According to Michael Crane, author of The Political Junkie Handbook, President re-elect, George W. Bush, increased his standing among the following groups of people – by anywhere from one to seven percentage points – when compared to the respective levels of support he received from them, back in the year-2000 election:
Women,
Men,
Blacks,
Whites,
Hispanics,
Married people,
Unmarried people,
Catholics,
Jews,
30-44 year-olds,
45-59 year-olds,
60 year-olds and up,
Union members,
Gun owners,
Democrats, and
Republicans.
It looks like only 18-24 year olds, all 17% of them who voted, btw, and single women, for the most part, went in a major way for John Kerry.
Like I’ve said, the Dems have got to sit down and ponder on what it’s going to take to prevent this slow, inexorable movement to the right that this country has been undergoing since 1968. They’ve lost 5 out of the last 7 presidential elections, they lost more seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives, they’re on the verge of having a very long-lasting domination of center-right ideological domination in the Supreme Court and they also look at solid Republican majorities in state governorships and state legislatures.
They need to pick a **PLAN **(oooh, there’s that word and stick to it. I said in a post earlier today that Kerry’s ill-fated attempt at a late “triangulation” a la Bill Clinton didn’t work because only Bill Clinton could pull it off. And Kerry was no Bill Clinton.
So, do they have the courage of their convictions, whatever they may be? Are they brave enough to put 'em out there and dare the public to vote 'em up or down? Bush and the Reeps seem to have done that this election cycle. It looks like Dubya said his piece and dared the people to vote him in or out on the basis of that. It became increasingly clear that Kerry, however, wore the “flip-flop” collar all to well, however right or wrong that collar was.
– So, do they have the courage of their convictions, whatever they may be? Are they brave enough to put 'em out there and dare the public to vote 'em up or down? Bush and the Reeps seem to have done that this election cycle. It looks like Dubya said his piece and dared the people to vote him in or out on the basis of that.
Gimme a break…they campaigned using fear and wedge moral issues. Later in the campaign Kerry stooped to the same level (ie. the draft) but this is all the Bush campaign ran on and many people bought it. Historically we don’t boot wartime presidents either so I think you are giving the repubs a bit too much credit for this. The repubs simply did a good job of using an extremely simple and consistent message and knowing how to get people out to vote on that message. What amazed me is how well they got people to the polls compared to the Dems.
You just showed that you yourself understood where Bush stood on the issues, and probably more clearly than Kerry did. Are you saying that every voter group that I posted was motivated purely by fear and Republican demogogery?
Or did the Repubs do a better job at framing the election decision on a few key issues?:
#1. “Morals”. In conjunction with individual states’ anti-gay marriage initiatives, it seems as if voters were more willing to give Bush and the Reps the benefit of the doubt. In fact, most of the initiatives drew at least a 3/5ths support. Also, late-term abortion, stem-cell research and what appeared to be a growing apprehension about a slide away from so-called “traditional American values” (family, devotion to country, a sense of restraint in individual hedonism…all of the things epitomized as bankrupt by a 60’s-thinking elitist mindset).
#2. Security. One female sub-group that broke for Bush more heavily than for Kerry appeared to be married women with children. The so-called “security moms”, who despite Kerry’s avowals to the countrary, just didn’t trust either him or the Democrats enough to place the safety of their children and families into Democrat hands. Was there some fear evident in this one? You bet. But you can’t say that, given the framework of the debate that Bush was able to shape on this issue, that it didn’t matter. Or that it wasn’t absolutely serious to many voter groups. I mean, you know that I myself said time and again that the security issue was paramount in my mind for why I was going to vote for Bush. And I don’t think that I’m completely stooopid. Only 90%. ;-))
#3. “Liberalism”. The dreaded “Liberal” tag that Bush hung on Kerry and stuck with throughout the late-August, September and October months had to have had an effect. This last goes to the heart of my argument about picking a PLAN, any PLAN, and STICKING with it. Kerry hung himself by his own petard with his “nuanced” approach to many campaign issues, which Bush and the Reps hammered him on at every opportunity. The “global test” and the Terrorism-As-A-Nuisance statements didn’t help the cause, either, and only further served to strengthen the perception of Kerry as being out of touch with a large part of the country.
The three taken together, and the disdain for the first one shown by the large and disparate left wing of the Democratic Party, all combined to make it almost impossible for Kerry to seize the day.
