Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

clark · 2004-11-03 13:38:23

serious? discussion? :laugh:

Oh very well, to please the obstinate among us.

From early election results we can conclude that Karl Rove, politcal strategist for GW analysed the 2004 election situation accurately.

The entire issue of major import that defeated Kerry, that secured Bush, was not the economy. It wasn't the War on Terror. It was fucking morality.

Rove looked at the 2000 election and saw that the Christian Right stayed home, primarily because they were turned off by the coke-snorting-drunk-frat-boy escapade of GW. His strategy hinged on getting them out, and getting them out in number.

It worked, and as many ABB's that voted, there were just as many, if not more, Pro-Life, Anti-Gay voters who saw the best chance for the instution of their social conservatism into American policy.

That's what the entire gay marriage ban was all about. That's what the whole compromise on stem cell research was about. Appeasing this one segment. They listen to this segment, and they woo this segment, and they are beholden to this segment.

You want to know the fucking future, go talk to a Christian fundie or listen to the AM dial in middle america. Christian Taliban is right.

Palomar · 2004-11-03 13:41:07

What is queer (sic!) is that the USA and the EU may end up fighting more about the rights to be afforded gays than anything else. After all didn't a prominent EU minister just resign over an anti-gay position?
Return to Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory. Europe and America are on divergent courses and may well become separate civilizations based on differing views of God.
And where does that leave Canada? Between Europe and USA just like during the war of independence?

*Good question. I'll be looking forward to Canada's response to the election results (I mean over the upcoming months, not just vocal response today/tomorrow...can already anticipate that). Maybe you could join the European Union despite it being an ocean away? Not being sarcastic. Your nation seems to be in a rather interesting position right now. Sure can't foresee Canada wishing to snuggle up to the U.S. any time soon. Pick your battles wisely and all that...

--Cindy

John Creighton · 2004-11-03 13:41:08

It would be similar to a Cold War standoff, no one would actually push hard enough to make either side pull the trigger, any one of the powers could blow up the world.

Unless enough anti missile technology and post nuclear war survival technology were developed. Either that or a strong confidence in first strike capabilities.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-03 13:43:22

Unless enough anti missile technology and post nuclear war survival technology were developed. Either that or a strong confidence in first strike capabilities.

Or having eggs in more than one basket coupled with extremely compelling reasons that justify the cost.

John Creighton · 2004-11-03 13:48:01

The entire issue of major import that defeated Kerry, that secured Bush, was not the economy. It wasn't the War on Terror. It was fucking morality.
Rove looked at the 2000 election and saw that the Christian Right stayed home, primarily because they were turned off by the coke-snorting-drunk-frat-boy escapade of GW. His strategy hinged on getting them out, and getting them out in number.

I agree.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-03 13:49:03

What I find interesting is to which states Kerry had won mostly the industrial north and the pacific coast all of which experienced high job loses under Bushes term of office but not due, I believe directly because of any legislation that he passed. Another interesting fact about those states happens to be that they where won by very small margins a mear 2%.

BWhite · 2004-11-03 13:50:39

*Bill, maybe it's time the Democratic Party do some self-analysis as to why they -didn't- receive the majority of the votes this year, and why they lost a handful of Senatorial races as well? ???

Why did Kerry lose?

Gay rights and abortion. End of story.

Palomar · 2004-11-03 13:53:36

*Bill, maybe it's time the Democratic Party do some self-analysis as to why they -didn't- receive the majority of the votes this year, and why they lost a handful of Senatorial races as well? ???
Why did Kerry lose?
Gay rights and abortion. End of story.

*Erm...I was asking about the Democratic Party as a whole, not just Kerry.

Your thoughts please?

--Cindy

John Creighton · 2004-11-03 13:54:49

Or having eggs in more than one basket coupled with extremely compelling reasons that justify the cost.

How many baskets do you need to ensure a future suply of eggs? ???

BWhite · 2004-11-03 13:58:04

*Bill, maybe it's time the Democratic Party do some self-analysis as to why they -didn't- receive the majority of the votes this year, and why they lost a handful of Senatorial races as well? ???
Why did Kerry lose?
Gay rights and abortion. End of story.
*Erm...I was asking about the Democratic Party as a whole, not just Kerry.
Your thoughts please?
--Cindy

That same logic, gay rights and abortion applies to every Senate seat Dems lost and every House seat Dems lost.

Bottom line? 52% of America opposes gay rights and abortion strongly enough to assure that nothing else matters. In any race outside of a Blue state.

Within the Blue States, secular humanists hold a decisive edge. Barack Obama thumped Alan Keyes rather decisively.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-03 14:00:16

Why did Kerry lose?
Gay rights and abortion. End of story.

Definately a major factor, but not quite so simple. Positions on social issues could have been handled more effectively but the candidate himself had inherent problems. Bush got his base out to vote for him, Kerry got most of his base out to vote against Bush. Kerry was a compromise candidate and wasn't able to generate much positive enthusiam.

So why did the Democrats choose him? Simply because he was the one they thought most able to win, the candidates that really inspired them were deemed "too liberal" to win a general election. Which brings us to perhaps the biggest problem the Democrats face: they are increasingly directed by the extreme left pushing "radical" positions like gay marriage which happen to be strongly opposed by the majority of the people. That's where the Democrats need to do some serious damage control, they've gone so far to capture fringe interests that they've alienated a large segment of the general population. The country simply isn't as Left as some Democrat leaders think it is.

clark · 2004-11-03 14:03:20

I'ld rather have a Democratic party of progressives that loses, rather than a Democratic party of regressives that panders to win.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-03 14:04:57

I'ld rather have a Democratic party of progressives that loses, rather than a Democratic party of regressives that panders to win.

But what you have is a party that panders and loses. Needs work.

BWhite · 2004-11-03 14:06:06

Why did Kerry lose?
Gay rights and abortion. End of story.
Definately a major factor, but not quite so simple. Positions on social issues could have been handled more effectively but the candidate himself had inherent problems. Bush got his base out to vote for him, Kerry got most of his base out to vote against Bush. Kerry was a compromise candidate and wasn't able to generate much positive enthusiam.
So why did the Democrats choose him? Simply because he was the one they thought most able to win, the candidates that really inspired them were deemed "too liberal" to win a general election. Which brings us to perhaps the biggest problem the Democrats face: they are increasingly directed by the extreme left pushing "radical" positions like gay marriage which happen to be strongly opposed by the majority of the people. That's where the Democrats need to do some serious damage control, they've gone so far to capture fringe interests that they've alienated a large segment of the general population. The country simply isn't as Left as some Democrat leaders think it is.

The only person who could beaten Bush was Senator Generic Democrat - - frankly I believe Kerry was the best choice to withstand the relentless Rove attacks without a personal meltdown.

The Swift Boat liars may have swayed votes but Kerry knows the truth about his service and his self-esteem remains intact.

Palomar · 2004-11-03 14:06:42

That same logic, gay rights and abortion applies to every Senate seat Dems lost and every House seat Dems lost.
Bottom line? 52% of America opposes gay rights and abortion strongly enough to assure that nothing else matters. In any race outside of a Blue state.
Within the Blue States, secular humanists hold a decisive edge. Barack Obama thumped Alan Keyes rather decisively.

*Thanks. IIRC (certain), as gay rights go Kerry is opposed to same-sex marriages, prefering civil unions instead. Which is the same as Bush's view, except Bush interjects religion into it.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer commented repeatedly last evening that national security issues were a huge plus for Bush, even by folks in New England who'd been hit hard by 9/11 (family members/friends lost)...who questioned our involvement in Iraq but nevertheless felt Bush the more capable leader as national security goes.

?

How did Kerry and the Dems fail on that count, in your opinion? I'm simply curious is all. Frankly, I would have imagined more votes would have gone to Kerry and the Dems on that issue, in that area.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-11-03 14:08:10

That same logic, gay rights and abortion applies to every Senate seat Dems lost and every House seat Dems lost.
Bottom line? 52% of America opposes gay rights and abortion strongly enough to assure that nothing else matters. In any race outside of a Blue state.
Within the Blue States, secular humanists hold a decisive edge. Barack Obama thumped Alan Keyes rather decisively.
*Thanks. IIRC (certain), as gay rights go Kerry is opposed to same-sex marriages, prefering civil unions instead. Which is the same as Bush's view, except Bush interjects religion into it.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer commented repeatedly last evening that national security issues were a huge plus for Bush, even by folks in New England who'd been hit hard by 9/11 (family members/friends lost)...who questioned our involvement in Iraq but nevertheless felt Bush the more capable leader as national security goes.
?
How did Kerry and the Dems fail on that count, in your opinion? I'm simply curious is all. Frankly, I would have imagined more votes would have gone to Kerry and the Dems on that issue, in that area.
--Cindy

Why?

Because 60% of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein planned 9/11. And Wolf Blitzer is a tool of the GOP.

clark · 2004-11-03 14:09:39

I tend to see the Democrats as socially progressive that look to include all disparate viewpoints in life and living. What I see in the Republican Party is attempts to exclude various segments of society to use as wedges to motivate through fear other segments of society.

So you end up with the Republican's pointing to those dirty gays as a problem, so the Christian right has to group totgether to keep them in their place. I see the Republican party point to women who have control over their own bodies, and use that as a wedge to exploit the Chrisitian Rights beliefs.

It's simply wrong, but unfortuntely, effective.

clark · 2004-11-03 14:11:44

haha... Wolf Blitzer is a tool. :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-11-03 14:12:36

In my darker moments I see gays being "used" like the Jews in the 1930s as scapegoats

Pat Robertson said "on the record" that 9/11 happened because America tolerates deviant sexual practices and perverts. His supporters voted 95% for Bush (anecdotally speaking).

Palomar · 2004-11-03 14:13:26

And Wolf Blitzer is a tool of the GOP.

*That's a rather serious charge. What do you base it on? Again, just curious.

--Cindy

P.S.: Cobra Commander, you seem to indicate the Dems are losing because they're seeking to please everyone?

Euler · 2004-11-03 14:15:47

*Erm...I was asking about the Democratic Party as a whole, not just Kerry.
Your thoughts please?

I think that a lot of the congressional seats that the Dems are losing are because the South is finally starting to forgive the Republicans for electing Lincoln.

BWhite · 2004-11-03 14:15:56

And Wolf Blitzer is a tool of the GOP.
*That's a rather serious charge. What do you base it on? Again, just curious.
--Cindy

Bribed? No. Not at all.

Does he alter his analysis to conform with his prejudices and then feign political neutrality and objectivity? Absolutely.

Edit: I dismiss his analysis as GOP spin-doctoring. That is all I mean.

= = =

Find the Wolf Blitzer reference in Jon Stewart's new book and have a good laugh.

Palomar · 2004-11-03 14:20:49

*Erm...I was asking about the Democratic Party as a whole, not just Kerry.
Your thoughts please?
I think that a lot of the congressional seats that the Dems are losing are because the South is finally starting to forgive the Republicans for electing Lincoln.

*A moment of internet uncertainty...are you being serious or facetious?

---

Bill...thanks. Not sure I'm interested in extensive reading about Wolf Blitzer though. :-\ In fact, I rarely watch any of the CNN programs he's on.

Jon Stewart? Go ask Tucker Carlson. :hm: (Just kidding...I'm not overly concerned with their *personal* differences).

--Cindy

clark · 2004-11-03 14:24:09

No kidding, please. Serious disscussion. geez.

BWhite · 2004-11-03 14:31:51

No kidding, please. Serious disscussion. geez.

Have you seen the Wolf Blitzer cartoon in Jon Stewart's book? Just go to Barnes and Noble and browse until you find it.

Its worth the effort.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#301 2004-11-03 13:38:23

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#302 2004-11-03 13:41:07

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#303 2004-11-03 13:41:08

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#304 2004-11-03 13:43:22

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#305 2004-11-03 13:48:01

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#306 2004-11-03 13:49:03

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#307 2004-11-03 13:50:39

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#308 2004-11-03 13:53:36

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#309 2004-11-03 13:54:49

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#310 2004-11-03 13:58:04

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#311 2004-11-03 14:00:16

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#312 2004-11-03 14:03:20

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#313 2004-11-03 14:04:57

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#314 2004-11-03 14:06:06

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#315 2004-11-03 14:06:42

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#316 2004-11-03 14:08:10

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#317 2004-11-03 14:09:39

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#318 2004-11-03 14:11:44

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#319 2004-11-03 14:12:36

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#320 2004-11-03 14:13:26

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#321 2004-11-03 14:15:47

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#322 2004-11-03 14:15:56

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#323 2004-11-03 14:20:49

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#324 2004-11-03 14:24:09

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#325 2004-11-03 14:31:51

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

Board footer