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.

Backlash

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 MoveOn.org 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 6)
on Nov 09, 2004

Reply #75 By: Lee1776 - 11/9/2004 9:33:20 PM
Doc

Thanks for proving Draginol's original point.

Strange that you say those who voted for Bush can't open their minds, yet I didn't see one original thing in your chanting.


Me either. Just more of the same old sh*t!
on Nov 09, 2004
Bush won cos an average american is as dumb, arrogant and has ''ya-we-are-the-godly-superpower' attitude as bush himself.


Wow I wonder how we got to be superpower with a country full of idiots.

No. I believe that approx 85% of people in USA is pretty smart. Rest is either just born idiotic or are currently doing drugs. ( Yes I said CURRENT users.. )

I can't believe that people are willing to insult majority of their peers in America.
on Nov 10, 2004
Wow I wonder how we got to be superpower with a country full of idiots.

No. I believe that approx 85% of people in USA is pretty smart. Rest is either just born idiotic or are currently doing drugs. ( Yes I said CURRENT users.. )

I can't believe that people are willing to insult majority of their peers in America.


Indeed. Sure, both candidates did receive votes from idiots, but that's true in any election anywhere in the world. If these people refuse to acknowledge that their opposition had valid reasons for voting for their candidates, they're not ever going to convince them of "the light."
on Nov 10, 2004
for drmiler and lee1776

what do u guys mean by 'nothing original' ?

U mean that I shud come up with more and some new evidence to prove that bush is an idiot as if this is not enough in order to convince u.

And the super power thing, trust me the days are not far when china will start kicking butt around the world and we will be busy hunting osamas and lothing gays.

I like USA but more importantly i feel myself luck being a canadian. We do have our problems and we may not be considered a so called superpower of this world but when I goto bed i am not afraid that my office building will be hit by a plane or if i get an heart attack, there wont be anybody to incur the costs of treatment. And that makes me feel better and happier.
on Nov 10, 2004
Drag, u say u support US policy on iraq. Okay fair point. But explain me the real reason for that as if I am 10 years old.
But plz give me some logic and reasoning and none of bush's BS.

If u think its because iraq had WMDs, than okay lets suppose iraq does has and bush will find them in this life time or so but than what about N.korea and iran. Dont u think they too have the same stuff and especially korea which has ways of deliviering it to ur country too. Would u ask bush to go after them after u r done with iraq ? What do u think bush shud do ?

If its because US wants every country in the world to be free and democratic than what abt tibet/iran/nkorea/saudi arabia and even us ally pakistan. Why dont u try to bring democracy there also?

IF the real reason is that u cant see ppl dying there in iraq under saddam's oppresion than what abt darfur and numerous other similar places. Why didnt bush focuseed on durfur where ppl were dying and in numbers that can make iraq look like heaven.

Why dont they focus on Saudis that are floating money all over the world for terrorist activities.?

The reason is plain and simple: Money, Oil and Power that makes IRAQ more palatable than others.
on Nov 10, 2004

Normally I'm willing to agree with Brad on points that he's thought about.  On this one I sort of disagree.  I think that liberals' positions on certain issues definitely forced conservatives to the polls, I just don't think it was because we were "mean" to them.  I think it's because conservatives understood, to a greater degree than many liberals, that the supreme court could potentially hang in the balance in this election.  In spite of the Senate Majority leader warning Bush not to submit anti-abortion canidates, the judges that Bush appoints in his next term will be far more conservative than Kerry's would have been.  Thus conservative Christians and Republicans influenced by moral issues we're very strongly motivated to come out an vote.  Unfortunately for the Democrats, they were far more motivated to come out and vote than the liberals.  I think claiming it's because liberals were mean to conservatives simply ignores some of the more important issues.


