Bush's victory (historically) pathetic

by vawolf, Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:25:16 AM EST

Yes, I'm devastated by Kerry's defeat as well, but I take some solace in the fact that it was a pretty pathetic victory for an incumbent. Bush and the Republicans will claim a great victory (a mandate, even), but the numbers (from 1900 on--see below, download the Word or PDF version of the chart I made) tell a different story:

  • Assuming Bush gets New Mexico and Iowa, he will have gotten the lowest percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Wilson. If those two states should swing Kerry's way (NM might), it'll be even lower.
  • He will have won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (who ran in a 4-way race that included Strom Thurmond)
  • He will have won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any  incumbent running for reelection since Truman (2.1M, and back then only 50M voted).
  • He will have won the three states that put him over 270 (OH, NM and IA--assuming the last two go his way) by only 161,989 (not counting the provisional ballots, absentee, etc.).

So, this is NOT a smashing incumbent victory like those of Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, LBJ or FDR. It was a bit pitiful for an incumbent, frankly, especially after 9/11. There's really no mandate here; this is still basically a 50-50 country, and we'll live to fight and win another day.

-- Originally posted on Another Liberal Blog




Tags: (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 38 Comments :: Post a Comment


We will definitely live to fight another day (none / 0)

And when the republicans are done screwing up the economy, we'll have no trouble putting together a majority coalition.
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong --Stephen Stills "For What It's Worth"
by vj on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:46:56 AM EST

It's also worth noting (none / 0)

Only four incumbents have been defeated since 1912. Four. Hoover, Ford (and he wasn't even elected in the first place) Carter, and Bush I. It ain't easy. Lots of good men have gone down to defeat against incumbents -- Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, and now Kerry. And Kerry came way closer than any of them.  
by dfaris on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:51:16 AM EST

Re: It's also worth noting (none / 0)

Well, yes, but I would also include LBJ in this list. He quit rather than get defeated, but what's the difference?
by Omark on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 04:23:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's also worth noting (none / 0)

Yeah, Kerry will be added in the History books as a good man going down to defeat against an UN-elected incumbent. But in my heart and soul, I know Kerry beat W just like Gore. The sad part to their claim to fame, they had to cheat twice.
a liberal held hostage in a Red State
by AmauryN on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 06:26:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re-look at Clinton's numbers (none / 0)

> this is NOT a smashing incumbent victory like those of Clinton...

Your chart leaves out good ole Ross Perot. Clinton won with less than 50% of the popular vote. Many would argue that without Perot Clinton wouldn't have won either of his elections.

The Republicans also picked up seats in the 2002 eletion which historically doesn't happen to the party in power. This last election they truly cleaned house, picking up seats in the Senate and the House as well as Governerships. Maybe one of the biggest indicators the Republicans would point at would be the Minority Leader losing his seat in the Senate.

Democrats in this election ran a good campaign, if the level of hate for George Bush wasn't there it probably would have been a landslide. The the overall effect hurt the party more, than if they would have supported the President on the war and ran on their issues.

by Patrick Henry on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 01:54:55 PM EST

Re: Re-look at Clinton's numbers (none / 0)

<Many would argue that without Perot Clinton wouldn't have won either of his elections.>

I've wondered this myself and have heard others argue this. Were there any polls conducted for those elections that would support this? I've been curious for some time now. The only data I have against the argument is largely anecdotal. Namely I had friends whose decision was split between Clinton or Perot and others who believed that Perot's candidacy threatened Clinton's chances. Whether this is true for everyone who voted for Perot, I don't know.

So the question is did Perot take away from the Republican candidates to give Clinton his two victories? Or did Perot prevent Clinton from winning a larger margin of the popular vote?

by patbuddha on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 08:25:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Re-look at Clinton's numbers (none / 0)

I don't think GHWB would have won without Perot, but I do think he would have had a much better chance and the race would have been closer. Admitally I am a GW fan becuase of his reforms to Washington among other things, but his father I do not see has being a very effective President. He really didn't have his base, much less the people behind him. I think the only reason he won his first election, besides who he ran against, was the fact that many still loved Reagan. When he raised taxes after we read his lips, it was the end.
by Patrick Henry on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 10:07:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Re-look at Clinton's numbers (none / 0)

It's possible that Clinton's win in '92 was due to Perot, but not the '96 one.

In '96, Clinton got 49.23% of the popular vote. He had a majority in states worth 230 electoral votes, and his margin of victory was larger than Perot's total in states worth another 20 EVs. Lastly, his victory margin was only a fraction of a percent less than Perot's total in states worth 41 more EVs. Even if 99% of Perot's voters had voted for Dole instead, Clinton still would have won.

In '92, however, Clinton only won enough to guarantee victory without Perot in 4 states, worth a total of 52 EVs, while Bush would have been guaranteed 1 state worth 7 EVs. In all the rest, it would have depended on how Perot's voters split. Exit polls reportedly said they'd have split evenly between Clinton & Bush Sr., but those polls are not always accurate. Also, while I've heard many people refer to those exit poll results, I've never actually seen them for myself.

by Horq on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 01:23:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Facts (none / 0)

The things you list above are facts. They are therefore irrelevant to the 'group of folks' currently in power. Completely irrelevant. All that matters to them is they won. And the fact that it was less close than last time signals to them that the entire country must approve of the Bush way, as if they needed any reason to think that.
by park on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:16:17 PM EST

Re: Facts (none / 0)

All I am saying is continue to think the the Repubs are only interested in winning is not going to help you cause. What is you cause?
by Patrick Henry on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:26:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

some missing words (none / 0)

You should have written (in several places) "the lowest [whatever] of any successful incumbent running for reelection" ...

(or else, should have concluded every such sentence with "since his father.")

by globecanvas on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:21:37 PM EST

We're out of touch (none / 0)

Senator Dodd is right. We have to fact up to it. We are out of touch and these statements prove it. When you add up the 527 we out spend the Bushies big time. We went with Kerry because he was our most electable candidate. Teh war was unpolular. We were going to win big time and we got our butt kicked. We lost Senate, House, and state level tickets.
Nader was not a factor and the turn out was high.
This was supposed to benefit us and instead it looks like low turn out and a strong 3rd party candidate serves us better.

