1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[Christian Science Monitor] A deepening divide between red and blue

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by No Worries, Nov 4, 2004.

  1. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,938
    Likes Received:
    20,735
    A deepening divide between red and blue
    By Liz Marlantes | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

    WASHINGTON – With President Bush winning the first popular-vote majority in 16 years over Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, but adding almost no new states to his column since 2000, the 2004 election has revealed a political landscape that remains deeply, and almost immovably, divided - but one in which Republicans now seem to hold a clear upper hand.

    After living through the longest and most expensive campaign in US history, played out against the backdrop of war and uncertainty, the vast majority of Americans wound up coming down exactly where they did four year ago, producing an electoral map that was almost unchanged from 2000. Mr. Bush held every state he won last time around, with the exception of New Hampshire. He ran up bigger vote totals among his base in the South, helping him to secure an overall popular-vote win of more than 3 million votes.

    In essence, Bush consolidated his hold on red America but made few inroads among swing voters or independents. His most significant gain came with Hispanics, among whom he won more than 40 percent of the vote.

    But for Democrats, the discouraging reality is that Bush's base now seems to outnumber theirs - allowing Republicans to not only win the White House once more, but expand their majorities in the Senate and House, while raising serious questions about the message and the future direction of the Democratic Party.

    "Clearly the country is still divided," says Democratic strategist Steve Jarding. "But it seems it's a little less divided than it was in 2000. And for Democrats, it's going in the wrong direction."

    To some extent, the relatively close outcome reflects the risks for both parties of a base-mobilization strategy that looks first and foremost to drive up turnout among partisan supporters. Although the tactic has clearly worked better for Republicans than Democrats of late, it could leave even the GOP without much obvious room to grow in the future. Mr. Jarding argues this election may have pushed Republican Party even further to the right, ideologically, with several far-right Senate candidates winning seats.

    Some Republicans say that, despite winning a bigger mandate than he did in 2000, Bush now needs to try to reach out to the middle in his second term.

    "Bush needs to start thinking about his place in history as a united not a divider," says Republican strategist Scott Reed. "It can't be a go-it-alone-and-we'll-follow strategy anymore."

    But the challenge for the Democrats looms even larger. Analysts note that the party has effectively been shut out of an entire region - the South - and among rural voters in general, largely because of cultural issues. Although Kerry made some attempts to bridge this divide, going on hunting trips, for example, he made no obvious headway in culturally conservative states like West Virginia and Arkansas, which were once considered battlegrounds, losing there by a sizable margin.

    "Democrats need to think about their message, and what they can do to broaden the appeal of that message," says Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University.

    Both candidates performed well among their respective bases, with Bush carrying white men and regular churchgoers, and Kerry winning strong support among African-Americans, as well as winning women.

    Similarly, the ground game seemed to come out as a near-draw, with the relatively high turnout not giving either side a clear edge - though Kerry was expected to hold an advantage in that respect. Turnout was estimated at 112 million, higher than in 2000, but not quite as high as some earlier predictions had held. Notably, Kerry failed to generate a discernible surge in turnout among young voters, who were once seen as a possible hidden source of support: Only 10 percent of those age 18-24 voted, roughly the same as in other recent elections, though they backed Kerry by roughly 10 points.
    Bush drew support from three-quarters of evangelicals, who made up one-fifth of the electorate.

    Voters were sharply split on a variety of issues, from the Iraq war to the economy to gay marriage.

    Significantly, many of Kerry's voters were primarily motivated by opposition to Bush, rather than by strong enthusiasm for their own candidate - suggesting that anger may not have proved the motivating force many Democrats once believed it would be.

    To some observers, Bush's victory was all the more striking as it came on the heels of a string of bad news, from violence and missing explosives in Iraq to high oil prices and the flu vaccine shortage. With a majority of voters believing the country was headed in the wrong direction, the challenge for Bush was to persuade enough of those voters that a change in leadership was too big a risk - something he did by pounding on Kerry as a flip-flopper who was soft on defense.

    "What [the Bush campaign] did so effectively was make Kerry seem like an unacceptable alternative," says Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas.

    Kerry also struggled to connect with voters on a personal level, never managing to turn dissatisfaction with Bush's policies into a clear majority of support for his candidacy.

