There are lessons to be learned post-election.
By: Steve Feitl
So perhaps the young voters really did come out for Sen. John Kerry.
At least that’s the opinion of one article I read this week in the post-election deluge. It argued that the get-out-the-vote campaigns did rally young voters, most of whom cast their support behind the Democratic challenger, but that the Democratic Party itself lost its core voters.
Of course, there’s half a dozen other analysis pieces claiming the youth vote was a nonfactor, as is often the case.
Instead, many newspaper and magazine articles point to the surprising amount of exit poll respondents who said moral values were their top concern. Those articles assume President George W. Bush was bound to win, simply because of the religious convictions of much of the country.
But other articles claim the moral values card has been overplayed in the media and a much more likely explanation for the incumbent’s re-election was fear over homeland security. If voters felt safer with President Bush, no other campaign issue would matter, the articles argue.
Still others document the disorganization of the Kerry campaign and suspect the Democratic challenger and his staff fumbled the ball.
Others prefer to credit the Bush campaign and its game plan, rather than tear down the Kerry one.
And some don’t even believe President Bush won Ohio fairly, making the whole argument rather moot.
What to believe? I’m not sure, but I’ve read and listened to an awful lot of analysis of the presidential election over the past week and I don’t think I’m any closer to coming to a firm conclusion as to what sent President Bush back to the White House for four more years.
It seems we, as a country, are as torn on what happened Nov. 2 as we were on whom to vote for in the first place.
Some people are undoubtedly sick of the election, in fact I know many people who can be painted with that brush. Some really just need a break from political debate and others are disappointed in the result. Either way, I have a lot of friends that are now distancing themselves from the election.
It’s too bad, because while we sort it out and seek consensus, it’s been a terribly interesting week as we study a fascinating election. I’ve probably read more about the election in the week following it than I did in the month preceding it.
That’s because it’s a unique opportunity to look inside the democratic process that our country is built on. We should want to understand why our neighbors voted the way they did, whether it was for Bush, Kerry, Ralph Nader or Mickey Mouse. Some of the revelations don’t always make us happy and things don’t always play out the way we think they will. But it’s worth it.
In fact, I think a case can be made that the post-election fallout is nearly as important as the pre-election campaign. If more people pay attention to the current analysis, then perhaps we’ll all be a little better equipped to handle future elections.
At the very least, maybe we’d be able to decide if President Bush really received a mandate last week.
Steve Feitl is the managing editor of The Lawrence Ledger. He can be reached here.