[lbo-talk] No, actually, I don't believe it.

[ravi]

Nathan Newman wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Gary?" <sladeg at verizon.net>
> 
> Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> 
>> Kerry did an excellent job addressing various moral and religious issues
>>in a statesman-like manner
>>without falling into theocratic thinking, but evidently that was not good
>>enough for the voters.
> 
> 
> -gonna take this opportunity to jump into all this bollock spouting,
> -Kerry was a piss poor candidate and we've known that all along , there
> -was no great mass turn out, as I said before Nader's loss was Kerry's
> -gain with no apreciable increase in Democratic turn out.
> 
> What are you talking about?  Gore received 50.9 million votes.  Kerry
> received 55.3 million votes, almost a five million vote increase.  As a
> percentage of eligible voters, Kerry got a higher percentage of that
> potential vote than and Democratic candidate since Jimmy Carter won in
> 1976-- who got roughly the same percentage of the potential vote-- and far
> more than Bill Clinton did in either 1992 or 1996.
> 

well, what's the goal? to get a lot of votes or to win the election?
gore actually won the election, didnt he? perhaps if turnout had been as
high in 2000 as 2004 gore would have got the same or more. of course you
could argue that turnout is not just an issue of scale, but of
significance... but this election seems to suggest otherwise.

	--ravi