The only thing that kept us from being relagated to Reforme party status was the black vote.

Like aging hippies we are now humming old tunes that don't work.

As Senator Kerry said: Wake up

Teh media ahs it right we are on the wrong side of values.

by Topcat on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:42:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not nearly that bad (none / 0)

Kerry was a bad canidate (Clark would have been better, Edwards maybe).  Bush still had some boost from 9/11.

As for the House and Senate-we lost seats in the senate because the competative ones were mostly in solid red states (KY, OK, ND, AK).  We lost seats in the House because of the Texas redistricting.

by Geotpf on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 05:28:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

U can't draw true conclusions from false facts (none / 0)

http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

Kerry won. Here's the facts. (tompaine.com) Bush won Ohio by 136,483 votes. Typically in the United States, about 3 percent of votes cast are voided--known as "spoilage" in election jargon--because the ballots cast are inconclusive. Drawing on what happened in Florida and studies of elections past, Palast argues that if Ohio's discarded ballots were counted, Kerry would have won the state. Today, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports there are a total of 247,672 votes not counted in Ohio, if you add the 92,672 discarded votes plus the 155,000 provisional ballots. So far there's no indication that Palast's hypothesis will be tested because only the provisional ballots are being counted. --by Greg Palast "Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state. So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, 'Who did you vote for?' Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, 'Was your vote counted?'"

by leschwartz on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:46:03 PM EST

Re: U can't draw true conclusions from false facts (none / 0)

Tell the truth leschwartz - Are you really Al Gore?
by Patrick Henry on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 04:31:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bush (none / 0)

"He will have won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (who ran in a 4-way race that included Strom Thurmond)"

Correction: Bush's 51% is better than Clinton's showing in 1996.  Clinton never cracked 50 in either of his two runs.

by Mr Moderate on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:50:03 PM EST

Analyse this (none / 0)

Don't analyse things to death.  Each presidential run occurs under different circumstances, the dynamics are different, and the cultural gestalt is different.  If it is any consolation, the wave of the future always starts with a small group working against the majority.  The majority is "conservative" in that it doesn't want change unless there is some overwhelming reason for change.  All revolutions start small, and work their way up to critical mass.

What I see occurring in the Democratic party is the rebirth of the populist progressive wing, the one that got stifled in favor of "electability" but the "conservative majority" inside the DLC.  Just remember that progressives come in all colors and shapes and ages.  

The real question most of you will have to ask yourselves is whether the Democratic Party is the right place fr you to go?  Can you fight that monolithic structure and change it?

by Carol on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 03:21:11 PM EST

Re: Analyse this (none / 0)

You could argue the parties have flipped.

1. The richest people in America supported Kerry, not counting Hollywood. Case in point, Bill Gates, Goerge Sorros, Kerry's wife, Warren Buffet - the world's second-richest man, Steve Jobs...etc.

People at the top like high taxes because it makes it easier to remain at the top!

2. Conservative means to keep things as they are and progressive means to change them. GWB and the republicans are changing a lot in Washington and bringing new ideas like privatizing SS. Democrats are fighting to keep the policies of 70 years ago.

Politicians at the top don't like change especially if it means they lose control.

Depending on when you say the country started its shift back to the right the dmocrats had control of Washington for 70 years starting with FDR. I say 9/11 was the pivotal movement, but it was coming since Reagan. Reagan in the 80's, Gingrich and the congress in the 90's and GWB in the 00's.

Before FDR the Republican ushered in the Industrial Revolution and held control for 30 years. The direction of the country shifts back in forth. It is healthily for Democracy. Look at how many people voted in this election! People are starting to look at the issues again.

Basically the labels Democrat or Republican mean little. That is why Presidents Elect need to run on their values and beliefs so the American public know where they stand.

by Patrick Henry on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 10:25:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Analyse this (none / 0)

President Bush ran on his values and beliefs. They are,
  1. homophobia isn't just good, it's great
  2. invading countries without justification is okay
  3. my tax dollars support the Christian fundamentalist agenda
  4. "the wonderful thing about a democracy is that everyone can say what they like", subtext, "shut up you liberal"
  5. liberals are traitors (Coulter)
  6. opposing the president's agenda is un-American (Ashcroft)
  7. torture is okay (Rumsfeld)
  8. corporate wrong-doing is rewarded (Cheney)
  9. fuck the environment, the war protesters, global opinion, but... oh, a little religious fervor in Saudi Arabia is okay... after all, when have Saudis or religious extremists ever hurt us, with their precious delicious oil?

So why did this miserable excuse for a human being win? Because Evangelicals like yourself (and some of my family whom I love very much) are taking over the country. You're systematically creating a one-party dominated theocracy. Don't pretend you have any other agenda. Frist said as much recently and I found that refreshingly honest.

Run on hot button items if you like. We're developing a strategy to counter you. So, good luck the next time you try to brand us. We're coming up with a few choice tactics of our own.

Oh, thanks for pointing out the "richest people in America" list. I wonder, were there any rich people who supported Bush? I'll let a fellow liberal give the list, I'm sure there are some colorful characters apart from Ken Lay.

by Green Irishboy on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 02:43:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Analyse this (none / 0)

I am debating on wheter to repsond to your post. I don't have time to address all of your issues. Overall I would say they sound pretty simplistic and void of real concerns...no offense.

BTW: I am not an Evangelical by any means. I do believe their is some higher power, but it is not my main concern. Creating division instead of inclusion seems to have been a stratgey by the DNC to hold their minorities in check. To me it doesn't seem right. You will have to admit that the Democrats shot themselves in the foot when they brought Gay issues into this campaign. I have no problem with Gay people, but I do not think they should be represented as the norm.

Thanks.

by Patrick Henry on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 08:55:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Analyse this (none / 0)

Don't worry. I'll take a moment to clarify my simplistic views that are "void of concern". I thought they were pretty clear, but let me spell it out for you.

