Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tireless Push to Raise Turnout Was Crucial in G.O.P. Victory

Posted on 11/03/2004 8:25:52 PM PST by Pikamax

THE CAMPAIGN Tireless Push to Raise Turnout Was Crucial in G.O.P. Victory By ELISABETH BUMILLER

his article was reported by Elisabeth Bumiller, David M. Halbfinger and David E. Rosenbaum and written by Ms. Bumiller.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 - In the closing hours of President Bush's campaign for re-election, Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, was obsessed with turning out Republican votes. Late Monday night, Mr. Rove stood in the cold at a rally in Albuquerque and pulled scraps of paper from his pocket covered with numbers that reassured him that his ground army was in full assault.

"In Nevada, where last time there were 598,000 votes cast, our organization made 130,000 contacts," Mr. Rove said, rattling off the statistics. "That's 100,000 targeted phone calls and knocks on the door of 30,000 targeted households. These are less active Bush-oriented voters, people who have not had a pattern of voting, Democrats, Republicans and independents."

He had similar numbers for Florida, Pennsylvania and every other contested state, all part of his four-year effort to prod the Republicans into matching the high Democratic turnout in presidential elections. "What we're trying to do is get our efforts up to parity," he said.

On Tuesday night, Mr. Rove succeeded, as Mr. Bush was re-elected in the first presidential election in modern history with an equal turnout of Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Rove's relentless focus on turning out more Republican voters, many of them evangelical Christians, was the critical factor in Mr. Bush's victory, Republicans said.

Other factors that led Mr. Bush to victory, Republicans said, were the gamble to run on terrorism and his repeated use of a clear, concise message. And Bush campaign officials said they were helped by the man they called a dream opponent, Senator John Kerry, whose nuanced statements about Iraq gave them an opening, day after day, to attack him as a "flip-flopper."

Their high point, Bush campaign officials said, came in the spring, when Mr. Kerry uttered the now-famous line that he had voted for $87 billion for American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan before he voted against it.

"It was the most iconic moment of the campaign," said Mark McKinnon, the president's chief media strategist. "As soon as we saw it, we knew that was exactly what we wanted to say, but he said it for us. That's something he couldn't undo."

But in Boston on the morning after Mr. Kerry's defeat, the harsh hindsight in the opponent's camp had begun. Despite the applause heaped upon his campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, some advisers were already pointing to what they called the major strategic errors of his campaign. All requested anonymity because they did not want to be seen as criticizing Mr. Kerry at a painful time.

Kerry advisers cited the senator's lack of a clear and consistent message all year long, right up until mid-September, and suggested that his theme-of-the-week inconsistency and shifting attacks on the president in some ways bore out Mr. Bush's argument that Mr. Kerry was too indecisive and vacillating to lead the nation.

Many advisers cited Mr. Kerry's most obvious mistake: his long delay in responding forcefully to the attacks by members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group of Vietnam veterans who assailed Mr. Kerry in a best-selling book and television commercials as a liar, a traitor and a coward.

They said, too, that his focus on his Vietnam War record at the Democratic convention wound up making him a more inviting target of those attacks while achieving little in the polls that would survive the Republican convention.

But there were other major behind-the-scenes mistakes. Much as Mr. Kerry had proved a fearless gambler a year ago, mortgaging his house to finance his candidacy and staking his campaign on a come-from-behind victory in Iowa, his campaign against Mr. Bush was marked by moments of caution, some advisers said, like his decision to accept $75 million in public money for the fall campaign and the spending cap that came with it, rather than opting out and raising and spending as much as he could.

The practical effect was that Mr. Kerry's campaign could not afford to spend money on advertising in August, at the height of the Swift Boat attacks against him.

In the end, some of Mr. Kerry's longtime advisers asserted that his campaign and high-priced consultants had failed him in many ways, but that he had only himself to blame for the clutter of strategists, with no one clearly in charge, whose output was often late and not harnessed into an overall strategy.

"The campaign was never as good as the candidate," said one old friend and strategist. "But that's also a reflection on the candidate."

In contrast, Bush campaign officials said they had a candidate who was better than their campaign, which was in itself a tightly run, richly financed and highly disciplined message machine. And while Mr. Bush's advisers readily conceded that their star candidate fell short in the debates, on the stump in front of friendly Republicans Mr. Bush was charismatic performer.

"We had at the top of the ticket an inspiring individual who knew what he believed and did what he said," Mr. Rove said Wednesday in an interview. "At the end of the day, people voted for him for two reasons: One is they thought he could do the job, and two, they had deep doubts about the other guy."

Many of those voters, Mr. Rove said, were evangelical Christians, although he said he could not tell directly from polls of voters if evangelicals had turned out in greater numbers than they had in 2000. But there is some evidence that they did.

Mr. Rove has long said that Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 in part because four million evangelicals stayed home perhaps, he said, because of the drunken driving charge against Mr. Bush that surfaced the weekend before the election and perhaps because many evangelicals traditionally viewed politics with distaste.

