Who will vote for Bush who didn't before?

I’m not sure where to put this…it’s slightly a poll, as if anyone here didn’t voter for Bush the first time and is going to now, I’d like to hear from them.

But it’s more an invitation to speculate.

I’m just thinking…obviously there are people who are going to vote for Bush no matter what. But, likely, they also voted for him the first time.

There are other people who didn’t vote last time. It seems to me the non-voters who decide to vote this time would more likely be people voting against Bush. There apathey shaken by the war and a desire to vote the bastard out, as opposed to a vote for the status quo…which doesn’t tend to shake apathy.

Then there are people who change there vote…but I have a hard time seeing someone who voted for Gore (or Nader) changing to Bush based on the past four years.

And then of course there are the people who voted for Nader. Some of whom will again but some of whom will give up and vote anti-Bush regardless of what they did last time.

Of course there are the people who voted for Gore because they liked Gore, but just don’t like Kerry.

Still…based of the fact the the Democratic candidate got more votes than the Republican last time…and I don’t see where NEW votes for Bush are coming from…?

Does anyone see new votes for Bush? I’d really like to know what other people think.

Although I would never vote for Bush, some of his new votes (as well as some for Kerry) will likely come from those who were 14-17 in 2000. I know the youth don’t vote in the numbers that they probably should. However, this election should be more relevant to them than two middle age men arguing, during a time of great economic prosperity, about the “lock box…” and prescription drug coverage for seniors.

Well there’s the kids who were between 14 and 18 years old last time around. Some of them’ll probably go for Bush.

I wonder, are there more people transitioning into voting age than there are dying?

Indolent members of the religious right. That seems to be the plan. To expand the turnout from the base.

I really wonder if that is their plan? If Bush wins Mississippi by 70 to 30, he still doesn’t get any more electoral votes. The religious right is concentrated in solid Bush states. Kerry may not even try to contest North Carolina.

That hard right religious ploy will be looked upon with great suspicion in the Midwest.

I just want to point out that Bush doesn’t necessarilly need a lot of new votes…reapportionment would give him more Electoral votes in 2004 from the states he won in 2000. In this context energizing the base might well be an efficient strategy.
Revtim I’m guessing the population of the US has increased in the last 4 years…remember immigration is a factor… so there is a very good chance that the overall voting age population has increased as well.

Yeah, but how many of them will vote?

Some of the most ardent Bush supporters that I’ve talked to lately aren’t even registered. He’s got the NASCAR and the religious folks firmly behind him, but I wonder how many of them will bother to show up at the polls.

I think Karl Rove’s biggest hope right now is to scare enough Christian fundamentalists who didn’t vote in 2000 to show up and vote for Bush in 2004, to repel the threat of John Kerry Bearing Homosexual Marriages.

Either that, or jigger up those Diebold voting machines so Bush wins by a landslide even if nobody shows up. It’d probably be easier than Plan A, above.

I think you might be surprised at how many folks you’d consider to be the “religious right” live in a state like, say, OHIO!!!

It’s not that simple, and it jsut isn’t true that religious = deep south.

The forces of evil plan to really rally their ranks for this election this season, after seeing what is at stake in the overwhelming goodness and glory of Kerry.

That they might whither and fall before the might of Democratic righteousness brings stark terror to Beelzebub and the Republican party.

Well, I was one of those 17 year olds back in 2000, and this year I plan to vote for Bush.

My condolences on your loss. And at such a young age.

My son just turned 18 this month and, obviously, didn’t vote in the last election. He appears to be shaping up to be fairly conservative with libertarian leanings and will probably vote for Bush – not because he is 100% pro-Bush so much as that he leans more Bush-ward than Kerry-ward.

I also know of at least one other person who voted for Gore last election but who is now rabidly pro-Bush. This is an old friend of mine with a traditionally Democratic family. She has always (and she is in her early 40s) voted pretty much a straight party ticket. But she had a conversion experience post-9/11 and is now an almost radically conservative Republican.

New voters are coming of age and old voters are dying.

In the South, a lot of old-time “Yellow Dog” Democrats (of the World War II generation) are dying off. These are people who would never vote Republican under any circumstances. I have many family members who fall (or fell) into this category. The demise of that generation of voters is contributing to the Republican shift in the South. Could be a factor in Florida, Arkansas and Tennessee.

On the other hand, I get the sense that a lot of the voters coming of age in the past four years or so may be of a more liberal bent than their immediate collegiate forebears, so who knows?

Point is, we do not have a static electorate, and for that reason the last election is only a very rough guide to what’s going to happen this time out.

Without trying to hijack the thread too much:

I am quite sure that members of the religious right exist in all 50 states. Southern Ohio, close to the West Virginia and Kentucky borders probably having more than other parts of the state. However, in a state like Ohio, there isn’t the same organized network of fundamentalist churchs as there exists in the Deep South. In the Columbus and Cleveland markets, there are no major religious radio stations. I don’t know about Cincinnati since I haven’t spent enough time there.

I just don’t think the mix of religion and politics plays as well here as it does in other states.

My dad is essentially a working class Democrat. He voted for Reagan in the 80s for cultural and economic reasons before switching back to voting for Clinton twice and for Gore.

9/11 really shook him, though, and he’ll be voting for Bush this time around.

I teach college freshmen and the impression I get is very different; a lot of Schwarzenegger Republicans. They are the most pro-war group I know.

As for the OP, I may reluctantly and vote for Bush. I voted Libertarian last time, but their orbit seems to be taking them farther and farther from earth. I’m strongly thinking about “none of the above” or writing in McCain/Lieberman.

[QUOTE=furt]
I teach college freshmen and the impression I get is very different; a lot of Schwarzenegger Republicans. They are the most pro-war group I know.QUOTE]

I bow to your first-hand knowledge of the subject. I suppose my impression came from all the young Deaniacs and Naderites out there. I suppose they could be just a vocal minority.

As an aside, that’s both predictable and sad. A relatively large, voting, non-tax-paying, and often ignorant segment of our population completely lacks a grasp of the realities of war, coupled with a pop-culture upbringing of video games and fantasy TV that makes war look “cool”.

Again, sorry for the sidetrack.