BunkoSquad

So what about the religious? The populist 'uprising' from the red states noted by Thomas Frank turns out, on inspection, to be more or a less a mirage, a self-inflicted liberal nightmare. Twenty-two per cent placed 'moral values' as the number one voting issue, of whom four- fifths voted for Bush, making around 17 per cent of those voting. Eighty-three per cent of voters did not fall into this camp at all.

Furthermore, the percentage of voters describing themselves as evangelical was the same as in 2000. The proportions in favour or against abortion were no different - 55 per cent are broadly in favour of abortion with 42 per cent opposed. A majority supported either gay marriage (which we do not have here in Britain, or in most countries in Europe) or of gay civil unions. In fact, among these latter, there was a 5 per cent lead for Bush. (Equally unexpectedly, those most scared by terrorism actually voted for Kerry.)

It is when you look at some of the usual key indicators to election victory that you find the better explanation of 2 November. People who had experienced job loss were far more likely to vote for Kerry; those who hadn't - and there were more of them - would go for Bush. More people felt that the Bush years had either improved their financial position, or maintained it, than believed that they had been damaged.

This analysis matters so much, partly because the solutions being urged upon the battered Democrats depend upon getting it right, and partly because the rest of the world needs to know how to interpret America. For example, some people are now urging an accommodation with 'spiritual politics' in the shape of conceding on gay marriage and partial birth abortion.

The problem with this is obvious. We can all be against late abortion - and none more so than the woman who feels the child kicking inside her - but the best way to reduce the number of such terminations is through earlier abortions, earlier diagnosis of serious handicap, better contraception and better education. To ban them is simply to make them more dangerous, because women will seek - whatever we think about it - to control their own situations.

You can frame this as the progressive's answer to late abortion. You can be sensitive to the objections, try to understand why the sudden eruption of gay marriage has caused such offence, while arguing your case. To be forced to argue your case is not a symptom of incipient clerical fascism, but of a respect for the views of others. And you don't have to be Elmer Gantry to wonder how desirable it is to have (as happened to me yesterday) a computer search for articles on the Stalin show-trials interrupted by a pop-up depicting women with sperm on their faces.

Above all, however, if you don't want the Republicans to win, then you have to offer something better. In Friday's New York Times, Kerry speechwriter, Andrei Cherny, wrote: 'The overarching problem Democrats have today is the lack of a clear sense of what the party stands for.' These were the questions Kerry needed to answer, he said: 'What is our economic vision in a globalised world? How do we respond to the desire of many Americans to have choices and decision-making power of their own? How can we speak to Americans' moral and spiritual yearnings? How can our national security vision be broader than just a critique of Republican foreign policy?'

Over 40 years, since their defeat in the 1964 presidential election, the Republicans have been busy discussing policy, setting up foundations, leading the national debate on economics and foreign affairs. Informed by this process, the party - as much an awkward coalition as any other - has associated itself with modernity, optimism and clarity. Challenging that position is the long-term task of America's centre left. It is not just a question for the Democrats, but a question for us in Britain, too. What is our solution to the problem of Iran? Or are we just going to wait to see what the Americans do, and then oppose it?

Above all, however, we must first avoid the one fatal error that so many have fallen into. George W Bush and his voters are not dumb. Those who think so are the really dumb ones.

You're just cutting and pasting. I'll talk yo you if you speak up, but put that stuff up on your own site.

Allow me one more cut and paste job! You will love this one:

Howard Dean considering bid to chair Democratic Party
Monday November 08, 2004

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) Former presidential candidate Howard Dean is considering a bid to become chairman of the national Democratic Party.

Steve Grossman, himself a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Dean had told him he was thinking about it.

Dean was traveling today in New York and unavailable for comment. His spokeswoman, Laura Gross, said ``it was far too early to be speculating on that.''

The 240 members of the Democratic National Convention will elect a new chair early next year. Several names are already being mentioned, including former Clinton aide Harold Ickes; Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore's presidential campaign, and Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack.

Dean has been outspoken since the beginning of his presidential bid in saying that the Democratic Party must establish a separate and unique identity from Republicans.

The next chairman will replace Terry McAuliffe, whose term is ending.

(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)