quote:Ten million more voters went to the polls this year than in 2000, but the percentage of young people 18 to 29 who voted stayed exactly the same, at 17 percent, and the much-ballyhooed "cell phone" vote never materialized. On the other hand, the percentage of voters who attend church every week also stayed exactly the same -- 42 percent.
So if the election cannot be explained by a massive upsurge in evangelical voters, what really happened? In this election, Bush received 3.5 percent more of the vote than he did in 2000. The exit polls show this movement to be almost entirely the result of changes in two disparate groups: Hispanics (who went from 35 percent for Bush in 2000 to 44 percent this year -- enough to move the entire popular vote 1 percentage point) and white women (who went 49 percent for Bush in 2000 and 55 percent this year -- enough to move the popular vote 2.5 percentage points). It appears that the bulk of the movement in the white women's vote was among married women, particularly those with kids, who may have gone as high as 2 to 1 for Bush. (Emphasis added.)
The whole article is interesting, but I think this section underscores some very important points. The gut reaction people are having in about the outcome is contradicted by data in many ways.
posted
A couple of things... Firstly, church-going voters and evangelicals are two different things. It's possible a higher percentage of the total church-going voters were evangelicals this year.
Secondly, this data just contradicts the notion that there were more church-going voters than usual. But it doesn't change the data suggesting that voters were choosing more based on "values" than previously. It's possible that simply more religious voters voted based on their religion than normal. I've heard first-hand accounts about Catholic priests telling their congregation who they must vote for, so this wouldn't surprise me.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It depends on what you're defining as radical. It also depends on the message put out by each candidate.
Yeah, I see what you're saying, but come on. What's so radical about a little health care, a slight reduction in the zeal with which we start wars, and "kill the terrorists"?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: So why did the moderates support the more radical of the two candidates?
You still don't get it. It's statements like that which make moderates perceive you as a sore loser and further alienate them from you.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've heard first-hand accounts about Catholic priests telling their congregation who they must vote for, so this wouldn't surprise me.
Though the democrats have reverends (ie: Jackson and Sharpton) telling people to vote democrat and have for years and clinton has always done quite a bit of campaigning in the churches.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi, that is the percentage of voters who attend a church, synagogue, or the equivalent at leaast once weekly. But the figure indeed is roughly equivalent to many major studies -- I have seen anywhere from 35-45% quoted.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
November 6, 2004 -- Former President Bill Clinton, in his first comments on President Bush's re-election, yesterday urged Democrats not to "whine" about the outcome, but to find a "clear national message." Clinton also said that Democrat John Kerry was hurt by the polarizing issue of gay marriage, which was legalized by Massachusetts' top court and put on the ballot in 11 states, and the surfacing of a tape from Osama bin Laden in the final days of the race.
Reminded of terrorism by the bin Laden tape, voters decided they didn't want to "change horses" during a time of heightened concern over national security, Clinton said in a speech to the Urban Land Institute at the New York Hilton.
Clinton said Hispanic voters tilted to Bush because of terrorism fears, as did suburban "soccer moms," who Clinton said turned into "the security moms of 2004."
He also said that while Democrats registered more new voters than Republicans, the Bush campaign did a better job of getting voters to the polls who were already registered but had not previously voted.
Despite the GOP victory, the former president — whose wife Hillary is already being mentioned as the top contender for the White House in 2008 — said Democrats "shouldn't be all that discouraged" by Kerry's defeat.
Clinton said it would be "a mistake for our party to sit around and . . . whine about this and that or the other thing."
Clinton attributed Kerry's loss to the Democrats' failure to combat how they were portrayed by Republicans to small-town America.
"If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and family, doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault," he said.
I hope Democrats pay attention. Whatever else one says about Clinton (and there's a lot), he's probably the shrewdest political analyst the Democrats have right now.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. You do realize, don't you, that it is the constituency who really has to live with the outcome, not the political leaders?
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Dagonee, that's perfectly consonant with the evangelical right deciding the election. First: we know that turnout was up in almost all areas. Assuming relatively similar increases in voter turnout across demographics (which is born out to some extent by the numbers), its perfectly reasonable that the percentage of churchgoers remained the same. However, evangelical christians vote republican at a far higher rate than non-churchgoers vote democratic, I rather suspect (afaik, evangelical christians vote republican in two party elections at a higher rate than any other demographic votes anything). Thus equal increases in turnout among evangelical christians and non-churchgoers will result in a net vote advantage for the republican candidate.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well it looks as if the Gay thing had little impact, though if the Democrats become the 'Gay Rights' party I would look for them to lose more and more of the Black and Hispanic Vote. Hispanics and Blacks tend to be even more Macho then we white males.
It is funny to think that the law in Kerry's own state set the groundwork for his defeat, starting the marriage issue. Then Kerry's own words and record after coming home from Viet Nam and on the Senate floor awakened concern about his commitment to National Security.
First man to be hoisted on two of his own petards at the same time!
quote:Well it looks as if the Gay thing had little impact, though if the Democrats become the 'Gay Rights' party I would look for them to lose more and more of the Black and Hispanic Vote. Hispanics and Blacks tend to be even more Macho then we white males.
Of course, only macho males are in any way opposed to gay "marriage". That's all it is, a macho thing. Silly of me to ever think otherwise.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Few people hate gays, many many feel mild distaste. Macho males are more likely too, yes. This was not a vote of loathing, but one of irritation. An itch that called for attention and got scratched.
Of course, only people who either hate or feel distaste for gay people are in any way opposed to gay "marriage."
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Salesman are taught that 90% of all decisions are emotion based. If you are asking if I think a significant fraction worked out their decision by Boolean Logic, I can only say I guess it is possible. I doubt it though.
quote:Actually, Dagonee, that's perfectly consonant with the evangelical right deciding the election. First: we know that turnout was up in almost all areas. Assuming relatively similar increases in voter turnout across demographics (which is born out to some extent by the numbers), its perfectly reasonable that the percentage of churchgoers remained the same. However, evangelical christians vote republican at a far higher rate than non-churchgoers vote democratic, I rather suspect (afaik, evangelical christians vote republican in two party elections at a higher rate than any other demographic votes anything). Thus equal increases in turnout among evangelical christians and non-churchgoers will result in a net vote advantage for the republican candidate.
It's also perfectly consistent with the Hispanic vote being decisive, or the white female vote being decisive. Remember, both of these swung heavily from Gore in 2000 towards Bush.
posted
Perhaps, but its not particularly good counter-evidence, which is what you were suggesting . A deciding evangelical vote is not contradicted by this data.
posted
Maybe I'm just being lawyerly, but providing evidence of an alternative theory does "cast doubt" on the theory that it was the evengelicals that made the difference.
posted
And here I feel idiotic and school-marmish, but BC -- I really appreciated your level-headedness here. (Like you needed a daily affirmation from me. ) But though we are holding different views on the topic, I was really interested to see your imput from your perspective. Thanks for saying it in a way I could hear.
( )
[ November 06, 2004, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
An even simpler -- and therefore stronger under Occam'sRazor -- "theory" would be that the voting machines were tampered with since results strongly disagreed with exit polls
Of course, one might be better off calling tossing BS in the air tossing BS in the air instead of mislabeling it as a theory.
quote:why do you feel the need to put marriage in quotation marks?
Why, I thought that would be obvious. I do not feel that the word "marriage" is appropriate to describe the type of union that homosexuals want to see recognized as such. I use the word only for clarity and brevity's sake, but I put in quotation marks because I think that "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms. Simple enough.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ignoring many other points that could be made about that article, let me focus in on one thing. You know, if enough people say something, and keep on repeating it, it soon becomes the truth. I don't think Kerry and the Dems are 'extremists' or out of touch with the majority electorate. The only issue around which I concede Kerry might have a problem with majority values on issues would be his stance on civil unions for gay people, but in the polls I've seen around *unions*, I seem to recall a fairly significant majority being for them. What other stance did Kerry take which was really that radicle compared to Bush? Abortion? Look at the numbers of people in support of total choice (Kerry) versus the numbers of people in support of total ban on abortion (Bush), and they are equal in how radical they are in terms of percentage of people in the populace who support their opinion.
No, to me, the reason Kerry and the Dems are sucking wind is because of partisan conservative media. I would be willing to bet that the listeners to conservative talk radio in Ohio and the rest of the country has risen by at least a few percentage points in the last few years.
And you think the 'liberal' media compensates? Don't make me laugh, o.k.. A half hour to an hour news program that covers the whole world with a liberal bias is a totally differnet animal than totally partisan conservative media whose *sole goal* is to demonize liberals and Democrats and promote conservatives and Republicans, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And when I speak of conservative media, I'm not talking about FOX. I'm talking about publications like the Rhino Times, writers like OSC, and talk radio.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: totally partisan conservative media whose *sole goal* is to demonize liberals and Democrats
Please. This is not a disease of conservatives, it's a collective neurosis shared by your entire country, conservative and liberal alike. Each side revels in demonizing the other beyond recognition, and virtually all dialogue shuts down. It's really quite annoying sometimes.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the general people on both sides of the political spectrum bitch about the other side equally, I disagree that *the media* on each side digs into each other in a qualitatively and quantitatively equal fashion. As soon as Kerry won the Democratic primary, the conservative spin media started pushing the idea that he was 'an extremist' or 'an extreme liberal'. This is basically the same song and dance they've done for every election for the last thirty years. Was there a liberal spin media at work on Bush to paint him as a war monger and anti-middle class? Sure. However, the liberal spin media that focuses entirely on discrediting conservatives and Republicans in an equatably thorough fashion is *not* represented by the 'mainstream' media. You would have to go and buy an Al Franken or Michael Moore book to get the liberal form of conservative spin.
Let me give a particular example. When Miguel Estrada was nominated for the S.C., Democrats filibustered because they were pretty sure he was 'too' conservative. The spin that the conservative spin media put out 24/7 was that Dems were doing this because he was Hispanic and, thus, the Dems were racist. What were the channels that the Dems could use to not only effectly answer this to a large number of people but put forth their own agenda and concerns within the public mind--to perhaps shift the debate to something else? The Dems did not, and even with Air America, still basically do not, have an equivalent way of combating conservative spin and putting forth their own spin.
Another problem is that Conservative methods and ideology are easilly understood and grasped. This makes these ideas easy to sell. Liberal ideas are often not so easilly understood and so harder to sell. For instance, it seems obvious that to beat crime, you just jail more criminals. To create wealth, you just lower the taxes on the wealthy, the source of wealth, and because the source of wealth is less inhibited, everyone benefits. To defeat terrorism, you kill the terrorists. These are all pretty much conservative positions. No elaboration on these points is really needed to get the idea across. Plus, the ideas themselves have built in aspects to them that lend themselves to spin because for someone to argue with those ideas, it's easy to paint them as being 'pro-terrorism' or 'soft on crime' or 'communist', and conservatives, as a rule, are for some reason much more open to the idea of using certain catch phrases over and over and over again. I rarely see liberals using the same talking point words and phrases like, say, 'extremist' and 'out of touch' and 'flip flopper'. Immediately after Kerry was nominated, conservatives in general, and specifically conservative media, started using these phrases over and over and over again. Coordiinated use of propaganda. Repeat something long enough and it becomes the truth.
Am I saying liberal spin media doesn't do the same thing? No. Obviously, they do. 'Bush is a liar', 'tax cuts for the rich', etc. However, again, liberal spin media does not really have a pervasive voice as the conservative spin media does.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me give a particular example. When Miguel Estrada was nominated for the S.C., Democrats filibustered because they were pretty sure he was 'too' conservative. The spin that the conservative spin media put out 24/7 was that Dems were doing this because he was Hispanic and, thus, the Dems were racist. What were the channels that the Dems could use to not only effectly answer this to a large number of people but put forth their own agenda and concerns within the public mind--to perhaps shift the debate to something else? The Dems did not, and even with Air America, still basically do not, have an equivalent way of combating conservative spin and putting forth their own spin.
This is a significant rewriting of what actually happened, Storm. Democrats did oppose Estrada because he was Hispanic. Not because they dislike Hispanics, but because they thought that they couldn't successfully oppose a Hispanic Circuit Court judge if he were to be nominated to the Supreme Court. He is not as "conservative" as at least two judges that went straight through.
Now, why did they care about the ease with which he would be appointed to the Supreme Court? Because he was "too conservative" for them to tolerate in the Supreme Court. So both reasons are true. Had he been less conservative, he would not have been opposed. Had he been white, he would not have been opposed.
I heard this distinction made several times. Outside the op-ed pages, I never saw a column that presented the entire issue. I think this was due to sloppiness and desire for a "clear" story, but the actual complaints of both sides were never aired at all.
I heard explanations on two "conservative" shows - O'Reilly's radio show, and one other I can't remember. Both explained it pretty much as I have. I have no idea what Rush was saying about the issue, but it's clear just from posts I've seen made by others on this board that the mainstream press utterly failed in presenting this issue.
And don't get me started on the Democrat's insistence on seeing attorney work product during the nomination by Democrats. Every living Solicitor General opposed that move, and for very good reasons.
posted
"I'm afraid we live on two different planets, then."
It doesn't seem fair that people on my planet have to share presidents with the people on your planet. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I largely agree with Storm's analysis, a far as it goes.
The conservative media has a huge following, and they are unapolegetically biased, in large part to counterbalance the perceived biased in the liberal media. The reality is, even if NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN are all liberally biased, they don't, for the most part, actively push forward this bias. That is left to people like Michael Moore, Al Franken, who have a much smaller participating audience than the millions that conservative radio gets, for instance. The CNNs and CBSes of the world, though occassionally letting liberal bias seep through (and on a rare occassion pull a Dan Rather), mostly just report the news as is.
There is an article in Reason this month (not online yet), that notes this over-compensation.
posted
Dagonee, though I do not know if it is accurate, your explanation makes sense. I can only tell you that that, unless I misremember, the 'full' explanation was not given on any of the conservative radio shows I listened to, and the spin was that the Dems were racists.
Another example. As I was driving into work this morning, Boortz had Dick Morris on. For a good solid half an hour, the discussion was about how the Clintons were vorpal, political snakes, how they were conniving political animals, in a loveless marriage. Morris called Hillary a 'far left wing socialist' once.
This kind of talk has been going on for a while and is far, far in advance of 2008. Wonder how people are going to view Hillary if she decides to run in 2008? You don't find that kind of concerted political gossip and innuendo in the so-called 'main stream media'. A term, by the way, which is pretty fuzzy and non-descriptive.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) But though we are holding different views on the topic, I was really interested to see your imput from your perspective. Thanks for saying it in a way I could hear.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
