and voter turnout), not by percentage over his opponent.

Bitter much?

No, the majority do not believe that Iraq had a direct role in 9/11. Some do, but certainly not a majority. Some people believe that today is Thursday too.

The majority do not believe that gay marriage should be banned, but enough that came out and voted in the states where it was put to a vote do.

I have voted in the past 7 presidential elections and I never felt it this was 'the most important decision of our time'. I didn't this time either. One thing is certain, there will be a new guy in 4 years. I think Bush is an honest man who is doing what he feels in his heart is the best thing at the time. Is it always right, no, absolutely not. But I wouldn't expect that from anybody. Did Clinton believe in his heart that firing missles into an abandoned tent in the desert was the best way to get at terrorists at the time, probably. He was wrong. I don't hold that decision against him (much :) ).

John Kerry voted to support the President in his decision to invade Iraq based on the same evidence that the president had at the time. Was the evidence faulty?, it appears after the fact that yes, it may have been. For Kerry to say now, 'I wouldn't have went in' is disingenuous and monday morning quarterbacking. IMHO, I think people saw that and lost respect for the man.

The next guy to get elected will tell us what he is going to do to make things better. He will relate that to all (or at least a majority) of the people in the entire country. Telling us what the other guy did wrong is telling us what we already know.

Anyway, I hope Bush can get us out of this Iraq mess. It seems to me that he will. I was prepared for a 3-4 year plan. I don't know if everyone else was. These things are always messy and the best plan is a fluid plan. Quelling the rebels and holding elections will accomplish a lot. With best wishes for the next four years.......

I don't really have anything to say. Us democrats fought a brave, honest, and tough campaign, and unfortunately for us, incumbent advantage was enough for Bush to squeak by. I don't regret any aspect of our efforts, or our choice of nominee. Kerry ran like a champ, and did all he could. I don't know about any of that "most votes ever" spin the Bush people are putting out. The truth is, this election was quite close. Consider: had tuesday been a nice, sunny day in Ohio, we might not be here right now.

It's going to be a long four years.

Kerry and the Democrats put up an excellent effort, and I was worried about how it would turn out, but fortunately Bush has won.

What the fuck is wrong with this country? I think Im moving to Canada.

So they're not even going to bother counting the absentee balots?

Fortunately, that statement was made in the past. As it is no longer the past, I review it in the light of the present.

First, I'll note the warning issued in this thread by my good colleague, analog:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...68#post1506168

to wit: "Rudeness, pettiness, and general show-boating-type behavior will be sternly dealt with."
..................................................

Fortunately, as well, there are priorities involved in what aspects of the past - as seen in the light of the present - I choose to honor.

For those of you having a great need to see my ass, I refer you to the proper forum here. As for the statement, "We Won." The priority here is to indicate that it is true as far as it may connote our ongoing collective identity as constituents in the great experiment that is The United States of America.

Coming from a Republican, I think Kerry just made an outstanding speech.

good concession speech. very statesman like. as i've said before... kerry isn't a bad guy. he just isn't the man with the skillset for this time in our nation's history.

I've been trying to get on a few of the far left sites today with no luck, including www.democraticunderground.com and www.michaelmoore.com.

DU has their forum closed to non-registered users and MM is offline.

I would be interested to know their take on this.

Hooray. Let's stop bitching and move on.

Greatest number of voters who voted, yes. Badly worded on my part.

Update:

Apparently the forward is down, but you can get on MM with http://www.michaelmoore.com/index.php

No update from yesterday.

Kerry was right to project some caution last night without being combative and was right to concede today. It doesn't look like there is any way for Ohio to flip. If there was, Kerry would still be fighting for every last vote. All in all, it seems that just about everyone, including the candidates and the media (Not the exit pollers) acted appropriately and rationally over the past two days. The whole democracy thing worked.

