Can Somebody Tell Me How Bush Won This Election?

[Abe Sargent]

As a political scientist (I teach poli sci at a college, I've worked in politics, I have studied politics) this election is simply stunning. Virtually all of the forces were aligned for a Kerry win.

Take the following:

- Bush's popularity is under 50%. It's hard to vote for somebody if you can't even approve of the job he is doing.
- Bush is fighting a relatively unpopular war in Iraq. It's hard to vote for somebody if you do not agree with why he sent American soldiers to die.
- Bush is relatively inept at public speaking. In the modern age, televison charisma is a major factor in voting. Personally, I've seen Bush VERY lucid and cogent when he is speaking informally. When you just watch him talk to people casually, he appears to be every bit the Yale grad that he is. But in public, he stinks.
- Bush had a poor economy. Not the worst, certianly, but nothing close to good. Elections are virtually always decided by the economy, with the party in power doing well if the economy is doing well and vice versa.
- Bush has made several major gaffes as president. The whole issues of WMD's and their continued absense, and making decisions based on arguably flawed intelliegence are examples.
- Bush has had several corporate scandals linked to his administration. Now, scandals alone are not always enough to lose just ask Clinton, but Bill had a good economy and charisma to propel him. Bush had no such help.
- The entire cultural environment has appeared to shift away from some root conservative values. Movies and televison are regularly showing homosexual realationships in increasingly positive light, a propaganda anti-Bush documentary grosses over 100 million, comedians regularly spin Bush in significantly more negative light than Kerry, the constant barrage of "Bush is stupid," "Bush is a corporate shill," and "Bush is evil," should have worn down the public's perceptions.


With all of these indicators leaning one way, how could Bush still win, and do so convincingly? What is going on here? This has to be about somethng more than "Kerry was a poor candidate" or "Kerry ran a bad campaign" (He wasn't, he was an adequate candidate. He wasn't great, but he also was not poor. He understood the issues, had a strong military record, served in the Senate for years, was considered a strong statesmen, and so forth.)

This is the second presidential consecutive election that the Democrats have lost after being handed the election on a silver platter. Once, you might make a claim that Gore was tupid or Kerry was a poor candidate, but not both times. Insated, something else must be in play, but what?

-Anxiety

[Arles]

I think the problem is partly your premise. The economy has been growing for 13 months (1.7 mil jobs created), the corporate scandles were no more linked to Bush than Clinton when the facts got out - plus they were dealt with and people were punished and it is not as much of an issue now.

I don't think you could be further from the truth on this:

"The entire cultural environment has appeared to shift away from some root conservative values"

Just because some sitcom has a homo-sexual relationship or Moore's movie sells well does not equate a shift in social values. Many conservatives can separate their political leanings from their enjoyment of entertainment. Plus, there is about 25-30% of the true "liberals" that will flock to leftist entertainment like the West Wing or F9/11 - which equates millions in sales.

The problem was that the left felt they could win by simply offering an alternative to Bush because of the exact reasons you cite. Yet, they didn't realize that people like Bush personally and feel he is a good leader. Plus, many prefer his stance on social and religious issues over the "hazy" social views of someone like Kerry (says he opposes gay marriage, yet votes against the Clinton-created Defense of Marriage Act). Kerry never really was able to show consistent stances on many social, economic and military issues that were front and center on the plate of many voters.

The people may very well have chosen someone other than Bush, but they needed to feel good about that person from a social view and leadership standpoint. And, in the end, Kerry wasn't that guy.

[Noop]

He walked on water.

[vex]

Religious views.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by vexroid

Religious views.

Religion and money, married together.

[sachmo71]

Keeping the gays down.

[Aesyrqwe]

More people voted for him

-Aes-

[GrantDawg]

Oh, but the real answer according to the Dems on talk radio: Diebold machines. Because (according to Randy Rhodes (?)) "America cannot be so stupid that they would actually vote for Bush."

[SirFozzie]

Here's the real reason.

The Democrats had Get Out The Vote committees.

The Republicans had Get Out The Vote ISSUES.

Issues trumps people always.

[Senator]

More money.

[cody8200]

How about Kerry was a shitty candidate? Works for me. Anyone else and Bush probably wouldnt be the future president. Oh well, I guess that will teach the democrats to vote for their best candidate next time. One not from Massachusetts...unless he's the reincarnation of JFK, not some poor mans version.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Earlier, in another thread, someone posted a link to some detailed exit polling data.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag.../epolls.0.html

Now, last night proved pretty well that exit polls aren't perfect, but perhaps there are some clues to the mystery in there.

1) 3 issues accounted for being "most important" to 51% of voters. "Moral values" 22%, Economy/Jobs 20%, Terrorism 19%. And Bush dominated 2 of the 3 (moral & terrorism), taking 80% of one & 86% of the other, while Kerry had similar numbers for "Economy voters".

2) "Most important quality" also provides some key clues.
Bush pulled 70% to 91% or more from those who felt "Clear Stands On Issues", "Honest/Trustworthy" , "Strong Leader", or "Religious Faith" -- and those groups accounted for 53% of all voters.

Kerry was left with "Will Bring Change", "Intelligent", and "Cares About People". He too dominated his "key quality voters", ranging from 75% to 95% of them ... but they only accounted for 40% of all voters.

3) 51% of voters "approve of the decision to go to war in Iraq" and Bush pulled 85% of them. 45% "disapprove" and Kerry claimed 87% of those.

4) 72% of voters either wanted no legal recognition of same-sex couples or civil unions only. And Bush won both groups (70% and 52%).

5) More people trusted Bush (49%) to handle the economy than trusted Kerry (45%).
Bush got 93% of those voters to back him, while Kerry managed to convert only 88% of those who trusted him.

6) 53% of voters had a "favorable impression" of Bush ... and he got 94% of their votes
47% of voters had a "favorable impression" of Kerry ... and he got 90% of them.

7) Kerry managed to claim 54% of voters in urban areas ... but those only accounted for 30% of the totals voters surveyed. Suburban & Rural areas both went for Bush, 52% percent & 57% percent respectively.

And the list goes on & on.

So, you asked "how":
1) Bush is more popular,at least among voters, than you expected.
2) You grossly overestimated the predictive value of the whole "cultural/entertainment"
stuff
3) Bush drew stronger support from his strong demos than Kerry got from his strong demos. And Bush's strong demos were larger than Kerry's.

Add it all up, and then add a dash of hindsight, and the "why" suddenly becomes much clearer.

[Bomber]

Reasons Bush Won:

1) America apparently hasn't learned that discrimination isn't a good thing AKA Gay Marriage Issue
2) Americans don't agree with the separation of Church and State.
3) Americans are convinced Saddam was a terrorist and Iraq is part of the war on terror
4) Americans are convinced that we are safer with Bush in power even though he's created a terrorist hotbed in Iraq and allowed bin Laden to walk freely
5) Americans let the Republicans scare tactics work. "Terrorists attacks will increase under John Kerry", got any proof?
6) Americans like the simple approach Bush takes. This is were I stand and that's that. Apparently its better to be strong and wrong than to change your mind with new information.

[Huckleberry]

I think it has something to do with electoral votes or something.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Bomber

3) Americans are convinced Saddam was a terrorist

Do you honestly believe that Saddam was not a terrorist?

[BishopMVP]

Other people had some good answers, but if you go down one by one I think most of your premises are off, at least in part.

Originally Posted by Anxiety

- Bush's popularity is under 50%. It's hard to vote for somebody if you can't even approve of the job he is doing.

The exit polls (at least at CNN) gave him a 53/46 approval rating.

- Bush is fighting a relatively unpopular war in Iraq. It's hard to vote for somebody if you do not agree with why he sent American soldiers to die.

Again, exit polling gave him a 51/45 edge in the decision to go to war, and only a 52/44 deficit on whether is was going well/badly. And I think some people basing their vote on Iraq weren't about whether we should have gone there, but who will do better from this point on. Kerry did not inspire confidence.

- Bush is relatively inept at public speaking. In the modern age, televison charisma is a major factor in voting. Personally, I've seen Bush VERY lucid and cogent when he is speaking informally. When you just watch him talk to people casually, he appears to be every bit the Yale grad that he is. But in public, he stinks.

He changes his style of speaking to fit the audience. Most people don't watch the whole debates/speeches. They see/hear a couple soundbites, and Bush's style works a lot better here than Kerry's long-winded, nuanced positions.

- Bush had a poor economy. Not the worst, certianly, but nothing close to good. Elections are virtually always decided by the economy, with the party in power doing well if the economy is doing well and vice versa.

The economy has been improving the last year and a half. While it isn't going as well as the late 90's, it isn't poor enough to make it a big enough issue to overshadow others.

- Bush has made several major gaffes as president. The whole issues of WMD's and their continued absense, and making decisions based on arguably flawed intelliegence are examples.

A lot of people still approve of the decision, even if some of the rationale hasn't panned out.

- Bush has had several corporate scandals linked to his administration. Now, scandals alone are not always enough to lose just ask Clinton, but Bill had a good economy and charisma to propel him. Bush had no such help.

None of these directly touched Bush himself. People said Lay was real close, and Cheney's the VP, but Bush himself was never linked to them. Also, while these were in vogue a couple years ago, I don't recall Enron/Global Crossing etc. brought up during the campaign itself.

- The entire cultural environment has appeared to shift away from some root conservative values. Movies and televison are regularly showing homosexual realationships in increasingly positive light, a propaganda anti-Bush documentary grosses over 100 million, comedians regularly spin Bush in significantly more negative light than Kerry, the constant barrage of "Bush is stupid," "Bush is a corporate shill," and "Bush is evil," should have worn down the public's perceptions.

Or alternately, reinforced them. When there are constant over the top attacks on Bush, the actual bad things are lumped in and largely dismissed along with these. And no one who doesn't already believe in his points wants someone like Michael Moore telling them how to vote. While F9/11 had many people go see it, it didn't change people's minds. It merely reinforced the beliefs of the ideologues on both sides.


In the end, a lot of anti-Bush people are going to look at this and think how could anyone have done that without stopping to examine why over half the country did. On issues like Abortion, Gun Control and Iraq I have very strong opinions but I can understand how most on the other side reach their viewpoints and don't think people holding the other viewpoint are stupid or ignorant. From most (but not all, and admittedly I am in a very liberal area) of the strong anti-Bush people around here, I don't get that feeling. Maybe if I lived in South Carolina or something I'd feel the same about right-wingers, but I'm going off my observations.

[Franklinnoble]

I feel prophetic. I posted the following at benelou just two days ago:

http://www.benelou.com/cgi-bin/ikonb...t=ST;f=2;t=305

I predict Bush wins, and it won't be that close.

TV pundits will scratch their heads and wonder "how'd that happen?"

Democrats will eventually come to the conclusion that nobody wanted to see Theresa Heinz Kerry as the First Lady.

While it was closer than I expected (I was thinking Bush would have a solid 6%-8% popular victory), sure enough, everyone is wondering "how'd that happen?" And Anxiety is right (for the most part). Bush was very beatable, on paper, but I think folks underestimated the character issues in this election.

[Dutch]

To put it simply and without hate.

Bush won because of the old adage, "What have you done for me lately." (The last 12 months)

While Kerry worked heavily issues from the past (i.e. 13 months ago or longer).

[GoldenEagle]

Originally Posted by Bomber

Reasons Bush Won:

1) America apparently hasn't learned that discrimination isn't a good thing AKA Gay Marriage Issue
2) Americans don't agree with the separation of Church and State.
3) Americans are convinced Saddam was a terrorist and Iraq is part of the war on terror
4) Americans are convinced that we are safer with Bush in power even though he's created a terrorist hotbed in Iraq and allowed bin Laden to walk freely
5) Americans let the Republicans scare tactics work. "Terrorists attacks will increase under John Kerry", got any proof?
6) Americans like the simple approach Bush takes. This is were I stand and that's that. Apparently its better to be strong and wrong than to change your mind with new information.

Someone has been watching MTV.

My thoughts on the election are on this: The right man for the job won. We, as Americans, face inevitable dangers in the world we live in. These dangers are no one’s fault except the terrorists. Islamic fundamentalists will always hate the primarily Christian countries. They will target the biggest and the best and America is the best. History has told us that. The only way to ensure the security of America is for Americans to do it themselves. We can not turn it over to the UN. They are not the ones who will come under attack. In order to ensure our security, we must stop at nothing to root out terrorists and their support. Iraq was an example of this. We attacked Iraq to get rid of a dictator who was evil. We attacked Iraq to establish democracy in a region which is the primary funding grounds of terrorist activities. The war on terror will continue for the foreseeable future and it our responsibility to see it through. In the end, the people showed that security was the most important issue in this election and rightfully so. The American made the right choice.

