2007-02-04 13:48:55 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Absolutely. The voting machines were rigged. It is the only reason Bush took Ohio.
2007-02-04 13:53:58 · answer #1 · answered by trichbopper 4 · 7⤊ 4⤋
Any able candidate could have beaten Bush in 2004. Kerry, a fellow Skull & Bones member with Bush, both Loyal to that society, guaranteed that no matter who won, a S&B loyalist would be President. But it was clear that Kerry took a dive for Bush, so it wasn't a fair fight. He did the same thing in last Nov. elections, saying just the wrong thing at the right time, that almost by itself changed the outcome then against democrats. Kerry is not to be trusted by Democrats.
2007-02-04 21:57:20 · answer #2 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Good question. I think that someone clearly and unapologetically against the war might have had a better chance, as opposed to the equivocal trying to be all things to all people stance Kerry appeared to take. If nothing else, even if he or she had lost, that candidate would now be vindicated and perhaps a strong candidate for 2008, whereas few care what Kerry has to say about anything these days.
2007-02-04 21:55:39 · answer #3 · answered by David 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Good question. I doubt it. A better one is, what makes you so sure Kerry didn't throw the election? When Hillary was asked about her flip flop on the Iraq war, she said she learned from the first mistake. Kerry couldn't seem to find a way to state the obvious answer, ever. He's not THAT dumb.
2007-02-04 22:05:35 · answer #4 · answered by bob h 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think Bush was *very* vulnerable in 2004, but the Democrats failed to put forth any viable candidates.
Funny to see all the whining about those evil Diebold machines. What's hilarious is the fact that you little hypocrites expect us to believe that they were rigged when your side lost, but now that you finally won one, they are suddenly, mysteriously, magically, completely and fully repaired.
The left would be amusing if they weren't serious.
2007-02-04 21:59:29 · answer #5 · answered by Jadis 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Kerry did win. Diebolt was the cause of the loss and Kerry was a wimp and didn't stand his ground just like gore didn't in 2000. But, I think if Kerry ran a better Campaign and Gore ran a better campaign without Leiberman as his running mate that either one of them could have won easily hands down. Kerry was such a dissappointment because he didn't come out clearly against the war.
2007-02-04 21:56:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
If the Democrat ticket was reversed, Edwards for Presidnet and Kerry for VP, they would have won.
2007-02-04 22:06:34 · answer #7 · answered by cwigg 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Bush brother is governor of Florida which carried many electoral votes
2007-02-04 22:32:09 · answer #8 · answered by tedybear 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If there wasn't a war going on, Bush would have lost resoundingly. Even against Kerry.
2007-02-04 22:09:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Are you asking if Bush was vulnerable in 04? Yes he was. Are you asking if another of the Dem candidates could have defeated him? The answer is no.
2007-02-04 22:32:03 · answer #10 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