Oh Well.

It’s 12:15 a.m. (Pacific time.) I have nothing to say. I am good at losing. I have started five posts and deleted all of them.

I feel a bit speechless.

I got nothing.

(bright side: my family will speak to me now.)

34 Comments

  1. I bet they would speak to you even if things had been different.

    Reply

  2. stunned silence is the best I can do at the moment also

    Reply

  3. It’s still not over guys. I may get pissy but I will always talk to you. We just don’t talk politics.

    Reply

  4. p.s. If the dems had someone more moderate as a candidate, he would have swept the country and we wouldn’t be waiting for the results.

    Reply

  5. More moderate? Like how? Ammending the constitution to prevent same sex couple from entering a life long commitment to eachother with equal rights?

    Kerry won Three debates! There was no argument left to vote for Bush and still half the coutry does. To me that spells out a gross lack of common sense and care for the world as well as a blatant disregard for even biblical values such as “Love thy Neighbor”.

    There was a lady on TV after the third debate, saying that she thought Kerry won all the debates, made all the best arguments on all the issues she cared about but when asked who would get her vote, she said: “Bush”. For no reason

    Reply

  6. In all honesty, I am not even a little surprised. Right now, that’s all I can say without coming off as being offensive and rude.

    I’m going to go prepare for the “let’s go back 40 years in time” ride.

    Reply

  7. We will be paying for this war for generations. One I never agreed we should even be in. Sadness.

    Reply

  8. “And in this election, President Bush received more votes than any presidential candidate in our country’s history.”

    I am so surprised by this. I can’t tell you.

    Reply

  9. OK ASHTON. We’re Punk’d .. ha ha very funny.

    Reply

  10. And here I thought it was a bunch of Democrats who weren’t voting all along. How totally bizarre we’ve become such a God oriented, right-sided nation.

    Reply

  11. I know. The thought that 60 million people are celebrating this makes me feel sick.

    I never thought I’d say this but today I am truly ashamed to be an American and to have contributed to a system that creates and supports such a thing as this.

    Reply

  12. Did the Hispanic population of Florida vote for Bush because of Cuba? I found this tally perplexing as well. Apparently, I need to get out more. I guess the only people I really surround myself with are a bit more liberal-minded in nature. I had no idea there were that many people willing to vote for him. I absolutely stand corrected, humbled and a bit worried.

    Reply

  13. Yes, I feel lulled by the false sense of the democratic blogosphere.

    Reply

  14. This election saw the highest turnout of eligible voters (60%) since 1968 (when Nixon won).

    The media would have us believe that the “conventional wisdom” is that the higher the turnout, the better it is for Democrats. I think the the higher the turnout, the better it is for the candidate with the simpler message.

    Listening to NPR, an overwhelming factor in this election was “values”—a code for Christian conservativism. Bush’s message is quite simple: he’s a Christian who believes in low taxes and a strong America. That sells in middle america …

    … but it also sells among others, too. Hispanics who voted for the first time were evenly split between Bush and Kerry.

    I’m disappointed but not surprised—and that disappoints me even more. The sad thing about this election isn’t that “my guy” lost, but that it may be revealing to me that my egalitarian idealism is self defeating.

    120 million people were inspired to participate in this election. That should be something to celebrate.

    Reply

  15. “120 million people were inspired to participate in this election. That should be something to celebrate.”
    You speak the truth my faithful indian companion.

    Reply

  16. But how can a man who preaches nothing but “Freedom” win mostly on grounds of restricting other peoples freedom? (Gays, Women, Poor folks).

    Reply

  17. Also, I am never a sore loser, taht’s not what this is about though, losing. This is about genuine fear of Armageddon.God Help U.S. Now.

    Reply

  18. Also, I am never a sore loser, that’s not what this is about though, losing. This is about what I experience as a genuine fear of Armageddon.God Help U.S. Now.

    Reply

  19. re: bush recieved more votes than any other, yes he did, but so did kerry..due to the bigger turn out.

    Reply

  20. That’s good, too. Hopefully we have as much steam next time around when Hillary runs. ;]

    Reply

  21. Something to chew on – Five (publicly traded) companies control 90% of the media. In 2003, the FCC, via Michael Powell, even increased how many TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers a company could own in any one market. I think we should try and get some regulation in the media to stop the spin/propaganda machines. When our news sources are openly endorsing candidates and running smear campaigns thinly disguised as news we must regain control of the “free” press.

    Reply

  22. how do we do this? how? I agree entirely.

