Weeping and gnashing of teeth

Yes, I read it. And?

A Dem-leaning pundit whines that the youth vote that fellow pundits had promised him would surely hail in a Kerry victory "did not show up".

Never mind that it actually did show up - at least in far greater numbers than last time - according to the very exit polls he cites.

(Note that he doesnt actually mention any numbers.)

<shrugs>

Lookit. Always trust actual numbers over punditry. Always look up the facts to doublecheck opinions pundits pass on off-handedly. Especially in this era of blogs, where opinions are passed on more off-handedly than ever. And more so still if the opinions in question are passed around by a commentariat of disgruntled partisans, who are desperately trying to come up with reasons why the victory they prophesised for their candidate did not materialise.

Well, I gave the numbers, anyway. You can interpret them the way you want ("Only half the youth voters came out!", or "There was a spectacular increase in youth turnout!", it's both true). I guess I cant do much more than that. If people prefer the talking points, what can I do?

Ok ok ok.....I get it!!! LOL.

One thing in the "Comments" section, though - it's true that it's a royal pain for college students to be able to get home on election day. I'm not sure it's feasible (as some suggested there) for the volunteers to provide absentee ballots as they're doing the registration (probably not), but I do remember that I voted absentee in college, having requested the ballot a couple of months in advance.

Heh at JW's "Ok ok ok ..."

Nemmind me, JW. I just have something to bitch about. In fact, can I do it here? Can this be the right place for a two-minute bitch about what to me seems an amazing dependency, in general I mean, as evidenced in posts on this board, on opinion pieces, blogistry and other partisan interpretations? I mean, not talking about this time here, its something I'd wanted to drop a note about before.

Couple of times now I've seen some member or other, when asked to bring links or evidence or facts, post a series of op-eds, other opinion pieces and/or columns, with a grand gesture of, see - I'm right, they say so too! As if he/she really relied near-exclusively on the filtered analysis of the actual news by pundits on his/her side - just kinda skipping past the actual news reports.

Is that a trend that you know of? I've mostly noticed it in conservative posts, but thats probably just because what you disagree with strikes you more - and there's those on the other side who habitually quote commondreams as "proof", as well.

Is it something that increased with this era of blogs and talk radio? Perhaps the distrust in some circles with the "mainstream media" and its actual news reporting has driven people even further into consuming only the regurgitation of that news through a partisan filter in the columns and opinion pieces of media or pundits they do trust (and will agree with ..)?

(For the record, if I'm talking about anyone specific it's not you, JW or Lash ...)

Of course, I think what you posted makes complete sense and I think both sides are equally guilty. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone offer an opinion, backed up by a clearly partisan pundit (Krugman comes to mind LOL) and thought "holy cow, how can anyone believe that nonsense."

Then I realize that I've done it, too, by bringing to the forum a link from someone I admire, but also equally as partisan. It's hard not to, given that we come here with our own deeply ingrained biases.

I haven't seen many quoting talk radio, nor have I tended to rely much on bloggers (although we both know there are some excellent ones out there and they'll be with us from now on).

I think we're all intelligent enough here to read whatever is offered and form our own opinions of it. Consequently, there's little that annoys me as long as the general tone remains civil, and I've probably learned more that I value than that with which I've been at odds.

Isn't it like 6 or 7 am there? Happy morning I'm going to bed LOL.

Yeah, its early morning <grins> ... insomnia is a terrible thing.

Well, I post opinion pieces often enough myself here, too ... if its got an interesting take, I'll bring it. But I wouldnt think of proposing it as supporting evidence for any argument of my own ... opinions backed up with other opinions don't gain much.

Here's another post on that youth vote - in a thread thats better suited for it.

nimh - Another thought I had is that sometimes we aren't offering an opinion piece so much as "proof" of anything or even for the enlightenment of the so-called "opposition", but rather to those we're more in sync with. Sort of a "look what I found and I know you'll agree with me that this is just amazing, etc. etc."

On the subject of the MSM...I can only speak for myself in saying that although I read it religiously and am somewhat an addict, I don't believe everything I read (you said "mistrust" I think) and I always, always look for confirmation through other sources if it's something important to me.

Bush reached out and made a bipartisn invite . for everyone to speak there mind , what do you think of that ?

I dont think much of it ,IM waiting for him to fullfill his 2000 concervative agenda!

Given the amazing division and demonization of "the other side" during the last four years, I am sure you are right - finding someone who can also see how right we are, or how awful "they" are allows us to sort of huddle together in a nice, comfortable, herdly squodge.

Mind you - perhaps this is how humans like it, a nice clear us and them? We seem to create it in all times and places.

Another idea about it is contained in an Atlantic Monthly article I just read - (I can't post it - cos you have to have paid) - but here is an excerpt:

By contrast, the great fear haunting this country today, Islamist terrorism, stems from something that happened here quite recently. As a result, the anxiety is more immediate, the anger more intense. We want somebody to blame, and the chief perpetrator, Osama bin Laden, has been unavailable.

But since 9/11 occurred in the wake of the election of 2000, in an already divided country, everyone had a natural villain at their disposal: the other political team. One reason this election is so ugly is that many Americans have taken their worst fears and anxieties and attached them to a particular person. Depending on your orientation, his name is either Bush or Kerry. It's the political version of what Freud, in another context, called "negative transference."

