It seems to me, and the numbers seem to bear this out, that where Bush, won, he did so by the slightest of margins. He had no overwhelming majority in any state comparable to some of the states that backed Kerry. What this map shows is that Bush won by convincing a certain number of Democrats to vote for him.
Mr. Bush drew more Republicans (93 percent) than Mr. Kerry drew Democrats (89 percent). More Democrats (11 percent) voted for Mr. Bush than Republicans (6 percent) voted for Mr. Kerry. Independents were split equally between the two.
NYTimes – Moral Values Cited as a Defining Issue of the Election: 11/4/2004
I am just an amature, but my gut tells me, and I’m sure I can find the figures to back this up, that similarly, Clinton drew similar numbers of Republicans, and Reagan drew similar numbers of Democrats in their election contests.
So who are these people that aren’t loyal to their party? Well their people like myself. A person who was very willing to vote for John McCain in 2004. You know why? I liked him. There, I admit it. I liked him and on some personal level, I trusted he would be a great President.
…Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter got elected because they were comfortable with their faith,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a former Clinton aide. “What happened was that a part of the electorate came open to what Clinton and Carter had to say on everything else – health care, the environment, whatever – because they were very comfortable that Clinton and Carter did not disdain the way these people lived their lives, but respected them.”
He added: “We need a nominee and a party that is comfortable with faith and values. And if we have one, then all the hard work we’ve done on Social Security or America’s place in the world or college education can be heard. But people aren’t going to hear what we say until they know that we don’t approach them as Margaret Mead would an anthropological experiment.”
NYTimes – Electoral Affirmation of Shared Values Provides Bush a Majority: 11/4/2004
If you think this kind of moral talk is anathema, you’re the sort of person Karl Rove wants to be running the Democratic Party. Get out, or get a new attitude. Nearly 60 million people came out to vote for George W. Bush yesterday because they think that he represents their values and that you don’t. Prove them wrong and you’ll be the majority party again.
Slate – Democratic Values – How to start winning the red states: 11/3/2004
In the end, a small slice of America, across many, many states, decided the election. It’s in this part of America, the folks who didn’t realize that Kerry was a person they could trust, and in the end voted on their feelings alone, that the greatest opportunity lies for the Democratic party. Moving further to the left or to the right is not the answer. The Democrats need to stand for what it stands for and communicate its values and principals in a way that more people can relate to. The heartening thing is it sounds like the DLC agrees with me.
The trouble with the DLC is that it would move the party so far to the right that it becomes a me-too party. I’m a little bit self-contradictory here, because I think Evan Bayh, a “new Democrat,” would be a good canidate in 2008. But like John McCain, who’s sounds like a moderate while pursuing a very right-wing agenda, Bayh can speak the language of ordinary Hoosiers even though he’s really pretty liberal (and an Episcopalian to boot).
The DLC is not advocating a policy move to the right. They are recognizing the need to communicate in a language that closes the cultural gap. The fact that these folks don’t recognize that Democratic values are not counter to faith and family is a serious problem of communication – not policy.
An interesting article on Slate that “moral values” were not the reason for the election results as some people mistakenly assume:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109275/fr/ifr/
It was a badly worded question on polls that were taken at the time.
David Brooks, at the NYTimes, calls the values vote a myth too, but he more accurately nails my point it comes down to who these folks felt they could trust and the far left didn’t help matters much by refusing to recognize different people communicate different ways:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html
ooh…
See now, I think Dean was definitely more left than McCain or Kerry… And I know a lot of people who really were gung-ho for Dean, lost their campaigning enthusiasm with Kerry. But still most voted for Kerry anyway, because he wasn’t Bush.
Personally, I think that the Democratic party is already too much of a “me too party”. I think the Democrats were more liberal in years past. And I happen to think it’s because they’re advertising to a consumer base (the constituency) who they believe (or perhaps know) are quite to the right.
However, I do think a clear stand on anything, even if it’s not quite what someone agrees with, gets more respect than being all over the place or floundering around.
I’ve been arguing terribly that it’s not the message, but the stand, of Democrats, that’s a problem.
But when I just read your:
“The fact that these folks don’t recognize that Democratic values are not counter to faith and family is a serious problem of communication – not policy.”
I think you’re right on this much at least. However, isn’t this just a set-up for an argument that it’s not the Democrats’ fault, but the right-wingers’ propaganda, that’s giving this message, that Democratic values are counter to faith & family?
But what do you think is not counter to faith & family?
To me I think the ideals of diplomacy, healthcare being available to all regardless of economic situation, civil rights… I think all of these ideas are completely within my values of faith & family.
But if you mean something like… that the Democrats dislike gays too, and that’s not clearly communicated well enough… Well, that’s a different story. (And if that’s the case, it’s communicated fine to gays, maybe just not the rest of the population.)
“To me I think the ideals of diplomacy, healthcare being available to all regardless of economic situation, civil rights… I think all of these ideas are completely within my values of faith & family.”
Exactly! And we need to be better at making that clearer.
“However, I do think a clear stand on anything, even if it’s not quite what someone agrees with, gets more respect than being all over the place or floundering around.”
I agree with you here too. Democrats need to keep the spine we’ve grown in this election. People respect and are attracted to confidence and unclear messages just don’t seem confident, even if they are attempts at dealing with reality.
I agree, it COULD possibly behoove the Democrats to stress a more firm belief in their moral convictions on issues.
But like I said here:
http://www.linkmeister.com/blog/archives/001123.html
I’m not sure putting an actual religious twist on it would actually quite work.
But why does everyone keep saying it’s the message that’s not clear?
I really think it’s more than message delivery, and has more to do with actual stands on the issues.
I’ve been relentlessly saying this here:
http://www.mikezellers.com/archives/000537.html