Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Is Secession Doable? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (829)	11/8/2004 2:32:56 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1968

In My Humble Opinion: Election Reflections by Mike North posted November 8, 2004 The past election was an interesting exercise. Not only was the turnout high – up 11% from 2000 – but nearly every pollster, pundit and expert turned out to be very wrong about the closeness of the outcome. It may not have been their fault, but the polls seemed to show the race much tighter than the 5 percent final margin of victory for Bush. The pollsters felt strongly that while the race was a statistical dead heat, the polls were likely under-sampling the youth vote. The effect then would be an advantage for Kerry on election day. Then the exit polls apparently over-sampled Democratic voters, adding momentum to the perception that Kerry was about to coast to victory. So what happened? The youth didn’t turn out in the numbers predicted. The Democrats turned out their base, and that base appears to have grown by 10 or 11% since 2000. But the GOP got their base out as well, and the Republican vote was up 18%. Not only was the vote total up almost one in five overall, but the Republicans saw their vote share grow significantly in every demographic group except among black voters. How does one explain this unforeseen result? A combination of factors played a part, but one of the most influential was the “backlash” vote. Americans in every state turned out not only to support the president, but also to protest Dan Rather; Michael Moore; George Soros; MoveOn.org; MTV; Hollywood; numerous 527 fundraising groups; elite academia; the mainstream media; European meddlers; an obstructionist senate (including the minority leader), and the United Nations. Not since 1800 has a candidate been attacked with such vitriolic fervor. Bush’s opponents were united, motivated, and well funded. However, they and the prognosticators underestimated the quite resolve of red state America. Southern and heartland voters don’t like the casualty count in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they realize that without action the casualty count would be higher here at home. Red state voters don’t want to dictate private morality, but they also don’t want government publicly endorsing behavior that most of us consider unacceptable. Red state voters are tired of being lectured by pampered stars; insulted by intellectual snobs; snubbed by ungrateful allies; manipulated by zealots in the press, and assaulted by secular crusaders. They had enough of hearing the president’s policies misrepresented and his intellect insulted. Despite his gracious concession speech, one editor reports Kerry to have said, “I can’t believe I’m losing to this idiot.” That statement sums up the view the left has of President Bush. Idiot, rube, cowboy – just a few of the insults hurled at Bush during the past few years. The president’s opponents could have built their campaign on issues, but instead they made this election about Bush the man. And a big chunk of America likes Bush the man. Another relevant point to be considered is that America is fundamentally a moderate nation. Sure, the red states tend to be just a bit right of center, but the bulk of the electorate rejects the far right agenda just as it does the far left. And despite the wailing from the Moores and Springsteens, George Bush is a moderate. He is right-of-center on social issues, but not drastically so. And aside from his steadfast adherence to tax cuts, his economic policy is moderate. The proof is in the tally. Pollsters pretty much agree that committed voters are evenly divided. 37% are Republicans, 37% are Democrats. Generally, the undecided middle moves toward the candidate they view as the more moderate. And in this case they saw Bush as the more moderate of the two. They looked at Kerry’s record instead of listening to his rhetoric. The question post-election is this: What do Democrats do to compete in red state America? Look at the 2002 election. Democrats failed to regain control of the House and Senate, and following a great deal of soul searching decided to move left. It looks possible that they will do the same this time. Remember, it was moderate Democrats that kept Clinton in the White House for eight years. It was not the Nancy Pelosis and Tom Daschles that sold the Democratic agenda to the nation. The 2008 campaign has already begun. Will the Democratic Party nominate another polarizing figure, say a Hillary Clinton? Or will they run a more moderate candidate? Will the GOP offer up a popular but socially liberal candidate like Rudy Giuliani, or will they stay with a socially conservative candidate and hope to keep the heartland solidly behind them? Who will emerge as the early frontrunner in one party or the other? One party’s strategy will certainly affect the other party’s response. But whoever runs, one lesson is clear: if the Democrats want to win, they will have to keep the angry left on a short leash. chattanoogan.com