Winners & Losers from the 2004 Election
Hello. It looks like George W. Bush won and John Kerry lost. But, if you look more closely, they aren't the only winners and losers from the 2004 election. These are just some reflections rumbling in my head ever since Kerry's concession.
Winner #1 - Karl Rove
Aside from getting Bush elected again, Karl Rove is a winner for proving all the pundits wrong. Let me explain. Usually, the candidate who wins the middle or independent (i.e., swing) voters is the guy who wins the election. That's how we got terms like "Reagan Democrats," "New Democrats," & "Compassionate Conservatism." This year, Rove gambled that he could find more votes from religous conservatives than he could from the middle. Hence, Bush has governed & campainged as a hardline conservative. He's adovcated for banning gay marriage, restricitng stem cell research, & helping out the wealthy. It's hard to find a position where Bush is even slightly moderate. If you look at the data, Kerry won the middle by a margin of about 10% and got over 90% of the Democratic vote. However, Bush won the election by getting over 95% of the cosnervative votes. Specifically, Rove was targeting the 4 million religious conservatives who stayed home in 2000. Bush ended up winning the popular vote by 3 million in 2004. Nuff said.
Loser #1 - Jeb Bush
It may seem odd to call Jeb Bush a loser when his brother just won the election. However, George W. Bush's reelection virtually guarantees that Jeb won't ever be President. As I mentioned above, George W. Bush now has a reputation as a conservative who fuses poltics & religion in a lot of overt ways. That's what people now think of when they hear the political brandname "Bush." Jeb's not like his brother. He's more of a moderate Republican who doesn't seem so driven by faith & ideology. If Jeb did try to run, he'd never make it out of the primaries because Republican voters will keep asking why he isn't as desirable (or religious) as his brother. Also, if his brother's second term is just as bad as the first, then Jeb would be crazy to run with the family name. This also makes his father, George H.W. Bush, a loser because Jeb got his moderate Republican beliefs from his dad. Besides, it would just seem odd to have another Bush be President. It would make the US look less like an elective government and more like a monarchy.
Winner #2 - Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, & Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton is an obivous winner because a Kerry defeat leaves open the possibility of herself running in 2008. Bush's win shows that even the most divisive figure can win if he or she is popular enough with their base. She's always been popular with women voters, holds pretty moderate views (i.e., she's NOT liberal), and knows how to raise money. Also, I heard a rumor that her husband knows a little about beating Republicans at politics. John Edwards, to a lesser degree, is also a winner. Although he didn't help much w/ the rural voters that proved pivotal to Bush's win, Edwards did an o.k. job as Kerry's running mate without damaging himself politically. He's another moderate who now has the experience of a national campaign. Being good on t.v. and raised in the South doesn't hurt either. Also, I'm sure there are enough upset Kerry voters out there willing to give cash in 4 years. In any event, Barack Obama is unquestionably a winner. We've all seen the speech at the DNC and know he'd have a compelling message to convey. Can you hear Clinton-Obama or Edwards-Obama in 2008?
Loser#2 - John Paul Stevens & Sandra Day O'Connor
A second Bush terms means that neither of these 2 Supreme Court Justices will retire before death. It's currently a balanced court and both of them know it. Replacing the Court's leading liberal or its swing vote w/ a conservative Bush appointee could potentially wreak havoc with decades of established legal precedent. Keep in mind that Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, & Souter are traditional conservatives who would rather keep the law where it is right now than make things more difficult by suddenly changing law that people rely on. Stevens is 84 and O'Connor is 74. Both are great legal minds and deserve a retirement after a lifetime of service. Too bad they won't get it.
(P.S. - Hoping that William Rehnquist gets better. I don't agree w/ most of his opinions, but he's loosened up over the years and cancer is no joking matter.)
Winner #3 - Saturday Night Live & The Daily Show
Even the most ardent conservatives have to admit that Bush & his cabinet make great late night comedy fodder. Just look at Will Ferrell's impression of George W. Bush. It's realistic and funny as hell. Bush winning means 4 more years of fresh material.
Loser #3 - John McCain & other Moderate Republicans
If Abraham Lincoln or Theodore Roosavelt were alive today, they'd have trouble recognizing today's version of the Republican Party. If you believe in strong individual rights at home and internationalist foreign policy abroad, you'd be a Democrat nowadays. The Republican Party is now a conservative party and doesn't have a lot of room for anybody else. Mavericks and moderates like John McCain, Arlen Specter, or Geroge Pataki are an endangered species in the GOP and no longer set the party's agenda. Simply put, if you like moderate positions, then vote Democrat. Think I'm exaggerating? Aside from the 3 guys I just mentioned, try to name 5 moderate Republicans who are currently in office and aren't women. (No cheating by naming Arnold)
* Neither Winner nor Loser - US Soldiers in Iraq
They probably wouldn't be coming home soon even if Kerry had been elected. However, I don't see much of a plan from Bush that doesn't resemble wishful thinking. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if most of them still aren't home in 4 years. In the meantime, more casualties are inevitable, along with a continuing erosion of American credibility abroad. This credibility would be necessary if there is a threat to US security in the future and we needed help to fight it. In any event, here's hoping the troops get home sooner rather than later.
Winner #1 - Karl Rove
Aside from getting Bush elected again, Karl Rove is a winner for proving all the pundits wrong. Let me explain. Usually, the candidate who wins the middle or independent (i.e., swing) voters is the guy who wins the election. That's how we got terms like "Reagan Democrats," "New Democrats," & "Compassionate Conservatism." This year, Rove gambled that he could find more votes from religous conservatives than he could from the middle. Hence, Bush has governed & campainged as a hardline conservative. He's adovcated for banning gay marriage, restricitng stem cell research, & helping out the wealthy. It's hard to find a position where Bush is even slightly moderate. If you look at the data, Kerry won the middle by a margin of about 10% and got over 90% of the Democratic vote. However, Bush won the election by getting over 95% of the cosnervative votes. Specifically, Rove was targeting the 4 million religious conservatives who stayed home in 2000. Bush ended up winning the popular vote by 3 million in 2004. Nuff said.
Loser #1 - Jeb Bush
It may seem odd to call Jeb Bush a loser when his brother just won the election. However, George W. Bush's reelection virtually guarantees that Jeb won't ever be President. As I mentioned above, George W. Bush now has a reputation as a conservative who fuses poltics & religion in a lot of overt ways. That's what people now think of when they hear the political brandname "Bush." Jeb's not like his brother. He's more of a moderate Republican who doesn't seem so driven by faith & ideology. If Jeb did try to run, he'd never make it out of the primaries because Republican voters will keep asking why he isn't as desirable (or religious) as his brother. Also, if his brother's second term is just as bad as the first, then Jeb would be crazy to run with the family name. This also makes his father, George H.W. Bush, a loser because Jeb got his moderate Republican beliefs from his dad. Besides, it would just seem odd to have another Bush be President. It would make the US look less like an elective government and more like a monarchy.
Winner #2 - Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, & Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton is an obivous winner because a Kerry defeat leaves open the possibility of herself running in 2008. Bush's win shows that even the most divisive figure can win if he or she is popular enough with their base. She's always been popular with women voters, holds pretty moderate views (i.e., she's NOT liberal), and knows how to raise money. Also, I heard a rumor that her husband knows a little about beating Republicans at politics. John Edwards, to a lesser degree, is also a winner. Although he didn't help much w/ the rural voters that proved pivotal to Bush's win, Edwards did an o.k. job as Kerry's running mate without damaging himself politically. He's another moderate who now has the experience of a national campaign. Being good on t.v. and raised in the South doesn't hurt either. Also, I'm sure there are enough upset Kerry voters out there willing to give cash in 4 years. In any event, Barack Obama is unquestionably a winner. We've all seen the speech at the DNC and know he'd have a compelling message to convey. Can you hear Clinton-Obama or Edwards-Obama in 2008?
Loser#2 - John Paul Stevens & Sandra Day O'Connor
A second Bush terms means that neither of these 2 Supreme Court Justices will retire before death. It's currently a balanced court and both of them know it. Replacing the Court's leading liberal or its swing vote w/ a conservative Bush appointee could potentially wreak havoc with decades of established legal precedent. Keep in mind that Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, & Souter are traditional conservatives who would rather keep the law where it is right now than make things more difficult by suddenly changing law that people rely on. Stevens is 84 and O'Connor is 74. Both are great legal minds and deserve a retirement after a lifetime of service. Too bad they won't get it.
(P.S. - Hoping that William Rehnquist gets better. I don't agree w/ most of his opinions, but he's loosened up over the years and cancer is no joking matter.)
Winner #3 - Saturday Night Live & The Daily Show
Even the most ardent conservatives have to admit that Bush & his cabinet make great late night comedy fodder. Just look at Will Ferrell's impression of George W. Bush. It's realistic and funny as hell. Bush winning means 4 more years of fresh material.
Loser #3 - John McCain & other Moderate Republicans
If Abraham Lincoln or Theodore Roosavelt were alive today, they'd have trouble recognizing today's version of the Republican Party. If you believe in strong individual rights at home and internationalist foreign policy abroad, you'd be a Democrat nowadays. The Republican Party is now a conservative party and doesn't have a lot of room for anybody else. Mavericks and moderates like John McCain, Arlen Specter, or Geroge Pataki are an endangered species in the GOP and no longer set the party's agenda. Simply put, if you like moderate positions, then vote Democrat. Think I'm exaggerating? Aside from the 3 guys I just mentioned, try to name 5 moderate Republicans who are currently in office and aren't women. (No cheating by naming Arnold)
* Neither Winner nor Loser - US Soldiers in Iraq
They probably wouldn't be coming home soon even if Kerry had been elected. However, I don't see much of a plan from Bush that doesn't resemble wishful thinking. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if most of them still aren't home in 4 years. In the meantime, more casualties are inevitable, along with a continuing erosion of American credibility abroad. This credibility would be necessary if there is a threat to US security in the future and we needed help to fight it. In any event, here's hoping the troops get home sooner rather than later.
posted by Jeff at 11/03/2004 08:26:00 PM
6 Comments:
Insightful. (Correct homonym this time!)
However, I disagree on Winner #2 though. I don't see Hillary mobilizing the voter base as well as W has done. Plus Edwards will now have trouble maintaining visibility after (in hindsight) foolishly not running for re-election.
Obama as VP would indeed be an interesting choice although given his youth, should probably stay as senator for at least two terms before considering a national ticket.
Just responding to Arthur's list of 5 moderate Republicans. Giuliani doesn't count b/c he's not currently in office. Chafee didn't even vote for George W. Bush out of protest for the administration's policies. The others are people who are pretty anonymous to most people and don't hold a lot of sway within the party. I'll give you Colin Powell. But. you'f have to question ow much say he has for policy anymore
There's also Arnold and NYC Mayor Bloomberg--moderate at the very least of being Democrats running under the guise of Republicans.
Isn't Pataki also considered a moderate?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
BTW, why can't we count women Republicans?Uh, are there women Republicans in office?
(removed and reposted to fix paragraph spacing only)
Hello. Kevin. You named 2, but I said not to count Arnold b/c he's more of an aberration from CA politics. His political capital is a result of the recall and his fame, not political expreince. Also, his platform would be downright "liberal" if he was Texas. (He's a Democrat in drag)
Also, I decided not to count women for several reasons. First, there aren't a lot of them in visible public office to begin with, and most of them are Democrats. Also, female Republicans seem to be more moderate in general than their male peers. If they were men, they'd be kicked out of the GOP for not passing the ideological lithmus test. Lastly, the point of this exercise is to show that moderate Republicans don't have any real influence in their party and, as a result, aren't well known. Considering there aren't a lot of Republican women in the GOP to begin with, there influence is even further diminished.
Post a Comment
<< Home