November 04, 2004
Kerry-Bush Win by Landslides
Nader 397,468 - Badnarik (Libertarian) 379.000 - Cobb (Green Party) 105,590 — Kerry (Dem) 55,750,105 — Bush (Rep) 59,284,062. By the Republican standard, Nader won among third party candidates with a progressive mandate! This is rather laughable, considering how close the numbers were between Kerry and Bush.
Even the Electoral College vote was close, where just one state could have reversed the result. The only mandate coming out of this election is that our country needs a president who can cross party lines and represent a true majority of American's interests. Without fulfillment of such a mandate, the divide in America will only deepen and splinter.
As many others have said, the ball is now entirely in the Republican's court. Sen. Arlen Specter (R) has issued a warning to President Bush regarding Supreme Court nominees. Sen. McCain will no doubt splinter another campaign finance and environmental issue group among Republicans. Moderate Republicans will oppose very conservative Republicans on 'privatizing' a portion of Social Security if the 1 Trillion dollar hole it leaves is not filled with revenue increases or commensurate cuts in Social Security benefits. Republicans will now have to demonstrate an ability to manage a 'Big Tent' party with many factions, some opposing others. In just two years, Republicans in Congress will be running for reelection and given the deep and pretty evenly split populations in some barely red states, the GOP could easily lose Congressional seats in 2006.
A large portion of the responsibility for insuring the GOP itself does not become divided will fall on President Bush himself. If Bush moves to far and too fast to the right, or the war in Iraq does not improve, or the economy falters, or real wages fall, or jobs continue their lackluster growth, President Bush will face increasing opposition from within his own party as Congressional Republicans fight for their political lives in their own states. It remains to be seen if President Bush and his advisors, without the Democrats to blame for opposition, can hold their American 3.5 million voter majority together over the next two election cycles in 2006 and 2008.
The Democratic Party still suffers from the inherent weakness of being an all inclusive party. It is a real catch 22 for the Democrats. If they more narrowly focus their platform and limit their issues to those with broad electorate appeal, they will downsize their party by alienating many of the splinter single issue constituencies like gay and lesbian groups and anti-war groups. On the other hand, if they do not narrow their platform, they will wear the ultra-liberal label that hung around their necks like an albatross in this 2004 election and cost them crucial votes in key states.
Third parties may have a window of opportunity over the next 3 election cycles. If this election's mandate that the President cross party lines and unite a large majority of the electorate is not fulfilled, both the Democratic and Republican parties will lose their cohesiveness and send moderates and centrists looking for alternatives. The number of registered independent voters choosing to no longer identify with the Democratic or Republican parties is on the rise and has been for decades. Increases in Independent voters’ numbers can become an opportunity for third parties.
The number of third party votes this election is deceiving. They are small. But, that was very likely in large part due to Libertarians voting Republican and Green Party and Nader supporters voting Democratic, fearing the consequences of a landslide win and mandate by conservatives or progressives, which of course never materialized. If Nader would rejoin the Green Party and Libertarians continue their grassroots efforts in local races, and each targets disaffected voters under the Democratic or Republican tents, large gains could potentially be made in their respective memberships over the next 12 years.
There are now disaffected Democratic voters who have lost faith in the Democratic Party’s ability to represent Middle American values. And should the economy, deficits, Iraq, or Homeland Defense falter under the Republicans, there will be a growing number of disaffected Republican voters to recruit to third party membership. In the past, political memory of the electorate has been short. That is changing. Democrats have been unable to lose their memory of the 2000 election and now blame both Gore and the Republicans for that defeat. The same will be true for Republicans as they face up to the Republican government’s inability to stem the growing national debt without negatively affecting quality of life issues for working class Republican voters.
The third parties must learn to trust in the deep divide and convince voters that their vote for a third party is not a vote for the Democrats or Republicans, but, a vote for independence from those two major parties which are doing our nation more harm than good. In other words, if the third parties target the two major parties as ineffective and even destructive to mainstream goals of fiscal responsibility, minimum living standards for all employed Americans and their dependents, and a safer America, then third parties and their voter turnout can, and very likely will, grow dynamically in future elections as intractable problems fail to improve under the two major parties.
I agree with the hope that third parties rise up in the next couple of years. I post here only to give an update on one link cited here. Specter actually explained that the report was inaccurate- This is his press release.
“Contrary to press accounts, I did not warn the President about anything and was very respectful of his Constitutional authority on the appointment of federal judges.
“As the record shows, I have supported every one of President Bush’s nominees in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. I have never and would never apply any litmus test on the abortion issue and, as the record shows, I have voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Kennedy and led the fight to confirm Justice Thomas.
“I have already sponsored a protocol calling for a Judiciary Committee hearing within thirty days of a nomination, a vote out of Committee thirty days later, and floor action thirty days after that. I am committed to such prompt action by the Committee on all of President Bush’s nominees.
“In light of the repeated filibusters by the Democrats in the last Senate session, I am concerned about a potential repetition of such filibusters. I expect to work well with President Bush in the judicial confirmation process in the years ahead.”
While Specter is not my favorite republican, any man who led the fight for Justice Thomas is hardly going to be a block to push appointing judges who will be unfriendly to the argument that the constitution mandates the right to abortions.
The reason Specter is now spinning his own comments is evident by the original link in my article. The GOP has made it abundantly clear, he will not preside over the judiciary committee if he does not back off his original warning to Bush.
Let the strong arm tactics to try to hold the Republican Party together begin. This is very good news, Misha. We just got our first glimpse of how the GOP intends to hold the factions in its party together. Nothing promotes rebellion more than strong arm tyranny.
The GOP is really going to learn the lesson of how difficult it is to maintain a ‘Big Tent’ party.
Wouldnt surprize me David- thats how they got that huge give away to seniors medicare plan passed- pushing around the right wing of the party. It wouldnt surprize me if they are pushing around the center now on judicial nominations. Seems like the MO of this white house.
On the other hand, I do not think Specter wants to block reasonable judges that do not agree with Roe v. Wade- thats all I ask from him. This is a big reason that many people did not think kerry shared their priorities- that he would have a litmust test for judicial nominees. I doubt specter is going to go the way of Kerry and impose the same kind of litmus test.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at November 4, 2004 07:23 PMMisha, given that Specter is regarded as a moderate Republican on many issues, I would not argue with your contention that he would not hesitate to foster a nominee opposed to Roe V. Wade provided they did not appear extreme in general.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 4, 2004 08:32 PMI lost respect for Nader (and the others felt a duty to go against Bush and vote for Kerry). I would still respect Nader had he been working like a Consumer activist to make Proportional Votes count by now. That’s what we need in this country.
Moderate Dems and Repubs and Swing Voters are the majority. As part of this grouping, ultraliberals and spenders are just as bad to us as right wingers.
I saw Nader’s speech after the polls closed, and he had a lot of good things to say. Since Kerry didn’t win anyway, I wish the media would have given Nader a voice during the campaign.
Posted by: political news at November 4, 2004 10:02 PMNo matter how much anyone spins, Bush won an absolute majority and a clear victory in both the popular and electoral vote. Turnout was unusually large. Everybody knew who George Bush was and what he stood for. The pundits repeatedly told us that this was a referendum on George Bush. This was not a stealth victory. What you see is what you get. The majority has clearly spoken, not only for president, but also for the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Many Democrats claimed a mandate for Bill Clinton in 1992 when he won only 44% of the vote and had no coattails. In one sense, they were right. We elect the president to decide.
I hope that George Bush reaches out to Democrats, but I also hope that he pushes through the things he promised such as tort reform, strict constructionist judges, an aggressive war on terrorism, reform of social security and an ownership society. These things need doing, whether or not they are popular. I voted for Bush because of these things. I assume others did too.
I have no doubt Bush will keep his word and I think that this second term will prove to be transformative. If some people don’t like it, we will hold another election in four years. They have the responsibility to convince a majority of their fellow citizens to change course. Until that time, George W. Bush is our president by a clear majority vote.
He won by @3% of the vote. Only.
Half the country was not behind him at all.
I am deeply upset for the people in Ohio (and other states) who have $8 hr. jobs and their wives work part-time and don’t have health care or are unemployed—because can’t find a living wage job to make ends meet and/or stand in food lines every week…that were shown on tv.
So, where are all the good Christian Repubs letting that happen to people? And, oh yes, it has and goes on adding more and more every week.
I was aghast when I saw a teenage girl crying because she goes to bed hungry…
This is your red states’ America.
The rest of us want and deserve Proportional voting. Way overdue. Maybe, we can get more and more states’ rights, so we can get away from the control of the red states.
He scares the h out of the rest us, starting with the Judge selections. He doesn’t even have to give on iota about the rest of the country.
From, a Thinking Independent/Moderate Swing Voter (non-Nader follower) who by the way was raised to be in office (like family members and assocs. helped.
Alex
You embrace state’s rights, which is something president Bush and conservatives generally support and liberals generally oppose. The liberal experiment has tended to increase central authority. The other thing you advocate, proportional representation, is incompatible with enhanced states’ rights.
Anyway, proportional representation and enhanced states’ rights would have produced the same result for president. Bush won an absolute majority. There is no democratic way to achieve the result you imply you want. George Bush is your president. He has the consent of the governed as measured by a free election. Your individual consent is not required, but it would be nice if everyone would work to solve our common problems.
David,
You are right about the time for an Independent to finally stand up and take on both political parties of this nation. With the right wing talking heads being busy with still bashing the “Liberals” of this nation, a silent revolution is taking place under their nose.
Bush says he has a mandate from Our Country, yet fails to give anyone a clue to what it is. Over the next few days I will be composing the list of issues he stated in his speech so I can comment more intellegent on the issues.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 5, 2004 02:28 AMJack said: “No matter how much anyone spins, Bush won an absolute majority and a clear victory in both the popular and electoral vote.”
This statement itself is spin. A majority is equal number of votes plus 1. An ABSOLUTE majority is equal number of votes plus 1. The word Absolute is an embellishment designed for chest thumping by a victor. Glad to see you are not above the spin yourself Jack, makes you human like the rest of us. :-)
BTW, President Bush is your president, and he is the President of these United States for four more years or less. He will never be my President. I would not volunteer to join his armies seeing how he squanders their lives unnecessarily in Iraq. And were I of draft age and the draft reinstated, I would have to resist the draft. It is clear from the sentiments expressed by a large number on the internet post election, that I am not alone in these senitments.
I would prefer President Bush to civil war or Revolution. That is as far as I will go in accepting him as my President. I will suffer and tolerate his next four years if they are conducted like the last four, with the confidence that neither he nor a Republican will succeed him in 2008. Patience for four years is preferable to blood shed for the sake of the union. On these bases, the majority of those 50 million plus who did not vote for Bush will not fight his Presidency.
President Bush was ineffective in dealing with our deficits and debt, the last 4 years, incapable of protecting Peace and prosperity the last 4 years, and an utter failure in bring an overwhelming majority of Americans together on any issue other than invading Afghanistan. Thus, if he governs these next 4 years as he has the last 4, there will be no simple majority to be found by a Republican candidate in 2008, and that is worth waiting for.
Posted by: David R Remer at November 5, 2004 02:43 AMJack said: “I hope that George Bush reaches out to Democrats, but I also hope that he pushes through the things he promised such as tort reform, strict constructionist judges, an aggressive war on terrorism, reform of social security and an ownership society. These things need doing, whether or not they are popular. I voted for Bush because of these things. I assume others did too.”
Bush cannot reach out to Democrats and push the agenda you propose above (except fighting terrorism) at the same time. Democrats and third party progressives oppose all those issue save fighting terrorists.
As for winning the war on terrorism, that is a joke, right? You mean like winning the war on poverty in America, or the war on drugs, or the war on crime? None of these wars have been won, only battles won and battles lost, but the war continues indefinitely, as will the war on terrorism. Exacerbated by this President’s alienation of the majority of people throughout the world.
Posted by: David R Remer at November 5, 2004 02:53 AMAn interesting article in Slate about the fine fiscal mess the GOP now has to deal with.
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 5, 2004 09:53 AMOf the 59 million people voting for Bush, and the 55 million people voting for Kerry, just how many people do you think were actually casting a negative vote…voting for one because he was the lesser of the two evils? We need three parties in this country, maybe even four, if for nothing more than to give the voting public a choice of candidates and ideas. And maybe along those lines, since we all disagree about the electoral college, maybe the first place winer could be President, and the second place winner could be Vice-President, regardless of the party they represent. Possible?
Posted by: Bob Thompson at November 5, 2004 09:53 AMDavid and Misha
With the divide being as it is now, do you think if, by chance, that thinking would carryover if 3rd parties actually did come into power?
Greens, Libertarians and Constitutionalist are as far apart as the Dems and Repubs are today.
If these parties were to become the prominent parties, how can we make it work better than what we have now?
You know I’m a third party guy myself, I just don’t want to end up in the same mess we find ourselves in today.
Anyway, just a thought.
Thanks
David
It is possible both to reach out and strongly advocate an agenda. Visions might conflict, but visions are usually incomplete. Negotiations work because precisely because people don’t put the same values on the same things. The essence of good negotiation is to determine relative values. It is often possible for both sides to give up things that are low value to them, but high value to the other side in exchange for what they consider high value. You get synergy rather than compromise; everybody gets more than they had going in. What the president and the Republicans get to do is set the agenda about what will be negotiated. That is a tremendous advantage. There can be compromise, synergy and maybe even outright generously, but the sad and unavoidable fact of life is that we will be doing all those things with the agenda set by Republicans.
The biggest problem will be the judiciary. That is as close as we come to a zero-sum, single-issue negotiation. Roe v Wade is the curse of contemporary America, not the decision itself, but way it was accomplished and the polarization it created. Extremists on both sides do a litmus test on potential judges and they are seeking opposite results. I really have no idea how this will come out.
On technical issue, I used the word “absolute” to distinguish it from “relative”. Al Gore won a majority relative majority against George Bush in 2000, but did not win an absolute majority. As for spinning, I do that with everything I write. There is “good” spin and “evil” spin. When I try to phrase my statements in a way to make them easier to understand and accept, that is good spin. When I specifically try to mislead, that is evil spin. I guess I am guilty of both, but in commic book fashion, I try to use my powers for good rather than evil.
I recall a spin story about Christianity in pagan Europe. A group of missionaries arrives in some northern forest where muscular well-armed natives are enthusiastically worshipping a giant wooden statue of Thor. The missionaries can spin or die. If they try to pull down the heathen statue, nobody will be able to find all their body parts. So they go up to the leader and say, “I see that you also revere St. Jerome.” If the missionaries are persuasive enough, the natives have a new religion and the Church has new saint (or at least a new look to an old saint).
kctim and others…Actually I don’t think the third parties ARE as far apart on thier platforms as you suggest, but one thing I’d personally like to change is the debates. The current 15% criteria is definately a brick wall to anyone who has a different viewpoint on the matter. Badnarik got on 48 State ballots and the District of Columbia. Nader, Cobb and Petrouka were on less, however Nader recieved more third party votes than the others, when he was on the ballot (name recognition). Personally, if a candidate can get himself on enough state ballots to mathematically win 270 electoral votes, he should be included in the debates. Parade him out before the public and let’s make up our own minds if he’s a crackpot, or he just might have some solutions to the problems before us.
And one last thing…ALL candidates should only get public funding…by that I mean a $2000 limit from individuals and no corporations, PAC’s, special interests or whatever. Someone with $75 million in his ‘war chest’ is certainly going to get his views before the American public as opposed to the guy relying on my donated funds.
Posted by: Bob Thompson at November 5, 2004 10:51 AMJack said, “You embrace state’s rights, which is something president Bush and conservatives generally support and liberals generally oppose.”
While this is what is traditionally associated with each party, recent history has not supported it. The Federal Government has grown under the last three Republican presidents and actually shrank under Clinton. George W. Bush was instrumental in creating the largest Federal Agency that has ever existed: Homeland Security. Yes, it was a melding of several existing agencies, but it generated more work and a few more Fed jobs, and a lot more buearacracy.
In fact, the one thing that I saw Bush do first-hand was attempt to remove enforcement power from the Federal EPA and leave more responsibility to the State environmental agencies. Not only are these agencies less likely to enforce environmental laws against big industry (especially coal fired utilities - the biggest stationary sources of air pollution), the amount of money the Feds give to these State agencies to run their programs was decreased.
With regard to third parties: Of course they are needed, there is no question. What I question is where. We have the democratic party nominating moderate presidential candidates with more extreme left-leaning candidates (Nader) getting lots of attention. On the other side, we have the Republicans nominating far right-wing candidates (as Bush has shown himself to be - give me one). I think we need the mix balanced with a moderate Republican.
Posted by: Erik at November 6, 2004 10:18 AMForgot to add: With regard to the EPA example, the Federal EPA budget and size remained the same. So, the only attempt I saw to delegate more rights to the States was done so inefficiently, and in way that favors polluting industries over the public that the EPA is supposed to protect.
Posted by: Erik at November 6, 2004 10:42 AMWe both hope that our president for the next 4 years will also go through with things that he promised to do. It was a very close election, but Bush came out on top.
Posted by: Lisa at November 9, 2004 10:06 AMThis election like the one four years ago was a close race. This time it was Ohio instead of Florida giving the deciding votes to Bush. I am having a hard time accepting that the deciding votes were made by Ohio, home of Drew Carey. Thanks Drew, you really let us down this time…
Posted by: Mike And Ray CSI111 at November 9, 2004 10:16 AM
