"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things" (aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003). My question to you, is how could America re-elect someone with such an intellectual deficiency.[?] To his credit Bush, in the last election, effectively got church goers out, used propaganda well, and increased the Hispanic votes.

Bush successfully won the election by first playing the religious card. From the beginning[,] Bush stood by his stance that the government will not fund abortions. According to a poll of voters, 21% think that abortion should be banned. This, therefore, delivered many voters to Bush with little downside. He also organized the evangelical Christians with his stance on gay marriages. A poll of Bush voters revealed only 8% believe gays should marry, while out of all voters 21% think it should be legal. This great disparity showed what a huge factor morals were in whom people voted for. To show how important these moral issues were, the same poll used above revealed 24% of voters listed this as its most important issue when they voted.

After guaranteeing the religious vote, he had to use propaganda to portray Kerry in a bad sense. Using the techniques of “Argumentum ad nauseum”, or saying something over and over until the public thinks its true, and appealing to fear with the motto “stay the course” with the war on terror. He tried to say all these bad things would happen if Kerry got in and pulled out of Iraq [such as? this is a very vague statement]. He also used the technique of stereotyping[,] by setting Kerry up as a “flip-flopper” on decisions. Yes you’ve all seen these types of ads for most elections. This person does not support the troops because he didn't approve funds necessary for there [their; their indicates possesion, there indicates a direction] equipment. Kerry, not knowing the public can be easily misled, told America in the debates he did vote for other bills on these certain issues [I'm confused, what is this sentence about?]. Then the ads came out that you need someone decisive as president not someone who will just change his mind from day to day. You are probably saying yeah that’s right. No, if people knew about politics for practically every issue there are at least two bills, a republican and a democrat’s bill. Each needs support to pass and so the people who introduce it gather support by giving kick backs, such as funding for a new bridge in a senators home state. Then when they think it has enough support for it they vote on it. Most politician accept there will be these additions but in bills after September 11[,] congressmen knew if they gave money to the troops or the war it would get passed instantly. Those who actually cared about the fiscal policy of the U.S., didn’t approve the 80 billion dollar bills, where only half the money went to the troops [what is the last half of this paragraph talking about? I'm, honestly, very confused. It sounds like you are talking about a specific bill. If that is the case, you can mention it. This whole paragraph's overly conversational tone partly contributes to its complete lack of coherence].

Another way Bush beat Kerry was by then getting the Hispanic vote up. According to the past election in 2000, Bush had about 35% of the Hispanic vote, which made up 12% of the 2004 [2000?] election. In 2004 he was able to bring that up to 45%, successfully diminishing the once democratic strong hold. He gained this vote through many controversial policies including support of bilingual education, the right of alien children to receive public education, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the right of survivor benefits in social security for legal aliens. These actions gave Bush a 2.4% edge in the general ballot, and he won by 3.1%[,] so this was crucial in states like Florida.

Some of you are probably thinking[, "] did the enormous amount of spending of one candidate influence any sway voters.[?"] The answer is no, because each candidate spent over 300 million dollars[,] each they both got there messages out relatively equally. In economics[,] we learn about the law of diminishing return, which applied to this example means the difference between a few million dollars would only change a nominal amount of voters [what? I have no idea what this sentence means]. Thus, a candidate spending an extra couple million would not have a big difference in the outcome of the election [but they did spend the same amount, at least according to what you said at the beginning of the paragraph]. Therefore, the amount of money in the election was insignificant in the choice of the voter.

We as a society need to learn how to look pass [past] obvious propaganda, and vote on actual issues instead of moral standards. The constitution is interpreted in the Supreme Court, therefore presidents should be voted for on economic, educational, and social issues [What does this have to do with the previous sentence?]. Based on his performance as president in his first term[,] President Bush never should have been re-elected, but his strategy convinced the public. [This conclusion is faulty because you haven't been critiquing Bush's first term. Instead, you've been discussing how he won. If you want to make this claim, you need to establish that he is not qualified to be president]

[I think the major problem with this paper is that it is written as though you expect your readers to already agree with you and, more dangerously, know what you are talking about. As an example, look at your discussion of the law of dimenisioning returns. I have no idea how that relates to political advertising spending, but you just make the connection without explaining it. Also, flow between sentences is not smooth. Ideas appear but don't seem to be related to previous sentences.]

