[cardinal4]

So it goes with John Kerry these days. Had 60,000 Ohioans voted differently, he would now be leader of the free world. After the election it seemed possible that Kerry would soldier on as the voice of national Democrats. Yet in a matter of just months he's gone from the face of his party to another face in the crowd.

Please, someone explain this logic to me, Bush won by over 100,000 votes!

[RWR8189]

If 51% of Bush's margin of victory voted the other way, Kerry would have won in Ohio.

Similarly if 60,000 votes flipped between Wisconsin, Washington, Minnesota Bush would have won an electoral landslide.

[MikefromOhio]

The President won by about 118,000 thousand votes.

Take 60,000 away, and Kerry would have beaten him by around 2,000 or so....

but there would have been an automatic recount.

[bert]

....Kerry would soldier on,.....

..... aides billed as a "major address." .....

Sounds like a mixed metaphor. Kerry was a sailor and unable to sailor on and the navy has no majors.

[Das Outsider]

Had 60,000 Ohioans voted differently, he would now be leader of the free world.



And if a frog had wings, he'd fly.

[montomike]

Say 100,000 people who voted for Bush was the margin of victory.

If 60,000 of these voters voted for Kerry, that means that Bush would have had 60,000 less votes and Kerry would have had 60,000 more (like duh!)

Hypothetical Bush victory numbers (too lazy to look up the actuals, I got crab cakes cookin')

Bush: 2,000,000 votes
Kerry: 1,900,000 votes

If 60,000 voters voted for the elite liberal snob who ran out on his men after 4 months in Vietnam and then met with the Viet Cong and North Vietnames Gov. reps while still a Naval reserve officer Kerry rather than the elite, conservative (kind of), I can hug a black woman who lost her home and mean it Bush

Bush: 1,940,000
Kerry: 1,960,000

Kerry would have won and we would have lost.

That's how this logic works!

[zbigreddogz]

Bush -60,000, Kerry + 60,000 = 120,000 vote swing.

[dr_who_2]

It's all past history. I was interested in this article because it suggested that someone in the Democrat mainstream was nervous about Kerry trying to get press attention. The article's a bit of a letdown really. When you think about it, every New Republic article is just some pundit repeating the MSM news headlines in the form of complete sentences and better grammar.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Please, someone explain this logic to me, Bush won by over 100,000 votes!"

You have to remove the 60k from the Republican column. That is now 40k votes. Add the 60k back to the Dem column and Kerry wins by 20k votes.

Problem here is Bush won by 136,000 votes. In Wisconsin, Bush lost by 11,000 votes and there was voter fraud detected and convictions made. Bush lost Wisconsin, PA and NJ by less votes than he won by in Ohio.

Those 3 states are known for RAT voter fraud. In all fairness to Kerry, this election wasn't close.

[szweig]

The presidency is decided by who wins the most states. As it turned out, Ohio was the critical state in the 2004 election. The total number of votes cast nationwide makes no difference...SSZ

[Common Tator]

:UHHHH You are math challenged... Aren't you?

Bush won by 120 thousand votes.

If Bush had 2,120,000 votes and Kerry had 2,000,000 votes in Ohio that results in Bush winning by 120 thousand votes.

Now if 60 thousand people who voted for Bush had instead voted for Kerry what happesns ot the totals.

First Bush loses 60,000 votes. Take 60,000 from Bush's 2,120,00 and that leaves Bush with 2060,000 votes. Secondly Kerry had gained those 60,000 votes. So we add 60,000 votes to Kerry's 2,000,000 votes. That gives Kerry 2,060,00 votes to Bush's 2,060,000 votes.

That makes it a tie.