[Gary Gorski]

Good points in this thread - one that hasn't been mentioned is that "Kerry had a plan". Terrific. Would have been nice if he would have told someone what that plan was though.

You might think Bush is an idiot or incompetent - I personally don't - but I still don't know what Kerry is. All I Kerry told me was that Bush did a crappy job and that he wasn't George Bush. Great - Michael Moore told us that much.

This was a huge wasted opportunity on the dems part - the election was handed to them on a silver platter and they botched it big time. The people Kerry was surrounded with didn't help either. Someone mentioned his wife - he would have been better served if she went on vacation for a year and came back after the election. Every time she spoke she put her foot in her mouth. I have no clue as to why she atttempted to insult Laura Bush by saying she never had a real job. Not only did that turn out to be grossly untrue but what was there to gain by taking a jab at a First Lady that is very well liked?

Kerry is an elitist and the country doesn't want an elitist. Kerry's attempt to be a common man by going hunting was laughable. This is what made Clinton so dominant - Clinton was just one of the guys. Bob Dole didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against Clinton because everyone loved "Bubba". If you're an average man or woman like most of us are who do you want to hear from? People like George and Laura Bush or John Kerry and Theresa Heinz-Kerry? The Bush family may have more money than all of us put together but at least you can imagine him as one of the guys at the bar.

All the dems needed to do was pick a fairly moderate candidate with a likeable personality that common, middle class people could relate to and it was a lock. Did they learn nothing from the overwhelming success of Clinton's campaigns? Clinton might still be president if there were no term-limits.

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

Someone has been watching MTV.

My thoughts on the election are on this: The right man for the job won. We, as Americans, face inevitable dangers in the world we live in. These dangers are no one’s fault except the terrorists. Islamic fundamentalists will always hate the primarily Christian countries. They will target the biggest and the best and America is the best. History has told us that. The only way to ensure the security of America is for Americans to do it themselves. We can not turn it over to the UN. They are not the ones who will come under attack. In order to ensure our security, we must stop at nothing to root out terrorists and their support. Iraq was an example of this. We attacked Iraq to get rid of a dictator who was evil. We attacked Iraq to establish democracy in a region which is the primary funding grounds of terrorist activities. The war on terror will continue for the foreseeable future and it our responsibility to see it through. In the end, the people showed that security was the most important issue in this election and rightfully so. The American made the right choice.

I don't watch MTV.

Iraq was not the primary funding grounds for terrorism. If we wanted to stop the funding of terrorism we would have attacked Saudia Arabia. We haven't established any permanent democracy in Iraq, and won't for the foreseeable future, if we left the current administration there would crumble instantly. We have become an occupier and likely will for remain one for a long long time. The real terrorists, bin Laden and his al Qaeda network, still are out there and are only going to get stronger if we don't continue the hunt. Bush has shown he would rather get diverted by "evil dictators" who pose little or no immediate threat to our nation than have an actual War on Terror. Even if we really had to go to war in Iraq it would have been helpful if he actually had some type of plan to rebuild the country and get our troops out.

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by Arles

Do you honestly believe that Saddam was not a terrorist?

He wasn't going to be capable of attacking our country in the foreseeable future and had never done so in the past. How exactly was he a terrorist?

[Buccaneer]

I find it funny that there are those wanting to believe that Kerry was a "bad candidate". He wasn't, he was adequate and probably won each of the debates (remember those?). Gore was a bad candidate but the worse of them all by far was Dole in 1996.

To speak frankly, the results do not surprise. Remember in 2000 how many counties (and states) Bush had won? Nearly everyone assumed that he would lose a number of them - but how could he when the alternative was a liberal Senator from Mass.? THe Bush camp had said in 2000 that they could have won the popular if they thought it was important (by getting more votes out in Rep strongholds). They did that this time around and not waste any time and money on California. The results are really no different than what happened in 2000, just a little more of the same.