    But others argue that Kerry actually faced an enormous challenge in running against an incumbent president during wartime - and point out that the senator managed to come extremely close to winning. And given the country's intense polarization, the outcome may have hinged less on what either campaign did than on national conditions and which side was ultimately more motivated.

    "Kerry did about as well as the Democrats could have hoped," says Peverill Squire, a political scientist at the University of Iowa. "I'm not sure either candidate could have done much more than they did to change the course of the election."
     
  2. thegary

    thegary Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    11,017
    Likes Received:
    3,145
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/nyregion/04york.html

    A Blue City (Disconsolate, Even) Bewildered by a Red America
    By JOSEPH BERGER

    Published: November 4, 2004


    Striking a characteristic New York pose near Lincoln Center yesterday, Beverly Camhe clutched three morning newspapers to her chest while balancing a large latte and talked about how disconsolate she was to realize that not only had her candidate, John Kerry, lost but that she and her city were so out of step with the rest of the country.

    "Do you know how I described New York to my European friends?" she said. "New York is an island off the coast of Europe."...
     
  3. Chump

    Chump Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    1,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    what I find curious is the fact that the red states, who for the most part, have a much lower threat of terrorism, are the ones that decided for the blue states , where the threat of terrorism is much higher due to geographical location, population, and industry, who should be the one to protect our country from terrorism and what policy is best

    so if you live in a blue state, where terrorism hits much closer to home, you just had millions of farmers, ranchers and other rural folk decide which President would protect you better

    something is messed up about that
     
  4. thumbs

    thumbs Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    I'm blue because everybody is seeing red, and now I'm :mad: because I'm :( .
     
  5. JayZ750

    JayZ750 Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2000
    Messages:
    25,432
    Likes Received:
    13,390
    The other irony is that, at least it seems, more of the rich are in the blue states than the "rural" red states.
     
  6. Mulder

    Mulder Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 1999
    Messages:
    7,118
    Likes Received:
    81
    "Only 10 percent of those age 18-24 voted, roughly the same as in other recent elections, though they backed Kerry by roughly 10 points."

    High turnout and these fools were sitting at home. This is freaking pathetic. Next time I hear a college age kid b**** I'm gonna ask if they voted and then when they say no, which by all account should 90% of the time if they are truthful, I'm gonna tell them to STFU. :mad:
     
  7. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,800
    Likes Received:
    41,240
    I don't recall the recent, pre-election thread, but the idea that young voters were a "wildcard" that would help tip the election to Kerry was something I found ludicrous. They talk a big game, but they never show up in decent numbers. Most of them probably had a party on election night, lied about how they had voted, and then *****ed about how "their guy" lost.

    I wouldn't be surprised if some of them post here. And I won't take this "youth vote" seriously until they show that they are serious where in counts... by voting.

    I was a "young voter" in 1972, when I voted against Nixon, and I've voted in every Presidential election since. It isn't hard. They have no excuses for not showing up except for one... immmaturity, a word they despise.



    Keep D&D Civil!!
     
  8. Zion

    Zion Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    17
    I'd venture to say that more of the rich and educated are in the blue states. California, Illinois and New York, have the three biggest cities in the country and are more likely to be hit by terrorists but are blue states.
    The Red states are all about God, Guns, Abortion and Gays. I think those four things overide economy, healthcare, terrorism etc.
     
  9. SWTsig

    SWTsig Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,055
    Likes Received:
    3,755
    i couldn't believe the numbers when i saw them. the exact same percent of 18-24 y.o's voted this election as the last?!?!? f*cking pathetic! it honestly angers me that my generation can be so apathetic towards such an important event.

    but the thing that really surprised about the 18-24 turnout was that here at SWT, student turnout was up by more than 80% from 2000. i figured if we could get a turnout like that here, surely the majority of college campuses would see similar results. that's what really got me.

    i wonder how MTV and p.diddy are feeling. lots of wasted time and money..... oh well, if you need mtv or diddy to motivate you to vote, it's probably best that you just stayed at home.
     
  10. JPM0016

    JPM0016 Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,470
    Likes Received:
    43
    These were posted on CNN yesterday

    No high school diploma 50% Kerry 49% Bush
    High School 52% Bush 47% Kerry
    Some College 54% Bush 46% Kerry
    College Graduate 52% Bush 46% Kerry
    Post Graduate 55% Kerry 44% Bush
     
  11. ima_drummer2k

    ima_drummer2k Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    36,425
    Likes Received:
    9,374
    So maybe Bush voters weren't voting on 'fear and loathing' like so many accused them of doing.
     
  12. Oski2005

    Oski2005 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    18,100
    Likes Received:
    447

    Bingo.

    I can't tell you how many times in interviews of voters I saw people who said they were very worried about Iraq, the economy, terrorism, etc, but that they voted for Bush because he shares their religious beliefs. Single issues like stem cells carried more weight with lots of voters than terrorism and the economy. I'll tell you, I think some of them may have swung our way if Kerry hadn't voted against banning partial birth abortions.

    I don'tknow where to go from here. We can't give up on stem cell research and we've already said gay marriage is a state issue, what do we do?

    As for my generation, I'm absolutely ashamed. I can't believe more young people didn't vote. We had this commercial here, I don't know if others have seen it, it's like a young people's news thing or whatever that I think Cox cable put on. Anyways, this young frat boy looking douche repeats this quote from James Carville about how unreliable and unimportant the youth vote still is and the guy says "well maybe Mr. Carville hasn't heard of 20 million Strong" or whatever. No you ass, he did hear about and he knew well in advanced how it wasn't going to mean sh*t in this election.
     
    #12 Oski2005, Nov 4, 2004
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2004
  13. arkoe

    arkoe (ง'̀-'́)ง

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    10,387
    Likes Received:
    1,598
    I live in Texas. There is no way that George Bush is going to lose in Texas. I could go vote, but why? My vote only counts so far as appointing who from my state is actually going to get to vote for president. Nothing you can say is going to convince me that if I went and voted two days ago anything would have been different. If I lived in a swing state I would have voted, but I don't.

    They colored Texas red as soon as Bush announced he was running for reelection.
     
  14. thumbs

    thumbs Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    Tit for tat. Tat for tit. Ad nauseum.

    All of youse guys have it all wrong. The issues and concerns of the "blue" states were the same as "red" states when agricultural versus manufacturing economic differences are factored into the equation.

    The only real difference was that more "red" states achieved a plurality of several thousand votes (1% to 3% of the vote), but those same narrow margins existed in "blue" states. The only difference was those tiny percentages tipped the other way.

    You guys get real. Life is neither lived in black or white nor red or blue for that matter.
     
    #14 thumbs, Nov 4, 2004
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2004
  15. Mulder

    Mulder Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 1999
    Messages:
    7,118
    Likes Received:
    81
    If there was only ONE RACE on the ballot you might have a point. But even then, you don't think that if a vast majority of 18-24 year olds voted in Texas that it would make a difference?

    I hope you plan on voting for state races, because the Texas legislature decided that Texas Universities can set their own tuition, the Texas governor line item vetoed money from one state institution (UH) and sent that money to another (UTDallas), the states set Tuition Equalization grant rates. At the national level, Congress sets the budgets ofr Pell grants and federal funding for Financial aid. these are the issues that affect young people. If they don't vote, why would politicians care about their issues.

    Bottom line is if you didn't vote and could have it's because YOU ARE LAZY. You FAILED to perform your civil duty and you have no excuse. You should be ashamed.

    Ya, that's harsh. It's also the truth.
     
  16. ima_drummer2k

    ima_drummer2k Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    36,425
    Likes Received:
    9,374
    Well, with that kind of attitude, Texas will always be a 'red' state. You do know that you vote on many other issue besides the President when you vote, right?

    I voted for Bush. If I lived in California or any other 'blue' state, I would still vote. Too many brave men have fought and died to give me that right for me to blow it off.
     
  17. mulletman

    mulletman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,655
    Likes Received:
    223
    15.9 million people in texas of voting age

    7.4 million people voted

    bush's margin of victory: only 1.7 million votes
     
  18. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    umm...that's a lot.
     
  19. Saint Louis

    Saint Louis Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 1999
    Messages:
    4,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Last year my wife's good friend, child of a hippie, was ranting and raving about Bush. I asked her if she voted for Gore in the last election and she said no, she didn't vote at all. I told her then she had no right to complain because obviously she really didn't care who was president because she didn't vote.

    If you don't vote then, you really don't care.
     
  20. Oski2005

    Oski2005 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    18,100
    Likes Received:
    447
    That is definately a lot, but it's nothing compared to 8.5 million. I don't thin Kerry could win Texas, but I think other elections in the state would have different outcomes if half of those 8.5 voted.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now