Posted on 11/04/2004 1:32:41 PM PST by bigeasy_70118
The exit polling data has created a distinct misimpression in the media. Only dumb rednecks who hate gays voted for Bush. However a close examination of the data shows otherwise.
Look at the results via educational background. 49% of the people who didn't graduate high school voted for Bush versus 44% of the people with a post graduate degree. In other words, there are more morons who have earned graduate degrees than have dropped out of high school. It should be noted, Bush did consistently well with people who are h.s. grads, have some college and are college graduates (around 51% across those groups).
Bush's first piece of legislation: ban post graduate education.
Much has been made of the 22% of voters who have said moral issues were their most important issue, of whom 80% voted for Bush. The lame stream media has taken this to mean that vote for Bush was a vote against gay marriage. However, bans on gay marriage won by upwards of 80% in every state the issue was on the ballot. Obviously, a strong portion of Kerry voters also oppose gay marriage. Therefore, this piece of conventional wisdom is too simplistic, especially since Kerry had a me too stance on most moral issues. He does go to church, his position on abortion was too convoluted for my grad school mind to understand but clearly he didn't favor abortion on demand, and he was against gay marriage. Although some more cynical than I might suggest his position was I am not in favor of it BUT I am also not going to stop activists judges from reading gay marriage into their states' constitutions.
The moral values question is much broader than gay marriage, abortion on demand and stem cells. Look at the fact that less people (19%) considered terrorism their most important issue but those people voted for George Bush in similar numbers as the morality voters. Could it be that most of red state America believes that the war on terror is a moral issue?
Kerry could never define the war in moral terms because he had to balance a faction of his party that supported the war with the doves in his party who never support war under any circumstances. Thus, he was left with little choice but to present the war on terror in pre 9/11 terms. A true losing position in modern politics.
3,000 of our country men were killed on 9/11. George W. Bush's position is to kill them before they kill us; to kill them because they killed us. An eye for an eye. Dubya's response is appropriate, a way to respect the lives of the victims, at least as far as the Old Testament tradition goes and in light of the constitutional imperative to defend the United States. 86% of the country who view terror as their most important issue agree.
Kerry's response would be to arrest terrorists. Sure he talked the talk of continuing the war on terror while campaigning. But without defining the war in moral terms, he failed to be convincing to the electorate. I am not sure even he believed what he was saying. When he spoke extemporaneously during the debates he talked of passing a "global test" in whether America could defend itself. While in the "safe place" of a Rolling Stone interview, he commented that terrorism can be reduced to a nuisance like prostitution. Additionally, while in the Senate, he voted against legislation that would subject the terrorists to the death penalty. Overall, piecing together his record on terrorism doesn't paint a pretty picture. He doesn't see the moral imperative to defend the United States. His secularist influences refused to allow him to define the war in moral terms. Can any of the 80% of the people who voted for Bush on moral issues say they agree with Kerry's position on terror? The moral implications surrounding the U.S. response to 9/11 played a large role in Bush's huge lead with morals voters.
The fact that Kerry couldn't give a straight answer on Iraq, only magnified his lack of moral clarity. While Kerry said 4 more years of the Bush administration would be more of the same, his record on terrorism indicates a Kerry administration would haver been more of the same that led us to 9/11/01.
Bush can certainly be criticized for repeating the same points over and over again. PMSNBC's Howard Fineman made a smug comment after the first debate that Bush had only 45 minutes worth of material for a 90 minute debate. Very clever. But when you view the war on terror as a moral issue, there really isn't much point in over-intellectualizing it. Judging by the educational background of those who voted against him, Bush is correct.
Kerry's campaign failed to recognize the profound shift caused on 9/11. More of the same stopped when the first plane crashed into the WTC. Bush and the country view the war on terror as a moral imperative. There's a difference between justice and vengance. Killing the terrorists because the killed you or will kill you is justice. The Clinton era response of bombing an aspirin factory at 2am is the weakest form of vengance.
It is interesting to note that Kerry unlike many on the left refused to call the War on Terror vengance. Mostly becuase he would alienate those in his party who support the actions taken by President Bush with respect to 9/11. Thus, he is reduced to calling terrorism a nuisance. A nuisance doesn't need to be judged or avenged and that's why Kerry's still the junior senator from Massachussetts.
Kerry loves abortion on demand and his senate record backs him up--as do his words. "While I am personally opposed to abortion, I will fight for the right of all women to have access to making this reproductive choice, even at the taxpayers expense." I am paraphrasing; however, this is his stance on abortion. He has never once sought to limit access to abortion in any way.
With SCOTUS coming up for grabs in the next administration, we must remember that it was not just the gay marriage issue that brought Evangelicals to the polls.
I'm grinning, by the way.
Although 22% said that "moral issues" was their prime concern, that also means that 78% did not rate it as 1st and instead chose one of several other categories.
That's a point that the media ignores in their effort to paint the victory as a victory of "trailer trash homophobes".
I don't remember the exact numbers but I think that "terrorism" was like 20% and "Iraq" was 15%. I bet if you had instead substituted a broader category such as "national security" you would've seen that come out first as it includes both terrorism and Iraq (which many people equate anyway).
LQ
First, I don't trust the exit polls AT ALL, since they were wildly inaccurate in predicting the outcome of the state elections.
Second, the question I saw only had 4 answers. "What is the most important issue?" "War In Iraq" "War On Terror" "Moral Values" "The Economy".
Now, "War In Iraq" and "War On Terror" are the same thing, but the Establishment Media refuses to acknowledge that. Between the two, they probably got close to 50%.
This leaves "Moral Values" as a catch-all to anything that is not "War" or "The Economy". John Kerry flip-flopping is a "Moral Value". Teresa Heinz' moonbattiness is a "moral value". Michael Moore being a baldfaced liar is a "moral value". "The Environment" is a Moral Value. Just because someone picked "Moral Value" as their # 1 issue, it does NOT mean they want to chain women in basement.
[/sarcasm off]
I am against abortion and pro life.
But see no harm in gay marriage.
I am a firm believer in strong punishment for crime but at the same time cannot see the point in the war on drugs.
I think most people are like me.
Tony
I just saw on Fox the actual Fox poll questions and the light went on. "Moral issues" indeed got something like 21-22% (forget the exact number) but the poll split "War on Terror" and "Iraq."
DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!! THESE ARE THE SAME ISSUE, and most Americans know it. Therefore, this election WAS about terrorism---about 40% of the people said "terrorism or Iraq" was their #1 issue!!
Now, I don't know what the other exit pollsters used, but we better make sure in our analysis that we are not making the same mistake as the Dems and separating WOT and Iraq, and drawing the wrong conclusions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.