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.
Assuming any of this data is accurate, of course.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But it does cast doubt on the notion that it was the evangelical turnout that made the difference.
Dagonee
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
That's very interesting, Dag. Thanks for the reference.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
So why did the moderates support the more radical of the two candidates?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It depends on what you're defining as radical. It also depends on the message put out by each candidate.
Dagonee
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I depends on what you mean by "moderates," too.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
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"?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: So why did the moderates support the more radical of the two candidates?
The moderates disagree with that, apparently.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: the percentage of voters who attend church every week also stayed exactly the same -- 42 percent.
That's huge, what a huge percentage! Is that the whole of America?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
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.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
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.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
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.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
It seems to me that alot of democrats are much sorer losers than their leaders.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Hmmm. You do realize, don't you, that it is the constituency who really has to live with the outcome, not the political leaders?
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
You do realize, of course, that it was the constituency itself that picked the leader?
Posted by Heffaji (Member # 3669) on :
However, the part of the constituency doing the "whining" didn't vote for the current leader.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Can't we all get along?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I skipped the whining and went straight to the whimpering. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
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!
BC
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
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.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
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.
BC
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Of course, only people who either hate or feel distaste for gay people are in any way opposed to gay "marriage."
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
why do you feel the need to put marriage in quotation marks?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
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.
BC
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps, but its not particularly good counter-evidence, which is what you were suggesting . A deciding evangelical vote is not contradicted by this data.
[ November 06, 2004, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
[ November 06, 2004, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
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 ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
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.
[ November 06, 2004, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You didn't say cast doubt, you said:
quote:The gut reaction people are having in about the outcome is contradicted by data in many ways.
And I never used the phrase "cast doubt" Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But it does cast doubt on the notion that it was the evangelical turnout that made the difference.
Dagonee
Subsequent amendment to initial declaration, your Honor.
[ November 06, 2004, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Fine
*pies subsequent amendment*
There, I feel much better now.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Bush won.
Straight up.
He is the American choice.
I personally believe he won because 2 of these 3 issues ruled most on peoples minds and hearts...
#1 Abortion - America's most passionate subject.
#2 Homosexuals - way to go guys.
#3 Terrorism - "Hello, I'm Osama."
These 3 catagories won Bush the most millions of votes, or lost Kerry the tons of votes.
The Democratic Party lost MILLIONS of Votes by being the Gay Rights Party.
Taking Bill Clinton out of the Party is like taking Shaq off the Lakers.
The Democrats lost, and this time, it's hard to argue that they deserved to win.
Bush won with a C-.
That's flying colors in today's u s of a.
<T>
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
'Your'? Do you live in the U.S., D.H.?
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
*points to profile*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I'm afraid we live on two different planets, then.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
K.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"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. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But if Kerry had won, that would be fair?
Or do you just want to divide up the country?
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
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.
-Bok
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
You don't get such overwhelming super majorities voting against gay people without a bipartisan effort of bigotry.
Or if you want it without the loaded language "The vote was so big the anti-gay marriage vote had to come from both parties."
AR 75% GA 76% KY 75% MI 59% MS 89% MT 67% ND 73% OH 62% OK 76% OR 57% UT 66%
Do you think that that is anywhere near the percentage of Republicans in those states? If so, the democratic party is doomed, particularly in Ohio, Michigan, Oregon, and Arkansas. Those states were either swing or blue this year.
As for why Kerry lost, I'm ashamed to say it but I have to agree with Thor. There were more issues than just the gay issue. I think Security Moms were a big block that moved Red. There was speculation before the election that the Jewish and Black votes would be a little less blue. I think that turned out that way but I don't have a link.
And I think Kerry was just downright awful. Doubts were raised over the only thing that he said qualified him, his 4 months in viet nam. You can't underestimate the blow the Swifties did to that man. Plus he was a zombie. I kept expecting him to promise to eat our brains.
You guys shoulda gone with Howard Scream. He was a one-eye-bigger-than-the-other nutter, but at least he had a personality. Though I'm sure he had skeletons in his closet we never got to find out about.
(edit: added link)
[ November 08, 2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I agree that Kerry was not the best candidate the Dems could have fielded, though neither do I think it was Dean. I think Graham would have made an EXCELLENT candidate, as would have Clarke, had he had any political experience. I still hope Wesley Clarke runs for something somewhere so that he can stay in politics.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:John Kerry was not defeated by the religious right. He was beaten by moderates who went -- reluctantly in many cases -- for President Bush. This will be hard for many Democrats to take. It's easier to salve those wounds by demonizing religious conservatives. But in the 2004 election, Democrats left votes on the table that could have created a Kerry majority.
Consider these findings from the network exit polls: About 38 percent of those who thought abortion should be legal in most cases went to Bush. Bush got 22 percent from voters who favored gay marriage and 52 percent among those who favor civil unions. Bush even managed 16 percent among voters who thought the president paid more attention to the interests of large corporations than to those of "ordinary Americans." A third of the voters who favored a government more active in solving problems went to Bush.
True, 22 percent of the voters said that "moral values" were decisive in their choices. But 71 percent picked some other issue. All this means that Bush won not because there is a right-wing majority in the United States but because the president persuaded just enough of the nonconservative majority to go his way. Even with their increased numbers, conservatives still constitute only 34 percent of the electorate. The largest share of the American electorate (45 percent) calls itself moderate. The moderates went 54 to 45 percent for Kerry, good but not enough. And 21 percent of this year's voters -- bless them -- called themselves liberal.
There might have been a big turnout for the Republicans, but the 10% of 2000 Gore voters who switched to Bush made a huge difference.
Storm, I don't doubt what you're saying. But I've seen too many "liberal" memes sweep through the country to doubt that there's something similar on the left. For example, Estrada was called "too conservative" by people who didn't know his record at all. The retelling of the Willy Horton and supermarket scanner stories from Bush I are two very clear examples. Similarly, the "Bush is stupid" or "Bush is fighting for oil" memes got propgated pretty well.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Thanks for that map, Storm.
I find it interesting that there are some states that look very red in that map, but none that look very blue.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I had a thread somewhere about why I thought moderates is a misused term. I think that this thread fits in with that.
I don't have access to any polling data or any other reliable evidence, so what follows is just my completely unsubstantiated opinion.
It's a common mistake to assume that other people see the world the same way we do. In this case, people who are deeply invested in a specific political viwe (liberal---moderate---conservative) seem to me to be improperly assigning this way of think to pretty much everyone who voted.
There is a large section of the populace who don't approach elections or other things political with this as their primary concern. In some cases, their beliefs span this scale or are outside its scope entirely.
The view of competing ideologies works in many cases, but it ingores the fact that people are voting on two specific people and two specific campaigns. However, instead of address this aspect, people have twisted the terms so that they sound sort of like they are talking about it. Libeal has taken on meaning supports democrats (or a specific democrat) and attacks republicans. Vice versa with conservative. And thus a moderate could be someone who either dislikes both or likes parts of both.
That's absurd. It's a huge mistake to tie ideology to specific csaes, especially for people whose primary viewpoint is not ideologically based. In this election, it's clear that there were ideological (e.g. gay marriage or abortion) and party identification aspects, but some of the biggest concerns such as the economy, the response to terrorism, or the war in Iraq were much more ad hoc issues centered around questions of application, not ideology. John Kerry did not get these votes because these people felt that, regardless of his ideology, he wouldn't do a better job on these things that George Bush.
Also, the actual campaign seems to be an ignored factor here. Granted, the focus on both sides seems to have been on energizing their bases, but the campaign did affect people who don't belong to either base. The Republican PR machine and campaign strategists seemed to me to be better than the Democratic ones. Most of the time, it seemed like the Republicans controlled the strategic public perception ground during this campaign. That's quite an accomplishment for an incumbent candidate who is a pretty poor public speaker and is unable to run on his record.
---
I'm troubled by what looks to me to be attempts by both sides to use bare majorities to fight their political battles. The democratic cry after this and the 2000 election suggests to me that they are locked in a strategy of contending their base against the republicans base. George Bush and the republican's response to winning these elections carries, to me, an air of "We've got a bare majority voting for us, so we can do whatever we want." Tyranny of the majority, no matter which majority it is, is a bad thing.
The democrats need to realize that, if they are locked in a "culture war" with the republicans, it's because they are largely only drawing on their maybe 25 percent of the population to fight the 28 or so percent that the republicans have. If they provided someone or something to realisticly believe in, or just did a better job shaping the public discourse, it would be a much different ballgame.
The republicans need to realize that the power to do something does not mean that this thing should be done. Most of the Kerry votes in this election were "not Bush" votes. This should be troubling for any sincere leader of the people and for those who support him. I don't actually have any solutions to offer here, but a recognition that a large section of the popluation really doesn't agree with the way you've been conducting things would be nice. Legally, you're not forced to listen to these peopel because you have somewhat more people voting for you, but I think it is the responsible thing to do (and I acknowledge that many of what these people have to say is pretty much "Hey Bush, you suck!")
---
Man, it's difficult being an anarchist in theory and an anti-populist in practicality. I'm torn between advocating actual liberalism and thinking that the American public needs someone to keep an eye on them so that they don't hurt themselves.
[ November 09, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Storm, If you really believe that the conservative news sources are significantly worse, the logical thing to do is to focus on the principles of what the right stuff should be, and not on the sources themselves. Given a reasonable set of standards, people aren't in large part going to fight you if you stand up for these standards and make them the focus on public discourse on it. Getting people to commit to what the right thing to do in theory makes it a lot easier to get them to admit or do something about it in reality, even when it is done by people they support. If you can say "Look, they are clearly violating this principle that we all agreed is a necessary part of responsible journalism." and stay focused on that instead of being drawn into other arguments, the apologist's only recourse is to deny that they are actually doing these things.
It's still not an easy path, but it has a lot better chance of success than attacking irresponsible partisan broadcasting directly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Massachusetts looks pretty blue in the map.
Utah is the reddest state out there.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Some 42 percent of voters said that the issue of abortion affected the way they voted in last week's election.
Those voters favored pro-life candidates by nearly a two-one margin with 25 percent of all voters saying they voted for pro-life candidates who oppose abortion and only 13 percent of all voters saying they backed candidates that favor abortion.
This is yet another look at the reason for the election outcome. Evidence suggests that even if the majority of Americans aren't pro-life (and there is evidence to suggest that, in fact, most of America is pro-life and the margin is increasing) certainly pro-life Americans are more likely to vote their conscience on the issue than are pro-choice.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I find it interesting that there are some states that look very red in that map, but none that look very blue.
What do you find interesting about it, Mr. Single Line Poster?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. There were clearly two lines in that post.
More liberal misrepresentation. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The moderates went 54 to 45 percent for Kerry, good but not enough.
What does this say about who the more moderate candidate is?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Storm, If you really believe that the conservative news sources are significantly worse, the logical thing to do is to focus on the principles of what the right stuff should be, and not on the sources themselves. Given a reasonable set of standards, people aren't in large part going to fight you if you stand up for these standards and make them the focus on public discourse on it. Getting people to commit to what the right thing to do in theory makes it a lot easier to get them to admit or do something about it in reality, even when it is done by people they support. If you can say "Look, they are clearly violating this principle that we all agreed is a necessary part of responsible journalism." and stay focused on that instead of being drawn into other arguments, the apologist's only recourse is to deny that they are actually doing these things.
It's still not an easy path, but it has a lot better chance of success than attacking irresponsible partisan broadcasting directly.
Bullpoo-poo. That trick doesn't work because what is and isn't 'reasonable' only works if the people you're talking to are willing to be 'reasonable' and if they think you are 'reasonable'. Given my experience on these and other forums, these things can happen, but it is extremely rare. Reasonable people are born, not converted and made that way.
You and the other idealists are going to stand up and say 'He's a partisan hack!' and people are going to look at you and say, yes, but isn't what they are saying 'true', and then you get sucked into trying to prove that what they're saying isn't true from what will probably be the 'main stream media', which automatically means you're screwed because everyone knows the main stream media lies, etc., and assumes the person you're talking to is open to listening to what you have to say anyway.
Negative advertising and smear work. I've run across a couple articles in the last few days that talked about how, of those campaigns that used negative attack ads, most of those candidates got elected. The question liberals should be asking themselves isn't how they can prove that the other side are partisan, but how they can color the other side as extremist wife beating child molestors, isn't it?
*****************************************
Dagonee, focusing on 'values', how is Kerry significantly different from Gore? Show me how Kerry is more liberal than Gore or, for that matter, Clinton. After all, if the argument is that so-called moderate Dems get votes, then both of those candidates should be more moderate than Kerry. Show me that it really is reality and not just perception.
[ November 09, 2004, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. There were clearly two lines in that post.
More liberal misrepresentation.
Caught red handed.
mph, I want to hear what you have to say. I don't mind if sometimes someone posts single line/minimal replies in threads, but you seem to do it so much, it's become irritating to me for some reason. Not specifically sure why.
[ November 09, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And Destineer, that's a good point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, focusing on 'values', how is Kerry significantly different from Gore? Show me how Kerry is more liberal than Gore or, for that matter, Clinton. After all, if the argument is that so-called moderate Dems get votes, then both of those candidates should be more moderate than Kerry. Show me that it really is reality and not just perception.
Or Bush is perceived as more moderate than Dole and Bush I were at the time. The argument isn't that more moderate Dems get votes, it's that moderates preferred Bush to Kerry. Or, to put it another way, that the issues on which Bush is moderate were more important than the issues on which Kerry was moderate.
There's too many issues different between Clinton, Kerry, Bush I, Dole, and Bush II to possibly create a linear ranking of "moderateness."
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, what's really funny is that Herbie (George Herbert Walker Bush) was oodles more moderate than this Bush.
(edit to qualify as I know Dagonee will like it: in most areas)
[ November 09, 2004, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Or Bush is perceived as more moderate than Dole and Bush I were at the time. The argument isn't that more moderate Dems get votes, it's that moderates preferred Bush to Kerry. Or, to put it another way, that the issues on which Bush is moderate were more important than the issues on which Kerry was moderate.
There's too many issues different between Clinton, Kerry, Bush I, Dole, and Bush II to possibly create a linear ranking of "moderateness."
Then, is moderate something that can be defined well enough to even use in discussion, much less polls, much less by a political party? It's kind of like being wealthy, I suspect. I've known people with mansions who regularly took vacations in Europe who would never describe themselves as wealthy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm assuming the polls let people self-identify.
I don't think it's a particularly useful word.
I'm nowhere near the "compromise" solution on most issues, but some of them are the solution from one side of the political divide and some are from the other. If they were evenly balanced, would that make me moderate?
![[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)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)