Works Cited

"Poll: America's Cultural Divide." 22 Nov. 2004. CBS News. 17 Oct. 2005


Morris, Dick. "The Hispanic Vote Elects Bush ." 5 Nov. 2004. News Max. 17 Oct. 2005



Bush successfully won the election by first playing the religious card. From the beginning[,] Bush stood by his stance that the government will not fund abortions. According to a poll of voters, 21% think that abortion should be banned. This, therefore, delivered many voters to Bush with little downside. He also organized the evangelical Christians with his stance on gay marriages. A poll of Bush voters revealed only 8% believe gays should marry, while out of all voters 21% think it should be legal. This great disparity showed what a huge factor morals were in whom people voted for. To show how important these moral issues were, the same poll used above revealed 24% of voters listed this as its most important issue when they voted.

After guaranteeing the religious vote, he had to use propaganda to portray Kerry in a bad sense. Using the techniques of “Argumentum ad nauseum”, or saying something over and over until the public thinks its true, and appealing to fear with the motto “stay the course” with the war on terror. He tried to say all these bad things would happen if Kerry got in and pulled out of Iraq [such as? this is a very vague statement]. He also used the technique of stereotyping[,] by setting Kerry up as a “flip-flopper” on decisions. Yes you’ve all seen these types of ads for most elections. This person does not support the troops because he didn't approve funds necessary for there [their; their indicates possesion, there indicates a direction] equipment. Kerry, not knowing the public can be easily misled, told America in the debates he did vote for other bills on these certain issues [I'm confused, what is this sentence about?]. Then the ads came out that you need someone decisive as president not someone who will just change his mind from day to day. You are probably saying yeah that’s right. No, if people knew about politics for practically every issue there are at least two bills, a republican and a democrat’s bill. Each needs support to pass and so the people who introduce it gather support by giving kick backs, such as funding for a new bridge in a senators home state. Then when they think it has enough support for it they vote on it. Most politician accept there will be these additions but in bills after September 11[,] congressmen knew if they gave money to the troops or the war it would get passed instantly. Those who actually cared about the fiscal policy of the U.S., didn’t approve the 80 billion dollar bills, where only half the money went to the troops [what is the last half of this paragraph talking about? I'm, honestly, very confused. It sounds like you are talking about a specific bill. If that is the case, you can mention it. This whole paragraph's overly conversational tone partly contributes to its complete lack of coherence].

Another way Bush beat Kerry was by then getting the Hispanic vote up. According to the past election in 2000, Bush had about 35% of the Hispanic vote, which made up 12% of the 2004 [2000?] election. In 2004 he was able to bring that up to 45%, successfully diminishing the once democratic strong hold. He gained this vote through many controversial policies including support of bilingual education, the right of alien children to receive public education, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the right of survivor benefits in social security for legal aliens. These actions gave Bush a 2.4% edge in the general ballot, and he won by 3.1%[,] so this was crucial in states like Florida.

Some of you are probably thinking[, "] did the enormous amount of spending of one candidate influence any sway voters.[?"] The answer is no, because each candidate spent over 300 million dollars[,] each they both got there messages out relatively equally. In economics[,] we learn about the law of diminishing return, which applied to this example means the difference between a few million dollars would only change a nominal amount of voters [what? I have no idea what this sentence means]. Thus, a candidate spending an extra couple million would not have a big difference in the outcome of the election [but they did spend the same amount, at least according to what you said at the beginning of the paragraph]. Therefore, the amount of money in the election was insignificant in the choice of the voter.

