"Misunderestimated" Bush?

[Augustus]

I pose this question to the anti-Bush folks here at SDN - Have you fundimentally underestimated the poltical strength of Bush and the Republicans?

Given the fact that Bush is the first President since '88 to win over 50% of the popular vote, even more than the last 2 two term President (Clinton's highest was 42%). Also that he is the only President since '64 to both win reelection and expand his majorities in Congress. That he is the only President to have done the above and also pick up seats for his party in the midterm.

Isnt the wailing about 'fundies', 'red necks' and 'thuggery' really just an inability to come to terms with the social and political realities?

[SyntaxVorlon]

There are problems with the democratic party's ability to rally general support from accross the nation. And a general ability of the republicans to do this, especially in shitcreek podunk towns and villages.

[Gustav32Vasa]

That’s not underestimating Bush its underestimating the number of stupid people in the US.

[The Kernel]

Have we underestimated the political strength of Bush? Not at all. I don't think any Democrat here didn't consider Bush's base huge and his propeganda machine extremely powerful.

[Augustus]

That’s not underestimating Bush its underestimating the number of stupid people in the US.

No to single you out Gustav32vasa but this is a textbook perfect example of what I am talking about.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I pose this question to the anti-Bush folks here at SDN - Have you fundimentally underestimated the poltical strength of Bush and the Republicans?

Given the fact that Bush is the first President since '88 to win over 50% of the popular vote, even more than the last 2 two term President (Clinton's highest was 42%). Also that he is the only President since '64 to both win reelection and expand his majorities in Congress. That he is the only President to have done the above and also pick up seats for his party in the midterm.

Isnt the wailing about 'fundies', 'red necks' and 'thuggery' really just an inability to come to terms with the social and political realities?

Point of order, he's the first President since 1936 to be re-elected and expand his party.

[salm]

Isnt the wailing about 'fundies', 'red necks' and 'thuggery' really just an inability to come to terms with the social and political realities?

which majority on this board actually claims that all bush voters are fundies, red necks and thugs? besides these people there are also war mongers and people who vote for economic reasons (and assume that bush will do a better job for the economy) who vote for bush. perhaps even more categories.

[Durandal]

I pose this question to the anti-Bush folks here at SDN - Have you fundimentally underestimated the poltical strength of Bush and the Republicans?

Of course not. Hell, Mike Wong posted statistics showing that 40% of the nation falls into the "Christian fundamentalist" category, and those voters are clear Bush supporters. The fundamental misjudgment that many (including me) made in this election was that higher voter registration was a good sign for Kerry, since you normally wouldn't think that people register in droves to support the status quo. But apparently they do.

Isnt the wailing about 'fundies', 'red necks' and 'thuggery' really just an inability to come to terms with the social and political realities?

No, it is what it is: complaining that dumb-asses like Christian fundamentalists and rednecks have too much influence over matters beyond their comprehension skills, which is a perfectly valid complaint. Everyone accepts this reality, but no one here, save for a few, like it.

[Axis Kast]

Isnt the wailing about 'fundies', 'red necks' and 'thuggery' really just an inability to come to terms with the social and political realities?

I think so. As much as many people on this forum are wringing their hands in wonder that Bush was able to mobilize vast numbers of people to vote on "moral issues" they consider anathema, consider that Kerry and the liberals were able to mobilize only slightly fewer numbers of their own "blind legions" - i.e. voters who are going to the polls motivated by what their opponents might consider equally silly or inexplicable stances on the issues.

Just as Durandal or Mike Wong have difficulty stomaching the image of a rural Christian pulling a lever in hopes that it will translate into a roll-back for Roe v. Wade, plenty of conservatives have issues with people who went to the polls merely to "Find a President other people will like more," or to "Vote against the dumbass." Even more ridiculous are the voters angry at Bush for apointing a man - and not necessarily a conservative man, because the criticisms always take gender into account regardless of politics - to a position to be able to determine their freedom of reproductive choice. The same goes for radical tree-huggers. Hell, I have a huge personal beef with the large numbers of people I know in my own Jewish community who regularly apply pressure for me to "Vote Democrat" solely because they think that Democrats are always going to be the staunchest supporters of Israel. Reminding them that they are Americans, not Israelis, is often senseless.

And before you go off and claim that finding a likeable President is important, or that Bush is a dumbass, stop to reflect. Many voters certainly went to the polls hoping to elect a President who could work more closely with Europe and the rest of the world for what can only be described as practical reasons. Just as many others voted the way they did because public opinion polls in those other countries made them feel uncomfortable about being disliked. This even when they couldn't articulate why other people felt that way, or if it was always in response to actually bad choices made by the President. As for the "dumbass" argument, let me remind you that the man did have to play a roll in his own reelection; nobody's a robot. George Bush is far more intelligent than many people give him credit for. It's one thing to laugh at a good joke about his convictions or quote his Bushisms with glee - hell, I do it! -, but it's another thing entirely to call him a complete moron.

[Gustav32Vasa]

That’s not underestimating Bush its underestimating the number of stupid people in the US.

No to single you out Gustav32vasa but this is a textbook perfect example of what I am talking about.

Glad I could help.

[Oberleutnant]

Other US presidents didn't have September 11th happening during their presidential term. It did wonders for Bush's popularity and gave him a strong platform.

[Andrew J.]

Isnt the wailing about 'fundies', 'red necks' and 'thuggery' really just an inability to come to terms with the social and political realities?

Not at all. The social and political realities are that there are too many rednecks and fundies.

[The Original Nex]

Isnt the wailing about 'fundies', 'red necks' and 'thuggery' really just an inability to come to terms with the social and political realities?

While there are certainly many conservatives who give long-winded reasons that makes Bush sound like a good president, but the vast majority of those who voted for him are groups you mentioned above.

[The_Nice_Guy]

I've read that strangely enough, while gay marriage was voted against(48%), civil unions were supported 32% overall.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.3.html

Combine that with 17% of folks supporting gay marriage to get a total of 49%, and it's likely that the issue will become one of semantics. Marriage, as traditionally defined, will probably never become applied to homosexuals. That, however, will not prevent homosexual partners from claiming the various legal and state benefits that come with being 'married'. It'll just take time, and until then, I don't think they'll start arresting homosexuals and throwing them into gulags.

Let's not even talk about cloning yet.

TWG

[RedImperator]

That’s not underestimating Bush its underestimating the number of stupid people in the US.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that got Bush reelected in the first place. What people like to forget--or ignore--about Bush is that while he may be a C student and not book smart, he's almost as a good a politician as Bill Clinton was, in his own way. How many people do you think would be capable of motivating hard core fundies to come out and vote, while at the same time NOT scaring the moderate Christians who make up the majority of Republican voters?

American presidential politics is always about assembling a coalition of voters. Evangelical Christians are an enormously important part of Bush's coalition because they pushed him over the top--take away Karl Rove's "4 million votes", the evangelical votes he kept insisisting he missed in 2000 and would get this year, and we're all celebrating Kerry's victory. But they're not the majority of the population, or even the majority of the Republican coalition. And they're not blind Republidrones. For the most part, they don't care about economic issues or foreign policy, and will weigh a candidate entirely on "moral values" (the latest euphanism for opposing abortion and gay marriage). If a Republican doesn't meet their standards on moral values (George H.W. Bush certainly didn't), they stay home.

Bush met their standards--more precisely, he appeared to meet their standards, and blamed Tom Daschell for any obvious shortfalls. At the same time, he didn't scare off the rest of the coalition--small business owners, white middle class suburbanites, Cubans, Neocon wonks, economic conservatives who thought Kerry would be worse, and the actual Republidrones who would pull their guy's lever no matter who he was unless something really dramatic scared them away. That's an act of political genius there--certainly he was helped by the war and 9/11, which kept some voters who would have gone Kerry otherwise in the Republican column, but they would have jumped ship in a hurry if they thought Bush was trying to push the full Evangelical agenda on them. In essense, he has the fundies thinking he's about to give them everything they've ever wanted, while at the same time the non-fundies think he's merely curbing the worst excesses of the left. My bet is that while in his heart of hearts, he'd really like to give the fundies everything, he knows he can't, and he's going to stick with issues that resonate with moderate Christians while occasionally throwing the fundies a bone.

There's something that has to be remembered here--while the majority of Americans DO like some of the fundie agenda, those same Americans are opposed to the rest of it. They oppose letting gays "marry", in the strictest definition of the word, but 60% of the American public favors some sort of legal recognition for gay couples. They oppose unrestricted abortions for anyone, including minors, at any point in the pregnancy, but something like 65% want abortion to remain legal in at least the early term. The fundie activists make the most noise, and we here tar all their allies with the same brush, but they wield power far beyond their actual numbers, and only do it for as long as they don't rile up the moderates. Watch Bush try to appoint a SCOTUS justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and see how fast Bush's support evaporates. Bush convinced the moderates that allying with the diehards was a good idea. If he hadn't gone to war in Iraq or the economy was in better shape or both, he would have won by a landslide.

The point of all this is is that Bush isn't stupid and neither are all of his supporters. I know everyone's angry and it feels really good to call everyone who voted against your guy a moron, and if smug self-satisfaction is that important to you, then carry on. I'd prefer to win elections, myself, so I'd like to take some time in the next four years figuring out how Bush does what he does and why the mainstream supports him in time to get a moderate nominated in 08, rather than dismissing him and sixty million other people as idiots, and then wondering 20 years from now why the Democrats and moderate Republicans can't elect anybody.

[Augustus]

From the WSJ

November 4, 2004 4:56 p.m. EST

The Blue Cocoon

"I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won," the late film critic Pauline Kael is said to have observed after the 1972 election. "I don't know anybody who voted for him." Pick up the New York Times 32 years later, and it's obvious that big-city liberals are as out of touch as ever. "Some New Yorkers, like Meredith Hackett, a 25-year-old barmaid in Brooklyn, said they didn't even know any people who had voted for President Bush," reports the paper's Joseph Berger in a Metro section story on New Yorkers who are "disconsolate" over President Bush's re-election:

"Everybody seems to hate us these days," said Zito Joseph, a 63-year-old retired psychiatrist. "None of the people who are likely to be hit by a terrorist attack voted for Bush. But the heartland people seemed to be saying, 'We're not affected by it if there would be another terrorist attack.' " . . .

"I'm saddened by what I feel is the obtuseness and shortsightedness of a good part of the country--the heartland," Dr. Joseph said. "This kind of redneck, shoot-from-the-hip mentality and a very concrete interpretation of religion is prevalent in Bush country--in the heartland."

"New Yorkers are more sophisticated and at a level of consciousness where we realize we have to think of globalization, of one mankind, that what's going to injure masses of people is not good for us," he said.

It's the same story in John Kerry's hometown, as the Boston Globe, a Times sister paper, reports:

Jessica Johnson, 59, of Cambridge, who said she had volunteered for Kerry, said she was filled with optimism on Election Day, telling herself: ''When Kerry gets into the White House, this stone, this weight on my chest, will be lifted."

''He could have made a great president," Johnson said. ''Many Americans have nothing between their ears. Americans are fat, lazy, and stupid. I don't like this country anymore."

Notwithstanding the state's history on the presidential stage, some Bay Staters seemed surprised by Kerry's defeat. ''He's local. It's too bad," said David Griffith, manager of Destination Boston, a Hub-themed T-shirt and sweatshirt emporium at Quincy Market. Displaying a shirt featuring photos of President Bush and his father with the words ''Dumb & Dumber," Griffith remarked in some bafflement: ''We sold hundreds of these, and yet he still pulled it off."

The Times also quotes Beverly Camhe, a film producer, who "explained the habits and beliefs of those dwelling in the heartland like an anthropologist":

"What's different about New York City is it tends to bring people together and so we can't ignore each others' dreams and values and it creates a much more inclusive consciousness," she said. "When you're in a more isolated environment, you're more susceptible to some ideology that's imposed on you."

As an example, Ms. Camhe offered the different attitudes New Yorkers may have about social issues like gay marriage.

"We live in this marvelous diversity where we actually have gay neighbors," she said. "They're not some vilified unknown. They're our neighbors."

But she said that a dichotomy of outlooks was bad for the country.

"If the heartland feels so alienated from us, then it behooves us to wrap our arms around the heartland," she said. "We need to bring our way of life, which is honoring diversity and having compassion for people with different lifestyles, on a trip around the country."

Angry Left blogger Eric Alterman sums up the attitude:

Let's face it. It's not Kerry's fault. It's not Nader's fault (this time). It's not the media's fault (though they do bear a heavy responsibility for much of what ails our political system). It's not "our" fault either. The problem is just this: Slightly more than half of the citizens of this country simply do not care about what those of us in the "reality-based community" say or believe about anything.

Who exactly is parochial here? Times columnist Thomas Friedman offers this observation:

This was not an election. This was station identification. I'd bet anything that if the election ballots hadn't had the names Bush and Kerry on them but simply asked instead, "Do you watch Fox TV or read The New York Times?" the Electoral College would have broken the exact same way.

We're guessing he's wrong about this; despite the Times' pretensions to being a national newspaper, it seems likely that Kerry states outside the Northeast have more Fox viewers than Times readers. But even so, Bush supporters are hardly lacking exposure to the liberal media: the broadcast networks, stories from news wires and syndicates (including the Times') in their local newspapers, Hollywood movies, etc. Red-state residents may disdain Kerry as much as blue-staters do Bush, but we'd venture to say the former have a better-informed view of the opposition.

Bush voters tend to see big-city liberals as arrogant elitists, and the above quotes make clear that they are substantially correct. If those liberals were as sophisticated and open-minded as they fancy themselves to be, they would make an effort to understand why most Americans disagree with them rather than simply dismissing them as idiots.

[RedImperator]

I feel compelled to add, by the way, that big cities don't go Democrat because they're full of enlightened liberals. Philadelphia County went 80% for Bush--do you think those were all U. Penn students? Big cities go Democrat because they're full of minorities, and African Americans and Hispanics vote Democrat. African Americans and Hispanics tend to be rather conservative, socially, but they also tend to be poor, and unlike poor white people, poor minorities vote for their class interests instead of on moral issues that they're smart enough to realize don't matter worth a shit in their daily lives.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I actually admit that I, as a registered Republican, might have underestimated Bush's chances, because I seriously expected Kerry to win the election, both in the popular vote and electoral college.

[Augustus]

I actually admit that I, as a registered Republican, might have underestimated Bush's chances, because I seriously expected Kerry to win the election, both in the popular vote and electoral college.

Yeah, I'm right there with you. Only I took the additional step of donating $1000 to Bush/Cheney '04 early on and then spent a few months wondering if I had completly lost my mind. Very happy it all worked out in the end.

[ReinnResauq]

So I ask how can the Democrats get the moderate christian wank to vote for them? Especially after Bush and his actions in office that have effectively divided the country into "Bush is everything a president shouldn't be" and "Bush protects us in all ways!" I mean, we can't ignore the fundamental christian population, but in when it comes down to right and wrong, we can't let them have anything they want.

[UCBooties]

Ok, now I can accept that there was a broad spectrum of reasons why people may have voted for or against Bush, and it is a bit unfair for Durandel and Mike to say that everyone voting for Bush is a Uber-Christian-Homo-Hating-Swampsquater. But, this election was polarizing on moral issues, with 20% of people identifying that as their primary concern with this election. Now, I am myself a Christian, and on good days I could even call myself a moderate Republican (libertarien is a bit more acurate of my stance but if the hat fits, I'll wear it) and moral issues were my top issue in this election. So it would stand to reason that this election was in fact a decent barometer of social progressivism in this country. And obviously, social equality is low on people's concern list at the moment, if not something they're trying to actively prevent. Soooo, while it is not good to lump every Bush in with the flaming bible crusaders, it's totaly appropriate to worry about the implications for civil rights and social progressivism in light of this election.

[Rogue 9]

Moderate Christian wank? What the hell are you talking about?

[RedImperator]

So I ask how can the Democrats get the moderate christian wank to vote for them? Especially after Bush and his actions in office that have effectively divided the country into "Bush is everything a president shouldn't be" and "Bush protects us in all ways!" I mean, we can't ignore the fundamental christian population, but in when it comes down to right and wrong, we can't let them have anything they want.

I'm not entirely convinced there are many other politicians who can exploit this divide as well as Bush has. Remember, you have to keep the hard right happy while at the same time you don't scare the centrists. And the hard right is going to start getting grabby after this election, making the job more difficult.

[RedImperator]

Ok, now I can accept that there was a broad spectrum of reasons why people may have voted for or against Bush, and it is a bit unfair for Durandel and Mike to say that everyone voting for Bush is a Uber-Christian-Homo-Hating-Swampsquater. But, this election was polarizing on moral issues, with 20% of people identifying that as their primary concern with this election. Now, I am myself a Christian, and on good days I could even call myself a moderate Republican (libertarien is a bit more acurate of my stance but if the hat fits, I'll wear it) and moral issues were my top issue in this election. So it would stand to reason that this election was in fact a decent barometer of social progressivism in this country. And obviously, social equality is low on people's concern list at the moment, if not something they're trying to actively prevent. Soooo, while it is not good to lump every Bush in with the flaming bible crusaders, it's totaly appropriate to worry about the implications for civil rights and social progressivism in light of this election.

I don't think it's as bad as it looks (though it's certainly nowhere near where I'd like it). Yes, the electorate is opposed to gays getting married. That much is clear, and there's nothing other than time that will change that. But at the same time, most of those voters DON'T want no legal recognition at all for gay couples. Given a well concieved public relations campaign, you could probably pass, in most states, civil union laws which are marriages in everything but name.

Those in favor of gay marriage have to take a little bit of the blame here. They've done a rather poor job getting their message out. A lot of heterosexuals don't even realize why getting married is so important to gay couples. Where the hell are the ads with a kindly old lady tearfully explaining that when her life partner of the last 50 years passed away, the hospital workers wouldn't even let her in the emergency room to say goodbye?

[Axis Kast]

This is exactly the kind of thinking that got Bush reelected in the first place. What people like to forget--or ignore--about Bush is that while he may be a C student and not book smart, he's almost as a good a politician as Bill Clinton was, in his own way. How many people do you think would be capable of motivating hard core fundies to come out and vote, while at the same time NOT scaring the moderate Christians who make up the majority of Republican voters?

American presidential politics is always about assembling a coalition of voters. Evangelical Christians are an enormously important part of Bush's coalition because they pushed him over the top--take away Karl Rove's "4 million votes", the evangelical votes he kept insisisting he missed in 2000 and would get this year, and we're all celebrating Kerry's victory. But they're not the majority of the population, or even the majority of the Republican coalition. And they're not blind Republidrones. For the most part, they don't care about economic issues or foreign policy, and will weigh a candidate entirely on "moral values" (the latest euphanism for opposing abortion and gay marriage). If a Republican doesn't meet their standards on moral values (George H.W. Bush certainly didn't), they stay home.

Bush met their standards--more precisely, he appeared to meet their standards, and blamed Tom Daschell for any obvious shortfalls. At the same time, he didn't scare off the rest of the coalition--small business owners, white middle class suburbanites, Cubans, Neocon wonks, economic conservatives who thought Kerry would be worse, and the actual Republidrones who would pull their guy's lever no matter who he was unless something really dramatic scared them away. That's an act of political genius there--certainly he was helped by the war and 9/11, which kept some voters who would have gone Kerry otherwise in the Republican column, but they would have jumped ship in a hurry if they thought Bush was trying to push the full Evangelical agenda on them. In essense, he has the fundies thinking he's about to give them everything they've ever wanted, while at the same time the non-fundies think he's merely curbing the worst excesses of the left. My bet is that while in his heart of hearts, he'd really like to give the fundies everything, he knows he can't, and he's going to stick with issues that resonate with moderate Christians while occasionally throwing the fundies a bone.

There's something that has to be remembered here--while the majority of Americans DO like some of the fundie agenda, those same Americans are opposed to the rest of it. They oppose letting gays "marry", in the strictest definition of the word, but 60% of the American public favors some sort of legal recognition for gay couples. They oppose unrestricted abortions for anyone, including minors, at any point in the pregnancy, but something like 65% want abortion to remain legal in at least the early term. The fundie activists make the most noise, and we here tar all their allies with the same brush, but they wield power far beyond their actual numbers, and only do it for as long as they don't rile up the moderates. Watch Bush try to appoint a SCOTUS justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and see how fast Bush's support evaporates. Bush convinced the moderates that allying with the diehards was a good idea. If he hadn't gone to war in Iraq or the economy was in better shape or both, he would have won by a landslide.

The point of all this is is that Bush isn't stupid and neither are all of his supporters. I know everyone's angry and it feels really good to call everyone who voted against your guy a moron, and if smug self-satisfaction is that important to you, then carry on. I'd prefer to win elections, myself, so I'd like to take some time in the next four years figuring out how Bush does what he does and why the mainstream supports him in time to get a moderate nominated in 08, rather than dismissing him and sixty million other people as idiots, and then wondering 20 years from now why the Democrats and moderate Republicans can't elect anybody.

And people wonder how I reconcile myself with Bush.