Bush got more votes than anyone ever, but not the highest percentage
Bush is the first pres who initially lost the popular vote to win re-election
This is the first re-election of a rep. pres and congress in over 100 years
First defeat of a senate leader (minority or majority) in 50 years.
Rep.s continue to lead in governerships

The country may be closely divided, but the power is not.

i'm having trouble swallowing this "divided country" idea that is getting so much attention. of course, the political arena has it's divisions... but it always has. for the first time in 16 years we've elected a President under a majority vote. why isn't that proof that the country is more unified?

methinks that the messengers have tainted the message.

Maybe he means that BIG swatch of red dividing the north east and west coasts?

Lebell, democrats.com has a couple messages about the election that are publically viewable from their home page.

Because it merely shows that fewer votes went to 3rd party candidates this year compared to last. It looks like 1% for 3rd parties this year, vs. 4% in 2000. I wouldn't even begin to consider the country to be unified unless one candidate got 75%.

EDIT: Looking back, all of the intervening years had a significant 3rd party (Nader or Perot), while the one 16 years back didn't.

55.3 million of us disagree. He won 51 to 48 for shits sake.


Was he? How many 9/11 type attacks happened during his 8 years?

89 transam, remember the first WTC bombing?

Dont forget the two attacks in saudi arabia, the embassy in africa and the USS cole

I know, but I wanted to focus on the attack inside the U.S. Sometimes too little emphasis is placed on "external attacks". Everyone jumps down Bush's throat for allowing this to happen on U.S. soil. What would the nation have said if that first attack managed to bring the tower down?

Thank you for stating that. It's fucking ridiculous that people can't comprehend that a few million people does not a popular mandate make, when over 50 million people feel disenfranchised. Start talking to the center instead of pulling the whole damn spectrum around.

So, pretty much 0 :)

The first wtc bombing was not a "9/11 type attack". There was no warning for that. There was, however, a warning before 9/11.

The others are really outside of anyone's control. Had they happened under Bush's watch, it would equally be as absurd to say he's at fault.

We're talking about HOMELAND attacks.

I don't know about whether or not the guy in office is able to prevent catastrophic terror attacks. Playing defense with a country as big and open as America is a daunting proposition. I don't blame Bush for 9/11, but I do strongly question the decisions he made afterwards.

That's all water under the bridge I suppose. The truth is, although Bush now has some kind of a mandate to govern, he left himself quite a few messes to clean up. The problems in Iraq won't solve themselves. His overall foreign policy vision has yet to play itself out, and I remain convinced that it is doomed to fail. We almost certainly face at least one or two bitter battles over the supreme court, with no certain victory (if there is such a thing) for either side.

Like he said, being President is a tough job.

i am still working on getting my head around this act of collective self-immolation.
but i remain bewildered.

why do 50 million people feel disenfranchised? :hmm:

Disenfranchised? :rolleyes:

Because his candidate didn't win and apparently that is now akin to losing your voting rights :rolleyes:

conservatives here seem bent on confirming the worst possible interpretation of this self-immolation. like there is some perverse glee taken in it.
yes this is what you think it is...
yes we are who you think we are....

all this mixed with calls for unity.
strange business, message boards.

If 58.8 million people voted to jump off a bridge, that's suddenly the right thing to do? That's pretty much what we have here..

Nope. It's irritating that this great tool we have to represent a government was used horribly... now we have to face consequences... or rather, you do. I just won't let any of it affect me because I voted otherwise.

I don't see that sniping at each other is doing anyone any good.

If 54 million people are going to whine for four years, then yes.

Maybe you'll learn to pick wisely in the future.

As will those who pick the Democratic candidates...

that's wonderful, but the fact remains that the winner garnered a higher percentage of the vote than any other president has for 16 years.

My Dad can beat up your Dad.

As I keep noting in various threads, that's because very few people voted third party in this election. The votes for Nader and Perot in the previous three elections were enough to bring the winner's percent below 50%. There was no significant 3rd party candidate in the election 16 years ago.

The only thing this shows is that the people who might have ordinarly placed a protest vote with a 3rd party in other years thought it was important to go Rep. or Dem. this year.

Why do people keep bringing up that statistic? It means nothing when you compare it to what Kerry got :lol:

I swear, someone on that side says something, they all run with it no matter how irrelevant.

Hey.. at least he was elected this time.

Four more years of priceless comedy.

<-- lookin on the bright side

My thoughts exactly.

As many of you know in here....I am not exactly a Bush Supporter.....but it is time to accept the facts,...............He Won.

I have decided to watch carefully, and add my support to the country I love.....wherever I can do so in good conscience. It is a pointless gesture to complain about a lost election...reguardless of how close the contest was. For better or for worse,GWB is the president for another term and I for one am EXTREMELY tired of the infighting. And yes, it is infighting......we are all citizens of the United States, I honestly hope we can begin to act that way.

Very well stated. I feel like i have more respect for him now simply by how much class and respect he had in losing.

THis might show my stupidity, but did he have to give up his Sen. spot to run for president, or can he pick up that where he left off?

don't worry i was thinking the exact same thing.

gosh, some people are really bitter...

I just hope now things will calm down a bit. I supported Bush and was amazed at the victory that was very clear since about 11pm MST, or 2am EST, after Ohio came in for Bush. About half of my group of friends are democrats and the past few weeks it's been a little tense within our group. But I think today it was a "shake hands and say good game like little kids on a sports team" day, and everyone was coming back to a common ground again.

You can't complain and say "if everyone jumped off a bridge..." I wish everyone would just face the facts and get over it that the majority of the country voted for Bush and what's done is done.

He can pick up where he left. He didn't resign his seat as far as I know.

Mr Mephisto

He is still the Minority Senator of Mass.

What does "Minority" Senator mean?

He come from the party that does not hold the majority of seats in the Senate?


Mr Mephisto

He's not the "Minority" senator, he's the "junior" senator, meaning only that Ted Kennedy has been in the Senate longer.

No matter how you slice, dice, or spin it, President Bush received an overwhelming mandate from the American people.
Yesterday, President Bush:
*** Became the first President to be re-elected while gaining seats in the House and Senate since 1936 and the first Republican President since 1924 to be re-elected while re-electing Republican House and Senate majorities.
*** Became the first President to win a majority of the popular vote since 1988.
*** Received 57.4 million votes - more than any other candidate in history. He broke President Reagan's 1984 mark of 54.5 million. (96% reporting)
***Increased the popular vote by seven million votes since 2000 - more than twice Clinton's increase from 1992 to 1996.
***Improved his percentage in every state except four (MD, OR, VT and WY). This includes a four percent increase in John Kerry's home state, Massachusetts.

Now look at the map and data posted here: Have a look at the map here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm

I don't think anyone is taking away from Bush's victory.

Obviously more Americans wanted him rather than Kerry.

So, as most Democrats I've seen have been saying, surely now is a time to move on, heal the wounds and concentrate on America.

Rather than acting like a 12 year old and shouting the "Nyaa nyaa nyaa...we won! we won! you're such a loser... nya we won!..." kind of nonesense I've seen from some, why not accept your win gracefully and concentrate on what you believe is right your country?


Mr Mephisto

Exactly.

Well put.

A lot of people are saying that actually.

The CBC was airing emails during the election last night received from Americans saying the same thing.

To all the disenfranchised democrats out there I would say, if you can stand the winter, you are welcome aboard.

We don't make "morality" an election issue here. Abortion is not an issue to be debated in an election. In fact, if you are anti-abortion, you won't get elected. Believe it or not, in the last election the Conservative guy Stephen Harper had commercials levelled against him saying that if he was elected, he would "restrict a woman's right to choose" Can't ever imagine that in the USA.

Gay marriage, most people have more important things to worry about.

Thank you James.

It's amazing that people can't understand that when a president, who is supposed to and claims to represent all the people in the country, proceeds on a course of action that doesn't represent the will of all the people in that nation, regardless of the fact that more than 50 million people voted for him, he is disenfranchising them.

