So this is getting to be some really vintage stuff at this point. Doing 2004 election coverage. This might be the last one as this is getting kinda boring, and the further back I go the more detached I feel from it, and the more boring it gets, but I do have a map for this one, and I remember the 2004 election as it was the first I paid decent attention to (although I couldnt vote in as I was too young). I still MIGHT do 2000 if I feel like it, just because it was such a clusterfudge, but yeah.
Hours 1&2
They didnt seem to cover the map that well, they're just like "oh we'll call it as we go", without being like "these are the swing states." I mean, I guess Florida and Ohio seemed to be the big swing states, but again, they didn't do as good of a job discussing it. ABC seemed a lot lower budget back then and it felt like an 80s news studio by this point. Like REALLY outdated and low end, even for the era. 2008 kinda felt dated too come to think of it, not sure if it's an ABC problem or if it's just a 2000s problem.
ANYWAY, I have MY map based on polling data, so let's discuss the paths.
For swing states, Oregon came up a lot, it's D+4.8, but it kept being mentioned because they do their entire election by vote by mail. More common these days, but back then it was a novelty. Michigan and Minnesota were in play. PA and New Hampshire were tossups in the Kerry column, and kerry needed to secure Iowa and Florida to win as the path of least resistance. other tossups included Hawaii, Wisconsin, and Arkansas. Yeah, radically different map than 2008 onward. Obama realigned the electorate himself, and then Trump/Biden did too in their own ways. And 2028 is likely gonna be another free for all as Trump takes a hacksaw to the republican coalition. But yeah, this map is virtually unrecognizeable in some ways, while it's also recognizeable at the same time. Like, just looking at it, Ohio and Florida were THE big swing states to get. The rust belt still leaned liberal, even if I have wisconsin projected for Bush here (it went to kerry). Virginia, New mexico, and Colorado were all red here. Those states used to be more conservative. It was urbanization and Obama that shifted them left. This is the map that Mitt Romney was trying to run on, thinking he could reverse Obama's 2008 changes and be able to pull off a win. But no, the electorate stayed with Obama, and this map is dead, and feels like it's from a different era in a way. Just think of how 2028 might change the map if republicans get unpopular enough. We're already seeing it in the senate this year.
Anyway, speaking of Obama, he was a bit of a star of the show too. Kept being mentioned because he won his senate race pretty handily and was a pretty major rising star. Say it with me guys: Abdul El Sayed for president, he could be 2028's Obama.
Anyway, I do wanna discuss this map a bit more. I see why it comes down to Florida and Ohio, if Kerry couldnt snag one of the two, it doesnt seem to matter what else he could do here. Iowa, 245, Hawaii, not sure why that's even a swing state here but let's give it the benefit of the doubt, 249, Wisconsin, 259, Arkansas, again not sure that should even be a swing state but following the polling data, that's 266, New mexico, 271. yeah. He really does need Florida or Ohio here. Probably florida, I wouldnt count on Ohio. I mean, keep in mind, "wave theory of elections." The results arent entirely random, you got red/blue waves and if one state swings, the rest of the country or part of the country is likely to swing similarly. If Kerry doesnt take Florida, or Iowa, or Wisconsin, he sure AF aint getting Ohio in all likelihood. And if he gets Ohio, he will likely carry most states up to Ohio on the map. So...yeah.
Hours 3&4
And in hour 3, Florida is called for Bush. The rest of the map is largely non controversial for the time. The results mostly went in line with my map, outside of Wisconsin flipping blue (so kerry DID overperform), and HI too. Again, not sure if the polling data was faulty on HI as its normally safe blue, but again, taking it at face value. So yeah, at this point, it all came down to Ohio, and ABC didnt wanna call it even though other networks did because they wanted to be cautious. Possibly due to PTSD from Florida in 2000. *sigh*
Yeah, like, I kinda would say that Kerry was cooked by this point. We've seen this happen again and again. First 2 hours its just back and forth, by hour 3, we get an idea where the energy goes, and we often see the race called by 4 or 5, depending how fast and decisive it is. While 2004 was a closeish election, basically a repeat of 2000, eh...Bush seemed to have the advantage, and if he could get Florida, eh....Ohio is probably locked down.
The only election we looked at where the candidate the energy was against won was Biden in 2020, and he won because he was projected to romp Trump in an Obamaesque way, and then barely won. He had the runway to underperform whereas Clinton and Harris didn't. And 2004 is a lot like a 2016 or 2024 style election, just less stressful because it was boring and low stakes as fudge. I think I recalled someone called it the most important election in their lifetime, and really? Imagine thinking 2004 is the most important election in my life time. If anything, it's probably the most boring, inconsequential one in my lifetime all things considered. A far cry from 2024's "democracy itself is on the ballot" (because the republican is a psychopath who wants to overturn democracy and be a dictator). And again, this is the thing. I know I'm rough on Trump, but I have to be. Bush sucked, but he was just a standard politician. Like, democracy will live on after him. Not sure about Trump in that regard at this point. But I digress.
Hours 4&5
There was a lot of discussion here about why the race played out as it did. Some asked if the democrats lost the south "forever", and the real question is "well, how long is forever?" Ya know, because party realignments are a thing. In the 2020s now Virginia and New Mexico are blue states. North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona are swing states. Florida is a red state. But yes, they lost it for a generation after 1968, and I cant believe they're still debating that. It was obvious by this point.
There was discussion of culture and values. How big city liberals "don't get" the needs of more southern and rural voters with their guns and religion and blah blah blah. And yeah, most republican voters were driven by values concerns. I mean, I get it, if I could vote at the time, I would've been too. I was a Christian nut back then and I was like, god doesnt approve of abortion and gay marriage and blah blah blah. Again, different era, but these crazies still exist today. But back then, they were FAR more popular believe it or not. Not as dialed up with the crazy, but they didnt have to be because since 1980 they just....dominated culture. Again, we're talking core 6th party system here. The last real election where republicans held a real cultural hegemony over the country. As we know, Obama kinda broke that, and then we got trump as these guys turned reactionary and....here we are...
There was also talk of Iraq. And how some voted for Kerry because they didnt think that we should be fighting such a pointless war, but others were like gung ho die hard in favor of it, so they wanted Bush.
Kerry voters seemed driven by the economy. I mean there was a 2001 recession and the economy wasnt AMAZING in the 2000s, but clearly 2008 changed things a lot.
Really, if anything, 2008 and 2016 seem like their own respective mini realignments. 2008 broke the republican fever of the Reagan era somewhat. But then Trump led the GOP turning reactionary. And then post Obama the dems crapped the bed with their centrist direction. And here we are. It's hard to tell if we're in like a full on different era or a transition period, but yeah, its clear CORE 6th party system is dead. Like the Reagan conservative dominated era is gone. It's unclear if anything can be said to have replaced it. Obama led to the idea that the GOP was toast, but then Clinton's hubris and Trump managing to realign the country in his own way gave new life to the GOP. Although now 2028 is looking like ANOTHER possible 2008 moment for the GOP, and if we get the right candidate, maybe we CAN end this era for good and turn the page. But yeah. It's been a rough 20 years politically. 2004 seems very quaint and distant now. I see why people are sometimes nostalgic of this era these days, but let's face it, back then we thought the world was on fire too, especially after 9/11.
Anyway it doesnt look like they ever called Ohio in these videos. Again, they're cautious because of 2000. Although it seemed like everyone else DID call Ohio, and the Kerry people seemed somber like is often the case for the losing side. Again, Ohio by this point was never seriously gonna go to Kerry. Look at my map, if Kerry wasn't carrying Florida, Ohio was most likely out of reach. I get the whole "let's be cautious" mentality, but by the end of the video, everyone else DID call it. so it was this one network that didn't. There was talk of Kerry possibly contesting the results, but I dont think much came out of that. Nor did anyone die because sore losers stormed the capitol. Ya know, because that was psychotic ####, Don.
Conclusion
Anyway, that's 2004. Lessons....not many. Literally the most boring election I covered. Very ho hum. Very quaint. And despite how competitive it was on paper, it was still a bit of a romp for Bush. I recall it at the time and I always felt like Bush would win. Liberals just werent popular back then, and yeah, values voters, Iraq, ya know, people were happy enough with Bush to go along with him. I dont even think the democrats really tried at the time. Like...they were siding with Bush's agenda after 9/11 until it was time to campaign. Then suddenly they started attacking him and it felt very...fake. I dont think the democrats did a very good job here. Kerry was uninspiring, they largely agreed with Bush until it was time to campaign against him, and people didnt buy it. Bush just was the default option...and he won because not enough people wanted change. It's just...the curse of centrism to some degree. You cant motivate your own side, you cant convince swing voters. You come close, but then you implode last minute. Gore did it too, and Clinton, and Harris. Same crap.
Anyway, will I do 2000? Again, not feeling very motivated, I run out of polling data going further back so I cant make good electoral maps for predictions to compare my results to, and it looks like back then they didn't have the sophisticated "here's the map, here's the swing states" either. Whole thing felt super low budget. Like, I swear, I've seen podcasters have better presentations than this. Felt like a local station, not a national syndicate. And at that point, i dont really wanna bother. But again, 2000 was a mess so it might be fun just to do one more for posterity's sake. Tbd on that.
If I dont do that, this series is complete. Hope you enjoyed it, was kinda fun going back over elections over the course of my political life, looking at how things changed over time. The world has changed a lot in 20 years. Sometimes for the better but also for the worse. The 2000s kinda feels like the 80s these days, which makes sense since the 80s are as far from the 2000s as the 2000s are from the 2020s. But really, wtf is with these super low budget news presentations. Holy crap. Talk about dated. But I digress.
No comments:
Post a Comment