How Bush Won the Popular Vote

[annaplurabelle]

From last week’s LA Times:

Bush Rewarded by Black Pastors’ Faith

…There’s no question that the faith initiative — combined with the administration’s support for banning gay marriage and promoting school vouchers — has already helped reshape Bush’s image among some traditionally Democratic African Americans. And the change in black support on Nov. 2, though only a 2-percentage-point increase nationwide, helped secure Bush’s reelection victory. The gains were greater in battleground states.

In Florida, where record black turnout in Democratic precincts nearly put Gore in the White House in 2000, Bush’s support among African Americans in November rose 6 percentage points to 13%, helping to increase the president’s victory margin and avoid a repeat of the 2000 squeaker that inspired the recount.

In Wisconsin, the president drew 14% of the black vote last year, 3 points above his nationwide performance.

In all-important Ohio, Bush’s vote tally among African Americans more than doubled his 2000 tota, and he gained 7 percentage points to draw 16% of the black vote. If Bush had received the same proportion of black votes in Ohio as he did in 2000, the president’s margin of victory would have narrowed from the actual 118,000 to about 25,000, according to an analysis by David Bositis at the Washington-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a leading think tank on black issues.

Given the high number of provisional ballots filed in Ohio, said Bositis, “Ohio would have become Florida, the legal battleground of 2004.”…
Black religious leaders who backed Kerry said that, in Florida in particular, they had trouble recruiting fellow ministers to get out the vote for Democrats, despite simmering anger in the black community there over the disputed 2000 election. The Atlanta Rev. McDonald, who heads the Democratic-leaning African American Ministers Leadership Council, said that faith-based money played a part.

"We had a real hard time organizing ministers in Florida, harder in 2004 than in 2000, because more money had been circulated," McDonald said. "They just weren’t showing up at the meetings anymore."
If Republicans get their way, it will be even harder in 2006. Already, they are laying intricate plans to encourage greater black migration to the GOP.

As he prepares to step down this week as chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ed Gillespie says he will stay on as a consultant to the party specifically to recruit black voters. He predicts the GOP presidential nominee could win 30% of that constituency in 2008.

Next month, a coalition of clergy and conservative Republican leaders will unveil grass-roots action plans in states with competitive congressional races. A separate coalition of evangelical groups close to the GOP is planning a series of regional meetings for black preachers around the issue of gay marriage, starting Feb. 1 in Los Angeles.

The most visible mobilization could come in Washington later this year, when Congress once again considers an expanded faith-based legislative package now being negotiated by Towey and others in the White House. The debate could force beleaguered Democrats, eager to build support with religious voters, to decide between the appeal of Bush’s initiative in some neighborhoods and lingering concerns over its constitutionality.
Administration record-keeping has made it difficult to track where the faith-based money has gone.

Data released last month by the White House, for example, indicate that more than $1 billion was distributed through faith-based programs in 2003. But the summary includes a caveat that it does not represent all grants, and it includes numerous grants to agencies that are actually secular and other groups that were receiving funds long before Bush entered office.

The confusion has drawn sharp questions from critics. Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas), a member of the Appropriations Committee who describes himself as a deeply religious Christian, said his repeated requests for accountability had been rebuffed by Republicans, who he charges have used the initiative for political advantage.

[Brutus]

Heh, I have this vision of Kerry, shoulders slumped, slinking away, shaking his fist in anger and saying, ‘And I would have gotten away with it, if it weren’t for you meddling Christians!’

[elucidator]

How many times we got to tell you? Jimson Weed is not a salad ingredient!

[Ludovic]

I guess my post, in which I opined that voters chose perceived “values” over other factors, was too reasonable to be commented on.

As further evidence for this, voters on the myriad constitutional initiatives in Florida overwhelmingly voted a Reform-Party style populism, emphasizing both “morals”, sticking it to the Man, and economic populism.

They passed initiatives to:

– Increase parental notices in case of abortion

– Increase the minimum wage
– Set up a database of doctors with malpractice claims
– Implement fee % caps for percentage-based lawsuits

among others.

It amazes me that there isn’t a viable populist party in America, given that it was stone cold obvious to me which way Floridians would vote on the ballot initiatives.*

But as it stands now, most people need to make a choice between the lesser of two evils, and they chose conservative social politics over sensible foreign policy and budgetary responsiblity.

*not that I’m happy with that, because while a united populist party would probably have a better fiscal impact on the future of the country, it would dominate the elections even more than the Republicans and so would be able to better implement social conservatism.

[EvanS]

Hell, the NRA is taking full credit for this one! They say they spent more on this election than any other, cause they were sure Kerry was just a pawn of Ted Antianygun Kennedy and company. They concentrated their ads on those states where they felt it would make a difference. Looks like it made a difference!

[Sevastopol]

@Farmwoman

This NPR listenin’, Birkenstock wearin’ Republican would have been delighted not to have gone into the booth holding my nose and voting for Bush. Sadly, the Dems weren’t able to offer me anything better than “he doesn’t bash his head with a rock each morning!” It is both naive and condescending to think the “anyone but Bush” tack was going to work for people over the age of 21… and oops! only a few under the age of 21 bothered to cast their vote either way.

This is one daft, head-in-the-sand, easily-led, homeboy lovin’ centrist who hopes the Dems don’t let me down in '08. Or maybe you’ll trot out another man of straw and holler insults at anyone who can’t see that your pile of non-substance is better than Pataki or Jeb.

The sad fact is that the catch one of you would take a clear and intelligence policy position and a nuanced explantion of the current political climate.

To do that means losing any chance of a vote from 12-20 dumbfuck fundies.

The sadder fact is that the left wing, knowing this to be true, aims careful and true and does it anyway, cementing the vote of the middle income, high rationality demographic, from coast to shining coast.

[John_Corrado]

@zamboniracer

I think the R’s won because in huge part because they put a happy, optimistic face on everything, even their grossest mistakes, which they never admit to.

“Sure there aren’t any WMDs now, and there’s no connection between Saddam and 9/11, but we’re bringing those poor Iraquis freedom for the first time. Aren’t we great?”

“Sure we’ve stretched our national guard and reserve forces too thin, and sent them in with outdated equipment and inadequate training in a war we chose to fight, but aren’ t the people in our military the greatest in the world?”

Absolutely agreed.

In only one election since the advent of modern media (the early 1930’s, with the rise of radio) has the dour, cynical candidate beaten out the happy, optimistic candidate (1968, Nixon vs. Humphrey).

The balancing act that a challenger has to maintain is that it’s still good to be an American and it’s going to be better to be an American under your leadership. Even when the country was undergoing the Great Depression, FDR stayed the Happy Warrior while castigating Hoover. Kennedy vs. Nixon, Carter vs. Ford, Reagan vs. Carter, Clinton vs. Bush- in all of these cases, the challenger maintained a friendly, happy, feel-good atmosphere to their candidacy while still convincing Americans that the situation was bad enough to need a change in leadership.

Kerry didn’t do that. The main slogan at the campaign was exactly the opposite of that kind of attitude. “Help is on the way” is not the slogan of a candidate who believes that America is in a good place but can be better; it’s the slogan of a candidate who believes that things in America are fundamentally bad, and have to be fixed. The union slogan I saw on bumper stickers in this area reaffirmed that- “Kerry and Unions- we can make America work again.”

Think about it- who was Kerry going to win over with this kind of attitude? People who already believed that America had serious problems weren’t going to vote for Bush. Kerry needed to connect with the people who thought that America was doing all right, but that Bush wasn’t the kind of leader we needed. But by creating the atmosphere that there is something wrong and/or flawed in America, Kerry rallyed those who would support him anyways while alienating too many of the moderates to be able to win.

[SentientMeat]

I’d say “feelgood” was the last thing the Neoconservatives appealed to, actually. I’d suggest that pushing fear of from an external enemy was why Bush won.

[Demorian]

@SentientMeat

I’d say “feelgood” was the last thing the Neoconservatives appealed to, actually. I’d suggest that pushing fear of from an external enemy was why Bush won.

I’d say it is both - creation of an enemy and conflict, then optimism regarding the fight against it.

[Evil_Captor]

@Bricker

And do you believe this cunning strategy will enhance the likelihood that this 51% will vote for your side next time?

C’mon, Bricker, this is the Internet. Very few stupid people access the Internet to discuss political issues. Very few stupid people access it at all. So no stupid people are being offended here.

I think YOU are being obtuse here. You are, after all, on the Internet.

[2sense]

@Wake up call

Hereis the 2004 versus 2000 comparisons you are looking for from Associated Press (May require you to register with washingtonpost.com). and here is the various definitions of swing (battleground) states.

Thank you for the stats but I’m afraid I don’t see how to apply them. What I really need to compare is the turnout of potential pro-Bush voters with the turnout of potential anti-Bush voters. It seems likely that John Mace is on the right track when he talked of the difficulty of proving my idea. Thanks anyway.

[Bricker]

@Evil Captor

C’mon, Bricker, this is the Internet. Very few stupid people access the Internet to discuss political issues. Very few stupid people access it at all. So no stupid people are being offended here.

I think YOU are being obtuse here. You are, after all, on the Internet.

Well, before I go down this path – the originator of this sentiment has now disclaimed it - it was a joke, it appears, not a real commentary.

Are you advancing it as true, but pointing out that the safety of the Internet as a medium for mostly smart folks means that it will be unlikely to have a negative effect?

[elucidator]

It annoyed you, reducing your support from vanishingly small to vanishingly smaller. Whoop-de-fuck-a-doo.

[Demorian]

@Bricker

Well, before I go down this path – the originator of this sentiment has now disclaimed it - it was a joke, it appears, not a real commentary.

Are you advancing it as true, but pointing out that the safety of the Internet as a medium for mostly smart folks means that it will be unlikely to have a negative effect?

Please, give it up. Even if any one of us or we collectively thought that whole 51% was stupid, dellusional, or whatever else, it doesn’t matter. We’re just nerds posting on a message board. We don’t represent the Democratic Party or the Left.

For what it is worth, there are people on both sides who are stupid. I guess from my position, I just can’t comprehend why anyone other than a stupid, dellusional biggot would vote for Bush… but then, that is the point of this thread.

Speaking of, let’s try to get it back on topic.

I think a lot of it had to do with taxes. Bush sacrificed the long term economy of this country for short term political gain, and it worked. What will be interesting now will be to see if he actually sticks to it once the numbers start getting worse.

[John_Mace]

@Demorian

For what it is worth, there are people on both sides who are stupid. I guess from my position, I just can’t comprehend why anyone other than a stupid, dellusional biggot would vote for Bush… but then, that is the point of this thread.

And yet surely you must know that quite a few people who voted for him are NOT stupid, dillusional biggots. Has this prompted you to recheck the assumptions you made about Bush’s position being, on the whole, sutpid and bigotted? If not, it would appear that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance-- not uncommon among the Bushwhackers of this forum.

Speaking of, let’s try to get it back on topic.

I think a lot of it had to do with taxes. Bush sacrificed the long term economy of this country for short term political gain, and it worked. What will be interesting now will be to see if he actually sticks to it once the numbers start getting worse.

But your controversial statement is on topic. There seems to be an underlying assumption by many on this board that something MUST be wrong with people if Bush won more votes than Kerry. Otherwise, why not just go wtih the more parsimonious explanation that most voters simply agreed with his positions on a majority of the issues

[Demorian]

@John Mace

And yet surely you must know that quite a few people who voted for him are NOT stupid, dillusional biggots. Has this prompted you to recheck the assumptions you made about Bush’s position being, on the whole, sutpid and bigotted? If not, it would appear that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance-- not uncommon among the Bushwhackers of this forum.

shrugs I guess there’s something wrong with me, then. I just can’t see how a lying, greedy, corrupt neocon biggot has any appeal whatsoever to anyone intelligent.

But your controversial statement is on topic. There seems to be an underlying assumption by many on this board that something MUST be wrong with people if Bush won more votes than Kerry. Otherwise, why not just go wtih the more parsimonious explanation that most voters simply agreed with his positions on a majority of the issues

I think we’ve made clear that our position is that Bush won because Kerry lost.

[rjung]

@Demorian

I just can’t see how a lying, greedy, corrupt neocon biggot has any appeal whatsoever to anyone intelligent.

All you need to see the appeal are two things:

(1) Having truckloads of money poured into your pocket by right-wing think-tanks, no-bid government contracts, and other such trinkets,

and

(2) A total absence of any conscience whatsoever.

[elucidator]

Its all about 9/11. 9/11 was manna from heaven for the Pubbies. If you will recall, GeeDubya’s approval rating was pretty much luke warm, he was halfway between the Shrub and the Shrug.

9/11 transformed him as a marketable product. All he had to do was walk around and mouth stern platitudes and the occassional lachrymose tribute to the various heroes, and shazaam! The Leader. Barney Fife could have done it as well, with similar results. Had it been Al Gore, the only difference would have been in which party had the advantage in exploiting it.

But it fell to the Pubbies, and they were on it like a starving dog on a pork chop. They have exploited 9/11 greedily, shamelessly and ceaselessly. The nearly wore out thier hands applauding the transformation. And it worked, it almost always does, GeeDubya’s approval went straight through the roof. It todays atmosphere, we could almost forget that, but it was true.

Now, one thing about people: they’ll admit to being short, they’ll admit to being clumsy, but they hate to admit being wrong. (I know, I’ve been force to change my mind, and both times were a trial and a vexation.) Especially when it involves themes like patriotism and Supporting Our Heroes. A public figure who can armor himself in such is as nearly bulletproof as Superman.

If GeeDubya hadn’t embarked on a reckless and pointless military adventure, his ratings would probably still be way up there. The nature of this debacle has been clear for better than a year now, but it takes folks a long time to come around. Americans formed a visceral attachment to GeeDubya in those days, the fact that it is entirely undeserved really has no bearing. (If it had happened to Bill Clinton, he would be President for Life by now…)

Now that has been slowly but surely ground away by truth. But slowly, slowly, grinding exceeding fine. If the election were six months later, he might very well have lost, his approval is headed south with a deliberate pace.

The people of America aren’t stupid, probably at least as bright as any other false generalization. But we are human, and humans don’t like having to change their minds. They don’t like the man who tells them that they have to change thier minds. And even when they do change their minds, they’re a long time forgiving the man who made them do it.

Six months from now, a whole bunch of people who voted for Bush will probably being denying that they did. Probably a similar bunch as the people who swear they didn’t want to vote for him, but Kerry was utterly repellent, they had no option. (He may just be a big ol’ buck-toothed Boy Scout but a threat to the Republic…get real.)

So that’s why. GeeDubyas armor is rusting away, but it was still enough to stop a bullet. Just barely, but it did.

But rust never sleeps.

[annaplurabelle]

@elucidator

Its all about 9/11…

Well, I think you’re right, and the facts bear you out (assuming we can take polls as facts).

But what comes next, for those on the Left? Simply reacting to events as they unfold is wearing on me already. Is it the impatience of youth (I flatter myself here), or do we badly need a pro-active strategy? Am I wrong about that?

Your remark about Goldwater caught my attention. My American Uncle was a Goldwater fan. Died before he could “get better”. But I still have his copy of “Conscience of a Conservative”. Meant something to me. Could you tell how you were “cured”? Is it something we can hope to use as a prototype for a vaccine (of sorts) in future, or are we still in the “ordering the coffee machine for the lab” stage?
(If it’s too personal, then forget it, but I’d really, really be interested. Please! I’ll be good after that, I swear! My tummy hurts and I can’t go back to sleep. Please Uncle 'luc!!! )

[elucidator]

Sex, drugs, and rock and roll. In a nutshell.