1. homophobia isn't just good, it's great
Republican leadership and the radical right systematically encourage marginalizing gays as human beings by denying them justice. Disagree? My sister is gay and loves a woman. She's served her country and isn't poltically active; just a person trying to live her life. But she can't enjoy the same benefits you do as a married heterosexual because of religion. Because you don't consider her a human being worthy of civil rights. Address your predjudices; tolerating the presence of gays is not the same as accepting them as people. People aren't born intolerant, it's a learned behavior.

2.invading countries without justification is okay
You've got to be kidding. Find the weapons of mass destruction and actually link Saddam Hussein to the war on terrorism, would you? Just do that much for me, I'm begging you. The UN inspectors were doing their job and they were kicked out because this President wanted to "get Saddam". Not Osama (I'll paraphrase his opinion on the man here, "I don't think he's all that important"). Saddam.

3. my tax dollars support the Christian fundamentalist agenda
Religious charities should draw their funding from donations, not from tax dollars. That's why they're called "charities". But I'll just leave one example and move on.

4. "the wonderful thing about a democracy is that everyone can say what they like", subtext, "shut up you liberal"
I'm referring to President Bush's reaction to record numbers of protestors, more protestors than were seen during the Vietnam war, opposing his drive to invade Iraq. Eh, they were all just liberals anyway, right?

5. liberals are traitors (Coulter)
"Traitors.", I believe, is one of her book titles. Another is "Treason". Both are referring specifically to me, a liberal.

6. opposing the president's agenda is un-American (Ashcroft)
I'm paraphrasing, but yes, Ashcroft has likened opposition to the President as un-American. Look it up.

7. torture is okay (Rumsfeld)
The man has a job after issuing "by any means necesary" orders through the military chain of command. The result was Abu Ghraib and international humiliation. We lost major moral ground around the globe and fueled anti-American religous zealotry.

8. corporate wrong-doing is rewarded (Cheney)
While Cheny was CEO, Halliburton followed corporate policies not unlike primary Bush 2000 supporter, Enron. They were found guilty of multiple charges recently.

9. fuck the environment, the war protesters, global opinion, but... oh, a little religious fervor in Saudi Arabia is okay... after all, when have Saudis or religious extremists ever hurt us, with their precious delicious oil?

Name one Iraqi or Afghan on board any of the planes that attacked us. What's that? The majority were fundamentalist extremists from so-called moderate ally nations?

Sure, we had to go into Afghanistan to get Osama, I'll agree to that. Did we have to divert resources, intelligence units, surveillance equipment, and basically let him off the hook? That 75% leadership figure Bush gave during the debates ignores that few terroist leaders were captured or killed since Iraq, AND most of those positions have been refilled by zealots motivated by our invasion of Iraq!

The environment; Bush protects 2 million acres of wetlands and then opens up loopholes so another 20 million acres can be developed. I have four years of articles gathered every day from Daily Grist magazine, coupled with reports from the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, and, well, major news organization headlines. Want fair and balanced coverage from Fox regarding the environment? Look no further than the "Junk Science" columnist, a former tobacco industry lobbyist.

IF you are not an Evangelical, I apologize. Your posts indicate otherwise. You are open-minded enough to engage liberals on their own board, and for that I have some respect for you.

I'll conclude by suggesting that the country isn't ready to accept gay rights because the Radical Right has demonized liberals and gays in the mind of the voter. You're fighting a cultural war. I won't debate the merits of this point with you, though. Let's just say, game on.

by Green Irishboy on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 09:44:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Analyse this (none / 0)

One other thing-

You seem like a decent enough guy, personally, from several of your posts. I suspect if we met we'd be able to hold this same conversation amicably over a beer. So I'm going to add that I strongly, strongly oppose your politics, but I respect your right to hold your views.

Would that your party extended the same curtesy to me.

If I sound angry, you ladies and gents hold 51 cards out of a 52 card deck. So, you, the fundamentalists in my family, and this country's leadership are a bit in my face this week. I think many of us here feel the same way. Still, thank you for sharing your views on this board. I'm afraid I still disagree with everything you've had to say...

by Green Irishboy on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 10:16:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Analyse this (none / 0)

I live in Minnesota and would gladly buy you a beer at anytime. My few are oftewn strong, but it has never stopped me for having strong friends that are liberals. We have great discussions about our country and the world. I feel it is impossible to know everything, so it is important to understand how other people come to thier conclusions. Thanks for the comments.
by Patrick Henry on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 12:16:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Analyse this (none / 0)

Just some notes from my point of view.

1. Republicans treat gay people equally to everyone else. People living together don't get the same benefits as married people either. The government promotes marriage because it leads to children, the future of our country. I would argue that children are best raised by a mother and a father. I also feel the gay marriage issue is less about rights or benefits than an attempt to set gay marriage as the norm. I just don't think it is. If you wish to talk civil unions it is a different issue in my mind.

2. My other posts touch on the Iraq war, but to the point I feel the attack on Iraq was justified and had the okay from the UN and the Congress. Saddam has been a thorn in our side for 10 years or more. The sanctions hurt the people not Saddam and we had an opportunity to take him out.

3. Where tax dollars are spent depend upon who is in office. I hope you can image how a person who thinks unborn children represent life would feel about his or her dollars being spent on abortions. That is how democracy works. Both party's followers are religious as is most of the country. I don't feel the faithbased; community efforts by Bush are a violation of separation of church and state.

4. Protestors - As far as I am concerned they can say what they want. They are not always the best choice to decide policy and I do not think the President should favor their concerns more than the people who got him elected. The efforts didn't work in this election largely because they motivated Bush's followers more the Bush even could do. I would question as to if there where more than during the Vietnam era.

5. Ann Coulter is not running for office or endorsed by me, but I can understand her point of view. To many republicans it seems as though the left in this country was trying to turn Iraq into Vietnam before anyone can make that claim. It has impact on the morale of our soldiers and the morale of our enemies. The insurgents cannot win the war militarily; all they can hope for is enough mindless killing to break America's resolve. It is seen to them as party of country.