Cheers

on Nov 10, 2004
what do u guys mean by 'nothing original' ?


doc, I'll summarize your post for you, and you can tell me what's original about it:

Bush is Stupid.
Americans are stupid.
Kerry supporters are smarter than everybody else.
Kerry is a genius.
Michael Moore is great.
Bush is a coward.
Focusing on Gay Marriage is stupid.
The Republicans are dirty campaigners.
America is stupid.
America is arrogant.

I think that about covers it.
Oh, and the one "factual" issue you bring up (16 top IQ states went for Kerry) has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere.
on Nov 10, 2004
citahellion you sound like a typical bush fan. No logic, no reasoning and just missing the point.

Its called relativity. Everything is relative.
kerry may not be genius but hes atleast better than bush. thats what i meant and u got defensive on that.
Americans may not be stupid but are definately stupid voters. and thats it.
Both led dirty campaign so dont blame only democrats.
Making Gay marriage illegal by law is not bigger than health care and economy atleast in 21st centuary and in a developed country like USA.
Bush's record nowwhere shows he ever did anything brave in military but kerry still fought for u guys.
Michael moore does what media is meant to be, critical and objective. He askes u to think for urself. Nothing more nothing less. Cos ppl here are being gased by stinkin and biased media.


But one thing ill agreee with u and that is abt BUSH ..he's definitaly STUPID. and i wont argue on that.
on Nov 10, 2004
Reply #79 By: doc (Anonymous) - 11/10/2004 4:46:52 PM
for drmiler and lee1776

what do u guys mean by 'nothing original' ?


While I do not agree with Bush on every item that he does and have no love for the Republican party (or any party really). All that you have said is almost word for word talking points from the farthest left members of the Democratic party. What I meant is for someone who preaches that “people should open their mind” it is you who seem to be reading from a script. You don't need to have original stuff every time you speak, but a person with an open mind would not mathematically believe every last item on the radical Democrats hit list.

There are some hardcore left wingers and right wingers on this site. But few like you that seem to embrace every last line. That's not open minded, that's brainwashed. I have a feeling (IMO) that if the party told you to stand on the corner with a tambourine asking for donations, you would.

Bush's record nowwhere shows he ever did anything brave in military but kerry still fought for u guys.


I could spend at least all night arguing this point on how Kerry's record is no where near honorable and what some people would call treasonous. I have done my research on this topic. You can ask most military members here on the site and they will tell you that the man’s record with the military is one of the biggest reasons why they didn't vote for him. But as I stated above, I don't think it would have any effect.

That's My Two Cents
on Nov 10, 2004
Michael moore does what media is meant to be, critical and objective.


I hope my media does not become like Michael Moore. I want my media to report facts, not opinion. It is interesting how a self proclaimed open minded person like yourself would see no problem with an Opinion Editorial as a cover story of a newspaper and find that objective (as the LA Times did earlier this year).

I’m quit sure you would be the first one to scream bloody murder if any media channel would use an Op. Ed piece from Rush Limbaugh as the lead story into the nightly evening news in Canada. We don’t want that kind of media here, and I think even the most right winger would agree with me on this point.

That's My Two Cents
on Nov 10, 2004
okay lee1776, u r right when u say that media shud tell u the facts. but its not possible for them to show u the facts when none of this crap is made public and is held back by govt citing as confidential. Most of the 9/11 comission's report that covered saudi connection was held back citing confidential. Now tell me hows it possible for media to tell the truth.

I am not saying that moore is right everytime and i am not asking u to beleive his facts but question the way he does.

Now if there s any chance that fahrenheit 9/11 is correct when it says that saudis were indeed flown out after 9/11 than why? Maybe moore exaggerated the reason but still if they were flown out than whats the reason behind it ?

Why are assault weapons like rifles allowed to be kept at home when they dont serve any purpose ?

Dont u see any connection b/w ur politicians and saudis?

And u shud have answered my whole post rather than choosing a point and bashing it.
on Nov 10, 2004
And one last thing

Rememeber when bush justified his policy of not importing drugs from canada during the debate. He said that hes not sure abt their safety. Atleast u have to agree with me on this cuz that was live on national tv.

