Winners & Losers, Part 2
Hello. I was bored again and some more winners and losers from the 2004 election came up.
Winner - Antonin Scalia
If Kerry had won, there was talk that Scalia would have resigned out of frustration. Kerry would have appointed left/center justcies to the Supreme Court, ensuring that Scalia wouldn' have an ideological companion (otther than Clarence Thomas) for at least 4 years. Bush's second term will almost certainly mean some new justices to the court that will be more to Scalia's liking. Not only that, Scalia is now the frontrunner to be the next Chief Justice if William Rehquist, who is 80 yeas old, leaves any time soon. Curiously, the Supreme Court seemed to be a lost issue during the campaign. The only memorable mention of the Court occurred in the second debate, when Bush said he wouldn't appoint a justice who agreed with the Dred Scott decision. If you want some background on this, check out this link. In any event, it will be interesting to see how many of those voters who went for Bush b/c of "values" will still be happy in 4 years w/ a slew on young, conservative Bush appointees onthe Supreme Court. Remember, individual rights are also a value. Hopefully, it wasn't forgotten on Tuesday.
Loser - African Americans
We were told that each side would have to get their base out. This year, African American voters went to great lengths to make sure they got to the polls and gave over 90% of their votes to Kerry. Unfortunately, black voters are losers of this election because their votes did nothing to change the outcome. Like I mentioned in part 1, Karl Rove thought he could better spend his resources on new white conservative voters, which are Bush's natural base, rather than trying to get votes from the existing pool. Worse yet, the GOP see little benefit or motivation to appeal to African Americans in the near future. Since Reagan, the GOP has used African Americans as a scapegoat in order to court suburban white voters. (Remember? If you're taxes are too high, "welfare queens" are to blame. If you're afraid of crime, that's because "urban" youth are running the streets. If you can get a promotion or your kid can't get into a good college, affirmative action is to blame.) The results of 2004 only reaffirm the reality that the GOP can still win w/o the African American vote and have little reason for them to try.
Winner - Osama bin Laden
This choice will certainly make some of you mad. I'm in no way complimenting Osama bin Laden. Just give me a chance to explain before you go watch Fox News to soothe your nerves. Almost everyone would agree that Bush is a very polarizing figure in American politics. Logically, the name George W. Bush must create even stronger, more extreme feelings in the Middle East. Admittedly, a Bush loss would have been perceived as a win for bin Laden in the Middle East. If Bush lost, then bin Laden could have taken credit for brining down the President of the United States. However, a second Bush term also helps out bin Laden by allowing him to keep his most recognizible recruiting symbol. Bush supporters say you know what he stands for. In the Middle East, that simplicity (or "moral clairty") can work as a detriment b/c terorists & Islamic extremists can also craft a simple picture of Bush for their own purposes. Also, reelecting Bush gives bin Laden the argument that the American people are just as bad as its President. For a better explanation from guys who actually know how to write, check out these links http://slate.msn.com/id/2108930/ & http://slate.msn.com/id/2108870/.
Loser - Intelligence & Job Peformance
Not too long ago, these 2 things were actually the main criteria by which most people voted for presidential candidates. Most polling right before the election show Kerry ahead on both these marks. I'm not saying that Bush is dimwitted. Actually, I think he's brighter than he appears. However, it would be a stretch to say that he'd be my first (or even second) choice as my lifeline on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Also, post-9/11 world aside, Bush's job performace the last 4 years was lackluster at best. Many policy decisions were not exaclty thought through or implemented particularly well. For example, despite rising costs in Iraq and rising budget deficits, Bush still chose to fo forward w/ missile defense and a presciption drug plan for Medicare. The missile defense system will cost at least $50 billion just to test and find out if it will work. If it does work, it may cost up to another $200 billion to actually build it, even though it probably won't be very effective. The Medicare drug plan is a real piece of work. It costs $800 billion over ten years and actually RAISES the cost of prescription drugs for most seniors.
Neither Winner nor Loser - The Democratic Party
Admittedly, 2004 didn't go as well as planned for the Democrats and people keep saying how the GOP can run the table for a while now. I don't think it looks that dire. Unilke some of the "experts," I actually looked at the election data carefully. Here are some things to consider.
First, Bush didn't win as much of a mandate as he thinks. He did get a majority of the popular vote, but that diffeence was made up largely by religious conservatives that Karl Rove has been targetting that last 4 years. Also, Bill Clinton showed in 1996 Democrats can win the subrban voters by having clear policies on issues like education & crime. These voters went for Bush in 2004, but can be persuaded to go back to the Democrats if good, specific proposal on their issues are put forth.
Second, Bush can't run in 2008. This seems to be more of a fact than an assertion, but it holds lots of importance. Very few politicans are as completely loved by his base as Bush curently is. A lot of it has to do with his style and personality, which are strong enough to overcome low job approval ratings. It's unclear if that same devotion will trasfer easily to the next GOP candidate, who would have a tough act to follow in campaign style to begin with.
Lastly, there's the Electoral College. Bush may have won by 3 million in the popular vote. But, in reality, he won the election by less than 150,000 votes in Ohio, which reprsented a margin of victory of less than 2%. Also, there are several states where Bush won by very small margins. Nevada, Iowa, and New Mexico were decided by factions of a percent. This isn't a lot of room to work with, but it's still doable.
However, the Demcrats aren't winners yet. They'll need to work hard the next 4 years to craft smart policies and be known as the party of responsibile government again. It's already true in substance, but it needs to be shown to the voters.
Winner - Antonin Scalia
If Kerry had won, there was talk that Scalia would have resigned out of frustration. Kerry would have appointed left/center justcies to the Supreme Court, ensuring that Scalia wouldn' have an ideological companion (otther than Clarence Thomas) for at least 4 years. Bush's second term will almost certainly mean some new justices to the court that will be more to Scalia's liking. Not only that, Scalia is now the frontrunner to be the next Chief Justice if William Rehquist, who is 80 yeas old, leaves any time soon. Curiously, the Supreme Court seemed to be a lost issue during the campaign. The only memorable mention of the Court occurred in the second debate, when Bush said he wouldn't appoint a justice who agreed with the Dred Scott decision. If you want some background on this, check out this link. In any event, it will be interesting to see how many of those voters who went for Bush b/c of "values" will still be happy in 4 years w/ a slew on young, conservative Bush appointees onthe Supreme Court. Remember, individual rights are also a value. Hopefully, it wasn't forgotten on Tuesday.
Loser - African Americans
We were told that each side would have to get their base out. This year, African American voters went to great lengths to make sure they got to the polls and gave over 90% of their votes to Kerry. Unfortunately, black voters are losers of this election because their votes did nothing to change the outcome. Like I mentioned in part 1, Karl Rove thought he could better spend his resources on new white conservative voters, which are Bush's natural base, rather than trying to get votes from the existing pool. Worse yet, the GOP see little benefit or motivation to appeal to African Americans in the near future. Since Reagan, the GOP has used African Americans as a scapegoat in order to court suburban white voters. (Remember? If you're taxes are too high, "welfare queens" are to blame. If you're afraid of crime, that's because "urban" youth are running the streets. If you can get a promotion or your kid can't get into a good college, affirmative action is to blame.) The results of 2004 only reaffirm the reality that the GOP can still win w/o the African American vote and have little reason for them to try.
Winner - Osama bin Laden
This choice will certainly make some of you mad. I'm in no way complimenting Osama bin Laden. Just give me a chance to explain before you go watch Fox News to soothe your nerves. Almost everyone would agree that Bush is a very polarizing figure in American politics. Logically, the name George W. Bush must create even stronger, more extreme feelings in the Middle East. Admittedly, a Bush loss would have been perceived as a win for bin Laden in the Middle East. If Bush lost, then bin Laden could have taken credit for brining down the President of the United States. However, a second Bush term also helps out bin Laden by allowing him to keep his most recognizible recruiting symbol. Bush supporters say you know what he stands for. In the Middle East, that simplicity (or "moral clairty") can work as a detriment b/c terorists & Islamic extremists can also craft a simple picture of Bush for their own purposes. Also, reelecting Bush gives bin Laden the argument that the American people are just as bad as its President. For a better explanation from guys who actually know how to write, check out these links http://slate.msn.com/id/2108930/ & http://slate.msn.com/id/2108870/.
Loser - Intelligence & Job Peformance
Not too long ago, these 2 things were actually the main criteria by which most people voted for presidential candidates. Most polling right before the election show Kerry ahead on both these marks. I'm not saying that Bush is dimwitted. Actually, I think he's brighter than he appears. However, it would be a stretch to say that he'd be my first (or even second) choice as my lifeline on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Also, post-9/11 world aside, Bush's job performace the last 4 years was lackluster at best. Many policy decisions were not exaclty thought through or implemented particularly well. For example, despite rising costs in Iraq and rising budget deficits, Bush still chose to fo forward w/ missile defense and a presciption drug plan for Medicare. The missile defense system will cost at least $50 billion just to test and find out if it will work. If it does work, it may cost up to another $200 billion to actually build it, even though it probably won't be very effective. The Medicare drug plan is a real piece of work. It costs $800 billion over ten years and actually RAISES the cost of prescription drugs for most seniors.
Neither Winner nor Loser - The Democratic Party
Admittedly, 2004 didn't go as well as planned for the Democrats and people keep saying how the GOP can run the table for a while now. I don't think it looks that dire. Unilke some of the "experts," I actually looked at the election data carefully. Here are some things to consider.
First, Bush didn't win as much of a mandate as he thinks. He did get a majority of the popular vote, but that diffeence was made up largely by religious conservatives that Karl Rove has been targetting that last 4 years. Also, Bill Clinton showed in 1996 Democrats can win the subrban voters by having clear policies on issues like education & crime. These voters went for Bush in 2004, but can be persuaded to go back to the Democrats if good, specific proposal on their issues are put forth.
Second, Bush can't run in 2008. This seems to be more of a fact than an assertion, but it holds lots of importance. Very few politicans are as completely loved by his base as Bush curently is. A lot of it has to do with his style and personality, which are strong enough to overcome low job approval ratings. It's unclear if that same devotion will trasfer easily to the next GOP candidate, who would have a tough act to follow in campaign style to begin with.
Lastly, there's the Electoral College. Bush may have won by 3 million in the popular vote. But, in reality, he won the election by less than 150,000 votes in Ohio, which reprsented a margin of victory of less than 2%. Also, there are several states where Bush won by very small margins. Nevada, Iowa, and New Mexico were decided by factions of a percent. This isn't a lot of room to work with, but it's still doable.
However, the Demcrats aren't winners yet. They'll need to work hard the next 4 years to craft smart policies and be known as the party of responsibile government again. It's already true in substance, but it needs to be shown to the voters.
posted by Jeff at 11/05/2004 02:04:00 AM
3 Comments:
Couple things--where did you get the numbers for the black vote still going for Kerry? I'd think given that blacks are generally fairly religious that Bush might have picked up more of their vote this time around than Kerry. In addition, I recall reading that Kerry actually lost the black vote viz a viz Clinton since Kerry just couldn't connect with them as a rich Northeasterner.
I don't think the Democrats are nowhere near winners and most likely like losers. Many people gave their heart and soul to elect Kerry and have been seriously crushed by this loss. I'd say the morale for the Democratic Party at the very least is a loser since it now seems the GOP appears to be unstoppable, wouldn't you agree?
Hey Kevin. I think it's amusing that you thought that Kerry lost the African American vote. I was a little off on the stats, but Kerry got 88% of the African American vote. Not bad for a guy from Massachusetts. Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297138/(it's the 3rd chart)
Also, this should not be surprising. African Americans, especially those in the South, actually have quite a bit in common w/ their white counterparts who vote Republican. However,the GOP has done a pretty good job of alienating them over the years. Like I mentioned on the posting, it's hard for anyone to vote for a party that uses you as a scapegoat or political tool. Think of of this way. Clinton looked like a guy who not only had black friends, but actually appreciated black people, regarding them as an abosolute positive who contribute to our society. Does George W. Bush shower that same type of devotion to African Americans, or does he give it up more to the religious right?
Now to the Democrats. Morale shoudle be low. It's only been a few days. However, saying the GOP is unstoppable is an overstatement, although they do have momentum now. What I was getting at was that the gap isn't nearly as large as one would think. It can be overcome with persistence. Also, if Bush does a worse job the second term (not impossible), the gap should close even faster. I'm just saying that a long-term view should be taken. Remember, 1984 and 1994 were also bad defeadt for Democrats, but they were followed by victories in 1992 and 1996. Though, it would be nice to have Clinton again to lead the way.
Okay, however, see this October 19 USA Today article that notes "[Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus] and other Democrats predict Kerry will beat Al Gore's 90% share of black voters."
Now, I know we've debated about the difference of that ~3% and it's impact on the election, but at the very least, the turnout that the Democrats were expecting from black voters didn't materialize.
Post a Comment
<< Home