The aftermath of the election has been interesting. Here on dKos, it seems that the fallout has highlighted two major divisions among dKos members.
1. Was Kerry a good candidate?
There are lots here on the board who think Kerry was the best candidate in this race, ran a fine campaign, and should remain the face of the Democratic party for the time being. There are also lots of people who think Kerry was a horrible candidate selected for his supposed "electability" who did not adequately face up to the challenge that Bush presented. People who think this are more likely than not to have supported Dean in the primary.
2. Was the election stolen?
There are lots of people who jump on every anecdote of electoral irregularity, statistical anomaly, and quotes taken out of context as evidence of massive fraud that stole for the Republicans what was, in their minds, rightfully a Kerry victory. People who feel this way feel betrayed by Kerry's concession on November 3. Then, there are lots of people who think that there is no possible way that fraud occurred on a massive enough scale to have swung the election. Kerry got beat fair and square, and was right not to appear like a sore loser by challenging the results.
I myself believe that Kerry was a horrible candidate (Dean would have been much better), and that he lost the election legitimately (there is no question that it was not stolen). I have found that a lot of the people I end up agreeing with on one issue, I disagree with on the other. Indeed, I think it is mostly Dean supporters like me who are most vocal about allegations of election fraud.
I am curious if I am just hypersensitive to people who don't share my views 100% of the time, or if there really is something to this. Take the poll. Just select the choice that best describes where you are on these two issues.