Join 3,439 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


How Bush Did It
November 4, 2004 8:05 PM   Subscribe

How Bush Did It "A team of Newsweek reporters unveils the untold fears, secret battles and private emotions behind a historic election." An in-depth series of behind-the-scenes articles. [via Salon 's War Room, which also says Bush's bulge was a bulletproof vest.]
posted by kirkaracha (55 comments total)

 
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. - Will Rogers
posted by Ron at 8:54 PM on November 4, 2004


perhaps stuff like this helped too?
posted by amberglow at 8:55 PM on November 4, 2004


I heart you amberglow but I gotta admit that if you and the other pro-Kerry American MeFi members had spent the time you used to post political posts to Metafilter on going out and doing things in the real world, you might--the world might--be in a different situation than the one it's in.

I think the most powerful thing that Democrats can learn from this election is this: the Internet is the new TV, squared. Y'All think that these last months you've been sticking it to Bush with your online actions... he's laughing at you. He wants you to get mad and post to hell and back online because it's useless. He knows it's useless. This election proved it's useless. 2004 proved you can't change shit with a mouse. You have to interact with real people.

Just imagine if all the effort that went into reading/posting mefi political posts, squabbles, arguments, whatever, had been spent doing something useful regarding politics. How many thousands of man-hours were wasted with here when you could have been making a difference?
posted by dobbs at 9:16 PM on November 4, 2004


Dobbs - I would have to agree.

that said i wonder what the election result would have been without the gay voting measure on the Ohio ballot.

More than that i have a sick feeling that the dropping dollar versus every other major currency in the last couple of days will continue, and demonstrate to america that we are now entrenched in a global economy and the world does not approve.

I have seen it suggested that we give the UN 5 electoral votes and a rotating seat in our house of representatives.... Radical? perhaps, although it seems timely as it would instill much more faith in the rest of the world.
posted by sourbrew at 9:22 PM on November 4, 2004


I'm definitely with dobbs on this one. Political blogs and armchair junkies (myself included) were ready to mobilize without the benefit of human communication. We needed to be out there, somehow finding a way to get through to the purples that this was an important fight. The good news is that we have the 2006 midterm elections. We can begin mobilizing right now and learn from our lessons. Now is the time for unity. The fate of our nation depends upon it.
posted by ed at 9:24 PM on November 4, 2004


Ignorant Canadian question: what's in 2006? I thought you had elections every 4 years.
posted by dobbs at 9:29 PM on November 4, 2004


I have seen it suggested that we give the UN 5 electoral votes and a rotating seat in our house of representatives.... Radical? perhaps, although it seems timely as it would instill much more faith in the rest of the world.

heh. Forget 'radical' and try unconstitutional.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:33 PM on November 4, 2004


Representatives in the House serve two-year terms and Senators serve six years.
posted by Utilitaritron at 9:36 PM on November 4, 2004


We were out there too--many of us worked hard on this election--offline and on. Don't assume what you don't know.
posted by amberglow at 9:38 PM on November 4, 2004


I have seen it suggested that we give the UN 5 electoral votes and a rotating seat in our house of representatives....

Are you serious? What countries give the US voting rights? I wasn't aware we had American Parlimentary members stationed in countries around the world. If so, yeah, sure they should get a piece of our action too, since we're controling them so well.
posted by mathowie at 9:39 PM on November 4, 2004


We were out there too--many of us worked hard on this election--offline and on.

