Brandon

The problem with that explanation is that Bush was hardly a strong candidate himself. In 2000, he was basically branded as a fool by the media. His first term was a very difficult one both for him politically and for the country. But yet he won a fairly decisive popular vote victory. I think this attitude by the Democrats that they have the issues on their side is actually their number one problem. The party is losing increasingly large sections of the middle of this country. I saw something Tuesday night that I thought would never happen in my lifetime; a Republican presidential candidate won the local vote in my county of Arkansas. Overwhelmingly, I might add. This is an area where local Republican candidates are completely unelectable just because they have an ® beside their name on the ballot. You either run here as a Democrat or Independent, because you won't win as a Republican. Yet Bush took over 60% of the vote. Why? Its because although this is a traditional Democratic area, its conservative in its beliefs. BTW, the local Dems won very easily. There are areas like this all over this country. The Democratic party's hard left turn during these last 20-30 years where the issues are supposedly on their side is what has caused them to lose these areas. The voters in these areas feel as though the national Democratic party is abandoning them, and that's why the Democratic party is getting its butt kicked everywhere except the Northeast and West Coast. The point is, the Democrats would be very, very wise to take a long look at their own positions instead of just blaming another loss on a poor candidate. Bush was far from unbeatable. As I stated in another post yesterday, had the Democrats nominated a more moderate candidate, Bush would be out of a job at the end of January.

Myself, I think the real mistake was the choice of Kerry at the top of the ticket to begin with. I still believe that Lieberman could have beaten Bush pretty decisively had he made it out of the primaries. He could have offered voters an alternative to Bush on the domestic agenda, particularly the economy, while still laying a much more legitimate claim to being strong on foreign policy and national defense issues than Kerry.

I'm not arguing the whether their views are correct or not. I am simply explaining why many voters consider this to be a very important issue and one that Democrats should not take lightly.

The problem with that whole argument is that you can't tell people what should and should not be important to them. Many conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, view it as conflicting with (or an outright attack against) their traditional beliefs and way of life. They already believe the erosion of these and other traditional beliefs and values has been contributing to the decline of our society. Whether anyone likes it or not, that makes it a very big issue with these voters.

Yes, they are the ones who brought up the amendment, but that is not my point. The point I'm making is that the Democratic party in turn keeps insisting that this isn't a real issue to voters. In fact, for many, it is.

Actually, I'd guess that most conservatives just want the government to leave their paychecks alone. Most of them probably assume that either party is pretty much going to keep its nose out of their personal lives.

You can spin it any way you want, but at the end of the day, the Republicans re-elected Bush and extended their Congressional majorities. That's all that really matters.

And the arrogance of the Democratic party in ignoring the importance of issues such as this to many voters in America's heartland (and even ridiculing those who feel strongly about it) is part of the reason your party lost badly last night.

Its pretty clear that Bush got his mandate last night. He won more popular votes than anyone ever has, won the all important electoral college vote, his party picked up seats in both houses of Congress, and one of his biggest detractors, Tom Daschle, was sent packing. It was certainly a great night for him and the Republicans.

True, but he also could have dragged this out several days and waited for all of the provisional and absentee ballots to be counted. Instead, he saw the writing on the wall and put an end to it.

He probably is. In any event, he's doing the right thing and for my part, he's earned a bit my respect.

A good, classy move. Thank you, Mr. Kerry, for not putting this country through the mess that Al Gore did.

But then, couldn't Republicans say the same things about Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania as you are saying about Ohio? The margins in those states are very close in favor of Kerry. In fact, unless the numbers have changed, the 140,000 lead Bush has in Ohio is greater than the lead Kerry has in any of those three states right now.

If that's true, then every one of the Senators who felt that way but still voted for that Iraq war authorization should be impeached and thrown out of office.

I think the big loser was Daschle as well. All of the others will probably land on their feet (though Edwards is also out of a job). Daschle's political career may be over. He'll have a very tough time ever winning an statewide election in such a conservative state again.

http://election.sos.state.oh.us/ProvBallots.htm

They just played a clip of the Ohio Secretary of State on Foxnews...he strongly implied that the number of provisional ballots is smaller than Bush's actual lead. In any case, if the Kerry camp is right in the number still outstanding (which is looking unlikely), Kerry would need about 80-90% of them to break his way, and I can't see that happening. If it does, I'd be pretty suspicious of it. That said, I have no problem with Kerry wanting to count them. I'd just be shocked if there are anywhere close to enough to turn the tide. In any case, the Democrats certainly do come out of this looking like gigantic hypocrites if they sue. They've been screaming about the popular vote for four years. Well, the one thing we are sure of is that Bush clearly won the popular vote last night by a much larger margin than Gore did in 2000.

Well, with NBC projecting it for Bush, I think the lead is likely to stand. They're going to be very conservative (witness the late Florida call) with their calls tonight and apparently they're sure Bush has won it. They're also saying that Republican counties in SW Ohio have yet to come in.

I don't think any results are in for Hawaii.

According to MSNBC, 88% of the vote is in from that county. Kerry is winning it overwhelmingly, but there may not be enough votes left for him to make up the difference, especially when there are Republican counties still outstanding as well.

But the Bush lead is still 140,000 votes. If there are 500,000 votes still out, Kerry would have to get 64% of those remaining to pull even. While its certainly possible that those areas could break by enough of a margin for him to win the state, its looking increasingly unlikely.

For whatever it is worth, Foxnews is projecting that Bush will win the state of Ohio, putting him at 266 EVs. If it holds, he has won re-election as Alaska will make it a 269-269 tie.

Well, I, for one, am still a bit nervous about Ohio. The margin is still pretty large at around 150,000, but as I understand it, there is still a very large Democratic county still out. The good news is that Bush's backup plan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Mexico, looks pretty good for him right now.

You can toss New Hampshire and New Mexico into that mix as well. Currently, Bush is winning in New Mexico and Wisconsin, both Gore states in 2000.

Well, in fairness, he might still be able to mount a comeback in Ohio. He's down about 5%, but less than 50% of the precincts are reporting. In Florida, unless Kerry mounts a monumental comeback, Bush will win that state as he's currently leading by almost 300,000 votes with nearly 90% of the precincts in.