kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 4, 2004 18:32:16 GMT -5
Again, to write this off as simple demagoguery misses the point. If the Democrats want to sit around and think that they lost simply because of a couple of ballot initiatives, then that's fine with me. Just like they thought that if they could turn out more voters, they'd win.
The longer the Democrats fail to learn their lessons, and the longer they fail to do some real soul searching, the better the GOP is going to be.
The President got the most votes ever He had a 3.5 million vote margin The GOP increased its hold on both houses It's the first time that a Republican president has been reelected with a GOP house and senate since McKinley Save for Jim Jeffords, the GOP has controlled the Congress since '94 and the White House 20 out of 28 years (until at least 2008)
This election did not turn on a matter of a couple of ballot issues. If the Dems cannot see that, then they're in deep trouble. If they don't want to see that, then more power to them and to Terry McAuliffe I enthusiastically say "Four more years!"
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Nov 4, 2004 19:22:04 GMT -5
To be fair, DC was not attacked. The Pentagon was, which is in Northern Virginia. That's not "being fair" - it's splitting hairs without actually making a point. Go to the link under the map above, select Virginia in the box to the right of the map, and take a look at how the counties around DC voted. Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria - all went heavily to Kerry. And Jersey? Those towers fell where again? The smoke billowed through which streets? Jersey went to whom again? By how much? This is really one of the silliest distinctions I've heard people make; you'd do well to discard it, Pushy. I don't think people are "blaming" evangelical Christians for heading to the polls to vote based on "moral values," amporphous as that concept may be. I, for one, am not, and it is patently clear that Dubya's bloc of voters is broader than the evangelica right. However, I do think the evangelical bloc was a key part of a brilliant electoral strategy by Rove et al. I see nothing wrong with pointing out the disconnect between the merits underlying the key issue that concerned them and the message that got them concerned enough to vote in the first place. The message was calculated to fan emotions. You think that Dubya or the Republicans would have been as successful with evangelicals (to whom the gay marriage issue was targeted) if the message was presented as "Hey, marriage is for a man and woman, but let's give homosexuals a right to something similar"? That's not a galvanizing message. "We must protect the sanctity of marriage," on the other hand, has just the emotional content necessary to sent a particular segment of the electorate streaming to the polls. And today's Post point out that 77% of the self-described evangelicals turned out - THAT's bloc discipline that any political strategist would salivate over. kchoya: I guess I haven't adequately refined my point. The ballot initiatives themselves are not why the Dems fared poorly - the way that the people who voted for it were presented with the message that they should feel invested in those initiatives is, however (at least in my eyes). Democrats (including this lefty) seriously underestimated both the a) cohesion and b) growing number of people that this type of appeal would sway. That said, the RNC has taken all but 2 of the 24 Senate seats in the South - how much more can this approach bring? One note about what the numbers mean. It's all fine and well to point out that Dubya got the most votes ever, provided two things: 1) you also believe that the current leaders in career winnings in the PGA MUST be better than any golfer below them, or that the current top grossing movie is obviously better than earlier movies that came before it and grossed less; and 2) one remains cognizant that apparently Dubya also received the most votes AGAINST him. Dubya received 3.5 million more votes? That still only worked out to a 3% difference. Clearly meaningful, but not overwhelming in a country of 275 million. Plus, 75,000 changed votes in Ohio and Dubya's an ex-President. The BC04 campaign had a brilliant strategy and it played out just like they expected - kudos to them for handing it to the Dems. On the other hand, the benefits of that strategy aren't limitless, and even working to a T it didn't secure them an irrefutable mandate. Just ask Specter, Snow, Chaffe, et al. The Christian Coalitition wedge (for lack of a better term) is, like any bloc, itself ultimately susceptible to division. Just as the Dems should take heed to how Tuesday unfolded, so too the 'Pubs should not overestimate the "lessons" to be learned.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Nov 4, 2004 19:37:03 GMT -5
75,000 changed votes in Pennsylvania and Ohio is irrelevant.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Nov 4, 2004 20:12:53 GMT -5
pushy, i saw they same articles and also thought they were distasteful. but no more so than when red-staters claim to have unequivocal moral superiority on social issues, or question the patriotism / manhood of anyone who opposes the iraq war, etc. the idea east and west coasters are the only "elitists" is way off base.
kc, george bush did get the most popular votes in history, but remember kerry got more votes than reagan in 84. on the whole, neither factoid really means much.
as for the gay marriage / civil union issue, the text of the proposed constitutional amendment made the possibility of civil unions tenuous at best. it seems clear that bush was deliberately ambiguous on this point, allowing his minions to fan the evangelical base with hateful rhetoric without having to do it himself.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Nov 5, 2004 7:08:55 GMT -5
75,000 changed votes in Pennsylvania and Ohio is irrelevant. Do you and Pushy get your insight from the same source? I think I know what you're getting at, but do you care to clarify it so I'm sure? You know what, let me save us some time on this: The answer to 75,000 theoretical changed votes in Ohio is not to claim they're "irrelevant," but to stress that that's not what happened. And the rebuttal is that the 75,000 people indicate that the margins for Dubya's and the 'Pubs electoral success are slimmer than one might otherwise be inclined to believe. Same response applies to the argument that "yeah, but if 75,000 changed their minds in Pennsylvania, a concurrent change of 75,000 in Ohio wouldn't matter" - going around on a state by state basis to point out how slim both candidates margins were only underscores how slim Dubya's "mandate" actually is.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Nov 5, 2004 11:36:18 GMT -5
You made a comment implying that had 75,000 people changed their votes in Ohio, the result would gave been different. I said that if 75,000 (which, to be honest, it on has to be 60,000 because the margin is smaller) people in Pennsylvania had changed their votes, then it doesn't matter if a million Ohioans changed their vote.
I think it's fairly clear what I meant.
If you want to say that all it means is that the margin is slim anywhere, then fine. Just don't go bringing up the 75K votes in the first place if you don't want to hear the same thing from the other side.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Nov 5, 2004 13:32:47 GMT -5
I said that if 75,000 (which, to be honest, it on has to be 60,000 because the margin is smaller) people in Pennsylvania had changed their votes, then it doesn't matter if a million Ohioans changed their vote. I have two comments: 1. You said? Actually, the first time this was presented in any meaningful way was when I trotted it out for you. Your nine-word response constituted little more than an oblique reference that was particularly confusing (to me at least) because no one had previously referenced Kerry's similarly narrow margin in Pennsylvania - so that fact was hardly floating around in the background of matters previously discussed that a reader could reasonably have been expected have in mind as context for your reply. It took me a couple of minutes to figure out what you were getting at, and I'm a reasonably bright guy. 2. " ...then it doesn't matter if a million Ohioans changed their vote"? I'm not quite sure how you see changing the name of the state that put Dubya over the top in the electoral college reinforces your "it's irrelevant" rebuttal to the fact that Dubya took that one state by a very narrow margin. It is the very fact of a narrow margin in the state that makes the difference (be it Ohio or Pa.) which makes "the 75,000" relevant as a compelling illustative example of how a 2.7% difference in the popular vote may not be the end-all-be-all of whether there is some conclusive and irrefutable conservative mandate.
|
|
Joe Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
You're watching Sports Night on CSC, so stick around.
Posts: 1,236
|
Post by Joe Hoya on Nov 5, 2004 14:14:29 GMT -5
For a "reasonably bright guy", this part of the conversation is lasting way too long.
It's true that if 75,000 people changed their vote in Ohio, we're looking at a different result. It's also true that if 65,000 did the same in Pennsylvania, then Ohio and their results wouldn't mean a thing in regards to the overall result. In fact, it's true in LOADS of states (even the "blue" ones) that if a few people in each precinct voted the other way, things could have turned out differently.
The point is that since you brought up this fact solely about Ohio, you are seemingly trying to say "Bush won, but if only a few people changed..." Yeah, we know. That's true of just about every election. The fact is, anyone on either side can point at just about any state and pick a number and say "if we had just converted X amount of voters we could have won that state". I was just trying to show any reasonably bright people reading the thread that the same thing is true in Pennsylvania, except in the other direction, as is true in Ohio. Reasonably bright people should be able to comprehend that, and maybe even extrapolate that over a large number of the 50 states as well.
The President has been re-elected. Instead of whining about it or deciding what the losing side did wrong, let's just talk about what needs to be done over the next four years in as civil and non-partisan a manner as an online discussion board is capable of. Personally, I am a moderate who supported the President in his re-election bid, so I am always interested in hearing what people have to say on both sides of important topics. What I don't like is to see people confess their pride in being labeled a "liberal" or "conservative" and then railing against the other side. Let's have actual conversations instead of fights. We can fight again in 2008.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 5, 2004 14:36:10 GMT -5
Yep, let's keep it civil. I agree.
So we'll just remain civil while Bush
1.) Charges up another $75 billion to the war 2.) While simultaneously giving the wealthy another record breaking tax break 3.) Floats the idea of a national sales tax instead of income tax - thereby further shifting the weight of social services onto the poor 4.) Privatizes social security 5.) Appoints an ardent pro-lifer to the FDA's Executive Committe on Reproductive health 6.) Opens oil drilling in Alaska 7.) Looks forward to appointing 3-4 ultra-conservative judges to the SC 8.) Hold schools accountable - read test them and punish them for failure- without providing universal curriculums or funding
Yep, sure looks like he's extending a gracious olive branch to the half of the country who didn't vote for him.
See you guys in Tehran. After we get drafted for that invasion, anyone want to share my fox hole?
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Nov 5, 2004 14:52:53 GMT -5
Golly. I'm just gonna jump on #8 here because it is entirely inane. Universal curricula is a stupid idea because we live in a Federal system and local schools appreciate the opportunity to teach state history, local stories, etc. NCLB has been fully funded in accordance with its goals. The shortfall Kerry-Edwards cited was a difference between the amount that was authorized vs. that which was appropriated. In Washington, they always authorize more than they appropriate in order to provide funding flexibility. There is currently still money available for states to comply with NCLB that has not yet been touched. How something can be underfunded when the money available has not yet all been spent is entirely beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Nov 5, 2004 14:53:54 GMT -5
The point is that since you brought up this fact solely about Ohio, you are seemingly trying to say "Bush won, but if only a few people changed..." You think I'm whining about losing when I've been saying all along that this is about the lessons of Dubya's victory? There is a distinction there, and you need to accept that. I disagree. Not every election turns on just a few people in one place or two changing their minds - in fact, I'd say most don't. In only 17 of the 55 elections since 1789 has a President received less than 50% of the popular vote. Moreover, several recent elections weren't even close as a matter of the popular or electoral college vote: '80 wasn't, neither was '84, '88, '92 or '96. Sure, you can expand the baseline to say "well, what if you change some here, and here too, and here too, . . . " but with every iteration you're talking about a situation that's increasingly different, and therefore increasingly irrelevant. I think your reasonably bright audience can appreciate this fact. See my first response above. Or, consider this: The reason this came up 20+ posts ago and why you chimed in is because we all understand that the nature/lesson of Dubya's victory will be a central matter going forward, particularly as it pertains to " what needs to be done over the next four years" and how that gets done. If you thought I was simply " railing against the other side" by trotting out an example of why Dubya's victory may not necessarily be as dramatic mandate-wise as Cheney professes it to be, you've missed the point of the majority of the preceeding discussion. We're talking about mandates (actual and perceived) and probing the ways one assesses how much political capital Dubya actually has following the election - that's the debate. I'm sorry, but your "it's irrelevant" reply a few posts up was a non-sequitur in that conversation - as I've attempted to demonstrate to you, more than once now (and this is the last time). Congratulations on your political position. If you're genuine about your desire to all hold hands and sing kumbaya during the next four years, you're going to have to come into these conversations without the assumption that statement which is not favorable to Dubya is whining or railing against the other side.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 5, 2004 14:56:50 GMT -5
Funny Pushy you jump on just #8! Great just freakin great. Why can't you tell me I'm wrong on all of them!??!?! ;D
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 5, 2004 15:10:46 GMT -5
Also, Pushy, I like the way you conveniently called "Creationism" local stories. That was the funniest part in the post. Had me rolling in the aisles!!!
To be honest I wasn't even referring to any funding levels...I was actually <gasp> showing my true brit-tinted socialist colors <gasp- say it's not so Cambridge, say its not so!>
I understand that the school system allows for local curriculae. That's fantastic. Except that it becomes a really convenient excuse for forcing local communities to completely fund their own school systems.
If you take a list of the top 50 richest school districts and paired them up with the top 50 academically performing districts-- how far off do you think they would be? Honestly.
Now, I don't like to just throw money at a problem. But answer me this. Is it fair that schools in NoVa have swimming pools and gyms when schools in Hamton or Richmond struggle to get enough desks let alone extracurricular props?
Just saying, study after study proves that if you invest in a student they give you results. The more you cut resources, sports, arts, music, electives -- the less children excel at the classics of reading, writing and arithmatic.
