It Was the Economy After All

DESPITE all the talk that the presidential election turned on the issue of moral values, it turns out that economics did indeed matter, and mattered a lot.

Those households with incomes above $50,000 benefited most from President Bush's tax cuts, and they voted decisively for him. In fact, according to the surveys of voters leaving the polls, the higher the income, the more the support for Mr. Bush.

And those households with incomes below $50,000 generally voted for Senator John Kerry. The poorer the household, the more likely its members voted Democratic.

But the below-$50,000 group did not completely break Mr. Kerry's way. In particular, consider those households with incomes of $30,000 to $50,000 a year. In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won this demographic slice. In 2000, Al Gore split it evenly with Mr. Bush, and that happened again with Mr. Kerry. Not counting minorities, Mr. Kerry probably lost the group by a substantial margin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/25/business/25scene.html

I'd be glad to pay the Clinton-era taxes
and have the Clinton-era economy back again.

to survive. They won't vote their pocketbook. They will vote for Jesus Bush even if they are homeless.

The $30-50,000 vote split evenly in 2000 and 2004, yet Kerry lost the group by a substantial margin. :crazy: The right wing annhilated Kerry and the media helped. It's that simple.

how about that for "simple" sns ?

This election should have been 80/20. How does someone who used intelligence from an Iranian spy to start a war get any votes at all? In a sane world, this election should have been such a landslide that vote stealing would have been much much too obvious.

"How does someone who used intelligence from an Iranian spy to start a war get any votes at all?"

This, alas, is in large measure the Democrats' fault. Had they opposed Bush's lie-based war, he would have had to answer for the failure of Iraq. And yet the Democratic Party abetted the crime through support of the war, and even based much of the Kerry campaign strategy on the notion that Kerry would win in Iraq. This in the face of a vigorous antiwar movement, and with polls showing roughly half of Americans regretted the war.

Foolish, foolish, foolish.

And will avoid it for the most part in the future. But, since you brought it up, that's why we really lost. America looked at Iraq and the consequences of failure, a terrorist state. Then they looked at the far-left abandon Iraq strategy, and voted Bush. Democrats lose because the entire party gets painted with the extremist views of the very far left. A tiny percentage of America, but a very vocal percentage.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

compensate for the higher cost of living. I voted for Kerry because Fascism isn't free, you pay for it with your soul. I live in NJ where the median income is 82,406. It has to be because we subsidize the most out of any state. Something like 62 cents back for every dollar we pay in taxes.

and I didn't see any "tax benefit" in MN. Our state and local taxes have gone up along with everything else with a REPUKE Governor and Senator (COLEMAN) and a DINO mayor (who endorsed Bush) in a VERY BLUE state. Lots of "upper middle class" people in my upscale neighborhood voted Kerry. INTELLIGENCE and CONSCIENCE vs. GREED. Can you say "MORAL VALUES"?

Down here is Gerogia you can see shacks where they couldn'g make $25,000 and it is a dump and there is a chimpy sign in the yard. I believe the theory that the dumber they were the more they voted for chimpy.

i don't have no first class home , but did see alot of people living in home's that should be condened and they has jr. sign hanging proudly in there front yards

"Why couldn't Mr. Kerry capture more of these voters? Some political analysts say they may be lost to the Democratic Party. They turned against government and the Democrats in the late 1970's, when inflation was soaring under President Jimmy Carter."
- they were still mad at Carter. The forgot about Carter for eight years of Clinton, then remembered how mad they were about the 1970's.

"Had this country grown at the rates that were normal in America beginning in the late 1800's..."
- people didn't vote for Kerry because he couldn't deliver the growth rates they were used to from the 1800's.

"Mr. Kerry's second error was to promise tax reductions to the middle class. More consistent with Mr. Kerry's position would have been to claim that the American government has too much work to do to cut taxes."
- people didn't believe in his tax cut promise, so they voted for Bush's much large tax cut promise?

"President Bush claimed that the country could have tax cuts, pay for the war in Iraq, and have a good education and health care system at the same time. With more revenue to spend, Democrats need not have seemed like they, too, were trying to offer Americans a pipe dream."
- people didn't thought Kerry's economic plans were a pipe dream, so they preferred Bush's much pipier pipe dream.

It is hard to believe that people get paid to write nonsense like this. These strained arguments are, in my opinion, excellent evidence that vote fraud was the real reason Bush won. After all, when no one can come up with a good honest reason, what else is left?

Who is this guy and why is he inserting his own personal opinion into a "news" piece... or is this an editorial of some sort? It sounds and looks like a GOP press release turned into a "news" article.

This really pisses me off.

By all means, let's see how it would have gone if we had left out AMERICAN VOTERS who have the SAME voting rights as white Americans.

If minorities are part of this $30,000 to $50,000 a year group, they are counted in the end result, period. So to say "Not counting minorities, Mr. Kerry probably lost the group by a substantial margin" is to say "Let's arbitrarily change the membership of this group so we can paint Kerry as a loser."

This is not the first time I've seen this kind of argument, either. It's insulting to minority voters.