I have sat back and watched and listened for a week now as Democrats on this site, other sites, radio, TV and on the street, have talked about how Bush won because the uneducated, ignorant, homophobic bible-thumpers voted recklessly to put Bush back in office.

You folks, just don't get it do you?
I have 138 I.Q. I have a juris doctorate degree. I am well-versed in both history and current events.
And I am a fundamentalist Christian who voted for Bush, while still opposing the war in Iraq.
You guys will keep losing the elections if you never learn the lesson. Continual ridicule and caricature-drawing of a large portion of the electorate is never going to win you the White House.
Take a good look at an electoral map "county by county"

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

Bush consistently won in rural and suburban counties NATIONWIDE, not just in the "red" states.
Where did Kerry win? Areas with large urban (read African-American) populations. Look at Illinois - John Kerry won Cook County (Chicago) and not much else.
In my own state of Alabama, the only counties won by Kerry are those so-called Black Belt (named for the black soil and the majority of the population) counties where a majority of the people are black.
Now, a cynical Republican might say Kerry could only win the uneducated, innercity vote. But then they would be accused of being racist.
But what does that make Democrats who vilify and stereotype Christian voters?

This Jew feels marginalized too.

Well, you'd think after a couple millenia we'd be used to it.

As to the topic at hand, I already bit Krem along similar lines so hesistate to bring it up again, but I will, because the former had been a misunderstanding, this is a direct confrontation.

I do not think this election was about the 20% of America being *backwards* or whatever you care to call it. I think it was a carefully cultivated discussion (of three years and probably more in fact) of assigning a hierarchy of relevancy to voters' issues. Is there a percentage of this country that really does vote strictly based on gay marriages? Yes. Are they the reason Bush is in the White House? Nope. The reason Bush is in the white house is because, though such social issues as gay marriage are on his agenda, he's managed to relegate them to the bottom, in terms of gravity. He ran on larger, less clearly defined issues such as the War and economy. Those are not topics restricted to "Red' or "Blue" discourse. And yes, many people jump all over the politcal bi-partisan spectrum on the topic.

I like to take one of my favorite Republicans (don't laugh) Arnold, as an example. Even at the RNC he said "It's okay not to agree with your party on everything. That is what is so great about this country." (I'm paraphrasing). He probably disagreed on Bush's environmental policy, because from what I hear he is actually quite active on this front. However, that being said, he still alighned himself with the larger issues Bush put forth, and relagated his points of divergence (Environment, Gay Issues, etc) to secondary positions. That is how this election proceeded with much of the country. But, there is the small percentage in this country that have not relegated those issues to the marginal, and those people, unfortunately, have managed to push them through at a time when everyone else is voting on other concerns. I like to call this "sneaking" those in.

Its unfortunate because most of this country, regardless of which "color" state, where not voting on that black and white social issues, or perhaps the turn out would have been different. They were voting on Terrorism, the emplyment rate, and government budgets. These are not nearly so clear cut issues, which is why no electorate population, barring Washington DC, was really all that one-sided. Because Bush has appealed to people on these issues, and regardless of if I like his solutions, clearly many other people did. These people are not the "uneducated, homophobic, bible-thumpers" you have suggested that I have suggested they are. And I don't think they were voting the "uneducated, homophobic, bible-thumping" agenda either. What they were voting on was a policy of letting such issues "slide" in the name of the greater good. And lo and behold, most people did let them slide, and now we have 11 states plus an increasing federal lean were the small population that doesn't let it slide, and does keep it on the top of their voting agenda, have managed to push it through.

Give me Schwarzenegger or Specter any day. Those are republicans I would feel alot more comfortable holding the party's ground with, and I would have to admit that there would be far less of the above mentioned outcry should that be the case.

-Dolce

I think in this sense the democratic party is foolish.

They are preaching to minoritys where the Republicans are gettign the masses.

Moral issues decided this election.

I am all for a womans right to choose, so choose to be on birth control. Abortion is NOT a form of contraceptive. I really think that the only situation an abortion should be allowed is in the case of a rape. That is IT. And in that case, if you report the rape right after (which is not always easy) you can take the 'day after pill' and wont ever need to get an abortion.

I understand that young women at times are pressured by equaly young and moreso stupid males, into having sex at a young age, an age where they are uninformed on contraceptives and other things. If and when abortion is made illegal, the burden falls heavily on parents and schools around the country to help educate the children of this nation not in abstinence, but rather the right to choose, and how to protect yourself. It seems for too long this nation has tried scare tactics to get people to stop from having sex, that is just a moronic way to go about things.

There are also the issues of gay marriage. This is a very tricky one. Marriage is a religious sacrament. I firmly believe that if two men wish to share the rest of their lives together, then noone has a right to tell them otherwise, they should recieve equal protection under the law that any male and female union gets. That is only common sense. Even if you do not agree with homosexuality, there is no reason that you should ever be against a persons right to choose their own path in life. Marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, but everyone deserves equal protection under law.

Democrats just sometimes seem lost. Their parties platform doesnt preach to enough people, the 'middle' ground of the country is firmly republican. I think the worst thing that could have happened for Democrats is the war in Iraq. It gave people a reason to hate Bush, and gives democrats false hope. With out this debacle that is Iraq, Bush could have won 60%+ of the popular vote, and that would have been a wakeup call to democrats everywhere.

KJ

Lol what a laugh. Controlling everything in the government and still complaining about being marginalized. You guys need to get a new song, that one doesn't work anymore. :wink:

Yes Bush did better in rural areas nationwide, but his actual share of the rural vote was down several percentage points from what he got vs. Gore.

If you believe exit polling data, the main difference in this election was the way white women voted. Especially married white women. Basically Bush won because he scared security moms.

"Democrats' falloff among whites appears to have been concentrated almost entirely among white women, rather than white men. This year, Bush carried white men by 25 points (62-37), only a point more than his 24 point margin in 2000 (60-36). In contrast, he carried white women by 11 points (55-44), a big improvement over the single point (49-48,) by which he carried this group in 2000."

Also, interestingly and probably not coincidentally, women are much more likely than men to believe Saddam played a role in 9/11.

As to maps, there's a better set of maps that weight for population. When you look at typical maps like the one in the first post it looks like a sea of red because frankly most of the middle of the country is taken up by under-populated counties.

Here's some maps that show it in terms of how many people voted which way, a more realistic approach:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/



[I'm not sure if the image will come through because it's not jpg, it's png, whatever that is]

Personally I dont think the dems have to do much soul searching over this election. They had an awful campaigner as a candidate, who really was very liberal just as the Republicans said he was, with a very unlikeable wife and a trial lawyer (!) as a running mate.

But he still came within a couple percentage points of winning. More people voted for Kerry than voted for Clinton in 1992 or 1996 - and I'm not some big Kerry supporter, he was a bad candidate. Still people were not turned off much by the liberal label, not to the degree that Republicans want us to believe they are. :wink: :wink: :wink:

If you want to talk about marginalization and Christianity, it's the Christian left that has been too marginalized. The Christian Right are if anything, over represented and over reported on.

I disagree, I don't think Moral Issues decided this election except for about 20% of the voters who assigned it the highest relevancy in the face of what is going on today. More likely I think alot of people were like Chris and Mav, and Chris even said he voted against the ban on gay marriages. To me, that indicates that Bush's gay marriage ban (on the federal amendment level) was in fact not the primary deciding factor of this election. Other wise, would they have voted the same way they did? I think the deciding factor of this election is still international war/diplomacy, and the economy. Those "moral" issues were snuck in under the main layer by the few that really do care if some gay couple three towns over wants to have hospital visiting rights.



Well yeah, I'll agree with you that abortion would really be a non-issue if over-the-counter morning after pills were made readily available with no questions asked (as in, age restriction, parental consent, etc). So You bring up a good point. I won't go into the rape aspect of it though, since everyone already knows how disgusting an idea I think it is to force a woman to have to prove she's been raped. How humiliating, degrading, and ridiclous that concept is. Rape, and a woman's individual needs in order to psychologically overcome it should not be up to the discussion of the courts and public.

And I also agree with you that parents and schools should play larger role in educating children properly when it comes to sexual identity and health security. As you said, if all of this came about, abortion would practically be a thing of the past.



But what if the particular religious institution is alright with it? Does that mean the government has a right to deny that institution the authority of acknowledging the marriages of its own constituency? In my opinion, leave it up to the religious institution to decide whom among its following can or can't get a sanctioned marriage. Its not the government's job to decide.



While I agree with you we are currently a bit "lost." I'm not going to go as far as too say its because we need to pander to those who didn't vote for us. They didn't pander to us. I think its about the democrats getting organized and having a consistent platform in which we can recruit future generations. Sure, it has to be appealing, but public opinion is very malleable and whats appealing now may not be 10 years down the road. We just need to get organized and find a way to make people invested in the long-term discourse of the party. I see nothing wrong with some changes. After all there are alot of Democrats a admire and support very much, such as Richardson, and even Dean, that were very fiscally conservative and responsible. I am still flexible on that point, and don't see it as a black-and-white issue such as certain, as you call it, "Moral" ones are. I'm willing to work with discussions addressing the economy in ways I'm not willing to around civil liberties. And that is something the Democratic party really does have to do.

-Dolce

Did anyone see Republican senator Alan Simpson on The Bill Maher show last friday on HBO?

Basicly what he said was that most right-wing christian voted for bush as a big(and excuse my words)Fuck you to the left and hollywood who ridicule them.Bill argued and the senator said dont give me that Bullshit bill!
A gay guy who was a guest on the show agreed with the senator and said that the left next time should be respectful to these voters even if some of the right begin talking BS.He said that if dems want to win and liberals want to spread their message to the south and midwest then they should do it in a peaceful manner and not try to be forceful,and that the dems should just dump hollywood celebrities.

I agree.

I'm not all that worried anymore about the Democrats now that I've learned more about what is happening on a local level. The Republican revolution began years ago on a local level and Democrats retook some ground in this election. They won back 6 statehouses. For example the Dems retook the Colorado legislature after 40 years and picked off a Republican Senate candidate, Coors.

Obviously I'm not saying things are rosy for the Democrats, they are the marginalized opposition party now and they need to try harder. But there are some good omens for the future out there. It's not all bleak.

But I do agree that the Dems need to curb some more extreme aspects and rediscovering the christian left would be a start, they are too often squeezed out between the secular left and the religious right.

My ideal for the Dems would be to make a party that the guy in my sig (FDR) would like. I think he came closest to the real core of the country, centrist with a bit of religion, some left of center social sense and some toughness abroad. Hey that sounds like Clinton too doesn't it? No wonder he's a giant now.

But that's the strange thing about the Republican party. Their coalition includes the very same corporations who are turning out this so-called cultural polution. Alec Baldwin isn't the guy making decisions in Hollywood, corporate fat cats are, in companies like Time Warner and Sony.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=B02

Sure they may give money to Democrats but they are still corporations and rich people. If Republicans don't like them so much, why do they keep giving them tax breaks?

The Christian Right may dislike Madonna but Bush cut Madonna's taxes, he didn't do anything negative to her, only positive. Because the entertainment industry despite giving money to Dems basically falls under the same rich people and corporations umbrella that Republicans protect and coddle.

Bush also gave me and you a tax-cut.

I didn't see it, but I read the transcript.

Noam Chomsky is such a sleazeball. I despise him and anyone who's pimpin' him. And then after the lovey-dovey interview, Maher had the balls to say that he disagreed with Chomsky on almost every issue! What a tool.

A couple of loose ends before I shut up, I've been blabbing too much today.

- When I said Christian Left, of course I mean other religions too. Jews, Muslims and such. It was just an expression.

- Eventually the Republican party is going to have to come to grips with whether or not they think ethics and morals should influence corporate decisions. As it is, Republicans seem to snicker at the idea that anything but the bottom line should matter when people raise ethical concerns like outsourcing, environmental effects, child labor and other similar issues.

But when television, movies and the media are brought up, suddenly ethics and morality are supposed to play a big role in corporate decisions. Well I don't see why it should. If Nike can have 12 year old Phillipinos making their shoes and that not bother Republicans, why should some soft core porn TV show bother Republicans as long as it makes money, all that matters is the bottom line right?

KK, AG out.

Excuse the language, but Bullshit. Those 10% aren't going to vote any other way even if, after smighting the left side of our face, we turn and offer the other cheek (I'm sure most of you get that refence). I could care less to cater my discussions around civil liberties to people who think the leader of the Democratic platform should be Zell Miller. It's the other 90% of the party that I want to engage in discussion and exchange, and am willing to work with. I have zero interest in being "respectful" to those who lack one ounce of respect for me and my lifestyle. Or, let me rephrase that, I have enough respect for them to say the government should stay out of their business, which I do, but nor do I harbor enough "respect" for their desire to spread their agenda through government institutions to say I'm going to go out of my way to include that agenda in national politics and policy that affects lifestyles far outside of their own.

-Dolce

Yes, we sometimes forget there are Fundamentalist Evangelical Conservatives that are not stupid. They're just ignorant.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I give you Exhibit One for the Prosecution. A person who says if you disagree with them, you are either ignorant or stupid. Don't defend your ideas, just say the other side isn't worth listenting to - the very definition of marginalization.
Such tolerance!

I didn't vote the way I did because of "gay marriage" or abortion or any other single issue. I voted Republican because for all his faults (which are many), Bush believes there is a right and wrong. He doesn't believe all that relativism mush the Democrats push. This is the morality of which I speak, that there is, in fact, a definable morality - and it's not dependant on a poll (i.e. taking a poll on what position to take in response to the Osama Bin Laden tape).
On some issues, there is a right and a wrong - not "what's right for me, may not be right for you and vice versa."

The people I associate with are fairly diverse, with different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The one group however that I don't know much about personally is the Christian right. Do they led exciting sexual lives or do their beliefs limit the amount of things they can do in the bedroom?

For example, would it be acceptable to engage in anal sex or have a 69? Could you bring another person into the bedroom? How about toys? If you brushed against a man during an orgy or worst, had a free for all, would you have to turn in your Christian right card?

These are serious questions that I've always wondered about. I just don't know if I could ever let something like religious beliefs get in the way of my Bob Crane activities.

I sometimes watch PAX and wonder if behind all that fervor and hairspray and makeup lies someone I can pee on (or have pee on me).

I beg to differ. Believe it or not, I have just as strong and "definable" a "morality" as the next person. I believe just because the girl next to me likes other girls, and I prefer men, that we should be entitled to the exact same priviledges, rights, and protections under the law. I believe that if I practice religion within an institution that comdemns those practices, and that girl practices religion in an institution that does not, those institutions are entitled to the exact same authority and priviledges under the law. I believe a woman should never have to have her vagina and sexual behavior be the topic of court examination unless she so chooses it to be. I believe that anyone should or should not pray to God as they deem fit, and that their children should not have to do otherwise just because they attend a public institution. I believe that there should be a place in our legal system for acknowledging sexual and racial descrimination at the workplace, and I think everyone should be able to have access to all information in a library to interpret as they deem fit, without having their reading list, email, and reference inquiries become open picking for every government agency while section 215 forces a gag clause on the entire investigation.

Yes, you are right, sometimes there truly is a "right and a wrong." That wrong is a constitutional preferrencial treatment of a select group. This is not moral "relativism," it is definite. It is as clearly defined as anything that has escaped the lips of the President and as cleary "definable" a sense of ethics as anything I have heard from anyone else on these boards. And these are issues I do not care to compromise. Engage me as you like in discussions of health care, gun control, and the economy. These are spaceswith much more ambiguity of late. But don't think you can get away with calling me wishy washy and lacking in moral strength just because my ultimate vision is one of broad civil liberties.

-Dolce

And, guess what.

I'm not part of the "Bush = Hitler" movement, but...

Hitler communicated with the people a supposed "right" and a "dark" wrong. Hitler was a good leader. But, the ridgidness and his seeing things in black and white led to an image that Germany's tried to get rid of over the past 60 or so years.

Although I agree with the Democratic platform (well. Actually. If there's one thing the Dems have to work on, it's creating a platform. I should say that I disagree with many of the Republican ideals), I'd feel safer with a man who can consider all options and not simply believe that the end justifies the means, as long as the end is "right".

Fuck Bush. While there is a "right" and a "wrong" to some issues, you STILL have to consider all sides and the consequences. The thing is. Bush incorporates his "right and wrong" thing into the "what's right for me may not be right for you" issues. That's why you get the comments about the Christian Coalition, etc. There's a group of rigid people out there who don't think about the other side or what could be the most important amendment of them all - seperation of church and state. The constitution is an important document, and ya know? I'd like it if these groups could possibly respect other people's choice. If you've met your true love, why the hell should you settle for anything less than a recognized bondage? Because of some wacko religious crap?

And to the Jews who supported Bush because of Isreal policies..If you care about it so much, just fuckin' move there. I'm not going to support a party because of an interest in Isreal only for the sake of their religion.

COming from the person who said it was ok to use the bible in court hearings and procedures


Can you explain what bush thinks is "right or wrong?" Because honestly, I am confused as to what your trying to imply

It's my understanding that he's describing Bush as a strong leader because he sticks to an opinion and is capable of seeing the "main" picture and not the "trivial" details; that is...what's right and what's wrong.

Although I don't agree with it, it's respectable, I guess...

He also is trying to take one of my best friends and my GF'S brothers rights as a citizen away because they are gay.
He also sent troops over to Iraq to search for WMD's that are not there.
He also is the one responsible for all our troops deaths, and thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraw casualties.
He also thinks its a good idea to implement his Christian views(although I am christian) upon America



But hey, as long as you get your tax cut :wink:

Ahhh gotcha....