How To Explain GWB's 2004 Election?

[Huerta88]

Those who have read my posts know I am no fan of the man or his policies. Those who have not, take my word for it.

So, I am not here to debate:

(1) GWB "stole" the 2000 election (he didn't);
(2) GWB blows (sure).
(3) Iraq was a bad (yes) illegal (not sure what that means) war.

My question is just: given that "everyone knows" (certainly here, but there seems now to be a broader social consensus) that GWB's two terms were "disastrous" or something like it, and given that none of the policies that made it so were first introduced after 2004 -- how'd he get re-elected? Any narrative of his awfulness as president is going to have to explain this "waiter, my soup is awful, and another thing, the portions are too small" aspect of his tenure in office. How could the 2004 race even be close?

Is incumbency that strong? Did it really take that long to determine there were no WMDs, or that the invasion was stupid? Was Kerry that bad? Are Republican strategists so deviously competent that the Swift Boat thing earned him ten million votes (and if so, why did the "genius" Rove fail so badly in the 2006 Congressional races, and why was McCain as hapless as he just showed?)?

[dalej42]

Same sex marriage was made legal by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Rove/Republicans got ballot measures banning same sex marriage in key states, such as Ohio. This issue motivated enough people to vote for Bush which was seen as a vote against same sex marriage while Kerry was seen as the Massachusetts liberal who would be in favor of it.


Yes, I know Kerry didn't support SSM in his platform.

[Bill Door]

There were two main explanations:

1. Kerry was a bad candidate. The Democratic support for him was luke warm at best, and he was an unispired speaker. The best you could say about him was that he wasn't President Bush, but billions of people could make that same claim.

2. By loading up state elections with initiatives on gay marriage (13 states had them on the ballot) social conservative voters were more likely to come out to the polls. George Bush's narrow win in Ohio has been attributed to a large turnout of Amish voters who supported the ban on gay marriage.

[MsWhatsit]

2. By loading up state elections with initiatives on gay marriage (13 states had them on the ballot) social conservative voters were more likely to come out to the polls. George Bush's narrow win in Ohio has been attributed to a large turnout of Amish voters who supported the ban on gay marriage.

While I agree completely with the main point here (anti-gay ballot initiatives turned out conservative voters in huge numbers), do you have a cite for the Amish thing? I had heard that Republicans were heavily courting Amish voters, but traditionally the Amish abstain from voting, so it would surprise me to find out their votes were the deciding factor.

[kellner]

It seems to me that there is a substantial segment of the American public that doesn't object to Bush's policies in principle but only to his limited success.

In 2004 you could still hope that another fifty legions of Sardaukar would be all that is needed to prove that the Iraq war had been a good idea all along.

[Johnny L.A.]

My personal impression is that Bush's campaign frightened people into believing that if Bush was not reelected, then The Terrorists would go door to door blowing YOU! and YOUR FAMILY! and EVERYBODY! up with nuclear bombs. (And frightening them into believing that gay marriage would turn everybody gay and also lead to inter-species marriage.) My impression at the time was that any time Kerry started gaining, there would be another Terror Alert.

[GIGObuster]

Because a good chunk of Americans did swallow the idea that there was a big war going on and that you did not need to pay for it, with the gay issue also in the mix. I do think that mainly the idea of “not changing horses midstream” took hold for just enough people to vote for the worse option.

As Tom, The Dancing Bug comic reported: the America that woke up after the election of 2004 was not the same as the America from 2008:

http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2008/11/tom-the-dancing-bug-from-the-week-of-november-7-2004.html

http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/11/13/boll/index.html

[2ply]

I've always been skeptical of the notion that the same-sex marriage ballot initiatives really helped reelect Bush. My state of Michigan voted for Kerry and to ban same-sex marriage. Voters in California banned gay marriage the same night they selected Obama as president. Most Democratic leaning voters don't appear to approve of gay marriage any more than Republican leaning voters do.

If more conservatives went to the pools in 2004, it was because more liberal voters did too. Everyone expected 2004 to have a high turnout and that is what motivated the partisans to go vote.

Bush won in 2004 because the economy wasn't as weak as it is now and the Iraq war didn't look as bad as it did after 2004. Also, Katrina didn't happen until 2005 and that was what did a lot to highlight the incompetence of this administration. Bush also only squeaked by with 50.7% of the vote, so a better challenger than Kerry should have been able to defeat him. It was narrow victory for Bush, he just had slightly more people liking him than the other doofus.

[Johnny L.A.]

It was narrow victory for Bush...

AKA 'a mandate'.

:p

[Bill Door]

Here (http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/9487) is a link describing some of the Amish enthusiasm for President Bush in the 2004 elections. The full text is not available online but the headline reads:

Amish here come out to vote in record numbers
GOP registration drive appears to have succeeded

Although given the relatively small number of Amish voters, they probably weren't as decisive as all that. I withdraw my comment about the Amish influencing the 2004 elections.

[ElvisL1ves]

A combination of fearmongering, and stoking up the reliable "Guns, God, and Gays" vote.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

No sitting war president has ever lost reelection. Even then, Mr. Bush managed to almost lose it.

Also, Swift Boating, and gay marriage.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Put more positively, it was the appeal to patriotism, which is why I always try to stay as neutral as I can about any country including my own. The few times I've been drawn to support (or at least tolerate) obnoxious and toxic positions--early Vietnam, post-9/11--it was the appeal to my blind patriotism, my solicited hatred and fear of things foriegn and threadening that did it, and in retrospect whenever it happened it has always made me later much more dug in in my opposition to those who so appealed to me than I ever would have been without that stomach-turning appeal.

I oppose patriotism for this reason--never trust it. When asked to identify yourself ferociously with no better appeal than "your country"= "you" available, mistrust it even harder.

[Sage Rat]

Kerry was going to pull the troops.

[Cisco]

There were lots of reasons. It was a brilliant campaign. They attacked Kerry's strengths and created of zeitgeist of anti-war = anti-America, and Democrat = pussy. Also, a lot more people still supported the war at that time, thought it was connected to 9/11, and still thought we were going to find WMDs. And of course the social issues. Bigots were fooled into thinking Bush would get an anti-gay marriage amendment passed, and Christians were fooled into thinking he'd stop abortion (although I don't remember that specific issue being a big deal on the stump in 2004, there is a sizeable subset of voters who seem to think every Republican is going to do this, presumably through their SCOTUS appointments.) All this and, as has been pointed out, it was still a modest victory.

[Captain Carrot]

I've always been skeptical of the notion that the same-sex marriage ballot initiatives really helped reelect Bush. My state of Michigan voted for Kerry and to ban same-sex marriage. Voters in California banned gay marriage the same night they selected Obama as president. Most Democratic leaning voters don't appear to approve of gay marriage any more than Republican leaning voters do.Al Franken presented a convincing case in The Truth (with jokes) that those measures actually hurt Bush, just not noticeably.

[billfish678]

I get tired of the both sides pulling this one:

He's evil incarnate. Satan himself. He's ruining the country! We must not allow him to get reelected!

Okay, well why the hell couldn't you guys get YOUR guy voted in and Satan voted out?

Because either he aint near as bad as you portray, or your guy sucks WORSE, or some of BOTH. No need for all this fancy smancy analysis.

The repubs thought it about clinton, the dems thought it about reagan and bush 2.

grip over.

[Wendell Wagner]

Here's a chart of Bush's popularity over nearly his entire time in office:

http://aconservativeedge.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/bush-popularity-chart-congress-popularity-flatlines/

Notice that this can be summarized quickly by saying that his popularity jumped up to huge levels immediately after September 11, 2001 and has dropped steadily since then, with only a couple of brief upticks. It appears that a lot of people decided that it was important to support the President no matter what after 9/11. Since then, they have gradually dropped away from supporting him. Had the 2004 election been six months or so later, he would have lost because his support would have dropped below half. I don't know what issues made people change their mind. I'm not sure it matters.

Notice that there was no uptick in support at the time of the election. His support was rather on a flat line in that year. Any notion of what allowed Bush to win the 2004 election would have to take into account this chart. If the issues you conjecture as being important don't match this chart, they can't be the ones that decided the 2004 election.

[Shodan]

You can't beat something with nothing.

The election boiled down to a choice between Bush, and OtherThe economy was doing well, Kerry had nothing in particular to distinguish him from any other empty suit, and Kerry couldn't run on an anti-Iraq war platform because The war didn't directly affect very many people who didn't want to be affected - we have an all-volunteer military Kerry voted for the AUMF (and against the first Gulf War, thus demonstrating that even when he was right, he was wrong) Kerry has spent most of his career distancing himself from his record as a war hero, and his attempts to reclaim it (along with his decorations) rang rather false some of the Swiftboat allegations were true. None of the forged National Guard documents were. You're not going to get an accurate picture of how an American election worked from a board like this one. Too many yellow dog Democrats.

Regards,
Shodan

[IdahoMauleMan]

You can't beat something with nothing.

The election boiled down to a choice between Bush, and OtherThe economy was doing well, Kerry had nothing in particular to distinguish him from any other empty suit, and Kerry couldn't run on an anti-Iraq war platform because The war didn't directly affect very many people who didn't want to be affected - we have an all-volunteer military Kerry voted for the AUMF (and against the first Gulf War, thus demonstrating that even when he was right, he was wrong) Kerry has spent most of his career distancing himself from his record as a war hero, and his attempts to reclaim it (along with his decorations) rang rather false some of the Swiftboat allegations were true. None of the forged National Guard documents were. You're not going to get an accurate picture of how an American election worked from a board like this one. Too many yellow dog Democrats.

Regards,
Shodan

That's a pretty good summary.

I also think the middle class could never quite get their arms around what Kerry stood for in a concise, packageable way. He won the rich educated elite vote, and the poor urban vote. Usually when you peg the ends like that, and lose the middle, it's sign that something in the message isn't resonating.

[gonzomax]

Bush most certainly did steal the 200 election.
Kerrys remark, " I voted for it before I voted against it' was a dumb thing to say.Hard to erase that.

[Cisco]

I am not here to debate:

(1) GWB "stole" the 2000 election (he didn't);
(2) GWB blows (sure).
(3) Iraq was a bad (yes) illegal (not sure what that means) war.

Bush most certainly did steal the 200 election.

Huerta88, here's a piece of wisdom that will go over well in all aspects of your life, but especially well on the internet: Don't say you don't want to debate something, and then give your opinion on it.

[Wendell Wagner]

IdahoMauleMan writes:

> He won the rich educated elite vote, and the poor urban vote.

Not true. See this summary of the 2004 election statistics:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Kerry won the majority of the electorate making less than $50,000. Bush won the majority of the electorate making more than $50,000. Indeed, it's almost true to say that the richer the voter, the more likely that Bush won their vote. I would say that $50,000 is about halfway through the middle-class vote. So it would be truer to say that Kerry won most of the poor through the lower half of the middle-class voters and Bush won most of the upper half of the middle-class through rich voters. You know, you really ought to look up the voting statistics before you make claims like the one you made above. It took me all of five seconds to find that webpage with the 2004 voting statistics.

[IdahoMauleMan]

IdahoMauleMan writes:

> He won the rich educated elite vote, and the poor urban vote.

Not true. See this summary of the 2004 election statistics:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Kerry won the majority of the electorate making less than $50,000. Bush won the majority of the electorate making more than $50,000. Indeed, it's almost true to say that the richer the voter, the more likely that Bush won their vote. I would say that $50,000 is about halfway through the middle-class vote. So it would be truer to say that Kerry won most of the poor through the lower half of the middle-class voters and Bush won most of the upper half of the middle-class through rich voters. You know, you really ought to look up the voting statistics before you make claims like the one you made above. It took me all of five seconds to find that webpage with the 2004 voting statistics.

You're right. I should.

I was thinking about education instead of income. Although the stats you show aren't exactly what I think I remembered, anyway. I thought I remembered seeing a little 2x2 matrix with income on one axis, and something on the other axis. And Kerry pegged the corners with blue and left the middle in red.

But since you provided real data, and I provided none, you're definitely on the stronger ground here.

[Ocean Annie]

Bush barley won the 2004 election. Both in 2004 and 2000, the president was perceived by many Americans as being illegitimate –- not exactly a mandate or even a blessing for Bush.

When elections are close, dirty tricks have the greatest impact. In 2004, the GOP went to great lengths to suppress voters, especially in Ohio. The GOP purged voter rolls, challenged voters because of clerical errors, placed too few or broken voting machines in traditionally Democratic precincts, and purposely told voters to report to the wrong place. Then there were the exit polls that didn't support the outcome. The push to suppress voters makes a difference on the margins, which makes the close 2004 and 2000 elections questionable.

I guess I’ll put on one of those tin foil hats because I don’t believe Bush won either election fairly.

[billfish678]

Bush barley won the 2004 election. Both in 2004 and 2000, the president was perceived by many Americans as being illegitimate –- not exactly a mandate or even a blessing for Bush.

When elections are close, dirty tricks have the greatest impact. .



But when elections are really close, all that tells me is that one result is pretty much as good as the other.

Even if you ignore possible minor shennagins, how FAIR can you be?

So, its REALLY close, but one guy wins because he is a smidgen better looking...

Or, the other guy wins because his spin/lies campain works a little better.

WTF do either or those or many other reason have to do with getting the "correct" president?

There are a gazzillion ways an election can be unfair to one side or another.

IMO, unless you have rampant "unfairness/cheating" that is enough to overcome something that is MORE than a statistical/political dead heat...well...meh is all I can say.

[DagNation]

In 04 I voted against bush, and not for a third party... so I checked the kerry box. There was no hope or joy in that vote, just desperation, and disapointment in the democratic party.

I think that election shows very well why we need instant runoff direct vote presidential elections. I would have appreciated more than just those two viable options.

[Snnipe 70E]

Those who have read my posts know I am no fan of the man or his policies. Those who have not, take my word for it.

So, I am not here to debate:

(1) GWB "stole" the 2000 election (he didn't);
(2) GWB blows (sure).
(3) Iraq was a bad (yes) illegal (not sure what that means) war.

My question is just: given that "everyone knows" (certainly here, but there seems now to be a broader social consensus) that GWB's two terms were "disastrous" or something like it, and given that none of the policies that made it so were first introduced after 2004 -- how'd he get re-elected? Any narrative of his awfulness as president is going to have to explain this "waiter, my soup is awful, and another thing, the portions are too small" aspect of his tenure in office. How could the 2004 race even be close?

Is incumbency that strong? Did it really take that long to determine there were no WMDs, or that the invasion was stupid? Was Kerry that bad? Are Republican strategists so deviously competent that the Swift Boat thing earned him ten million votes (and if so, why did the "genius" Rove fail so badly in the 2006 Congressional races, and why was McCain as hapless as he just showed?)?

Kerry was that bad. Although no I have to wonder which would be worse.

[Marley23]

Kerry was a very weak candidate who emerged from a poor field, and he ran a bad campaign. Public sentiment on the war was divided, not strongly against, as it became a few months later: many people apparently felt it was a war that was winnable (just not won yet), so ending it would have been a mistake.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

It's funny. The way Democrats felt about Kerry and the way that Republicans felt about Bush is the same as the way Republicans felt about McCain and Democrats feel about Obama. There's definitely an enthusiasm gap that people have touched upon in a few of these comments.

[ITR champion]

Really it all boiled down to Kerry stance on the Iraq War. His position was that after he was elected the Europeans would all rush in and help us win the war. Who on earth would believe such a thing? If he'd had the courage to say that the war was wrong and that he wanted to end it, he would have won.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Really it all boiled down to Kerry stance on the Iraq War. His position was that after he was elected the Europeans would all rush in and help us win the war. Who on earth would believe such a thing? If he'd had the courage to say that the war was wrong and that he wanted to end it, he would have won.

I think he had to say that because he couldn't say that he wanted to end the war. He had to demonstrate that the war was going to end relatively quickly, but couldn't say that he was going to end it in the way that many wanted him to.