Clearly, we didn't work hard enough.
posted by ed at 9:46 PM on November 4, 2004


I recognize my above comment will generate all kinds of trolling i did not mean for it to. Imagine though that in our currently evolving global situation it is perhaps time to start acknowledging on a global level that it does infarct exist instead of playing lip service to it with the UN. Furthermore the US prides itself as being a trendsetting voice in democracy, and this would be a step towards a functional global government. Beyond that as a moderate liberal i think i can assume that most of the UN would probably vote along the lines i want, especially with the increasing power of the EU, so for me its a vote to censor conservatives.

mathowie - Are you serious? What countries give the US voting rights? I wasn't aware we had American parliamentary members stationed in countries around the world. If so, yeah, sure they should get a piece of our action too, since we're controlling them so well.

yes, yes i am serious. No we do not have parliamentary members but you would be ignoring the facts to say that we do not influence the government of every single country in the world in a way that is not really reciprocated in our own government, do we watch their elections in the same way they watch ours? no because we know our desires will still be cared for.

S@L- heh. Forget 'radical' and try unconstitutional.

Yes i understand its unconstitutional, but thats what amendments are for and the world is not the same place it was when that holiest of holy documents was written. It's time we stop separating ourselves as americans or canadians or any other boundary and just admit that we're humans... ideological? definitely, but so was everything our country was founded on.
posted by sourbrew at 9:48 PM on November 4, 2004


side note im not sure why the spell checker sees infarct as a word.

\aparently it is a word
\\infarct - An area of tissue that undergoes necrosis as a result of obstruction of local blood supply, as by a thrombus or embolus.
posted by sourbrew at 9:56 PM on November 4, 2004


perhaps stuff like this helped too?

Perhaps you should take off that tinfoil hat every once in a while.

I have seen it suggested that we give the UN 5 electoral votes and a rotating seat in our house of representatives.... Radical? perhaps, although it seems timely as it would instill much more faith in the rest of the world.

Wow. If the left takes that stand you can protest, post on mefi, get on tv, whatever, the democratic party will cease to exist in any relevant way.
posted by justgary at 9:59 PM on November 4, 2004


justgary - not a democrat, just think the world is headed to the shitter unless we start working together. Voted for kerry because bush's international policy has been awful, didn't really like either.
posted by sourbrew at 10:01 PM on November 4, 2004


More than that i have a sick feeling that the dropping dollar versus every other major currency in the last couple of days will continue, and demonstrate to america that we are now entrenched in a global economy and the world does not approve.

Or it could be the logical (and inevitable) result of deficit spending in the face of a recession-- a policy that will make US goods more competitive overseas, thereby boosting domestic employment and (eventually) stimulating aggregate demand. Whether you buy the logic or not, it's the same prescription that the Keynesians have been writing for 75 years.

I hope the anthropomorphism I sensed in your comment was my imagination. The forex market neither approves or disapproves--it merely finds equilibrium.
posted by trharlan at 10:03 PM on November 4, 2004


trharlan - Yes it will have that effect but eventually its going to prevent americans from buying imports from over seas which will stagnate competition in the internal market. We have told italy in the past that adjusting your currency in such a manner is a rocky slope. It's hard to walk such a fine line.
posted by sourbrew at 10:06 PM on November 4, 2004


I have seen it suggested that we give the UN 5 electoral votes and a rotating seat in our house of representatives.... Radical? perhaps, although it seems timely as it would instill much more faith in the rest of the world.

Not merely radical, but downright Chomskyian. These are the sort of well-intended but horrendously out-of-touch-with-reality ideas that give the left a bad name and aggressively score negative points for the U.S. progressive movement. (In the words of Jon Stewart: "Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America" with ideas like these.) In fact, if we collect enough of these proposals together, we might be able to harness the massive spinning-in-their-graves power generated by certain centuries-old dead white men (Hancock et al.) as an alternative energy source.

That'll solve our oil problem too, right?

(This election, 11 new states were added to the list of states that have already explicitly banned gay marriage, and Bush won largely on "moral issues"--and yet, he still had no chance at all with his anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment. Good luck with yours.)
posted by DaShiv at 10:16 PM on November 4, 2004


DaShiv - obviously i understand this has a snow ball in hell's chance of happening, and i think it would be horrible to push it as political agenda. I guess more what i was trying to convey that no one in todays age is willing to make sweeping changes. Something has to give one way or another and we need some sort of figure who people can polarize around to make them happen. Bush seems to polarize people towards an increasingly in debt, moralistic, and isolationist america. That seems like slow suicide to me.
posted by sourbrew at 10:19 PM on November 4, 2004


Plenty of us were out there, but Karl Rove's strategy of using churches as a bully pit was far more effective than I thought it would be. That said, I think all the work online was great and very meaningful.