6. Opposing the Presidents agenda is not un-American.

7. Torture is not okay. Republicans would argue that the photos, with the exception of the electrocution, where horrible, but nothing like the torture that went on there under Saddam. It is true and good to hold the US to higher standards, but the focus on those photos was nothing more the enemy using our media for there own objective. At least in my mind. I think the media tends to exaggerate both the charges and the world reaction.

8. The busting of Enron and other huge corporations is a showing of Bush doing something about the problem. He should not be punished for stopping the corruption. I would argue that the largest companies and riches individuals currently support the democrats. Republicans are pushing small business and helping the "little guy", as I see it.

As far as Halliburton, Cheney was not in office during the charges the Edwards made. At least that is what factcheck.org said. Reminds me of George Soros another billionaire for Kerry. Look at the numbers for Halliburton; they are not making money right now and their stock is not performing well at all.

9. I talked briefly about the environment below in other posts.

I'll conclude by suggesting that I am not fighting a cultural war and feel it is sad that this is what it takes to get people involved in democracy. The country over the past 70 years has moved to far to the left, we are just going through a correction and that is a sign of a healthy democracy. The leadership on the left has seen it coming and until now, maybe, has preferred to generate anger among its closest followers instead of looking to the future for solutions.

I understand it is easier to believe all is well in our country as a Republican after the election, but it really is. If anything this election has strengthen this country because people like you an me are discussing the issues! Thanks again.

by Patrick Henry on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 01:00:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Analyse this (none / 0)

  1. You argue, again, on the basis of religious principals I can not embrace. My principals are those of equality for all people, not exclusion.

  2. Still, not a justification for war. War is always a last option, not a political expediency. Have we the resources, do you think, to invade every country that's a thorn in our side? Have we a generation to sacrifice?

  3. It is intended to undermine and underfund the state's social fund while giving financial aid to organizations with a similar religious philosphy. Funding abortions and permitting abortions are two separate issues. One addresses the appropriate or inappropriate allocation of tax dollars. The other addresses a civil right.

  4. Question the numbers if you like, I don't have time or inclination to do the research. The president actually is intended to represent all of the people. Some people waste endless amounts of time trying to establish a dialogue with their opposition. Others ignore them altogether. President Bush systematically ignores opposition. He rarely even meets with the press, thereby encouraging an closed administration.

  5. This is what angers me most of all about the Radical Right. You can't claim a monopoly on patriotism as you have on God. Opposing a highly questionable war based on a false claim when we're fighting another, much more dangerous war is not treason. Questioning a dishonest president is not treason. It's our duty. I SUPPORT THE TROOPS. I have friends and family who are soldiers. They do their duty. They also understand, as many people do, that you can support the troops and not support the war.

  6. Thank you. But you agree with Ann Coulter that sometimes it is.

  7. Then Donald Rumsfeld should not have made that tool available to the enemy. The media was right to point out the military's shortcomings. Other abuse cases have since come to light partially as a result. Have you seen the photos? Hard to exagerate them, frankly. Note that Rumsfeld refused to describe using dogs, forced sex acts, and attaching electrical wiring to genitalia as "torture". Note his current low profile.

  8. Bush did nothing spectacular about Enron until the scandal was already well under way. He and Ken Lay were friends at the same time Enron was manipulating the California energy crisis for a few extra bucks. Helping the little guy... I'm not even debating that. Their ties to corporate America are extensive and well-documented.

I find it equally sad the the right has embraced the judgemental so-called "family values" of the far right. The country has been moving too far to the right for the past twenty years and Karl Rove has successfully manipulated the electorate through fear and deceptions.

How closed-minded is the Republican party? I think it says something when school aged children are evicted from your political rally for wearing a John Kerry pin. I think it says something when you must take a loyalty oath to fully participate in this democracy.

All is well? History will judge. That's the good news, Pat! American history will judge this period, and I have to tell you, I don't expect it will be too kind.

by Green Irishboy on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 02:05:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Understanding the Religious-Right (none / 0)

Understanding the Religious-Right

Well, I personally think that religion is what happened on election day Nov 2. I attended my local Kerry/Edwards party on Tuesday. The problem of the religious-right came up. We all agreed that something is going to have to be done about these religious people. However, I get the impression that most Democrats don't understand the religious-right, who they are and how they break down. As a person that grow up in the Charismatic Church from age 4 to age 13, I can help with this. I am not an expert, but I can give the basics.

The top reasons for being a Republican are the following: 1)Greed, 2) Religion, 3)Fear(losing guns or terrorists), 4)Racism

The threat to the Republican are the following: 1)People of Color, 2) Regular people, 3) Poor people.

Well, the republicans targeted one of their threats through the religious-right. This threat would be the people of color. They made some successful inroads in this area. The black vote went from 9% in 2000 to 13% in 2004 nationally. The Latinos in Florida went wild for Bush this year. We should think about Texas, there are tons of people of all kinds of colors. However, there is a lot of religious-right influences in this state.

The primary threat to the Democrats is the Pat Robertson crowd of churches. These churches break-down into the following categories:1)Charismatics, 2)Pentecostals, 3)Assembly of God, 4)Church of God, )Evangelicals, 6)Evangelical Free, 7)Full Gospel, 8)Foursquare Gospel, 9)Apostolic, 10) what is called the Five-Fold ministry. Watch churches that call themselves 11)into Prophecy, 12)Faith-based ministry, 13)Non-denominational, 14)Inter-denominational

The secondary threat to the Democrats are the Jerry Falwell crowd of churches.
These churches break-down into the following categories: 1) Fundamental Baptists, 2) Independent Baptists, 3)Southern Baptists, 4) Some of the white General  Baptist churches.

The above is the real threat to Democrats. Now, some of you may not know any people like this or kids. This isn't a surprise to me. Many of these types of Christians in Robertson's and  Falwell's Fundamental/Independent Baptist crowd shelter their lives and children from the real world. Many of their children are home schooled or go to Christian schools. Christian school is very different from Catholic, Private or Prep schools.  Christian schools are not as focused on education or technology, but religion and discipline (corporal punishment is strong in many Christian schools). Examples of Christian schools are the following:  Evangelical Christian school http://www.ecseagles.com/, Christian Academy of Knoxville http://www.christianacadknox.org/, Temple Baptist Academy http://www.templebaptistacademy.com/, Knoxville Christian School http://www.knoxvillechristian.org/. There are so many more of these schools in Knoxville and state of Tennessee and all around the country.  I would not recommend them academically. My Mom put me in one and I paid for it academically until high school. I was way behind when I went to public school in 7th grade. Teachers in these schools are often hired on their religious affiliation and not their qualifications. There curriculums are all written by religious people and that is the only reason they use them not because they are the best. I can't stand the Abeka curriculum. Other curriculums are Bob Jones Press, and Saxon.

These types are Christians send their kids to colleges like the following: Oral Roberts University(OK), Bob Jones University(SC), Brigham Young University(UT), Liberty University- Falwell's University(VA), Lee University(TN), Johnson Bible College(TN), Crown College(TN), David Lipscomb University(TN) etc.. these types of universities are all around the country as well.

I think Democrats need to find away to go after the Religious-Right. A good place to learn about the Religious-Right is to watch Christian television. In my area, we have 3 stations on our basic cable of this. All of these networks are runned by Charismatic/Pentecostal type of Christians These would be the following: 1) Trinity Broadcast Network (TBN) http://www.tbn.org/, 2) Christian Television Network http://www.ctnonline.com/, 3) INSP - The Inspiration Network
http://www.insp.com/, 4) Sometimes you will see things on PAX, the program Worship http://www.worship.net comes on late at night between 12:00AM and 4:00AM or 5:00AM. It the kind of worship that would be common in a Pat Robertson type of church.

I can tell you what types of sermons you will hear in the Charismatic/Pentecostal Church. Their sermons tend to be based on the following: 1)Prosperity, 2) Seed Faith, 3)Tithes/Offering, 4)Supernatural Healing, 5) Self-perfection,  6)Salvation and  7)Morality.

You won't hear much about the following:1) Love thy neighbor, 2)Helping people, 3)Helping the poor and 4)Kindness. However, you may hear that the poor are cursed because they don't live for God, pay tithes or sow seed.

Fundamental Baptist preach a lot about what is wrong with other faiths and salvation.

The directory of Charismatic and Pentecostal Churches
http://www.charismatic.org/

Assembly of God Home page
http://www.ag.org/top/
http://colleges.ag.org/
http://ag.org/top/churchdirectory/index.cfm

Religions that are fairly new, but growing and something to watch or be concerned about:

Catholic Charismatic
http://www.garg.com/ccc

Charismatic Episcopal
http://www.iccec.net

by BushNotMyPresident on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 05:01:44 PM EST

Re: Understanding the Religious-Right (none / 0)

Time to tax their asses.
by kitebro on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 05:09:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Understanding the Religious-Right (none / 0)

You should also keep in mind that cults like the Jim Jones http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm, http://www.rickross.com/groups/jonestown.html
and David Koresh http://www.rickross.com/groups/waco.html. Both of these guys came out of the Charismatic Church. The power of many Charismatic preacher is amazing. They can suck all kinds of people. David killed some very educated people and people of color.
by BushNotMyPresident on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 06:30:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Understanding the Religious-Right (3.00 / 1)

I am a blue-state Republican and a white evangelical Christian.  So, having stated that up front, let me comment on this comment and others like it.

It doesn't seem to me that the Democrats understand the "religious right" at all.  First of all, we are far from monolithic.  I get into more debates over stuff with my Christian friends than you can imagine.  We are a very diverse lot - but we do have a common thread.  We are all trying to understand better what God would have of us and how to live in a way that more pleases him (all through the power of Christ).  There are two forms of Christianity - the cultural one and the one of the heart.  I grew up in a Christian home, went to church, and was a good person.  I was a cultural Christian.  I certainly looked like a Christian.  When I accepted Jesus into my live at age 38, I became one of the heart.  I changed in many ways and almost over night.  Christians of the heart struggle with all the issues you do - trying to live a life in accordance with God's will, yet being in society and loving those who trash what we love.  The cultural Christian is not a true Christian, yet he would find himself in the "religious right" for political, rather than religious reasons.  Many of your charge against all the Christian organizations you mention are no doubt true for some who call themselves Christian - I find them offensive too.  But you lump too much together.  

If the Democratic party is ever to draw us to your party, you must do a far better job in understanding us.  Making group characterizations is easy.  Understanding us is far more difficult.  And by the way, I would define the basis of racism as seeing individuals as a group and ascribing the group characteristics to the individual.  For example, "Black youth commit a higher percentage of crime (or at least are more often arrested), so when I see a black youth, I am afraid and think (racial profiling) he is a criminal."  I would suggest that you are doing the same thing to "Christians."  And interestingly, the same result has occurred.  Blacks vote as a Democratic block, because they see the threats of the other side (Republicans) to their block, even if individually they are not affected by them - or even if some tenents of the Republican party would aid them.  Conversely, Christians see Democrats in the same light.  You greatly threaten our beliefs and often ridicule our faith (just read the hate and fear frequently found in the comments posted on myDD towards us), so even if you may help us economically, we aren't going to vote for you.  You have effectively driven us from the Democratic party.  (And, I was raised in a white, evangelical Democratic home).

I feel I have been babbling, so I'll just end with these specific comments regarding your observation:

"The top reasons for being a Republican are the following: 1)Greed, 2) Religion, 3)Fear(losing guns or terrorists), 4)Racism

The threat to the Republican are the following: 1)People of Color, 2) Regular people, 3) Poor people."

  1.  Democrats are driven by greed also.  Why do you promise so much to the poor?  They want something and they are willing to trade their vote for it.

  2.  Already discussed.  The Democrat party are driving us to become Republicans.  Interestingly, years ago, the percentage of religious delegates to the conventions was the same in both parties.  Today, it is much heavier with Republicans.  In fact, a significant percentage of Democratic delegates define themselves as either agnostics or atheists.  And don't insult us thinking that John Kerry being an alter boy at age 12 will impress us.  Also interestingly, John Kerry and Bill Clinton have both mentioned their faith far more than George Bush - according to those who have done word searches on their public speaches.

  3.  Fear (guns or terrorists).  We actually are more afraid of governments, but here I think we will always disagree.

  4. Racism.  Is their racism in the blue collar supporters of the Republican party?  Yes.  In the blue collar supporters of the Democrat party?  Yes.  Is racism supported by the Christian faith.  Absolutely not.  

Let's see.  In my own case, I give away over 25% of my income - church, social causes, the arts.  I also give over 10% of my spare time (breakfast, lunch and evenings) to mentoring people - kind of like a Big Brother.  And that's not counting the time I spend on church or "religious" functions.  I don't own a gun.  I go to a racially mixed church, have opened my home to a Venezuelan family, my children spend their vacations helping to build schools and homes in Haiti and my parents have taken in a handicapped Cambodian refugee for more than 20 years.

Oh yes, and I am supposed to be afraid of people of color (see above), regular people (a meaningless statement), poor people (oh yeah, those people I give my money and time too).

So why am I a Republican?  That's the question that is so critical for the Democratic party to understand.

The point is I think you have made strawman of the religious right.  Makes for a great posting, but is nearly worthless in helping Democrats attract them back to the Democratic party.

by emmausman on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 07:34:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Understanding the Religious-Right (none / 0)

I have just a few observations here.  First of all, thanks for posting.  Too many of us (certainly I include myself) wouldn't post on the other side's blog.  I'm trying to understand why you think that we Democrats "threaten your beliefs".  How, precisely, do we do that?  By not agreeing with you?  I have not seen any action by my party that would threaten another's religion.  By your party, on the other hand, there have been numerous attempts.  Democrats believe that we all have the right to believe and worship in any manner we choose.  We also believe that we do not have the right to legislate anyone's religious beliefs.  It's interesting that the Catholic church desperately tried to convince Americans that it would not impose its candidate's beliefs on America - in 1960.  And this year, the bishops tried to excommunicate Kerry because he wouldn't impose his beliefs on the public.  And speaking of Kerry, I think you should be impressed by his altar boy service.  His faith is his, and his alone, and is just as valid as yours.

I have to take issue also with your premise that Democrats help the poor because of an implied quid pro quo.  Has it occurred to you that perhaps this help is faith driven?  I'd love to hear the GOP spend as much time talking about helping the poor as they do bashing gays, which was Bush's entire Ohio campaign.  What's so Christian about that?

I don't know quite to say about the comment regarding fear of government.  The Bush administration has created the largest government in the history of America.  The AG has proposed more intrusive government measures than any Democrat in history.  Bush has created more government and deficit than any person in history.  So what, exactly, are you afraid of in respect to government?

As far as racism is concerned, you are absolutely right that there are racists in both parties.  However, the one huge difference is that Republicans make overt appeals to their voters on the basis of race.  Think Jesse Helms, among others.  The Republicans in the south are the former Democrats who switched parties after the Democratic party renounced institutional racism.  Every one of them owes his continued stay in office to, in part, appeals to racists.

In closing, I'd like to say that I wish more of us, from both sides, "walked the walk" as you do in regards to helping those less fortunate.  The country, and the world, would certainly be a better place.

by cycleguy on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 08:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Understanding the Religious-Right (none / 0)

One thing that is difficult to do is separate when I am saying something with a "conservative" viewpoint and when I am saying something with a "Christian" viewpoint, and they always the same thing.  Regarding "fear of the government" - that was a conservative reaction.  You are correct, I am dismayed at W's fiscal record.  No spending vetos!?  Appalling!  He is NOT a fiscal conservative.  But do I trust the liberal establishment to do better?  No.  They believe that government is the more efficient solution-maker to problems, whereas the conservatives believe that the citizenry is more efficient.  That's not a religious issue.  We may not like what W has done fiscally, but we still trust him more.  Blind faith?  Perhaps. ;-)

I would argue that evangelicals also believe you have a right to believe and worship as you see fit.  We may believe your choices wrong, wicca for example, but you do have the right.

As for legislating religious beliefs - that doesn't make any sense on the surface.  All legislation is based in forcing a belief on to someone else.  If Kerry believes I should pay more taxes and gets legislation passed, I pay more taxes.  I'm forced to wear seat belts, motorcycle helmets, not use my cell phone while I drive and all sorts of things.  I'm forced to pay for abortions (through taxes).  etc.  Now, one interpretation of that statement is that a belief that is rooted in religion can't be forced on someone else, but a belief that is not rooted in religion can be.  That marginalizes anyone with faith.  I am equally perplexed even if I take the statement at face value without reading too much into it.  Abortion, for example.  I believe that a unborn baby is a person, with the full rights of personhood.  Am I forcing my beliefs on to someone if I stop them from having an abortion?  Arguably, by the left, yes.  However, lets look at it from the baby's point of view.  The pro-choice mother is also forcing her beliefs onto someone - the baby - when the baby's life is terminated.  How do we resolve this?  I suspect that through compromised legislation, we could have, although we will never know.  The courts "invented" a new right (my perspective, of course) that shortcircuted our best hope of resolving this problem peacefully.  Parenthetically, from my point of view, slavery, nazism and pro-choice have all done the same thing: legally defined a person as less than a person, 3/5s, subhuman and fetus (latin for baby), respectively.

You are right that the Republicans in the south inherited the Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond, for example.  I also think that there has been an incredible change in the attitudes of the south (not all sadly, or we wouldn't have had the man dragged to death in Texas).  I won't defend those people, but condemn them.  Racism is a very complex issue.  Both sides pander to the fears of people in this arena.  As frustrated as you are with the Republicans, we are frustrated with the Democrats who seem to play the race card all too frequently.  Lincoln seems to have been right in his second inaugurual (spelling?) address.

Although I know some Christians who bash gays, I also know some non-Christians who bash them too.  I take my fight to the Christians.  My bible group has two transsexual people in it.  I don't condone their lifestyle, but they are a great add to our group.  I have never condemned them or told them they are sinning.  That's not my job.  The Holy Spirit is more than capable in doing that.  If they ever ask me, I will tell them what I believe, but short of that, God can sort that out.  It took many years for them to get where they are and I don't expect to "fix" them in one evening.  And to answer the question of the third debate, I believe GLBTs are not born that way, I believe it is a developed trait.  I suspect you'll disagree with that.  BTW, I have learned a whole lot from my two friends about being transsexual.  We have had very frank discussions.  

Protests notwithstanding, what Kerry did when he was 12 has no bearing on his faith today.  Faith is alive, and anyone with it should be able to speak much more about the present.  I also think the Catholic church was fully in its rights to exclude Kerry from communion.  If you don't agree with with tenents of your faith, you should change faiths.  There are plenty of churchs that would have welcomed Kerry with open arms.

And finally, how do Democrats threaten my beliefs?  Dang, I knew that would get me in trouble when I wrote it.  Let me answer more broadly.  When I hear the words "goddamn" or "Jesus Christ" spoken as a swear word, my body recoils physically.  I don't care for excessive vulgarity, but am not bothered by a low level of it.  However, when those other words are used, and they are frequently in movies, I am highly offended.  I understand that I have the right not to watch movies, but consider the "N" word and its impact on blacks.  I would argue that we feel the same way.  What happened to tolerance?

When Republican clubs are prohibited by college campuses for selling chocolate chip cookies for different prices for different racial groups to point out the problems with affirmative action (I understand it is confrontational), but what happened to the first amendment?  I read far too many examples of colleges through Political Correctness running over any conservative organization.

The constitution does not say "separation of church and state."  It prohibits establishing a religion.  This was fully and clearly understood as meaning a denomination, such as the Episcopals.  The ACLU's attempt to eliminate all references to God in public places is not what the constitution says.  Anyone without a pathological phobia would not be threatened by "In God we trust" on our coins.  Interestingly, the Massachussets Supreme Court is being blamed for Kerry's defeat.  I actually thought it would be the removal of "Under God" in the pledge that would reelect Bush, but the Mass. Supreme Court did it first.

More indirectly, we believe that the strength of the country is based on its traditions and middle class.  Will gay marriage be the rule of law one day?  Probably.  But when destruction of our traditions and the traditions of society for thousands of years are rapidly dismantled, yes, we do feel threatened.  Society is the glue that holds the country together.  Change it too rapidly and you invite destruction.  Witness the abolition of slavery.  Clearly a good thing, but it nearly destroyed the country in the process.  C-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-v-e.  Change with caution.  We will evolve, but we don't want to destroy the country in the process.

And finally, why did I post on this blog?  I was stunned by one of the bloggers who said he knew of no one who was voting for Bush.  How's that possible?  I know plenty of Kerry supporters.  I just want to help you all understand us a little better.  And maybe in the process, I'll understand you all a litter better too.

Man, I got to get less verbose!

by emmausman on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:36:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Understanding the Religious-Right (none / 0)

Yes, you do need to be less verbose. But that's okay, you said what you needed to. Paragraph by paragraph then, once sentence replies:

Blind faith- So, you gave the presidency to a man who can't balance a budget but who shares your religious views?

Right to believe and worship as you see fit- but not to marry if you're gay, inherit property from your partner if you're gay, receive health insurance from a partner if you're gay or unmarried, adopt if your gay, visit a loved one in the hospital if you're gay or unmarried, think differently without being called a traitor, vote without being challenged...

All legislation is based in forcing a belief on to someone else- Forcing beliefs is not legislation, it's dicatation and you aren't marginalized just because you can't force me to be a Christian.

As frustrated as you are with the Republicans, we are frustrated with the Democrats who seem to play the race card all too frequently- oh, but not as frequently as Republican "challengers" who use fraud to disenfranchise, who "challenge" affirmative action, and who "challenge" inner-city kids with a No Child Left With Funds policy.

And to answer the question of the third debate, I believe GLBTs are not born that way, I believe it is a developed trait- keep learning from your friends and you may find they don't believe you were born evangelical, but developed that way, too.

I also think the Catholic church was fully in its rights to exclude Kerry from communion- and they had the right to shelter child molesters and encourage a one-party non-secular government, but that doesn't make them right.

What happened to tolerance?- It was voted down in 11 states under the encouragement of your leadership.

...to point out the problems with affirmative action (I understand it is confrontational), but what happened to the first amendment?- It was discarded by John Ashcroft who called war protestors un-American, along with any resume or application with a black-sounding name, my friend, and Colin Powell and Condi Rice GOT and opposed that.

I actually thought it would be the removal of "Under God" in the pledge that would reelect Bush, but the Mass. Supreme Court did it first- Homophobia helped tremendously, but the phrase "Under God" is being revised to, "Only We Love God, You Sinner" by the Radical Right.

Witness the abolition of slavery. Clearly a good thing, but it nearly destroyed the country in the process.  C-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-v-e.  Change with caution- This deserves a couple sentences. How many lifetimes of slavery do you think would have been okay to gradually phase in freedom? Should we have developed a separate but equal slavery, less whippings for the children of slave owners, more for the recent arrivals?

I just want to help you all understand us a little better.  And maybe in the process, I'll understand you all a litter better too- Despite my harsh response, I respect your guts in voicing your opinion here. But I understand you just fine. You don't need to understand me, because you fundamentally don't trust Liberals. That's just fine, I don't trust the Radical Right either.

by Green Irishboy on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 03:15:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Understanding the Religious-Right (none / 0)

Shorter response - I promise.

I'm somewhat at a loss how to respond to your comments, in that many feel like non sequitors and presented in frustration to recent events.  I do want to get back to my original question...

I give away over 25% of my income - church, social causes, the arts.  I also give over 10% of my spare time (breakfast, lunch and evenings) to mentoring people - kind of like a Big Brother.  And that's not counting the time I spend on church or "religious" functions.  I don't own a gun.  I go to a racially mixed church, have opened my home to a Venezuelan family, my children spend their vacations helping to build schools and homes in Haiti and my parents have taken in a handicapped Cambodian refugee for more than 20 years.  My other daughter has given a third of her summer earnings (earmarked for college living expenses) to a widow (cash in an envelope with no chance of being getting a "thank you") and when she copies her favorite songs from a CD (and gives it to a friend), she contacts the publishers of the songs and pays for the copyright permission.

So why am I a Republican?  That's the question that is so critical for the Democratic party to understand if it is ever to have a chance to get my vote.

Do you want to win or just be complainers, or worse become so radical you lose all hope of being effective?  Why do I vote Republican?

by emmausman on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 10:48:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Understanding the Religious-Right (none / 0)

I love the interaction here. This is how democracy works. I hate to barge into this discussion, I know your questions weren't for me, but I thought I would add my opinion for now.

Quick answers to your questions:

    Actions threatening religion
    Personally I think that governments can maintain stability in one of two ways; by relying on the morals of the American public to control themselves or by the end of the sword. I feel like the current democrats in power side with creating more laws to control the actions of people. This country is founded on Judeo-Christian values, without a power higher than government itself; it is the government that determines right from wrong. We have seen what that can lead to.

    As too how the Democrats could be seen as threatening religion, off hand I can seem to think specifically rather there is a feeling that secular democrats are pushing their "faith" on others. Like removing any references to God or saying anything that is in the bible can't be put into law because of separation of church and state. We are a government for the people of the people and many of those people believe in a God. For the sake of time I will have to leave it at that and get back to you. Maybe these feeling are unfounded; I know there are plenty of religious democrats.

    The Faith Driven help of the poor
    Some would argue that stealing from Peter to give to Paul is not moral. I think in a nutshell that is it. Giving money is never easy for anyone, but that is what makes it a sacrifice. That sacrifice leaves me at least, feeling better about my self. By taxing one group of people to give to another you not only steal ones earnings, but the gratification of giving the money as well.

    Giving is not always the best approach either. For example someone that gives beer to an alcoholic becomes an enabler at some time and never solves the problem. The tougher solution is often to deal with it. As a person deals with their problems they are granted the strength to continue to deal with them.

    I feel this President believes that the people are best able to choose how to help the poor. Because they are spending their own money they are most willing to "invest" properly in organizations where their money gets to the people not suck in the system. His faith based and community programs allow grants for these organizations to start up.

    Fear of the Government
    I personally have a natural mistrust of government. Knowing that, I can understand why you would wonder how I could vote for the President. I do not feel that building up the military is bad for me, that is what the federal government is for and it helps every citizen. The Libertarian within me definitely has some concerns with the Patriot Act , but many of the arguments from the left I see as blown out of proportion. I also prefer to fight the war on terror at its roots aboard than increase security here.

    As far as gun control, it sounds extreme, but if the government ever did become tyrannical, the only thing stopping it would be the gun owner. Germany before world war two is a good example of how gun control laws can be used to control a population.

    A quick note on the deficits, personally I believe the government should run as close to zero as possible and error on the deficit side. Any surplus is simply over taxation. As a percentage of GDP the current deficits are comparable to the early 90's and nowhere near where they where during the military build up of Ronald Reagan. To me it is a non-issue.

    Racism
    Your assessment of the south is interesting, could the party's have flipped on race again? I mean which party would gain from keeping racism alive? Which party would gain from actually helping minorities, the one that gets 90% of the black vote of the one that gets 10%?

    The democrats control most if not all inner cities across this nation. Have they solved any of the problems? The president makes reference to this in his education plan with his statement - "challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations in public education"

    Could it be that President is battling a new form of "institutional racism"? Not racism that is done necessarily on purpose, but naturally occurs when a political power doesn't have to work to get the votes of a segment of the population. Or more exactly when both parties are not allowed to be evolved in the debate.

    I don't know much about Jessie Helms, but I can offer you up former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle Robert Byrd from the democrats a sitting, not retired senator.

Thanks for your interest, I am sure I cannot answer these questions as eloquently as emmausman, but I put in my two cents. Again I love discussing the issues with you guys, I toss them out to get your opinions and re-evaluate mine.
by Patrick Henry on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 12:07:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Understanding the Religious-Right (none / 0)

Robert Byrd has a good record on civil rights. That is more than you can say for Trent Lott.
by BushNotMyPresident on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 02:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's call it "the Jimmy Carter mandate" (none / 0)

Because Carter was the last President to win the popular vote by 51-48 (in 1976).  I can't remember anybody claiming he had a mandate.
by RT on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 05:13:52 PM EST

Clinton (none / 0)

This analysis is incorrect.  Clinton didn't get 50% of the popular vote in 1996.  I believe as unimpressive as Bush's win was, it was more impressive than Clinton's.  And I agree with the above poster that Clinton may not win either in 1992 or 1996 without the help of Perot.

On the other hand, Bush's victory was not nearly as impressive as Reagans, Nixon's, or LBJ's.  I can't understand how Bush can take a 51-48 win and say it's a mandate.  

by alhill on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 05:58:17 PM EST

Correct point, but bad argument (none / 0)

It is true that Bush just got the smallest percentage of electoral votes of any successful incumbent since 1916. (Assuming that chart is correct.) That doesn't mean a whole lot, however, because electoral votes really reflect the geographic distribution of a candidate's support as much as the quantity. To measure a President's mandate, you really need to look just at the quantity, i.e., the popular vote.

As others have pointed out, Clinton, Truman and Wilson all were re-elected with a smaller percentage of the popular vote. Plus Bush Sr., Carter, Ford, Hoover and Taft got less when they were defeated.

So, over the prior century, incumbents got a smaller percentage of the popular vote 8 times, and a larger percentage 8 times -- putting Bush right in the middle.  Bush's performance doesn't look so bad by that measure, does it?

Now, I agree that Bush doesn't have much of a mandate; I'm just saying that comparing his vote totals to other incumbents isn't the way to demonstrate that. His lack of a mandate is shown by the simple fact he got only 51% of the vote, and his opponent came within 2 points of beating him -- despite Bush being an incumbent running in wartime.

The fact that most of the 49% who voted against him also HATE HIS GUTS has got to count for something too. His father garnered a lot more respect, even from his critics.

by Horq on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 02:47:16 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: