Media Curmudgeon

« Not in Anger | Main | The Post-Election Media »

November 7, 2004

Election Results

Final Thoughts: Election

1. The Months Leading Up To Election Day:

� Fifty-five perecent of registered voters in the US were Democrats (and still are).

� The president's management of Iraq was losing support rapidly among voters.

� The public's view of the state of the economy--mainly, "lost jobs"--was adversely affecting voters' views of the president.

� The president's overall "job performance" was thought to be "good" by less than 50% of voters--his lowest since mid-2001.

� By the end of October after three debates, some polls found that Kerry won all three; many found that he won two; none found that Bush had won two or three of the debates.

� Media coverage critical of the president's performance intensified (according to Center for Media and Public Affairs the large three broadcast network shows aired 77 % "positive" stories on Kerry while 64% of Bush stories were "negative").

� Communicating some compelling appeal to "conservative" voters in the Red states would likely be important for Democratic victory.

� In the 2000 election Bush received fewer popular votes than his Democratic opponent.

2. Election Day: The Vote

� Nine million more people vote for Bush than did in 2000

� Three and a half million more vote for Bush than Kerr

� Republicans gain four additional Senators

� Kerry fails to win one Red state and loses key state Florida with 47% of the vote.

3. Tomorrow: The analysis and future:

1. That Kerry lost the presidency and Democrats lost seats, given the perceived state of Bush administration�s handling of foreign affairs and the economy is at the very least surprising.

2. The election result suggests less than competent strategy and execution by the Democrat brain trust and the candidate. Some thoughts as to how and why this substantial advantage Kerry enjoyed during the last few months was squandered.

3. Dems cannot win Red states with a liberal from Northeast (or West Coast) unless perhaps their Republican opponent is a Moderate West Coaster) unless perhaps their Republican opponent is a moderate Northerner--obviously not the case with Bush.

4. Electing a Senator to the presidency does not seem to be a route to the White House�when was the last time it happened? Wouldn't Dem strategists be thinking this too?

5. Associating and cavorting with Hollywood and Rock n' Roll mega-stars continues to be thought to be ultra-cool by Dem candidates but not thought so by Red state voters (and, I think, a lot of Blue state voters, as well). A few examples of star Kerry cheerleading that appeared in the press presumably with his handlers' knowledge (since each was related to raising money for his candidacy):

1. Whoopie Goldberg at Rainbow Room black-tie event uses scatological language referring to the president's last name as a warm-up to calling him as criminal.

2. Cher, speaking to an elderly group of ladies in Florida, struggles to maintain her balance at the podium and arduously searches her memory for words; finally finds them; and calls the president a modern Nazi.

3. Eminem, a rap song artist whose lyrics often highlight cop beatings and violence to women , pens a new, made-for-the-campaign, anti-Bush tune.

4. Bug-eyed Susan Sarandon and anti-business hubby Tim Robbins are pictured condescendingly ticking off reasons Bush is stupid.

5. Meryl Streep regales a group of NY potential Dem donors about the president's "fixation with Jesus Christ."

6. Michael Moore's �Fahrenheit 9/11� which produced gleeful disdain in the brilliant brains of two-coast Dems had the opposite effect in Red states where "less-sophisticated" Americans who saw (not many) or heard via word-of-mouth the vitrioloic depiction of the president felt the movie was unfair and saw Moore as "another Hollwood smart ass who looks down on us folk." A schoolmate friend, a retired postal employee who has never left West Virginina, told me that upon visiting his daughter in Philadelphia he went to see Moore's movie. He had planned on voting for Kerry but was outraged by the "superiority attitude" of the movie maker. Marty voted instead for Bush.

Well, all this sounds cool and hip here in NY and on the left coast but, I believe, Dem brothers, that buddy-buddy stuff with patronizing and privileged Hollywood profit-participators is not amusing and not appreciated in Red states and will never be. Advice: muzzle the mouths of the stars and don't jump up and down on a stage in Toledo, Ohio two days before the election to show Ohio voters that you and the Boss are bros. Maybe, if your name was Clinton, but William Clinton you were not. IT IS THE CULTURE, STUPID.

� Do not associate with billionaire New York Liberals. Take their $80 million that George Soros raised with four other pals and keep it quiet. The publicity of fat-cat financing helps only in NY and LA exactly where Dem candidates do not need help--it hurts in Red states. Mr. Soros, quoted extensively in a 12 page article in an October issue of the most liberal, Bush-whacking magazine, THE NEW YORKER, compares the Administration to Hitler's and calls Bush "worst kind of liar". I am sure his half-thought-out thought was: The morons in Middle America have never heard of this magazine, let alone ever reading (or capable of reading) it. That is if Soros even considered the consequences of his raving hostile opinions on performance of the President. Did he and the Dem chief strategist--the lady from Massachusetts whose bio leader is managing the campaigns of Ted Kennedy in that challenging-for-Dems state--think that Karl Rove might receive a copy of the article and if so Mr. Rove might just have an idea or two as to how to distribute it strategically to voters? Did they think at all about the impact these remarks might have on the unfortunate American who doesn't understand how Soros made billions and while not resenting it wonders why such a fortunate person (and immigrant to boot) would be so angry in their great country, America. As this West Virginia boy can attest, those Mountaineers do not like to hear that talk from a guy who has never been to their state and who has not been on a commercial plane in 40 years. An additional factor is one my daughter communicated to me. She said a number of her friends in San Francisco thought that Mrs. Kerry was an unattractive snob who evidenced little empathy for anyone and no real affection towards her husband. The contrast between the two presidential candidates' wives was starkly clear--and the losers were the Dems.

� Kerry's occasional assertion of some Administration "failure" without a referenced source damaged his credibility and thus his chance to win. Example, in third debate Kerry said, on the subject of national security, "Our nation's borders are more vulnerable and unsafe the they were four years ago." Now, how without citing some source for this claim would anyone believe this possible? Everyone knows about the creation of Homeland Security and their terrorist alerts; most everyone knows that spending on security has been dramatically increased since 9/11 and everyone living person in America knows that since that awful day thirty-eight months ago not a terrorist firecracker has been ignited in this country. Does any one think that we have not suffered another attack because our borders are less safe? Or, could it be, Mr. Kerry, that perhaps because terrorists do not want to attack us again? Or, maybe is it just darn good Republican luck? I do not know what Kerry was thinking about! This is one example of a number of unsubstantiated criticisms of his opponent that are nor remotely believable. Advice to Dems: do not permit candidates to make such statements. Voters with a little bit of thought will conclude that the speaker is not being honest and thinks they (the voters) will not notice. (Voters too dumb, candidate thinks. Or I am too smooth.)

� Final thought: people want to vote for a likable person. Likable I think means something like the good guy I know at work or at the club or at church. Likable is not a person speaks with affectedly multi-sentence retorts. However you want to define to, likable enough--relative to Bush--was not John Kerry. And "person� just means a guy or gal who has a few flaws, just like me. Not the picture perfect Kerry with his Anglo patrician good looks plus with a dash of Eastern European mystique; the best education culminating with Ivy school debate champ; decorated war hero with non-stop bravery, an "in-your-corner" DA getting bad guys; a Senator of tireless devotion to task and electorate. Even if it were all true nearly all the time, it is not the profile of any "person" you or I have ever known. Sculpted in privilege, packaged by Hollywood Dem advisors and much funded by New York financiers who openly spew hatred of an American President, Kerry was inadequately managed and was incapable of executing a "likable person" public persona. Johnny, we didn't ever know ye."

Posted by Charles Warner at November 7, 2004 9:15 AM

Comments

Post a comment