Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Kerry's supporters cost the Democrats the election
Published on November 4, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

Like many, I had predicted that Kerry would win the election. But he didn't. And now the question is, why? We may never be able to offer a definitive answer to this but I will offer a theory that I think is pretty plausible.


People get fed up. And they respond. In politics, that means they come out and vote.

For the past year, Kerry's supporters had made it pretty clear that anyone who supported Bush must be some kind of "moron", "idiot", "racist", "fascist", "red neck", whatever. They referred to the President as a "chimp" and other vile names. And these people, many who don't normally vote, got mad and they decided to come out to vote this time.

That's because the American people are not stupid. They're a vigorous, hard working, enterprising people who have helped make the world a vastly better place (and anyone who disagrees may want to look at 19th century Europe).  The contempt and hatred from Kerry's supporters made a lot of people who were only nominally Bush supporters into energized Bush supporters.

Millions of Americans simply don't want to be associated with Michael Moore and and snobby Hollywood celebrities or uppity European elites. They got sick of having their views jammed down their throats. They got sick of the media flagrantly siding with Kerry. One might even say that the New York Times did a lot to help Bush win. Americans could see the unfairness in that these self-appointed elites got to have their say while they were expected to be quiet and take it. After all, why should some has-been Hollywood comedienne get to be on a panel on Hardball when millions of hard working Americans never go to have their voice heard? So they fought back with the only weapon they have: Their vote.

Kerry supporters increased the Bush vote one dinner party at a time. One little league game at a time. One office lunch room at a time. With their smug contempt for those who weren't as "enlightened" as they were. And their nasty attitudes towards Bush and his views on social, moral, and foreign policy, they effectively turned themselves into a Get out the vote drive -- for Bush.

Last week my son came home and told me that his friend's mom told him that if Bush won that he would be sent off to war. My son is 7 years old. My friend's mom is a middle-school teacher. Kerry himself would imply that Bush was going to reinstate the draft (January surprise nonsense).  Michael Moore spread the word that Bush was in bed with the Saudi Royal family. Foreign pundits claimed that Bush and Cheney were in Iraq for Halliburton's sake. 

And yet, without a trace of irony, Kerry supporters would argue that people who supported Bush had been swayed by all that "right wing" propaganda. As if the millions of public school teachers, who often are alone amongst their neighbors in their support for Democrats, do so strictly because of their free thinking ways and not because of the constant inflow of disinformation from the NEA (teachers unions).

And so every time a Kerry supporter, when confronted with a friend or neighbor who said they liked Bush (or didn't hate him at least) would say "Gosh, you seem like a smart guy, how could you not hate Bush?" they effectively energized someone who might have sat out the election because of Bush's deficit spending or other failings.

If you look at the actual returns state by state (especially county by county when compared to 2000) it becomes pretty clear. Kerry didn't do bad really. He got 5 MILLION more votes than Gore did.  It's just that Bush got 8 million more votes than he did last time. And most of those votes were from "average Americans" in rural or suburban areas.

In short, millions of Americans voted for Bush not because they were "fearful" of terror (the exit polls demonstrate that). No, they voted for Bush because they saw the smug contempt that Kerry's pretentious supporters have for the values and beliefs that they have. And they did something about it - they came out and voted.

Comments (Page 2)
on Nov 03, 2004

The rancor on either side only subsides when they are in power.  If anyone wants to disagree with that satement, I need only point to the partisans on the Republican side who Hated Bill Clinton, I know for a fact that some of those people post on this forum.  To claim, while in power, that the other side is acting in ways which "We never would if we had lost" is silly, especially as a generalization across the party.  Brad, I have no idea where you live, or why a giant Kerry Truck was parked at your school, but I have, in past elections, and in this one, seen similar things from both sides.  It's the rare individual who does that, and to claim that the vocal minority represents the party is steretyping at the worst.  I do not think that all Republicans are, for instance, represented by the Ku Klux Klan, nor do I think that all democrats are represented by hippies.  I know that the winning party is entitled to a little day after celebration, but the true measure of the people on this forum, is how high and mighty they are about their victory tomorrow.

And, since I'm from the party who lost, allow me to extend an olive branch, I disagree with 90% of President Bush's policies, but he is the president, now, let's as Americans, come together in the great national dialogue and talk out our problems.  After all it's better than meeting in the great national grudge match where the winners are the ones who are still alive at the end.


on Nov 03, 2004
jeblackstar - I'm glad you're back. I've missed your sanity around here! Thankfully for Bush, most Kerry supporters don't have your wit and wisdom.
on Nov 03, 2004

I was on sabatical while writing a book, if y'all are interested in textbooks on the history of pictish tribes, feel free to call your local university and insist they carry it.  Sadly I only get about 5 cents for every book sold, so, if every person in america buys one, I'm doing pretty good.  Hopefully Brad you get a little better deal per unit volume.  Anyway, this new group looks like Fun.

After all, it can't be worse than the Freshman history class they've stuck me with next term.


on Nov 03, 2004
The clear difference was the evangelical vote coming out to vote in the gay marriage ammendments across the country. Despite the fact that both candidates oppose gay marriage, the issue clearly belonged to Bush. It was no accident that the issue came up in nearly a dozen states. Despite the passing of the ammendment, no clear alternative was offered to gays.
on Nov 03, 2004

Reply #2 By: Meowy - 11/3/2004 4:19:49 PM
Well, Ohio isnt sure yet. They may need to do a recount. Personally I want Kerry to win.

