Voters Have Spoken: Bush is one of us

[Bonnie]

www.townhall.com/columnists/rossmackenzie/printrm20041104.shtml

You remember the 2000 election. The message went out that the Republicans stole it form Al Gore in Florida. Visceral Democrats detested Bush for that, never frogave him, and insisted they would prove their point and take back the presidency in 2004. They would gin up votes among minorities, women, immigrants, the young-you name it-and they would field legions of lawyers to prevent the Republicans from stealing again.

It didn't happen, or to the extent it did the Republicans matched the Democrats vote for vote, and called them. Kerry took butone state form Bush's 2000 win column-New Hampshire-and added two Groe states to it-Iowa and New Mexico. That's it. Gore won the popular vote by 540,000; Kerry lost it by about 4 million. In state after state, and especially in the South, Bush's victory margins this year were astoundingly larger in states he carried in 2000. Behind Kerry, the Democrats lost four seats in the Senate and about the same number in the House-making Bush the first incumbant to win re-election with corresponding party gains in both houses since 1964.

As late as noon on Election Day, gloom pervaded the Bush election nerve center; the game seemed lost. But a number of things gave the president a famous victory:

-Veteran and the military, who (1) love Bush, (2) resent Kerry the poseur with his bogus medals and his phoney Vietnam stories and the damage he did as a leading peacenick, and (3) comprehend better than most the lunacy of changing commanders in chief in the middle of World War IV.

-Hispanics, notably in in Florida.
-women, who narrowed the "gender gap" perhaps because they didn't trust Kerry or they couldn't take Terese just call me MamaT").
- Small busines people, who understand the salvational importance of the Bush tax cuts.

But it was middle Americans-the people who get up early each day to raise the kids and make this nation work-who just blew Kerry away. He couldn't connect with them, didn't get it even in his concession speech that they voted against him in droves. These real people with a keen nose for the phoney, clearly sensed this windsurfer looked down on them, even disdained them. In President Bush, up against the greatest debater since Cicero, they saw a man with whom they could relate: one of us.

The election results exposed several myths. For instance:

-The myth of the all-seeing, all-knowing polls: the polls were wrong in the month leading up to the election; the exit polls were broadly wrong, as well.

-The myth of th eimpartial press: The Establishment Media, lopsidedly for Kery, failed to discuss in much detail either Kerry's undistinguished Seante record or to demand he authorize the release of all his military records. Dan Rather, who epitomized the bias, will not have to apologize now.

-The myth of higher turnout-that it would help Kerry, that notably the young would turn the tide. Higher turnout generally helped Bush. Fewer than one in 10 voters 18-24 voted-about the same dismal performance they have been showing right along.

And:

-The myth that Kerry was the palatable Democrat, the plausible Democrat who could win.

George Bush has culled more votes than any president in history and rolled to a convincing mandate-contrary to the conventional wisdom from pollsters and f rom talking heads who spend most of their time massaging one another's egos.

The American voters, good and discerning, saw through it all to the heart of the matter. They concluded Bush is the more honorable man, the preferred leader, the more compassionate unifier, the more trustworthy and resolute.
At last it's over. God bless the voters

 

[Merlin1047]

First, a couple of thumbs up on the article The author has some keen insights.

Second, I really am intrigued by the disparity in the pre-election polls and the huge errors in the exit polls. Some polls may have been biased from the onset. But polls rely on credibilty for their survival, so major pollsters like Zogby and others would likely do their best to present accurate results.

My gut feeling (agreed, highly unscientific) on this election is that nothing really changed in the last three months leading up to Nov 2. I believe that this election was so polarizing that most Americans had their minds made up one way or another and nothing was going to change their convictions. Yet the polls continued to show a day-to-day wavering of the electorate from one candidate to the other. The ultimate proof of the error of polls was the vote count in the election.

Were I the CEO of any of the major polling services, I would be taking a VERY hard look at my methodology in an effort to determine how my polling produced such questionable results.

 

[UsaPride]

Another myth it blew, Just because you're famous doesn't mean jack! Man, what a slap in the ego for all those actors and musicians!! :usa:

 

[Merlin1047]

Another myth it blew, Just because you're famous doesn't mean jack! Man, what a slap in the ego for all those actors and musicians!! :usa:

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Woweee! Humility therapy for those most in need of it. Boy I wish I could sneak up on the hillside where the Hollywood sign is posted and replace one of the letters with a giant finger - you know which one.

 

[Bonnie]

First, a couple of thumbs up on the article The author has some keen insights.

Second, I really am intrigued by the disparity in the pre-election polls and the huge errors in the exit polls. Some polls may have been biased from the onset. But polls rely on credibilty for their survival, so major pollsters like Zogby and others would likely do their best to present accurate results.

My gut feeling (agreed, highly unscientific) on this election is that nothing really changed in the last three months leading up to Nov 2. I believe that this election was so polarizing that most Americans had their minds made up one way or another and nothing was going to change their convictions. Yet the polls continued to show a day-to-day wavering of the electorate from one candidate to the other. The ultimate proof of the error of polls was the vote count in the election.

Were I the CEO of any of the major polling services, I would be taking a VERY hard look at my methodology in an effort to determine how my polling produced such questionable results.

Hopefully this election will cast new light on polls and their lack of credibility at least in this election. I cannot help but think there was a bias at the outset of this campaign a result of blowback from selected not elected in 2000. When they took the exit polls, a fair sampling was not used, so how in the world could anyone have expected them to be accurate? Largely women and people in Urban areas were polled which both lean heavily Democratic. It seems there was an agenda there?

Yes I think minds were made up at the outset as well, however Rove in his brilliance as a strategist, put together a most effective grass roots get out the vote movement in place, he managed to energize Bush supporters in an unprecedented way by driving home the importance of this election. If you saw Bush rallies, they were held in huge venues attracting 10 to 20 thousand people at each one.

 

[Bonnie]

Another myth it blew, Just because you're famous doesn't mean jack! Man, what a slap in the ego for all those actors and musicians!! :usa:

They have just been relegated to irrelevant somethng which kills their egos, better stick to hawking Winsor Pilates