Can Somebody Tell Me How Bush Won This Election?

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by Aadik

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]

Originally Posted by Aadik

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...

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]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Aadik

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.

Originally Posted by Aadik

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]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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]

Originally Posted by Bomber

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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 ?

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

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

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]

Originally Posted by Aadik

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.

I believe it goes back quite some time before that.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Bomber

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]

Originally Posted by Aadik

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]

Originally Posted by vexroid

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

how would you word it ?

[vex]

Originally Posted by Aadik

how would you word it ?

Oh, I was just agreeing with your wording.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

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]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

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]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

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-]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

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.

Originally Posted by Anxiety

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]

Originally Posted by Bee

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/opin...4edmiller.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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by Delebar

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

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...847483-4532146

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]

Originally Posted by Aadik

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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]

Originally Posted by Bomber

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]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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.