You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Subject: Bush is ILLIGITIMATE. Could NOT win without fraud. Challenge me [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-05 08:17 PM
Original message
Subject: Bush is ILLIGITIMATE. Could NOT win without fraud. Challenge me
Advertisements [?]
I believe this and Ive said it many times BUT it finally made complete sense after I read a post by DUer Anaxarchos. This is his analysis and the quotations are his words. It is well worth the read! Youve seen all the charts and heard the debate on statistics. This is just plain political reality and logic.

There is no way the Republicans could have won given the following.

1) Republican Problems.


The Republicans faced two problems in 2004. Gore won more votes in 2000, creating a motivated Kerry base and the Nader vote was headed to Kerry. Given this and Bushs falling poll numbers, Rove developed a grand strategy:

The theory was that by using the patriotic wind of 9/11 at their backs and by focusing the Power of The Presidency, Republicans could chip away at the conservative edges of traditionally Democratic constituencies. As the election approached, it became clear that the impact of Iraq and the faltering economy (particularly in potential battlegrounds like Ohio and Pennsylvania) had undone that "strategy". The situation left few good GOP alternatives

2) Roves Ugly Alternatives

Battle of Attrition. A battle of attrition is typically fought by the numbers (i.e. money, phone calls, response rates, etc.). In 2004, the Democrats had nearly as much money to spend and were highly motivated. They had already won the battle for registration and, historically, the Republicans have only been able to better mobilize a smaller constituency (i.e. extract a higher percentage turnout from a smaller number of total partisans that could theoretically be mobilized). This battle was never fully engaged.

Winning the Undecideds. This was considered but Rove rejected it as a major strategy. This was openly advocated by several Republican "strategists" and was proposed through the mechanism of swinging Bush's position "to the center". The interesting thing was that this was openly opposed by Rove. The basis of his opposition was that the electorate was already very polarized and that the hit rate among the "undecideds" would be too low.

Capturing the 3-4 Million Evangelicals Who Sat Out 2000. This constituency was the ONLY rapidly mobilizable and sizable group within the Republican constituencies which COULD be brought to the 2004 elections, thus justifying the "gamble" according to Rove. By this mechanism (perhaps as many as 3 million votes), the Republicans could just offset the Democratic plurality of 2000, the Nader vote, and a modest Democratic swing of the tiny "middle". Because this strategy was thought to be disproportionately effective in certain battleground states (Florida, Missouri, and a few others), it was thought that it could gain near parity or even a tiny plurality in the popular vote and that it could be focused geographically to win a narrow victory in the electoral vote.

3) Roves Last Gasp: The Evangelical Strategy that Did Not Work

First, instead of 110 to 112 million votes as was expected in a "rerun of 2000", the turnout produced nearly 123 million votes, effectively swamping the Rovian strategy with a much bigger "middle". Second, Bush achieved, not narrow parity, but a 3 million vote majority in the popular vote. Some Republicans were "stunned" and this accounts for the claims of a "landslide", etcetera, immediately following the elections. Of course the election did not break any ground historically in presidential races (it was in fact a very close race), but what was really being referred to was a 3 million vote majority where no such vote could exist.

This "what if" is probably the closest to reality that could be proposed and the irony is that it is supported by the 12:22 AM exit polls (Kerry 51%).. In fact, it is not so much that the exit polls suggest "fraud" so much as they support a logical understanding of an election which can not achieve that outcome WITHOUT fraud.

And thats it.

They couldnt and didnt win the war of attrition. We had too much money and a strong organization (remember!).

They couldnt and didnt win the undecidededs. We know that for a fact.

And the 3-4 million evangelicals they brought out couldnt be the kill shot when the vote total went from 112 million to 123 million.

It was an election which can not achieve that outcome WITHOUT fraud.

Republicans do you best, it's an air tight case.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC