Of course I think it’s great that President Bush was reelected. I have greater hope for winning the war on terror, continuing economic growth, and shifting to a generally more serious attitude toward morality in policy. My one complaint is that I perceive a little too much gloating after the victory by conservatives. Bush won more decisively than in 2000, but it was still a close race. It basically came down to one state, Ohio, where bush won by just over 100,000 votes. Not quite a blowout. So I think some of the ideas and comments below are not really appropriate.
First, the “red states” maps. Yes, more counties and states voted for Bush. And if you measure the square footage of these areas, they cover a much larger area than those that went for Kerry. But who cares about square footage? People elect the leaders, not land.
“More people voted for Bush than in any other election in history.” This is mainly due to growth in the population, and partially due to the next factor.
“Bush is the first president to win a plurality of the votes since Bush 41 in 1988.” Again, this isn’t really due to his popularity, it’s partially due to the fact that Nader was irrelevant this year, and that Perot wasn’t around. Without a third party, there were more votes for both of the main candidates.
I think it’s going to be a great four years. I think Bush is a good leader and is taking the country in the right direction. But the truth is a lot of people don’t like him and don’t understand how he was elected. I think he, and conservatives in general need to work harder at explaining the logic in their policies, and showing the benefits that they produce.