I still think every issue comes down to fear. The election isn’t about who has the best ideas for running the country, its all about who are you the least afraid of. The ads, debates, and speeches are all designed to invoke fear about one issue or another. In this election the Bush campaign effectively invoked fear that Kerry wouldn’t protect the country against terrorism, and fear that he would allow their values to be eroded by taking a weaker stance on some of their moral issues. The fear tactic works best on the uneducated people.
As you suggest the Republicans did have a better, more focused strategey on how to frame not only the election, but the Democratic party. The Democrats have allowed themselves to be painted into the morally-questionable wimp corner. The stereotypes of the parties are so far out of whack that the voting peoples ideals really don’t even fit with the party they are voting for, they just know that it isn’t the other ‘bad’ party.
The thing I am worried about is that this election has caused further divide such that we are seeing people so angry at another part of the country who’s values and ways of thinking are 180 degrees apart. In reality, your post about purple states illustrates that the red/blue divide doesn’t go as deep as it would appear when looking at an electoral map. I hope these stereotypes about each other doesn’t further drive the wedge between the people and the parties.
At any rate, I agree the Dems need to do something, but I don’t think it needs to be as drastic as one would think.
You guys always make good and thoughtful points. Francois, you’re somewhat less passionate than TTT about things. Which is surprising, considering you’re the hot-blooded Frenchman!!
Good posts. I also agree that there may not even have to be much of a change with the Dems. My point is that they’ve got to get “on message” and stay on that. The one natural advantage that Dubya had over Kerry is that he didn’t leave himself much room for “nuance” and any “evolution” of his opinions, which seemed to be what voters demanded in this election and liked about Dubya; the fact that he stuck to his guns.
I have to admit I have some French blood in me too! Hopefully that doesn’t invalidate any points I was trying to make!
– Kerry is more the high society guy from Ma, that most people in the US can’t identify with.
This is interesting, I always thought Kerry looked presidential and acted presidential, but when you look at the recent presidents, Kerry sticks out like a sore thumb. The other interesting thing is that many look for a president who is, or appears to be, in a higher class or intellectually superior to them. However maybe even more look for a president that they can identify with or who seems more like they are. This alone is quite a big factor and maybe something that was overlooked by the dems.
Possibly Edwards’ folksy style and southern accent could have cleaned shrub’s clock?
I just don’t get it when people think of Clinton as this vote magnet. He never got 50% of the vote.
Actually, I think Kerry was a splendid choice for the Democrats, given the split in their base about important issues like Iraq. The Dems needed a candidate that talked out of both sides on every issue to avoid alienating a big piece of their base. They nominated a master.
I thought Kerry ran a splendid campaign for the most part. I have know the guy for years, but it never occured to me he could work that hard.
I hope the Democrats stop deluding themselves about the reality that they have serious problems and are on the verge of becoming a regional party.
Does anyone seriously think Hillary is going to win a single red state?
The Dems have some fine candidates available. Bill Richardson is the obvious choice. Until the Democrats get past all the hate and the attitude that the American voters are too stupid to appreciate how great they are, they are just going to keep on losing. I don’t get a 5% feeling that the party gets it.
The Dems seem to just want to keep hating, condescending and losing.
“Later in the campaign Kerry stooped to the same level (ie. the draft) but this is all the Bush campaign ran on and many people bought it.”
You wear your bias as blinders. Kerry spent his entire campaign demonizing Bush. So busy was he with this task, that he never got further than “I have a plan,” in telling us what he would do as president.
“Historically we don’t boot wartime presidents either so I think you are giving the repubs a bit too much credit for this.”
So apparently America didn’t want us to abandon the course.
“The repubs simply did a good job of using an extremely simple and consistent message and knowing how to get people out to vote on that message. What amazed me is how well they got people to the polls compared to the Dems.”
You should have payed closer attention. Many pundits put their finger on it long before election day. Simply saying “I’m not Bush,” wasn’t enough.
“They’re probably also the ones deathly afraid of gays getting hitched.”
That’s the kind of insulting image of Republicans that the knee-jerk Kool-Aid drinkers on the left always use. It just makes you look stupid. I could discuss the gay marriage issue if you like, but not with that kind of juvenile beginning.
“I still think every issue comes down to fear. The election isn’t about who has the best ideas for running the country, its all about who are you the least afraid of.”
Well, Kerry scared me half to death…
“The ads, debates, and speeches are all designed to invoke fear about one issue or another. In this election the Bush campaign effectively invoked fear that Kerry wouldn’t protect the country against terrorism, and fear that he would allow their values to be eroded by taking a weaker stance on some of their moral issues. The fear tactic works best on the uneducated people.”
In these instances, the “fear tactic” you mention was simply exposing Kerry for who he was.
“The Democrats have allowed themselves to be painted into the morally-questionable wimp corner.”
The Dims painted themselves there, but there were many other issues besides the WOT
“The thing I am worried about is that this election has caused further divide such that we are seeing people so angry at another part of the country who’s values and ways of thinking are 180 degrees apart.”
You can thank Clinton, Carville, McAuliffe, et al. That was their strategy.
“In reality, your post about purple states illustrates that the red/blue divide doesn’t go as deep as it would appear when looking at an electoral map. I hope these stereotypes about each other doesn’t further drive the wedge between the people and the parties.”
Then maybe YOU should stop spreading them. It has to start somewhere.
“At any rate, I agree the Dems need to do something, but I don’t think it needs to be as drastic as one would think.”
They’re probably also the ones deathly afraid of gays getting hitched.
In short, many of those opposing “gay marriage” are really oppossed to “altering the definition of marriage”. These folks would vote against changing it to “one man and two women” also. Let’s not confuse the issue to mean something it doesn’t. The definition of marriage is hat is to set up a framework for a family. Father. Mother. Children. One could debate the effects of the degradation of the American fmaily on the sanctity of marriage, but I won’t … at least not in this thread.
IMO, the saying of “scared of gays getting hitched” is just as bad as others using fear to motivate. You’re trying to get them to switch to your point of view by painting them as hateful or anti-gay. You’re doing the exact behavior you’re complaining about (using emotion/labels to sway people). Think to yourself, is it possible that people would be against altering the definition of marriage for reasons other than “they hate/scared gays”? You’re sereotyping and generalizing in a very damaging way.
These same folks that are out to protect the sanctity of marriage need to lead by example. IMO, the “ease of getting a divorce” is one of the main causes of the degradation of marriage. I remember when I was a kid, getting a divorce was a very hard thiing to do … now, you can probably do it online. I am strongly against divorce. If you don’t mean your vows … don’t say them. If you’re not sure about it … wait longer. Simple.
… Kerry was definitely a poor choice, because with the kind of problem the president was into, he should have been defeated by a ‘good’ candidate.
Clinton would have crushed him.
A foreigner just summed up the whole election for me. I am a Republican who would have been happy to vote for the “right” democrat in this election. I am disapointed with the Democrats for forcing me to vote for Bush.
I was very afraid Kerry would chose Richardson as his VP. I felt Richardson would have gotten Kerry a much bigger chunk of the Hispanic vote and probably NM, AZ, NV and possibly CO. When he picked the Breck Girl instead, I knew it was a lock for Bush.
I am personally scared to death of Richardson, though I didn’t worry about the VP slot. You nailed the states, and I would add FL, Iowa and OH in there too.
On the one hand, as a Republican, I take comfort in the thought the Democrats are just too arrogent to get it. On the other hand, I know we need two competitive parties in this country.
The guy they really should have nominated is Bob Kerrey. He got slimed, probably by John Kerry, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time at a real Vietnam disaster. Kerrey, unlike Kerry, was a real war hero. Funny bastard too, and from Nebraska.
It is more likely they will pick Hillary though. She won’t win a single red state, and will probably lose some blue ones.
Hillary…There’s someone who is more in touch with middle America.
My P.R card is dated September 11, 2003. So hopefully I’ll have enough time to get registered to help thwart that one. Won’t be able to help in 06 here in NY though.
“it’s 51% to %49…it’s not 90% to 10%. it’s not like the vast majority of the US was pro Bush…”
Let me help you with that. First of all, the popular margin was the biggest EVER, nearly 4,000,000 votes. Second, if you look at the map of county by county voting, you see a thin blue border on a red country. Pubbies +4 in the Senate and now holding every single high card - Senate, House, Governorships and Supreme Court. If that ain’t a mandate then I don’t know what is. Maybe we can just call it a major repudiation of Kerry and the Dimocrat agenda. Either way, it was an ass whuppin’
“the dems wouldn’t need a lot to tip the scale in the other direction…”
I’ve said that as well. Unfortunately, they weren’t able to come up with whatever that tiny bit was that they needed.
and stick to it. I said in a post earlier today that Kerry’s ill-fated attempt at a late “triangulation” a la Bill Clinton didn’t work because only Bill Clinton could pull it off. And Kerry was no Bill Clinton.