Do u honestly beleive that? He gave a blunt plain white lie to american public on national tv.

Cuz the reality is Almost all the drugs are produced by same companies in same factories and in very US and than sent to canada.
Than there is big chunk of US population whos currently using canadian drugs and none has shown any difference. I hve seen here canadian docs being penalised for prescribing it to US ppl.
Than if somebody beleives that quality(and not availaibility) of canadian healthcare is lower than US than u just cant help laughing ur ass off on his ignorance.

Reality is that canadian govt caps the pricing but US govt doesnt and US companies justify their high prices due to the amount they invest in R&D(and to an extent they r right).

If bush has so called high moral values than why doesnt he admits the fact that he cant hurt the mighty drug companies's interests bcos thats what we call fact and not opinion.
on Nov 11, 2004

Reply #86 By: doc (Anonymous) - 11/10/2004 11:26:49 PM
okay lee1776, u r right when u say that media shud tell u the facts. but its not possible for them to show u the facts when none of this crap is made public and is held back by govt citing as confidential. Most of the 9/11 comission's report that covered saudi connection was held back citing confidential


Michael Moore isn't right a lot of the time. 59 falasies in F 9 / 11.

kerry may not be genius but hes atleast better than bush. thats what i meant and u got defensive on that


No Kerry is no genius, and Bush outscored the fool on the military entrance exams (ASVAP tests) And out of Kerry's own mouth he admits to it. You shouldn't *assume* Bush is stupid just because he won't follow your preconcieved ideas.
on Nov 11, 2004
Now if there s any chance that fahrenheit 9/11 is correct when it says that saudis were indeed flown out after 9/11 than why? Maybe moore exaggerated the reason but still if they were flown out than whats the reason behind it ?


Personally if I was in a foreign county where my bother just got done murdering over three thousand of their people, I would be on the first plane out for my own safety too.

Why are assault weapons like rifles allowed to be kept at home when they dont serve any purpose ?


Personally I agree with you and I bet a large part of Republicans would agree with you too. But some would point to the old domino theory. It only takes one domino to set off a chain of event leading to the banning of all guns. A perfect example is in Australia. The old saying give them an inch, and they will take a mile.

Dont u see any connection b/w ur politicians and saudis?


Not really. While Clinton was ready to make China a strategic Allie, they had not did one thing to become more Democratic or side with us in the UN. In fact they even stopped some elections in Hong Kong while Clinton was dealing with them.

The Saudis will at least be holding their first municipal elections in January and has publicly floated the idea of becoming a monarchy like England.

I know its a long way to go.

And u shud have answered my whole post rather than choosing a point and bashing it.


Maybe I don't disagree with you on everything.

I thought I was answering your question:
what do u guys mean by 'nothing original' ?


As for remarking on your repeated use of Kerry's great war record, I was using it as a point where you failed to open your mind to the truth and yet continued to call anybody who voted for Bush stupid.

As for the media comment, it was just to good to pass up and it was another point on how your taking the left winger talking points as news (and not opening your mind).

That's My Two Cents
on Nov 11, 2004

Michael Moore isn't right a lot of the time. 59 falasies in F 9 / 11.


Understand that by my next comment I am in NO way defending Michael Moore, his policies, or his movies.  Having said that, Falasies is an incorrect spelling of the word, if you're in too much of a hurry to check your posts for grammer and spelling correctness, than you probably shouldn't be wasting time.  Further, F 9/11 is an opinion piece, despite what Moore said, it is not a documentary.  Also, what is inaccurate to one, may not be inaccurate to another.  For instance, the fact that Saddam did not have WMDs, did not even have a working infrastructure to make WMDs, does not change many peoples belief that Saddam was making or intending to make WMDs.  Are these people wrong?  Maybe, maybe not, I'm sure we could all agree that if Saddam had the ability he would have made them, and therefore he probably wanted to make them.  Truth really is a subjective thing.


Cheers