Some questioned how this means my vote didn't matter. Well, reconcile how my wishes to be represented by government are fulfilled when the person elected ignores them? That's how 50+ million people are currently being disenfranchised from the political realm--our interests are not being addressed.

Yeah, and kerry also broke the record with 55.5 million votes.No, Aladdin , %51 to %48 is Not an overwhelming mandate no matter how you spin it.

Republicans gained in the house, gained in the senate, gained state houses, gained a gov, oh and won the presidency with the first plurality of the vote since 1988.

In 1992, Clinton with 42% of the vote claimed a mandate....

I think with all off the above, the Republicans are entitled.

To the victors go the spoils, most of these Republicans were not elected to be moderates.

That has absolutely nothing to do with disenfranchised people. Too bad you live in this country too. It sucks that a republican can get elected, doesn't it??? What if Kerry were elected, would I feel disenfranchised because I voted for Bush? Don't think so... get real dude.

And dammit, I sure as hell didn't vote for Bush because of his morals. Don't say that just because you voted for Bush that you are a stupid hick. I live in an urban area, come from a middle-class household, support civil union for same sex couples, and support stem-cell research. I mainly voted for Bush because he was better equipped to lead this country in war, which, I'm sorry, we're already in. Frankly, I don't give a shit whether Kerry would have gone to war or not. It's too easy to criticize somebody in power, but Bush had some major cajones to go to war. Kerry would rather sit back and say "I wouldn't have done that" than actually come up with something original. Why aren't we whining about the people who vote for the more handsome candidate or the guy who votes for the candidate that would make for a better dinner guest???

The only problem is that there is no such animal.

Smooth -

What course of action could President Bush pursue that would reperesent your will and mine equally? You and I believe very differently; our will cannot be followed by a single candidate. It is an either/or situation based on the winner.

If Kerry had won, then you would more likely have your will pursued and I would be "disenfranchised". Conversely, with President Bush, my will (sort of) wins and yours loses.

I do not see any scenario with a President that would satisfy both of our "wills" equally. A little over half voted for him, so therefore, by majority, their "will" is more likely to be followed.

He can represent "all" people, but he (regardless of who "he" is) cannot please all of the people all of the time.

well, technically, I wouldn't have had my will persued had kerry been elected, but that seems to go right over the conservatives heads on this board over and over and ov...

that's fine you think a majority's will ought to be followed. that doesn't detract from the fact that it's a slim majority. My entire point was that calling a few million over the top of the 55+ million people against does not mean your candidate has a popular mandate from the nation.

a popular mandate means that the country approves, as a whole, with what you are doing. we don't, this nation is very divided. and rather than shift a bit over to try and encompass their will, people are just cutting them out of the picture.

I can accept that my views along with a few hundred thousand people are so far radically to the left of mainstream politics that no candidate is going to seriously encompass all of my views.

But I don't understand how you can think half the population is wacky and irreconcilable with your views. I don't think the same way about the 55+ million people who voted for bush. I see agreement between lefts and rights all the time. It's up to the politicians not to select wedge issues to run on. People in the know do it all the fucking time--despite what they lead you to believe via the media. Bush and kerry are going to get along just fine during the next 4 years. the majority of people on both sides of the aisle are going to continue addressing each other with respect despite and work with one another to pass legislation that does what you claim can't happen--govern both sides of the political spectrum.

Now, bush can join that reality. or his administration can continue to stretch the right limits of your party's ideology. there isn't anything in your party that precludes you from wielding the power that has just been won in a respectful and representative fashion. that's all in the president's hands, now, and he hasn't shown a very willingness to do that.

what is your party going to do after the war? or is there never going to be an after the war?
if you build bridges you will create a lasting empire. if you don't, then your party will go down in flames because you don't have a popular mandate--your party won by its nose and failure to recognize that isn't going to make all those people suddently agree with you the next election cycle.