But that does not answer the question. In my mind (remember, I'm not a Rep and only grudgingly voted for Bush), it was two things: Bush's character (even many of the Dems, including Hillary, admitted that Bush is good man) and Bush's perceived leadership (would rather do the unpopular thing if he believed it's right). That is the opposite of what kind of President Clinton was and what Kerry would likely have been.

[Buccaneer]

Addendum. Why do the "others" bring up things like "What about Iran??? North Korea???? Syria????". Hasn't history shown that a strong nation can only fight on, at most, two fronts? With the military reductions in the 1990s, it's no wonder we can barely fight on one front and you want to start attacking everyone else just so we are not hypocritical? Where is the realism in that?

[Bomber]

Lets be honest a 3rd grader could have handled Bush in that first debate. Kerry wasn't a candidate who could have won. That said no one better stepped up to the plate for the Dems had they ran any of the other leaders Dean, Edwards, or Clark, Karl Rove and Co. would have had a field day.

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Addendum. Why do the "others" bring up things like "What about Iran??? North Korea???? Syria????". Hasn't history shown that a strong nation can only fight on, at most, two fronts? With the military reductions in the 1990s, it's no wonder we can barely fight on one front and you want to start attacking everyone else just so we are not hypocritical? Where is the realism in that?

Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons, North Korea has an evil dicator, Syria is a terrorist hotbed, and all are more likely to attack us or to fund terrorism than Iraq was, that's the point they are trying to make. I wouldn't be surprised if Iran and Syria are next on Bush's list.

[Buccaneer]

Bomber, sounds like the Bush1 and Dole runs in the 1990s. History has shown (yes, I say that a lot) that the parties goes through cycles except in time of war where stability matters most.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Bomber

Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons, North Korea has an evil dicator, Syria is a terrorist hotbed, and all are more likely to attack us or to fund terrorism than Iraq was, that's the point they are trying to make. I wouldn't be surprised if Iran and Syria are next on Bush's list.

Then you are ignoring geo-political reality. There is no way we can defeat Iran, nor should we. North Korea is an untouchable because of China and Japan. Each country has its own geo-political situation and solution. Iraq was an easy target that the Middle East would have looked the other way (Saddam managed to alienate himself). If you think this country had or should have a one-size-fits-all way of dealing with every country, then I have some books to recommend for you. Even in the supposedly monolithic Cold War, the previous administrations had different dealings with all of the Warsaw Pact countries. All nations throughout their histories have picked and choose their fight or response to a fight. The "Axis of Evil" is political talk. What goes behind the scenes is reality. What Colin Powell said about NK was right. I'm just surprised by some you wanting to justify Iraq by going after other countries. As one can never become completely isolationist, one should never be all waring.

[Bomber]

I didn't say I thought we should invade Iran or North Korea, did I?

Edit: By the way I heard the President talking about trying to handle Iran diplomatically first and then considering action, and we all know how good of a diplomat he's been.

[GoldenEagle]

Bomber - I am glad to see you haate Bush and have bought into the media and what you have been told.

Notice I said region - not Iraq. The region Iraq is in is the Middle East.

[cody8200]

Originally Posted by Bomber

I didn't say I thought we should invade Iran or North Korea, did I?

Edit: By the way I heard the President talking about trying to handle Iran diplomatically first and then considering action, and we all know how good of a diplomat he's been.

You watched him on Bill Oreilly eh? So did I, sounded like to me he didn;t want to talk about his plans with Iran. Trust me, he wont take action in Iran...not yet. Probably not ever.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Bomber

He wasn't going to be capable of attacking our country in the foreseeable future and had never done so in the past. How exactly was he a terrorist?

When I think of a terrorist, I think of someone that uses terror and fear to achieve his agenda with no regard for civilians. From that standpoint, no one since Hitler has been more of a terrorist than Saddam. Between his systematical slaughter of his own people to his actions in threatening Kuwait to his method of leading his own followers to his rewarding of arab suicide bombers in Isreal. Saddam is the definition of terrorist and acheived his status as leader of Iraq solely through terror.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Bomber

Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons, North Korea has an evil dicator, Syria is a terrorist hotbed, and all are more likely to attack us or to fund terrorism than Iraq was, that's the point they are trying to make. I wouldn't be surprised if Iran and Syria are next on Bush's list.

How many of the above have a history of defying the world's resolution for decades and attacking their neighbors like Saddam did?

[Dutch]

And the funding of Hamas Suicide Bombers and the million+ lives that were lost because of his invasion of Iran and his eager use of Chemical Weapons. Let's face it, the man was no Jacque Chirac.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Arles

How many of the above have a history of defying the world's resolution for decades and attacking their neighbors like Saddam did?

Arles, stop looking at the big picture....we are making the scope as narrow as possible so we can just blame Bush.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Bomber

I didn't say I thought we should invade Iran or North Korea, did I?

Edit: By the way I heard the President talking about trying to handle Iran diplomatically first and then considering action, and we all know how good of a diplomat he's been.

Wanted to touch on this, invading Iran is dumb right now. A movement is undergoing in that country to overthrow the current leadership.

[Bee]

I think Bush won the election because of a couple factors. I think the GOP organizations in both Florida and Ohio were very well organized. Bush did a great job in Florida of courting the votes in the middle of the state and also the Latino vote. He got a much higher percentage of the Latino vote than I expected and did better in that area than he did in 2000. Also, in Florida the Hurricanes ended up being a small boost for him as well. He did a great job of responding to them and getting aid to those parts of Florida that were hit and I think a lot of folks showed their gratitude by helping to re-elect him. In Ohio, I think it was more the religious right that put him over. That's where I think a lot of his strength in the popular vote came from as well. It really helped that there were issues on many state ballots (like the gay marriage stuff) that were key to his base and really helped to bring out his supporters.

I really don't see why so many Democrats are seeing this as some huge upset. Most of the states fell the way everyone was predicting and two of the three key tossup states went to Bush because the GOP did a better job in those states. Bush won in a couple pretty tight races in those states, it's not like he stole a bunch of Democratic strongholds or got 376 electoral votes or something. He won enough of the toss-up states to get elected. He also had a nice victory in the popular vote, but most people had him winning that (maybe not by the margin he won, but Nader and the other 3rd parties didn't get nearly the votes that were expected).

[Buccaneer]

Bee, that sounds way too analytical. Shouldn't you be fantastically depressed instead?

[kingfc22]

I'm still unclear how Bush won even though the Redskins lost. I mean ABC/ESPN beat this like a dead horse.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Wanted to touch on this, invading Iran is dumb right now. A movement is undergoing in that country to overthrow the current leadership.

I think this is mostly a forget reality in Iran. You think Liberals in Spokane are pissed....and with Afghanistan and Iraqi women voting alonside free men, the large university educated populations of Iran will start questioning their Islamofascists even more. And they are isolated by and large at this point. Should be an interesting to see if Iran's outlook changes over the next 5-10 years.

[Esquared1]

You cannot talk rationally to convince irrational people.

I'm not painting people as irrational who support Bush. Rather, some of what Bush imbodies speaks to the irrational side of people, such as religion, physical security, and economic security.

Since I have a psychology degree, I have to bring out Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Bush seems to speak to those "lower level needs".

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

I'm still unclear how Bush won even though the Redskins lost. I mean ABC/ESPN beat this like a dead horse.

I know. And if we've learned anything lately, it's sports 'curses' are relevant now more than ever.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Esquared1

You cannot talk rationally to convince irrational people.

I'm not painting people as irrational who support Bush. Rather, some of what Bush imbodies speaks to the irrational side of people, such as religion, physical security, and economic security.

Since I have a psychology degree, I have to bring out Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Bush seems to speak to those "lower level needs".

I assume, then, that higher up on the hierarchy are the intelluctual elites? If a leader is speaking to "higher level needs", then wouldn't he/she be talking over them?

[Solecismic]

It's very important for the Democrats to realize that Bush's election is not an indictment of America.

Those of us who probably would have strongly considered voting for Kerry were turned off by the embracing of Michael Moore and the simplification of the war on terror forced on Kerry by the stupid way the primaries work.

The primaries ensure that only the worst candidates see light of day. Bush beat McCain in 2000. Kerry beat a motley crew of nine of whom the only moderate was told to leave the race before a single vote was cast. The primaries are good for the party loyalists, bad for America.