[AHunter3]

I for one never figured out why & how it was that Howard Dean was eliminated as a candidate on the basis of one silly "yeeha" whoop. Compared to the general ilk of what had been emitted by GWB's lips, ... ?!?? Would you rather a prez who may pretend to a degree of enthusiasm and confidence that looks a bit phony, or one who promises to help you put food on your families and makes Dan Quayle sound erudite in retrospective comparison?

That kind of bs, at least, was not a factor in '08. No one got wiped from the list of candidates for a 10-second bit of screen time, whether crying or making a verbal flub or odd gesture. But in '04 Howard Dean was erased from the playing field and I never could figure out why.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I for one never figured out why & how it was that Howard Dean was eliminated as a candidate on the basis of one silly "yeeha" whoop. Compared to the general ilk of what had been emitted by GWB's lips, ... ?!?? Would you rather a prez who may pretend to a degree of enthusiasm and confidence that looks a bit phony, or one who promises to help you put food on your families and makes Dan Quayle sound erudite in retrospective comparison?

That kind of bs, at least, was not a factor in '08. No one got wiped from the list of candidates for a 10-second bit of screen time, whether crying or making a verbal flub or odd gesture. But in '04 Howard Dean was erased from the playing field and I never could figure out why.

I agree. Obama owes a LOT of his success to the steps of Howard Dean. Dean might have made a pretty decent president, too.

[Marley23]

I for one never figured out why & how it was that Howard Dean was eliminated as a candidate on the basis of one silly "yeeha" whoop.
I'm starting to accept that history is always going to believe that's why Howard Dean lost when it was not even the beginning of the problem. It's frustrating because it's obviously wrong if you look at it for a minute. Dean was the favorite going into the Iowa caucuses. He finished a distant third because he didn't connect with people there - at least that's how it seems to me; his backers in the state were seen as outsiders - and Kerry and Edwards thumped him in terms of organizing support. That's why he finished a surprise third, which was a disaster for him. The whoop helped turn him into a joke and it was covered in an idiotic fashion, but even without it, he was probably toast.

[Peanut Gallery]

All this talk about dirty tricks and John Kerry being weak, and so on, and something else needs to be mentioned.

It seems we have overlooked that most Americans like war. They like torture. The empire. Tax cuts. Baby Jesus. They like a smug asshole throwing shit in every other country's faces. They hate gays. They knew all of this about GWB and endorsed him. It wasn't all Karl Rove's magic tricks. There's plenty more responsibility to go around.

I'm more inclined to view Obama's election as a fluke than GWB's. I see Bush's as more reflective of the Americans I know. :smack: If the economic shit had hit the fan any later, America would probably have voted for four more years.

[Peanut Gallery]

That's why he finished a surprise third, which was a disaster for him. The whoop helped turn him into a joke and it was covered in an idiotic fashion, but even without it, he was probably toast.

So true. I remember watching it live and thinking, "Did anyone tell him he lost tonight?" He was freakishly excited, even for a winner. I still think he'd have been a better candidate. /shrug

[The Second Stone]

Bush barley won the 2004 election. Both in 2004 and 2000, the president was perceived by many Americans as being illegitimate –- not exactly a mandate or even a blessing for Bush.

When elections are close, dirty tricks have the greatest impact. In 2004, the GOP went to great lengths to suppress voters, especially in Ohio. The GOP purged voter rolls, challenged voters because of clerical errors, placed too few or broken voting machines in traditionally Democratic precincts, and purposely told voters to report to the wrong place. Then there were the exit polls that didn't support the outcome. The push to suppress voters makes a difference on the margins, which makes the close 2004 and 2000 elections questionable.

I guess I’ll put on one of those tin foil hats because I don’t believe Bush won either election fairly.

Yep, I'll agree with those sentiments.


All this talk about dirty tricks and John Kerry being weak, and so on, and something else needs to be mentioned.

It seems we have overlooked that most Americans like war. They like torture. The empire. Tax cuts. Baby Jesus. They like a smug asshole throwing shit in every other country's faces. They hate gays. They knew all of this about GWB and endorsed him. It wasn't all Karl Rove's magic tricks. There's plenty more responsibility to go around.

I'm more inclined to view Obama's election as a fluke than GWB's. I see Bush's as more reflective of the Americans I know. :smack: If the economic shit had hit the fan any later, America would probably have voted for four more years.

You too, make some valid points. The Beast inside of me loves war and that we can kick ass against any army in the world. The rational guy thinks that is stupid. But I keep re-reading Thucydides over and over. Redundantly. Yes, this country has a lot of assholes, and they love their own. They love Christian chauvinism and bigotry, but reject Jesus' teachings as non-essential, because they are saved by Grace alone. I'm a Protestant myself, but I think that acceptance of the Holy Spirit opens our minds up to the teachings, which are the practical salvation. Frankly, I could care less about the hereafter.

[BobLibDem]

You can't explain the 2004 results without a critical look at Ohio. Minority voters purged from the voting rolls or forced to stand in long lines for hours while white voters waltzed through without a problem. Voting machines that malfunctioned, turnouts that made no sense (way over expectations in Bush areas, way under expectations in Kerry areas), opportunities for manipulation of the electronic vote, etc. Throw in the anti-gay backlash exploited by the Rovian robot army and there was just enough to steal the election.

I agree that the economic meltdown may have prevented a different result this year. McCain had some momentum, but the economic collapse was the coffin nail that he couldn't pull out.

[jtgain]

IIRC, in 2004, 9/11 was still relatively fresh in our minds. G.W. Bush was still cemented in our conscience as the guy who dared to address the nation from the White House that very night, and climbed on top of the WTC rubble with the bullhorn a few days later. He was our face in that low point.

Now, just three years later, there were bits of doubts about his ability: no WMDs in Iraq, the deficit growing, spending soaring, so we were taking a hard look at the opposition. Bring on Kerry:

He voted for the war in Iraq, so if we shouldn't have went in there, then Kerry shares the blame as well. Deficit spending, higher taxes? Check and check for Kerry. Plus he just seemed like a wishy-washy (and painted so very effectively) slimeball who would say or change any position to get elected.

So, when it came right down to it, the swing voter decided to stay with what we had instead of the promise which seemed to be unknown and untested, uninspiring, with shades of looking very imcompetent.

I also agree with previous posters regarding Dean's scream. In retrospect, the media makes it seem like he was riding high and that the scream brought him down.

In fact, he had falled from his almost insurmountable lead and lost badly that night. We were waiting for a solemn speech, and he comes out, rolls his sleeve up and yelps and screams like a 15 year old boy who just got his first piece of tail. It was so silly and so obviously false that everyone felt their intelligence was insulted and that Dean was out of touch. That scream only hastened his fall.

[Huerta88]

Would you rather a prez . . . or one who promises to help you put food on your families and . . . .
I thought the consensus was that GWB ran on an anti-pervert platform.

[Captain Carrot]

I'm more inclined to view Obama's election as a fluke than GWB's. Huh? Obama won far more convincingly than Bush did.

I see Bush's as more reflective of the Americans I know. :smack: If the economic shit had hit the fan any later, America would probably have voted for four more years.Please. Obama was leading in the polls the entire time, except when his convention bump was waning and McCain's was waxing, which is not an accurate picture of anything anyway. If anything, I think Obama would have won more if the troubles had begun a few weeks later, as people would have had less time to recover from their alarm.

[ElvisL1ves]

If the financial crisis had happened a few months later, not weeks, would you still be as sure? Remember that McCain was actually leading at the time.

While "fluke" isn't the right word, it's fair to say Obama's win was due in very large part to circumstances beyond his control or influence.

[Loach]

IIRC, in 2004, 9/11 was still relatively fresh in our minds. G.W. Bush was still cemented in our conscience as the guy who dared to address the nation from the White House that very night, and climbed on top of the WTC rubble with the bullhorn a few days later. He was our face in that low point.

Now, just three years later, there were bits of doubts about his ability: no WMDs in Iraq, the deficit growing, spending soaring, so we were taking a hard look at the opposition. Bring on Kerry:

He voted for the war in Iraq, so if we shouldn't have went in there, then Kerry shares the blame as well. Deficit spending, higher taxes? Check and check for Kerry. Plus he just seemed like a wishy-washy (and painted so very effectively) slimeball who would say or change any position to get elected.

So, when it came right down to it, the swing voter decided to stay with what we had instead of the promise which seemed to be unknown and untested, uninspiring, with shades of looking very imcompetent.

I also agree with previous posters regarding Dean's scream. In retrospect, the media makes it seem like he was riding high and that the scream brought him down.

In fact, he had falled from his almost insurmountable lead and lost badly that night. We were waiting for a solemn speech, and he comes out, rolls his sleeve up and yelps and screams like a 15 year old boy who just got his first piece of tail. It was so silly and so obviously false that everyone felt their intelligence was insulted and that Dean was out of touch. That scream only hastened his fall.

This almost exactly. I voted for Bush in 04 (in New Jersey so it didn't count for much). The main reason was that I thought leaving Iraq prematurely would be a bigger disaster for Iraq and the US than anything that happened before. Four years later I'm sitting in Iraq and watching it grow and talking to the people I think I was right. Looking back ten years from now, who knows. I had no faith in Kerry.

The Dean scream did not seem to me so much silly and false as manic, kooky and a bit scary.

[Wendell Wagner]

Obama was consistently ahead of McCain from mid-September to the election in the polls. He was ahead most of the time from late March to mid-September. Here's a chart of the polls:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_representations_of_two-way-contest_opinion_polling_data_from_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008

[Bill Door]

(snip)The Dean scream did not seem to me so much silly and false as manic, kooky and a bit scary.

In fairness to Dean, the scream sounded much different in context. He was in a very noisy environment, with lots of chaos and commotion and noise. When you heard it on the news they isolated just his voice and eliminated most of the rest of the sound. When you hear someone screaming at the top of his lungs at a football game it sounds pretty normal, but if it's in an empty room he just seems like a nut.

[Carson O'Genic]

There were two main explanations:

George Bush's narrow win in Ohio has been attributed to a large turnout of Amish voters who supported the ban on gay marriage.

The GOP used the same strategy in the large Amish settlement here, too. But they were faced with the quandary of voting for a pro-war president, thanks largely to outside cries of hypocrisy regarding their CO status, and the unwanted publicity made them largely poll shy.

[BJMoose]

While there is a concensus today that George Bush sucks ostrich eggs, that wasn't the case in 2004. Then, he still had enough support - just enough - to win reelection.

While it looks like Obama would have won even if Wall Street hadn't tanked, McCain's apparently befuddled response to the economic "crisis" likely pushed most of the fence-sitters into Obama's corral.

[mbh]

Think back to the Clinton administration. Remember how Republicans used to criticize Clinton?
They would start with a rational critique of his policies.
Then they would start making snide personal attacks.
Then they go off on wild tangents.
Then they would start spouting bizarre conspiracies.
When they were done, you were far more afraid of them, than they were of Clinton.

