What happened? Election analysis

College Confidential Community
81

<br>


<br>

<p>No. I think it is necessary to be more nuanced than that.</p>

<p>Let me give you two examples. In my opinion, the vast majority of centrist US voters strongly believes in equal rights regardless of race or ethnicity. To take that a bit further, I believe that a majority would also favor giving minorities a boost in things like college admissions. However, if you placed today's Affirmative Action admissions system on the ballot as a referendum, it would lose overwhelmingly.</p>

<p>Same thing with "Gay Marriage". By and large, I believe that the majority of centrist Americans would just as soon not know what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Taking it further, I think the majority would probably favor extending some of the benefits of civil unions to committed gay couples. However, once you take it to the level of "Gay Marriage", you are proposing a earthshattering change in the fundamental definition of the word marriage -- a definition that is woven into the fabric of the Judeo-Christian heritage. That's why the issue went down to flaming defeat in 11 of 11 ballot referendums. It's not that voters think gays should not be allowed to visit ill partners or have interitance/insurance rights.</p>

<p>Personally, I could care less about "gay marriage" one way or the other. My attitude is literally, I don't care. Doesn't bother me what people do. But, I understand why it is a hot button issue. Look at it this way...do you think voters would support an initiative for polygamy? Say, making it legal for a man to have up to six wives?</p>

82

<p>check this out, i dont know if this has been mentioned before
but this is a link to election results with avg IQ of each state
<a href="http://www.seas.upenn.edu/%7Ekenyon3/2004.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~kenyon3/2004.htm&lt;/a>
no clue how accurate the IQ measurements are/were</p>

83

<br>


<br>

<p>I enthusiastically voted for Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Primary, even though he had already withdrawn from the race. I would also be inclined to support someone like John Breau.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Definitely no draft. The military doesn't want one. I think there is a remote chance that military action may be required against Iran; however, the strong military presence on Iran's borders probably reduces that risk. </p>

<ol>
<li>Id: what specific issues do you feel the "PC crowd" has pushed to the forefront (and are despised)?</li>
</ol>

<p>It's not so much specific issues as much as a mind-set, even a language. I believe some things that don't sit well are gay marriage, affirmative action, hatred of corporations, demonizing of moderate political views, extreme environmental initiatives, etc. One thing I've really tried to instill in my daughter is that reasonably people can disagree on political issues and, just because somebody has different political views, doesn't make them evil. </p>

<p>Here's an example, my wife utterly despises Don Rumsfeld. Yet, if any of us had the pleasure of dinner conversation, I bet that we would come away utterly blown away by his depth of experience and intelligence. I have attended two roundtable discussions with all of the living Secretaries of State and Attornies General. Included in both groups were people who I mistakenly "hated" -- Ed Meese and Al Haig. Turns out that both men were very impressive, even though I disagreed with some of their views.</p>

84

<p>I'm confused...id, in your post, there are some words inserted in my question about PC values as follows, "pc values such as equal rights for homsexuals, equal rights for blacks, these values are despised by the typical middle class suburban family.", yet I don't see a post that uses those words. Was there a post that was deleted perhaps?</p>

<p>1212, I think that there was something showing the breakdown between Bush and Kerry voters correlated to educational level, income, perhaps some other measures, that perhaps was more targeted and informative--but I forget where I saw that yesterday. </p>

<p>I think that the reasons that people voted for Bush or for Kerry or against one or the other of the candidates are many and varied, and I would caution that it is too soon to draw too many conclusions about what the election results say. Although I think that Bush's large majority and the increase in the numbers voting for him resulted from the re-emergence and re-engagement of the religious right, I also think that many, many of the people who voted for him voted for a simple and understandable reason: we are in the middle of a frightening conflict and a war against terror that thus far has not led to further terrorist attacks on our soil, and people were not ready to take a chance and change direction in the middle of this kind of conflict. Also, even I who supported Kerry can see that Bush in many ways came across as a more effective leader.</p>

<p>interesteddad, I have also been emailing today with an internet "friend" in the South who, like you, is able to articulate very reasonable positions and reasons for this result that make the future look a little bit less scary. Thank you. If Bush had had more articulate spokespeople like you, perhaps his margin of victory might have been bigger. </p>

<p>How about Obama? My own view is that there is still too much blind racial prejudice in this country for an African-American or a woman to be elected in any foreseeable future.</p>

85

<p>"I think that would be a bad way of looking at the election for the Democrats. Big picture, the 100,000 votes in Ohio isn't really the issue."</p>

<p>Had the 100,000 or so students and single women voted in Ohio, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Instead, we'd be discussing how "moral values" weren't enough, and George Bush was the first war-time President in American history to lose.</p>

86

<p>Mini, you and I of the same political stripe (per your above posts), but then the other side would just be saying, "If 100,000 more religious conservatives had voted, we wouldn't have elected a flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal". </p>

<p>I still don't understand the exit polls, however, which seemed to be predicting a different outcome than what we had.</p>

87

<p>
[quote]
I still don't understand the exit polls, however, which seemed to be predicting a different outcome than what we had.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>???? You expected exit polls to accurately determine the winner?</p>

88

<p>Not the winner, no vancat, but perhaps a bit more accuracy.</p>

89

<p>"Mini, you and I of the same political stripe (per your above posts), but then the other side would just be saying, "If 100,000 more religious conservatives had voted, we wouldn't have elected a flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal".</p>

<p>Agreed! Which is why I think we make way much too much of this. He lost...because he was a loser.</p>

90

<p>Sfiovinc1 - Thank you for sharing your beliefs. Actually, I hold nearly all of the same beliefs. But you didn't tell me why you voted for Kerry, what about him made him a good candidate in your mind - aside from that he wasn't Bush?</p>

91

<p>Mini, if there is so little difference between the two parties, why did you vote for Kerry this time? (per your post above ).</p>

92

<ol>
<li>Is there a democratic candidate that you could have enthusiastically supported, or is this more a vote along party platforms? If there is, who/which would those be?</li>
</ol>

<p>Patient, I like Joe Lieberman alot. Depending on his platform, I might have voted for him. I'm registered as an independent. I have voted both Republican and Democratic. I listen and research and make a decision. I never have voted along party platform in my life.</p>

<ol>
<li>What do you predict during the next 4 years in terms of the economy?</li>
</ol>

<p>It's going to stay pretty much the same. Unemployment will hover at its current 5%. I am more concerned about a potential crash in the housing market than I am with unemployment. Neither candidate addressed that issue but I believe Bush's fiscal and tax policies may offer the best chance of avoiding that crash. </p>

<ol>
<li>Do you foresee military action in any other countries (leaving out the unknowns about terrorist attacks from new countries, imminent nuclear threat, etc.), and if so, which ones? Do you anticipate a draft?</li>
</ol>

<p>Can't predict. I did believe that we had a greater chance of reinstituting the draft under Kerry -- he kept calling for "more troops" but didn't ever make it clear how he would get those troops. Bush has done a good job with a volunteer military. As a former military wife living in a military town with many military friends, I truly sympathize with the loss of life in Iraq - each life is valuable and each loss is painful on a very personal level to me. But, I think it is disingenious to compare the losses in Iraq to the losses in Viet Nam. The military members in Iraq all VOLUNTEERED for service - they knew full well that if called to serve - no matter what the conflict - they would be risking their lives. No one forced them to volunteer.</p>

<ol>
<li>Id: what specific issues do you feel the "PC crowd" has pushed to the forefront (and are despised)?</li>
</ol>

<p>Not sure what you mean by this question. But I am puzzled by the "pc crowd's" assumption that having even the smallest amount of religious faith is paramount to being a religious "fundamentalist." In my mind, the two are very different. You can be religious without being a fundamentalist yet often, during this election in particular, I felt like any one who goes to church on Sunday (or even once a month) was being branded as a "religious fundamentalist" And, we all know that "fundamentalist" is just a PC code word for "nutcase."</p>

93

<p>I didn't. Voted for Nader - though if my state had been close, I would have voted for Kerry (and happily - I understand realpolitik perfectly well.) Though if it was close in my state, it would overall have been a landslide for Bush. But the big loss for the Dems. is that folks like me didn't send him any money, etc. Organizing wouldn't have made a difference (again, in my state, Kerry won comfortably), but there were 7 million voters who the pundits thought would vote, more of them apparently leaning Democratic, many of them college students and single women, who just decided to stay home. </p>

<p>He was just a bad candidate, not trusted by the middle, not energizing to the base. </p>

<p>And came close to winning anyway. If only Wet Sock had been the candidate....</p>

94

<p>Ah..from Patient's comment I thought....never mind, it's been a long day. I wrote something at 4 in the afternoon and came back now and it's still going.</p>

95

<p>Well, then I have a question for everyone. If Kerry was not the candidate to win this election for the Democrats then who was from the crop that appeared at the primaries? Howard Dean would be counted as too leftist. One look at his family and his wife and people wouldn't have voted. He was also too inexperienced at the national level. He was consistent, though. Edwards was too young. Lieberman was passable but he was eliminated. So in efect the Democrats were doomed? </p>

<p>I tend to think this is what Americans want and no matter who ran he would have lost. This is the mood of the country now.</p>

96

<p>Varolyn hit on something that was the subject of discussion at a dinner tonight for several students and profs that I attended. There is a highly outspoken fringe element, which I'll call the Michael Moore fringe, that has extreme views about a lot of things including any mention of faith. Election numbers show a more conservative, more Republican Country than ever. Just look to the South. The Mooresque version of "pc", something prevelent on this site, does not play well in the Country as a whole. The Dems have so clearly lost their center. What Carolyn mentions about Bush being better for housing prices is a widely held belief. Good for economics in general. Even in Ohio, one of the hardest hit States economically, Bush had a huge margin in people who believed he was better for jobs and the economy. The war turns out to have been the major issue of only the very vocal pc left. Very left. The economy was the bigger issue.</p>

97

<p>Actually, I think Howard Dean might have had more of a chance than Kerry. He has enough personality to counter Bush and he also has the same "I am what you see" characteristics. If he had come out strongly against Iraq and said he would withdraw troops immediately upon election, he might have been elected.</p>

98

<p>I think both the economy and the war was important and on both counts Bush won. I agree with you that the rest of country outside the Northeast are conservative and would have voted for Bush.</p>

<p>Well, ok, so now he's my President, I hope he can get the country together and listen to the people who did not vote for him as well for a change. That's what he promised last time.</p>

99

<p>Bobby - I'm not so sure it was about the economy but about security. A large majority believed a vote for Bush was sending the message that America won't tolerate another terrorist attack. I do agree that Iraq is seen as a minor issue rolled up into the whole anti-terror war by many who voted for Bush. In many minds, Bin Laden's little video tape last week cemented the belief that not voting for Bush was giving Bin Laden some sort of victory.</p>

100

<br>


<br>

<p>Sorry. I probably screwed up a cut and paste! I'd go back and fix it, but there's time limit on edits!</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>I don't think so. If anything, I was rathered stunned by how invisible the "Christian Coalition" constituency were in this election -- certainly compared to their heydey in the Newt Gingrich era. </p>

<p>Interestingly, I gather that "gay marriage" was a significant negative issue in the black churches and may have hurt the Democrats among Hispanic voters as well. I heard tonight that that Kerry only won 55% of Hispanic voters, down from the 65% that Gore won in 2000.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>I agree with that.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>First, I'm no fan of George Bush. I really don't think he's been a terribly effective President. I'd give him a C or C- without terrorism, maybe a B/B- factoring in his performance in that area. I don't think his leadership post 9/11 was particularly strong, but I think his clear resolve militarily has been important.</p>

<p>I don't think Bush could win big. Fundamentally, he doesn't really "get it" any more than the Dems do. The next candidate to really win big will be a conservative Democrat or a moderate Republican. For example, a pro-choice Republican could win big. Unfortunately (for those of us in the center), neither of those candidates could survive the primary elections in their respective parties.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>I think it's a little early to tell how much seasoning Obama will need to become a viable national candidate. I suspect it's at least a full term in the US Senate, so you have to think in terms of the 2012 election. He's a pretty exciting candidate, though and, lord knows, having him as the face of the African-American wing of the Democratic party is a thousand-fold improvement over Jesse Jackson.</p>

<p>It will be interesting to watch Hillary. She's saavy enough politically to know that she has to try to stake out a moderate, mainstream position. I just don't know if she can pull that off.</p>

<p>I wish I didn't feel so negative about John Edwards. I just can't warm up to a personal injury lawyer and he strikes me as an "empty suit" politically.</p>