    Reply

  23. I would like to start by demanding that Will Farrell return to SNL.

    Reply

  24. Everyone here (work) is whining about this being a Diebold conspiracy or something similar. After last time (when there really were some questionable conditions), I can’t put up with people playing conspiracy games. Bush had a simple, clear message. He lost the debates and a lot of credibility with people who examined his policies (or lack thereof) in any detail. But honestly, the majority of voters aren’t going to spend weeks digging into policy. The Dems really need help with their salesmanship. No matter what their politics are, their real failure is clearly in selling candidates. Clinton sold himself, and did so quite well. Bush just seems friendlier to so many people, so much more like them. In retrospect, I’m shocked that a pseudo-Kennedy managed to gain so much support outside of New England.
    To Diane’s comment, I actually think Kerry is one of the more moderate potential candidates. When compared to Dean this is especially true. I agree that he alienated a lot of people, but I don’t think anyone really sees him as the most liberal possibility in the world.
    Gephardt would have been a much stronger choice, I think.
    The Bush campaign ran solely on the war ticket, and it’s nearly universally recognized that the entire campaign was about fear.
    But Kerry ran on nothing, really. In a different election, he would have appeared much stronger and could have won. In this case, he ran a fairly empty campaign for the simplistic wishes of many people. He may have been willing to discuss his policies and decisions far more than Bush, but that isn’t enough for a lot of people. They want slogans. They want everything to be boiled down.
    Bush didn’t run a better campaign, but he ran a far more effective campaign. Kerry is a better person – I don’t doubt that. He just lacks what it takes to get people riled up, to get people to fight for him. Most folks who voted for Kerry were voting for not-Bush. The Dems needed a candidate that inspired more loyalty than that. They didn’t put up. Now I just hope they can shut up and learn their lesson. Maybe watching the Supreme Court turn into a group of frothing dogs of oppression will force the Dems to get their asses in gear for the next election.

    I applaud Bush for tricking people into thinking they were in danger and that he could be their protector. It was genius, and was executed with grace. I’m serious about that. It was excellent politics.

    Reply

  25. To clarify on one point – I was agreeing with Diane. I was just saying that Kerry might have been the most moderate of the two main choices (he and Dean).

    Reply

  26. Dean even made my liberal head feel a bit uneasy. The thing is, I grew to actually LIKE and TRUST Kerry after watching the debates. Had everyone watched them in their entirety, I think people would have grown to like/respect/trust him a whole lot more. I was surprised at how many people didn’t watch them outside of my DC bubble. It’s a shame.

    Reply

  27. I totally agree with Toby, Bush’s campaign hit home with an emotional response, had a simple core message, and just in general was executed better. My point about the media though is that it is in full spin mode. The Bush camp has been able to pull off an entire “War on Terrorism” against a country that had nothing to do with terrorism in the U.S. Would we expect anything less than Bush being re-elected even after losing every debate, failing miserably in Iraq, destroying our countries’ global reputation, and lying about WMD’s? The next four years will be pivotal with the GOP now in total control. We need to start writing letters to our representives, the FCC, and making people aware of how the media is impacting public opinion. At this point, the media has helped turned a good ‘ol boy who did nothing but was born with a silver spoon in his mouth into one of the most powerful people on the planet.

    Reply

  28. Also – I don’t believe the election was rigged, I believe the truth was missrepresented.

    Reply

  29. That’s the way it’s been for four years now.

    Reply

  30. mihow – what things about Dean did you think were too liberal.

    I’ve been surprised to read (in other places) Democrats’ opinion that Kerry was too liberal. I see Kerry as barely liberal at all, with his having voted for the war and not supporting gay marriage. I don’t know if I could support a candidate further to the right (yeah, false dichotomy and all) than him. Part of me wonders whether he was just too North Eastern in a country where the South refuses to elect northeasterners. Part of me wonders whether maybe, just maybe, we’d be better off if the south had won the civil war and seceded from the union.

    I don’t trust paperless electronic voting machines. That said, I’m not making any claims that these machines were tampered with or that such tampering cost Kerry the election. I think we have to be agnostic when it comes to these black boxes—we’ll probably never be able to know whether tampering took place.

    Reply

  31. Katie, I think it was more the folks working for the Dean campaign that made me uneasy. And when I say “uneasy” i mean that I was worried, should he get elected as candidate, we’d never stand a chance at winning this election. That’s what made me nervous. That’s why I was happier with Kerry.

    My dad is unable to comment today for reasons I will not mention, but he did say that had Gephardt been chosen as VP (instead of Edwards) we probably would have won the election. Or, at the very least, had a better chance.

    Reply

  32. jb, that’s hilarious. I just saw what it was you were referring to. Funny.

    Reply

Leave a Reply