Why Bush Won

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Makromizer

Originally posted by: loki8481

(..)

had there been a dictionary a few thousand years ago, the definition would probably be that marriage is between a man and as many women as he wants.

Which moron changed that anyway?

Probably the same bunch that decided to join the cloth for some extracurricular activities during the Inquisition.

Not surprised that some of that is still going on, just not as openly.

*cough* hypocrites

 

[RSMemphis]

Originally posted by: gutharius

Originally posted by: Abraxas
If the Republicans do win, which it seems they will, it will be because Kerry let Bush define him and he insisted on fighting every issue on Bush's terms.

Personally Kerry as a person lacked the passion and charisma of Clinton. As such Kerry came off as higly educated but a person that had no heart or gumption to shoot at the issue. That and Kerry was a lame duck from the get go because he voted for the war. I argue we as a nation would be in a much different place had Dean or a similar candidate, that was 180 degrees to Bush, had been in this election. But all in hind sight is obvious and certainly nothing we can change. From here, we as democrats need to learn somehting from this election, we need to learn how we lost so much of what we had and how do we get back to that.

Hear, hear...

Honestly, I see two reasons, and both have been mentioned, just want to put an emphasize on it:

The religious came even more out this time - which means that Bush will see himself as a religious saviour now...
and
Kerry just failed to inspire. A few hours ago I also said Dean would have been a better choice, but, on second thought, I really don't think so anymore.

Over all, it's become quite clear that the US is inching (or rather, "yarding") to the more conservative right. And judging from a lot of people's opinion, that's a good thing. In the grand scheme of things, therefore, my opinion is becoming more and more irrelevant.

 

[Mill]

I don't think the religious right had ANYTHING to do with it. They've had high turnout and voted conservative for 30 years now. I know fscking 8 people that voted Bush, and none of us are religious. We voted Bush because the Dems couldn't field a decent candidate. This loss falls on the DNC.

 

[Summitdrinker]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My gardener told me that Bush will win because he is an idiot and a majority will say he's just like me.

couldn't have said it better myself

hey I got a 120 dollar tax refund, Bush rules..................................................simple minded people

 

[huxley0000]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Infohawk
social issues social issues social issues

Exactly. Same-sex marriage ban was on the ballot in quite a few states and that brought out the fundies in droves.

Bigots determining the futures of others' lives.

yeah, the gay marriage was banned in oregon? Is that a biggot state? It passed 58%-42%. I guess 58% of people in Oregon are bigots. More like they have morals. Obviously you are pissed you man got owned tonight.

Fvcking give it up with the childish and ignorant remarks.

Kerry did not get "owned" tonight. Yes, Bush is ahead in the popular vote and will take the electoral vote but it's still a very close race...hardly a mandate for Bush even given the huge fundamental Christian turnout.

And, yes, those 58% in Oregon are bigots. How in the hell is same-sex marriage going to affect you? It's considered a sin by your religion, right? Well, guess what? Your religion has NO SAY in our government's laws.

Christian Reconstructionism is beginning to take hold and it will be the downfall of this great nation. I feel it in my bones.

IM NOT RELIGIOUS. IM ATHIEST. And guess what? I'm still against same sex marriage. Why? Because marriage is between a man and woman. If two men or two women want a Union, thats fine w/ me. Marriage is not something for them, I'm sorry. It says right in the dictionary that marriage is a union between a man and woman.

Wait one damn minute...this is huxley and aren't you the guy from genmay talking the same lame trash?

 

[Isla]

Because the average American's IQ is 100 and Bush appeals to the average American.

It's no mistake the East and West Coasts... where more progressive, cultured types congregate... went to Kerry.

The South and the MidWest went with the candidate they could identify with.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: huxley0000

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Infohawk
social issues social issues social issues

Exactly. Same-sex marriage ban was on the ballot in quite a few states and that brought out the fundies in droves.

Bigots determining the futures of others' lives.

yeah, the gay marriage was banned in oregon? Is that a biggot state? It passed 58%-42%. I guess 58% of people in Oregon are bigots. More like they have morals. Obviously you are pissed you man got owned tonight.

Fvcking give it up with the childish and ignorant remarks.

Kerry did not get "owned" tonight. Yes, Bush is ahead in the popular vote and will take the electoral vote but it's still a very close race...hardly a mandate for Bush even given the huge fundamental Christian turnout.

And, yes, those 58% in Oregon are bigots. How in the hell is same-sex marriage going to affect you? It's considered a sin by your religion, right? Well, guess what? Your religion has NO SAY in our government's laws.

Christian Reconstructionism is beginning to take hold and it will be the downfall of this great nation. I feel it in my bones.

IM NOT RELIGIOUS. IM ATHIEST. And guess what? I'm still against same sex marriage. Why? Because marriage is between a man and woman. If two men or two women want a Union, thats fine w/ me. Marriage is not something for them, I'm sorry. It says right in the dictionary that marriage is a union between a man and woman.

Wait one damn minute...this is huxley and aren't you the guy from genmay talking the same lame trash?

'

I'm going to laugh, and assume you are// uxley that was banned from AT. If you are banned we do NOT want you here, troll. Was it Muxley or something?

 

[randym431]

Cant be too hard on Kerry. And I hope his fellow dems are easy on him. Fact is, a sitting pres is very hard to beat, unless he really screwed up. I am depressed Kerry, a great man, will miss the chance to do great things for us. But I have to give Bush a pat. Here in Iowa, over the last 2 months, each and every week either Bush, Cheney, Laura or the twins were here. Kerry was here a few times. Looks like Bush just did it better, and worked very hard, and I have to admit, earned it in Iowa. Seeing how well Kerry did, against a sitting pres, Kerry did very good also. If this had been 2008, and it was Kerry vs Jeb or Kerry vs John M., Kerry probably would of won. Maybe he can run in 2008. He would have re ran if he was elected this time, so why not?
Another thing, now the war is truly Bush's war. He says things will get good soon, and the elections in Iraq will make a BIG diff. We'll see... If it doesn?t, and if 4 years from now were still there with 2000, 3000 troops dead, it wont be too good for the repubs.
Lets face it, people in America have been dumbed down with awful brainless TV, parents too busy to take care of their families, listening to Rush (the drug queen), and just getting stupid. That?s why the South all goes and falls for those lines they're fed.

 

[Mill]

randym431, Bush did screw up, but we refused anyone that was better than him.

 

[chess9]

Say what you will about Bush, he worked his tail off to get the w.

But, I agree with Infohawk. Bush exploited wedge issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. to great advantage. The Republicans know how to divided and conquer.

-Robert

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Isla
Because the average American's IQ is 100 and Bush appeals to the average American.

It's no mistake the East and West Coasts... where more progressive, cultured types congregate... went to Kerry.

The South and the MidWest went with the candidate they could identify with.

No, sometimes us educated Southerners (I have a post-graduate degree, but it was from a public school, so maybe that doesn't count much) just enjoy sticking it to the smug, arrogant, elitist liberals such as yourself who enjoy looking down your nose at people like me. You nominated one of your own (learn nothing the last time a Mass. liberal ran under the Dem. banner?), and it looks like he got beat by a very weak incumbent. It's your own fault for looking down your nose at the South. Hint to the Democrats: Clinton was a Southerner, and he won. Twice.

 

[xype]

Bush won because the republicans were better at touching the people. There are _so_ many issues the Democrats could have used for themselves, but they were not agressive enough. If you're not agressive enough noone will notice how a nice guy you are, everyone will just see you losing.

And if people in the US really think another 4 years of Bush are good, well, they don't value democracy and freedom and least of all the Bible as much as they think they do. But hey, what else to expect from idiot rednecks...

 

[TSDible]

Originally posted by: Summitdrinker

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My gardener told me that Bush will win because he is an idiot and a majority will say he's just like me.

couldn't have said it better myself

hey I got a 120 dollar tax refund, Bush rules..................................................simple minded people

And did you refuse it, or send it back because it was the right thing to do for the country and the economy?

