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]

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/pages/results/states/US/P/00/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]

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.- 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/ikonboard.cgi?;act=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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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... :D

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

[Gary Gorski]

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.

True enough and I'd argue Clinton falls in there too - after all I don't know too many Rhodes Scholars that are just good old country bumpkins.

The point is that Bush does the things to make him seem like one of us just like Clinton did (stuff like eating at McDonalds, the way they talk) - Kerry gave the perception that he's a blue blood, stuffed shirt snob and too good to give the time of day to the common man.

[Gary Gorski]

Because Gay Marriage is and attitudes on sextuality straight out of the Victorian era 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... :D

And to the larger point- hell, I forgot who it was that suggested if voters can be disqualified because they are felons- if 75% of the people are voting against basic tenants - it doesnt make it right.

I'm not going to get into the whole gay marriage thing but my question is this - who are you to say that its wrong for people to vote based on that? Where is there a guideline for voters that they are only allowed to vote based on issues a,b and c and if they vote for d-z then they shouldn't be valid votes.

If people have the right to go and cast a vote for the leader of the free world simply on the basis that they hate the other guy more how is voting on moral issues worse than that? At least people voting on moral issues voted for the candidate for a reason other than he sucks less than the other guy.

[Crapshoot]

I'm not going to get into the whole gay marriage thing but my question is this - who are you to say that its wrong for people to vote based on that? Where is there a guideline for voters that they are only allowed to vote based on issues a,b and c and if they vote for d-z then they shouldn't be valid votes.

If people have the right to go and cast a vote for the leader of the free world simply on the basis that they hate the other guy more how is voting on moral issues worse than that? At least people voting on moral issues voted for the candidate for a reason other than he sucks less than the other guy.

I'll say it again- voting does not, should not override basic human tenents- if 90% of the people vote to revert to a system of disenfranchising African-Americans, should they be allowed to ? A pure democracy is a foolhardy idea at best.

[Gary Gorski]

Ok well then it would seem your argument should be against things like the gay marriage ban getting on the ballot not against people voting for who they think is the best choice for president regardless of their reasoning, right?

BTW, the gay marriage ban was only on the ballot in 11 states - surely there were people who went to the polls and voted on the basis of moral issues in the other 40 (counting DC) states.

[Crapshoot]

Ok well then it would seem your argument should be against things like the gay marriage ban getting on the ballot not against people voting for who they think is the best choice for president regardless of their reasoning, right?

BTW, the gay marriage ban was only on the ballot in 11 states - surely there were people who went to the polls and voted on the basis of moral issues in the other 40 (counting DC) states.

Gary- what else was out there this time that was a "moral issue" ? Im genuinely curious- I see that as a rallying cry, and the idiocy of the proposed constitutional amendment on a social level (but great on a tactical level) only helped the social conservatives beat this drum- I think moral issues is a thinly veiled way of saying that " we don't want a candidate who might let gay people have the same damn rights"...

[sachmo71]

I'm going to miss being gay AND married.
:(

[Gary Gorski]

Gary- what else was out there this time that was a "moral issue" ? Im genuinely curious- I see that as a rallying cry, and the idiocy of the proposed constitutional amendment on a social level (but great on a tactical level) only helped the social conservatives beat this drum- I think moral issues is a thinly veiled way of saying that " we don't want a candidate who might let gay people have the same damn rights"...

Well Abortion and Stem Cell Research are two pretty good places to start. BTW, I'm talking about reasons to vote for the president - not reasons to vote for against a gay marriage amendment. If you have a moral issue on the ballot what else are you going to vote on it for other than morals? People voted with the president on moral issues like abortion and stem cell research and perhaps a perceived difference in gay marriage even though by the end Bush and Kerry had a very similar stance on that.

Just as an aside - did it bother you that Kerry and Edwards were both anti-gay marriage too?

