I'm astonished at the election result. I can't believe it's even close, let alone with Bush winning re-election with a majority and the largest total number of votes in US history. I'm obviously missing something . . .
Most non-partisan observers agree the Democratic Party's prescriptions for the country more closely match the polity's economic and practical interests. But the Democrats utterly failed to overcome the Republican's masterful campaign, real substantive issues submerged under an emotionally compelling flood pouring from Republican mouths.
The apparent re-election of GWB points to the success the Republican party has had in framing the choices based on emotion and feelings. The Democrats have repeatedly tried and failed to present a factual issue-based position strong enough to overcome the visceral presentation of their opposition.
Emotional affinity is clearly stronger than reason in a rather large percentage voters, which leads me to ask some perhaps unanswerable questions.
Why have so many voters voted their feelings rather than their practical interests? Why can't the Democratic Party frame their issue positions in an emotive way? Why did so many voters attend to the Republican focus on non-meaningful social issues when Republican policies have and will continue to diminish those same voters' real quality-of-life?
Well it certainly didn't help that the Democratic Presidential candidate seemed such a stiff. Personal appeal counts for alot apparently, one more of those pesky emotional factors.
I'm too reasonable I guess, so maybe I'm missing . . . emotions?