[Undertoad]

Why vsp is wrong (sorry dude): Andrew Coyne debunks the (lefty media) notion that Bush won with evangelicals

True, it found the largest single block of voters identified "moral values" as the "most important election issue" -- a much cited factoid -- and that 80% of these respondents voted for Bush. But that hardly makes this election a triumph of theocracy. In the first place, "largest single block" turns out to mean 22%, meaning 78% of voters -- including two-thirds of Bush voters -- named some other issue.

via Michael Totten who notes:

[Coyne] asks "When a candidate draws increased numbers of votes from groups not traditionally identified with his party, we usually call that 'broadening the base.' So why the fascination with zombie hordes of theo-cons? "

That’s real easy. It’s emotionally satisfying. "The crazies are taking over" is a lot easier to swallow than "we fucked up and lost".

...
45 percent of the people who voted for Bush are self-described liberals or moderates. (Earth to Democrats: That’s why he beat you.) Only 55 percent of the people who voted for Bush are conservatives. (See Andrew’s piece for the details.) And, as most of us know, there are many different kinds of conservatives. There are neocons and paleocons, Wall Street conservatives and religious conservatives. Not to mention plain old run-of-the-mill conservatives. It’s a fractious group of people who have little in common but, oddly enough, happen to wear the same useless label.

Zeroing in on only one of those factions and blowing it all out proportion will get the Democrats nowhere. It makes as much sense as Ann Coulter accusing every leftie in the land of being pro-terrorist. It’s not only dumb but exceptionally counterproductive.

If Kerry won the election I wouldn’t say it was because of Michael Moore and his stupid-ass movie. If it went that way it would have done so despite him.