Let's not get carried away with the gay marriage votes or the South. George W. Bush earned a higher percentage of the vote in every single state in 2004 than he did in 2000 with the exception of Vermont and South Dakota. Even Massachusetts, Bush got 36.95% of the vote. In 2000, he got 32.5%. Kerry didn't necessary lose vis-a-vis Gore only because of Nader. But Bush gained everywhere. In other words, in virtually every state more voters went to Bush than abandoned him. And, with the exception of Nader-to-Kerry, more abandoned the Dems than went to Kerry. Check every state
here and you'll notice a similar advance for Bush in virtually every state.
What does this mean? It means that the election was not decided by gay marriage on the ballot. It was decided by terrorism and the fact that Kerry didn't inspire voters enough. Face it, while we've all convinced ourselves in the end that Kerry was a good candidate and would make a great President, very few were excited about him. Dean? Yes. But not Kerry. It's actually quite striking, then, that 48% of Americans voted for Kerry primarily because they hated George W. Bush, not because they were drawn to John Kerry. This is a serious albatross on Bush's neck over the next four years, which he will arrogantly ignore as always. But it shows the immense possibilities if we put up a candidate that actually inspires people. Compare Clinton's numbers in 1996 to Kerry and the differences are amazing. Forget the religious right - they're lost anyway. But notice how many rural, small town, working class, white men voted for Clinton but not Kerry. Look at rural Chariton County in central Missouri, for example. Kerry got 43.6%, Gore got a similar 43.1%, but Clinton got 51.4%. It wasn't that they hated Dole. It was that they related to Clinton. The religious right voted for Dole in 1996 just as much as it did Bush in 2004. But there are a lot of voters who were scared of terrorism and simply were not assuaged by Kerry.
The issues in 2008 will be much different. Terrorism may recede into distant memory. Or the war in Iraq may reach such epic proportions that both parties will vie with one another on who can get us out quicker, and not talk about "winning". Whatever the world looks like in 2008 we need a candidate that makes voters want to choose him. Not someone who merely stands in in opposition to an incumbent (who won't be on the ticket, and neither will his VP).