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
No, sometimes us educated Southerners (I have a post-graduate degree, but it was from a public school, so maybe that doesn't count much) just enjoy sticking it to the smug, arrogant, elitist liberals such as yourself who enjoy looking down your nose at people like me. You nominated one of your own (learn nothing the last time a Mass. liberal ran under the Dem. banner?), and it looks like he got beat by a very weak incumbent. It's your own fault for looking down your nose at the South. Hint to the Democrats: Clinton was a Southerner, and he won. Twice.

So you vote out of spite. Whether the person you vote for can actually lead a nation comes secondary?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: xype
Bush won because the republicans were better at touching the people. There are _so_ many issues the Democrats could have used for themselves, but they were not agressive enough. If you're not agressive enough noone will notice how a nice guy you are, everyone will just see you losing.

And if people in the US really think another 4 years of Bush are good, well, they don't value democracy and freedom and least of all the Bible as much as they think they do. But hey, what else to expect from idiot rednecks...

Sprechen sie Deutsch? I'm in college, and I can certainly say that you've no idea what rednecks are, or what idiots are. Sollte ich von Hitler sprechen? DDR? Ich bin von einem konservativen Zustand, aber von ihm dumm nicht macht! Ich bin ein moderate, und ich liebe freedom. Anyway...

 

[BenSkywalker]

Bush won because he wasn't running against anyone.

I have yet to talk to a single actual Kerry supporter. Eveyone I have seen in the Kerry fold is there because they don't want Bush- that is no way to inspire confidence in the populace. There are enough people who want Bush out to keep it close, but if Kerry had appealed to people on any issue he could be looking at a victory today(instead of suing states where he lost by six figures....?).

The talk about far right leaning of Bush is rather comical- he is quite left wing for a Republican refusing to do anything to curb entitlement programs to keep them scaling within reason- he has made no real attempt at removing SS from the government's hands- he has made no attempt to gather support for a line item veto modification to the Constitution(which we need to stop useless pork projects no matter which side of the aisle you support).

Even on the morality side- he has made no attempt to change the legal status of abortion, he is very far removed from the rabbid censorship candidates in the last election(Gore/Lieberman), and has in general made no real moves in terms of legislating morality that will impact people in any significant way.

Sure, he has made policy on certain elements that people have major issues with, such as the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq and the deficit(which gets back to him being too liberal) but those issues were the entirety of the opposition he was facing. Noone that wasn't upset about those elements was given a reason to vote for Kerry, that cost him the election.

On the flip side of that, Bush didn't do anything to make himself out to be a great candidate either. He failed to appeal to the economic conservatives(where this was very much a choice of the lesser of two heinous evils) through his actions and also through his campaign, he failed to really make any sort of major campaign issues- he just rode the fact that he already was President- and that was enough.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Mursilis
No, sometimes us educated Southerners (I have a post-graduate degree, but it was from a public school, so maybe that doesn't count much) just enjoy sticking it to the smug, arrogant, elitist liberals such as yourself who enjoy looking down your nose at people like me. You nominated one of your own (learn nothing the last time a Mass. liberal ran under the Dem. banner?), and it looks like he got beat by a very weak incumbent. It's your own fault for looking down your nose at the South. Hint to the Democrats: Clinton was a Southerner, and he won. Twice.

So you vote out of spite. Whether the person you vote for can actually lead a nation comes secondary?

Vote out of spite? No, I vote based on issues, but rare is the time any candidate aligns 100% with my personal views. At those times, intangibles like likeability come into play. And I will say that when I was considering each candidate (including non-mainstream candidates), Kerry was the FIRST one I eliminated from contention.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Bush won because he wasn't running against anyone.

I have yet to talk to a single actual Kerry supporter. Eveyone I have seen in the Kerry fold is there because they don't want Bush- that is no way to inspire confidence in the populace. There are enough people who want Bush out to keep it close, but if Kerry had appealed to people on any issue he could be looking at a victory today(instead of suing states where he lost by six figures....?).

The talk about far right leaning of Bush is rather comical- he is quite left wing for a Republican refusing to do anything to curb entitlement programs to keep them scaling within reason- he has made no real attempt at removing SS from the government's hands- he has made no attempt to gather support for a line item veto modification to the Constitution(which we need to stop useless pork projects no matter which side of the aisle you support).

Even on the morality side- he has made no attempt to change the legal status of abortion, he is very far removed from the rabbid censorship candidates in the last election(Gore/Lieberman), and has in general made no real moves in terms of legislating morality that will impact people in any significant way.

Sure, he has made policy on certain elements that people have major issues with, such as the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq and the deficit(which gets back to him being too liberal) but those issues were the entirety of the opposition he was facing. Noone that wasn't upset about those elements was given a reason to vote for Kerry, that cost him the election.

On the flip side of that, Bush didn't do anything to make himself out to be a great candidate either. He failed to appeal to the economic conservatives(where this was very much a choice of the lesser of two heinous evils) through his actions and also through his campaign, he failed to really make any sort of major campaign issues- he just rode the fact that he already was President- and that was enough.

:thumbsup:
Good analysis.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Isla
Because the average American's IQ is 100 and Bush appeals to the average American.

It's no mistake the East and West Coasts... where more progressive, cultured types congregate "I'm smarter than everyone else types"... went to Kerry.

The South and the MidWest went with the candidate they could identify with.

Hmmm I hope you don't live on the coasts or else that might be one SNOBBY post

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Summitdrinker

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My gardener told me that Bush will win because he is an idiot and a majority will say he's just like me.

couldn't have said it better myself

hey I got a 120 dollar tax refund, Bush rules..................................................simple minded people

Yup, friend of mine makes $27k a year and is voting for Bush because he saved 6% on his taxes from the previous year. WHOOOPEEE! That's a vote bought on the cheap there.

 

[TravisT]

I believe the youth did get out. There were records set in nearly every state. The thing is, is that the youth of America arn't as tolerant of Kerry's flip flopping as they thought we would be. This was my first time to vote, obviously, I chose not to vote for Kerry.

I do believe that the conservative people in America saw a huge issue in Kerry in his extreme left point of views.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Isla
Because the average American's IQ is 100 and Bush appeals to the average American.

It's no mistake the East and West Coasts... where more progressive, cultured types congregate... went to Kerry.

The South and the MidWest went with the candidate they could identify with.

Well said.

"Because the average American's IQ is 100 and Bush appeals to the average American."

That's what happens with Brainwashing, all minds become "equalized".

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Isla
Because the average American's IQ is 100 and Bush appeals to the average American.

It's no mistake the East and West Coasts... where more progressive, cultured types congregate... went to Kerry.

The South and the MidWest went with the candidate they could identify with.

Well said.

"Because the average American's IQ is 100 and Bush appeals to the average American."

That's what happens with Brainwashing, all minds become "equalized".

I saw a study somewhere that put Bush's IQ higher than Kerry's.

Edit

Link

I know there is a better site than this. I know some of the media outlets picked up on this as well.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Mill
I don't think the religious right had ANYTHING to do with it. They've had high turnout and voted conservative for 30 years now. I know fscking 8 people that voted Bush, and none of us are religious. We voted Bush because the Dems couldn't field a decent candidate. This loss falls on the DNC.

I have to disagree. Like I posted in OT:
From MSNBC:

In the end, Ohio was the fulcrum, and exit polling data suggested that it was older voters and white evangelical Christians who clinched the deal for Bush. The president won 56 percent of the vote among voters ages 60 and older, and he took three-quarters of white evangelical voters, who made up 25 percent of the state?s electorate.

If Dale Earndhart Jr., in 30 years ran for Prez and played a strong Christian religion card, he would win in a landslide. It's a sad day for our country.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The easiest way to lose is to underestimate the abilities and intellect of your opponent. It happened in the election and the same sentiment is evident in this thread.

We don't know how many of those 100 IQ Americans voted for Kerry or Bush. Surely both garnered quite a few votes from that crowd. If you have any doubts that crowd would vote for Kerry, I suggest going over to the DU and reading their forum. That will tell you all you need to know.