Ain't happening. Even if he DOES get a recount! Why do you think he conceded?
on Nov 03, 2004
This article was fantastic. I have put a link in my AIM profile for all to see. I live in Wisconsin and am at college so I get this condescension all the time.

I am very pleased with the results of the election and am astonished at the lack of turnout by young people. There were about a billion "get out to vote" campaigns.
on Nov 03, 2004
This is dead nuts accurate. I am one of those pushed into the Bush camp. During the Democrat primary I was pulling for Lieberman so there would be, what I considered, a viable alternative to Bush. I responded to the Moore crowd like many did (as indicated in the Pere Partnership poll) by becoming staunchly Bush, from being lukewarm at best months ago.

Terry McAuliffe, CBS and the New York Times, the three best friends the Republicans ever had.
on Nov 04, 2004
Hear hear,Draginol. While Kerry *and* his wife turned me away from the democrats this year, it was his supporters that scared me with their behavior..not their ideals, everyone is allowed those..but their behavior. I voted for the first time this year..(only able to vote once before, but wanted to stay out of the Bush Gore thing)..

I did not go around and speak to people face to face about their political preferences this year, it was too heated. The majority of the party affliation behavior that I got to observe was here at JoeUser..and once again, appalling behavior. The Kerry supporters are not just arrogant because of him, it is in everything they write about. Whether it's gay marriages (and the accusations that anyone who disagrees for any reason is a bigot)..or race related articles..(and it's okay to laugh at everyone but a specific group of people, then you're racist), to a living wage (and if you didn't support that, you were a cold hearted bastard..and that anybody who was poor obviously never did anything wrong to be that way), or last but not least if you voted for Bush (and how ignorant you are of the government, religion, moral principles, terrorism, war, foreign affairs, yada yada yada)...
It all seems to boil down to those who supported Kerry the most vocally were the same hypocrites who used the tools of bigotry, racism, classism, and ignorance to discredit any who did not agree with their higher-learning opinions. So obviously Kerry had to be a bad choice
on Nov 04, 2004
And America stepped up to the plate and said, Hey, Self-appointed scholars, shut up and sit the hell down, we're trying to enjoy the ball game
on Nov 04, 2004
Why did Kerry lose? Because his campaign had no heart. No message other than "Don't vote for Bush". He spent the last year trying to paint himself as some heroic figure, without remembering the fact that true heroes don't blow their own horn. He tried in vain to convince the country that he's something that the record indicates that he clearly isn't. He'd have us believe that he'd make this country stronger, but in what way? By cutting defense and intelligence spending, in a time in which this country needs it most?

I don't think so. The American people didn't buy it, John. No matter how many times you talk about having a plan for this or that, we all know that you're still just a tax and spend liberal, One who didn't carry a single state south of Maryland, or between Minnesota and Washington.

Why did Kerry lose? Because George Bush won. He stuck with his guns, and did what he thought was right, not what he thought would be popular. A first term president that takes the country to war historically does not get re-elected. LBJ won the 1964 election in a landslide, but was so ruined by taking the country to war that he didn't even run in 1968. George Bush took that risk. The American people showed that they prefer a strong leader that says what he means and acts on what he says, rather than a career politician who says what he thinks you want to hear, and then denies saying it later, if need be.
on Nov 04, 2004
John Kerry lost not because he ran a negative campaign as Draginol seems to imply, but because of the unexpected and totally unwarranted display of desert theatre by Osama Bin Laden. This man thought that he could pull a Spain on the USA. Had he not made his presence felt just 3 days before the election, the result could have been cl.oser. However, given the marin of victory the Osama Tape may have had a negative impact. Kerry was affected by this and it goes to show that predicting election Phseology is an art and not a science. Any way, Bush is the winner and the election was not flawed as in 2000.
on Nov 04, 2004
Very good article. I think you wrote it in order to get it off your chest. You've stated the obvious and it's OK. I believed your thesis for well over 30 years. One matter of importance, thanks for putting it down on paper. You helped to get it off my chest too.
on Nov 04, 2004
I can't say I agree with you, Draginol. I'm certain that some interaction between Kerry and Bush supporters further polarized those individuals, but their minds were already made up. That fails to account for the Kerry loss. The more concise reason for Kerry losing was that democrats simply didn't go to the polls. The huge get-out-the vote drives failed to materialize actual voters, the "youth" vote increased by 5 million over the 2000 election and voted mostly Kerry but was still a drop in the bucket compared to the grand numbers being predicted. Democrats wanted to gripe and the base showed up, but it wasn't enough votes to crack the populace already energized by 4 years of Bush pandering to and fostering the hawks and socially conservative agenda couched by such events as 9/11 and Iraq.

on Nov 04, 2004
From feedback I've gotten from some on the left, the direction the Democrats have taken recently (an angrier, more condescending party) has been because of the Republicans and was forced upon them. I don't buy into that argument, but that is what they say.

And that is exactly on Drag's point! NO one can force you to do or be anyone but yourself. You choose to be or do. They were not forced, they chose to be nasty and arrogant. And even in defeat, they cannot admit their errors. SO I do not worry about them taking Draginol's advice at all!
on Nov 04, 2004
Deference, does that mean that the democrats truely did not care who won the election? That the anybody but republicans/Bush policy didn't drive them to the polls?
That's scary, I was intellectually convictions were challenged, by the very fact that it would be a close election this year..Did only one side feel that way, by your theory?