NYT Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html?hp)

Outstanding article!

Elitism is the very fabric of every true-liberal I’ve encountered. And no, njc200, that’s not a blanket statement...

Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.

In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.

This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/Emoticons/lol.gif Classic!

You don't think it was the religious right that won the election for him?

HAHAH classic.

You guys keep telling yourselves that... and the GOP will keep cleaning your clock in elections.

You seriously don't think the religious right won this for Jr? Are you mad?! IT WAS KARL ROVES STRAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They said it was and hence they won with it. Jesus, even if they tell you they did that you still don't agree with it.

You guys keep telling yourselves that... and the GOP will keep cleaning your clock in elections.

Shhhhhhhhhhh.... don't tell them! I'm looking forward to them losing again already.

You don't think it was the religious right that won the election for him?

HAHAH classic.

Ok, ok... so if it was religion that won it for Bush then why are Democrats trying to give Hillary the 2008 ticket? Doesn't that seem like an extremely bad move to have more evangelicals vote Republican in 2008?

Umm how are the Democrats trying to give Hillary the ticket? Its WAY to early to tell who will run for president. And thats a FACT, I know this from first hand experience and knowledge about the Democratic party. Again look at the states that voted for Jr, then look at the reason WHY the voted him and its pretty clear to anyone. Also read up on what Rove has been doing for sometime now.

Amazing trying to say that Rove strat. isn't what he said it was.

Yet another liberal outlet confirming this story. (http://slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2109275&)

Again, go read up on what Rove's strat was to win this election and to who they pandered too. No matter what any media outlet says I think I'll take Rove's words over them.

Again, go read up on what Rove's strat was to win this election and to who they pandered too. No matter what any media outlet says I think I'll take Rove's words over them.

"But again, the causality is unclear. Did people in these states mention moral issues because gay marriage was on the ballot? Or was it on the ballot in places where people were already more likely to be concerned about morality?

"More to the point, the morality gap didn't decide the election. Voters who cited moral issues as most important did give their votes overwhelmingly to Bush (80 percent to 18 percent), and states where voters saw moral issues as important were more likely to be red ones. But these differences were no greater in 2004 than in 2000. If you're trying to explain why the president's vote share in 2004 is bigger than his vote share in 2000, values don't help.

If the morality gap doesn't explain Bush's re-election, what does? A good part of the answer lies in the terrorism gap. Nationally, 49 percent of voters said they trusted Bush but not Kerry to handle terrorism; only 31 percent trusted Kerry but not Bush. This 18-point gap is particularly significant in that terrorism is strongly tied to vote choice: 99 percent of those who trusted only Kerry on the issue voted for him, and 97 percent of those who trusted only Bush voted for him. Terrorism was cited by 19 percent of voters as the most important issue, and these citizens gave their votes to the president by an even larger margin than morality voters: 86 percent for Bush, 14 percent for Kerry."


You're in denial.

"More to the point, the morality gap didn't decide the election. Voters who cited moral issues as most important did give their votes overwhelmingly to Bush (80 percent to 18 percent), and states where voters saw moral issues as important were more likely to be red ones. But these differences were no greater in 2004 than in 2000. If you're trying to explain why the president's vote share in 2004 is bigger than his vote share in 2000, values don't help."

You're in denial.

That quote is awesomely bad. They give solid stats against their point (80 vs 18), and then claim that they don't matter. But all they say is that the diffs were no greater than in 2000. No stats at all. To me that means they had a stat that didn't help their argument, so they replaced it with words. Happens all the time.

Not denial, disbelief that faith has as much to do with our political system as it does.

"If the morality gap doesn't explain Bush's re-election, what does? A good part of the answer lies in the terrorism gap. Nationally, 49 percent of voters said they trusted Bush but not Kerry to handle terrorism; only 31 percent trusted Kerry but not Bush. This 18-point gap is particularly significant in that terrorism is strongly tied to vote choice: 99 percent of those who trusted only Kerry on the issue voted for him, and 97 percent of those who trusted only Bush voted for him. Terrorism was cited by 19 percent of voters as the most important issue, and these citizens gave their votes to the president by an even larger margin than morality voters: 86 percent for Bush, 14 percent for Kerry."

Sorry, I thought you guys had read the story funked1 linked to. Read up for all the stats, I'd rather not quote the whole article.

