2
   

Results! Election night'04 ... your armchair expert analysis

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 09:32 am
Would a black lesbian be able to reflect your community values?

(Yes, it's a bait - sorry, couldnt help myself Razz)
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 09:37 am
nimh wrote:
Would a black lesbian be able to reflect your community values?

(Yes, it's a bait - sorry, couldnt help myself Razz)


Nope, I live in the Bible belt where homosexuals don't fit into the value system of the majority of voters.

I do not subscribe to that personally, believing homosexuals and blacks can be as capable in politics as heterosexual whites.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 09:56 am
I'm not so sure that everyone votes to reflect their values. It could be that they voted for her because she was the best person for the job. Isn't Texas in the bible belt.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 10:00 am
Bush has appointed openly gay people. Discrimination is receding. I think most Americans just think there should be a limit to acceptance.... Maybe in time, they'll let that go, as well.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 10:54 am
FreeDuck wrote:
I'm not so sure that everyone votes to reflect their values. It could be that they voted for her because she was the best person for the job. Isn't Texas in the bible belt.


Of course they did...in accordance with their value judgments.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 11:16 am
Nimh writes
Quote:
Whats your definition of mainstream? If the elctorate splits up in two halves of almost the same size (say, 48 out of 100 people on one side, 51 out of 100 people on the other), how can you say one is "mainstream" and the other is not?


My definition of mainstream are the people you go to church with, people you work with, people you live next door to, people you bump elbows with at the grocery store, people you swear at when stuck in traffice. They are doctors, lawyers, teachers, small business owners, construction workers, gardeners, shop clerks, and just about anything else you can think of across the spectrum of the nation. They are black, white, gay, straight, male, female, young, old, etc. etc. etc.

I watched a (HBO? can't remember) special recently in which the street reporter was interviewing a working prostitute. Was she registered to vote. Yes. Would she vote. Yes. Who would she vote for? Bush. Why?
"Because I'm not going to always going to be in this business."

To hear some on the left talk, the GOP is made up exclusively of greedy, under educated, ultra rich oppressive homophobic racist white men who are all religious fanatics.

I would like to see the demographics of the Bush supporters to compare with the sterotypes that are assigned to them by the Left. Nimh did give a break down of sorts on the Bookies and Polls thread.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 11:38 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I would like to see the demographics of the Bush supporters to compare with the sterotypes that are assigned to them by the Left. Nimh did give a break down of sorts on the Bookies and Polls thread.


I' dlike to see the same thing for the Kerry supporters and see how it compares to the stereotypes that are assigned to them by the Right.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 07:08 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
My definition of mainstream are the people you go to church with, people you work with, people you live next door to, people you bump elbows with at the grocery store, people you swear at when stuck in traffice. They are doctors, lawyers, teachers, small business owners, construction workers, gardeners, shop clerks, and just about anything else you can think of across the spectrum of the nation. They are black, white, gay, straight, male, female, young, old, etc. etc. etc.

That sounds like a good definition of "mainstream".

So what was that about how "out of the mainstream most of the Dem vote is"?

That "Dem vote" in question constitutes 48% of the US electorate. Practically half of all American voters. How can that be out of a mainstream you define as " people you work with, people you live next door to, people you bump elbows with at the grocery store"?

You gotta live in a rare place in the US if there's no Dem voters among the folks you see walking down the street, taking books outta the library or stopping by at MickeyD ...

Democrats be "doctors, lawyers, teachers, small business owners, construction workers, gardeners, shop clerks" too ... Hell, I can think of a Dem-voting gardener (OK, landscaper), small business owner and lawyer right here on A2K ...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 07:13 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I would like to see the demographics of the Bush supporters to compare with the sterotypes that are assigned to them by the Left.

I' dlike to see the same thing for the Kerry supporters and see how it compares to the stereotypes that are assigned to them by the Right.

Why dont ya check the exit polls? That'll give you some idea ... Here's the links ...

0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 07:54 pm
nimh wrote:
Yes, I'm just now looking at other basic breakdowns and it looks like not just moderates, but independents, too, gave the nod to Kerry (be it by a very narrow margin, 49%/48%). But the effect of that was outdone by how Bush succeeded better in mobilising partisan Republicans than Kerry managed to mobilise partisan Democrats.


True enough, but one can easily go too far with this. There have been huge shifts in the identity of those who describe themselves as conservative, moderate, and liberal over the past several decades and the churning still goes on. The South was solidly Democrat for a century until the 1964 -1972 period, during which it shifted to solid Republican. Reagan captured lots of so called blue collar workers to the 'conservative camp during his campaigns. Saying that Conservatives supported Bush, Moderates were equally divided and liberals supported Kerry is more or less a tautology.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 08:41 pm
Sorry I keep posting the same stuff all over the place, but only just saw this and it seems even more pertinent here:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

The last graphic shows how one person's mainstream -- who they go to church with, work with, live next door to, etc. -- can be very, VERY different from another person's mainstream. 400 American counties voted between zero and 2.5 percent Republican in this election. (If I'm reading the chart correctly.) A whole lot more voted small percentages Republican.

Quote:
It appears that there are, as the pundits have been telling us, "two Americas," but they are not the ones people usually talk about. They are "divided America," where people split roughly evenly between Republican and Democrat, and "decided America," where everyone is a Democrat. The Democrats of "decided America" number about 5.9 million, or 11% of all Democratic voters. These people are unlikely ever even to encounter a Republican voter in their home town.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:10 am
Oh, I was just quoting the same stuff on the bookie thread, after digging up where you got that map from ... but I tend to see that last graph as worrisome for the Dems, as I explained there.

Meanwhile, some random quotes that struck me (not trying to be flippant):

Quote:
Clinton, Bush, and Kerry hatred are all reflections of precisely the same phenomenon, which results from the transformation of politics into theater. In The Fall of Public Man, Richard Sennett argues that, as the old boundaries between public and private began to collapse in the nineteenth century and personality became the measure of trustworthiness, politicians began to relate to citizens in psychological terms. Sennett writes, "The modern charismatic leader destroys any distance between his own sentiments and impulses and those of his audience, and so, focusing his followers on his motivations, deflects them from measuring him in terms of his acts." Television has exponentially increased the personalization of politics, encouraging citizens to indulge the narcissistic conceit that their illusion of emotional connection with a politician is more important than his or her actions.


Quote:
What is it about Democrats that their finest moments are their concession speeches? Gore's speech in 2000 was the best of his public life. Kerry's concession, gracious and concise, was better than a thousand of his stump speeches. He really is a good closer.


Quote:
I listened to Bush's speech in a cab on the way to my hotel. The president won reelection by relentlessly attacking Kerry and by emphasizing terrorism and culture war issues. So what is his mandate, according to his victory speech? Tax reform and privatizing Social Security.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:16 am
Really good points, nimh.
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:20 am
The follow was not a Bush supporter, but rather a madman:

Suicide suspected at WTC site

Quote:
A 25-year-old from Georgia who was distraught over President Bush's re-election apparently killed himself at ground zero.

Andrew Veal's body was found Saturday morning inside the off-limits area of the former World Trade Center site, said Steve Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

A shotgun was found nearby, but no suicide note was found, Coleman said.

Veal's mother said her son was upset about the result of the presidential election and had driven to New York, Gus Danese, president of the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, told The New York Times in Sunday's editions.

Friends said Veal worked in a computer lab at the University of Georgia and was planning to marry.

"I'm absolutely sure it's a protest," Mary Anne Mauney, Veal's supervisor at the lab, told The Daily News. "I don't know what made him commit suicide, but where he did it was symbolic."

Police were investigating how Veal entered the former World Trade Center site, which is protected by high fences and owned by the Port Authority.


Link
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 08:46 pm
A "heh" on that amazing mandate GWB received:

Quote:
With media types, no event is self-contained or mundane. It must be a watershed moment or part of a burgeoning trend or the sign of something monumentally sinister to come. [..] Thus, Tuesday's Very Bad Day for Democrats can't be just that. It must have some sort of historic, enduring import that will give the chattering class something to chatter about for at least another few weeks.

By far the most annoying post-election line I'm hearing over and over again is how remarkable it is that George W. Bush managed to become the first presidential candidate since 1988 to win a majority of the popular vote. Oh my God! How remarkable! Let's see: This means that, with his 51 percent of the vote, W. managed to break the long, non-popular-majority string of exactly two presidents--Bill Clinton and himself. Of course, to make the comparison meaningful we need to factor in that, unlike 1992, 1996, and 2000, this year there was no serious third-party challenger peeling away votes. But still, W. managed a better electoral margin than one whole president other than himself. How ever will he handle the burden of it all?

LINK
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 08:53 pm
Then on the other hand
Quote:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 11:59 pm
(True, Fox. But though Kerry did badly in the South, he did pretty well in the West ...)

More about the youth vote:

http://www.kansascity.com/images/kansascity/kansascitystar/news/Young_voters.ap.jpg

More young voters turned out than not just in 2000, but also 1996 - one and a half times as many, in fact - and than in 1992, when Clinton and Perot mobilised many youths.

Chicago Sun-Times:

Quote:
more than 20 million Americans under 30 took the initiative to vote -- resulting in a 51.6 percent turnout for that age group, according to the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement at the University of Maryland.

CIRCLE researchers based their calculations on exit polls done for the Associated Press and others by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, and found that 18- to 29-year-old turnout was up by 4.6 million voters and more than 9 percentage points from exit poll data from the 2000 election.

The figures also beat exit poll numbers from 1992, the last time the youth vote spiked amid an otherwise general decline in turnout since 18-year-olds first got the chance to vote in 1972.

Turnout increased among other age groups, too, leaving young voters with the same proportion of the total electorate nationally as in 2000.


The Lansing State Journal claims, in fact, that it was the youths that helped Kerry win at least Michigan:

Quote:
The youth vote went in Kerry's favor, 55 percent to 44 percent over President Bush nationally, according to exit polls.

In Michigan, Kerry had a 2-1 advantage, according pollster Steve Mitchell.

Ed Sarpolus of EPIC-MRA had it closer but with a substantial 56 percent to 30 percent margin.

Kerry needed those extra votes from the young, since he won here by a narrow 51 percent to 48 percent.

"It was one of the factors that helped him win," Mitchell said.

[..] East Lansing City Clerk Sharon Reid said 5,600 people registered to vote between the August primary and the October registration deadline.

[..] The turnout rate rose dramatically. In 2000, turnout at polling places in MSU dorms ranged from 31 percent to 40 percent. This year, it averaged about 55 percent.

Democratic consultant Mark Grebner, who helped register about 2,600 MSU students, said the actual turnout rate was closer to 80 percent because many of the people on the rolls at MSU dorms have since moved.

More articles here
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 08:41 am
Depends how how you define "west" I guess Nimh. Kerry won on the Pacific corridor but only by winning the huge metroplitan areas that were his base everywhere. I think of "west" as either west of the middle or west of the Mississippi depending on what I'm talking about. Overwhelmingly, the majority of those states, counties, towns, acreage, etc. went to Bush.

I haven't been able to find the Demographics, but the last time I looked, registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by a significant margin. Has anybody found a stat on those percentages including the percentages of who voted in this last election?

A good percentage of voters will vote for whatever candidate represents their party, I think. Or they will have such a negative view about a particular party they will not vote for that party's candidate, no matter what.

I am impressed that such a large percentage of the new young voters voted for Bush. I think usually the young are more liberal, idealistic, and find the more liberal candidate to be more appealing.

For this election, for many different reasons, a majority of the electorate chose Bush. I would like to think a majority of his opposition will accept that, will get behind him and support him and help move the country forward. I have no confidence that will be the case however.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 11:52 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I am impressed that such a large percentage of the new young voters voted for Bush. I think usually the young are more liberal, idealistic, and find the more liberal candidate to be more appealing.


Have you ever heard of "Young Life" Foxfyre? It is a huge evangelical force for teens & twenty-somethings, offering a Godly mix of big fun at twice weekly fellowships and extraordinary & exclusively YL summer camps *bank-rolled by conservative Christians.* It was a major force in developing "Youth for Bush" and youth "value voters" here.

Here's an example of the strength of that Christian commitment. This was said as a "novena" nine times each Sunday prior to the election. Those willing to do so in their parish signed on -- more than 10,000 and this was just the small segment who are Catholics.:

[size=8] Prayer for our National Elections

O God, we acknowledge you today as Lord,
Not only of individuals, but of nations and governments.

We thank you for the privilege
Of being able to organize ourselves politically
And of knowing that political loyalty
Does not have to mean disloyalty to you.

We thank you for your law,
Which our Founding Fathers acknowledged
And recognized as higher than any human law.

We thank you for the opportunity that this election year puts before us,
To exercise our solemn duty not only to vote,
But to influence countless others to vote,
And to vote correctly.

Lord, we pray that your people may be awakened.
Let them realize that while politics is not their salvation,
Their response to you requires that they be politically active.

Awaken your people to know that they are not called to be a sect fleeing the world
But rather a community of faith renewing the world.

Awaken them that the same hands lifted up to you in prayer
Are the hands that pull the lever in the voting booth
;
That the same eyes that read your Word
Are the eyes that read the names on the ballot,
And that they do not cease to be Christians
When they enter the voting booth.

Awaken your people to a commitment to justice
To the sanctity of marriage and the family,
To the dignity of each individual human life,
And to the truth that human rights begin when human lives begin,
And not one moment later.

Lord, we rejoice today
That we are citizens of your kingdom.

May that make us all the more committed
To being faithful citizens on earth.
[/size]

That's a lot of responsibility for government being placed in the hands of the Christian religion. Yet, and this is what confuses me, those same "values voters" don't put a priority at all on some strong "wwjd" commitments:

--Respite for those in prison (How is it that we have such a huge ratio of prisoners to population? Something is going very wrong.)
--Helping the elderly and weak (via Social Security and Heathcare)
--Loving our enemies (errrrr?)
--Loving each other (while hating the gays, women who have abortions, Muslims, etc.)


Foxfyre wrote:
I would like to think a majority of his opposition will accept that, will get behind him and support him and help move the country forward.


What does Bush stand for that we should support?

Should we get behind giving more money to the wealthiest?
Should we help to strip away protections from the workers?
Should we continue the pillage of Social Security?
Should we support a fight he picked in Iraq while backtracking on the go-it-alone war against terrorism that we cannot afford?
Should we agree that homosexuals are against God's word?
Should we agree to plunder Alaskan oil, despite the costs?
Should we keep gerry-mandering legislative districts with the hope that eventually every one of them is a guaranteed lock for one incumbent or another of his ilk?


What is it in Bush's agenda that you feel someone like me should support? I'm interested. My priorities are the environment and maintaining a good neighbor attitude both within and outside the country. I also want there to be a diverse and encouraging job market for my children --- especially jobs which seem meaningful.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 01:02 pm
While I don't share Piffka's rather vitriolic view of Bush and his supporters, young and apparently the old as well, I would like to respond to the question

Quote:
What is it in Bush's agenda that you feel someone like me should support? I'm interested. My priorities are the environment and maintaining a good neighbor attitude both within and outside the country. I also want there to be a diverse and encouraging job market for my children --- especially jobs which seem meaningful.


Bush supporters are as interested in the environment as you are, and I would submit there is not one of them that wants dirtier air, less pure water, trashed up scenery, mountains devoid of timber, or oil gushing into Prince William Sound as some liberals seem to think Bush favors. Bush supporters, however, believe the best policy is for humans to coexist peacefully within the environment and use it wisely while conserving the elements that make all our hearts rejoice and bring that feeling of satisfaction that comes from enjoying perfection. That means you take what is needed from the environment while protecting it at the same time, and you ditch the liberal policies that at times have been destructive and that seem to hold humankind in contempt and unworthy of participating in nature.

Bush supporters are also interested in being good neighbors inside and outside the country, but they do resist being dictated to by people who do not have our best interests at heart or who hold us and our way of life in contempt. Bush supporters believe American culture has as much to commend it as Canadian, European, etc. etc. culture and that we have every right to do it our way and to resent when the elite of other countries presume superiority and look down their noses--we rather think they would do better to clean up their own act. We should of course protest when peoples are exploited to their detriment, but mutual exploitation is okay when all benefit. And Bush supporters believe that free trade is the best way to avoid detrimental exploitation.

And Bush supporters are ferocious when it comes to jobs, and you won't find any intelligent person who does not believe Bush and his supporters are business friendly. Bush supporters know that jobs of all kinds and with all necessary diversity comes from business friendly policies that encourage entrepenourship and existing businesses to grow.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 03:06:47