Can you explain why Bush did not win in a landslide like we anticipated?
Yes, I can as can many others. But it was, if not a "blowout" as I said in July a complete, decisive, devastating, and historic victory that leaves no one in doubt about his legitimate right to lead this country for four years.
And, in the end, that's all it takes.
Bush got 51%. Barely over half? Yes. But quickly, list the Dem presidential candidates who garnered a larger percentage since FDR. The last 60 years. 15 elections.
Donít bother looking it up, Iíll tell you. Precisely one. Johnson.
Not Clinton, either time. Not Carter, not Kennedy, not Truman. And obviously not all the other Dems who did not even win the election.
15 elections since World War II
Only ONCE did a Dem candidate get more than 51% of the popular vote.
The reason he never got the 55% or more we anticipated is because we underestimated the influence of MSM. Bush ran a campaign against the MSM not Kerry. Any other Democrat would have won 48% with the help of the media. I did not realize that until after this election.
Two other items really hurt him. The war in Iraq did not go as well as many had anticipated and he did poorly in the second debate.
op hit it on the nose. If Newsweek's editor who bosted the MSM was worth 15 points is even half right, than taking that into consideration, it was a blow out.
Think about what Bush overcame:
- his own personal communication deficiencies
- daily MSM distortions
- Hollywood propaganda
- UN intervention
- Intellectual elite
- a generation of liberal assumptions
- a decade+ of false security and a bubble economy
- Millions of Soros and other mega-rich dirty money
That's a pretty stacked deck.
Don't forget those of us in the media who wouldn't dare mention that they're voting for Bush.