Umm denial? Again go read up on what the Jr. campagin targeted. Its not hard to see what they went for. Of course if you think they didn't target the religious right for voter turn out then nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

Of course the targeted specific voters, thats what politicians and political parties do! Whats your point? The fact is that "morality" was even less of a factor in this race then the last. Denial. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=denial)

The best statistic / map I have seen is the correlation between education and who people cast their vote for. We have the dumbest president voted in by the dumbest people :confused:

And because he is a good leader? Oh yeah, he landed that fighter jet on the carrier. Go get em Dubya!!

The best statistic / map I have seen is the correlation between education and who people cast their vote for.

Of course you would think its the best, it affirms the liberals notion that they are smarter than everyone else. There were a lot of reasons that people voted for Bush, a lack of intelligence was not one of them. Did that statistic show the average IQ of voters or was it just of school kids that took an IQ test? I've never even taken an IQ test, and I don't plan on it. They mean absolutely nothing.

deyes... good point. I also havent taken such a test and am bugged by people who falunt those numbers

still, that graph amuses me

So you admit he targeted a specific group but yet this wasn't a factor on who voted for him? The religious right did come out to vote and strong. Thats my point. Thats been my point since the start. For you to admit that he did target them and still deny the fact that they are the reason he won baffles me. You do know that all the states he won where all in the bible belt? Maybe if I tell you again, his plan was for the religious right to support him and suprise they did... come on its not that hard.

So you admit he targeted a specific group but yet this wasn't a factor on who voted for him? The religious right did come out to vote and strong. Thats my point. Thats been my point since the start. For you to admit that he did target them and still deny the fact that they are the reason he won baffles me. You do know that all the states he won where all in the bible belt? Maybe if I tell you again, his plan was for the religious right to support him and suprise they did... come on its not that hard.

NO, you said.

You don't think it was the religious right that won the election for him?

HAHAH classic.


I don't think it was the religous right that won the election for him, they were less of a factor then they were in the last election. Voters believed he was a better choice for the fight against terrorism, that is why he won. The defining issue of this election, his administration and campaign were his stance on terrorism and the war in Iraq. That is why Kerry attacked him on the subject so much.

Elitism is the very fabric of every true-liberal I’ve encountered.

Salty you keep saying that liberals are guilty of Elitism. Couldn't you say the same thing about the right-wing bible beaters who think that think thier morals are so much higher then everyone who doesn't have the same thoughts?

Ok, ok... so if it was religion that won it for Bush then why are Democrats trying to give Hillary the 2008 ticket? Doesn't that seem like an extremely bad move to have more evangelicals vote Republican in 2008?

I think it's more Republicans trying to give Hillary the Dem's ticket- because they all know she wouldn't stand a chance.

Voters believed he was a better choice for the fight against terrorism, that is why he won. The defining issue of this election, his administration and campaign were his stance on terrorism and the war in Iraq. That is why Kerry attacked him on the subject so much.

Do you find it at all interesting that virtually every major population center (which happen to be the country's most likely potential terror targets) voted democrat? Seeing they have so much at stake in the terror war, why didn't they vote for the candidate who would better protect them?

I think it's more Republicans trying to give Hillary the Dem's ticket- because they all know she wouldn't stand a chance.

How does that work? I thought they would have to be nominated by their party?

Do you find it at all interesting that virtually every major population center (which happen to be the country's most likely potential terror targets) voted democrat? Seeing they have so much at stake in the terror war, why didn't they vote for the candidate who would better protect them?

Terror or not those states voted the party line just like good democrats do. They have voted democrats for decades, if not nearly centuries.

Go watch cspan deyes you'll see some real party line humping by the republicans when it comes to voting.

Terror or not those states voted the party line just like good democrats do. They have voted democrats for decades, if not nearly centuries.

My point was, that if the war on terror was large factor in the election, for either side, wouldn't you think that those most at risk would vote for the person who would better protect them? Seeing that the pop. centers voted for Kerry, and assuming Bush was the better man for the war on terror- I think we can conclude that the war on terror did not affect the election as much as we all thought it would. If you want to say they voted democratic because they have so for years, you can't have a double standard and infer that middle America (which has consistently voted Rep. for years) voted on the issues- not the party lines.

Bottom line is, that nobody really knows why the other party voted, much less their own party. We'd all like to generalize the opposite side and lump them together into one fun-loving bunch. Doing this, while making it easier to make points, will always cause an argument because of those out there who don't follow the generalization. Let's just try to be fair, here.

My point was, that if the war on terror was large factor in the election, for either side, wouldn't you think that those most at risk would vote for the person who would better protect them? Seeing that the pop. centers voted for Kerry, and assuming Bush was the better man for the war on terror- I think we can conclude that the war on terror did not affect the election as much as we all thought it would. If you want to say they voted democratic because they have so for years, you can't have a double standard and infer that middle America (which has consistently voted Rep. for years) voted on the issues- not the party lines.

Well said.

Go watch cspan deyes you'll see some real party line humping by the republicans when it comes to voting.

WTF? I wasn't complaining, I was explaining. Scoobsport asked.......

Do you find it at all interesting that virtually every major population center (which happen to be the country's most likely potential terror targets) voted democrat? Seeing they have so much at stake in the terror war, why didn't they vote for the candidate who would better protect them?

assuming Bush was the better man for the war on terror- I think we can conclude that the war on terror did not affect the election as much as we all thought it would. If you want to say they voted democratic because they have so for years, you can't have a double standard and infer that middle America (which has consistently voted Rep. for years) voted on the issues- not the party lines.


Lets not assume to much here. Obviously the people that voted for Kerry thought he was the better choice for the war on terror. Its the first time voters that was telling. What motivated these first time voters to vote for bush? Was it religion?
Numbers have shown that it was the war on terror and the war in Iraq seeing as the religious right was less of a factor in this race then the last. Religion certainly wasn't the reason that the liberal left voted for Kerry was it?



Bottom line is, that nobody really knows why the other party voted, much less their own party. We'd all like to generalize the opposite side and lump them together into one fun-loving bunch. Doing this, while making it easier to make points, will always cause an argument because of those out there who don't follow the generalization. Let's just try to be fair, here.

I'm trying to be fair we don't know the reason why everyone voted. That was never in question. However of the voters that cited the reason they voted. The numbers show, "Terrorism was cited by 19 percent of voters as the most important issue, and these citizens gave their votes to the president by an even larger margin than morality voters: 86 percent for Bush, 14 percent for Kerry."

"Terrorism was cited by 19 percent of voters as the most important issue, and these citizens gave their votes to the president by an even larger margin than morality voters: 86 percent for Bush, 14 percent for Kerry."

"Much has been made of the fact that "moral values" topped the list of voters' concerns, mentioned by more than a fifth (22 percent) of all exit-poll respondents as the "most important issue" of the election. "

Of the voters who sited their reasons to vote, morals WAS the highest...the articles are claiming they 'lied'. You can't use the 19% from the articles if you think terrorism was the cause of Bush's win, because the same article has a higher percentage for morals.

I'm not saying that morality voters didn't vote in higher numbers, I'm just saying as did the article that they did not decide the election.

"Gay marriage and values didn't decide this election. Terrorism did.

The morality theory rests on three claims. The first is that gay-marriage bans led to higher turnout, chiefly among Christian conservatives. The second is that Bush performed especially well where gay marriage was on the ballot. The third is that in general, moral issues decided the election.

The evidence that having a gay-marriage ban on the ballot increased voter turnout is spotty. Marriage-ban states did see higher turnout than states without such measures. They also saw higher increases in turnout compared with four years ago. But these differences are relatively small. Based on preliminary turnout estimates, 59.5 percent of the eligible voting population turned out in marriage-ban states, whereas 59.1 percent turned out elsewhere. This is a microscopic gap when compared to other factors. For example, turnout in battleground states was more than 7.5 points higher than it was in less-competitive states, and it increased much more over 2000 as well."

Deyes you have a lot more patience than I do. You should consider a career in special education, teaching kids with impaired reading comprehension.

Truth is, the info can be spun either way- and this is an argument leading nowhere. There are so many different sources, and so many different numbers, with different analyses to skew those numbers every which way. People will continue to guess as to why people, in general, (especially the opposite side) voted for the candidate they did. And people will continue to argue over these questions... never coming to an agreement.

Funked- I could say the same about you- That I feel since you fail to see the opposite point- You might neeed a little one-on-one with your own special ed. reading comprehension instructor.

If people are guilty of anything here, it's not stupidity, it's more along the lines of close-mindednesss- the refusal to open up and give consideration to outside views, different than your own.

Deyes you have a lot more patience than I do. You should consider a career in special education, teaching kids with impaired reading comprehension.


Who's got the 'high and mighty,' condescending tone now? At the first glance, I would have thought you were one of those dirty liberals!