But in this election, evangelicals said they were motivated to turn out because of Mr. Bush's support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, prompted by a decision a year ago by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court allowing gay marriage in the state. "For the first time in our country's history, the definition of marriage has been changed by a court," said Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy at Focus on the Family, an influential conservative Christian group, in an interview on Wednesday. "That was a wake-up call."

Mr. Minnery said that evangelicals turned out in large numbers for Mr. Bush in 2004 because they knew him better than in 2000, and recognized the biblical phrasing in many of his speeches. "In his first term, he was the most openly Christian president we have had in our lifetime," Mr. Minnery said. "And that endeared many Christian people to him."'

Republicans also said that Mr. Bush won by broadening the reach of his party, much like Ronald Reagan in the 1980's.

"He kept faith with every piece of the center-right coalition - taxpayers, property owners, investors, businessmen, home schoolers, gun owners and all communities of faith," said Grover Norquist, a leading conservative and the president of Americans for Tax Reform. "This is the broad Reagan-George W. Bush coalition, and every piece of the coalition he kept faith with on their prime vote-moving issue."

Mr. Rove argued that rather than just playing hard to his Republican base, Mr. Bush's record total of 58 million votes, the most votes for any presidential candidate in history, proved that he had appealed well beyond his core conservative supporters to small business people, families concerned about "the coarseness of the culture" and also "security moms and dads" worried about terrorism. Significantly, polls of voters showed that the number of voters who said they were concerned about moral values - and who voted in overwhelming numbers for Mr. Bush - was higher than those who said they were worried about the war, terrorism, the economy or jobs.

Republicans also said that Mr. Bush won by running hard in the end in what Ken Mehlman, the president's campaign manager, called strong Republican "fortress" areas surrounded by rapidly growing suburbs and exurbs filled with first-time voters. "The thing that characterized the areas more than anything else was a growing propensity to vote Republican and a significant number of potentially unregistered supporters," Mr. Rove said.

If Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove were determined from the first to get every last evangelical Christian to the polls, Mr. Kerry and his advisers seemed to respond only relatively late in the campaign to what polls eventually showed was his gaping weakness with voters on the question of whether a candidate shared their values.

Campaign aides knew all along that Mr. Kerry, whose New England reticence held him back from discussing his religion, was at a steep disadvantage with Mr. Bush among regular churchgoers. But while he began over the summer sprinkling the word "values" into his speeches, it was mainly in saying that hard work should be rewarded, that the middle class and poor should be given help before the rich get more.

And while Mr. Bush could use code words like "culture of life" and "armies of compassion" to motivate evangelicals, Mr. Kerry found himself preaching the separation of church and state from pulpits. Late in the campaign, Mr. Kerry spent every weekend visiting churches, taking communion from Catholic priests who welcomed him despite his support for abortion rights.

Mr. Kerry did not help himself in getting voters to see him as an ordinary guy when he was photographed windsurfing in August off his Nantucket home, or that he chose a resort to prepare for his first debate, while Mr. Bush was on his ranch, or that his wealthy wife spoke English with an unfamiliar accent and Mr. Kerry spent his childhood summers in France.

"People don't windsurf in Youngstown, Ohio," said one top longtime Kerry adviser.

There were also Mr. Kerry's swings and misses: calling the Green Bay Packers stadium Lambert Field, not Lambeau, and mangling the names even of his own beloved Red Sox.

In candid moments, Mr. Kerry himself often said that, with war and terrorism occupying the nation, he did not think "likeability" would play as important a role in the campaign as it did in 2000. But the longtime aide said that Mr. Kerry, as a challenger facing a well-known incumbent, had no margin of error in his attempts to connect with voters. "It all goes into the pot," the aide said.

The values problem took on enormous significance, Kerry aides said, precisely because of the electoral terrain the campaign was fighting on, which they said posed a major challenge for Democrats: how to talk to Americans in the heartland.

"We were working from a pretty small map here," said Steve Elmendorf, deputy campaign manager. "He was pressuring us much more in places where Gore had won than we were pressuring him where he had won, like New Hampshire and Nevada: those were only four electoral votes. He had us in New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota, and in Pennsylvania and Michigan we could never take our eye off the ball. It wasn't a resource question so much as we weren't competitive in places like Missouri and Arkansas that Bush had won, so he was able to take enormous resources and really pour them into those states."

Bill Carrick, a Democratic strategist, said the unfavorable electoral map meant Mr. Kerry had no obvious recipe for a win, which explains why Kerry advisers experimented continually with positive and negative messages and with focusing more on domestic policy or national security.

"I've been in campaigns when you had a clear path to victory if you did one, two, and three," he said. "Here, there was some message testing, because there was no clear path."

TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bushvictory; gotv; gwb2004

1 posted on 11/03/2004 8:25:52 PM PST by Pikamax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Boy. I love these pick-over-the-carcass articles. Great stuff.

