Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

How many theses were presented? Luther nailed up 95 in Wittenberg, on Halloween night, 1517, if I remember correctly. Then there was that whole Diet of Worms thing a few years later - 1521, I think , and the Peasant's War of the 1520s, with its messy reprisals ... the flap took years to unfold. Wasn't 'till the 1530s that there was anything realy worthy of the name "Lutheranism", let alone "Protestantism".

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I heard on the radio that some Dems got together and pasted some suggestions on the DNC door in Washingtol ala Martin Luther...

LOL McG!

0 Replies

I have read- and I'm not saying this is so, mind you, just mentioning it- that the average IQ of people/ states who voted for Bush was 91.

Has that been reported anywhere else?

And why do you think the so-called "flyover" states seem to be more fearful of terrorists and homosexuals than the main population centres- where these kind of activities are evidently so prevalent?

0 Replies

Quote:

I have read- and I'm not saying this is so, mind you, just mentioning it- that the average IQ of people/ states who voted for Bush was 91.

LOL.........no McTag, that is the reported IQ of GW. Laughing......actually I think Bush's IQ is reported to be something like 110.......average at best. hehehe

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Quote:
I have read- and I'm not saying this is so, mind you, just mentioning it- that the average IQ of people/ states who voted for Bush was 91.

LOL.........no McTag, that is the reported IQ of GW. Laughing......actually I think Bush's IQ is reported to be something like 110.......average at best. hehehe

Yep

I have to wonder, though, how much French champagne the Dems consumed before reinstalling Terry McAullife as chairman of the DNC. Since it's widely known that the Dems are neither dumb nor stupid, it's gotta be that they were drunk, no?

<Sees Republican presidents in power for at least the next 20 years of this century> Laughing

0 Replies

Just Wonders wrote:

Quote:

. . . Since it's widely known that Dems are neither dumb nor stupid, it's gotta be that they were drunk, no?

Yep, whatever mistakes we made that's gotta be it. Drunk.....we know we gotta make that hay.......

0 Replies

There's always AA and their 12-Step Program for Delusional Dems Smile

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

I have read- and I'm not saying this is so, mind you, just mentioning it- that the average IQ of people/ states who voted for Bush was 91.

Has that been reported anywhere else?

And why do you think the so-called "flyover" states seem to be more fearful of terrorists and homosexuals than the main population centres- where these kind of activities are evidently so prevalent?

Evidently you did give some credence to the IQ bit. I find that remarkable.

The United States has a population of about 300 million people. The least populous state, Wyoming, has a population slightly over 500,000: the most populous, California has over 33 Million people. The average for all 50 states is 6 million. The red and blue states each have total populations over 135 million. Just a moment's consideration of elementary statistics would suggest that any sample of (say) a million or more would have average characteristics very closely approximating those of the entire population, and that the probability of finding a sample of over 40% of the total population with such characteristics detectably different from the whole virtually zero.. The probability of the large difference you suggest in the average characteristics of the red and blue states is truly infinitesimal. I am surprised that you even considered this possibility for a moment. This suggests a rather odd credulity on your part. Alternatively, perhaps you are just attempting an offensive joke.

Our population is highly mobile, compared to most countries, and of course, because of our history of immigration we are a rather heterogeneous lot. Despite this there are detectable differences in the typical origins of people in what you have called the flyover states compared to those on the coasts. The population of the interior, particularly the Midwest, Mississippi valley and the Plains states is heavily dominated by English, German, Scotch Irish, Irish and Scandinavian peoples; while those on the coasts are an even more varied lot, including far more Irish, Italians, Latinos, Orientals and others.. Do you suggest this accounts for the difference?

0 Replies

I gotta say I find the Lefties' "Bush is a moron" and "The Red Staters are less intelligent" memes wonderfully amusing. I cannot help but assume there is a correlation between the partisan popularity of such nonsense and the general electoral achievements tallied by The Democratic Party over the past decade or so.

0 Replies

Perhaps what needs to be "fixed" isn't the Democratic party afterall, but the vote tabulation.

Previous debunking of the election results v. exit polls used 11/3 adjusted exit poll results for a few states. The actual results are now in for the 4pm exit polls from all fifty states.

Complete US Exit Poll Data Confirms Net Suspicions
Full 51 State Early Exit Poll Data Released For The First Time

The new data confirms what was already widely known about the swing in favour of George Bush, but amplifies the extent of that swing.

...42 of the 51 states in the union swung towards George Bush while only nine swung towards Kerry.

There has to date been no official explanation for the discrepancy.

Ordinarily in the absence of an obvious mistabulation error, roughly the same number of states should have swung towards each candidate.

Moreover many of the states that swung against Democratic Party hopeful John Kerry swung to an extent that is well beyond the margin of error in exit polls. Exit polls by their nature - they ask voters how they actually voted rather than about their intentions - are typically considered highly accurate.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0411/db76fccd6387b5abb3d3.jpeg

The complete set of New 4pm Edison & Mitofsky 2004 General Election exit poll data follows in tabulated form (sorted in descending order of the magnitude of the "red shift"):

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm

0 Replies

Oh, yeah ... and the "We wuz robbed" meme, and the "It was the Religious Right" meme ... as long as The Opposition provides entertainment in lieu of substantive challenge, The Majority Party is assured continuing electoral success.

Consider these bits of difficulty for the "We wuz Robbed" sillyness:

Counties won: Bush 2,531 - Kerry 582 (Bush 81%)
Congressional Districts won: Bush 156 - Kerry 49 (Bush 69%)
States won: Bush 31 - Kerry 19+DC (Bush 65%)
Counties in which Bush 2004 greater than Bush 2000: 2,710 (Bush 87%)
Counties in which Kerry 2004 greater than Gore 2000: 996 (Kerry 32%)
Data: Dave Liep's Election Atlas

The November 3rd preliminary vote count had Bush the Greater with some 59.4 Million votes, winning a 3 point 51 - 48 majority. With the addition of absentee and provisional ballots, along with results revised by ongoing recounts, both candidates have picked up votes, however the trend has been consistent with the initially reported results; the 51 - 48 ratio remains relatively constant while Bush's Popular Vote total now approaches 61 Million.

Over the last dozen years, The Democratic Party has managed to surrender majority representation in both Houses of Congress, Governorships, and State Legislatures, apart from having lost the past 2 Presidential Elections. Complaining and looking for excuses, as opposed to objectively determining and proactively addressing the causes of this reversal of fortune assures The Democratic Party only more of the same.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

nimh

The politics of division.

Since the last election, GOP strategists have been open regarding the need/wish to increase their percentage of the catholic and jewish votes. They failed with the jewish vote, but succeeded with the Catholic vote, as the analysis shows.

How did they achieve that? First off, we ought to assume that some percentage of the catholic gain was a consequence of the overall gain on terrorism/security issues which seems to have affected most electoral populations.

Secondly, organization, as the analysis shows.

But third, by forwarding a particular type of divisiveness though abortion and gay issues.

Now, let me tell you what I really think. Both of these issues, security and social, are driven by the promotion of fear. Fear of instability. Fear of change. Fear of the other or the alien.

And the solution to these fears is to trust in Authority - the government, the priest, the scripture, the literal. It is an easy and welcome relinquishment of an already shallow commitment to self-governance.

Abortion is, in and of itself, a divisive issue. How would you suggest it be discussed in a unifying, rather than divisive manner?

It seems to me that you are operating from the basic premise that some sort of compromise on the issue is possible, and that the absolute position many people hold on the subject is the product of herding by the GOP (or, perhaps, their own dangerous fanaticism and intolerance.

For someone who believes human life begins at conception and that abortion is, essentially, murder, there is no room for compromise, unless it is undertaken in bad faith - a temporary measure to limit the number of murders until such time as the political power exists to eliminate them all.

Since there is no authoritative definition of when the state of humanity begins, it is impossible to, reasonably, argue that a definition centered on conception is outlandish, and therefore it is unreasonable to assume that a compromise is possible if only the politicians stopped using the issue for political advantage.

I hope you are willing to acknowledge that there just might be a few Republican politicians who actually do believe that abortion is murder.

How do you describe the politics that drives the support of partial birth abortions on the basis that it is simply step one in a process of outlawing all abortion? Smell some fear tactics?

Is fear never justified?

Or is justifiable only when it is the fear of a threat to your preferences, and to be disdained when it is the fear of those preferences?

Tolerance seems to be a one way street for Liberals. The Right must tolerate the other, the alien, but not the Left. The other is not limited to people of different races, nationality or sexual orientations. For the Left, the other is synonymous with minorities, which, of course, it is not.

To certain intolerant groups, the other may very well be 50+ million people who vote differently than them.

0 Replies

Back from vacation. I feel so much better........however, I'm afraid it won't last long.

Finn wrote:

Quote:

Abortion is, in and of itself, a divisive issue. How would you suggest it be discussed in a unifying, rather than divisive manner?

It is divisive and there is no compromise. Either a person is more concerned about their religious explanations and the unborn or they're more concerned about the health and welfare of currently living women (other people's daughters) who will again be in the back allies with unregulated abortionists.

I think you're right Finn, there is no compromise on this issue. Unless of course it would be that doctors who do not want to perform abortions don't and women who don't want an abortion don't have one and those who do need one and it's not murder to them, do. But that's it, isn't it? This country will be governed by faith in religion or by scientific facts. It looks like we're stuck with faith for now.

Quote:

Identity politics is a powerful thing--a way of short-circuiting debate by claiming that your views aren't merely views; they are an integral part of who you are. And who you are must be respected. But harsh criticism is not disrespect--and to claim it is undermines democratic debate by denying opponents the right to aggressively, even impolitely, disagree. That is what conservatives are doing when they accuse liberals of religious bigotry merely for demanding that the Christian Right defend their viewpoints with facts, not faith. Once upon a time, conservatives knew better. I hope some still do.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=39234&highlight=

Quote:

and that abortion is, essentially, murder

No one seems to want to answer this post.

Quote:

Quote:
Our laws forbid murder. That for many religious people is an article of faith. That fact does not invalidate their support for laws prohibiting murder.

You don't have to have any religious faith at all to believe that murder is not to be allowed. It only follows. However, the idea that abortion is murder is entirely dependent on a certain religious teaching.

Abortion is not murder. Murder implies malice and I think there are very few abortions performed for the purpose of malice. Abortion is killing, I agree. However there are many cases in which killing is deemed necessary in any society. Abortion is only one such case. Self defense comes to mind. Freedom fighting is another endorsed by many Christians on this board and in many fundamentalist churches. The rational for murder in the form of capital punishment is often a belief based on a verse from the Bible. An eye for an eye.

I don't endorse capital punishment as a legitimate form of murder, but most states do it anyway. George Bush smirks when he talks about murdering criminals. I don't use a verse from the Bible to back me up. I just think it follows logically that murdering criminals only makes the crime problem worse. Further, in the case of capital punishment, the motive is almost always malice. We could talk about this subject for a long time, but I think I'll stop at that. If we are to discuss abortion, we'll need a new thread.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=38105&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=630

(take note above to george's mention of "faith."

Quote:

Main Entry: 2murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing /'m&r-d(&-)ri[ng]/
transitive senses
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

And for all you liberals who think the tanks aren't coming (for those literal minded conservatives, this a metaphor) try this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/20/politics/20spend.html?oref=login&th

Quote:

Negotiators Add Abortion Clause to Spending Bill
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and CARL HULSE

Published: November 20, 2004

WASHINGTON, Saturday, Nov. 20 - House and Senate negotiators have tucked a potentially far-reaching anti-abortion provision into a $388 billion must-pass spending bill, complicating plans for Congress to wrap up its business and adjourn for the year.

The provision may be an early indication of the growing political muscle of social conservatives who provided crucial support for Republican candidates, including President Bush, in the election.

House officials said Saturday morning that the final details of the spending measure were worked out before midnight and that the bill was filed for the House vote on Saturday.

The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection'' to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers.

0 Replies

So the Pro Choice folks are upset about legislation that permits healthcare providers to excersize a choice.

Figures.

0 Replies

If you strip abortion of it's vaunted liberal status--seems almost like the left's god-icon--it is easy to see the hypocracy.

It is completely illogical to require parental consent for the smallest surgical or medical procedure--and not for going into a young woman's cervix, killing and removing her child.

I had a friend who was afraid to tell her parents--(they were incredibly supportive, loving parents)--they found out three days later, because she lost consciousness after three days of bleeding and pain. She nearly died.

The cases wherein the parents may react in an adverse manner that includes a physical threat to the girl are minimal. The cases that would be beneficial to the girl's aftercare, and advice from people who love her are innumerable. This law should be changed. And, I'm thinking it won't be long before it is.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Back from vacation. I feel so much better........however, I'm afraid it won't last long.

I hope you are wrong about that.

With regard to abortion Lola wrote;

Quote:

It is divisive and there is no compromise. Either a person is more concerned about their religious explanations and the unborn or they're more concerned about the health and welfare of currently living women (other people's daughters) who will again be in the back allies with unregulated abortionists.

I think you're right Finn, there is no compromise on this issue. Unless of course it would be that doctors who do not want to perform abortions don't and women who don't want an abortion don't have one and those who do need one and it's not murder to them, do. But that's it, isn't it? This country will be governed by faith in religion or by scientific facts. It looks like we're stuck with faith for now.

I generally agree with the sentiment expressed in the second paragraph, but do still hope for a less contentious compromise on this matter.

Quote:

You don't have to have any religious faith at all to believe that murder is not to be allowed. It only follows. However, the idea that abortion is murder is entirely dependent on a certain religious teaching.

I think you are incorrect here. If irreligious thought can conclude that murder is "unallowable", then it does indeed follow that SOME occasions of abortion are equally unallowable.

Quote:

Abortion is not murder. Murder implies malice and I think there are very few abortions performed for the purpose of malice. Abortion is killing, I agree. However there are many cases in which killing is deemed necessary in any society. Abortion is only one such case. Self-defense comes to mind. Freedom fighting is another endorsed by many Christians on this board and in many fundamentalist churches. The rational for murder in the form of capital punishment is often a belief based on a verse from the Bible. An eye for an eye.

Despite what is in your dictionary, the legal definition of murder does not require malice or premeditation. First degree murder is legally distinct from second, with premeditation being the main distinction. One can also be convicted of murder if he is only an accessopry to it and not the one who pulled the trigger.
With respect to language in an amendment to a pending law Lola wrote;

Quote:

The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection'' to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers.

What's wrong with that? This provision merely permits those individuals and agencies who/which believe that abortion is morally wrong from being made to be complicit in the act. Perhaps you will note that you object to capital punishment, and yet you become complicit when the state takes a life. There is an analogy here and I admit I don't have an answer for it.

I think the proper political issue is not whether abortion is right or wrong - that is a moral question, and as individuals we are free to make our own choices. Instead the question is what, if any actions should the government take to either inhibit or advance the practice? Science tells us that there is indeed biological life in the unborn, and the threshold of viability has advanced considerably in the last two decades. Under the constitution the government has an obligation to protect human life. How shall these ideas be dealt with by our government? No simple answers here. I believe the democratic legislative process is the best, or least unsatisfactory, way to deal with it.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

So the Pro Choice folks are upset about legislation that permits healthcare providers to excersize a choice.

Figures.

Not this pro-choice conservative. I think the legislation is fine since I do not think the government should use economic coersion to entice doctors to do what they deem unethical.

0 Replies

George writes:

Quote:

What's wrong with that? This provision merely permits those individuals and agencies who/which believe that abortion is morally wrong from being made to be complicit in the act. Perhaps you will note that you object to capital punishment, and yet you become complicit when the state takes a life. There is an analogy here and I admit I don't have an answer for it.

As it is now, some states have a death penalty and some don't. If this is an important issue, one can always move to the state that most closely fits one's conscience. If the whole country is opposed to your conscience, then move to Canada or some place more hospitable. I would strongly oppose the federal government attempting to tell the states whether or not they must have or cannot have a death penalty. That moves the issue closer to community values and away from a one-size-fits-all mandate.

The best answer in my opinion is therefore to remove abortion and all such issues from Federal legislation in all respects and return them to the community where community values will prevail. A small rural religious community where abortion is viewed as murder could ban abortion clinics where inner city Manhattan or Detroit or Chicago could have them if they wanted them. The same applies to liquor laws, topless clubs, Playboy displayed in convenience stores, etc. etc. etc.

In my opinion, this solution is so strongly resisted by many on the Left as they want the Federal government to mandate what they want and do not trust such issues to the public conscience in the way of a vote.

0 Replies

The answer is not to give up the fight and leave, that is what the republicans are hoping for, or at least silence.

I read something encouraging this morning. I would post on the weeping and gnashing board, but I seemed to have killed that board so..

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=343

November 20th, 2004 3:37 am
The Next Step - a letter from John Kerry
Dear Supporter,
I want to thank you personally for what you did in the election -- you rewrote the book on grassroots politics, taking control of campaigns away from big donors. No campaign will ever be the same.
You moved voters, helped hold George Bush accountable, and countered the attacks from big news organizations such as Fox, Sinclair Broadcasting, and conservative talk radio.
And your efforts count now more than ever. Despite the words of cooperation and moderate sounding promises, this administration is planning a right wing assault on values and ideals we hold most deeply. Healthy debate and diverse opinion are being eliminated from the State Department and CIA, and the cabinet is being remade to rubber stamp policies that will undermine Social Security, balloon the deficit, avoid real reforms in health care and education, weaken homeland security, and walk away from critical allies around the world.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, once all the votes are counted -- and they will be counted -- we will continue to challenge this administration. This is not a time for Democrats to retreat and accommodate extremists on critical principles -- it is a time to stand firm.
I will fight for a national standard for federal elections that has both transparency and accountability in our voting system. It's unacceptable in the United States that people still don't have full confidence in the integrity of the voting process.
I ask you to join me in this cause.
And we must fight not only against George Bush's extreme policies -- we must also uphold our own values. This is why on the first day Congress is in session next year, I will introduce a bill to provide every child in America with health insurance. And, with your help, that legislation will be accompanied by the support of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
There are more than eight million uninsured children in our nation.
That's eight million reasons for us to stay together and fight for a new direction. It is a disgrace that in the wealthiest nation on earth, eight million children go without health insurance.
Normally, a member of the Senate will first approach other senators and ask them to co-sponsor a bill before it is introduced -- instead, I am turning to you. Imagine the power of a bill co-sponsored by hundreds of thousands of Americans being presented on the floor of the United States Senate. You can make it happen. Sign our "Every Child Protected" pledge today and forward it to your family, friends, and neighbors:
http://johnkerry.com/EveryChild
This is the beginning of a second term effort to hold the Bush administration accountable and to stand up and fight for our principles and our values. They want you to disappear; they are counting on that. I'm confident you will prove them wrong, and you will rewrite history again.
Here is what I want you to know. I understand the strength, commitment, and passion that are at the core of what we built together -- and I am determined to make our collective energy and organization a force to be reckoned with in the weeks and months ahead.
Let's roll up our sleeves and get back to work for our country.
Thank you,

John Kerry

0 Replies

The fact that Kerry's letter was posted on Michael Moore's website is another very real reason the Democrats lost this last election.

0 Replies

Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know