No one is castigating you for that. Your foresight was not uncanny. Most of the polls have been saying for months if not years that Bush would win. Most lefties or at the least a very significant number of lefties on this board thought Bush would win. They just didn’t want it to happen.
So you can gloat about winning, but the uncanny foresight stuff is bullshit.
Oh please. That study clearly shows that the people voting for Bush had gravely incorrect views on what’s going on in the world. Tell me, Sam, is there any evidence that Iraq either had WMDs immediately prior to the war or a program for developing them? Did Duelfer find even a program? Did Iraq provide substantial assistance to al-Qaeda? Has any evidence of this been found? Did the 9/11 commission find this to be true?
Then all well and good. But given the number of Bush supporters that clearly hold incorrect views on what has actually occurred in reality, it’s pretty obvious that they didn’t study the issues, nor did they have a good understanding of the actual positions the candidates had on the issues.
And how did Bush supporters come to believe a lot of these untruths? Well, 82% of Bush supporters believe that the Bush Administration has confirmed finding WMDs or or at least a program to produce them. 75% believe that the Bush Administration has confirmed that Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaeda. How is that not being duped?
And here’s the kicker. 58% of Bush supporters say they would not support Bush if Iraq had no WMDs or if Iraq had not provided substantial aid to al-Qaeda.
So you’ve got a majority of Bush supporters who are only supporting Bush because they have not studied the issues enough to know that the administration has been misleading them.
Again, how is that not being duped?
I say such offensive things? Since when?
Oh. OK, I get it. You get to say totally obnoxius obviously untrue things in a misleading way. But if it’s the general “you”, all your points must be true and nobody should take offense.
I just want to know who the hell you’re arguing with. Apparently nobody, see above.
OK, let’s see. If you (specific “you”) paint with an incredibly broad brush in an offensive way, that’s good. If someone else here does – and you decline to say who, or quote anyone or even address a specific point – that’s bad.
Nonsense. Especially if I get to play by your rules, and just make up shit that the imaginary opposition says, then refuse to back it up.
Wow, you just can’t make this stuff up. Well, I guess you can.
Fair enough. Which is one of the most accurate critiques to the Dems, namely the defensive position of trying to avoid saying anything that could lose a vote. You end up saying nothing and failing to GAIN votes.
I guess in the case of you and I, my befuddlement just boils down to our respective value system, which mine being more utilitarian (“does it at least not harm me?”) makes me unable to see how the “social moral values” issues could trump the governeance issues (e.g. job outsourcing = undecided, gay marriage = deal-breaker? Does not compute).
One thing that I have been considering on the rise of “values” politics in the last 40-some years is that the Culture War may be a product of our age’s media-intensive, high-mobility social culture. “Way back”, Smalville was Smallville and Metropolis was Metropolis, and the two environments coexisted safely at opposite ends of the train ride. Urbanites in downtown NYC or San Fran could be as cosmopolite as we wanted, the folks at the farm – or in the immigrant/working-class neighborhoods – could be as traditional as they wanted (and, for a time, Tombstone could be as wild as it wanted). By the time new social developments filtered out to the periphery and made it into policy, they could be adapted so as not to be scary. And if someone just HAD to live on the cutting edge TODAY, he could always move to where the action was, and a sort of “gentlemen’s aggreement” kept things looser.
However this created a latent problem: both among liberal cosmopolites and heartland traditionalists we fall into self-referential traps. We each grow to believe that our way is “what America is all about”… with emphasis on the ALL. Specially because for 200 years America grew, prospered and strenghtened WITH BOTH progressive elites AND traditionalist masses. By effectively living a “separate but equal” existence, each grew convinced that it was THEM who did the trick, with some support from the other; rather than there being a true synergy between the two.
However, with ever-faster, ever-more-immediate communication, when we become a nation informed by Network TV, mobile by jet airplane, and domiciled in exurbs, then these two worlds come into direct contact, and direct friction. We have eliminated the moderating middlemen of distance and time, and people have a very real impression that each other’s way of life is being shoved in their faces, and they have to shove back.
You’ve gotta be kidding. You couldn’t do a better Bush/Cheney impression with that quote if you tried.
I voted for the gay marriage ban in my state. I am not in any way looking to herd gays into concentration camps or prevent them from buying houses or indeed, to prevent them from making any choice what so ever. I consider myself an evengelical Christian and even I would not want to live under a Christian theocracy, (I don’t think God’s word supports that).
I do not like being refered to as bigotted or a redneck. I have given a great deal of thought about the issue and it greives me it came to a vote. I did not vote out of hate, ignorance or fear. If you only believe that, you will only be disappointed time and time again. We may have a fundamental disagreement but I will strive to never be rude or shrill or dismissive. What you do in the bedroom is your business, where you (the pro gay-marriage crowd) made a mistake was to try and change the meaning of the word ‘marriage’. It touched a nerve in mainstream Christians minds that brought out every last voter to try and stop that. This is only my opinion and that of my friends and family. I stay out of the threads where this is usually discussed because I don’t want the pile-on and flaming that might follow.
I don’t even own a pick-up truck or a gun.
JrDelerious, you said what I wish I could have said. Good sumation.
ExTank, I would be honored. I would request, though, that you make one change prior to distribution, crossing out the word “Saigon” and replacing it with “Hanoi”. I was in a hurry when I posted last night.
[Hijack]
If you want to know more information about the POW I mentioned, read the book Five Years to Freedom by the man himself, James N. Rowe. My father worked with Col. Rowe at the JFK School in Fort Bragg for a couple of years. We had the honor of having him over for dinner at our house several times. At the time, I was only in grade school and had no idea of his background. I was in high school by the time I read his book, and was completely blown away by it. Ironically, a month or so after I finished reading it, Rowe was assissinated in the Philippines.[/Hijack]
Sorry we all tried to horn in on your territory, Mr. Webster, in an effort to give good, honest people rights that they’ve never had before.
All exit polls indicate that what tipped the scales for the pubbies was in fact not security, but gays and abortion, leaning heavily on the former. I guess the thought of two gals or guys making hot love scares Republicans (of the Christian evangelical bent, anyway) a lot more than Osama.
So…how is the Republican party not the party of hate, then? Oh, yeah, I forgot, the “big tent”…better watch what Adam and Steve aren’t holding the tent up with their, err, “poles” if you know what I mean.
Okay, explain THIS to me: The same percentage of homosexuals voted for Bush the first time as the second time. What is this, the self-hating Roy Cohn set?
When it’s explained to you you either refuse to believe it, or dismiss the source as an ignorant bigot.
I’m not Mr. Webster, I was only trying to pass on some information. You know, to answer the OP.
That’s because opponents of gay marriage tend to be ignorant bigots. Tell me, why does changing the definition of marriage offend you so much? And tell me, if this is just about a defense of the word marriage and preserving its specific definition, why did Ohio’s amendment also ban gay civil unions or anything even remotely resembling marriage?
It wasn’t about the word marriage, it was about making sure you could continue to disriminate against homosexuals and deep down, you know it.
Exactly. What’s the problem with civil unions? Is there some specious slippery slope argument embedded in there somehow?
There’s an important issue in politics today which is virtually unmentionable by the elites but still important to the electorate. I speak of race and immigration.
I voted for Kerry because Bush, the cowardly fool, appears to be on a one-man mission to ruin everything I love about America. I’m much harder over on foreign policy and economics than the average voter.
But consider the bulk of the electorate, which is white, middle-class and probably unhappy with Iraq and the deficit but not willing to go to the wall over it. Here you have a Democratic candidate whose party platform advocates
Discrimination against whites, and especially white males, in education and hiring
Making white-on-minority crimes more punishable than minority-on-white crimes
Citizenship for illegal immigrants if they’ve avoided detection long enough
Now, you’ve got to field a pretty compelling candidate to get white people to vote for a party that has a stated policy of discrimination against white people. Not that the Republicans are much better - they have a guy pushing a bill to give federal student loans, protection from deportation, and permanent residency to illegal immigrant college students, who also would be entitled to pay in-state tuition and enjoy affirmative action. But to the typical white guy in Alabama, the stench of racial and ethnic preferences hangs much heavier over the Democrats, and probably rightly so.
On that basis, the surprise is not that Kerry lost, it’s that he was able to come as close as he did, still polling about 35% of the white male vote. You know, Howard Dean had the right idea when he talked about being the candidate of not just the traditional Democratic base, but also guys with Confederate flag stickers on their trucks, because those guys have very similar economic interests to the Democratic base. But we can’t say things like that anymore. I bet Bush and Rove peed their pants laughing, watching the Democrats beat each other up over that one.
Apparently the only way to ensure that marriage is defined as the union of man and woman is to
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sure the word is left unsullied, but no gay couples can ever even get the chance to approximate the effect of marriage, or get any legal status of any kind.
If you don’t want gays to be allowed to even approximate marriage, and get similar legal status, then you’re just flat out a bigot. I don’t know what BMalion or any of the other “yes” voters think, but that’s exactly what they voted in favor of.
I could swallow this line of reasoning if the electorate had indicated affirmative action and the like were salient issues. It would appear, if exit-polling is any indicator at all of the political and social zeitgeist, almost the entire block of new or habitually-infrequent Republican voters were motivated by anti-gay, anti-abortion, and anti-terrorist agenda, in reportedly that order. The Republican get-out-the-vote movement that trumped the corresponding Democrat efforts depended overwhelmingly on those wedge issues.
Good luck in 2008.
Dragging this kicking and screaming back to the OP, here’s my personal take on the subject:
1) Message The Republicans controlled the message from day one. All they had to do was to continually release stories for the Democrats to deny, and watch the Dems use up all their money and time in refutations that only further hammered the original message into the minds of the voters. Kerry never took the initiative. Bush had piles and piles of old and new issues that could have been used to convince voters that Bush was unfit for office, and yet all we got was a few feeble efforts that never got anywhere.
Fault: The Democrats. All political campaigns are propaganda – why aren’t the Dems better at it?
Which brings us to:
2) Media Let’s face it: high-quality journalism is roadkill is America: dead, stinking, and consisting mostly of disgusting smears. Despite the “liberal media” meme the US media are controlled by an increasingly small number of corporate entities with a vested interest in the current administration (witness the handout of digital licenses, for one example), and reporters (even those who tend to be leftist) are too chickenshit, too incompetent or too lazy to ask tough questions of those in power. With the GOP feeding stories to the media they just report without question, the American public have no hope of getting any sort of objective, rigorous news.
Fault: The media. Develop some critical thinking skills, people, or get the hell out of the news business. If you want to just parrot what the government tells you, move to Zimbabwe.
And on to:
**3) Fear ** You can’t go wrong with fear as a motivator. It bypasses the rational faculties and goes right to the gut. The Republicans know how to use fear to their advantage. The Democrats don’t.
**Fault: **The Republicans for spreading fear beyond any reasonable level. Those members of the public who fell for it unquestioningly. And the Democrats for failing either to counter the GOP fearmongering or to do their own.
On which point:
**4) Policies ** The Republicans have got the whole “bread and circuses” thing down pat – except that it’s “tax cuts and wars” these days. AFAICT the GOP policies are “Vote for us: we’ll protect you from Saddam, terrorists, WMDs, gays, French people, non-Christians, higher gas prices and Democrats.” It’s a warm, fuzzy kind of platform.
And the Democrats? “Vote for us: we’re not Bush.” Hmmm… Doesn’t really grab you, does it? The anti-Bush voters were already in the bag, and for everyone else it’s utterly uncompelling.
So…next time. The Democrats need to be proactive about controlling both their own image and their opponent’s image. They need to define the debate early and come up with some coherent policies on the issues that people care about (rather than the issues they *think *people should care about). And they need to be aware what it is people who aren’t already hardcore supporters *do *care about.
The media need to grow some balls (yeah, like that’s gonna happen) and hold politicians’ feet to the fire regardless of their political affiliation, and they’ve got to stop blindly swallowing everything they get fed (particularly by the GOP).
And the electorate? We need to demand more. From the Republicans, from the Democrats, from the media, and from ourselves.
Will any of this get the Democrats into power? Who knows? But it’ll certainly make life harder for the neocons, and raise the overall level of debate. Both of which, IMO, are good things.
I think we’re all already aware that ignorant bigots vote en masse, thank you.
I greatly enjoyed reading this, and would like to commend you on summarizing excellent points. I don’t have much more to add except that maybe you should be launching a letter-writing campaign to the leaders of the Democratic party so they can pull their collective heads out of their arses.