A lot of people in this country really do believe that if Kerry?or alternately, Bush?is elected, it will truly be the End of Life as We Know It. Each of these candidates has become, in the minds of his opponents, The Bomb. And each side is simply terrified that it is going to explode on Tuesday, annihilating everything.

This fear is behind the end-of-the-world tone that the Michael Moores and the Rush Limbaughs of our world have given to this election. It's behind the William Rehnquist panic and the wolves. The parties themselves have played a huge role in creating this invidious atmosphere of fear, but we're all part of it.

It's fine and healthy to have passionate political convictions. Most of us go into this vote feeling pretty certain that one candidate will be a lot better for the country than the other. But is American civilization really about to go down in flames if your side doesn't win?

(from: Fear and Loathing

In the Atomic Age, fear brought us together; in today's world, it drives us apart.

by William Powers.)

I must say, I tend to think we probably underestimate the divisions of the recent past. The article I quoted looks back to a probably imagined unity in the Cold war era - the era that produced McCarthyism in the US - so I am sceptical of its validity. But I found it kinda interesting...

Well as this started out as a kind of liberal thread, is ok if I post from a liberal blog from liberal people for liberal people to bear in mind for the next four years?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/



The Kids Are Alright
Sunday, November 7th, 2004

Dear Friends,

If there was one group who really came through on Tuesday, it was the young people of America. Their turnout was historic and record-setting. And few in the media are willing to report this fact.

Unlike 2000 when Gore and Bush almost evenly split the youth vote (Gore: 48%, Bush: 46%), this year Kerry won the youth vote in a LANDSLIDE, getting a full ten points more than Bush (Kerry: 54%, Bush: 44%)...


http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=282

No Surrender


By Paul Krugman / New York Times

President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.

Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism.

This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn't have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback.

I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them. The resurgence of Al Qaeda, the debacle in Iraq, the explosion of the budget deficit and the failure to create jobs weren't things that just happened to occur on Mr. Bush's watch. They were the consequences of bad policies made by people who let ideology trump reality.

Those people still have Mr. Bush's ear, and his election victory will only give them the confidence to make even bigger mistakes.

So what should the Democrats do?

One faction of the party is already calling for the Democrats to blur the differences between themselves and the Republicans. Or at least that's what I think Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council means when he says, "We've got to close the cultural gap." But that's a losing proposition.

Yes, Democrats need to make it clear that they support personal virtue, that they value fidelity, responsibility, honesty and faith. This shouldn't be a hard case to make: Democrats are as likely as Republicans to be faithful spouses and good parents, and Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be adulterers, gamblers or drug abusers. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states.

But Democrats are not going to get the support of people whose votes are motivated, above all, by their opposition to abortion and gay rights (and, in the background, opposition to minority rights). All they will do if they try to cater to intolerance is alienate their own base.

Does this mean that the Democrats are condemned to permanent minority status? No. The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage.

Rather than catering to voters who will never support them, the Democrats - who are doing pretty well at getting the votes of moderates and independents - need to become equally effective at mobilizing their own base.

In fact, they have made good strides, showing much more unity and intensity than anyone thought possible a year ago. But for the lingering aura of 9/11, they would have won.

What they need to do now is develop a political program aimed at maintaining and increasing the intensity. That means setting some realistic but critical goals for the next year.

Democrats shouldn't cave in to Mr. Bush when he tries to appoint highly partisan judges - even when the effort to block a bad appointment fails, it will show supporters that the party stands for something. They should gear up for a bid to retake the Senate or at least make a major dent in the Republican lead. They should keep the pressure on Mr. Bush when he makes terrible policy decisions, which he will.

It's all right to take a few weeks to think it over. (Heads up to readers: I'll be starting a long-planned break next week, to work on a economics textbook. I'll be back in January.) But Democrats mustn't give up the fight. What's at stake isn't just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it.

The liberal breakdown of the youth vote brings to mind the old saw: "Anyone under thirty who is not an idealist should have his heart examined; anyone over thirty who is an idealist should have his head examined." Let the daggers fly.

Heh ... I know that as "anyone who's 20 and is no socialist has no heart; anyone who's 50 and still is a socialist has no brains".

Luckily, the folks I know who are over 50 are mostly still very much "red".

I sure am glad we elected this classy guy:

Presidential Salute

Mr. President, I salute you in return.

Also, more problems with electronic voting machines. As a computer professional, I can see how this could be an accident. I can also see how one could design the ballot to favor a particular ticket.

Straight Democratic ticket leads to vote for Bush/Cheney

me too mg. obviously serious times require a serious leader.

can't wait to see him pull the "burning bag of dog doo on the porch" trick on bin laden. whoo hooooooooo!!!! :wink:

...or the panty raid at his headquarters.

o.k.
does it seem weird to anyone else that red in the u.s. means the opposite of red everywhere else (politically, that is)

a friend just sent me a link for this site. some are pretty good...





sorryeverybody.com

Yes.

I've gotten used to it. I'm guessing it's because the Dems used to be the conservative party, and the reps used to be progressives.

Actually no, because from what I understood, the red=republican, blue=democrat colour scheme is actually a recent inversion of how it used to be!

Thats why you sometimes, all the more confusingly, still find maps where Dem states are red, and Rep states blue ...

I dont know why or when or who's to blame ... ;-)