In no particular order . . .
- John Kerry should have won. With a valid vote count, he probably did. But, I also feel that almost any Democratic candidate should have been able to beat George W. Bush, and that it shouldn't have been close enough to have to worry about stolen votes.
- Kerry did a decent job, but not remarkable. He performed admirably in the debates. But, he never connected with the Democratic base, and he never connected with voters outside the party. I voted for him because he was the nominee. He was not my first choice, not even my fifth choice, but he got my vote.
More after the break . . .
- Every time I thought Kerry and I agreed on an issue, he would add some qualifying statement intended to garner a vote from some elusive swing voter, and the gap between his position and mine seemed to only widen each time he spoke. I honestly never knew exactly where he stood on many issues that were important to me. But I didn't even care any more, because I was going to vote against George W. Bush, and Kerry didn't even have to earn my vote. I hope that's the last time I'm willing to vote for someone I don't really believe in.
- My candidate, Dean, was effectively put on life support by Iowa voters. New Hampshire finished him off. I can't express enough outrage over the fact that Iowa chose the nominee for the Democrats, then voted for Bush in the general election. New Hampshire barely squeezed into the "blue state" category. I don't believe that future Democratic candidates should be anointed by states like these, before many of our other states even get a chance to hold primaries or caucuses.
- Kerry should have made sure the votes were valid before ever conceding the election. This wasn't a weekly squash game where the gentlemanly thing is to pat your opponent on the back and say, "Oh, well, we'll get you next time." There are real questions about the vote count, and having the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee fold up their tents without a struggle leaves me wondering if they ever really cared about changing the direction that this country is heading. We're on a devastating course, but those who have been empowered to do something about it seem to have just given up.
- BushCo takes advantage of the Democrats' attempts to be polite and sportsmanlike. While we were being told that speaking out wasn't seen as patriotic, while our elected representatives were afraid to speak truth to power, and while our candidate acted gentlemanly, Bushco uncompromisingly implemented their radical agenda. And the "loyal opposition" forgot what it meant to oppose.
- I believe Daschle lost because he had an impossible balancing act to perform, between representing a conservative state and trying to lead the Democratic opposition in the Senate. He couldn't keep either side happy, and he did injustice to both. Our Democratic leadership should be chosen from solidly blue states. Period.
- The shutting down of comments on the Kerry blog, taking away the place his supporters were most likely to go to grieve, vent, plan, etc., was a huge mistake. It sent a signal that when it's over for Kerry, it's over.
- I don't think the Democratic party's failure is because they are not able to attract swing voters. Their failure is because they are constantly pandering in order to attract swing voters. Voters will be attracted to a party that stands for something, something that doesn't change depending on the audience. If the Democratic party would stick to core principles, stand up for them without shame, and represent their base, the base would grow, because those who are currently not voting out of disgust with both parties might find a reason to vote again. And the swing voters can go swing wherever their fickle hearts take them.
- I've been a Democrat all my adult life (several decades). I don't feel like it's a party that really represents me any more. It's a choice between Republican and Republican-Lite, and I don't know how many more times I'm going to be convinced to vote because I like the other guy less.