Post-Election Analysis

[azalea]

IMPORTANT: Read this entire post!

I closed the election thread, but I do feel there is room for a fresh new thread to discuss why the US presidential election went the way it did, the way the votes indicated the polarization of the country, and other such issues.

This is NOT a thread to discuss why it is "better" to be a liberal vs. conservative, etc., nor is it the place to criticize anyone else's personal political views. If you disagree with a statement, give a calm, organized response as to why you disagree. I am opening this in the hopes that we can maintain a civil atmosphere.

Sadly, I can't stay on right now to give my own views on the topic right now as I had wished, but I had tried to post this earlier and my phone lines went down; now I'm out of time for the moment. But I will be back on later to take part in the discussion. If someone wants to they can make a link to the other thread just for reference. The post from there that I think would make the best springboard for discussion here is the post IRex made regarding "moral values" (last page of that thread).

I will personally be "babysitting" this thread for the next couple of days, as well as the other mods and admins checking in (or taking part) when they can. This is up to you, guys. If you want political threads in GM, you need to ignore or REPORT posts you find personally offensive rather than respond. That way this can stay open.

I recommend re-reading the rules posts at the top of the forum before taking part in this thread so that you are clear on what is acceptable, etc.


See you later! Be good!

[Insidious Rex]

Three cheers for azalea!

And I think that fact that this thread was CREATED by a mod should give those of us who silently grummbled about the mods being anti-politics on this message board a wake up call. *awake* AND it should also make it especially clear that the thread wont last long if all out mud wars take over. After all it IS owned by a mod. So no punches below the belt.

Anyway as to what we were talking about before. Am I lead to believe that for those who voted for Bush that Iraq and terrorism WERENT as important as we were all lead to believe before the election? In the old thread I asked people what issues were most driving their decision as to who to vote for. I was curious as to what really motivated people. But everyone kept silent on that for some reason. Which was a shame because it would have really been interesting to compare it to the results post-election.

[inked]

Here's an analysis from Britain by M. Phillips in The Daily Mail that I think is accurate as a reflection from across the pond on the happenings in the USA.

link:http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/m...p?storyid=1618

Reflects on the cultural factors pretty accurately for both GB and US.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by inked

Here's an analysis from Britain by M. Phillips in The Daily Mail that I think is accurate as a reflection from across the pond on the happenings in the USA.

link:http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/m...p?storyid=1618

Reflects on the cultural factors pretty accurately for both GB and US.

sorry, but the daily mail is not actually a reliable souce for anything, except racist-homophobic-tory nonsense.

not really a very nice newspaper at all!

[inked]

LCoU,

There are nice newspapers in Britain?

Define "nice".

Or, do you merely disagree with some stance of the paper? Is there analysis invalid or not in agreement with yours?

As an American tabloid has it, Inquiring minds want to know!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

there aren't many 'nice' newspapers in uk, and by nice i mean at last partly
neutral, presenting issues in a concise and unbiased manner, but the mail
truly is one of the worst - never do they present facts, and the owner is
allegedly a top man in the porn industry - what does that tell you about their
stance? - at least there isn't a naked lady on every other page, like it is with
the 'redtops'.

[azalea]

Okay, here was my response for IR's post in the other thread.

First, I will state that I voted for Kerry because I don't think Bush is a good president. I would have voted for Nader again, because I didn't like Kerry either, but I liked him better than Bush and to me it was extra important to get him out of office because of his handling of the situation in Iraq, with which I disagreed. The preceding was not meant to begin an argument about Bush's handling of Iraq, which belongs in a different thread. I simply wished to give the main issue of importance to me during the election for the purposes of further discussion in this thread.

That being said, I wanted to respond specifically to the confusion about what is meant by "moral issues." Basically, Kerry supporters were taking umbrage with the term being used to describe what was important to the Bush supporters, because they too were voting about "moral issues."

The answer to that is that everyone has different moral issues on which they base their vote. In this election, the majority prefered Bush's stand on the three "moral issues" (a better term is "social issues") of abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage. The majority disagreed with Kerry's stand on these issues. And there you have it. As I said, social issues is a better term, but the media kind of siezed on the term and it stuck.

So what happened is that the Dems counted on voters like me, who opposed Bush's handling of Iraq. They were cocky. They thought "Oh, he lost by such a narrow margin last time, and look at how many people disagree with the situation in Iraq! Surely we've clinched it!" However, the surprise was that the war was NOT the central issue, and neither was the economy, but it was these other "moral issues" that the MAJORITY of voters felt strongly enough about to choke down another four years (or happily emabrace another four years, depending on the voter).

Furthermore, the Dems stupidly felt that the war issue (combined with their stance on said "social issues") would clinch them the far left vote, when in fact the far left voter might just as easily choose to vote for one of the minor parties. So not only did they lose those votes, but also they misjudged what was important to the majority of American voters. Instead of the war, it was abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage.

[Let me post this much before I get kicked offline for inactivity.]

[azalea]

So now that Bush has been re-elected and can't run again, it doesn't matter to me what happens next time in terms of the Dems winning, because I really don't like them particularly either. I vote for the candidate, not the party. I pick what the most important issues are to me, and I vote based on that AND how well I think a candidate will lead the country (ie, will he make sound and intelligent decisions, whether I end up agreeing with them or not? Or will he simply tow the party line all the way to the end of his presidency without making any decisions based on his own common sense?).

However, in the interest of analysis, here is my view on what they did wrong and how they can win the next election. In sitting back on their laurels and not seeking to reach out to those who voted for Bush in 2000 (ie, "Why Bush, what issues," etc.), they lost an opportunity to a) align the party stands better with what the majority of Americans want (ie, restrictions on abortion) and b) choose a candidate who could better represent or whose personal views better mirrored that of the majority of Americans.

My recommendation to them if they wish to win the next election is this: recognize that most citizens in this country wish for [insert stand] (say, restrictions on abortion), and should then either take a party stand reflecting that, or choose a candidate (such as Joe Lieberman, he would have been a better candidate) that holds some strong "moral values" that he is not willing to compromise for votes! The fact that Kerry is a Catholic but is strongly pro-choice probably GREATLY damaged him. That appears hypocritical. If they had had a self-avowed athiest candidate who held that view, it would have at least seemed consistent to the average voter.

If they don't wish to take my recommendations, then they need to get used to losing. They should recognize that something is better than nothing; if they followed what I said above they could get a candidate elected. They need to decide which of their less popular stands they are willing to move to the center/ compromise on, and which they will stay firm on.

And that's my analysis.

[jerseydevil]

My vote had nothing to do with the moral values - nor is the electorate anymore polarized than during the two elections Clinton won (he never got above 50% of the vote). I voted on the war on terrorism - my brother is in afganistan and my cousin is off to Iraq. I think Bush understands what the only way to win the war on the fundamentist muslims - and it isn't through defense or appeasement. I also voted for bush because of michael moore and others. I wrote a letter to Time Magazine - of course it would be impossible to put all my reasons for voting in Bush - but it concentrates on something that I think the democrats don't want to face. The following is my letter...

I read with interest your piece "What Happens to the Losing Team?" and I have to comment on this statement made by Bruce Reed, "We can't let George Bush define our future". Contrary to this statement, it wasn't Bush who was defining the democratic party - it was Michael Moore, France, the UN and others - way before the presidential election even began. I voted just as much against Michael Moore, Chirac, the UN, the "we know better than thou" elitist media (including international media such as the Guardian), stuck up nosed Hollywood and MoveOn.org as I voted for Bush on the SINGLE issue I support him 100% on - the war on terrorism (which in my opinion DOES include Iraq where my cousin will soon be fighting with the Marines, while my brother is in Afganistan).

The thought of Michael Moore gloating on election day if Bush lost was too sickening to even imagine. Likewise - I would not have been able to tolerate the smug face of Chirac and other Europeans if Bush did not get re-elected. Maybe the democratic party should start to choose their friends a little better. Just so you know - I support stem cell research, I support most abortion rights, I am for gay civil unions (not sure about "marriage" though), at the same time however, I think these things should be left up to the states.

It is completely nearsighted to say that the people who elected Bush were only voting on the "moral items" when there were many others besides the religious right who were voting - especially since I'm an atheist. To me - those issues just weren't important enough for me to risk seeing Michael Moore and Chirac cheering in the streets. In my eyes - if you want someone to blame - blame Michael Moore, Farenheit 9/11, Chirac, the Guardian, the UN, Dan Rather and the many other hatred filled people who wanted Bush out of office at all cost.

To mean - there was nothing like the face of Michael Moore to bring out the vote for Bush.

Azalea - under normal circumstances - I would probably vote for Lieberman - except for one thing - him being president would be the worst thing that could happen when dealing with the Middle East. Do you know how bigotted the Middle East is against Jews?

{edit - the war was the central issue for me - that's why I voted for Bush, why my cousin voted for Bush and why my brother voted for Bush. I know others who also voted FOR Bush because of the war.

[Rían]

I saw something on the news in passing that was reporting on the Hollywood-type people who said they'd move to Europe if Bush got elected, but missed the actual report - anyone know what happened to them? Are they keeping their word, or making excuses?

Also, I heard that 75% of the military vote went for Bush - anyone heard any other numbers?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I voted just as much against Michael Moore, Chirac, the UN, the "we know better than thou" elitist media (including international media such as the Guardian), stuck up nosed Hollywood and MoveOn.org as I voted for Bush on the SINGLE issue I support him 100% on - the war on terrorism (which in my opinion DOES include Iraq where my cousin will soon be fighting with the Marines, while my brother is in Afganistan).

Actually I was afraid that the majority of people would vote because of the war. Personally I don't think it is the best way to vote for a president, (really no offense intended) because when you vote for a president you vote for a lot of things more than just one item in his list and everybody, including him, will assume that since you voted for him you agree with all the other items too.

But I can definitely understand why people nevertheless voted in respect to the war-issue. I suppose Micheal Moore and consorts did Bush more a favour than anything else. You push people one way and they'll go the other -regardless of the fact which road is better -simply because they don't like you deciding over which way they should go. Had I been an undecided American voter, I might have gone for Bush too, just to show 'em all. That's human nature for you.

I don't think Bush is the right choice, thinking in the whole picture. I'm not saying Kerry would have been better, but I would have prefered anyone but Bush. But the choice is made and this time seemingly without any accusations of fraud. So we'll just have to see how it works out.