This was a CLOSE election people. There is no mandate. The only slimmer margin of victory ever was last time.
posted by xammerboy at 10:34 PM on November 4, 2004


Dobbs: Y'All think that these last months you've been sticking it to Bush with your online actions... he's laughing at you. He wants you to get mad and post to hell and back online because it's useless. He knows it's useless. This election proved it's useless. 2004 proved you can't change shit with a mouse.

I hope that's true, so that maybe all the politicos, demagogues, preachers, protesters and prophets would leave the net. Then us engineers, scientists, hackers and file-swappers could have cyberspace to ourselves again and get some work done.

Shoo!

But leave the porn.
posted by spazzm at 10:38 PM on November 4, 2004


More than that i have a sick feeling that the dropping dollar versus every other major currency in the last couple of days will continue, and demonstrate to america that we are now entrenched in a global economy and the world does not approve.

I have to echo trharlan's concern about the inappropriateness of your conflating political approval with currency exchange rates. The "sick feeling" you're feeling about this seems either misattributed, misguided, or both.

I really don't mean to sound condescending, but please stop and breathe for a moment, sourbrew. It has been an emotional election all around, but presidents, congressmen, governors, they all come and go, and America as a country has survived an awful lot of bad leaders and even worse policies. Getting involved with a political organization or an advocacy group will give you some important context that you won't find in your classes about how to fight against an "in debt, moralistic, and isolationist America." There are people working for changes already, rather than simply sitting and waiting for "someone" to come by for them to "polarize around." Don't just curl up and feel sick: be a part of the solution and help them. Sweeping changes take not just willingness, but time--and an awful lot of work.

If you fall into the category of one of the many campaign workers crushed by this defeat, I can sympathize, since it happens to one side or the other in every election. There's at least one loser for every winner in politics. However, throwing around ludicrous pie-in-the-sky ideas out of frustration instead of continuing the good fight has the tendency of making the exact wrong people take you seriously instead. Who knows how many people are going to point to your suggestion as "proof" of the stereotype that "those damn liberuls" want to force America kowtow to Europe and the UN?

It's all too easy to be our own worst enemy. Especially in our worst moments.
posted by DaShiv at 10:51 PM on November 4, 2004


I have a hard time believing the gay marriage thing did it for Bush.

Bush won 51/49 in Ohio, yet the marriage ammendment passed 62/38. Kerry won Oregon 51/48 and the marriage ammendment passed 57/43. So clearly lots of people voted for Kerry and for the gay marriage ban.

Here's why Kerry lost: he is for gay marriage but never said so. He is for gun control but never said so. He is against the war in Iraq but never said so. I think we all have a pretty good idea where Kerry the person stands on the issues but where Kerry the candidate stood is a different story.

On the other hand Bush's personal views seem to be reflected in his public stances. Even if he is a bumbling moron who screws up a lot, it makes him the more believable - and therefore more likeable - candidate.

I think the sooner we realize this fact and stop blaming "Guns, Gays and God" or thumbing our nose at those apparent inbred redneck bible thumping hicks, the more likely we are to get our guy in the White House next time.
posted by b_thinky at 11:15 PM on November 4, 2004


I wasn't aware we had American Parlimentary members stationed in countries around the world. If so, yeah, sure they should get a piece of our action too, since we're controling them so well.