[BishopMVP]

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet. At the current rate, they will within 18 months-5 years at most. While I believe given enough time there would be a revolution in Iran, and I'd love for it to happen soon, I don't think Israel will wait that long. So the fallout from that would be interesting.Are you going to try and link Saddamm and Al Queda again ? It didnt work the last time...Just because Saddam isn't linked to al-Qaeda doesn't mean he's not a terrorist. Just as one example he paid $10,000 to the family of every Palestinian suicide bomber. Or because that was killing Jews it doesn't count?

As for different moral issues, how about Abortion? The Death Penalty (even if the current interpretation by the "religious right" seems to be against Jesus' teachings)? The FCC's campaign against indecency on the airwaves? (remember all those people who were going to bring down Bush because he fined Howard Stern?)

[Bomber]

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

You did realize you live in a state that could have "made a difference", right? We the American people commend you for wasting your vote.

[sachmo71]

You did realize you live in a state that could have "made a difference", right? We the American people commend you for wasting your vote.


That's the rub, isn't it?

Voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote to some, but not if it's YOUR vote.

[Gary Gorski]

Again, why is it a wasted vote? If you don't like one of the two main candidates you should just stay home or just vote for the one you hate the least? Everyone has the right to vote for who they think is best. People complain that the two-party system sucks but unless people actually vote for the third party there's never a chance it will come into play (not that there really is now even). It's better to vote for the candidate you feel is the best qualified than to not vote at all.

[kingfc22]

Face it Bush won. Kerry lost. Go grab your tissue, wipe your nose and move on.

[Abe Sargent]

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.


Wrong. Joe Lieberman was eminently electable. As a fiscal conservative, he would have outflanked Bush on the right on that issue to many moderates and libertarian-Republicans. He's strong on foreign policy, a political statesman, and would have easily won votes that Kerry lost.

The democrats had an electable candidate this year, and they chose to go to the left of him. However, this was not really the classic ase of the people nt choosing him, but the party elite who absolutely did not want Lieberman as their front man, and tald him as much. Joe was snubbed by his party elite in a similar way that Republicans snubbed McCain in 2000 (although for different reasons).

-Anxiety

[vex]

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 ?
Think about it. The people in the Bible Belt probably read the Bible.

[Abe Sargent]

Face it Bush won. Kerry lost. Go grab your tissue, wipe your nose and move on.

You really need to address this sort of post to a specific person. Since I was the starter of this thread, I have to assume that you are talking to me, which means you are a complete idiot, since you have no idea as to what party I belong (based on this thread) and who I voted for.

If you are addressing somebody else, then you need to specify.

-Anxiety

[vex]

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... :D

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

I believe it goes back quite some time before that.

[Solecismic]

You did realize you live in a state that could have "made a difference", right? We the American people commend you for wasting your vote.

Maybe if the two parties could stop their partisan bickering long enough to think about actually governing a large and diverse nation, they could come up with a few candidates worth consideration.

I do not feel my vote was "wasted." I voted in most of the local races. Being a pompous bore about my exercising my own right to choose does not make your party look any more attractive for the future.

[vex]

I think moral issues is a thinly veiled way of saying that " we don't want a candidate who might let gay people have the same damn rights"...
If that's how you want to word it, fine by me.

[Crapshoot]

If that's how you want to word it, fine by me.

how would you word it ?

[vex]

how would you word it ?

Oh, I was just agreeing with your wording.

[Solecismic]

Wrong. Joe Lieberman was eminently electable. As a fiscal conservative, he would have outflanked Bush on the right on that issue to many moderates and libertarian-Republicans. He's strong on foreign policy, a political statesman, and would have easily won votes that Kerry lost.

The democrats had an electable candidate this year, and they chose to go to the left of him. However, this was not really the classic ase of the people nt choosing him, but the party elite who absolutely did not want Lieberman as their front man, and tald him as much. Joe was snubbed by his party elite in a similar way that Republicans snubbed McCain in 2000 (although for different reasons).

-Anxiety

I would have strongly considered campaigning for Lieberman.

Although campaigning seems like a pretty unpleasant tactic. The Democrats came to my house seven times in the last week alone.

When I left to vote, I had to pull a Kerry flyer down that someone had taped to my garage. When I came home, there was another one. An hour later, some jerk with Rhode Island license plates and a big Kerry sign on her car kept ringing my doorbell. Go back and bug people in your own state, lady. As if I was going to answer.

I didn't not vote for Kerry because of GOTV. But damn it, I sure hate being bothered by all those people. I think these people are on some serious crack if they think this endears their party to the undecideds. Once is understandable, seven times in a week is simply harassment.

Who knows, maybe GOTV is the reason Kerry dropped 1-3% from the last polls, even though the incumbent usually takes that last-minute swing? I've been around a long time, and I've never experienced anything close to this much annoying behavior.

[kingfc22]

You really need to address this sort of post to a specific person. Since I was the starter of this thread, I have to assume that you are talking to me, which means you are a complete idiot, since you have no idea as to what party I belong (based on this thread) and who I voted for.

If you are addressing somebody else, then you need to specify.

-Anxiety
I was referring to the previous posts on this page that say people should not vote for what they believe to be right morally.

[Abe Sargent]

I was referring to the previous posts on this page that say people should not vote for what they believe to be right morally.

I was hoping that you were talking to Bombers, which would make you a hero, not an idiot :)


BTW, Bombers, there is no such thing as a wasted vote. A vote cast is never wasted in aything. I hate how major party elite have this feeling of entitlement to my vote when a third party candidate runs of that general persuasion. Republicans decried ethe Perot vote in 1992, Democrats the Nader vate in 2000. Simply put, a major politicalpary has no claim to my vote simply because we are both right or both left.

-Anxuety

[stevew]

KEY MOMENTS – INSIDE THE CAMPAIGNS
Wed Nov 03 2004 19:40:31 ET TIME REVEALS A SERIES OF UNTOLD STORIES AND CRISES IN THE BUSH AND KERRY CAMPAIGNS
How Bush Laid A Trap for Kerry on Iraq
The Bush Team's Reaction to the bin Laden Videotape Helped The President and Hurt Kerry
How Bush Pulled McCain Into His Camp
Kerry Was Furious When Word of ‘Strategy Call’ With Clinton Was In Newspapers Shortly Before Clinton Heart Surgery
New York –TIME goes behind the scenes of the Bush and Kerry campaigns and reveals a series of untold stories and crises as well as the key moments that changed the race for President. Bush and Kerry weren’t only battling each other -- in the hunt for every last vote, each man had to rediscover his own instincts as well, TIME’s Karen Tumulty, John Dickerson, Perry Bacon and Jay Carney report.
BUSH: How the President laid a trap for Kerry on Iraq after the Democratic Convention: After the Democratic National Convention, when Kerry was seen as a more plausible Commander in Chief, the Bush team planned to bait Kerry by inserting into every speech Bush’s question, "My opponent hasn’t answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq." Some on the Bush team feared Kerry wouldn’t take the bait, TIME reports. Bush adviser Mary Matalin tells TIME, "We weren’t sure he would do it. We thought we might see the strong closer everyone had talked about." But three days later at the Grand Canyon Kerry responded to a reporter who posed Bush’s question, saying he believed even now it was right to authorize the use of force. "We couldn’t believe that he went for it," says White House communications director Dan Barlett. Barlett answered a message on his Blackberry asking if Kerry had given the campaign a gift. "Yes, and my boss it about to open it," he replied. They crafted a speech in which Bush lampooned Kerry’s "new nuance" concluding with the mocking compliment "I want to thank Senator Kerry for clearing that up."
Other key moments, behind the scenes:
BUSH AND KERRY: How Do We Play The Videotape?: Four days before the election Bush learned that Osama bin Laden had delivered another video to al-Jazeera. It looked like the opportunity to ride the storyline the White House loved best—right through the final days. It would "bring the security moms back home," said a Bush adviser, describing the campaign’s view of the political benefit. Word went out from Air Force One that no one in the campaign or at G.O.P. headquarters was to make a political calculation within earshot of a reporter. Once aides were sure the video was being aired, however, Bush wrote down some remarks that included Senator John Kerry. "We knew that Kerry couldn’t resist responding more than he should on these issues," said a senior White House aide at the time. "He has to show that he knows better." The President lured Kerry in a brief statement: "Americans will not be intimidated or influenced by an enemy of our country. I’m sure Senator Kerry agrees with this." Then the Bush campaign’s rapid-response team discovered remarks Kerry had made to a local Wisconsin TV station, reiterating that Bush had let bin Laden slip away at Tora Bora. The Bushies cried foul and had Bush do so in his last speech of the day. "It’s the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking," said Bush. "It is especially shameful in the light of a new tape from America’s enemy," TIME reports.
KERRY: "He Says Saddam? You Say Osama": The first debate—the one on foreign policy—would be the crucial one. Kerry was going to have to make two big, risky points: The war in Iraq was not the war on terrorism, and Saddam Hussein was not Osama bin Laden. Again and again, Klain coached Kerry: "He says Saddam? You say Osama," TIME reports.
BUSH: How Bush Pulled McCain Into His Camp: At times, John McCain’s television appearances were scary duck-and-cover drills for the Bush message team. On the eve of the first debate, campaign communications director Nicolle Devenish drew the line: McCain was forbidden to go into the postdebate spin sessions and give praise to both sides. That would be a loss for Bush. "People see you as the referee," she said. "We need you to be for us." By the third debate, Bush asked McCain to sit in the audience in his line of sight for moral support. But it was as much to be seen by the audience.
KERRY: Return of Bill Clinton, the Ace Campaigner: Hours after word spread that Bill Clinton was being rushed to the hospital for emergency bypass surgery, Kerry telephoned him to wish him luck, and Clinton, alarmed at the drift of Kerry’s campaign, suggested they make some time over the weekend to have a serious talk. The two made the connection around 10 p.m. the next day, a Saturday. By the time they finished—Clinton mostly talking and Kerry mostly listening—it was nearly midnight. One message stuck. "If you’re the issue in this campaign, you lose," Clinton told Kerry. "If he’s the issue in this campaign, you win. Stay in his face." News of the call was all over the papers by Monday. Kerry was furious. Some believed that Clinton’s real interest was in clearing the way for Hillary to run in 2008.
KERRY: Waiting Too Long To Fight Back Against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry’s handlers, led by pollster Mark Mellman and consultant Bob Shrum, had convinced themselves it was unwise to respond to the Swifties’ ads, which were running in only three states, because it would serve to amplify the phony charges. But Kerry was jolted to respond when, at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Cincinnati, Ohio, on Aug. 18, dozens of vets asked, "What are you waiting for? You gotta fight back!" Kerry was livid. The campaign quickly changed gears, TIME reports.

Found this to be interesting, even if it was off of Drudge.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

True enough and I'd argue Clinton falls in there too - after all I don't know too many Rhodes Scholars that are just good old country bumpkins.

The point is that Bush does the things to make him seem like one of us just like Clinton did (stuff like eating at McDonalds, the way they talk) - Kerry gave the perception that he's a blue blood, stuffed shirt snob and too good to give the time of day to the common man.


You could not be more wrong on Clinton... it's just absurd. Seriously, spend 2 minutes to find a bio on the internet.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I think the stem cell issue is widely misunderstood, based on the recent discussion of it that I've seen. As I understand it, the primary issue does not involved classically aborted fetuses, it involves unused embryos from in vitro fertilization (hence embryonic stem cells). The embryos are done for either way, the only question is whether something useful is done with them or we merely mourn their passing. I'm solidly in the "do something useful" camp. I think those opposed should shift their campaign to opposition to in vitro fertilization, since if the evil there is the destruction of the embryos, the obvious solution is not to generate them in the first place.

Wrong. Joe Lieberman was eminently electable. As a fiscal conservative, he would have outflanked Bush on the right on that issue to many moderates and libertarian-Republicans. He's strong on foreign policy, a political statesman, and would have easily won votes that Kerry lost.Lieberman has espoused some pro-censorship views in the past that would have given me pause. I wouldn't have voted for Bush, but I might very well have voted for Badnarik.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think the GOP organizations in both Florida and Ohio were very well organized.

This is a short line amidst a fast-growing thread, but I thought it was important enough that it ought to be highlighted before it gets lost.

I have to admit that, probably due to being in a non-battleground state,
I seem to have seriously underestimated the effectiveness of what the
campaign referred to as its "ground game". It appears to have been
effective in new registrations and even moreso in getting voters to the polls.

I'd be interested in comments from anyone who lives in a swing state, with their impressions of the efforts in those areas by both candidates.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A nice surprise in my morning reading, a Zell Miller editorial simply titled
"I Tried To Tell You"
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/opinion/1104/04edmiller.html

"This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints — bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices — amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election.

But the Democratic Party is no longer a national party. As difficult as the challenges are — both real and fabricated — Democrats offered no solution that was either believable or acceptable to vast regions of America."
...
"When you write off centrist and conservative policies that reflect the will of people in the South and Midwest, you write off the South and Midwest. Democrats have never learned from the second or third or fifth kick of a mule. They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party."

[albionmoonlight]

I'd be interested in comments from anyone who lives in a swing state, with their impressions of the efforts in those areas by both candidates. My friend's dad is a senior citizen first generation Cuban-American living in Florida, and he was sent no less than five unsolicited absentee ballots by the GOP before he stopped opening political mail.

(Not suggesting that the GOP was trying to get him to vote five times, but that it was quadruple checking its efforts to make sure that its demographics had every opportunity to vote.)

[Ksyrup]

This is a short line amidst a fast-growing thread, but I thought it was important enough that it ought to be highlighted before it gets lost.

I have to admit that, probably due to being in a non-battleground state,
I seem to have seriously underestimated the effectiveness of what the
campaign referred to as its "ground game". It appears to have been
effective in new registrations and even moreso in getting voters to the polls.

I'd be interested in comments from anyone who lives in a swing state, with their impressions of the efforts in those areas by both candidates.

I was shocked at how many VIPs came through Tallahassee. Leon County is virtually the only Panhandle county in Florida to vote Democrat. Cheney was here twice, the Bush daughters came here, Edwards came here, Gore was here last Sunday, etc. I assume the Dems were hoping to increase the majority they hold in the county. I haven't seen the numbers to know whether they did better than 2000 or worse here.

As far as getting people to vote, I didn't really see that first-hand. Certainly, being in a college town, I'm sure the Dems had the voter registration thing going full-swing. I received tons ofGOP mail, but being registered GOP, that makes sense. Phone calls I didn't really get because we have call screening, and most solicitors hang up before I can hang up on them.

I do know that every effort was made to keep Jeb directly out of campaigning for his brother. He was chairman of the campaign, but in the last month, they brough back his old chairman to be co-chair, and Jeb did one commercial I saw and a few interviews, but otherwise, I think the strategy was for him to continue working to help hurricane victims. I think they saw that as a better contribution to the Dubya campaign than strictly as a campaigner - especially given the 2000 election.

[GrantDawg]

Read Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805073396/qid=1099564394/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-1847483-4532146

This book, already widely reported and written about, will become likely become the new textbook for Democrats seeking to understand why so much of the country voted for Bush.
I'm reading it right now. It is a pretty good book, but it is definitely written with a heavy slant. It might help a little in understanding, but it is totally written to allow Dems to pat themselves on the back and prove to themselves how much smarter they are than the Republicans. The Dems are going to have to look internally to see how they are failing.

[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...
I did not mention Al Qaeda here, and that potential link is irrelevant to the point I am making. You do realize that someone can be a terrorist and not part of Al Qaeda, right?

There are approximately 10-15 militant islamic and middle eastern terrorist groups that are not associated with Al Qaeda. Is it your stance than none of these are part of the "War of Terror"?

[gstelmack]

I did not mention Al Qaeda here, and that potential link is irrelevant to the point I am making. You do realize that someone can be a terrorist and not part of Al Qaeda, right?

There are approximately 10-15 militant islamic and middle eastern terrorist groups that are not associated with Al Qaeda. Is it your stance than none of these are part of the "War of Terror"?

Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding. The war on terror is about more than Al Qaeda. The world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein in power. Bush-haters characterize the "war on terror" as a "war on Al Qaeda" only, but that's just not what it is.

[gstelmack]

I do not feel my vote was "wasted." I voted in most of the local races. Being a pompous bore about my exercising my own right to choose does not make your party look any more attractive for the future.

Another oft-overlooked fact is that the third-party candidates are often kept out of debates because they don't collect enough of the vote. This is a key reason I voted Libertarian in the governor race 2 years ago: in addition to spending their campaigns bickering with each other, the 2 major candidates blocked the Libertarian from appearing in the debates due to the low vote totals the Libertarians got in the prior election. So my vote helped bump up that total. That's not a waste. It's a protest vote to the main parties (note how the Republicans had to react to Perot, and how the Democrats have to keep adjusting to Nader), and it helps bump up the third parties which helps remind the two major parties that we do have alternatives if they tick us off enough.

Not voting at all is a waste. Voting for a third-party candidate is NEVER a wasted vote.

[gstelmack]

Well Abortion and Stem Cell Research are two pretty good places to start. BTW, I'm talking about reasons to vote for the president - not reasons to vote for against a gay marriage amendment. If you have a moral issue on the ballot what else are you going to vote on it for other than morals? People voted with the president on moral issues like abortion and stem cell research and perhaps a perceived difference in gay marriage even though by the end Bush and Kerry had a very similar stance on that.

This was also talked about yesterday on the national news. The "moral issues" vote is about a lot more than gay marriage; it's a backlash against the anything-goes don't-take-responsibility society we're turning into here. It's the Super Bowl halftime show (which goes beyond the "wardrobe malfunction" to the whole dance routine, but critics like to ignore that point), it's song lyrics encouraging violence, rape, and suicide, it's adult commercials showing during family TV time, it's "self-esteem" being the most important thing in schools (no more grades), it's schools teaching life skills at the expense of math, science, and literacy, it's suing McDonalds for serving you hot coffee that you end up spilling, and it's a general tendency toward anarchy. Among other things.

[PghSteelerFan]

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.

Exactly. Well said.

[WSUCougar]

Sorry if someone has mentioned this already and I missed it, but I keep seeing comments to the effect that Kerry was not an electable candidate. I am genuinely curious - how can anyone take that stance when, popular vote aside, the electoral vote was so damn close?

[rkmsuf]

Sorry if someone has mentioned this already and I missed it, but I keep seeing comments to the effect that Kerry was not an electable candidate. I am genuinely curious - how can anyone take that stance when, popular vote aside, the electoral vote was so damn close?

I think it's because there was so much negative vibe towards Bush that people believed a handsome trained democrat monkey could have won.

[Esquared1]

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?

I think it was telling that terrorism was a big part of the decision process for the voters. Fears of it questions safety and physiological needs. As the theory goes, one is motivated to satify these needs before worrying about higher needs like self esteem and a sense of belonging, for instance.

I would be interested to know what percentage of rural voters rated terrorism as the main concern. . . because clearly, rural voters have the least to worry about when it comes to terrorism. If a higher percentage rate terrorism high, it is clearly "irrational", since there is a low chance a terrorist attach effects the rural voter directly.

I would assume it was the rural voters who are the higher proportion of "Terrorism worriers", since states like New York voteds quite heavily for Kerry, and similar cities/states like Illinois and California voted for Kerry as well.

I don't have the numbers, and I am clearly working off of some assumptions, but to me, it is something to consider.

[Bomber]

Sorry if someone has mentioned this already and I missed it, but I keep seeing comments to the effect that Kerry was not an electable candidate. I am genuinely curious - how can anyone take that stance when, popular vote aside, the electoral vote was so damn close?


Most people who voted for Kerry were willing to vote for anything that wasn't Bush. Simple as that.

[Franklinnoble]

I would have strongly considered campaigning for Lieberman.

Although campaigning seems like a pretty unpleasant tactic. The Democrats came to my house seven times in the last week alone.

