I dont know, it probably made Bush's margin better. I dont know if it could have made up the whole difference.

But I do recall just as anecdotal thing someone in the forum saying they went to vote in NH and were told not to bother by a relative because their state was for sure going Dem. And then of course it was very close in NH after all.

Really the way I look at this election is this"

The Dems nominated an old craggy ugly guy with a 20 year record as one of the most liberal senators who couldn't shut up about his Vietnam service that even his supporters didn't want to hear about., And he had a borderline lunatic (IMO) unappealing wife. On top of that, liberals chose this election year to push the couldn't be more hot button topic of gay marriage to the front burner. And still with all that, it was still close.

If they just nominate someone who is more appealing and has a normal real marriage and others dont do crazy things like push divisive issues in an election year, they will do fine next time IMO.

But that's a long way off. :?

You mean Dems should nominate George Bush? ;-)

Hehehe

By the way, I'm getting some interesting data from the exit polls.

More voters are better off now than 4 years ago.

Income bracket $50k and up votes for Bush.

So, the winningest strategy for the GOPs for the next time around would be to ensure that people are richer than they were before.

Kinda hard to do when the unemployment rate is so high

DOn't make me angry.

The unemployment rate is 5.4%. That's not high by any stretch of the imagination.

Just for you to have something to do and to defend Lovmerox, here goes; George Bush has lost more jobs then any preseident since Herbert Hoover! (I know President does not conrtol the economy, but this might give you something to do and also its a Democratic talking point :wink: )

almost forgot

ROCK THE VOTE! Yo!

almost forgot

ROCK THE VOTE! Yo!

It's amazing how things go in cycles. I remember in 1996 when the Republicans were floundering and the best they could muster was Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, Lamar Alexander, and Phil Gramm to go up against Bill Clinton.

I think everybody makes too big a deal out of every campaign loss and what the country is "trying to say". You don't need to look any further than governor races (Texas had a democrat governor at one time, California has a Republican governor, Montana just elected a Democrat as governor, etc...).

It's pretty obvious it simply comes down to each individual candidate. Right now, as apparent by the election results, the Republicans have the most appealing candidates. Mark my words, things go in cycles...

It's amazing how things go in cycles. I remember in 1996 when the Republicans were floundering and the best they could muster was Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, Lamar Alexander, and Phil Gramm to go up against Bill Clinton.

I think everybody makes too big a deal out of every campaign loss and what the country is "trying to say". You don't need to look any further than governor races (Texas had a democrat governor at one time, California has a Republican governor, Montana just elected a Democrat as governor, etc...).

It's pretty obvious it simply comes down to each individual candidate. Right now, as apparent by the election results, the Republicans have the most appealing candidates. Mark my words, things go in cycles...

It's amazing how things go in cycles. I remember in 1996 when the Republicans were floundering and the best they could muster was Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, Lamar Alexander, and Phil Gramm to go up against Bill Clinton.

I think everybody makes too big a deal out of every campaign loss and what the country is "trying to say". You don't need to look any further than governor races (Texas had a democrat governor at one time, California has a Republican governor, Montana just elected a Democrat as governor, etc...).

It's pretty obvious it simply comes down to each individual candidate. Right now, as apparent by the election results, the Republicans have the most appealing candidates. Mark my words, things go in cycles...

It's amazing how things go in cycles. I remember in 1996 when the Republicans were floundering and the best they could muster was Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, Lamar Alexander, and Phil Gramm to go up against Bill Clinton.

I think everybody makes too big a deal out of every campaign loss and what the country is "trying to say". You don't need to look any further than governor races (Texas had a democrat governor at one time, California has a Republican governor, Montana just elected a Democrat as governor, etc...).

It's pretty obvious it simply comes down to each individual candidate. Right now, as apparent by the election results, the Republicans have the most appealing candidates. Mark my words, things go in cycles...

McCain has campaign experience and respected and admired by both sides.

Archie, I dont see the Democrats making inroads into the south.

You mean Dems should nominate George Bush? ;-)

Also, I'm glad that most of my heathen brethern youths decided to choose die instead of vote.

It's pretty obvious it simply comes down to each individual candidate. Right now, as apparent by the election results, the Republicans have the most appealing candidates. Mark my words, things go in cycles...

Without a doubt, a second term for George W. Bush promises to be a debacle of generational proportions. The courts will be stacked with ideological brothers of Antonin Scalia. Roe v. Wade will be cast down. The full frontal assault on the Federal budget, on Social Security, on Medicare, on anything resembling government-subsidized assistance for people who did not get the lion's share of Bush's tax cuts, will continue unabated. The war in Iraq will grind on, and likely be expanded to include Iran and Syria. If those military adventures fare as poorly as what has happened in Iraq, a military draft will not be far off.

Sidney Blumenthal described it this way: "Now, without constraints, Bush can pursue the dreams he campaigned for – the use of U.S. military might to bring God's gift of freedom to the world, with no more 'global tests,' and at home the enactment of the imperatives of 'the right God.' The international system of collective security forged in World War II and tempered in the Cold War is a thing of the past. The Democratic Party, despite its best efforts, has failed to rein in the radicalism sweeping the country. The world is in a state of emergency but also irrelevant. The New World, with all its power and might, stepping forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old? Goodbye to all that."

Perhaps the best indicator of what a now-unfettered Bush is going to be like over the next four years came during his Thursday press conference. Associated Press reporter Terence Hunt opened the questioning with a three-part query. Bush responded to his questions by saying, "Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start enforcing the one-question rule. That was three." When another reporter dared to ask a multi-pronged question, Bush's response was, "Again, he violated the one-question rule right off the bat. Obviously you didn't listen to the will of the people." In other words, journalists, sit down and shut up.

There are a few bright spots to point to in the aftermath. John Ashcroft will reportedly resign his position before the inauguration. While it is certain that Bush will nominate another far-right lunatic to replace him, unless that nominee is Atilla the Hun, any new Attorney General will be an improvement. There is also the brewing fight between the conservatives and the neo-conservatives within the Republican Party. A number of old-style conservatives were secretly hoping for a Kerry victory, because it would give them an opening to purge the GOP of the neo-cons and the far-right religious fundamentalists from the party. Now that Bush has a second term, this fight will probably break wide open.

Finally, the long fight to bring the glaring problems associated with the new electronic voting machines may finally break fully into the mainstream. There are some ominous discrepancies between the pre-election polls, the exit polls, and the final results out of counties in Florida and Ohio that used the machines. While eating an electoral defeat seems an incredible price to pay for initiating this dialog and investigation, consider the long term. If an investigation into the use of these machines in this election winds up requiring voters be given a paper confirmation of their vote, this democracy will look back on Tuesday November 2, 2004 as a necessary and beneficial trauma.

-William Rivers Pitt, TruthOut.org

Let me sum that up a lot more succinctly for you Wertham.

Compare:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... l.college/

http://www.learner.org/biographyofamerica/prog10/maps/

Would've had more relevance had it not been a Republican president who abolished slavery ;-)

I think matching census data to the results of the election reveals some very interesting things. For instance, there is a direct correlation that has been pointed out by the Boston Globe between the divorce rate per state, and who they voted for, as it turns out, the higher the percentage of people voting for Bush, the higher the divorce rate. That is very interesting considering many people voted based on 'morality'.

I am glad that so many people are so interested in IQ, statistical correlations, and their relation to politics. I believe such correlations are increasingly interesting as some candidates this year funneled more money into biased advertising and partisan propaganda than has ever been attempted in the history of the world.