Perhaps you do Ed Bradley a disservice. I caught a wee hour CBS segment (circa 3:30am EST) where Ed Bradley was sitting, calculator in hand, suggesting that Ohio was indeed out of reach (something about needing 79% of the maximum suggested outstanding ballots), and that Kerry should bag it. Rather got rather snippy at that point, telling Bradley that this might be his hypothesis, but CBS News’ decision was to not call Ohio, that that is that.

Wish I had thought to TiVo it. I don’t think that 60 Minute’s Bradley and 60 Minutes II’s Rather are quite the buddies people think.

Welcome. It’s good to see you here.

Michele is running a post-election limerick contest.

Despite the putdowns against “elites” that look down on poor dumb Red Staters, the fact remains that Bush supporters really *were* uninformed: many thought that Iraq had WMD, that Iraq and 9/11 were connected, etc. It’s not just a matter of presenting ideas jand proposals and attracting those who agree, we must fight the disinformation machines and anti-intellectualism of voters with all our might.

Posted by: Neil’ on November 3, 2004 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

I always like watching the processes of historical revisionism play themselves out inside one person’s head.

Apparently, according to Neil, liberal Blue Staters from Blueville (hello, Knucklehead) knew all along that Saddam had no WMD.

Or, alternatively, liberal Blue Staters from Blueville understand that they, like everyone else on the planet, believed that Saddam had weapons at the time that we invaded, but they take it as a given that while they themselves have absorbed the findings of the Iraq Survey Group, the poor dumb Red Staters did not get the memo.

I’m gonna just abandon all restraint here, and Blame the Mainstream Media.

I’d put money on it that a HUGE part of the reason this person thinks poor dumb Red Staters are uninformed is that g*d* poll someone did way back when that got huge play in the press.

Mickey Kaus has his work cut out for him.

I was going to post there (but didn’t, so I’m posting here) that I can just imagine the New Republic writer seeing “moral values” and thinking “Evangelical Christian doctrine,” totally missing the issue of personal integrity of the respective candidates. (Which also ties into the Swift Boat/VVAW issue.)

Not to minimize the “gaily married stem cell” issue– I’m sure that was important to many red state voters.

The question was too poorly cast to gather any useful data unless there was a follow-up that’s not being reported. And didn’t they report this as being the #1 issue for 70-some percent of the voters? Even as a catch-all, that feels awfully high to me.

You’re right… I was the one doing the skimming, and I skimmed right past the crucial not (as in “You don’t win by the margins we did and not do much better…”).

But what a convoluted sentence! I blame American education: Nobody learns rhetoric anymore.

11.03.04

THE MORAL OF THIS STORY: According to the voter breakdown that CNN is currently hawking, the top reason that Bush voters gave for supporting their guy was not the economy, not Iraq, not even the war on terrorism. It was “moral values.” That’s right, with American soldiers dying overseas, Al Qaeda still gunning for us at home, the deficit spiraling, the gap between rich and poor growing, Social Security on the brink, etc., etc., Bush’s reelection was driven by a bunch of folks freaked out over the thought of gay marriage and stem-cell research.

God save the republic.

–Michelle Cottle

http://www.tnr.com/blog/election