Bush's critics do the same thing. When you start foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of the guy's name, you do not persuade people.

Also, Kerry's platform seemed to be: "I'm a war hero! Elect me, and we'll cut and run!"
That did not appeal to either the pro-war or the anti-war people.

[Elendil's Heir]

...Bush won in 2004 because the economy wasn't as weak as it is now and the Iraq war didn't look as bad as it did after 2004. Also, Katrina didn't happen until 2005 and that was what did a lot to highlight the incompetence of this administration. Bush also only squeaked by with 50.7% of the vote, so a better challenger than Kerry should have been able to defeat him. It was narrow victory for Bush, he just had slightly more people liking him than the other doofus.

I think this is a fair summary. Karl Rove knew, given what had up to then been the general GOP edge in the Electoral College, that Bush could win with just a hair over 50% of the vote in a country which was highly polarized politically anyway. The analyses I've seen of the gay-marriage amendments on the ballot in various states is that they were essentially a wash, having turned off as many independent voters as they motivated hard-right voters, and in particular that it didn't make a difference in Ohio.

[Loach]

In fairness to Dean, the scream sounded much different in context. He was in a very noisy environment, with lots of chaos and commotion and noise. When you heard it on the news they isolated just his voice and eliminated most of the rest of the sound. When you hear someone screaming at the top of his lungs at a football game it sounds pretty normal, but if it's in an empty room he just seems like a nut.

I did hear it in context. I also heard it out of context a thousand times. But I did hear the actual speech. I was not in the room but the recording of the speech made it clear that it was a crowded noisy room. Of course he was appified so he was much louder.

[groo]

...

It seems we have overlooked that most Americans like war. They like torture. The empire. Tax cuts. Baby Jesus. They like a smug asshole throwing shit in every other country's faces. They hate gays. They knew all of this about GWB and endorsed him. It wasn't all Karl Rove's magic tricks. There's plenty more responsibility to go around.

I'm more inclined to view Obama's election as a fluke than GWB's. I see Bush's as more reflective of the Americans I know. :smack: If the economic shit had hit the fan any later, America would probably have voted for four more years.
I hope you're wrong about most Americans, but boy, did I fear exactly what you say. In the weeks leading up to the 2008 election, I was terrified of the "Bradley Effect," and that perhaps the majority of US voters approved of torture, liked this war, might be ignorant enough to fall for swift boat attacks (e.g., the idea that Barack would not put his hand on a bible or that he was a closet commie), and might be arrogant enough to think that we could move forward without any international support other than the UK and Israel. Remember those bumper stickers that said, "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention"? I'm hoping that Obama's election is an indication that people finally started paying attention.

The whole gay rights thing just makes me sad. As a straight person, there is no aspect of homosexuality that has anything to do with my life, and it doesn't make sense to me that people would go out of their way to focus on a distinction that creates a separate group, and then remove rights from that group.

Of course, there's a good chance that gas prices and evaporating wealth among the middle class was a large contributor to Obama's win. The middle class tends to have a large part of their wealth tied up in their home, and a whole lot of people had drifted into a lifestyle dependent on inexpensive energy costs, so in the 15 months or so before the election, many voters just started feeling the pain, and any incumbent would have had quite a difficult time garnering support. In the 2004 election, the things that were going wrong hadn't started to personally hurt the majority of voters.

[billfish678]

While there is a concensus today that George Bush sucks ostrich eggs, that wasn't the case in 2004. Then, he still had enough support - just enough - to win reelection.

.


When you have enough to win, you DESERVE to win!

Thats what the sore loosers on both sides of the aisle can't seem to wrap their obsessed minds around :rolleyes:

[tomndebb]

You're not going to get an accurate picture of how an American election worked from a board like this one. Too many yellow dog Democrats. This is trolling and you will stop, now. There have already been several posts from left leaning posters pointing out that Kerry was an ineffective candidate. While your post filled out some of the reasons why Kerry was ineffective in your post, you added nothing to the actual discussion of why Bush won and this particular stupid (and demonstrably false) comment is intended only to irritate other posters. That is trolling.


[ /Modding ]

[Shodan]

It seems we have overlooked that most Americans like war. They like torture. The empire. Tax cuts. Baby Jesus. They like a smug asshole throwing shit in every other country's faces. They hate gays. So, is this why Obama got a majority of the vote?

Regards,'Shodan

[Captain Carrot]

When you have enough to win, you DESERVE to win!

That's what the sore losers on both sides of the aisle can't seem to wrap their obsessed minds around :rolleyes:

I keep reading this, but I still can't figure out what you're saying. Could you rephrase, please?

[DoctorJ]

While there is a concensus today that George Bush sucks ostrich eggs, that wasn't the case in 2004. Then, he still had enough support - just enough - to win reelection.
Exactly. While there were plenty of us who saw Bush and the war for what they were in 2004, that was far from the prevailing sentiment, particularly in the press.

That changed big time in 2005, and IMO, the person most responsible for that was Cindy Sheehan. This is a woman whose picture and actions were in the paper every day for months, just because she was an outspoken critic of Bush and the war and because her son had died in Iraq she couldn't be written off as a dirty fucking hippie.

It's hard to believe that was newsworthy, since the opinions she was offering up back then are pretty widely held now. I think the anti-war and anti-Bush sentiment crystallized around her activism and visibility, like the little boy who pointed out that the Emperor was butt-ass naked.

She eventually went off the deep end and faded into relative obscurity, but the second half of the one-two punch came with Katrina. For once people were noticing in real time that Bush was screwing the pooch, and it became clear that he had been doing it all along.

[BJMoose]

When you have enough to win, you DESERVE to win!

Thats what the sore loosers on both sides of the aisle can't seem to wrap their obsessed minds around :rolleyes:

Harrumph. "Deserving" has nothing to do with winning. If you have enough support to win, you win. Whether any particular person deserved to win is quite another question.

Kinda jumping to conclusions by labeling me a "sore loser", aren'tcha? I recall being a somewhat disappointed loser, but certainly not a sore loser.

[Bill Door]

So, is this why Obama got a majority of the vote?

Regards,'Shodan

When I look at my county and the neighboring ones that voted Republican in 2004 and still voted Republican in 2008, I notice something interesting. In an election with historically high turnout, you'd have to go back to 1968 to find a higher percentage of voters, turnout in all three Republican counties was down compared to 2004. I haven't seen a national analysis of voter turnout versus voting patterns, but I say Barack Obama got the majority of the vote because the Republicans stayed home.

[billfish678]

I keep reading this, but I still can't figure out what you're saying. Could you rephrase, please?


Seems straight forward to me, but I'll try again.

If you look at electrorial college votes, presidental winners usually win by a good margin.

EVEN in these cases the loosing side usually claims it was close and therefore no real "mandate from the people" or that guy isnt "their president"

Also if you look at total popular vote, its usually close. IMO close enough that either both candidates are pretty much equally crappy or equally good or the voters are wholly uninformed on who is better/worse, or some of all these.

So ,with a close popular vote, or a close electorial vote, the loosing side claims BECAUSE it was close it isnt a "real mandate from the people" or that guy isnt "their president".

But HERE is where the hypocrisy (from BOTH sides, depending on who wins)comes from). With a "close vote", that means with something just slightly )different, THEIR guy would have won. Which is what they are usually bitching about. IFF things had just been a little more different/fair, their guy woulda won. Which is true enough. But he would have still just BARELY won. So, doesnt the OTHER SIDE have a perfect right to claim a "stolen election", or "no real mandate", or the fact that the guy isnt "their president"?

Logic would seem to me to dictate yes, but IMO a good fraction of the "loosers" sure as hell would NOT grant the "theorectical shoes on the other foot loosers" the same consideration they expect as the current/actual loosers.



If its close electorial vote wise, the loosing side will invariably pick a few states the winner won due to some percieved "unfair advantage", of which there are a gazillion. Of course they IGNORE all the states their guy won due to his/her "unfair advantage", because of course their guy is all fair and honest and right :rolleyes:

sorry, got run!

maybe that helps

all hooped up on automotive paint fumes and beer right now!

to recap, if you had enough to win, you deserved to win, now matter how slim the margin. And even if it was slightly unfair, it was that damn close, whats the difference in who actually got in?, because apparently the vast majority of the voters were pretty much equally divided as to who should be in the white house in the first place

[billfish678]

Harrumph. "Deserving" has nothing to do with winning. If you have enough support to win, you win. Whether any particular person deserved to win is quite another question.

Kinda jumping to conclusions by labeling me a "sore loser", aren'tcha? I recall being a somewhat disappointed loser, but certainly not a sore loser.

Well, if you want to nitpick the word choice "deserve"...have at it, it is the straight dope after all.

Sore looser may or not be aimed at you. I don't really know the details of your thoughts or though processes, nor do I really care.

Note that I get the same :rolleyes: when EITHER the repubs or dems pull this stuff when they dont win. See my other rambling post for details.

And of course its not EVERYONE on either side either, just the vocal and usually critically thinking challenged.

[Huerta88]

Katrina. For once people were noticing in real time that Bush was screwing the pooch, and it became clear that he had been doing it all along.
This may in fact have influenced people's perceptions. I can't understand why. I read the Constitution and see nowhere where it says the President is flood-water-parter in chief, or that people who choose to live in a low-lying coastal area historically prone to flooding and hurricanes don't owe it to their own damn selves to move, or to evacuate when OMG a hurricane comes in the middle of WTF hurricane season?!?! Not to mention that the Constitution explicitly delegates all non-enumerated powers (including, you know, local health and safety) to the states and their tributaries. Bush may not have "done something" to fix the mess the idiots in N.O. created, but then I hardly care as it is not his job to do so, so my opinion in 2005 was not worsened.

The Constitution does on the other hand require that war be declared by Congress. By 2004, it was clear that GWB (with total collusion from a spineless Congress, mind you) had subverted this, and had subverted national sovereignty to go into war for the neocon moles in his administration. Those policies worsened, in the sense that they persisted, beyond 2004, but they were plainly out there. I think one of GWB's great "achievements" (actual or accidental) was that in 2004, and even now, many conservatives still thought he was, well, conservative, though the non-conservative nature of his foreign and domestic policy (federalizing educational matters, huge spending) were readily apparent. His "base" remained super-energized, it appears, and sufficiently "anti the other clique" to define proper policy as anything that kept GWB and his clique in office.

[kidchameleon]

Bush most certainly did steal the 200 election.

Oh please, Septimius Severus got into office over the will of the people, Caracalla was really a puppet and Geta wasn't even old enough, let alone be a decent candidate. I wish people would stop crying about that one.

[ElvisL1ves]

"A republic, if you can keep it."

Comments like that make the baby Ben Franklin cry, kidchameleon.

[squeegee]

This may in fact have influenced people's perceptions. I can't understand why. I read the Constitution and see nowhere where it says the President is flood-water-parter in chief, or that people who choose to live in a low-lying coastal area historically prone to flooding and hurricanes don't owe it to their own damn selves to move, or to evacuate when OMG a hurricane comes in the middle of WTF hurricane season?!?!

Here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/images/20040908-12_florida2-2-515h.html) is George Bush in Florida when hurricane Frances hit. Here (http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/1436.hf4286.jpg.image) is GWB handing out rice to motorists, with his brother Jeb just visible in the frame.

Here (http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/1436.hf4286.jpg.image) and here (http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/mccain-bush-katrina-cake.jpg) are pictures taken of George Bush the day Katrina hit. Two days later, here (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/images/20050831_p083105pm-0117jas-515h.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/images/20050831_p083105pm-0117jas-515h.html&usg=__UuYQRxVutLC-02tLtptT7Q_RUyA=&h=354&w=515&sz=48&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=_xON0hj-uoDRvM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbush%2Bkatrina%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG) is George's involvement in Katrina, flying over the wreckage while people died.

Do you really think both responses were appropriate? If not, which was not the correct response?

[Invisible Chimp]

My dad has been a registered Republican as long I have been politically aware, and I was politically precocious. He voted for W in '00 and '04. Around '06, he un-registered as a Republican because of Bush's suckitude. What seemed obvious to me in '04 only became obvious to my dad about one or two years too late. I think he represents a large chunk of the American public. Last time I talked to him about politics was during primary season, and he was supporting Huckabee. Alas, some people are incorrigible. :D

[Huerta88]

Here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/images/20040908-12_florida2-2-515h.html) is George Bush in Florida when hurricane Frances hit. Here (http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/1436.hf4286.jpg.image) is GWB handing out rice to motorists, with his brother Jeb just visible in the frame.

Here (http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/1436.hf4286.jpg.image) and here (http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/mccain-bush-katrina-cake.jpg) are pictures taken of George Bush the day Katrina hit. Two days later, here (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/images/20050831_p083105pm-0117jas-515h.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/images/20050831_p083105pm-0117jas-515h.html&usg=__UuYQRxVutLC-02tLtptT7Q_RUyA=&h=354&w=515&sz=48&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=_xON0hj-uoDRvM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbush%2Bkatrina%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG) is George's involvement in Katrina, flying over the wreckage while people died.

Do you really think both responses were appropriate? If not, which was not the correct response?

If we are speaking constitutionally or in terms of the actual duties of a President, the one that did not imply that a President is a weather prognosticator, distributor of rice, disaster relief specialist, or custodian of local health and safety. So are you implying it's Katrina? Then, he got it right there. If he was doing more in Fla. while visiting his brother, I'd say, get back to work and leave disaster relief to the local professionals.

What? You don't have local professionals, even when you live on an exposed, hurricane plagued shore? Well then, Ray Nagin and everyone else in N.O. -- the answer's simple -- you're dumbasses.

[tim-n-va]

I was first eligible to vote in 1976. If I look at each election from then to now, I could have predicted the winner using the "best personality" selection criteria.

I'd like to think that's just coincidence but I fear that it is not.

Regarding Dean's scream: I never saw that an "angry Dean" but that is how it was presented in the media. I thought it was just ineffective cheer leading.

[The Tao's Revenge]

My personal impression is that Bush's campaign frightened people into believing that if Bush was not reelected, then The Terrorists would go door to door blowing YOU! and YOUR FAMILY! and EVERYBODY!

Because a good chunk of Americans did swallow

hehe
I am so immature. Out of context of course.

[shallora]

Short answer for 2004:
Swing-voters looked at Bush and said "meh"
. . . But unfortunately, in their minds Kerry was even worse!


Actually, much the same can be said of 2008:
Swing-voters in 2008 looked at Obama and said "meh"
. . . But "meh" was as good as it ever got for McCain (among swing-voters, that is)


Shows the great importance of swing voters!

[RTFirefly]

Bush most certainly did steal the 200 election.Nonsense! Septimius Severus (http://www.roman-emperors.org/sepsev.htm) won it, fair and square.*

given that "everyone knows" (certainly here, but there seems now to be a broader social consensus) that GWB's two terms were "disastrous" or something like it, and given that none of the policies that made it so were first introduced after 2004 -- how'd he get re-elected? The policies may not have changed, but the visible outcomes changed, and as a result, the consensus certainly shifted.

It's hard to overstate the role of Hurricane Katrina in the change in the public's attitude towards Bush. Before then, it could be argued whether we were progressing in Iraq, or just fucking things up worse every day: you have your opinion, I have mine, and neither of us are there. Under such circumstances, most people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to their leaders.

But everyone could see that Katrina was a disaster of epic proportions. Some still try to pin the blame on the city and state governments, but outside the ranks of the true believers, few bought that theory. In the public's mind, this was clearly a Bush fuckup. And that made them (or a big chunk of them, anyway) come to the conclusion that Iraq was probably a clusterfuck too.

Since then, the mixture of incompetence and corruption has continued to chip away at Bush's remaining support, bringing it down to Nixonian levels. And by the time 'The Surge Worked,' it didn't matter as far as public opinion was concerned: they wanted us to be gone from Iraq, win, lose, or draw.

So there's no reason to see a tension between the consensus about Bush now, and his election to a term of his own back in 2004.

*ETA: How did I miss kid chameleon's post? I'm a day late, if not a dollar short! :)