Ray Malone's Commentary

Nearly every study I have seen shows this election was decided by the moderates.. sometimes called swing voters. They decided to vote for Democrats because they proposed Change in Iraq..

History shows that 90 percent of national elections are decided by the following:

When the nation is at peace and prosperous the moderate voters vote for NO Change. They don't want new government programs and they don't want any changes in foreign policy. When things are good.. they want the people they elect to do NOTHING.

When the economy is poor or the nation is in a long war they want change. When the economy is bad or perceived to be bad, the voters will vote for the candidate that presents a fix for the economy. If no candidate proposes a concrete fix for the economy they will vote for the candidate who simply proposes change. If one candidate proposes a detailed fix and the other only proposes change the one proposing a detailed fix will win... Even voters who disagree with the proposed detailed fix will vote for the Candidate with the fix over the candidate who proposes change.

If the nation is in a long war they will vote for the candidate with a detailed plan for victory. If no candidate has a plan for detailed victory they vote for the candidate who proposes 'Change'.

The Bush administration countered charges of we are losing the war in Iraq with "Stay the Course". That was in answer to the Democrats "Cut and Run". The Democrats figured out that Stay the Source would beat Cut and Run so in the final weeks of the campaign they changed their campaign to just proposing Change . The Bush administration countered by appointing a committee to study what to do and report after the election.

In other words the Bush administration did nothing concrete about presenting a plan to win the war.

In essence Bush presented no change against change. The other factor was the price of gasoline. Many voters saw that as Bush and his oil buddies taking down the price of gasoline for the election and many believed he would let the raise the prices after the election. The Bush administration did nothing to counter this perception.

If Bush had demanded that Democrats present their new "Changed" plan for victory, and offered to implement it about 2 months before the election... the Democrats would have been revealed as having no plan at all. Murtha would have called for "CUT AND RUN" and Blue Dog Democrats would have called for "STAY THE COURSE". Bush could have called for "IMPRISON the MILITIAS" to make peace in Iraq and Republicans would have won the election.

Just like in 1992... when Bush 41 answered the critics who said he did not care about those out of work, by saying he cared while Clinton claimed to have a plan to fix the economy. However Clinton never presented his plan. Need I remind you that Clinton won.

Bush 41 in essence said "stay the course" on the 1992 economy and Clinton said he had a plan to fix it. Clinton won. In 2006 Bush 43 said stay the course in Iraq and the Democrats said they had a plan... and the Democrats won.

Why is that so hard to understand?

I will say it again. Nearly All elections are decided by moderates and swing voters. When things are good Moderates want nothing changed. When things are bad they want it fixed.

Winning elections is as easy as knowing when to propose fixes and when to propose doing nothing at all.

I remember reading a few years ago that in 1984 Reagan often told conservative audiences that his favorite president was Calvin Coolidge. But back in 1980 he told liberal audiences his hero was FDR. I read a historian who said in 1924 the economy was great and we were at peace. The voters wanted nothing done and nothing changed ... The historian claimed voters believed that Coolidge did nothing better than anyone. In 1984 we were at peace and the economy was good. It was time to admire Coolidge. But in 1980 the economy was bad and Iran had our hostages. It was time for change and to admire FDR.

Reagan in 1980 he stole the traditional Democrat domestic and foreign policy.. which was tax cuts and spending to spur the economy and a strong military to win the cold war. Reagan chose concrete plans to fix both the economy and foreign policy. Voters had for 50 years supported both of those plans for fixing the nation in times of danger and bad economy.

The interesting thing was that studies of voters after the 1980 election showed that many people who disagreed with Reagan on one or both of his foreign and domestic policies still voted for him. They did so because he was the only candidate proposing defined fixes for the problems facing the nation. The conclusion was a stated fix beats no fix every time.

I would also remind everyone that the lesson of Vietnam was that in 1968 the Johnson record and Humphrey proposal was to stay the course. The McGovern plan in 1972 was cut and run. The Nixon plan in 1968 was change, and in 1972 Nixon did not propose stay the course. He proposed "Peace with Honor". Peace with Honor won 60.7 percent of the vote in 1972. McGovern was well under 40 percent. I will say it again. When times are good the moderate voters want NO CHANGE. When there are problems they want solutions. They never want surrender.

They say that it is very stupid to take on those who buy ink by the barrel and power by the kilowatts. But there is a new kid in the information business. And I would say that it is foolish to over look the power to shape public opinion of those who buy bandwidth by the megacycle. Two years from now the Internet will be a lot more powerful and we must see to it that the conservative message gets out in a form that will convince moderates. . We must see to it that the Main Stream Media's attempts to control public opinion fail.

One thing that may change the media's perception of how to survive is Glenn Beck on CNN Headline News. Beck got permission somehow to run a show on the dangers of Islam this week. That show that was aired at 7:00Pm, 9:00Pm and at midnight drew a bigger audience in its 7:00PM showing than any cable news channel. It beat the O'Reily audience at 9:00Pm. CNN Headline News has never ever beaten O'Reily. It has been years since any CNN show has come close.

Beck who had a hard time getting CNN to let him air the special, was fearful his boss who argued for letting him air the show, would be fired and his bosses replacement would fire him.

But with the show breaking all CNN records, he said the next day that his Boss stuck his head in Beck's office and asked.. "What is the title of your next special show?"

All of the CNN channels have been beaten by Fox. Fox is up for renewal contracts with cable systems. Fox is demanding more money from cable companies and Cable companies may demand that the CNN channels take a cut in pay. And Beck is the only show host to beat Foxes best. It was only one night... but he got ratings Larry King can only hope for. It is a good sign.

It is all about money. If it takes conservative shows to keep from going broke, they will remove their ideology and run Beck ..They will keep him on the air as long as he produces numbers. They will look for other show hosts with similar views who may get as good a numbers.

ABC and most of its Radio and TV people want to destroy Bush. But if Hannity can make the big bucks they will distribute his show and run it on their own stations.

The media wants power and money. Without money they will cease to exist. They will give up some of their power in order to get money to exist. We need to remember that.

The media won this last election. The media turned the moderate voters against the Bush administration. It left him in a terrible position. But Bush is a practical politician. He understands that this last election was the media against the Republican party. Them media won.. so like all politicians who suffer defeat he will try to give the victors what they want.

It should not be hard to figure out that the voters have sent Bush a lesson. That lesson is suck up to the media and do what they want done. If you thought you were sending a different message.. I would remind you that every message sent has nothing to do with what the sender thought he was sending. It has everything to do with what the receiver thought he got.

We have to find a way to reduce the power of the Media.