The Democrats have a choice right now: either continue to whine about how stupid everyone else is, and how we don't have a heart and we think Saddam himself blew up New York. Or they can figure out how to calm down the radicals in their midst and reach out to the rest of us.

Disclaimer: I voted third-party this time. I don't like Bush much more than the Democrats do.

[Crapshoot]

I think its an indictment that 22% of the voters in exit polls said Moral Issues was their primary issue. Seriously- what the hell is wrong with the rednecks/bible belt majority that gay marriage gets their panties in such a twist ?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Arles

Do you honestly believe that Saddam was not a terrorist?

Are you going to try and link Saddamm and Al Queda again ? It didnt work the last time...

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Good points in this thread - one that hasn't been mentioned is that "Kerry had a plan". Terrific. Would have been nice if he would have tol
Kerry is an elitist and the country doesn't want an elitist. Kerry's attempt to be a common man by going hunting was laughable. This is what made Clinton so dominant - Clinton was just one of the guys. Bob Dole didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against Clinton because everyone loved "Bubba". If you're an average man or woman like most of us are who do you want to hear from? People like George and Laura Bush or John Kerry and Theresa Heinz-Kerry? The Bush family may have more money than all of us put together but at least you can imagine him as one of the guys at the bar.

Wait- the coke-snorting, yale going, son of a president is not an elitist ? Could have fooled me. They're both elitists- while I understand you're possibly referring to the image they give of (and Bush sells it well) that the duo portray from an electoral sense (in which case you're probably right), it doesnt change the factuality.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And the funding of Hamas Suicide Bombers and the million+ lives that were lost because of his invasion of Iran and his eager use of Chemical Weapons. Let's face it, the man was no Jacque Chirac.

Roffle- Lets talk about lives lost in American invasions past, or the 10,000+ Iraqi's killed in the name of their own "freedom" by a self-proclaimed liberator ? Look Dutch, they're plently of things that Saddamm was and a bastard is first amongst them, but George Bush has as much blood on his hands (probably more) than Jacque Chirac- blaming the French for having a Foreign policy that differs from the "With us or Against Us Crap" is hardly the way.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Aadik

I think its an indictment that 22% of the voters in exit polls said Moral Issues was their primary issue. Seriously- what the hell is wrong with the rednecks/bible belt majority that gay marriage gets their panties in such a twist ?

What do you mean an indictment? Why aren't people allowed to vote on Moral Issues? What makes a vote on moral issues any less worthy than a vote for the environment, taxes, healthcare or my favorite "because I hate Bush/Kerry more than I hate Kerry/Bush"? What about all the kids who went out and voted because P Diddy told them "vote or die". What kind of indictment is it that young people went out and voted because P Diddy and MTV told them to - not because they had any desire to do so on their own?

Everyone has the right to vote for whomever they choose for whatever basis they choose, right? If 75% of the country wants to vote based on moral issues then I guess the two parties are going to have to stick someone up there that has those moral issues covered. If 90% of the country cares about a balanced budget then they need to put two people up who are great economists or whatever. People who vote based on moral issues (aka the religious) are just as much of a person as anyone else and have the right to vote however they want just as anyone else does.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

What do you mean an indictment? Why aren't people allowed to vote on Moral Issues? What makes a vote on moral issues any less worthy than a vote for the environment, taxes, healthcare or my favorite "because I hate Bush/Kerry more than I hate Kerry/Bush"? What about all the kids who went out and voted because P Diddy told them "vote or die". What kind of indictment is it that young people went out and voted because P Diddy and MTV told them to - not because they had any desire to do so on their own?

Everyone has the right to vote for whomever they choose for whatever basis they choose, right? If 75% of the country wants to vote based on moral issues then I guess the two parties are going to have to stick someone up there that has those moral issues covered. If 90% of the country cares about a balanced budget then they need to put two people up who are great economists or whatever. People who vote based on moral issues (aka the religious) are just as much of a person as anyone else and have the right to vote however they want just as anyone else does.

Because Gay Marriage and attitudes on sextuality are based straight out of the Victorian era - it seems a wee bit... antiquated. The same people who oppose gay marraige on the today are using the same arguements as their were for segregation 50 years ago- and you know this, having been involved in this very same discussion elsewhere Gary...

And to the larger point-- if 75% of the people are voting against basic tenants - it doesnt make it right.