The Kerry "campaign" in the end was all about tactics. That never works.

2 posted on 11/03/2004 8:36:33 PM PST by Dems_R_Losers (Proud Reagan Alumna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

In South Dakota the voter turnout was 78.6%.

3 posted on 11/03/2004 8:36:54 PM PST by dumpdaschle (Senator Tim Johnson (Dem, SD) says that I belong to the Taliban wing of the Republican party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dumpdaschle

Yes and to ALL of our GOTV troops- a big THANK YOU. You guys made this happen.

4 posted on 11/03/2004 8:38:09 PM PST by shawngf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

In 2008, Democrats will be pushing their
gay marriage adgenda.
Republicans need a counterstrategy.

5 posted on 11/03/2004 8:39:43 PM PST by greasepaint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

The take-home message: the Democratic strategists do not understand America. They do not understand the fundamental change that has been taking place in America. Why do they not look to history and realize that America has not elected a liberal since 1976, and they despised that one after about four months in office? Every other liberal they have nominated has been defeated; the only moderate Democrat they put forward, Clinton, was elected without difficulty. America really, really does not want to hear a left-of-center message. Particularly not from a French metrosexual gigolo nancy-boy who doesn't know how to drive a truck or handle a chainsaw like a real man.

6 posted on 11/03/2004 8:46:02 PM PST by Capriole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers

Can someone tell me just exactly what the hell an 'evangelical' Christian is? The media keeps throwing this term around. He refers to Christians as 'evangelicals' about five times in this piece. I think most of these people are just Christians. All of a sudden now they are 'evangelical' Christians? Or is this writer just 'evangelizing' himself? sheesh...

7 posted on 11/03/2004 8:59:18 PM PST by ChinaThreat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Capriole

What you said!

That fact that Clinton ran as "A New Democrat" seems to be long forgotten, but it shouldn't be. He did, indeed, triangulate and never, never acted as though he thought France was better than here. Hillary, we all knew (and know) was (and remains) a shameful leftist; Bill may be too, but he hid it. And I really think he does like American best, unlike John Francois.

Clinton COULD have remade his party, but he was just out for himself. If the dems don't toss McAuliffe now, well, I just don't know. Maybe those dunder-heads at the DU should start campaiging for that to happen. Dean really would have been better for them. I couldn't believe McAwful kept his job after 2002, Jeb Bush's victory should really have been his doom.

Is hillary really the red queen?

8 posted on 11/03/2004 9:00:28 PM PST by jocon307 (Don't let Australia down: Re-elect President Bush! (YAY! W WON!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Mr. Rove's relentless focus on turning out more Republican voters, many of them evangelical Christians, was the critical factor in Mr. Bush's victory, Republicans said.

There were 9,500,000+ more votes cast than 2000. President Bush got 8,650,000+ more votes than he did in 2000. As much as Soros, the media, Moore and all the rest conspired to undermine the President they couldn't calculate the power of everyone of us that volunteered, talked to friends, sent e-mails and all the rest.

9 posted on 11/03/2004 9:06:25 PM PST by Dolphy (It's not a plan, it's an echo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dumpdaschle

Arizona's turnout was 75%. I think they said, highest ever.

10 posted on 11/03/2004 9:29:56 PM PST by valleygal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ChinaThreat

You have your "traditional" Christians who are more moderate in their beliefs and values; usually old line denominational churches. And then you have your "Evangelical" Christians who are conservative, zealous about evagelizing the world for Jesus Christ, and are NOT part of the old line traditional, moderate to liberal denominations; but rather your conservative Presbyterians, Baptists and your Charismatic / Born again, Spirit-filled believers i.e. Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. James Kennedy, James Robison, Kenneth Copeland, etc., etc., etc. These are your Evangelical Christians.

11 posted on 11/03/2004 9:36:17 PM PST by no dems (NICE GUYS FINISH LAST. GET RADICAL !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
On Tuesday night, Mr. Rove succeeded, as Mr. Bush was re-elected in the first presidential election in modern history with an equal turnout of Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Rove's relentless focus on turning out more Republican voters, many of them evangelical Christians, was the critical factor in Mr. Bush's victory, Republicans said.

I'm having problems with the Times' "New Math". Are they saying that half the 3.5 MM victory margin was from Dems voting Bush?

Many advisers cited Mr. Kerry's most obvious mistake: his long delay in responding forcefully to the attacks by members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group of Vietnam veterans who assailed Mr. Kerry in a best-selling book and television commercials as a liar, a traitor and a coward.

Tough to respond when the other side is plainly telling the truth. The Swifties were not calling Kerry a coward. While it is true that he hightailed his boat out sometimes when he should have stayed, there were other times where his thinking he knows better than everyone else got him in shooting situations that should not have happened that way, if at all. And his Silver Star was based on disobeying standing procedure by rendering his boat ineffective in fields of fire and movement when he beached it to rush the VC.

12 posted on 11/03/2004 9:43:41 PM PST by DmBarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson