[Marxism] Socialist Worker Online: Yes, Kerry really lost

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a generally good article. Even if the vote totals in Ohio and
Florida were reversed, the fact would still remain that Bush won the
popular vote by a significant margin, spread out nationally and hard to
fake. Talk about not having a "mandate", imagine how weak a Kerry
administration might be! Of course, that might imaginably be a good
thing from the standpoint of people who have nothing in common with this
system, but that sentiment doesn't have much weight in capitalist
election conflicts.

The description of Bush as "the most beatable presidential incumbent in
a generation" has an electoralist ring to me.  Whose elections are
these? The top billionaire families.  Whose decision-making process do
they serve? Theirs.
>From that standpoint, was Bush more "beatable" than Bush or Ford, who
lost? Obviously not. Would a "left" presidential campaign have won on
the Democratic ticket? Would an antiwar campaign have won? Would Howard
Dean have been elected? Not a chance in my opinion.  Even those among
the ruling rich who wanted change, wanted it without disturbing the
basic course of policy. Kerry directed his appeal to them, and he got
some support but not enough.

They were the real "swing voters."
Fred Feldman





Yes, Kerry really lost
By Alan Maass | November 19, 2004 | Page 9
MUCH OF the Anybody-But-Bust left responded to John Kerry's defeat with
despair about America's "turn to the right." But a minority sounded a
different note--clinging to the that their man actually won, but the
Bush gang managed to steal the White House again.

The charges spread quickly in the days after the election--that voting
machines were rigged, corrupt officials managed to fake results and so
on. Journalist Greg Palast led the way with an article claiming that
Republican fraud cost Kerry a victory in Ohio and New Mexico, which
would have put him over the top in the Electoral College. Palast
insisted that exit polls showing Kerry with a small, but solid lead in
Ohio accurately reflected what voters thought they chose--but when
spoiled ballots were thrown out from disproportionately Democratic
areas, Bush came out on top.

There is certainly evidence of shady goings-on on Election Day. Even
more persuasive are allegations of Republicans stopping people from
casting a ballot in the first place--as in Florida, where Gov. Jeb Bush
helped out his big brother once again by ordering election officials to
use a list of alleged former felons to be kept from voting that even its
authors said was flawed.
This is all further proof that the U.S. election system--supposedly a
"beacon of democracy" to the whole world--is a mess.

But even if the fraud was on such a scale in Ohio to cost Kerry that
state--and thus, a majority in the Electoral College--the fact remains
that George Bush won the popular vote by a 3.5 million vote margin, and
no one is claiming Republicans stole that many votes. Claiming victory
for Kerry on the basis of the undemocratic Electoral College--originally
created to protect the interests of slaveowners, and perpetuated today
to give sparsely populated, conservative states a bigger say in national
politics--while admitting defeat in the popular vote, is a shady
proposition for the left.

The focus on vote fraud conspiracies deflects attention from a reality
that is harder for Democrats to face. The simple fact is that many of
the conservative "swing voters" Kerry and the Democrats sought so avidly
were convinced--rightly--that Kerry wasn't a clear and principled
alternative to Bush.

However many votes the Republicans succeeded in stealing, John Kerry
lost many times more by running a pathetic campaign that never seriously
challenged the most beatable presidential incumbent in a generation.


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism