http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000935.php
Democrats’ falloff among whites appears to have been concentrated almost entirely among white women, rather than white men. This year, Bush carried white men by 25 points (62-37), only a point more than his 24 point margin in 2000 (60-36). In contrast, he carried white women by 11 points (55-44), a big improvement over the single point (49-48) by which he carried this group in 2000.
Yeagh. What the hell?
Security Moms? Perhaps women don’t take to the vitriol that peppered Bush throughout the last three years. I imagine Democrats wouldn’t have a terribly difficult time getting that Demographic back in 2008 if things settle down.
I think there might be a “devil-we-know” demographic, that always votes for the ncumbent–Gore in 2000, Bush in 2004. It would only have to be 6% of white women to account for the turnaround.
Things probably will settle down over the next 4 years but guess what? People will attribute that to good leadership…
But they take to the vitriol that peppered Kerry the entire campaign?
I think this may be another example of people starting to lean in a certain direction if the proponents of that direction are the only ones clearly heard.
But they take to the vitriol that peppered Kerry the entire campaign?
I think this may be another example of people starting to lean in a certain direction if the proponents of that direction are the only ones clearly heard.[/quote]
That’s a pretty patronizing way to look at the female vote.
I think that about everyone. If the general discourse is of a conservative bent, then the population at large is likely to get a conservative bent, as well.
That’s a really stupid thing to say.
There is absolutely no comparison between what the two men have had to endure. Kerry got painted as an ambitious flip-flopper who betrayed the men he served with (and not all of that was by the Bush campaign, regardless of how much some would like to believe in Demon Rove’s omnipotence). It lasted one political campaign, and will be viewed as typical politics (regardless of whether that should or shouldn’t be typical in politics). Bush has been called the second coming of Adolf Hitler, a chimpanzee, a moron, a puppet, a drooling idiot, a tyrant, a druggie, and on and on since practically the moment he got into office. There have been repeated calls for his assassination. There have been repeated accusations of widespread vote fraud and conspiracy. There’s been … ah hell I’m not going to sit here and list everything that’s been tossed at the guy. The problem is that many people who read these accusations are a bit predisposed to agree with them and don’t realize the extent of the shrillness and hysterics. Which gets you thinking that having Michael Moore and Sean whatsisname the actor and Cameron Diaz out there making totally lunatic statements is actually a good idea somehow. Well, it’s not.
Bush has been called the second coming of Adolf Hitler, a chimpanzee, a moron, a puppet, a drooling idiot, a tyrant, a druggie, and on and on since practically the moment he got into office.
Certainly not by either the Kerry campaign or the media.
And I don’t think many security moms read angry rants on Internet message boards or blogs.
There have been repeated calls for his assassination.
The same can be said of every US president and virtually every public figure in the world.
I’m not sure that matters. The vitriol was out there in a big way. I don’t know if any of you remember my comment on a study done on negative campaigning, but I wonder if all the non-campaign entities (MoveOn.org, Swift Boat Vets, Sean Penn, etc…) couldn’t be included in the conclusion. If you include them, the Vietnam War stuff on both sides would be an “Unfair” attack, but Bush would come out better because he didn’t really respond to it, whereas Kerry responded voraciously to them. (The study predicts that the best way to respond to an “unfair” attack is to not respond at all.) Interestingly, the attack that was viewed as the most “Fair” was “talking one way and voting another.” Kinda explains the “I voted for it before I voted against it” clip that ran seemingly 24/7 in the battleground states.
They certainly watch the Oscars. It’s not like the Internet was the only place vitriol oozed out of.
The Kerry Campaign itself may not have done it, but they certainly didn’t mind their lackey’s doing it for them. And putting Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC wasn’t terribly smart of them either. Neither was associating themselves with the Hollywood bomb throwers. Of course, at the time, Terry McAulliff thought this would win them the election. I was thoroughly pleased to see it shoved down his throat on November 2nd.
Also, the Internet certainly isn’t the only place where the vitriol has been spewed; just look at the NY/LA Times Editorial pages. Hell, after Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, I noticed a big increase in the vitriol coming out of every day Liberals on the street.
There’s also a difference between some underground nutjob talking about assassination, and a fairly large newspaper like the Guardian doing it.
Isn’t the Guardian in the UK?
What the hell do “Abort Bushitler” protest signs mean, then?
Liberalism in America is an echo chamber, so it’s not a big surprise that Kerry is tarred with the same brush as his supporters. Kerry repeatedly asked during his campaign (to paraphrase) “How the fuck can I be losing to this goddamned moron?”, a suggestion that Kerry, too, allowed himself to be co-opted by the same ideas, rather than looking clearly at the situation at hand.
Yeah.
Erm, but he was inexplicably losing to a goddamn moron.
Wait!? Kerry lost to you?
:wink:
At least now we know the art of witty comebacks is alive and well on the right side of the aisle.
At least now we know the art of witty comebacks is alive and well on the right side of the aisle.[/quote]
This must be a new defintion of the word “witty”.
Kevin Drum points out the final exit polls were systematically off by 3 points or so in Kerry’s favor:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005147.php
This guy points out that Bush actually didn’t “do better in urban areas”:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/11/11/202824/89#readmore
Today, I focus on urban areas in red states. Initially, I thought that the urban areas in these locales would show Bush gains. But in fact, just the opposite. Kerry improved on Gore’s totals in urban areas in states like NC, TX, CO, GA, MO and so on. This was particularly so in “new economy”/“knowledge economy” hotspots. Where Kerry did worse than Gore was in cities with large Latino populations. I think these findings are very significant for recognizing where are strengths and weaknesses lie going forward.
SO: What can be concluded from my investigation so far?
- That Bush’s increased totals came from three sources: 9/11 “belt voters” in suburban New Jersey, Connecticut and New York, some gains amongst Latinos (but not everywhere - and not in Florida), but most importantly, amongst small town and rural folks
- The most important divide in American politics today is between Democratic cities and “inner” suburbs and Republican exurbs and rural areas. It is not really the red state/blue state divide that is most important.
- That Ruy Teixeiria’s ideopolis thesis is real, but will not - in the short term at least - be enough for the Democrats to be a majority party.