Well, no, but you do have a metric assload of bases and soldiers all over the map, for better or worse.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:24 PM on November 4, 2004


I think we need to consider one possibility which we have thus far laughingly dismissed: that Bush actually is favored by God.
posted by Hildago at 11:51 PM on November 4, 2004


DaShiv - I recognize and respect your feelings that perhaps I'm some misguided and emotional injured college student parroting what i hear in classes etc as a means of providing context for my feelings. However, not knowing me i wish you would kindly refrain from making them. As for pie in the sky ideas, i have not at any point expressed a belief that any of these things will come to pass, and have claimed that i see them as being damaging from a political perspective.

In terms of the economic impact i suggest you think about the long term effect of a decreased dollar. Sure it will mean that we sell more products abroad in the short term, however eventually it means that we will no longer be able to buy products from abroad. This decrease in foreign stimulus will mean that american products will loose the need to diversify for our internal markets. For instance in the 1980's when japanese cars started appearing in truckloads a corresponding increase in the features available on cars appeared in US markets. This allowed US cars to stay competitive, however if there is no influx of external products into our market then there is no reason to foster the same level of competition at home. Eventually this will result in american products no longer being competitive in foreign markets and an increasing reliance on US goods.

Now don't take me too seriously I'm not predicting the imminent decline of the US economy i'm just suggesting that the current decline in the value of the dollar is representative of a lack of faith in the US abroad. One may take a quick trip to leMonde(french), and get a glimpse of that for yourself. Hopefully things will change and this won't be an issue. However i see no real reason to believe that terrorism will stop. Bin Laden has laid out a fairly reasonable means for bankrupting the US and religion is being incorporated into our government in a way it never has before.

I vehemently believe that some sort of radical change is needed, if not in the democratic party then in the creation of some new party. It is obvious that the democratic party has failed in the last 8 years to compete in a meaningful way the republicans. Perhaps these ideas seem like wasted thought and ultimately unproductive, but it seems clear that I and others have been failed by the american political system.

It is only by examining new ideas that one can change a stagnant situation, and 12 years of an increasing republican majority in the senate seems pretty stagnant to me. At what point will the democratic party or some new segment of america realize that what they are doing is not having an effect? Democrats not only lost the presidential election but also 4 houses in the senate and 3 in the house of representatives. Thats pretty damning evidence that trying to be a cookie cutter republican party with a softer edge isn't working.

Perhaps instead of billing me as a confused adolescent or a dejected individual, consider that there is a very real need for change if the american political system is going to continue to speak for more than 51% of its population at any given time. As for my allusions that we need to include the world, sure it would be impossible for most americans to swallow but i guarantee you it would make the rest of the world feel better, and i still firmly believe that its time we started paying attention to that.

In bush's debate he criticized kerry for suggesting that he cared what france thought about the US. I find that sort of belief to be awfully frightening in a world where China and the EU gain significant economic power every year.

\sorry for the thread jack
\\sorry for being long winded
posted by sourbrew at 12:05 AM on November 5, 2004


A translated French article which is highly indicative of what the rest of the world thinks about our election.

- badly translated, i was too lazy to do a proper job and let google do it for me.
posted by sourbrew at 12:21 AM on November 5, 2004


I'm happy to be wrong about you, sourbrew.

I have seen it suggested that we give the UN 5 electoral votes and a rotating seat in our house of representatives.... Radical? perhaps, although it seems timely as it would instill much more faith in the rest of the world.

While I agree that our actions have repercussions around the world, my main objection is that by finding it "timely" to give the rest of the world direct representation in our own government, you've tacitly endorsed it. I agree that we are the most influential country in this world at this moment (although it's fair for some to argue that this is more through military and economic might than through the prestige we've lost abroad), but with some already questioning our involvement in the UN (a major issue during Clinton's administration), a move to give the world a direct say in our self-governance is the exact opposite of "timely" in our current xenophobic political atmosphere. We could debate if this would ever be feasible, but that's more appropriate for a UN/world government thread.

In terms of the economic impact i suggest you think about the long term effect of a decreased dollar.

