Listen: you would do better to look at WHY this happened instead of castigating me for celebrating uncanny foresight.
Why did this happen? I contend that much of the blame lies with the Massachusetts Supreme Court. They took it upon themselves to legislate from the bench, imposing a new definition of marriage upon the people of Massachusetts without any opportunity for self-governance.
Now… I agree that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry. I’ve ALWAYS favored civil unions precisely equal in law, and after a heated debate here I was forced to conclude that calling them “marriage” was the right thing to do, too.
But how this decision is arrived at is important. When it’s imposed by judicial fiat, there WILL BE consequences. In this case, it sent a warning signal to the rest of the country: “Protect marriage in your state constitution, or liberal activist courts will take the right to decide away from you.”
Forcing such a sweeping change via the courts was a mistake. This is the aftermatch of that mistake.
I know the right has moved to the center. Our “left wing” looks pretty rightist compared to our past and compared to almost everyone else in the world. America is as right a nation as you get in the free world.
Part of that is because there is no meaningful left. Americans are joiners. They love a good fight. They’re always up for a bandwagon. And there is nobody on the left except a few assorted wackos to give them this. They don’t see any good reasonable folks in politics embracing left causes. Of course they are going over to the right where they have all the fights and causes they can handle.
The right has the war on terror. We have the war on terror, just a little nicer. The right has the war in Iraq. We have the “well, maybe it could have been done better” war in Iraq. The right has lowering taxes. We have lowering taxes except nobody believes us. The right has the war on gays. We have the we’ll try not to say anything nice about gays stance. The right has religious fanatasism. We have the candidates that continually assure us that they are just as religious as the other guy.
If we build an left, they will come. Of course Americans are against gay marriage when not a single politician has the guts to say it’s a good idea. Of course they all think the war in Iraq is great when only one Democrat had the guts to vote against it. The Dems disavowed the left in an attempt to capture the middle, and instead they just made the left look like the playingfield of wackos that nobody wants to be associated with. Now they don’t have a platform to stand on. The left hasn’t magically been relegated to the extremists because America has taken a mysterious shift to the right. The left has moderated itself out of existance and made itself a dirty word. By playing it safe, we’ve made it look like our own causes are weaknesses and pushed the masses over to the other side, which offers strength if nothing else. This displaced the middle and now we have simple things like health care looking like extreme communist impossibilties.
I can blow the 8-ring of out a man-silhouette target at 200 yards, iron sight, with a 30 round magazine on rapid fire. But only if I’m wearing my glasses.
[sub]Piker.[/sub]
A-Fucking-Men!
That whole post was priceless. Mind if I copy it to share with some friends?
RIGHT! Given the fact that the Dems nominated a Yankee, they still came damn close. If they had nominated a Southerner- or a Midwesterner- they would have won.
The Dems have tended to nominate a Guy likely to win the nomination, but no where near as likely to win the General Election. The GOP stopped doing that- for the Prez anyway- after Goldwater.
Interesting thread. Several of the questions I had about “what happened” have already been addressed. I do have one comment, and one question:
Comment:
According to exit polls, the young people simply didn’t show up. (10%) Don’t they care? You young people could have voted for Bush, Kerry, Nader etc or written in your SO’s name. But you should have participated.
I’m old enough so that I couldn’t vote until age 21. I remember being bitter about that. I was 17 and in the Military Service when an election rolled around. It pissed me off that I was considered to be old enough to tote a rifle but too young to vote.
I’ll always remember the thrill, four years later, of finally getting to vote. I haven’t missed voting since. If todays’ 18 year-olds are too immature to take their responsibilities seriously, maybe we should move the voting age back to 21.
Question:
Where were all those “millions” of cell phone users that were going to vote Kerry, but were said to be missed in the pre-election polls because they didn’t have a land-line? Broadcast news stations and several prominent posters on this message board assured us that there was a throng of them, and they were almost entirely Kerry supporters.
Were they too busy standing in a mall and chatting on their cell phones to bother to vote?
It appears that the Democrats didn’t do a good job of getting some their (alleged) groups of supporters to go vote.
It seems is thought many Dems want to find out what went wrong. Does anyone really think that something has to have gone wrong when the Republicans control the Presidency, Governorships, the House, and the Senate? Hollywood, and the media were all strongly behind the Democrats and still the President won. I think that it’s time Democrats view these loss as a sign that they are the party out of step with the average American, not the other way around.
This is so fucking dead on I’m sorry I didn’t have this insight myself. Mind if I reproduce this somewhere else? Actually, that whole post, and a bit by Even Sven.
Insult and browbeat the comservative-religious long enough, and they will fight back fiercely. ‘Turn the other cheek’ has come to mean to kiss their rear ends.
A few of the reasons why Republicans are so strong nowadays, realting to the pocketbook.
Republicans have a core of hard-working blue-collar men who by most accounts should be Democrat. They work hard for their money and they don’t take government handouts (none that you can see). They don’t like the idea of welfare recipients driving their Cadillacs from their mansion to the liquor store every day [hyperbole]. While the issue of welfare is debatable, many of these men make it too much of a single issue, and find themselves loathing Democrats.
Taxes can be quantified, but the benefits of government spending cannot be. People can see X dollars taken from their paycheck every week, but they can’t add up the worth of the roads they drive on, the schools that educate their children, the police that protect their neighborhoods, etc. Fewer taxes are always better because that’s something they can plainly see. Freemarketers and smaller-government types have a debate, but most other people just don’t think about it, and REpublicans are the ones who offer lower taxes.
People want to have their cake and eat it, too, and Republicans give them that, especially Bush 43. Lower taxes and increase spending, it’s a win-win situation; who cares about a deficit? You can’t see it. Seriously, i don’t think that continous deficit spending is even a debatable issue.
There were lots of comments here on the SDMB, and some in the media as well, that this was a referendum on Bush. I agree, because as a general rule an incumbent president either gets a huge majority (Clinton in 96, Reagan in 84, Nixon in 72) or gets trounced (Bush in 92, Carter in 80.) This didn’t look like that, it looked like an election with no incumbent. That being said, the Kerry campaign made lots of mistakes. They allowed 527s and the Republicans to define Kerry early in the campaign. Having plans on the website is good, but you need to be able to condense that stuff down to a soundbite. Even reading both websites, I still didn’t see much a difference between the two. So that’s what I think–the Kerry campaign allowed themselves to think of this as a referendum on Bush and did not spend enough time defining Kerry, the positions and actions that would be taken, and how they differed from Bush and the Republicans. I believe, had Bush actually been prepared and looked good in that first debate, it wouldn’t have been anywhere near this close.
Quite frankly, the Democrats need to do two things. They must pick up some seats in the midterm elections. More importantly, if they want the Presidency, they need to run a southern or western governor. People have suggested that a Richardson/Obama ticket would be a great choice, and I agree. But, in any case, they cannot run another senator and especially not another northern senator.
Sigh. Some people never learned the lesson of the French Revolution.
You encourage the opposition to send their kids off to war after war. That decimates their populace, and political control shifts naturally towards your side. A civil war only kills off your side as well.
The “right of the people to decide” and “liberal activist courts” are merely smokescreens to make oneself look less bigoted. The primary motivation of these voters was to keep queers from marrying, not to keep judges from running wild.
Do you honestly think any appreciable number of people who voted for the DOMA initiatives were in favor of it on procedural grounds instead of a gut instinct of “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”? Perhaps you would vote for it soley on intellectual grounds that judges shouldn’t be making those decisions and would happily support a democratic vote for a measure that would affirmatively give gays rights, but you are a rare minority.
The Republicans were geniuses in not holding their convention until after the election. Kerry goes first in late July. Kerry can’t raise money by himself any longer and doesn’t have a major ad campaign in August. August is full of Swift Boat ads (which appear out of ‘nowhere’) and Kerry has to spend time, money, and energy to correct the Swift Boat ads. Republicans come and hold their convention in late Aug./Early Sept. in NEW YORK. Bush exploits 9/11…and wins…
I voted for Kerry, but Rove and the Republicans played this one right.
I, too, see a point in a sythesis of even_sven’s and Lib’s postings. The Democratic party has to stand for something, yes. And the trick is that it has to stand for something clearly distinct from the Republicans, without getting held hostage by its own fringe. Its glory years in the 20th century were when it was able to cast itself as the party of The People, vs. the Fat Cats who were with the Republicans.
And we NEED a strong Democratic party, because the problem is that if the Conservatives settle into an “establishment” role, then we’re gonna have a problem since the more radical right will never be happy with where the “center” is and will keep pushing further right.
But of course, anyway, whoever it is and whatever he proposes, we know that in 2008 the GOP will say that of Dem Candidate, “he is even more liberal than Kerry!!”.
II.
Well, color me puzzled that you feel he’s screwing up a major war, and establishing economic and environmental policies that you “hate”, yet that is less important than the possibility of you being expected to just sit there passively – NOT to join in – while someone else is allowed to sin. If allowing – NOT mandating – two guys to marry, a more urgent thing to rectify, than policies you yourself find bad for the environment, the economy, and international security, then I must conclude that you did not really “hate” those policies so much.
When the standard-bearer of the left ends his speeches with “God Bless America” and people are actually concerned about whether he’s in good standing with his church, you see “anti-religiosity”? No, sincerely: are you TRULY concerned you would become marginalized or persecuted? Even here at the SDMB, you’ll find a bunch of us liberals jumping to the defense whenever someone tries to just slam all of Christianity or Religion; and the SDMB is way out at the edge in the “irreligiosity” aspect.
I suppose you just saw that in me, too?
But really, as has been mentioned very accurately all over the Boards, the USA’s “center” is further rightward than just about anywhere in the Western Industrialized nations. Where is the threat to your religion? Since 1976 We’ve had: 4 years of Carter, a born-again Baptist; 8 years of Reagan, fully supported by the Moral Majority; 4 years of Bush-I, not particularly pious but still a Republican; 8 years of Clinton, yeah, he was a party animal and I won;t deny that; and 4 years of Bush-II. Heck, let’s drop Carter and we have that over the last 24 years, fully two thirds were under “conservative” presidents friendly to the Christian Right. Where’s the danger of anti-religion?
Young and affluent skews Democrat. See the national exit poll here. And while I’m willing to admit the conventional wisdom is that the people who are behind don’t show up, that presupposes that the people who are behind know it. I was watching both the net exit polls, and Fox news yesterday. Watching the net, Kerry was way ahead, check it out.
If you watched Fox, President Bush was never behind. I never said that this cost Senator Kerry the election, but I think it was definitely a factor in depressing the 18 - 29 voters. They had no real desire to elect Kerry, they just wanted to defeat Bush. Once they thought that was done, they thought, “Why bother, it’s in the bag?”
