Voting trends: Guess who's been voting republican ???

most of the trends in the last election were relatively consistent to the 2000 election ... but one demographic showed significant movement from the Democrats to the republicans ...

OK, finished guessing ???

here are the stats (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=361907):

1. In 2000, Gore lost white, working-class (defined as whites with less than a four-year college degree) voters by 17 points; this year, Kerry lost them by 23 points, a swing of 6 points against the Democrats. In contrast, Gore lost college-educated whites by 9 points and Kerry lost them by 10 points—not much change.

Therefore white, working-class voters were responsible for almost all of Bush's increased margin among whites as a whole (which went from 12 to 17 points). And Bush's increased margin among whites, of course, was primarily responsible for his re-election.

2. Almost all of the white, working-class movement toward Bush was among white, working-class women, rather than white, working-class men. Bush won white, working-class men by almost identical margins in the two elections (29 points in 2000 and by 30 points in 2004). But he substantially widened his margin among white, working-class women, going from a 7-point lead in 2000 to an 18-point lead in 2004. That 11-point swing against the Democrats among white, working-class women is arguably the most important single fact about the 2004 election.

<skip>

But why did these shifts against the Democrats among the white, working class occur? That's a topic that deserves a lengthy discussion; here are some data to ponder from the NEP poll:

Among white, working-class voters, 66 percent said that they trusted Bush to handle terrorism, compared to just 35 percent who said the same about Kerry. That's pretty bad, but check this out: 55 percent of these voters said that they trusted Bush to handle the economy and only 39 percent said the same about Kerry. Guess that Kerry message about the economy didn't quite get through to the white working class!

eom

and I surely don't fit into this poll. Just looking at * I know he is a lying weasel. I wouldn't trust him to wash my dogs.

Kerry still won PA, but we did have a lot of white, lower-mid income Dems voting for W that were deemed the 'catholic vote'.

Lost his job of 20 years during Lancelot Link's first term as well. Du'n't matter. He's one of those "Abortion/Gays ain't marryin' on MY watch" voters . . . who cares about issues that actually MATTER in running a country, just so long as homos can't say "I Do" in his world. Because you KNOW that's going to lead to a North American Man/Dog Love Association. Sheesh.

Catholics were split about 51-49 for Bush, same as the last presidential election. Which is pretty bad considering that Kerry is a Catholic.

Small wonder why these foot-shooters think 119,000 net new jobs in FOUR years (negative numbers in his complete first term, I might add), crippling debt, record trade deficits and endorsements of offshoring every damned position on earth under $100,000/yr makes this bunch of crooks trustworthy of handling the economy and their livelihoods.

Just . . . wow. :shrug:

them repeatedly that Bush was strong on terror and that Bush wins on the terror issue.

Did these "news" networks ever describe for these viewers how Bush refused to read the Hart-Rudman Report on Global Terror that was handed to him on Jan30, 2001?

Do they know Cheney and Rice refused to read it?

Were they told it was Bush's job to respond to the USSCole bombing, not Clinton's as they believe now?

Did the networks ever discuss Kerry's book The New War that warned of global terror and its funding through international financial networks in 1996?

Do they know Kerry shut down a terrorist bank in 1991 and that George Bush was making millions of dollars doing business with these same banks at the time?

The GOP controls most of the media.

and if the problem is primarily a media problem and not a message or position problem, can the Democrats do anything about it?

And they certainly didn't discuss the differences between Bush's economic plan and Kerry's.

Did you ever hear ANY of the media discussing Bush's legislation that ended OVERTIME pay for many in the working class? NO. Because newspapers and broadcast networks employ alot of people whose job descriptions allowed management to stop paying them overtime.

They never aired Kerry's economic speeches, they were too busy keeping Bush propped up on terror and Iraq.

I am glad that Soros and Buffett see what we do with the media and have recently acquired stock in major media companies. Hopefully they can begin to demand real fairness.

Till then, Dems can only point to the GOP control of the media and hope it forces some balance in the future.

He plays that "ordinary cowboy joe" and the propaganda machine sells it so unceasingly that these poor schmucks forget that he went to high school in new england and was born into wealth that rivals no one.

