Andrew has some good insights.
Not only did Kerry win by an 86-13 margin among self-described liberals, he also won by a 55-45 margin among self-described moderates. So how’d Bush pull it off? He won 84-15 among self-described conservatives, and, more importantly, he made sure conservatives comprised a much bigger chunk of the electorate than they did in 2000. (Conservatives comprised about 34 percent of the electorate yesterday, versus 29 percent in 2000 — a huge shift, raw numbers-wise.) Anyone anticipating a conciliatory second Bush term should stop and consider how much Bush owes his base.
There you have the Rove strategy in a nutshell. If the ideological demographics had stayed the same as they had been in 2000, Kerry might have won. Two other small points: all those predictions of gay marriage moving African-Americans toward the Republicans didn’t pan out. All those predictions of the youth vote going for Kerry did pan out – but they were trounced by seniors shifting to Bush (I think the gay issue mattered there as well). The GOP’s weak spot is that they aren’t winning over the young; and that they won’t have gays to kick around for ever. I notice that in California and Massachusetts, marriage equality candidates all won big. The polarization continues. Let federalism work.
Could any Democrat have done better than Kerry? He won the liberals and the moderates. He won the youth vote. Was there a way he could have won those who believe abortion is murder and that gay marriage threatens civilized society? How do you win these people over when the sensitive wedge issues — guns, abortion, gay marriage — dominate their thinking, and the believe bush is on the side of God? I don’t know, and I don’t know what the Dems can do about this come 2008. These emotional triggers, used to such brilliant effect by Republicans, are so insidious, so divisive, I wonder if they might not leave us permanently polarized….
1
By Bud Wood
As I said about a month ago, G W Bush will win the USA Presidential election – – and I really don’t think that it will matter. So, I didn’t vote (don’t usually) because I see no reason to support one or another political animal as he or she claws his or her way to fame and fortune. Anyway, the millions upon millions of “civil sevans” really run the country, so business will usually continue in the direction it always has. Bigger and “better”. No big surprise, here.
No, we probably won’t have wasted lives and money in Iraq if Gore had won in 2000, but I think that it would have just been matter of time, given the expansion aspirations of the USA elites.
I hope that I don’t offend anyone by my opinion that the election was not “the most signficant in our lifetimes”. However, a super power has its agenda which will be followed regardless of the hopes and fears of its citizens. And that’s what’s happening, on schedule. No, I’m not a young cynic; after near 80 years in the USA, just experienced!
November 3, 2004 @ 5:20 pm | Comment
2
By richard
Bud, I agree with some of your points. I think that very few important decisions are made in Washington — most are made on Wall Street. Our political system is so beholden to corporate wealth on both sides it can make a cynic out of anyone. That said, I did think this was a uniquely important race, mainly because of the trend toward moving our government into the evangelical Christian camp. that really scares me, and I believe Kerry would have appointed people less beholden to this dangerous group. Fundamentalism of any kind, be it Islamic or Christian, inevitably chokes dissent and breed intolerance. I wanted to see that stopped. So I am very disappointed.
November 3, 2004 @ 5:57 pm | Comment
3
By chriswaugh_bj
I, too, am wondering about the polarising effect the shrub has. I suspect he’ll do more to bring about America’s demise than strengthen the country.
Having said that, he is but a puppet, and all a Kerry victory would have achieved is to slow the neo-cons down. Still, that would have been preferable……
November 3, 2004 @ 6:31 pm | Comment
4
By rovaan
Does anybody understand why 2 Districts in Ohio and 9 in Florida would not be reporting there vote?
Go the MSNBC and click on those states. Scroll down and you will find Districts with 0% of vote reported. Most are races with no Republican challenger, so maybe they just did post teh vote but it makes me wonder if that District was even counted.
November 3, 2004 @ 6:53 pm | Comment
5
By Crackpot Chronicles
Gloom!
A very difficult day. But the people have spoken. I love my country but love, especially enduring love, always has episodes of agony. The test of love is whether or not it breaks you.
