Re:11월 22일자 수업 내용입니다. - 본문 띄웁니다.

[trinity]

The seeds of victory

So what explains a performance that was better than in 2000 and more impressive than seemed likely during a race that remained neck-and-neck until voting day? The answer is a number of small shifts, and one potentially large one.

There was an incremental shift in America's ideological make-up. In 2000, half the voters described themselves as moderates and 29% as conservative. This time, the share of self-described moderates fell to 45%, and that of conservatives rose to 33%. In other words, America took another small step to the right.



Turnout rose, but not enough to help Mr Kerry


Turnout rose, but not enough to help Mr Kerry. Democrats argued that a high turnout would mean lots of first-time voters, who would tend to vote for them. Surveys before the vote found that new voters favoured Mr Kerry over Mr Bush by about two to one. They tended to be younger, more likely to consider themselves “working-class” and to go to church less often. Democrats hoped the electorate would rise above 120m, or more than 60% of eligible voters.

In fact, at 59.5%, the estimated figure was the highest rate since 1968 and the rate of increase since 2000 was almost twice as great as it had been in 1996-2000. Rhodes Cook, a non-partisan political analyst, argues that a rise in turnout usually forecasts a change in party control (as happened in 1992 and 2000). This time, it did not.

Mr Kerry won first-time voters convincingly, by 54% to 45%. But there were not enough of them. Only 11% of people went to the polls for the first time—only slightly more, as a share of the total, than in 2000. Mr Kerry did equally well among young voters (18-29 years old), his most supportive age group. But they comprised the same share—17%—as before. He even won independent voters by 50% to 47% (most first-time voters register as independents). Mr Bush is the first president for many years to lose the independent vote.

But offsetting all this was Mr Bush's success at mobilising his base. In 2000, 39% of those who voted identified themselves as Democrats, compared with 35% as Republican. This time, the shares were equal at 37% each. This was the more remarkable because Democratic registrations have been increasing faster than Republican ones this year. Republicans may not have done so well at registering new voters, but they were much better at getting their supporters (new and old) to the polls.



Republicans were much better at getting their supporters to the polls


As a result, the party managed to consolidate its base of support in Republican-voting areas, while eroding Democratic votes in swing areas. For example, Mr Kerry did as well as Mr Gore in the Democratic strongholds of Florida (Miami and the south-east) and of Ohio (Cleveland and the north). But Mr Bush increased his margins in Republican strongholds (Florida's Panhandle, rural Ohio), while winning several counties in swing areas that he had lost in 2000 (such as Osceola County in Florida's I-4 corridor).

This reflects the party's greater success at get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts. Both parties spent roughly the same amount on contacting voters, some $125m each (for Republicans, that was three times their budget in 2000). But while Republicans ran their GOTV operations themselves, staffing them largely with local volunteers, Democrats relied more heavily on independent groups, such as America Coming Together, who were not supposed to co-ordinate their efforts with the Democratic Party. Anecdotal evidence suggests the Republican approach was more effective, or at least worked well enough to neutralise the Democrats' traditional advantage in voter turnout.

Because they could co-ordinate their efforts with the campaigns, Republicans could create precinct lists, with targets for voter turnout precise to two decimal figures. In West Allis, a blue-collar suburb of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, clean-cut college students in pressed white shirts sat with Palm Pilots and a big box of Krispy Kreme doughnuts, monitoring the flow of voters into the polls. As voters came in, the volunteers crossed their names off pre-programmed lists; the remaining names went to a central site in the state, so that likely Republican voters who had not yet come to the polls could be contacted.

The students sneered at the effort by Kerry supporters to do the same more haphazardly. “The guy from MoveOn.org stopped in here once and tried to take the voter list,” one said. “But these folks wouldn't let him. He wasn't very nice.”



“Moral values” emerged as the top issue of the campaign


But perhaps the most important explanation for Mr Bush's success was the unexpected appearance of “moral values” as the top issue of the campaign. In exit polls, more people said this was the most important issue for them than mentioned the economy, Iraq or terrorism. Four-fifths of those who put moral values first voted for Mr Bush.

Exactly what this means, however, is not clear. On the face of it, it suggests that issues such as gay marriage and abortion trumped the war on terrorism and the economy (Ohio alone lost 200,000 jobs in the past four years). In another Milwaukee suburb, a mother wearing a crucifix around her neck left the polls with her daughter, a first-time voter in ripped jeans and an oversized black T-shirt emblazoned with a giant skull. Both voted for the president, citing his pro-life views. All 11 states that held ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage approved them. Together with the Republican success at turning out the base, that suggests Mr Rove's ambition to win the 2004 election by using social issues to mobilise 4m “missing” evangelical Protestants (who, he says, could have voted for Mr Bush in 2000 but did not) worked triumphantly.

Yet there is counter-evidence. When asked directly about their attitudes to abortion, the responses this time were no different from 2000: 55% said it should be always or mostly legal. On gay marriage, 26% approved and 35% supported civil unions. So it is possible that “moral values” are not just a matter of social conservatism but also code for trust in the candidate, or respect for a man's willingness to take a stand—where Mr Bush won easily. Mr Kerry never quite managed to persuade voters of his leadership qualities.



Now turn right?
What might the manner of Mr Bush's re-election mean for a second term? In his victory speech, he appealed directly to Mr Kerry's supporters: “I will need your support and I will work to earn it.” But, having won the popular vote, he has a mandate for a programme, including radical tax reform and changes to Social Security, with little Democratic support. By increasing his party's control of Congress, he is nearer the point of being able to use the legislature like a parliament, rubber-stamping his proposals without much involvement of the other party. And given his strong support from social and religious conservatives, he may be tempted to consolidate that support by proposing, say, like-minded judges for the Supreme Court.

Mr Bush's victory has spared America the pain of another indecisive vote. But it opens up worries of its own for government in the second term.

[trinity]

숙제가 좀 많지요? 다 읽어보시고요. 적당 분량으로 해오세요. 전부 다 하기는 좀 무린 것 같고.. 음음...

[starlight]

아니 샌님....제가 며칠 빠지는 동안 숙제가 왜일케 많아졌다죠??? 양보다는 질입니다요, 샌님..... 수업시간에 감당이 될라나요???

[sngl]

결국... 이렇게 포기하는 사람까지 나오고 맙니다... (읍... 언제는 숙제 잘 했었나?)