Dionne points out that a large number of moderates voted for Bush, but I think the most telling statistic in his piece was this: "The exit polls found that perhaps 10 percent of Al Gore's 2000 voters switched to Bush. Of these, more than eight in 10 thought the war in Iraq was part of the war on terrorism."

Doesn't that just mean that some 8% of those who suppported Gore in 2000 don't know what's going on in the world? But it's interesting that conservative columnist David Brooks made essentially the same point as the one Dionne hints at: that people who think they're safer tended to vote for Bush.

I read an article right after the election about the difference between perception and reality for Bush voters. It considered misinterpretations like this one in regard to why the U.S. is in Iraq. Bush voters also believe he has done good things for education despite the higher dropout rate, increase in need for the now smaller Pell Grants and failure to fund No Child Left Behind. I doubt many of them can even tell one what embryonic stem cell research is -- not to mention that he has banned it with an executive order. So, it seems that Bush voters are more likely to be poorly informed. What of Niraj's claim that Democrats who defected to Bush revealed that trait, too? Fits right in.

But, I would not discount the evangelicals. They turned the tide in the most important state -- Ohio. And, their votes accounted for much of the margin in the South.

Always a lame excuse. The Democrats were defeated everywhere except Illinois. What happened to good ole boy Daschele? Loser!

Spoken like a shallow, poorly informed person. Must be a Bush voter.

the religious right HAS taken over. once they get this gay marriage ban going....you can bet that non christian marraige ban will soon follow. within four years, we will all be required to carry a wooden cross to work.

if you think that the religious nut cases will stop with homos...you are very wrong. they are fucking freaks. fucking hypocrites.

have i made my point?

Bitter??????
Table for one.

jack e. jett

I happen to agree with Jack E. Jett. But I also think that gay marriage is a little too much. Government should not incorporate religious values when it comes to making laws (and I'm a Christian saying this), especially when there's other religions around. I do want these laws to be based on some sort of morality, but I don't want them to be bible-fanatical (Anyway, the Bible shouldn't be read literally, but that's another topic.). But, gay marriage, I just think that's a little too much.

And I'm not homophobic.

Every-time I read something from some recursive home-schooled homunculus about "leftists" in the States, I know I'm seeing the fevered speculation of an isolated web-loon.

There are no leftists in the USA. It ranges from fascists, to race-based prison gangs, from crony capitalists to crack dealers, from martinet sub-managers to beaten-down wage slaves. But no leftists. Nothing but right-wing arse-holes arguing about how right they can go before they fall off the map of the world.

So, do the rest of the world a favour and just kill yourself. Take a pillow, hold it over your face, drive into a bridge, whatever. Just kill yourself. Eat another donut you fat bastard. Shove your fist in your mouth. Touch those live wires. Challenge that big guy to a fight. Play Russian Roulette. Whatever, do us all a favour, and kill yourself.

Jim, I came across your comment via a comment administration program, reading in reverse order, so I have no idea what it is to which you're responding. However, I don't think it matters.

I can think of nothing which merits the utter bile in your comment -- nothing at all. Maybe Charles Manson, but no. Your comment is completely and totally out of line. If that's what we're supposed to aim for as enlightened South Canadians, I'll pass, thanks.

Fortunately, I'm married to a Canadian, so I know not all Canadians are so lacking in impulse control and common sense.

Take some time off until you realize just how ridiculous your comment #7 is, m'kay?

Phillip, can I call you Phil, how 'bout P Winnie. If I can indulge in some bit of hyperbole. I don't ever see sane people identifying themselves as "leftists". I only see this libel from right-wing-nuts.

But, please, prove me wrong. I'm not seeing much evidence to the contrary that civilization is in charge down there. I'm just taking pre-emptive unilateral action against bullshit.

So, if I can, just as Bill Hicks told me to, sow some seeds, aren't we all better off?

And if you ever listen to some Maclean & Maclean albums, well, they're just nasty.

So, can you point me to some "leftists" in the USA? I can point you to Ken Macleod's proposal that the oil problem be dealt with by building nuclear reactors in the Blue States, and dumping the waste in the Red States.

Jim, as I explained, I don't care what you think "provoked" your comment. Invitations to suicide are inappropriate behavior, period.

The majority of Americans may be a conservative lot, but moderately so. There will never be a fundamentalist Christian ethos to the government. Conservatives worth their salt wouldn't allow it anyway; if they are conservative, they respect the difference between a democratic republic system and a theocracy.

Phillip Winn: "Invitations to suicide are inappropriate behavior, period."

It's incredible how Jim C. can't get this worked up over the Islamofascist terrorists who threaten this world; he gets angry over straw men who are so right they will walk straight off the map of the world instead. Who says he's not brilliant? A future Canadian Prime Minister in the making, for certain!

Scoota Rey: "But, gay marriage, I just think that's a little too much."

Do you remember, just ten years ago (or was it even less?) when the idea of civil unions, championed by no less than the Deaniac himself, was seen as a radical idea?

In truth, gay civil unions, entailing all the benefits of marriage that heteros are entitled to, was a great idea and had majority support, including mine.

But that wasn't enough. It had to be traditional marriage for the homosexual community or nothing at all. They insisted on it.

And yet it's Bush and conservatives and Christians who forced this decisive, touchy issue? I don't know what drugs you'd have to take to seriously believe that, but I've a feeling I could become hooked to something that numbs the brain so much.

I'm a big believer in the vulgar idea that economics is usually always the foremost factor in presidential elections. I think this was the case in 2004. Kerry did a phenomenally poor job of communicating domestic policy in connection with people's economic insecurities. People only voted on issues like gay marriage and general fears about terror and Muslims because they were sufficiently secure in their view of their economic futures. Economic doubts always trump any others, even post 9/11. I don't think the two arguments are mutally exclusive. There's no doubt that one of the factors keeping Bush's base from eroding and chipping away at Kerry's WAS religion and social issues.

That is all.

foreign policy concerns held enough of the middle, and the social issues rattled the Bushes enough to turn out the hard right: it was a brilliant strategy. BAB, I think the economic picture was fuzzy and uncertain enough to be less of a factor than usual this time