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 7)
on Nov 11, 2004

Reply #90 By: jeblackstar - 11/11/2004 4:28:48 PM
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.

You don't like my replies? Then don't read them! The "fallacies" ( that better mr. spelling poice?) in F 9/11 are provable that they're false! Truth is NOT subjective. Either it's true or it's not there is no middle ground on that one. If Saddam had no WMD's then I don't care how many people *think* he did. It still wouldn't be true would it?
on Nov 11, 2004
But he intended to, and yes, I am the spelling police, because if people like you learned how to spell before you ended up in my college history courses, I wouldn't have so many headaches trying to interpret the many different ways people find to spell things like Europe and America.
on Nov 11, 2004

Reply #92 By: jeblackstar - 11/11/2004 5:37:44 PM
But he intended to, and yes, I am the spelling police, because if people like you learned how to spell before you ended up in my college history courses, I wouldn't have so many headaches trying to interpret the many different ways people find to spell things like Europe and America

Let me explain something to you *bud*. First off I can spell more words than most of your college students even know the meaning of. Secondly as a spelling champ while in HS I don't need the likes of *you* telling me I misspelled something! I'm quite capable of figuring it out on my own thank you.
on Nov 11, 2004

no doubt you can, I was merely pointing out the connection between a lack of spell checking and a poorly thought out argument.  Besides, how long since you were in High School?  My proper title is Doctor, Professor, or Esquire, not bud.


on Nov 11, 2004

Speaking of missing the point, I was telling you why your post was unoriginal. I was not attempting to debate you about the issues that you raise (except the clearly fallacious "smarter states" one.) You made an invalid assumption about me; namely, that I support Bush. Then you made a second invalid assumption (I'll presume it was for humor's sake) that I think Bush is stupid. Quite the contrary. While Bush is almost certainly less intelligent than I (as measured by various standards), he is by no means the unsophisticated, naive rube that so many make him out to be.

Further, please drop the "canada-speak" of "u" and "shud" and "abt" and so forth. If you're attempting to engage in intelligent debate, you should make the effort to actually look and sound intelligent.

on Nov 11, 2004

Reply #94 By: jeblackstar - 11/11/2004 5:53:36 PM
no doubt you can, I was merely pointing out the connection between a lack of spell checking and a poorly thought out argument. Besides, how long since you were in High School? My proper title is Doctor, Professor, or Esquire, not bud.


And just what do you think *my* proper title is? Hint: it's part of my name on his site! There is NO connection between lack of spell checking and a poorly thought out arguement. I suppose you have NEVER in your life made a simple mistake? Why don't you go take a *long* walk off a VERY short pier! And while your at it, forget how to swim. Bud!
on Nov 11, 2004
Okay citahellion, u r not a bush fan and than u r too dumb to be a kerry supporter.

So who r u ? and what r u doing here ?

Are u some english language or grammer teacher ? If u r than go to some elementary school and teach poor kids. They will definitly appreciate ur 'US SPEAK'. Bcuz ill write the way i want. I will write U and SHUD and ABT. and I dont give a damn Bcos i think we are discussing a topic here and what matters here is the content of the arguements and topic and not the grammer of language used.

Is it some english exam being conducted here or what ?

U dont have a single meaningful point to offer in favour or to oppose the topic and all u r doing here is teaching me how to write english!

And intelligent ppl focus on debate and not useless points as the grammer or puntuation.

And if u think that just by 'looking' and 'sounding' intelligent makes u intelligent than mate i am better off the way i am.

U keep ur intelligence and grammatical correctness to urself.

And one more thing PROUD TO BE A CANADIAN.
on Nov 11, 2004
Frankly, doc, the content of your arguments is about as good as your spelling.

I jumped in because I like to assist people who have reading comprehension issues. When someone states "I don't understand X", I will often hop in and try to spell out what I took to be the meaning of the issue in question. I try to clarify, to elucidate, and to enlighten. Since you asked "what's so unoriginal", I answered.

To meaningfully oppose a few of your more lucid points, then:
(a) the "16 smartest states" study has been thoroughly debunked. See This page for info.
( Bush and Kerry scored about the same on standardized military tests. Bush's score was in fact slightly higher. See This page for info.
(c) Bush's complete military record has been released for public review. It includes information that apparently he volunteered to go to Viet Nam, but the equipment that he was qualified on was not being used, so he did not get sent. See this article here for info.
(d) Kerry's complete military record has NOT been released for public review. We know that he received 3 purple hearts and another medal (I forget what), but that he used his purple hearts to be relieved from Nam duty after only 4 months. He then went on to campaign against Viet Nam in what many people consider to be an unethical style, including having a meeting with enemy leaders, calling his fellow soldiers war criminals, and presenting fabricated evidence. His negatives, to many people, outweigh his positives on that score.
on Nov 11, 2004

My proper title is Doctor, Professor, or Esquire, not bud

gotta add one more to that list my friend...Insightful.  (too bad there isnt another rating for touche or youd get points for that, too)

on Nov 13, 2004

Thanks King, my point drmiller, was that the term Bud is used when you agree with some one, or are familiar with them, when it's used in a positive way, when it's used in a negative way it's used to mock their point.  I've yet to call you anthing other than your proper title, yes I make spelling mistakes from time to time, but the fact of your spelling mistake led to the observation that you had a bad argument.


on Nov 21, 2004
Well said. Many of us moron Bush supporters were praying for god to get his people out to vote.Credit is due Jesus Christ,
on Nov 21, 2004
Well said. Many of us moron Bush supporters were praying for god to get his people out to vote.Credit is due Jesus Christ,
on Nov 24, 2004
I apologize for Doc's behavior. He is a Canadian and so am I, and thankfully, he doesn't speak for the majority of us.

I will even say I don't speak for the majority of Canadians. I am a conversative, not a liberal. I want to carry a gun around, not give the money to the 'usually' lazy welfare people, and I dislike the idea of all these social programs where I am forced to use my own money.

But I also dislike Christain beliefs. Which is why I didn't vote for Steve Harper during the Canadian elections. Leave the gay marriage and your christian shit out of my country, k thx!

Unlike most Canadians, I don't believe that we should get involved in your politics, but still be interested in them. You guys are our neighbours and allies, despite what some of the canadian socialists say, and we should be treating you with respect.

I'm glad Bush won, being the conversative that I am. I think the huge fault didn't come from just 'morals' and so forth, but the annoying behavior from the democrats, as the article states. Michael Moore, who pretty much lies and says he works with the 'common' people while living in a rich mansion and making a shitload of money, is pretty much why I'm glad democrats lost.

Democrats are at a stage right now thinking that they are the enlightened ones and their opinion is higher then anyone else. They would call me a redneck and a 'rich boy', despite the mere fact that those two claims are total opposites. It's called of like saying that I'm a jewish nazi.

The democrats first mistake was picking John Kerry as the candidate. He only stayed in 'Nam for four months and proclaimed himself to be a hero. Then he turns around and calls his fellow comrades 'war criminals'. You want a backstabbing asshole who has little respect for the military (I have bigger respect for anyone in the military, much more then my family) to represent your party? Eessh.

Not to mention a total flip flopper.

The media, such as the New York times and various celebrities, probably lend a helping hand to let Bush win. Enimem, or however you spell the bastard's name, we don't give a shit about your political opinion. You are just a suburb white boy who got picked up by a fake black doctor and making music about living in the streets. You fucked up after "My Name is"

Glad Bush won. I might be moving to American one day since I can't even have a career here in Canada City and I'm glad that my ideal party has a chance of winning, instead of the Canada's "We vote liberal because...uh..."
on Dec 02, 2004
"...t used to be thought a disadvantage to be misunderstood. It may be doubted whether it is always or even generally a disadvantage. The man who is misunderstood has always this advantage over his enemies, that they do not know his weak point or his plan of campaign. They go out against a bird with nets and against a fish with arrows."

--G. K. Chesterton, Heretics, 1905

If there is any better explanation for the Bush victory than this 100-year-old quote from Chesterton, I cannot think of it.