[shuttertalk]

At risk of starting a flame war, Bush is in for another 4 years! Thoughts?

[StudioJ]

Go Brazilian then you don't have to worry about Bush

Edit: On a political stand point you'd expect a bunch of warmongers to elect a warmonger so its good he got in, besides how democratic is 1:5 people voting to begin with, shows how much people think of either of them. Didn't anyone watch Farenheit 911 or does everyone else think Michael Moore is a loon? (no not a Canadian bird!)

[de_axeman]

Care factor = 0 :/

BUT! It's been all over the news here in Australia, and like it or not, whatever happens in the US causes ripples all over the world in one way or another.

So when one caller on talkback radio said he was interested in the US elections because he wanted to know who would govern Australia, I laughed.

[EnglishBob]

As an English Citizen living in the US I was pleased Bush got in, Kerry couldn't tell the same story the same way twice.

As for Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore is a bigger fanatic than the whole of Al Quaeda put together... there isn't any level he won't stoop to to get his face on the news and money in his pocket.

[slejhamer]

how democratic is 1:5 people voting to begin with

Actually it was more like 50% of the voting-age population, considered an excellent turnout. Bush got more votes than any US President in history, though my guess is that it was more a fear of Kerry than a love of Bush that motivated people.

Some interesting results were that the very abrasive Democratic leader in the Senate was defeated by a Republican - the first Senate leader in over 50 years to lose his spot. Also, Kerry's running mate John Edwards couldn't run for Senator so he's out of a job - and his spot also went to a Republican.

So given the high voter turnout and the stronger Republican base in Congress, it seems that the Republicans have been given carte blanche to get things done their way. From a domestic perspective, that means fixing Social Security and Medicare most importantly. But will they? Probably not, nor would the Dems.

Four more years ...

:|

[lschmekel]

Guess I'll wade in here as well. I am disappointed, but not in the outcome of the presidential race. What I am disappointed in is how mean spirited and devisive the campaign became, (on both sides). I only hope that Kerry and Bush hold true to their post elections speeches and work to build unity and consensus within the United States. Do I agree with all of President Bush's policies? No, but you can never please all of the people (or nations for that matter). Yet, I still feel safer as citizen with him at the helm than I would have with Senator Kerry as President.

As to Michael Moore, what a testament to the freedom of speech that we value so much that someone can produce a work like this and have it shown all over the land. In many countries, he would just have disappeared, never to be heard from again. As to the content, IMHO, it is not a documentary, rather just a long opinion piece. Depending on your presentation of facts and creative editing, you can get people to believe just about anything. There are other points of view such as the films Celcius 41.11 and Farenhype 911 that go to debunking many of the assertions made in the film. But the great part is that the film was made and distributed and seen by millions.

Our process is not perfect, but it is the best one we have. Estimates are that turnout was close to 60% of the registered voters. This is unheard of here. In Miami, turnout was about 75%. The people have spoken and to Senator Kerry's credit, he accepted the people's choice with grace and dignity, and for that I thank him.

Now quit talkin' and start takin picutres!

[Toad]

Democracy has spoken.

As for mending the great divide, I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Republicans have a huge mandate now, and need to make good on some of the promises that put them there - legislation opposing abortion, gay rights - also some new supreme court judges in the near future with conservative agenda. Plus the president no longer faces reelection - time for legacy - not healing.

Also - full speed ahead on war on terrorism. (the US will win that one just like they won the war on drugs )

Having said that - at least he was elected honestly this time - that is the will of the people - you pays your money - you takes your choice.

JMO

[shuttertalk]

I watched a lateline interview last night, and it was pretty interesting to see that most people put "moral issues" at the forefront when voting. Also interesting how he mobilised the "christian evangelicals" who accounted for 20% or more of voters, to the polls.

[StudioJ]

Aww no fair I couldn't bait anyone really

[gd]

Plus the president no longer faces reelection - time for legacy - not healing.

okay... I completely agree with this.

You all have made very reasonable and very intelligent statements which shows that you're all pretty much able to discern right from wrong. So I wonder how my commentary will go.

First off, morals, religion and terrorism HAVE NO PLACE in an election campaign.

Sure you want your candidate to be an upstanding member of the community, but their religious background, colour, space between their front teeth etc. have no place when electing a candidate.

My biggest concern is that this election was a fear campaign beyond all other fear campaigns. Typically elections can be fear when the incumbent senses they aren't holding the strong ground and want people to choose the devil they know over the devil they don't.... but how the heck can a government be voted in when the vice leader says "if you don't vote for us, bad things will happen". This is the bit I don't like. The evangelical connection to the election just makes for a scarier, more conservative, less tolerant, more demanding 4 years and I think that that's sad.

But I live in Australia and as people in glass houses should not throw stones, I'll leave my pile here.

I am not pro bush by any means, but I doubt that Kerry would have made much difference. The country they are to lead in the next 4 years is so paralysed by a complete lack of self confidence and reactionary-judgementalism that it's squashing the tremendous amount that the US can and does offer those who seek to partner it.

*awww my 2 cents ran out... if you want to know more of my opinions, just ask me.. .I've got commentaries and books on tape. I just worry about the most powerful country in the world being given a mandate to perform in a society that is so weakened by fear that only the battle cry can win. I think the US is far better than that.*

And in the words of Toad... JMO.

[Toad]

There seems to be a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals in the USA. The liberals feel that they are more "intelligent" than the conservatives, and the conservatives feel that they are more "moral" than the liberals.

The problem is that neither side values the strengths of the opposition. The liberals feel that the conservatives are "stupid" and the conservatives feel that the liberals are "immoral". Thus - no happy medium ever seems to appear.

If you buy into one camp or the other - it seems to be a requirement to take the whole package - there doesn't seem to be the attitude that you can pick and choose which policies and beliefs of each party that you accept. This is the basic problem with a 2 party political system, I suppose.

This is why I feel that there will be no healing - there seems to be a fundamental philosophical difference that is unlikely to be breached.

Too bad really - I really enjoy Americans one-on-one (some of my best friends are Americans) - they deserve a much happier and more united country than they have. Maybe one day.

I feel blessed to live in a country that isn't the only remaining superpower. Our expectations are significantly lower. That gives us the freedom to tackle issues one by one rather than winner-take-all.

Maybe this is just the opinion of the weak kid on the block.

[Cailean]

Well, I might as well weigh in here since I'm neck-deep in Political Science textbooks and my wife carries a passport with an Eagle on it....

Most interesting to me were the technical aspects of the election: turnout, Electoral College vote distibution, ballot initiatives. The 'most votes in US history' thing is misleading... with a growing population and record turnout, is it really an achievement? More interesting is that Bush's huge vote (Kerry also got alot more votes than some recent presidents) didn't translate into a huge Electoral College win which means that Bush's support was clustered regionally - as was Kerry's. Beyond saying that Kerry's support was concentrated in the Northeast and West Coast, many of the states Kerry took have top-twenty urban centres (LA, NYC, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Indianapolis, etc.) Bush, on the other hand, took more states with less population each and smaller urban centres (Dallas, Houston, & Austin, Texas being the obvious exceptions).

This is in contrast to Reagan, for example, who less votes than Bush, but whose support was so broad that he took every state except Minneapolis (his opponent's home state) and DC.

One more techno-lection tidbit... Because of the redistribution of Electoral College Votes since the last election, if you exclude New Hampshire (the only state to change hands) the 'Democratic' states lost 8 Electoral votes to the Republicans... It may not mean much now, but on Wednesday morning, Kerry may not have been so quick to concede - add New Hampshire's 4 votes and Kerry is suddenly within sriking distance of the magic 270 votes. In that case, it might have been worth a shot to go after Ohio's provisional and absentee votes.

Wow, I need to get out more....

Edit: Oh, wait I fogot to talk about the ballot initiatives... Hmmm. Another time.

Edit2: Thought I'd mention that after doing a little digging, turns out that not only did Bush get more votes than any President in history, so did Kerry!