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.

[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?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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

I've heard those numbers too - but I'm not surprised. My brother, cousin and beor all said that the majority of the military supported Bush and feel he has been doing a good job in Iraq and in Afganistan. I know many people wouldn't know it by watching the news though. But then again - Beor had e-mailed me and said he was outraged by the one sided reporting that was going on in the US media.

[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.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

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.

Yes you do vote for a lot of things - but this war is the largest thing since world war II. You can ignore it, others can have their head stuck in the sand - but this war is about the protection of the west. People seem to want to ignore bin Ladin's stated goals because he doesn't have an airforce or tanks that are rolling their way through the streets of Europe. No he has something far worse, people who hide in the shadows and can bring economic disaster, kill thousand of people, all with a couple of thousand dollars.

As for whether people think that I support everything Bush says - that's their problem. I feel I don't have to justify my vote to anyone. I wonder - how many people you vote for you agree with everything they do or support. You look at it through European eyes - I look at it through American eyes - it's MY president - not the world's president. His goal is to do what I think will best protect MY country. I think Bush is doing that. how long does Europe think we should have continued the appeasement strategy of the 1990's for the sense of false peace?

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 didn't vote for Bush because of being pushed one way by Michael Moore or the others - and 9/11 and the war against terrorism is as important as fighting against Hitler. Would the US vote for an appeaser during World War II - I doubt it. The US NEEDS a strong leader - Kerry was not a strong leader, Kerry's senate record proves that he was very anti-military, even as he tried to change that through rhetoric on the campaign trail. You may disagree with the war - you may think that 9/11 wasn't much of a big deal - but it was a big deal for the majority of Americans - and continues to be a big deal.

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.

See - I think the idea of "anyone but Bush" is completely ridiculous. That is the worst reason to vote for someone. Give a reason for voting FOR a candidate. No one has any reason for this idea other than the fact that they don't like the fact that Bush tells it as it is - that someone has finally said - we are not taking any crap after 9/11, the Middle East WILL change, that we will not go back into appeasement mode. What do you suggest? Negotiation with the terrorists? Why is is "anyone but Bush? I find it ironic that you say that Americans shouldn't have voted FOR Bush because of the war - but that is the reasons why most outsiders were hoping Bush would lose. It can't be because of his tax cuts, his views on abortion, his views on stem cell research, etc - because those do NOT concern the outside world and are none of their business.

I'm not too concerned really about Europe's opinion right now - they hated Reagan too. Europe will now have to learn how to work with us, Chirac will have to make a decision on what he wants to do. Chirac is making "kind hearted jestures" of friendship publicly, but at the same time in EU meetings he's denouncing Bush and America. He is insisting on the EU develop into a second super power - luckily after the election - Germany and Spain seem to have stepped back from Chirac a bit and his anti-American rhetoric.

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.

And that's all they were - accusations. Many people analysed what happened in Florida, there was not an organized or even unorganized attempt to "prevent people from voting". The controversy raged because people did not vote properly. Democrats hated the fact that they lost, they want to ignore that Gore was the one who first brought it to the courts, too many were ignorant of the Constitution.

By the way - I also didn't say I didn't agree with Bush on other issues. it's just that the war on terrorism - including Iraq - I do support him on 100%. I supported the tax cuts - which weren't for the rich but for everyone, I support him for finally having the guts to stand up to the teachers unions and make them accountable for the quality of education they give American students, I support his refusal to federally fund stem cell research (which is the ONLY thing he has done - he did NOT outlaw stem cell research).

I was NEVER an undecided voter when it came to this election.

[brownjenkins]

i can't say i was really psyched about john kerry... i would have preferred a dean on the dem side, or a mccain on the rep side... that said, i voted kerry because:

1) personal freedom should never be compromised for security purposes (read patriot act), as they say in new hampshire, "live free of die"

2) morality is relative... the federal government should only promote laws that encourage people to live together peacefully and happily... and it should never discourage or legislate against something for no better reason than that some people just "don't like it" (marriage laws, sex education, contraception, stem-cell research)

3) the "war on terrorism"... look at northern ireland, look at israel, look at the balkans, etc... no conflict with deep roots in culture, poverty, religion, etc. has ever been lessened for any meaningful period of time until both sides come to the table and do some serious give and take... plain and simple... we will learn this eventually in the middle east, but i see it being put off at least another four years now

4) in the end, the president has a lot less control over the economy than most like to think... the fed and the congress have a lot more power in this area... that said, i am disappointed by bush's complete inability to curb wasteful spending by using his veto power... congress is moving us into a position where our economy can not possibly grow fast enough under any realistic scenario to avoid some major sacrifices down the road... you don't believe me? check back on this thread in four years

the above are not necessarily issues with the republican party btw, just with the current president... i voted for bush senior... a president who understood the importance of diplomacy and working with world leaders... and a man who was willing to make tough choices, choices that cost him re-election, to attempt to bring our federal budget back in the black

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You look at it through European eyes - I look at it through American eyes - it's MY president - not the world's president. His goal is to do what I think will best protect MY country. I think Bush is doing that.