As long as people believe he is "one of them" they will defend him no matter what. I've had one republican who over and over again during the election all they'd talk about was Kerry's money and how he'd spend $1,000 on a bicycle. :eyes: Of course I pointed out how Bush was born rich and at least Kerry knew what it was like to be poor at one point in his life and he paid child support to his ex-wife because he loves his kids. Just looking at the two of them and their lives you know they're so different and who really is for the working man (certainly not the spoiled W). Whenever he doesn't get his way he whines and puts up "terror alerts." :eyes:

Where was Carville when we needed him? It is almost impossible to defeat a seated President during a conflict on defense and security from without, so the only viable thing to do was hammer Bush on the economy.

In retrospect it seems to me that Kerry ran on the war--the Vietnam war. It was at best a mixed message. Bush on the other hand ran on "be afraid, be very afraid".

He and Cheney ran a two sided campaign. Cheney stoked the fires of fear and Bush kept re-assuring everyone that we are safer under his leadership. Make 'em afraid and then tell them it's all okay 'cause of me.

I felt the same way after Kerry's acceptance speech at the DNC-- why was he playing up his four months in the bush instead of his 20+ years as a successful Senator?

The Democrats' economic message was one of "too little-- too late": we're not against corporate-friendly "free trade", but we wanna tweak it a little bit. We believe in living wages, but we'll only raise the minimum by $1. We believe in healthcare for all, but we won't provide it-- instead, you can "buy in" to some cockamamie scheme that only an actuary would love.

We TOTALLY missed the boat on the economy in 2004. Instead of taking bold stands, we meekly raised our hands and said "I think ours is better". Instead of calling the "war on terra" badly planned and poorly executed, we said "we can clean up their mess better".

2004 demanded bold stands, and heartfelt conviction. The Presidential campaign gave us neither.

so well written.. post some more!

Exactly which leadership are we talking about? The DNC or the Campaign Leadership? What did the leadership do?

Regardless of who, the advice was bad. Should have picked a message that Bush couldn't counter and stay on it.

It was the "Can I believe this guy? Can I trust this guy? Is he talking straight? Does he back down from a fight?" issue.

Which sort of goes to my point of getting a message and staying on it. Rove says, "Better wrong and strong . . ." and it seems to work.

The appearance of changing message sends the signal that Dems don't know what we stand for.

Pick an issue Bush can't counter and beat him about the head and shoulders with it.

white working class women in kerry precincts?

hmm. well, long lines in white kerry areas would cause the busiest voters to most fall out of line and go do errands.

Since gals both work AND housekeep/kidwatch, gals would fall out of line more than guys in kerry areas.

And in kerry areas, the lines were longest in the working class areas.. due to few votemachines sent to them.... my general impression from reading.

Thus, white-working-women for kerry were supressed more than other categories.

Call for a revote of those stolen elections. Never stop calling for a revote.

If you're a working mother, do you really have time to stand in line for three hours to vote? Sure, you may get an unpaid pass from your employer, but you don't get one from the babysitter.

The tragic part is that we knew all about this stuff from 2000, yet NOBODY higher up in the campaign said to make an issue of it.

It simply boggles the mind :crazy:

I believe this. I know and work with so many women who are not particularly active in politics but who still vote. In the past, they seemed to vote mainly for Democrats but since 9/11, they've been scared and trust Bush for whatever reason.

They voted for Bush mostly because they heard "tax cuts."

Meanwhile, the Democrats have taken working class economic issues off the table for decades, although Clinton talked about them enough to get elected.

Let's see, one party says tax cuts. The other party says business as usual, the business that has you falling farther behind every year.

Yep, no brainer there.

"They voted for Bush mostly because they heard "tax cuts.""

If they were just a little smarter, maybe they would have heard "tax cuts that benefit the wealthy and that ain't you"... ?

If they were a little smarter they would have heard John Kerry say he would "only raise taxes on those making over $200k and again that ain't you".

BTW - my use of the word "you" is not referring to you or the working class in general, it's referring spefically to the poor working class ding bats who voted for the idiots who is screwing them over.

Compared to what again? the 2000 numbers? Are we studying MO of the BFEE or are we keeping our head firmly burried? I can't believe that after what went on we are talking about "voting trends"
WHAT VOTING?????