Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
Damn, Spanky, I had fallen for your charms. Had my wallet open and everything, and you had to say something like that.
Reagan in 1984 -- handily.
Clinton in 1996 -- handily, IIRC.
Bush in 2004? A win, yes, but he came within a single state of losing to a man whose only virtue over a head of cabbage was a pulse.
|
Bush should have lost that election. All the traditional signs were against him. There was a much higher turnout than expected, which almost always favors the Democrats, and there was very few scenarios where he could have won the electoral college. With the two biggest states of the electoral college automatically in the other camp it is a big climb to 270. But even with a 50/50 nation he won a pretty significant popular vote margin.
I was completely surprized that he won until I saw some post election focus groups. When I saw those interviews I realized his message and tactics worked like a charm.
He should have been crushed in 2000 and beaten in 2004. But he out politicked his opponents. Most election are decided before they start. These two should have gone the other way but brilliant campaigning turned defeat into victory.
You can critisize Bush's policies but I think only a fool would argue that their political strategy has been screwed up.
