Why do so many Americans still believe Bush stole the elections again?
 

Just face it, Bush won. He stole the elections in 2000 but in 2004 chimpbrain just got more votes.

http://www.coastalpost.com/04/12/02.htm

So he stole the 2000 but not the 2004, makes complete sense.

It's like the article says: there was fraud by the republicans, but probably not enough fraud to change the outcome.

Sounds like the size of it.

ummm..because he cheated again? because exit polls don't match, just like they did in Ukraine, where people actually still have a functioning enough brain to protest?

the whole thing is fucked really and it wont stop when bush leaves office then it will the new guy

I think there?s little question that Bush won.

To be honest, there is a lot of talk about Hilary running in 2008 and if the democratic candidate would have one, he would have been the incumbent in 2008 and Hilary would not have been able to run. I think it's awfully strange that the Democratic Party put up such a week opponent for bush. If there was a decent democratic runner, Bush would have lost his ass!

I really believe that even if the evidence was glaring that Bush had stole this election, I HIGHLY doubt the US population would have the intestinal fortitude to do anything about it in regards to large scale protests like in the Ukraine.


I fear we have become a sad complacent bunch of people in comparison to the people that founded this country.

Yep.


:glugglug

diebold owned us.

Hilary would do a great job

the main machine maker diebold is run by a man that said in an interview on MSNBC that he would do anything to make sure Bush won...Yeah that's not a conflict of interest...:helpme

Bingo.
I wouldn't be so annoyed if we would have lost FAIRLY.

I'd love to read that article. Any chance of you having it?

I actually spelled out one instead of won. Man, am I a dumbass. I would first like to blame it on the fact that I have yet to drink my morning coffee.

This man speaks the truth

Passion died in the late 60's, early 70's.

so true - we're all to lazy and comfortable to do anything about anything.


sucks.

yeah, I've yet to see one instance of voting irregularities favoring Kerry.

http://www.diebold.com/whatsnews/int.../executive.htm

From their own website.

The Democrats will spend all their time and money pretending they didn't lose instead of trying to determine why they did lose. This is why they will lose the next elections too.

If you think the Republicans are the ones cheating you are insane.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041...3921-1812r.htm

to say that the dems will lose again in the next election is a pretty bold prediction. I often read about how the dems have no focus, no platform and no hope but, really, kerry was within 100K votes of winning and the repubs - with the same platform they have now - barely won in 2000 ( lost the popular vote and should have lost florida ) . If you look back history has shown that after 8 years of one party the people are ready for a change. There are exceptions. Bush 1 got elected after regan but regan was very very popular when he left office. I think the repubs can win again in 2008 if three things happen. 1. bush has to be very popular and have a strong job approval rating going into the election year 2. they have to come up with a strong candidate. Cheney will not run ( and could never win if he did ) so they will have to pull out someone else. I still think that sometime in the next 1-2 years cheney will step down for health reasons and be replaced by guliani and he will run in 2008 and 3. the dems would have to put up a pretty weak candidate.

The #1 reason Kerry lost is that he went hard after the young voters. Clinton did this both times he ran and it worked great, the young people voted in big numbers for him. Kerry tried to do the same. He bragged about registering 20 million first time voters and really courted the 18-22 year olds. And then on election day the young voters stayed home. Only 1 in 20 people 18-22 actually voted this year. Kerry went after the young, and the young could not be bothered to vote for either candidate.

Do the dems have some platform problems? yes. The #1 problem the party has as a whole is thier base. The repubs know thier base ( the wealthy, big business and conservative christians ) and they play to it. The dems seem to have an ever shifting base and try, with each new election, to redefine that base. For the dems to win in 2008 the first thing they need to do is define thier base and go after it in 2006. If they can elect some new senetors and congressmen in that election it will be a big step forward for them. If bush is popular, doing well and the repubs have a good candidate the dems better have the next JFK in order to win. It will be interesting to see.

You can plenty in this article:
http://www.coastalpost.com/04/12/02.htm

sore losers

thank you,you are so right

At least Congress can start worrying about important things like patrolling MLB.

At first I smelled a conspiracy .. how can so many Americans have honestly voted for the Bushman. Then I remembered the last time I drove cross-country and the wondeful folk I met along the way. It's all clear to me now.