We as a society need to learn how to look pass [past] obvious propaganda, and vote on actual issues instead of moral standards. The constitution is interpreted in the Supreme Court, therefore presidents should be voted for on economic, educational, and social issues [What does this have to do with the previous sentence?]. Based on his performance as president in his first term[,] President Bush never should have been re-elected, but his strategy convinced the public. [This conclusion is faulty because you haven't been critiquing Bush's first term. Instead, you've been discussing how he won. If you want to make this claim, you need to establish that he is not qualified to be president]

Works Cited

"Poll: America's Cultural Divide." 22 Nov. 2004. CBS News. 17 Oct. 2005


Morris, Dick. "The Hispanic Vote Elects Bush ." 5 Nov. 2004. News Max. 17 Oct. 2005



Bush successfully won the election by first playing the religious card. From the beginning[,] Bush stood by his stance that the government will not fund abortions. According to a poll of voters, 21% think that abortion should be banned. This, therefore, delivered many voters to Bush with little downside. He also organized the evangelical Christians with his stance on gay marriages. A poll of Bush voters revealed only 8% believe gays should marry, while out of all voters 21% think it should be legal. This great disparity showed what a huge factor morals were in whom people voted for. To show how important these moral issues were, the same poll used above revealed 24% of voters listed this as its most important issue when they voted.

After guaranteeing the religious vote, he had to use propaganda to portray Kerry in a bad sense. Using the techniques of “Argumentum ad nauseum”, or saying something over and over until the public thinks its true, and appealing to fear with the motto “stay the course” with the war on terror. He tried to say all these bad things would happen if Kerry got in and pulled out of Iraq [such as? this is a very vague statement]. He also used the technique of stereotyping[,] by setting Kerry up as a “flip-flopper” on decisions. Yes you’ve all seen these types of ads for most elections. This person does not support the troops because he didn't approve funds necessary for there [their; their indicates possesion, there indicates a direction] equipment. Kerry, not knowing the public can be easily misled, told America in the debates he did vote for other bills on these certain issues [I'm confused, what is this sentence about?]. Then the ads came out that you need someone decisive as president not someone who will just change his mind from day to day. You are probably saying yeah that’s right. No, if people knew about politics for practically every issue there are at least two bills, a republican and a democrat’s bill. Each needs support to pass and so the people who introduce it gather support by giving kick backs, such as funding for a new bridge in a senators home state. Then when they think it has enough support for it they vote on it. Most politician accept there will be these additions but in bills after September 11[,] congressmen knew if they gave money to the troops or the war it would get passed instantly. Those who actually cared about the fiscal policy of the U.S., didn’t approve the 80 billion dollar bills, where only half the money went to the troops [what is the last half of this paragraph talking about? I'm, honestly, very confused. It sounds like you are talking about a specific bill. If that is the case, you can mention it. This whole paragraph's overly conversational tone partly contributes to its complete lack of coherence].

Another way Bush beat Kerry was by then getting the Hispanic vote up. According to the past election in 2000, Bush had about 35% of the Hispanic vote, which made up 12% of the 2004 [2000?] election. In 2004 he was able to bring that up to 45%, successfully diminishing the once democratic strong hold. He gained this vote through many controversial policies including support of bilingual education, the right of alien children to receive public education, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the right of survivor benefits in social security for legal aliens. These actions gave Bush a 2.4% edge in the general ballot, and he won by 3.1%[,] so this was crucial in states like Florida.

Some of you are probably thinking[, "] did the enormous amount of spending of one candidate influence any sway voters.[?"] The answer is no, because each candidate spent over 300 million dollars[,] each they both got there messages out relatively equally. In economics[,] we learn about the law of diminishing return, which applied to this example means the difference between a few million dollars would only change a nominal amount of voters [what? I have no idea what this sentence means]. Thus, a candidate spending an extra couple million would not have a big difference in the outcome of the election [but they did spend the same amount, at least according to what you said at the beginning of the paragraph]. Therefore, the amount of money in the election was insignificant in the choice of the voter.

We as a society need to learn how to look pass [past] obvious propaganda, and vote on actual issues instead of moral standards. The constitution is interpreted in the Supreme Court, therefore presidents should be voted for on economic, educational, and social issues [What does this have to do with the previous sentence?]. Based on his performance as president in his first term[,] President Bush never should have been re-elected, but his strategy convinced the public. [This conclusion is faulty because you haven't been critiquing Bush's first term. Instead, you've been discussing how he won. If you want to make this claim, you need to establish that he is not qualified to be president]


Works Cited

"Poll: America's Cultural Divide." 22 Nov. 2004. CBS News. 17 Oct. 2005


Morris, Dick. "The Hispanic Vote Elects Bush ." 5 Nov. 2004. News Max. 17 Oct. 2005



Bush successfully won the election by first playing the religious card. From the beginning[,] Bush stood by his stance that the government will not fund abortions. According to a poll of voters, 21% think that abortion should be banned. This, therefore, delivered many voters to Bush with little downside. He also organized the evangelical Christians with his stance on gay marriages. A poll of Bush voters revealed only 8% believe gays should marry, while out of all voters 21% think it should be legal. This great disparity showed what a huge factor morals were in whom people voted for. To show how important these moral issues were, the same poll used above revealed 24% of voters listed this as its most important issue when they voted.

After guaranteeing the religious vote, he had to use propaganda to portray Kerry in a bad sense. Using the techniques of “Argumentum ad nauseum”, or saying something over and over until the public thinks its true, and appealing to fear with the motto “stay the course” with the war on terror. He tried to say all these bad things would happen if Kerry got in and pulled out of Iraq [such as? this is a very vague statement]. He also used the technique of stereotyping[,] by setting Kerry up as a “flip-flopper” on decisions. Yes you’ve all seen these types of ads for most elections. This person does not support the troops because he didn't approve funds necessary for there [their; their indicates possesion, there indicates a direction] equipment. Kerry, not knowing the public can be easily misled, told America in the debates he did vote for other bills on these certain issues [I'm confused, what is this sentence about?]. Then the ads came out that you need someone decisive as president not someone who will just change his mind from day to day. You are probably saying yeah that’s right. No, if people knew about politics for practically every issue there are at least two bills, a republican and a democrat’s bill. Each needs support to pass and so the people who introduce it gather support by giving kick backs, such as funding for a new bridge in a senators home state. Then when they think it has enough support for it they vote on it. Most politician accept there will be these additions but in bills after September 11[,] congressmen knew if they gave money to the troops or the war it would get passed instantly. Those who actually cared about the fiscal policy of the U.S., didn’t approve the 80 billion dollar bills, where only half the money went to the troops [what is the last half of this paragraph talking about? I'm, honestly, very confused. It sounds like you are talking about a specific bill. If that is the case, you can mention it. This whole paragraph's overly conversational tone partly contributes to its complete lack of coherence].

Another way Bush beat Kerry was by then getting the Hispanic vote up. According to the past election in 2000, Bush had about 35% of the Hispanic vote, which made up 12% of the 2004 [2000?] election. In 2004 he was able to bring that up to 45%, successfully diminishing the once democratic strong hold. He gained this vote through many controversial policies including support of bilingual education, the right of alien children to receive public education, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the right of survivor benefits in social security for legal aliens. These actions gave Bush a 2.4% edge in the general ballot, and he won by 3.1%[,] so this was crucial in states like Florida.

Some of you are probably thinking[, "] did the enormous amount of spending of one candidate influence any sway voters.[?"] The answer is no, because each candidate spent over 300 million dollars[,] each they both got there messages out relatively equally. In economics[,] we learn about the law of diminishing return, which applied to this example means the difference between a few million dollars would only change a nominal amount of voters [what? I have no idea what this sentence means]. Thus, a candidate spending an extra couple million would not have a big difference in the outcome of the election [but they did spend the same amount, at least according to what you said at the beginning of the paragraph]. Therefore, the amount of money in the election was insignificant in the choice of the voter.

We as a society need to learn how to look pass [past] obvious propaganda, and vote on actual issues instead of moral standards. The constitution is interpreted in the Supreme Court, therefore presidents should be voted for on economic, educational, and social issues [What does this have to do with the previous sentence?]. Based on his performance as president in his first term[,] President Bush never should have been re-elected, but his strategy convinced the public. [This conclusion is faulty because you haven't been critiquing Bush's first term. Instead, you've been discussing how he won. If you want to make this claim, you need to establish that he is not qualified to be president]

Works Cited

"Poll: America's Cultural Divide." 22 Nov. 2004. CBS News. 17 Oct. 2005


Morris, Dick. "The Hispanic Vote Elects Bush ." 5 Nov. 2004. News Max. 17 Oct. 2005