November 3, 2004 @ 7:13 pm | Comment
6
By rovaan
I found my answer. Sorry to have posted here.
November 3, 2004 @ 7:24 pm | Comment
7
By Filthy Stinking No.9
Oh come on Richard. One of the main platforms of the anti-Bush camp has been, ad nauseum for the last four years, that Bush only won because so much of the country is apathetic, and if only more people would turn out to vote, then the Democrats would surely win. Hence there were huge drives by the Democrats to boost enrollments, and they got what they wanted … voters turning out in record numbers. Unfortunately (for them) the reality rather poured cold water on their daydreams … because the final result was that (as I understand it) more people voted for Bush than have ever voted for any US president in history. Now it’s just wishful thinking to try to write this off as some “conservative conspiracy” … the fact is, the majority of the American voting public liked Bush more than they liked Kerry. As for “self-described conservatives” … don’t you think that a lot of people would be defining themselves as “conservatives” simply because “liberals” vote of Kerry, and so they define themselves as conservatives simply to differentiate themselves from that political view? And “liberal” self-definition would work in the opposite direction. Quite frankly, it’s a meaningless study, other than to avoid Democrat self-examination … easier to blame someone else.
Quite frankly I find this story delusional. It’s simply a way of avoiding the harsh reality that Kerry was destroyed at the ballot box. There’s no razor thin majority. There’s a clear popular mandate. The only reason the election even appeared to be close was because of the electoral college system, but in terms of voter support, it was a Bush landslide. Anti-Bush people attacked the college system because it allowed him to “steal” the last election … well … this time around it’s the only thing saving Kerry from a complete loss of face.
November 3, 2004 @ 8:25 pm | Comment
8
By richard
Say what you will, Li En — he won by some 3 percent, and Kerry had the greatest landslide of any Democratic candidate, just as bush did of an Republican.
Where do you see the clear and broad popular mandate? Do you not see it as a squeaker? No, this was an ultra-tight race, and if you want to see it otherwise there’s nothing I can do. And it was basically due to the values issue — that’s simply a fact. It’s a phony issue, because so much of the talk about values from the bush camp was bullshit. They exploited the gay marriage issue, and I believe future analyses will show that, perhaps more than anything else, drove people into his camp. They said in the polling that was their No. 1 concern, above terrorism and the economy. And Kerry, I admit, should have seen it coming.
November 3, 2004 @ 8:42 pm | Comment
9
By ACB
What’s worse than a Bush victory is the amount of garbage comments that I’ve been getting from people who think that I’m anti Bush because I’m envious of America.
It must be pretty bad to be a moderate in the US right now, this could get ugly if right wingers are shooting their mouths off as much in the streets as they are on my blog.
November 3, 2004 @ 10:27 pm | Comment
10
By chriswaugh_bj
Could it be that more people voted for Bush than for any other president in US history because America’s population is currently bigger than it has been at any other time in its history? Combine that with a higher than usual turnout, and you could wind up with a meaningless ‘record’. Percentages work better as a tool for comparison than absolute numbers.
And besides, from my (very distant) point of view, 3.5 million votes out of a total population of 280 million (don’t know what the population of voters is, though) doesn’t look like such a huge victory.
And I really don’t think gloating or the bully-boy behaviour in ACB’s comment section will do much to heal the rifts caused by either this election or Bush’s first term.
November 4, 2004 @ 12:43 am | Comment
11
By haikou homie
I’m under the impression you all seem to hate Chrisitianity. Why?
November 4, 2004 @ 3:50 am | Comment
12
By richard
No! Absolutely no hatred of Christianity. Only hatred of fundamentalism of any kind, where superstitions cause you to insist the world is 6,000 years old and that religion should be weaved into government. To know exactly what I mean, look into how the Texas Republican part operates, stating their meetings with prayers to Jesus. It is the exact opposite of what our founding fathers wanted. I am a huge fighter for religious freedoms, and for my freedom not to have the religious beliefs of others imposed on me or anyone else.
November 4, 2004 @ 6:31 am | Comment