I didn't say it was the world's president, he's all yours. (I don't want him ) Regardless of the fact that his policy will have influence on the rest of the world. All I wanted to say that he won't only be thinking of the war and the protection of the USA for the next 4 years. There will be other issues dealt with too, environment, society, economics too. Let's say it this way: were I an American voter those issues would have probably had more weight in my decision. I know the war is a big, if not giant issue for a lot of your voters but I personally think it's made into more than it is.

See - I think the idea of "anyone but Bush" is completely ridiculous. That is the worst reason to vote for someone. Give a reason for voting FOR a candidate. No one has any reason for this idea other than the fact that they don't like the fact that Bush tells it as it is - that someone has finally said - we are not taking any crap after 9/11, the Middle East WILL change, that we will not go back into appeasement mode. What do you suggest? Negotiation with the terrorists? Why is is "anyone but Bush? I find it ironic that you say that Americans shouldn't have voted FOR Bush because of the war - but that is the reasons why most outsiders were hoping Bush would lose. It can't be because of his tax cuts, his views on abortion, his views on stem cell research, etc - because those do NOT concern the outside world and are none of their business.

I suggested nothing of that kind. Let me stress that my dislike of Bush is not only because of the war. I do not speak of all outsiders, I speak only for myself.

I don't see why my preference or dislike of foreign politicians should be determined by their foreign policies. I can be concerned about the American environment, civil rights and government spending as well, even if it does not concern me directly. And those factors can as thus also play in my judgement of foreign politicians. I may not have to vote for them but that doesn't mean I can't have an idea on who I think would be a better president, Chansellor, PM, whatever... for that specific country. I do not always strickly think from the viewpoint of my own country.

I was NEVER an undecided voter when it came to this election.

I never said you were. But I was under the impression that during this election there was a large number voters undecided even until shortly before the election. Thus I assumed it was that group that ultimatedly was influenced by all the anti-Bush comments and 'decided' on the outcome of the election.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

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.

I'm gonna have to hope JD helps me out here again, but a president's primary responsibility, IIRC, is foreign policy and head of the armed forces. We've had peace so much of the time here in the US, and I think this aspect has been forgotten. Congress is more for domestic policies, I think (as brownie said, "in the end, the president has a lot less control over the economy than most like to think... the fed and the congress have a lot more power in this area"). That's why it was an impossibility for the previous Pres. Bush to keep his "no new taxes" pledge - he can do everything possible on HIS side, but Congress can overrule him in this area. Anyway, the different branches of govt focus on different areas, tho they all tend to have some say in all areas. They overlap - but their focus is different. So it is entirely reasonable to make foreign policy/war a major reason to vote for a candidate.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i can't say i was really psyched about john kerry... i would have preferred a dean on the dem side, or a mccain on the rep side...

I just wanted to say that I completely agree with this. If McCain runs in '08, he definitely has my vote. Of all the Republicans I've ever done research on, I've always liked him the best. ::shrug::

[Rían]

I like McCain, too.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm gonna have to hope JD helps me out here again, but a president's primary responsibility, IIRC, is foreign policy and head of the armed forces. ... They overlap - but their focus is different. So it is entirely reasonable to make foreign policy/war a major reason to vote for a candidate.

Exactly. The president can propose things to congress, set agendas and direction - but domestic issues is basicallyu 100% determined by Congress. Bush cahn NOT take away the right of abortion (something that the democrat have screamed repulbicans would do since at least reagan), Congress determines spending. Even though the budget is submitted by the President - it MUST be okayed by congress, and is usually different than the president's "wish list". "No Child Left" behind, although submitted by Bush - was a BI-PARTISAN effort in Congress with the support of Ted Kennedy. Without the support of Congress, the president can not do anything domestically and is basically a figurehead for international relations. Many people - non-Americans, as well as Americans - have no understanding of the presidents role or power. Most outsiders see him as representing America - therefore he must have all this power - especially when democrats and to some extent the Rebulicans - try to make it seem as if the president has more power than he does.

Also - as you said - the president has very little to do with the economy - either positively or negatively. Some actions can influence it - but can not change it overnight. Bush went through a lot that affected the economy that was beyond his control. The recent oil prices have largely been affected by the number of oil platforms in the Gulf Coast being damaged during the Hurricanes - not to mention they had to be shut down during these times. Oil prices have also been heavily affected by Putin's action against the largest oill company in Russia (where he out the owner, his rival in jail). China is another cause for the high oill prices - they're sucking up oil because of all the building and growth they are doing. All these things are out of the presidents hands.

Brownjenkins -
Except for the Israeli conflict (and only slightly at that) there is NO comparison between those kind of terrorism like Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is using things to justify his actions - things he has never cared about before - his stated goal though is one thing - the destruction of the West - starting with America. The IRA's goal was not to destroy Britain. Al Qaeda wishes the overthrow of Saudi Arabia so he can bring the west to it's knees, he wish to have Taliban style islam rule the world. You seem to want to ignore this fact and want to believe his propaganda he puts together.

Earnial -
As far as I'm concerned - what goes on internally in the US is up to Americans - not up to outsiders. That is why I think it is no concern to you whether we aloow or don't allow abortions, or stem cell resrearch, or the death penalty (which I support). It doesn't concern anyone outside this country.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Exactly. The president can propose things to congress, set agendas and direction - but domestic issues is basicallyu 100% determined by Congress. ...

Thanks, JD!

Earnial -
As far as I'm concerned - what goes on internally in the US is up to Americans - not up to outsiders. That is why I think it is no concern to you whether we aloow or don't allow abortions, or stem cell resrearch, or the death penalty (which I support). It doesn't concern anyone outside this country.

I think what goes on in America is up to Americans, but I think it IS a valid concern of Eärniel's, because she's a person just like we are. If she has an opinion, I'd like to hear it, because I respect her. Then I, as an American, will vote acc'd to what I think is right, based on all the inputs I have, including hers.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think what goes on in America is up to Americans, but I think it IS a valid concern of Eärniel's, because she's a person just like we are. If she has an opinion, I'd like to hear it, because I respect her. Then I, as an American, will vote acc'd to what I think is right, based on all the inputs I have, including hers.

Having an opinion is one thing. But the decision is up to Americans - and people must understand that it is 100% our decision. We are not Europe and we have different values and ideas.

As a comparison - I can care less if Chirac bans headscarves in school and public places such as hospitals and so forth - my opinion is that it's a stupid and racist - but that's my opinion. You don't hear many americans (or even others) on here condemming that or calling for Chirac to be out of office. Talk about an infringement on personal freedom though. They can vote for Chirac if they want - and they can support that ban - that doesn't affect my life here in the US. That is where the difference is in what she was saying - and what I am saying. She wasn't talking about disagreeing with certain issues, she was saying who would have been a better president based on domestic concerns.

I may not have to vote for them but that doesn't mean I can't have an idea on who I think would be a better president, Chansellor, PM, whatever... for that specific country. I do not always strickly think from the viewpoint of my own country.

How can she not be making her decision from the viewpoint of her country? She doesn't know fully the issues of America - she sees these issues in the lens of her media (even though she says she doesn't - it's impossible not to) - not US media (which is generally liberal here anyway). But someone living outside the US does NOT have a complete understanding of American domestic issues. They only have half the picture - if that. That is one of the reasons she doesn't think the war is that big of an issue and is made out to be more than it is. It is still surprising to see how little people understand the role and power of the president. Kerry couldn't have done anything he proposed he was going to do - without Congress - but presidents go around saying "I'll do this, or I'll do that" and people actually believe they have this power because they do NOT understand the Constitution. Bush has NO power to just put in any Supreme Court justice he wants - it must be okayed by Congress.

Look at our governor - many people here felt that he's so hated becuase he is gay - but hardly anyone knows about all the scandals he's had while being in office and all the crap New Jerseyans have had to put up with him. It isn't that he's gay that we're glad he's gone - but that is the only thing that the rest of the country (and world) has really heard about.

[Nurvingiel]

JD, there's a lot of Americans that probably don't even know as much as you! (Unless everyone is really well-versed in American history. I mean, haven't you only been stumped once? )

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

JD, there's a lot of Americans that probably don't even know as much as you! (Unless everyone is really well-versed in American history. I mean, haven't you only been stumped once? )

Thanks. But can you please point out where i was stumped? I do think that Americans should have an understanding of the way the US works - and it's frustrating when I find so many people who have no idea. I can let slide people from other countries not having a full understanding - but it is rather irritating when they just think that we should be like them (not saying Earniel was saying this, but others).