# "Bush thumped the Dems" meme **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087 "2004-11-16T18:14:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/82 "2004-11-18T21:09:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Instead, he comes into this thread and smugly offers up the seemingly rock-solid PIPA study, and then you, **Evil Captor** , smugly wonder why there is no conservative response? Perhaps my brethern in the minority are tired of pointing out the same thing over and over. Umm, still feeling smug here,\*\* Bricker,\*\* because the rebuttal to the PIPA report, rather than being a staggering blow to its validity, is more a minor nitpick blown up to huge proportions. Here’s the section that seems to be the key point in the rebuttal: > [@](#): > > (4) There was an objection raised that the poll is sampling all adults and not just actual, or even likely, voters. This is true and so it is technically correct that the results in that poll apply only to Bush and Kerry supporters and not Bush and Kerry voters. However, I have pointed out that the turnout rate among eligible voters was about 60% and the effects seen in that poll are so huge in many cases that in order to get them to go away amongst a sample of people who consisted only of those who actually voted, you have to posit huge and truly bizarre differences between the voting and non-voting members of each candidate’s supporters in order to believe that what was found qualitatively for Kerry and Bush supporters does not also hold for Kerry and Bush voters (although certainly some fairly small quantitative differences are likely to be found). In other words, if \*\*jshore’s \*\*post is rephrased to read: “Bush supporters” rather than “Bush voters” it would be totally accurate. Nitpick, nitpick, nitpick. That’s why I’m feeling smug, **Bricker** – I’d be embarrassed to present something like this as an argument. But I’m not the one who’s doing it, you are. And that’s why I’m feeling smug. Frankly, continued silence would have been a lot more dignified. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/83 "2004-11-19T04:37:08Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Frankly, continued silence would have been a lot more dignified. And of course, it would be most appropriate to take silence for consent here. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/84 "2004-11-19T05:11:30Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > And of course, it would be most appropriate to take silence for consent here. Or that people are starting to ignore you. Just a thought. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/85 "2004-11-19T06:42:20Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Also, shouldn’t we really go on what the people who voted for him [think he stood for](http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Qnnaire10_21_04.pdf), in which case there is apparently a mandate to participate in the Kyoto treaty (51% of Bush supporters believe this to be Bush’s position), to participate in the treaty banning land mines (72% of Bush supporters…), to participate in the nuclear test ban treaty (69% of Bush supporters…), have labor and environmental protections in international trade agreements (84% of Bush supporters…), and participate in the International Criminal Court (66% of Bush supporters…). That’s laughable. I’m trying to picture the scenario where the Republicans get kicked out of power because the US didn’t sign the Kyoto treaty, didn’t sign on to the International Criminal Court, or didn’t stop testing nuclear weapons. Yeah, those are key commitments about which Bush voters will be extremly upset if they remain unfullfilled. Didn’t we all see those huge Bush rallies with people waving signs saying: KYOTO NOW!! and BAN THE BOMB!! and WE NEED THE HAGUE!! ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/86 "2004-11-19T14:14:14Z")
Yeah, but are you’re willing to believe that Bush got re-elected because the people were so enamored of his NASA funding proposals or were so excited by his social security privatization ideas or his ideas to essentially eliminate all taxation of investment income altogether and tax only wage income? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/87 "2004-11-19T14:21:08Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Yeah, but are you’re willing to believe that Bush got re-elected because the people were so enamored of his NASA funding proposals… Probably a minor issue. > [@](#): > > or were so excited by his social security privatization ideas A lot of younger people probably like that. I know I do (although I didn’t vote for Bush 🙂 ). > [@](#): > > or his ideas to essentially eliminate all taxation of investment income altogether and tax only wage income? Possibly. Certainly more likely than a concern about signing the Kyoto Treaty. I think you have to look at the exit polls to get some idea of why people voted the way they did: Moral values, the threat of terrorism, the economy. I really don’t think most people vote for a president based so much on specific policy issues, but on whether or not they think the person will reflect their overall world-view. You don’t know what specific problems the country will encounter in the next four years, so you vote for the guy you think will guide the country in the best direction. Issue sepcific votes are more likely to be focussed on Senators and Congressmen. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/88 "2004-11-19T19:48:39Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > according to the results at [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/senate/full.list), for the Senate, the Republicans got 37,850,613 votes, while Democrats got 41,253,684 votes. Out of curiosity, I wrote a small Perl script to extract all the voting info from the [election 2004 website on CNN](http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004), and, even though some people claim that you need a complicated model and a publication in a peer-reviewed journal before any numbers are posted, here are the results (in millions of votes), simply FYI: ```auto President Senate House Governor Total Percent Dem: 55.9 41.3 47.5 7.1 151.8 49.4% Rep: 59.5 37.9 50.8 7.0 155.2 50.6% ``` ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/89 "2004-11-19T20:29:04Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Out of curiosity, I wrote a small Perl script to extract all the voting info from the [election 2004 website on CNN](http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004), and, even though some people claim that you need a complicated model and a publication in a peer-reviewed journal before any numbers are posted, here are the results (in millions of votes), simply FYI: And that has the same problem we talked about earlier. The Senate votes don’t represent a trend unless you want to believe that Alan Keyes and the IL race was typical of election races across the contry. And if you actually do believe that, then the Democrats have nothing to worry about and will generally win all future elections by a margin of 8-to-2. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2004, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/90 "2004-11-19T21:13:34Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Or that people are starting to ignore you. > > Just a thought. That’s what this whole board is about, though, furt – fighting ignore-ance. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2004, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/91 "2004-11-20T21:37:38Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > And that has the same problem we talked about earlier. The Senate votes don’t represent a trend unless you want to believe that Alan Keyes and the IL race was typical of election races across the contry. What on earth are you talking about? What trend did I claim? Also, even if we don’t count the Keyes-Obama race, the Democrats still got 37.8 million votes versus 3.65 million votes for Republicans in Senate races. So, I still don’t see the data supporting the claim “The Democratic Party is out of touch with American voters” > [@](#): > > And if you actually do believe that, then the Democrats have nothing to worry about and will generally win all future elections by a margin of 8-to-2. Are you seriously accusing me of thinking that Alan Keyes and the IL race was typical of election races across the country? I thought you had more debate-integrity. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/92 "2004-11-20T22:14:47Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > So, I still don’t see the data supporting the claim “The Democratic Party is out of touch with American voters” Because you still don’t understand that compiling raw votes from individual senate races is meaningless. Its been explained several times in this thread. Appearently you don’t by those explainations. Nothing more really to be said about it really. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/93 "2004-11-20T22:26:06Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Because you still don’t understand that compiling raw votes from individual senate races is meaningless. Its been explained several times in this thread. Appearently you don’t by those explainations. Nothing more really to be said about it really. > > -XT But what you and others fail to understand, **xtisme,** is that it ISN’T meaningless within the context of a broad, general statement like, “The Dems are out of touch with the American voter.” The American voter is ALL American voters, 49 percent of whom voted Democratic. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2004, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/94 "2004-11-20T23:15:31Z")
I look at it this way: George W. Bush barely kept his job. _Barely_. Compared to other incumbent Presidents that have won re-election in modern times, Bush’s support was remarkably [underwhelming](http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041119.html) . > [@](#): > > **Bush’s Showing Is Especially Weak Given The Advantage of Incumbency** > Bush’s showing was even poorer in light of the fact that he was an incumbent President. All he did was barely manage to keep his job. > > If his political capital is viewed in its true historical context, as it should be, Bush accumulated almost none in 2004. Not since his 2000 squeaker has any incumbent president won with so few electors as Bush received in 2004. (In 2000, Bush obtained 271 electoral votes - only one more than is necessary to win, and only five more than his opponent Al Gore, who had 266 and won the popular vote besides.) > > The historical record makes the point: In 1940, Roosevelt won over Willkie, 449- 99 (garnering 84% of the electoral college vote). In 1944, FDR topped Dewey 432-99 (81%). In 1948, Truman again beat Dewey, 303-189 (57%) – with Strom Thurmond getting 39 electoral votes. In 1956, Eisenhower beat Stevenson 457-73 (85%). In 1972, Nixon prevailed over McGovern 520-17 (96%). In 1984, Reagan overwhelmed Mondale, 525-13 (97%). In 1996, Clinton beat Dole 379-159 (70%). > > Now look at 2004’s election. Bush beat Kerry only 286-252 (54% of the electoral college). This win is simply dwarfed by those of his predecessor incumbent Presidents. > > Meanwhile, Bush’s popular vote (at this time) shows a mere three percent point win - 51% to Kerry’s 48%. Again, no modern incumbent has survived with such a tiny gap between his percentage of the popular vote, and that of his opponent: Clinton had 9%, Reagan 18%, Nixon 23%, LBJ 22%, Truman 4%, and FDR 8%, 10% and 24%. > > In sum, Bush’s showing was exceptionally weak for a winner, and historically weak for an incumbent. It is fair to say Bush is one of the weakest election victors in our history - again. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2004, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/95 "2004-11-20T23:26:47Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I look at it this way: George W. Bush barely kept his job. _Barely_. Compared to other incumbent Presidents that have won re-election in modern times, Bush’s support was remarkably [underwhelming](http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041119.html) . Yep. Bush’s support is practically non-existant. I’ll keep that in mind as the GOP-controlled House and GOP-controlled Senate pass legislation this term that will be signed by the GOP-controlled White House, and as the GOP-controlled Senate confirms judicial nominees proposed by the GOP-controlled White House. Or… to put it another way: would the Democrats trade places with the GOP? In a heartbeat. Would the GOP trade places with the Democrats? Ummm… no. I think this simple thought experiment answers the claim reasonably well. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2004, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/96 "2004-11-20T23:47:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yep. Bush’s support is practically non-existant. Nice strawman you knocked down. > [@](#): > > I’ll keep that in mind as the GOP-controlled House and GOP-controlled Senate pass legislation this term that will be signed by the GOP-controlled White House, and as the GOP-controlled Senate confirms judicial nominees proposed by the GOP-controlled White House. On the national level, yes the GOP has made gains. But the Democrats have made gains with the state legislatures. There is now an exact tie in Democrats and Republicans state legislative seats nationwide: ([3,657](http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2004/pr041103a.htm). And we’ve made gains in the number of legislatures we control. > [@](#): > > Before the election, Republicans had a 21-17 lead in control of state legislatures; 11 states had split control. After the November 2 balloting, Republicans maintained a razor-thin margin of 20-19 over the Democrats with 10 state legislatures with split control. Republicans control 50 chambers; Democrats 47; one chamber is tied. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2004, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/97 "2004-11-21T00:08:26Z")
That’s true. It’s also true (to a greater or lesser extent depending on how you count it) on lower levels like county commissioners and such. The difference? We’re on it. But thanks for the heads-up nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2004, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/98 "2004-11-21T00:35:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Blalron > I look at it this way: George W. Bush barely kept his job. Barely. Compared to other incumbent Presidents that have won re-election in modern times, Bush’s support was remarkably underwhelming . There are lots of ways to spin the election results, so no one is going to convince anyone else. I could counter your claim with the fact that Bush is the first president in 18 years to get a plurality of the vote, or that Bush is the first president in a long time to win re-election while increasing the number of Senate and House seats in his party. You can come back with, “If 60,000 votes had switched in Ohio, we wouldn’t be having this conversation!” I can then come back and point out that Bush increased his margin in almost every state, including California and New York, over his 2000 results. I could also point out that Bush won despite Kerry having the overt support of the media, hollywood, academia, and foreign leaders. When you think about the rash of ‘late hits’, negative coverage in the media, terrorist attacks in Iraq, billionaires blowing tens of millions on ad campaigns against him, it’s amazing that Bush won with the results he had. He won in spite of the largest array of forces gathering to prevent the re-election of a president that I’ve ever seen. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/99 "2004-11-21T01:09:28Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > it’s amazing that Bush won with the results he had. He won in spite of the largest array of forces gathering to prevent the re-election of a president that I’ve ever seen. I’m amazed Kerry got 48%, what with the American tendency against “changing horses in midstream” (the most ridiculous attitude ever, but one which I think is prevalant). I can’t think of any incumbent, _war time_ President getting so close to be defeated. The “forces” gathering against Bush? Please. Our “Heartland” voters distrust the media and Hollywood, and will vote against their wishes purely out of spite. The fact that he got as much as 48% should be counted in his favor. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2004, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/100 "2004-11-21T03:13:41Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I could also point out that Bush won despite Kerry having the overt support of the media… I guess your idea of “overt support” is when the media is no longer Bush’s lap-dog, when the media actually is willing to point out that Bush is completely lying and distorting reality (even if they often still insist on doing it within a context of pointing out distortions on both sides when both sides aren’t distorting equally or as flagrantly). Yeah, I guess anything less than the media being Bush’s unquestioning outlet for his distortion, half-truths, and propaganda more befitting of the former Soviet Union than a true democracy is considered the media giving Kerry their “overt support”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2004, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087/101 "2004-11-21T05:11:15Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > I guess your idea of “overt support” is when the media is no longer Bush’s lap-dog, when the media actually is willing to point out that Bush is completely lying and distorting reality (even if they often still insist on doing it within a context of pointing out distortions on both sides when both sides aren’t distorting equally or as flagrantly). Like with ABC news issuing direction and memos that it’s OK to give greater scrutiny to Bush’s claims than to Kerry’s, because in their judgement it was more important to critique Bush’s claims? Yes, I see. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-thumped-the-dems-meme/275087.md?page=6)