I'm well aware of the economic repercussions of the weakening dollar, but I agree with trharlan that it's the result of economic factors like our deficient spending rather than "approval" over who we voted for president. If Kerry couldn't balance the budget and war costs escalate (or if there's another financial disaster), we'd still be in the same weak dollar boat. I can support a healthier policy toward strengthening the dollar (and I had never criticized your objection to current trends in the dollar), but my concern was directed toward your tying this in with your professed feeling of despondancy over Bush's reelection and having unnecessarily anthropomorphized changes exchange rates as a sign of lacking world "approval" when, in fact, it's a matter of market forces and economic theory. I think a more detailed discussion of the harmful effects of Bush's economic policies should be done in another thread, but I don't think too many would disagree with you there.

It is only by examining new ideas that one can change a stagnant situation, and 12 years of an increasing republican majority in the senate seems pretty stagnant to me.

And the Democrats controlled the House for over 40 years before that. We're in simply in a phase of the pendulum swing that's not terribly well-received by MeFi. I do agree this country has become remarkably conservative, but I believe we've hit a nadir. Others have said that "this is all Bush's mess now" and I agree. There will be reckoning to come for Iraq, stirring the anti-gay sentiments, and all the other divisive moves, as long as people are willing to keep the pressure on and continue to work toward progress. The only question is how many obstacles (Supreme Court appointments, etc) BushCo will throw in the way. I have faith in the conscience of America until then. In the meantime, however, I refuse to play their partisan games and widen the "us vs. them" mentality by opening up potentially new wedge issues, such as foreign representation in Congress and the Electoral College.

Perhaps instead of billing me as a confused adolescent or a dejected individual, consider that there is a very real need for change if the american political system is going to continue to speak for more than 51% of its population at any given time.

That's how things have always worked, with the majority trampling over dissent going all the way back to arguments over Federalism and so on with Adams and Jefferson. This is just the result of being on the receiving side of the tyranny of the majority for the time being--for better or for worse, Democrats are a narrow but clear minority for the time being. I'm sure many of the conservatives were feeling oppressed in previous fights over civil rights, etc. It's not like we're at the point where gays need to be escorted to their jobs by armed National Guards, for example. How has the system failed us worse now than at earlier points in history? Do you really think the system has failed, or are you just unhappy that things aren't going the way you want them to?

I'm personally more concerned about protecting our procedural issues (such as electronic voting and Tom DeLay's illegal gerrymandering in Texas) than trying to change the system wholesale. In my view, just because the Democrats lost doesn't mean the system failed. They have two years to do what damage they can before they're forced to answer for it with midterm elections. I expect to see no shortage of filibusters by the Democrats in the Senate and fodder for the Daily Show.

As for my allusions that we need to include the world, sure it would be impossible for most americans to swallow but i guarantee you it would make the rest of the world feel better, and i still firmly believe that its time we started paying attention to that.

What makes you think the blue state people haven't been paying attention to it? As the brouhaha over Kerry's "global test" remark shows though, at this point such sentiments are a political liability. Yet another sign of our times, and the defeat of the Democrats this election means that the nation wants to continue the course of unilateralism. Unfortunately, the majority of voters in this country disagrees with you.

In bush's debate he criticized kerry for suggesting that he cared what france thought about the US. I find that sort of belief to be awfully frightening in a world where China and the EU gain significant economic power every year.

There are no shortages of reasons why people find a second Bush term "awfully frightening." Not many of people, however, think that tinkering with the Constitution is a good way to assuage those fears. I don't want to make it seem like I'm harping on the same issue repeatedly, but my initial responses were directed at that particular proposal you brought up and the context by which you had done so. I think you'll find that on the substance of the issues, we're not in disagreement at all.
posted by DaShiv at 1:24 AM on November 5, 2004


amen dashiv i would agree with most of that. I do think though that the exchange rate is directly linked to foreign concerns about our economy. This graph shows the euro over the last 30 days. It has a clear spike towards the end.

Typically the exchange rate fluctuates relevant to our stock market, however our stock market has rallied in the last 2 days by about 300 points based on investor trust in the statistical raise in the market when an incumbent is relected. However, this time there is no corresponding rise in the value of the dollar abroad. I feel thats a clear indictment of foreign opinion concerning our economy.

Also my friends abroad have essentially confirmed this belief at least in the european union. At the rise of rehashing the whole UN in our political process, obviously the rest of america dosn't agree with it, but then again they also outlawed gay marriage. I recognize its almost impossible to force opinon on the US, but woodrow willson was instrumental in creating the UN something that we haven't wanted since it was formed. I still think some sort of polarizing figure could do similar things for the left, and i don't think its Hillary Clinton.
posted by sourbrew at 1:46 AM on November 5, 2004


I think we need to consider one possibility which we have thus far laughingly dismissed: that Bush actually is favored by God.

Then God is a really twisted sort of guy who I want nothing to do with thank you very much!
posted by twistedonion at 1:53 AM on November 5, 2004


rise should be risk..... the mefi comment box is too small for these diatribes.
posted by sourbrew at 1:54 AM on November 5, 2004


For a limited time only, you too can get the finger from the Pres, thanks to the BBC. Go to 'related links' down bottom right hand side; click on the 'Whitehouse' link.
posted by iffley at 2:43 AM on November 5, 2004


Absurdity is the only valid reaction to some situations.
posted by iffley at 2:44 AM on November 5, 2004


heh. Forget 'radical' and try unconstitutional.

well the CIA is uncostitutional, too. but you don't hear many wingnuts pointing that out
posted by matteo at 4:09 AM on November 5, 2004


sourbrew ... other countries own much of our debt and much of the oil we need for our country ... they don't NEED 5 seats in congress ... they have a power much greater than that

soon, we will see them use it
posted by pyramid termite at 5:00 AM on November 5, 2004


Thank you, Michael Moore for being the world's largest asshole and propagandist.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:03 AM on November 5, 2004


You really are pathetic, PP. Honestly, at least make an attempt, won't you?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:21 AM on November 5, 2004


pyramid termite - I was suggesting one seat, and only in the house of representatives. But a whopping 5 electoral votes.

That said I know you're right but much like my rather long winded discussion with DaShiv, i highly doubt any positive reaction would be garnered from the american people through the use of their powers.
posted by sourbrew at 5:54 AM on November 5, 2004


The forex market neither approves or disapproves--it merely finds equilibrium.

I think we need to consider one possibility which we have thus far laughingly dismissed: that Bush actually is favored by God.


The Great Invisible Hand of the market loves God's Chosen One. Especially in JesusLand. With the God of Materialism holding hands with the God of Hating Those Who Are Different, we're sure to get the Armageddon the evangelicals want so badly, don'tcha' think?
posted by nofundy at 6:02 AM on November 5, 2004


> other pro-Kerry American MeFi members had spent the time you used to post political posts to Metafilter on going out and doing things in the real world,

Don't blame the medium, blame the message.

The Internet is a fine communication and organization tool.

The post on Metafilter were shrill sermons to the choir.

Case in point: this thread
posted by dand at 6:03 AM on November 5, 2004


This was a CLOSE election people. There is no mandate. The only slimmer margin of victory ever was last time.

Bush & Co. are claiming a mandate because he received the largest number of votes ever cast for a presidential candidate. What we need to remind everybody is that the person who received the second largest number of votes is John Kerry.

I gotta admit that if you and the other pro-Kerry American MeFi members had spent the time you used to post political posts to Metafilter on going out and doing things in the real world, you might--the world might--be in a different situation than the one it's in.


No. Communication is never wrong. Speaking as a Kerry supporter in a Solidly Red state, I needed the support and encouragement I found here. You guys kept me up to date on every scandal, every misstep of the Bush administration and armed me with knowledge on how to counterattack arguments by Bush & Co. supporters.

The truth is the Democratic party accomplished everything we wanted to do. We thought that new and undecided voters would vote against the incumbent as has always happened in the past. We thought we had the numbers.

We would have won, except that Karl Rove was able to deliver the Evangelic Christian vote in even greater numbers.

About two weeks before the election, I saw a CNN news report on Faith and Politics. One story was about RVs that could be requested by pastors to visit their church. The RV would park in the parking lot, whole families would be encouraged to go inside and view a video presentation. The very slick video was all about how Christians needed to vote to protect their way of life that was being destroyed by the increasing secularism of America (see: Janet Jackson's nipple.)

The video was careful not to endorse a candidate for President, but it ended its very stirring message with a swell of emotional music and the image of George Bush praying. (No images of Kerry were shown.)

So now is the time for the Democrats to come together and strategize about what we are going to do. And the first thing is we need to get angry. We need to stop being sad. We need to stop wringing our hands and casting blame on each other. We need to stop talking about giving up or moving away. We need to put our heads together and figure out how we are going to battle this Republican Sweep.

And the internet is going to help. By bringing us together.

Some ideas:
1. We need to start grooming candidates; it is never too early. This means the party machine getting John Edwards a governing job. This means Marketing Obama. Searching our base for the up-and-coming.

2. We need to take back "Values." We are the party of values and never let anyone forget this. We are the party of the little guy. We are the party of freedom.

The vast majority of Americans want those safety nets that we fought so hard for and that Republicans (The Party of BIg Business) want to dismantle. The next time old people start freezing to death because Bush withheld the federal aid for heating-- remind people. The next time contaminated meat kills people because the USDA inspectors have been cut-- remind people. The next time corporate greed gets out of hand and pensions disappear--remind people. The next time John Ashcroft arrests a US citizen and holds him without charges or access to a lawyer-- remind people. Write a letter to your neighbor, tell a neighbor, start a blog. Just keep pounding it home. We. Are. The. Party. Of. The. Little. Guy. We stand for the poor, the disenfranchised, the powerless. They stand for greed.

And Karl Rove has played his trump card. The Evangelical vote is only going to dissipate because:

1. The Republicans are not going to be able to deliver enough. They won't be able to completely outlaw Roe vs. Wade. They won't be able to pass a national constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. They won't be able to force prayers in school.

They might get some abortion restrictions and a few more state constitutional amendments, but take heart-- state constitutions are easily amended and re-ammended.

But the culture won't change. Americans will still watch sitcoms about gays. Commercials will still sell with sex. Movies will still be just as violent and just as sexy. Because that is what Americans want.

So the Evangelicals will get disgusted with politics and they will really get disgusted with The Republican Tent when they discover just who it is they have gotten in bed with. I hope they start their own political party.

2. America had an Evangelical revival in the 19th century. It ended. And so will this one. When Armageddon doesn't happen, when the suppressed younger generation grows up, when people find that prayer is not making them any richer or happier, the movement will begin to die out.

Time will only help The Great and Good Democratic Party.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:14 AM on November 5, 2004


How'd Bush do it?

Not by appealing to voters' intelligence, apparently.
posted by alumshubby at 6:38 AM on November 5, 2004


matteo, in what sense is the CIA unconstitutional? There have been arguments in the past about the consitutionality of keeping the CIA's budget secret, but not whether the existence of the agency is constitutional.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:38 AM on November 5, 2004


alumshubby -- the only problem is that the data on that page is hoax data, and was used to try to make the same point in 2000.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:42 AM on November 5, 2004


My apologies. I've been had.
posted by alumshubby at 6:48 AM on November 5, 2004


No problem. If you click through one of the links you'll see some semi-accurate IQ data based on SAT/ACT scores. The data is somewhat similar to the hoax data, but it's not quite as stark blue vs. red, and thus doesn't make as strong of a point.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:02 AM on November 5, 2004


pardonyou, ISTR when we lived in Michigan, we kids were encouraged to take the SAT only if we were college bound, while here in SC the SAT is pushed at pretty much everybody who makes it to their senior year of high school. That's even more anecdotal and highly suspect, I suppose, but...
posted by alumshubby at 7:08 AM on November 5, 2004


You're pretty much right. If you aren't interested in either going to college, or going to college out of state, you don't take the SAT. If you know you're going to go to college in Michigan, you just take the ACT.

I think the data is based on both SAT and ACT results, and they claim to allot for the fact that people taking those tests are college-bound by subtracting 10 points. But I'm not sure how they figure out an IQ from SAT/ACT scores. Seems suspect to me.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:17 AM on November 5, 2004


well the CIA is uncostitutional, too. but you don't hear many wingnuts pointing that out

I just heard one!
posted by dhoyt at 7:22 AM on November 5, 2004


how can you even consider such a table like that (the iq results) true? why on earth would people from one state to another vary in innate intelligence? just where did you stand on the whole "black people have a low iq" issue a few years ago? it amazes me how hypocritical the so-called left is in america - they accuse the right of being arrogant, insular, ignorant fools, yet act like bad caricatures of the people they claim to despise.

you screwed up royally by preaching to the extremes rather than trying to understand. now, rather than trying to learn from your mistakes, you burrying your heads deeper into the sands. what a bunch of unsympathetic, closed-minded (yes - you - you can be pro-gay and still a moron!) arrogant cunts you are.
posted by andrew cooke at 7:53 AM on November 5, 2004


but my concern was directed toward your tying this in with your professed feeling of despondancy over Bush's reelection and having unnecessarily anthropomorphized changes exchange rates as a sign of lacking world "approval" when, in fact, it's a matter of market forces and economic theory.

These things aren't abstract, though. THey're in the real world. "market forces" are not weather patterns or uncontrollable wildlife. They ultimately come down to what people want. I know a lot of it is played in semi-abstract bond trading and stuff like that, but if the world stops buying american products, that will still have an effect on our economy. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that europeans at least will be less inclined to buy american after this election. If our economy is weak and euro is strong, those bond traders will be less inclined to rely on dollars and might start turning to the euro, which is doing pretty well, and may become the international currency the way the dollar has been.

Obviously bush has other problems economically - the real estate market may crash, oil prices might continue to rise, and the deficit is getting beyond a point that even keynesians think is healthy...
posted by mdn at 8:41 AM on November 5, 2004


you screwed up royally by preaching to the extremes rather than trying to understand

Understand what? That red states are filled with homophobic, xenophobic, war-loving, non-critical-thinking, religious nut-jobs? Just what is it that we missed?

Let's see.

Still think Iraq == Al Qaida.
Still think Al Quaida == cohesive world organization.
Still think homosexuals are evil.
Still think prayer belongs in our schools.
Still think foriegners should stay in their own countries.
Still think the Bush tax cut actually helped you.
Still think the U.S. can win the war in Iraq.

...even after ALL those commercials and debates and Front-Page-Posts. Explaining things to Republicans is like teaching algebra to a retarded child. After a while you just want to beat your head against a wall.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:24 AM on November 5, 2004


Things you might have discovered if you'd read the links in the post:posted by kirkaracha at 10:31 AM on November 5, 2004


Kerry, although he lost, got more votes this year than Bush did in 2000, right?
posted by tapeguy at 10:52 AM on November 5, 2004


I think we need to consider one possibility which we have thus far laughingly dismissed: that Bush actually is favored by God.

Then it stands to reason that (g)od approves of the 100,000 dead Iraqis. It all makes perfect sense now.

Here's an idea: how many Americans feel like they can pray about something and get a discrete, objective answer to their prayers? Because if the answer if "not that many" then what does it matter who God favors?
posted by mecran01 at 3:15 PM on November 5, 2004


« Older Ed Helms's and Stephen Colbert's election analysis...  |  QRIME... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments