This article in Slate tries to make the case that moral values voters were not the edge for Bush- while evangelicals may have turned out in larger numbers than in 2000, as a percentage of voters they remained equivalent share as in 2000. Getting out the vote did not give Bush the win; it merely countered the get-out-the-vote campaign Kerry ran. What won it for Bush was taking an increased share of moderates.
Taking a look at the CNN National Election Polls seems to bear that out. 22% of voters said that “Moral Values” was the most important issue… but only 8% considered “Religious Faith” the most important quality in a leader. 25% of people who were pro-life (42% of the electorate) still voted for Kerry; 37% of the people against gay marriage (72% of the electorate) voted for Kerry. Not great numbers, but not the over-whelming monolithic bloc we’re supposed to believe it is.
What I think the most telling numbers are, and in line with the Slate article I’ve cited, are these: 58% of Americans trusted Bush to handle terrorism, while only 40% of Americans trusted Kerry to. And 71% of Americans are worried about terrorism. No other issue reaches that 58-40 split- not Bush’s approval rating (53 to 46), not the decision to go into Iraq (51 to 45), not how things are going in Iraq (44 to 52), not the economy (47 to 52), not the tax cuts (41 to 32). And of those 58% who trusted Bush to handle terrorism, 85% voted for him.
If Democrats want to win future elections, they can do it without changing their positions and without jettisoning one position or another. What they need to do is either convince the American people that terrorism is not a real threat, or they need to come up with an anti-terrorism plan and convince the American people that it is better than the one Republicans have.
Then the hate vote in America is very large and for your safety, you ought to leave. You could nurture your fantasies of persecution by the millions of American haters who voted for Bush, thank God (no, wait, that wouldn’t work) for your narrow escape from some luridly-imagined persecution, and dream up new definitions of “hate” that included not just every American who didn’t agree with you, but everyone, everywhere. Remember: THEY’RE ALL EVIL MORON BIGOTS! ONLY YOU KNOW WHAT TOLERANCE AND EQUAL PROTECTION ARE, SAFE IN YOUR FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE!
Sounds like a plan that works for everyone, if America’s really that full of “haters.” A lot easier on the ol’ brain than actually trying to figure out why voters were narrowly divided on so many social and economic issues that they obviously regarded as close calls.
The “hate vote”* merely countered the “Hate Bush” vote. What put Bush over the top were moderates who felt that terrorism was a threat, and that Kerry couldn’t be trusted to stop terrorism.
Geez, and Democrats certainly got a lot of that “hate vote” too- 25% of pro-lifers and 37% of those against gay marriage.
JC has a point; the most consistent criticism of Kerry that I’ve seen is that he just didn’t comprehend the seriousness of the terrorist threat. While I recognize that this is not accurate and is more an artifact of GOP fear-mongering than a reflection of fact, the perception the Dems must combat is that we are “soft” on terror, or as some GOP spokespeople like Anne Coulter and Sean Hannity would have it, active collaborators with Al Qaeda. Absurd, yes, but then so was a Bush victory.
Well, even more fundamental than that is the Democrats need to learn how to control the media airwaves better than the Republicans in order to get their message out. They need to adopt the Republican practice of repeating talking points endlessly, whether they are factual or not.
Going back to the UM study that has been posted and linked to about 50 billion times here in the past few days, a significant chunk of Bush voters believed that al-Qaeda and Iraq had close connections and that stockpiles of WMD had been found in Iraq. Moreover, another large chunk of these voters said that they would NOT vote for Bush if it turns out that Iraq had no association to 9/11 and al-Qaeda and had no WMD stockpiles.
Essentially, a not insignificant number of Bush supporters would have voted for Kerry had they actually had a better grasp of the facts. But the Republican machine is much better at muddling the water and constantly repeating and insinuating things until those members of the public who do not have the time to actually research the truth come to believe a false reality.
The Democrats did nothing to try and reverse this. I saw no ads from the Kerry campaign making it clear that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or al-Qaeda. I saw no Kerry ads making it clear that the War in Iraq was a distraction from the War on Terror, not a part of it. And I saw no ads making it clear that Kerry would get back on the anti-terror track.
So, while what you say is true, John, it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. The Democrats are simply thoroughly outclassed in getting their message out at all - they allow the Republicans to set the parameters of debate, they allow the Republicans to set the color of the situation, and they allow the Republicans to establish firmly their interpretation of what’s going on, and then they wonder what they need to do in order to win.
Hmm. Fifteen, let us say twenty, years ago, no one outside a few radical homosexual organizations or universities even had a concept of “gay marriage” existing, being possible, being acknowledged by the government, and certainly did not regard it as a logical necessity of a non-hateful society.
By this reckoning, 15-20 years ago approximately 240 million Americans were “haters” because they did not actively support “gay marriage,” and likely would have opposed it.
Now we are to understand that Bush’s ‘narrow’ 4-5 million popular vote majority (presumably all due to the “anti gay marriage” haters, because everyone else is as obsessed with “gay marriage” as you are) represents the small but pivotal vote of “haters.” So, we’ve gone from 240 million people whose position was consistent with the “hate” position (not recognizing or endorsing “gay marriage”) to 4-5 million. There are 236 million fewer “haters” than just two decades ago. Or is everyone who voted for Bush, and not just the 4-5 million victory-margin voters a hater (I suspect your answer is yes)? Then we’ve still halved the number of “haters” in just 20 years! Cause for celebration, surely?
Not everyone is as single-issue-obsessed, incapable of nuance, or innumerate, as your calculations seem to indicate you may be.
Do you have a single position that allows for the possibility that those who disagree with it are anything other than stupid, evil, and hate-filled? Why would you live in a country so full of CLEARLY BAD people?
I agree with the OP, though I really didn’t think it would be the key to the election…I REALLY thought the economy would be the hinge on which the election turned. However, it really does look like terrorism was the hot button issue of this election…and that people really did think Bush would be better at it than Kerry. And frankly, if thats all I was going on (I actually DID vote the economy which is why I didn’t vote for Bush), I probably would have picked Bush myself…to me, Kerry’s big ‘plan’ was to do exactly what Bush was doing, only better. Sorry, I wasn’t buying that, reguardless of whether he served in Vietnam or not.
This ridiculous meme the Democrats have going that it was the ‘hate vote’ that won it for Bush (while disreguarding the equally large Hate BUSH vote on their own side) is REALLY annoying…and I think its making them look bad to be frank. Basically you are telling over 50% of the country that they are haters, stupid, ignorant bible thumpers who should not be allowed. Its really not winning the Democrats any new fans, you know? The Republicans on the other hand (at least all the ones I know personally) are sitting back and watching the Dems once again self destruct with glee in their eyes. Its really kind of sad IMO.
The hate Bush vote is not the same as the hate fags vote. Bush is one person who has earned his hate. You can’t compare a popular dislike for a specific president to the exploitation of bigotry.
Not over 50%, just the ones who were swayed solely by the anti-gay marriage stuff. Enough voters were motivated by bigotry (and not just Republicans, but a fair amount of Dems and “Others” as well) to swing the election to the Chimp.
Who should not be allowed to what? Who said they shouldn’t be allowed?
I don’t care, I’m not a Democrat. I’ll be happy to watch the Republicans reap what they sowed. I’m happy just to be in the right.
Nope, never said it. But then my view of the American populace is not one in which at least 51% of my fellow people are NECESSARILY hate-filled, evil, stupid, venal, and incapable of seeing truth. If I really thought that were true (as you clearly do), I would reluctantly conclude that much as I loved America, I could not share its bounties with such a crowd of Bad People.
Fortunately, I have nowhere near as dystopian a view of my fellow people, and can live with the prospect that they disagree with me and that my candidate lost the election without attributing the loss to PURE EVIL. Are you gracious in victory? I doubt it, given your utter lack of grace in defeat.
Hey, I’ve got a riddle: What do you call someone who’s convinced that half of his fellow citizens are evil haters? Ummm . . . a counter-hater?
Back to the OP: Kerry had legitimate and big openings on (1) de-linking Iraq and terror; and (2) the economy. He didn’t try at all on (1) and was vague and unconvincing on (2). And thus he lost.
It will be tough to “convince the American people that terrorism is not a real threat” in the face of ongoing non-specific warnings from the Homeland Security Amt. And it’s also unlikely that the Dems can convince people that they’re tougher on terrorism. I think the best that they can hope for is that people start to get tired of the constant warning claxtons OR there is another catastrophic attack on the USA and the citizenry decides that Bush’s approach has not worked. I’m not sure that either is forthcoming and frankly hope the second never arrives. A third alternative (it’s really number one, part B) is that terrorism becomes second to economic woe or something else, perhaps fatigue with war in Iraq or new struggles in Iran/Syria/Palestine/Philippines/Korea/Indonesia/Pakistan.
Or, in other words, Don’t you have anything more origninal than “Bush won because of the hate vote”? Like perhaps actually looking at the figures the OP put forth and debating THAT instead of a knee jerk ‘We only lost because of all the haters!’ meme?
I love ya DtC…but I think this election has slightly unhinged you. In all other things (like on Evolution or general skepticism of the paranormal) I enjoy your posts…but when it comes to Bush you have a huge blind spot IMO.
Balderdash. In the first debate, Kerry stressed over and over again- there is and was no link between Iraq and 9/11. Over and over again. Maybe most people were so spellbound by the spectre of Bush looking like he downed a bottle of valium with a vodka chaser that the point was lost. But Kerry made the point which Bush did not refute.
If the Dems are really losing on the terrorism issue, that’s a problem that will take care of itself. Either the terrorist threat will abate, in which case the issue’s no longer the Democrats’ problem, or people will start wondering why it hasn’t, at which point the issue will be the GOP’s problem.
I think the terrorism issue may have made the difference in this one election (it doesn’t take much to make the difference in an election where 70,000 voters in one state could’ve swung the result), but I don’t think waiting out this one issue will solve the Democrats’ problems. It just ain’t that simple.
Does anyone else read posts like this, advocating that the Democrats learn to do exactly what the Republicans did this time with the constantly repeated untruths and part-truths and the continuous smearing of the opponent, and get the feeling that we’re just barely hanging over the abyss of political death for this country?
The Republican tactics disgusted me this campaign (and yes, if you can show me places where the Dems did adopt these tactics locally, they’ll probably disgust me as well). The Roveization of political discourse is the worst thing that’s happened to it since “Ma, Ma! Where’s my pa?!” If both parties adopt it wholesale, we might as well pack it in and shut down the democratic experiment now, because there won’t be any test subjects left who even know what it’s really about.
