WHY BUSH REALLY WON

[whometense]

Please read this essay. I think it's absolutely brilliant, as it makes sense of the election in a way no one else seems to have been to do - at least to my satisfaction. I could quote every word here.

The learned scribes and pundits who portray President George W. Bush as ignorant, irresponsible and reckless somehow have managed to miss the salient point - that is the reason Americans elected him. These unstatesmanlike qualities are considered virtues by certain voter(s), and that has been the least understood phenomenon of the last election.

<snip>

...Right now, liberal-oriented political clubs and Internet-mediated organizations are continuing their fight against the Republican agenda by holding public forums and Internet discussions. They talk about how to snare the antiabortion voter or the southern Protestant. They despair over the fact that their own moral values were rejected by the other side's moral values.

It is painful to watch.

I suggest that they are barking up the wrong tree. The red state voters may have told pollsters that they were voting for moral values, but in reality they were voting for amoral values. None of them quite admitted it, but that is what they did. They had the chance to vote for a Bible-toting incumbent who managed to communicate by the wink and the nod that he would be immoral on their behalf, and they took him up on it. It was the best of all possible worlds for voters with those needs.

For the other side, it is crucial that an accurate diagnosis be made of why the Democratic Party has managed to lose once again. All the excuses going around currently lead back to the same electoral defeat because they misstate the real issues.

Political analysts figured out that President Bush somehow made voters feel more secure about terrorism, but they never managed to explain why. They were not realistic enough, or perhaps honest enough, to get to the bloody heart of the matter.

What do you think????

[ck4829]

1. A 'christian' Rightist literally said once

"We are being assaulted by the intelligent and the educated."

It makes sense.

[TwilightZone]

2. I think we grossly underestimate the likelihood that many voters

are just as dumb and/or immoral as Bush is, and that's why they vote for him.

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. Bush won because the election was rigged

end of story.

[Blue Shark]

6. Exactly! N/T

[tommcintyre]

7. Well.. * didn't actually win then - can't "win" what you steal, can you?

[toymachines]

8. true it was rigged in some manner

but it still leaves a vast number of goddam stupid americans who voted for Bush. Nearly half of America...it confounds me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. I believe the same, but not end of story.

Because they didn't have to fudge that much. No matter how you cut it, something like 48% actually did vote for him, and that scares me more than the electoral fraud. The OP has a very good point.

[whometense]

13. Agree.

I should emphasize that I personally still believe 100% that the election was stolen. I have never stopped believing that.

That said, I don't think the two positions are mutually exclusive. I always thought Kerry would win more votes, but figured he'd have to win by a big margin so they couldn't steal it. This essay takes a position on why it was close enough to be stolen that makes stone cold sense to me.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. This is why

Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program,
Supported al Qaeda

Agree with Kerry Supporters Bush Administration Still Saying This is the Case

Agree US Should Not Have Gone to War if No WMD or Support for al Qaeda

Bush Supporters Misperceive World Public as Not Opposed to Iraq War,
Favoring Bush Reelection

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

These are some of the findings of a new study of the differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in September and October.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

Steven Kull adds, "Another reason that Bush supporters may hold to these beliefs is that they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda. Here too they are in agreement with Kerry supporters." Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have. Kull continues, "To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq."

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

[Chi]

21. Well said, I agree 100%..

Heya BlueEyedSon
And thanks for the link, Been looking for that.

[BlueEyedSon]

22. NP, just spreadin' the wealth (of knowledge)

[tommcintyre]

25. Excellent info! Shows why it is useless to justhammer the right with facts

"...creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information..."

Clearly, Bush did NOT get enough votes to win, but it is still problematic that such a significant portion of the electorate "blindly" (against facts and even their self-interest) voted for, and continue to support, him.

Even science recognizes the inherent subjectivity (bias) of the human mind. (Hence, the necessity of the double blind study.*)

I believe subjectivity, not ignorance or ill-intention on the part of voters, has always been the greatest danger to democracy (and even the continued viability of this planet, for that matter).

So any possible solution to the extreme polarity between the right and left lies more in building emotional consensus, than in just disseminating more facts. We need to emphasize more of how we are the same, not different. Much of our self interests are the same as theirs. Most right-wing supporters are not rich and powerful, so their self-interests are more similar to ours.

I think many are just afraid, and do not see that Bushco is more part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. Possibly their brains are wired a little differently, so their perceptions and consequent priorities are different. They see the problems, but do not perceive the cause(s) as clearly. Higher on their list is to turn to (and trust) their leaders to solve their problems. They are not "wired" to reason out (internally) the causes of their problems, as much as to turn to external authorities. So we need to explain more to them WHY what Bushco is doing is harmful to them and the rest of the country - rather than focusing so much on WHAT they are doing.)

For example, last night I was researching the upcoming Carter Election Reform Commission. I read threads at rightnation** and freerepublic*** to gain some perspective of what the "other side" is saying. I was blown away! Many were just as skeptical as we are here, but it was Jimmy Carter (instead of James Baker) they were so suspicious of! Now, I'm sure I could factually win ANY argument comparing Carter's to Baker's record, but I doubt I would win any converts.

However, if I took the time to build mutual consensus (i.e. "Look, we're BOTH skeptical, knowing how politics can be, etc."); AND tried to put it in THEIR self-interest (i.e. "In the future, the candidates YOU want may NOT stand a chance if we don't ALL work together RIGHT NOW to make sure ALL elections are open, transparent, and fair, etc.") I would probably get somewhere with at least some of them. (This technique of building mutual consensus/self-interest has worked well for me in building support for election fraud/reform work - even among republicans/conservatives.)

----------------------------------------------------------------



* A method of medical investigation in which neither the subject nor the investigator knows what treatment, if any, the subject is receiving. At the end of the experiment, the "code" is broken and data are analyzed with respect to the various treatments used. This method attempts to eliminate observer and subject bias.
www.aidsinfobbs.org/letters/4.html

** RightNation.US -> Jimmy Carter to Chair Election Reform Commission
www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=72903

*** Jimmy Carter to Chair Election Reform Commission (James Baker will ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1370191/posts

[TruthIsAll]

5. The article sucks. It is just another lame attempt to disregard the theft.

So this is their new tack?

Bush really did win because most Americans are jerks.

No, most Americans are NOT jerks and most voted for Kerry.

[whometense]

17. Don't misunderstand me.

I completely believe the election was stolen.

I also believe way too many americans voted for that slimy thug. This is a reasonable explanation as to why.

[jen4clark]

32. Amen

And unless major changes are made, we'll be stumbling around the rest of our lives wondering why the Repubs keep winning...

http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm

[EVDebs]

9. I think you missed the 40% of eligible voters who sat out 2004

Bush supposedly got 30% versus Kerry's 29.9% versus the 40% who didn't even show up at the polls (or had their votes not counted).

Apathy was the BIG WINNER in the 2004 'election'.

Also see this DU posting

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x350762

about how the 2004 election results are possibly invalid...

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Also true. n/t

[n2doc]

12. makes a lot of sense

After all, what do people hear from the AM hate radio all day- "nuke them, blow them up, torture them because they deserve it,," and on and on.we have turned Iraq into our own personal Colosseum, complete with Gladiators to fight the barbarians.

[whometense]

14. youch.

An unpleasant image, but one that rings true.

[yorkiemommie1]

15. that's what i've been telling my friends all along

nice to read this piece written by someone in my neck of the woods!

[whometense]

16. Have you really??

I'm impressed. It didn't fall into place for me until I read this. It just feels true.

[Chi]

18. I agree with post 4..

Heya Diane
Yes there was an 'ordinary guy' appeal for many, but if most of them knew what * actually represented (the rich etc.) they would of voted differently.
The lies of this administration are what got * the 40% (or whatever) of the votes in 2004.
Lets face it, the Gov. with the modern day record of kills under the death penalty, and an abhorrent record with the poor, can not possibly run as a pro life, Jesus loving Christian.
It just doesn't get you the votes...unless you lie.

(Chi steps down and pushes the soap box to the next person)

[forgethell]

19. OK, but

it's thinking like this that keeps costing us votes. Condescension and sneering never helped any cause.

Instead, I think we should address why they actually and sincerely think that their values are moral, and that ours are not. When we answer that question, we can begin to win. Let me give you a clue. It isn't stupidity and it isn't ignorance. I think it's world-view. The question, if I am right, is how do you change someone's world-view?

[whometense]

23. I don't see it that way.

I don't see any condescension or sneering in his essay; I see him as someone looking honestly at what happened and trying to speak some truth.

You can agree with his conclusions or not; that's your right. But to condemn him for trying to understand what happened is short-sighted.

As I've said at least twice on this thread, I still think the election was stolen. But that doesn't account for the still-large number of people who voted for the shrub.

[forgethell]

31. I think

we lost. Here's the condescension: he seems to think that the people deliberately vote for immoral or amoral policies. I don't. I think they think they vote for what they consider to be moral policies. He seems to think, and I am inferring this by my interpretation of what he said, it is not a direct quote, that because of this their votes shouldn't count.

But they do. And nobody likes to consider themselves immoral. Even Hitler. But neither the voters nor Bush and crew are anywhere near Hitler. They resent the name calling and politics of personal destruction as much as we do.

[garybeck]

20. piece of crap article

if you think this is the answer, you haven't looked at the mountain of evidence. the election was stolen. more people voted for kerry. wake up. this article stinks.

[Carolab]

39. I'm with you, garybeck.

Stuff like this is counterproductive.

Focus on the theft, people.

[anaxarchos]

24. "Most" Americans didn't vote...

"Most" of those who didn't vote didn't vote because:
1) They were ineligible
2) They moved or were purged from the rolls and couldn't re-register
3) They had logistical issues (transport, work, etc.)
4) A small % didn't "want to" - 23% ("don't care", "won't make a difference", "discouraged", etc.).

"Most" of those who would have voted if they could have voted would have voted Democratic (... that's kinda the point).

So, the "Least" voted...

"Most" of the "Least" voted Democratic... they didn't get counted.

What's the point? There are dickheads in America? No shit!

But they are a minority... And getting smaller. That's why they fight so hard.

[tommcintyre]

26. This type of article is MISLEADING and COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

Unfortunately, no matter how good the info, it will do more harm than good. It misleads people into focusing on the less important issues for getting our country on the right track again.

You see, no matter how many people vote against the neocons, WE CAN NEVER, EVER, WIN IF THE ELECTIONS ARE FIXED.

So, as much as these kinds of assumptive* articles are successful in distracting people from the FOREMOST, ESSENTIAL ISSUE THAT MUST BE SOLVED (ELECTION FRAUD/REFORM) , they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. <And, they take us away, from more useful tasks (those of us who are working hard on election fraud/reform), to explain this over and over again ;) >

Now, if this type of article came with a disclaimer such as: "There are serious questions as to whether Bush actually did receive more votes, and there are substantial ongoing investigations into this matter. But we thought it would also be useful to look into the reasons why those who actually did vote for him did so."
Fair enough?

Please feel free to post this response to any similar article you may see in the future (and even send it to the originating author). Meanwhile, I gotta get back to work on helping to solve the problem. ;)

*They assume that Bush "won", not by cheating/fraud, but by actual vote totals.

[FogerRox]

27. This right here say the writer is INSANE

The learned scribes and pundits who portray President George W. Bush as ignorant, irresponsible and reckless somehow have managed to miss the salient point - that is the reason Americans elected him.


Ahhh no they didnt, this is in no way brilliant, unless its brilliant Bullshit

[tommcintyre]

28. Actually, that part made me laugh...

It reminded me of how a couple of pundits were trying to sort out how Bush could've possibly "won" (considering his lack of... well, everything) in 2000. One of them mused, "Well... there's a lot of people who want to vote for someone they'd feel comfortable with... say.. a fishin' buddy".

So ya gotta wonder, how many "Bubba's" are there out there who "fish" with ignorant, irresponsible and reckless "buddies" (hell, they probably fit this description themselves! ;)). My guess is there are a significant number out there (but still not enuff to elect that "moran" prez).

BTW: This ain't even "brilliant Bullshit". Even bullshit has to be original to be brilliant. ;)

[LatePeriduct]

29. But there's something off here.....

Because he didn't win. He illegally got himself elected and dragged a bunch of cultists with him this time.

[anamandujano]

30. twice

.

[jen4clark]

33. Excellent Thom Hartmann article

from 3/10/05, in case anyone missed it:

Teresa Heinz Kerry - Hacking the "Mother Machine"?
by Thom Hartmann
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0310-32.htm

"Two brothers own 80 percent of the machines used in the United States," Teresa Heinz Kerry told a group of Seattle guests at a March 7, 2005 lunch for Representative Adam Smith, according to reporter Joel Connelly in an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Connelly noted Heinz Kerry added that it is "very easy to hack into the mother machines."

The two brothers Mrs. Kerry is referencing are, according to voting machine expert (and founder of www.BanVotingMachines.org) Lynn Landes, in an article for the Online Journal, Bob Urosevich, president of Diebold Election Systems, and Todd Urosevich, who was vice president for customer support of Chuck Hagel's old company, now known as ES&S.

Presumably the "mother machines" Teresa was talking about are the "central tabulator" computers, like the Windows-based Diebold central tabulator PC that Howard Dean hacked into and untraceably changed an election on - in 90 seconds - live on the "Topic A With Tina Brown" CNBC TV show late last year.

As Dean noted while hacking the Diebold machine on national television, "In 1998, only 7% of all U.S. counties used electronic voting machines." But, Dean noted of the 2004 race, "in the next presidential election, roughly 1 in 3 of us will use one."

Dean added:

"But critics have found all sorts of flaws with these machines, from software security concerns, to the complete lack of a paper trail to verify votes. These machines cannot be recounted.
"In Riverside County, California, an incumbent mysteriously pulled ahead after the voting machine company employees stopped the tally to tinker with the machines.

"In Iowa , machines in one precinct returned 4 million votes-- when only 300 actual voters turned out.

"In San Diego, election officials reportedly turned to teenagers to reboot their malfunctioning machines.

"And in Florida, a computer crash erased the records from Miami-Dade's first widespread use of touchscreen voting machines-- all data from the 2002 gubernatorial primary is gone.

"There are two problems. One, there's no paper trail which means you can't verify your vote, and it can't be recounted. The other potentially serious problem: tampering and rigging of elections. We asked Diebold, one of the companies that makes these machines, and Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood to appear on this program. They both turned us down."


-much more

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0310-32.htm

[FogerRox]

34. Except BOb Urosevich was let go last year---

SOme much for the Kerry folks staying up on current events---
Or an event that happened 5-6 months ago.

[jen4clark]

36. Yes, but that's one guy

She may not keep up on the issue at this point, but she seems to know what's going on.

http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm#13

Can a voting machine company be owned by foreigners and run by felons?

Yes. Sequoia is the third largest voting machine company in America and is owned by a British-based company, De La Rue. Diebold is the second largest voting machine company in the country. It counts about 35% of all votes in America. Diebold employed 5 convicted felons as senior managers and developers to help write the central compiler computer code that counted 50% of the votes in 30 states. Jeff Dean, Diebold's Senior Vice-President and senior programmer on Diebold's central compiler code, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree. Dean was convicted of planting back doors in his software and using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of 2 years. see: fraud & irregularities

Who are the companies that are counting Americans' votes?

Republican and foreign investors control the voting machine industry. Two companies, ES&S and Diebold, which were started by the Urosevich brothers, count 80% of all votes. They own both ballot scanners and touchscreen machines. The third largest company, Sequoia, is owned by British-based De La Rue. But, there are several other companies with ties to the Republican Party and the defense industry, that have a piece of the ballot pie. Five ex-CIA directors sit on the boards of these companies. Voting Machine Companies


- much much more

http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm#13

[Clark Bayh 2008]

35. How did Clinton win twice if the elections are "rigged"?

Instead of this incessant whining, doesn't it make more sense to see how we might ensure a nominee who can actually win in a two person race against a Republican?

Remember, Clinton won twice because of Perot voters. We need someone who can attract the Clinton/Perot/Reagan Democrat voter. It's that simple.

[NationalEnquirer]

37. Clinton won because HE was bubba!

Its the bubba vote man.
They vote for a guy they feel comfortable with.
Not all people, a small minority, but enough of them to sway close elections (or make them close enough to cheat).
Clinton was bubba, people loved him.
The Repunks attacked him mercilessly, and yet he won re-election.
I dont think we have a "bubba" like him anymore..

[tommcintyre]

38. That was BEFORE 30% of all Pres ballots were cast on "paperless" machines

I doubt even "bubba" could pull it off now, without serious election reform.

Welcome to DU. :) Now please hang around this forum to educate yourself on the ONE ISSUE that must be handled before it can even matter who we run against them.