Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKIron on November 03, 2004, 11:41:50 AM
-
I think it's because of the Internets.
-
I think it is because of what is seen as a morals choice and the gay marriage thing.
-
Gays, guns and God.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
I think it is because of what is seen as a morals choice and the gay marriage thing.
Yeah, I think the gay marriage thing on alot of ballots drew more than usual out of the woodwork in those states.
For the rest, I think the whole get out the vote drive thing might actually be taking hold. I hope so
-
The three G's good one nash.
-
after the 00 election, many saw that their vote does count
-
Originally posted by Nash
Gays, guns and God.
Pretty much
In God we trust!!
-
Originally posted by Nash
Gays, guns and God.
I can agree with that.
-
Looking at the result. I would attribute alot of it to support for Bush.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Looking at the result. I would attribute alot of it to support for Bush.
Good point. What I find most interesting is how split the u.s. is. Coasts vote one way, the rest go another. Interesting. Oh and you gota throw Ill. in w/ the coasts due to Chi town.
Having lived on both coasts, the south, and the midwest, I have to say I like the middle/south much better. People are far nicer.
Example. In Oklahoma people hold doors for laides, let 'em cut in line, and actually chat pleasantly with each other while waiting in line, say at the gas station.
In Chicago if you speak to someone else in line, it's generally askin' for their wallet at gun/knife point.
After living in oklahoma for a decade (aaarrrggg! get me the heck out of here!!) when I went to my home town of St.Louis I was blown away at how RUDE everyone was in comparison.
I once had car troubles in Oklahoma City, and had no less than six people pull over to offer me either a ride, or use of their cell phone within 5min.
GOOD luck getting anyone to do that in L.A.
Something to be said for southern values.
-
People who live on the coast realise that there is a worried world out there beyond your shores
:(
-
I don't know if it was support for Bush and his policies as much as it was a fear of Kerry's liberalism. I'm not putting a knock on Bush because he clearly won, but I wonder what a more moderate, mainstream Democrat would have done...of course, there ARE no moderate, mainstream Democrats, which is a problem...
We need to get Hilary to go hard. If she would biotch slap a homeless person at a shelter, a la Patton, she might start now in getting the heartless, unfeeling attitude it takes to woo the American voters in 2008.
-
Ding, Ding, Airhead's got the correct answer. I think it was a serious distaste for Kerry that brought out the record number of voters. Most of the folks I spoke to who hadn't voted before said that was the main reason they decided to register and vote this year. Of course my poll was probably about as scientific and accurate as the exit polls, so take it for what it's worth.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
We need to get Hilary to go hard. If she would biotch slap a homeless person at a shelter, a la Patton, she might start now in getting the heartless, unfeeling attitude it takes to woo the American voters in 2008.
She supports killing children, hard to get more heartless and unfeeling than that.
:D
**EDIT**
I agree a little with your first part though.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Looking at the result. I would attribute alot of it to support for Bush.
Which really has more to do with three the 3 G's Nash mentioned.
In NE Florida where these 3 G's are of huge importance most counties averaged 70% Bush 30% Kerry.
In Duval County (Jacksonville) it was a bit tighter. Jacksonville is the largest city by square mile in the US with lots of urbanites and North East transplants. But out in the rural counties Guns, God and Gays are the issues. No NE liberal can win in these counties and this election the Reps had a huge network through the Churches that got the rural folks to actually show up at the polls. Last election season many of these folks stayed home.
Not only did Bush get the highest amount of Votes in the history of the US, he got over 50% of the total votes cast. Clinton never did that.
Kerry was a terrible candidate and Edwards didn't help him at all.
The Democratic Party is destroying itself by putting these facade candidates up who are full blown liberals in Moderate/Conservative Clothing.
Southern folks see right throw them and the liberals in their own party become disillusioned. I wouldn't be surprised if what’s left of the 'conservative Reagan democrats’ finally leave the Democratic party once and for all and become Repubs. It’s possible the un-ashamed liberals may split from the Dems and form a new party. This is highly unlikely but the dems can't win unless they make gains in the South. The way you do that is take up God, Guns and Gays. The liberals in that party won't stand for that.
The Repubs are in a good position to hold what they have as long as they don’t screw up. You can see by looking at Bush and Iraq that it will take them screwing up big time.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
In Chicago if you speak to someone else in line, it's generally askin' for their wallet at gun/knife point.
Depends on where you are, those rabid Cubs fans will do anything to get their hands on money to buy better players for their cursed teams :lol
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think it's because of the Internets.
I think it's because of the fubared 2000 election.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
You can see by looking at Bush and Iraq that it will take them screwing up big time.
Amen.
The only thing that might.... might.... have an effect on the populace is video of Bush directing traffic in his pyjamas.
-
i voted for bush because he is a moderate, mainstream Democrat.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Kerry was a terrible candidate and Edwards didn't help him at all.
The Democratic Party is destroying itself by putting these facade candidates up who are full blown liberals in Moderate/Conservative Clothing....
...The Repubs are in a good position to hold what they have as long as they don’t screw up. You can see by looking at Bush and Iraq that it will take them screwing up big time.
What Dem would have been more electable? And don't say Zell Miller...he is a Dem in name only.
Any Dem offered would have been just as vigorously opposed by the RNC. They would have used any means and propoganda necessary to defeat him. We certainly saw that an impressive number of Americans will believe anything a conservative media outlet says regardless whether it is true or not.
And quite honestly as you mentioned, the campaign offered by Karl Rove and Ralph Reed to deliver the Christian vote was not something that Dems could match. Of God, Guns and Gays...God was #1.
I spoke with two people who voted Bush who I would not have thought supported him. My 80 year old aunt, who was raised a southern Democrat and had voted Dem in every election since she could vote. And the other a mid-twenties black single mom that is a college classmate of my brother (BTW, she is barely getting by as a waitress during the day).
My aunt, a devout Christian, said she broke for Bush because he is a born again Christian. It made no difference anything else that he may have done that she disagreed with.
The young black mom went for Bush because the pastor of her nearly all black church told the congregation that Bush best represented the morals taught by the church.
As long as the RNC is able to convince Christian America that it is their party, it will not matter how much the RNC candidate screws up...most religious folk do not need facts to show "truth" when they have faith to give it to them.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
after the 00 election, many saw that their vote does count
What He Said,
Also I moved to NM to a swing county in a swing state.......
Just tryn to get the most out of my vote....
Gunns
-
No, Zell didn't have the temperament to be president or to get elected.
But The Democratic Party has pushed out what’s was left of the 'yellow dog' conservative Democrats. I don't know which Democrat could have made any gain in the South but I do know that a New England Liberal won't ever win.
The Democratic Party has been turned over to the left and unless they begin to address moral and religious with something more then contempt they will struggle.
Even rural areas in the Mid-west and NE went to Bush. Exit polls showed moral issues were a top concern and Bush got 80 % or so of those votes. Rightly or wrongly the Republican Party is perceived as the party of 'moral clarity'.
Lots of Southern Republicans were Southern Democrats at one time. Reagan was a Democrat. Who could believe that after the Civil War any self respecting Southern would be a Republican. The entire South is a solid Republican Bloc. As Reagan said these folks didn't leave the Democratic Party it left them.
Both parties will 'vigrously oppose the other guys candidate. The problem is that Kerry being a NE Liberal could not escape his 'liberalism'.
No amount of duck hunting or claims of being a 'religious Catholic' or being opposed to gay marriage could help him.
-
You can NOT ever force cultural changes on people. People change at their own pace. Thats not rhetoric, I honestly believe that, and I think that is the number 1 problem in the Democratic party - they don't get it.
Edit: I think if Democrats stuck to govermental issues, and dropped their quest to change American culture, they would have hope. E.g, the gay marriage thing. Had the Democrats took this up as the right for two people to form civil unions (in love or not , having sex or not), the would not be infringing on American culture.Marriage is a cultural icon, a civil union isn't - its a legal partnership. Had they taken up the abortion issue as a medical issue, and an assertion of doctor/patient relationship, they would heve treaded on American culture less.
-
Hmm.... interesting.
Another one of those things that makes sense, and also makes ya wonder why it seems not to have been considered by the Dems.
But if that's true, I wonder if the Repubs have considered that wrt Iraq.
-
I think the republicans didn't want to hear 4 more years of Blah blah blah stole the elections blah blah blah.....
-
>>I wonder if the Repubs have considered that wrt Iraq.
<<
I think they should consider it more and step on culture less, even if it takes women 10 years longer to have the right to vote in patriarchal societies. Its just like the fact you can't teach a child wisdom (you have to pray they live long enough to gather it), you can not change culture on demand. It takes time, and realizing that will save a lot of needless bloodshed.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
You can NOT ever force cultural changes on people. People change at their own pace. Thats not rhetoric, I honestly believe that, and I think that is the number 1 problem in the Democratic party - they don't get it.
Edit: I think if Democrats stuck to govermental issues, and dropped their quest to change American culture, they would have hope. E.g, the gay marriage thing. Had the Democrats took this up as the right for two people to form civil unions (in love or not , having sex or not), the would not be infringing on American culture.Marriage is a cultural icon, a civil union isn't - its a legal partnership. Had they taken up the abortion issue as a medical issue, and an assertion of doctor/patient relationship, they would heve treaded on American culture less.
The edit nails it
"Marrage" is and always will be between a man and a woman.
There's (IMHO) no problem letting gays have equal rights under the law(as in same right's as married couples),as long as they don't call it marrage.
-
There is another problem in the Democratic party, and its in Hollywood (Hollywierd if you prefer). Hollywood has become accustomed to a sitcom, movie of the week, mini-series, timeframe. The forces in Hollywood have a distorted pace for change. And its all these millionaires with this distorted timeframe who become poster children for the Democrats, which leaves the impression of absurdity in middle America. In MOST of middle America, change happens at the pace of school years or seasons, not primetime hours.
I forget which war it was, but I remember camera crews on a beach filmimg marines as they landed. It was surreal. You had marines ducking there heads so as not to be exposed by the video lights and reporters going for interviews in a frigging beach landing!!
In the first hours of the Iraqi invasion, network news went live and stayed on ALL NIGHT as if the Iraqi conflict was going to be settled in 8 hours.
This is an example of the distorted timeframe Hollywierd lives in. The scary part is they believe cultural changes should happen at this pace. The scary part is they think culture should change as fads.
-
Well okay.... (and lol) yer talking about Somalia. That was funnay. At least the first 15 minutes of it.
The rest of it.... You're attempting to both cast 'Hollyweird' as weird (and you have a case) and trying to say that Hollywood is the same thing as the press. Now....
Uhm....
Shheat.... you may be onto something.
-
Still suprising that only half the country bothers to vote.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I forget which war it was, but I remember camera crews on a beach filmimg marines as they landed. It was surreal. You had marines ducking there heads so as not to be exposed by the video lights and reporters going for interviews in a frigging beach landing!!
that was somilia, the news crews were there before the marines.
news briefing:::
reporter:: "general , can you tell us how many troops are landing where and when?"
general:: (what a idiot)" i can not talk about future operations."
-
Its pretty simple 35% of folks asked during the exit polls said 'moral issues' were the most important to them.
That scored higher then anything including the economy, Iraq etc...
Bush won this bloc by a huge margin, 80% IIRC.
This was the only group that really 'turned out' in much greater numbers based on percentage then the last election.
Kerry tried to paint himself as a 'moderate' and it did not sell. No one believed him.
If it wasn't for the Hatred of Bush he wouldn't have even had done as well as he did.
This is the first time in 16 years that a President got more the 50% cast votes. The last guys that did this was his Father. The first President in who knows how many years to win a second term following another 2 term President. Typical after a 2 term President the guy following gets 1 term and is out.
Bush got more votes then another President in the History of the US.
Then there's the Senate and House races.
Daschle defeated. The Repubs hold the House and gain in the Senate.
This election was a complete defeat for the Democratic party.
It will be interesting to see if they shift back toward Bill Clinton's 'new Democrat' or continue putting up lefties like Gore and Kerry.
Still suprising that only half the country bothers to vote.
Its not half the country, its half of eligible voters. I believe 60% of eligible voters is a record for the US. Not everyone citizien is an eligible vote. Less then 1/3 rd of the US population actaully voted in the last election.
-
Equaled in 1960.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Its pretty simple 35% of folks asked during the exit polls said 'moral issues' were the most important to them.
That scored higher then anything including the economy, Iraq etc...
No disagreement.
But one bright and shiney Thursday morning back in October, folks yawned, crawled out of their beds and retrieved the contents of their mailbox. Others clicked on their email.
Shocker....
Kerry set to ban The Bible.
-
[size=20]OMGZ NADER LOST!!![/size]
-
so who actually push the gay marriage thing onto the ballots in so many states?
we did not have that here but we did have the amendment trying to allow a minor to get an abortion without parent consent .... that got a few ppl to the polls
then again, how many whould have stated it was actually a security issue, fear of terrorism, that they were/are scared?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
we did not have that here but we did have the amendment trying to allow a minor to get an abortion without parent consent .... that got a few ppl to the polls
That was Florida Amendment 1. But you have the circumstances turned around. There was no law requiring parental consent, so the amendment was not to allow abortions without it, rather it was an amendment to force parental consent. The amendment was sponsored by the Republican Florida Legislature, who did not have quite enough votes to pass it on their own.
-
I have my theories why there was a record turn out and Bush won.
First, the gay marriage thing could have been brought to light during the Clinton era, after all Clinton's first bill he signed in 1993 was the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays in the Navy. That would have been a good time to railroad through new gay marriage legislation. But the Gays, predominently democrat, held off until Bush got elected. Bad choice. Middle America could see the agenda, it wasn't so much about marriage as it was putting the question in front of a Pres that would no doubt so no to it. Bad move.
Secondly, Bush got the sympathy vote. I know he did from me. After continuous bashing of Bush over the past 18 months, I've heard the echos of many of those conservatives that disliked Bush for his "democratic spending" and failure to establish a Gov't in Iraq in a reasonable time, begin to feel sympathy for this man. You keep telling someone that this guy or that guy is "dumb" and next thing you know the "dumb" guy is a victim, with sympathy on his side. Good job Dems. You buried yourself on this one.
Michael Moore. He helped Bush out more than any celebrity on the face of the earth with negativity. It literally blew up in his face. A person with an IQ of 80 could tell his sliced and diced "documentary" was full of lies and deception. The only people who actually took the film for a documentary were liberals, who usually fall below an IQ of 80.
Last, the Democratic party said in Summer of 2003 that they were trying to distance themselves from the extreme left. So what do they do? They pick a senator who is further left than Ted Kennedy! My GOD what were they thinking? They outright lied about becoming more moderate and went the opposite direction. The Democratic party has been become the party of "how much can we tolerate?".
The bottom line? It will take YEARS to regain those senate and congress seats (maybe 40 years like the Dems had the majority?) The supreme court will be conservative. The repubs have a good shot of taking the oval office in 2008.
That's my 2 cents.
-
Sympathy votes?
Sweet baby jebus, Republicans ARE liberals.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Sympathy votes?
Sweet baby jebus, Republicans ARE liberals.
-SW
Everyone has a liberal side. I used liberal amounts of butter on my toast this morning.
Oh, two more things that were nails in Kerry coffin.
His wife. Need I say more? An elitist talking DOWN to America, and a foreigner at that. :lol
Dan Rather. WTG Dan. You solidified what everyone knew all along, the media is bias.
-
I really think Kerry lost the election on his own, the rest of the crap that surrounded him was just icing on the cake.
I mean, just WHAT was his platform? Multiple positions on everything? Indecisive answers, to both sides of the question.
-SW
-
Tweety said
"You can NOT ever force cultural changes on people. People change at their own pace. Thats not rhetoric, I honestly believe that,"
So what the hell is Bush trying to do in Iraq then ?
Honestly you chaps amaze me!
-
Originally posted by Tinpot
Tweety said
"You can NOT ever force cultural changes on people. People change at their own pace. Thats not rhetoric, I honestly believe that,"
So what the hell is Bush trying to do in Iraq then ?
Honestly you chaps amaze me!
Government(democracy) is not culture. Don't confuse the two.
Besides, we get 4 more years of looking at THESE babes! ;)
(http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I48838-2004Jul14L)
(http://members.roadfly.org/akrenz/hititregis.jpg)
-
I think the whole problem with the gay marriage thing this boils down to a single word, "marriage"
If Gays and the gay marriage supporters stopped using the word "marriage" and called it something else few people would have cared
Also I think the Kerry people depended too much on the new voters,independants and undecideds votes going their way.
Morally I think the Reps will always have the high ground.
Problem is Kerry simply is too far to the left.
Had he ran on a more moderate platform they probably would have cleaned house.
I dont agree when people say Bush is stupid.
Though I do agree that in public he sometimes comes off that way.
But I've seen him is several private interviews where the atmosphere is more relaxed and its easy to see the man is anything but stupid.
I think that is part of the problem the Democrats had also.
They underestimated him.
I beleive the saying is he is "dumb like a fox"
-
I think what killed the election for Kerry were his actions and statements long before he was nominated. His bouncing around on the Iraq war was noticed eight months ago. He got his reputation as a flip flopper not from GWB but from Howard Dean and his own running mate John Edwards. Before Bush even said a word about him there was doubt in the mind of the regular voter.
I think there is a trending toward balkanization of the US electorate. I think Bill Clinton was one of the last 'moderate' Democrats that you will see as a presidential candidate. For all their adulation of Clinton many hard core lefties despised some of the policies that Clinton put into office. If you compare the two, Clinton is not much left of Bush and many in the Democratic Party do not want to see such a person representing their party again.
If the last batch of presidential wannabies is any indication the party will shift more to the left, not less. John Kerry was considered the mainstream candidate, not the extreme one. The only candidate out of the whole mess that I think red staters might have even considered was Joseph Lieberman and he didn't get more than 8 percent of the primary vote. The fact that guys like Howard Dean are even considered viable candidates bodes poorly for the Democratic party. The guys that could draw in the masses, the moderates in the party, are being drowned out.
The Democratic party is fracturing. They have alienated their true base (blue collar union voters) but supporting policies that many absolutely dislike and trussing up a liberal senator as a moderate isn't fooling anyone. There are moderate Democrats out there, ones that most Americans could vote for, but I am not sure that the new base of the Democratic party would allow such a person again.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I really think Kerry lost the election on his own, the rest of the crap that surrounded him was just icing on the cake.
I mean, just WHAT was his platform? Multiple positions on everything? Indecisive answers, to both sides of the question.
-SW
As I said in another thread.
He was trying to be all things to all people.
Either people were going to buy it or they weren't.
Either it was going to win the election. Or people were going to see through it.
Add to that he kept saying he "had a plan" or had a "better plan" but never bothered saying exactly what that plan was.
Another strike against him was in being over critical of the president saying he would have done things differently when at the time they were done he agreed with them.
Iraq's WMDs, and moving the troops from Afghanistan to Iraq are two good examples. They are both subject he agreed with at the time they were done only to later claim he would have done differently.
Just saw a report on the news saying how Time-Life is going to be coming out with a behind the scenes look at the campaigns.
In the preview they were saying how on just such issues the Bush camp set Kerry up and lay the bait out for him. And how Kerry took the bait each and every time.
Kerry thought Bush was an idiot and underestimated him.
And it cost him the election.
-
Originally posted by wklink
I think what killed the election for Kerry were his actions and statements long before he was nominated. His bouncing around on the Iraq war was noticed eight months ago. He got his reputation as a flip flopper not from GWB but from Howard Dean and his own running mate John Edwards. Before Bush even said a word about him there was doubt in the mind of the regular voter.
I think there is a trending toward balkanization of the US electorate. I think Bill Clinton was one of the last 'moderate' Democrats that you will see as a presidential candidate. For all their adulation of Clinton many hard core lefties despised some of the policies that Clinton put into office. If you compare the two, Clinton is not much left of Bush and many in the Democratic Party do not want to see such a person representing their party again.
If the last batch of presidential wannabies is any indication the party will shift more to the left, not less. John Kerry was considered the mainstream candidate, not the extreme one. The only candidate out of the whole mess that I think red staters might have even considered was Joseph Lieberman and he didn't get more than 8 percent of the primary vote. The fact that guys like Howard Dean are even considered viable candidates bodes poorly for the Democratic party. The guys that could draw in the masses, the moderates in the party, are being drowned out.
The Democratic party is fracturing. They have alienated their true base (blue collar union voters) but supporting policies that many absolutely dislike and trussing up a liberal senator as a moderate isn't fooling anyone. There are moderate Democrats out there, ones that most Americans could vote for, but I am not sure that the new base of the Democratic party would allow such a person again.
slick has to slide towards the center after '94 ... or he'd got nothing done.. cept chasing chubby chicks around the oral office
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Still suprising that only half the country bothers to vote.
...-Gixer
Uh, we don't allow people under 18 to vote. Or noncitizens. I think they estimate that 60 percent of those eligible voted.
-
I never paid much attention to politics. After 9-11 I started taking a bit more of an intrest.
I think 9-11 and whats occuring in the middle east have alot to do with the high turnout.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Example. In Oklahoma people hold doors for laides, let 'em cut in line, and actually chat pleasantly with each other while waiting in line, say at the gas station.
After living in oklahoma for a decade (aaarrrggg! get me the heck out of here!!) when I went to my home town of St.Louis I was blown away at how RUDE everyone was in comparison.
I once had car troubles in Oklahoma City, and had no less than six people pull over to offer me either a ride, or use of their cell phone within 5min.
GOOD luck getting anyone to do that in L.A.
Something to be said for southern values.
I agree Lute. When I first moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma I couldn't believe the kindness here. I thought they were up to something. It took me a few weeks to let it sink in that peeps here are kind and courtious.
I've lived on both coasts and overseas as well. But ya just can't beat the true American kindness you find here in Oklahoma.
:D
-
Nash summed it up brilliantly.
-
I also voted for the moderate democrat in the race.... I voted for Bush
I think that tweety makes a good point.. people were worried that kerrie would try to make vast and sweeping liberal social changes.
I think people were afraid that he would treat the constituion as a "guide" and open to change at the whim of social trends.
The reason people felt this way is the fault of the democratic party itself..... While not allways openly embracing every left wing nutball.... they certainly did not distance themselves if they thought they might pick up a vote or two.
They needed to roundly condem the michelle moores and the hollywood lefties and the miltant blacks and gays.... you can be for gay and black rights without embracing every nutball self proclaimed gay or black leader that comes down the pike.
lazs