When I left to vote, I had to pull a Kerry flyer down that someone had taped to my garage. When I came home, there was another one. An hour later, some jerk with Rhode Island license plates and a big Kerry sign on her car kept ringing my doorbell. Go back and bug people in your own state, lady. As if I was going to answer.

I didn't not vote for Kerry because of GOTV. But damn it, I sure hate being bothered by all those people. I think these people are on some serious crack if they think this endears their party to the undecideds. Once is understandable, seven times in a week is simply harassment.

Who knows, maybe GOTV is the reason Kerry dropped 1-3% from the last polls, even though the incumbent usually takes that last-minute swing? I've been around a long time, and I've never experienced anything close to this much annoying behavior.


All those Kerry flyers, and not once was I able to get a good look at what Jim might be working on...

Next week I'm dressing up as a Jehovah's Witness...

[gstelmack]

Most people who voted for Kerry were willing to vote for anything that wasn't Bush. Simple as that.

Numbers shown yesterday indicated something like 55% percent of the people who voted for Kerry voted FOR Kerry, while 35% voted AGAINST Bush (numbers are off a few percentage points, and there was a gap of people they did not explain).

[oliegirl]

My main issue with Kerry was that he wouldn't take a stand. Because his base was largely split on the war, he wouldn't come out one way or another and say what he thought. I always had the impression that he was saying whatever he had to in order to make the people he was talking to happy. Whether or not you agreed with Bush and his actions, at least he was standing up for what he believed and was willing to take the criticism for his actions from those who disagreed with him. Kerry seemed like a puppet...doing what he was told and saying what he was told to say.

[rkmsuf]

Nelly was all over this election:

Nelly tells Vibe magazine he has no interest in the upcoming presidential election because the candidates are a little too whitebread: "You don't like nobody that ain't got a little dirt on 'em. How can you trust someone who ain't got a little bit? You ain't never jaywalked? You can't relate to somebody that ain't been in a little trouble. That's why people loved Clinton. You knew he had some dirt."

[JonInMiddleGA]

I guess this could go in several different threads, I figured this one was as good a choice as any:

You know who I haven't heard a peep from,nor about, since Tuesday evening?

Those international poll watchers -- did they even show up?

[Neon_Chaos]

Now, a theory.

Had the Democrats put forward a candidate with a much more charismatic (say, someone of Clinton's charisma), would they have been able to pull in the votes to beat Bush convincingly.

Because clearly, this election was never about Bush vs. Kerry. It was Bush or the other guy not Bush. Kerry was portrayed as a weak decision-maker early in the campaign and the stigma of that label stuck on him until election day. Kerry's campaign, unfortunately, looked like it was 'Vote for me, why? Because I'm not Bush.', and that's NOT a good thing... because you're basically relying on the people to change horses mid-stream on the basis of 'I'm not the other guy'. you have the country split at 50/50, you don't give the other side a reason to switch sides... while the guys on your side will say 'hey, hold on, this guy doesn't offer me anything else... other than that he's not the guy in charge right now. why stir the boat?' you effectively shed away about 2-5% of your base, for not being able to project yourself as a complete candidate.

[AENeuman]

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.

Sorry if this is bringing up a non-issue but I can't let Brother Buc get away without my volley.
While moral relativism is a necessary evil in world politics i don't think that actions in iraq deserve such distinction.

One, ignoring the "hard" fight and picking on the easy one is imperialism. moreover, by picking on the "colonies" other nations are forced to be more isolationist and fundamental in their reaction to the US. so really, this is winning the battle but losing the war.

Two, while other ways are more appropriate it is not to say those ways are being used either. such as our reaction to saudi arabia being home to the hijackers and the like. are you saying that given the situation our response to saudi arabia was the most right and just? seems to me their hate is growing as well as their price per barrel of oil.

I have no problem with "picking and choosing the fight" but i do not see how the actions now are preemptive in other fights.

Finally, and what do I know, isn't this ww1 stuff. super (very strong nations) powers in isolation from each other, while engaging in resource land grab, until finally over a small nation, resource, all the alliances are forced to draw the line in the sand.