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Nov 5, 2004 15:15:30 GMT -5
Yep, let's keep it civil. I agree. So we'll just remain civil while Bush 1.) Charges up another $75 billion to the war 2.) While simultaneously giving the wealthy another record breaking tax break 3.) Floats the idea of a national sales tax instead of income tax - thereby further shifting the weight of social services onto the poor 4.) Privatizes social security 5.) Appoints an ardent pro-lifer to the FDA's Executive Committe on Reproductive health 6.) Opens oil drilling in Alaska 7.) Looks forward to appointing 3-4 ultra-conservative judges to the SC 8.) Hold schools accountable - read test them and punish them for failure- without providing universal curriculums or funding Yep, sure looks like he's extending a gracious olive branch to the half of the country who didn't vote for him. See you guys in Tehran. After we get drafted for that invasion, anyone want to share my fox hole? Well, 1 through 7 are more opinion-based than fact-based. We could debate their merits, but I just thought to clear up the facts on #8. I mean, if you think liberty is good to bring to Iraq in that it will save future investment, the price we pay now may well be worth it. If you think tax breaks increase revenue streams and keep people at work, then decreasing taxes for small businesses and simplifying the tax code to reduce litigation will benefit national coffers and the overall population. Social Security is going to collapse and something needs to be done. Private accounts are a good idea and promote an ownership society. Those entitled to benefits can receive them if they elect to. The cost, in one plan, would be covered by low-interest bonds, paid back over a period of time. Not sure how the Congress will tackle it, but it needs to be done. Can comment more if I see what plan they intend to adopt. Choice should be an option, but there is nothing wrong with pursuing policies that encourage adoption. I think our Nation can accurately be described as pro-choice but against abortion. Roe v. Wade won't be overturned, but what's wrong with teaching abstinence? It's the better choice. It should be taught realistically, but still. ANWR drilling would be done on a very small scale. I think it probably shouldn't happen, but our country has energy problems. Take the good with the bad. (On a sidenote, the contract for ANWR was given out by the Clinton Administration, but the Clinton DoI was too incompetent to get around to having it assessed.) I think Alberto Gonzales would make a very good judge. Some of the other names being bandied about are not great, but they're rumors. Save your outrage until there's an actual nomination. Then we can talk. We may actually agree. I defer to my previous post concerning #8.
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Nov 5, 2004 15:21:58 GMT -5
Also, Pushy, I like the way you conveniently called "Creationism" local stories. That was the funniest part in the post. Had me rolling in the aisles!!! To be honest I wasn't even referring to any funding levels...I was actually <gasp> showing my true brit-tinted socialist colors <gasp- say it's not so Cambridge, say its not so!> I understand that the school system allows for local curriculae. That's fantastic. Except that it becomes a really convenient excuse for forcing local communities to completely fund their own school systems. If you take a list of the top 50 richest school districts and paired them up with the top 50 academically performing districts-- how far off do you think they would be? Honestly. Now, I don't like to just throw money at a problem. But answer me this. Is it fair that schools in NoVa have swimming pools and gyms when schools in Hamton or Richmond struggle to get enough desks let alone extracurricular props? Just saying, study after study proves that if you invest in a student they give you results. The more you cut resources, sports, arts, music, electives -- the less children excel at the classics of reading, writing and arithmatic. I actually wasn't referring to Creationism. At my school, we did a lot of Walt Whitman because he was from Long Island even though it wouldn't be heavily covered on the NYS Regents Exam. Take a pill, dude. When you expect the worst, you get it. Last time I checked, no local system was fully funding itself. There is currently unprecedented Federal funding. It's not absolutely fair that schools have different resources, but since you're a socialist (admirable), we'll have to agree to disagree that wealthier communities shouldn't be punished for their wealth. I am evil. I know.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 5, 2004 15:40:56 GMT -5
I was just joshing you on the creationism. Haha! Didn't think you'd take it seriously, but I guess it speaks to our current education systems flaws if that isn't taken as a joke any longer. ;D
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Nov 5, 2004 15:45:50 GMT -5
Yeah. You sure got me. Beet red I am.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 5, 2004 16:17:30 GMT -5
And color me blue
|
|
Bahstin
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 624
|
Post by Bahstin on Nov 9, 2004 11:59:07 GMT -5
I'll take #5.
I think Cambridge is referring to an email forward that somehow has gained momentum up here in the last week or so. I got the same one on Thursday. Here is the text if you have interest:
However, this is a forward that was created in October of 2002. It is not applicable anymore. Dr. Hagar was appointed in December 2002 and his term ends next year.
My apologies if that is not what #5 if about.
|
|