Do the Democrats need a makeover?

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, it was also the first election since '88 not to have a major 3rd party candidate. Whoever won was going to get 50%+1. Perot in '96 and Nader in '00 weren't exactly like Perot's run in '92, but they still drew enough to make the win a pularity.

No. It was the first election where the majority of people supported one guy. Hate to break it to you, but Nader in 2000 was a non-factor. A total non-factor. Even NCM would tell you that, and he's a supporter of his. If Clinton was a beloved as the press wishes to portray (you can add THAT on to the long list of assumptions about America that the MSM does not come close to grasping), he'd have done in 1996 what Bush did this year.

 

Perot took votes away from the GOP far moreso than he did from Clinton. Clinton should have EASILY gotten a majority and slaughtered Dole in 1996 --- but he was not that liked.

Second of all, those are the plain facts. Not rationalizations, but the simple numbers. Yes, your side won. But it wasn't some huge victory. It was a lousy 3%.

51.5% of the vote. You can minimize it all you wish. A 3.5M vote margin is hardly narrow.

 

And, mind you, this is twice where the most divisive President in history managed to out-poll the most beloved President in history (Clinton). Just keep that in mind.

Closest race period outside of 2000 since 1976 and the closest with an incumbent involved since Truman. You got the fundies out to vote their hate and they outnumbered the lazy college kids. That's all.

I hope all libs don't buy that, as I do desire a legitimate opposition party.

Actually, it's like everyone who wanted a state constitutional amendment against gay marriage overruled the bunch of college kids.

So, OR is now a fundamentalist state?

-=Mike

...Hard to explain away THAT banning of gay marriage, isn't it?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Burp.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

Mike, I'm not calling OR a fundamentalist state. What I'm saying, though, is that the amount of "Conservative Christians" and others came out in full force in those eleven states BECAUSE of that amendment. Without that amendment it's likely that OH would've went to Kerry. Not saying that it would've been impossible for Bush to win OH without it, but unlikely.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, I'm not calling OR a fundamentalist state. What I'm saying, though, is that the amount of "Conservative Christians" and others came out in full force in those eleven states BECAUSE of that amendment. Without that amendment it's likely that OH would've went to Kerry. Not saying that it would've been impossible for Bush to win OH without it, but unlikely.

There is actually precious little actual evidence to indicate that the gay marriage amendments helped Bush at all.

 

The conservatives came out because of they support Bush and saw what was being done to him by the press, Hollywood, the int'l community, etc.

 

Until the left recognizes that, they will never succeed it. Rove has been warming up the base for 4 years. This was a fait accompli, no matter how much the left tried to rig the exit polls.

-=Mike

...Also, for the "Bush voters are stupid" canard, some info from Zogby:

 

A majority of people with SOME college and a bachelor's degree voted for Bush.

A majority of people with a postgraduate degree or NO college whatsoever voted for Bush.

 

Kerry had the intellectuals AND total idiots.

[Justice 0]

Why the hell does everyone think the youth didn't turn out? Turn out increased all around, even the youth. Problem is, everyone with sense overrules a bunch of college kids.

Actually, it's like everyone who wanted a state constitutional amendment against gay marriage overruled the bunch of college kids.

Ah, denial. Keep thinkin' that, bro! The Republicans didn't really win, they just got lucky! *Thumbs up*

 

If this keeps up, we might get past the fillibuster barrier by 2006...

[The Czech Republic 0]

...Also, for the "Bush voters are stupid" canard, some info from Zogby:

 

A majority of people with SOME college and a bachelor's degree voted for Bush.

A majority of people with a postgraduate degree or NO college whatsoever voted for Bush.

yeah d00d but i bet the majority was 51% so that means it doesn't really count

 

edit: lol2004

[TheBigSwigg 0]

Mike, I'm not calling OR a fundamentalist state.  What I'm saying, though, is that the amount of "Conservative Christians" and others came out in full force in those eleven states BECAUSE of that amendment.  Without that amendment it's likely that OH would've went to Kerry.  Not saying that it would've been impossible for Bush to win OH without it, but unlikely.

There is actually precious little actual evidence to indicate that the gay marriage amendments helped Bush at all.

Show me proof otherwise.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Mike, I'm not calling OR a fundamentalist state.  What I'm saying, though, is that the amount of "Conservative Christians" and others came out in full force in those eleven states BECAUSE of that amendment.  Without that amendment it's likely that OH would've went to Kerry.  Not saying that it would've been impossible for Bush to win OH without it, but unlikely.

There is actually precious little actual evidence to indicate that the gay marriage amendments helped Bush at all.

Show me proof otherwise.

That is not his burden. It is up to the person coming up with a theory to give evidence in support of it. You can't just say, 'well, show me proof it didn't happen.' That way it is just a conspiracy theory with nothing backing it.

 

It is certainly possible that it did play a factor, but it is up to you to find the evidence.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The fact that the evangelical turnout far exceeded expectations in states with gay marriage provisions on the ballot is evidence enough.

[Guest MikeSC]

The fact that the evangelical turnout far exceeded expectations in states with gay marriage provisions on the ballot is evidence enough.

Except evangelical turnout was not appreciably higher than it was in 2000.

 

And, like it or not, states like OR passing it tends to poke holes in it, since it passed rather overwhelmingly there.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

I think the landslide in Oregon speaks volumes for the country's stance on gay marriage. Don't tell me we've got lots of "backward Jesus-loving idiots" in Eugene and Portland.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

They also beat down a measure some years back that would have given every person in the state free healthcare. I think we talked about it here...

[Guest Loss]

I think the landslide in Oregon speaks volumes for the country's stance on gay marriage. Don't tell me we've got lots of "backward Jesus-loving idiots" in Eugene and Portland.

You don't have to love God to hate gays.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think the landslide in Oregon speaks volumes for the country's stance on gay marriage. Don't tell me we've got lots of "backward Jesus-loving idiots" in Eugene and Portland.

You don't have to love God to hate gays.

Hyper-liberal OR is hardly a "gay-hating" state.

 

As I've said, the way you've pursued your goal is why people turned on it so badly.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Mike, I'm not calling OR a fundamentalist state.  What I'm saying, though, is that the amount of "Conservative Christians" and others came out in full force in those eleven states BECAUSE of that amendment.  Without that amendment it's likely that OH would've went to Kerry.  Not saying that it would've been impossible for Bush to win OH without it, but unlikely.

There is actually precious little actual evidence to indicate that the gay marriage amendments helped Bush at all.

Show me proof otherwise.

Kerry won in Oregon and the gay marriage ban passed. The gay marriage ban passed with 68% of the vote and Bush only got 51% of the vote.

[Guest Loss]

And as I've said before, I wholeheartedly agree that it's been handled improperly. But, at this point, the amendment would have passed in every state even if the battle had been fought in the right way. The casual voter is fairly uninformed, and sees the surface issue of gays getting married, and reacts accordingly.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

And as I've said before, I wholeheartedly agree that it's been handled improperly. But, at this point, the amendment would have passed in every state even if the battle had been fought in the right way. The casual voter is fairly uninformed, and sees the surface issue of gays getting married, and reacts accordingly.

Honestly I voted for the ban in Ohio. A year ago I probably would've just ignored it but I've been so pissed off by the advocates that I voted for it. If one advocate could've actually debated me over it without calling me a homophobe and actually listened to what I said my mind might've been changed on the issue. Loss is the first person I've run into that can argue this with any ounce of maturity.

 

The people around here use their homosexuality as a blank check to be complete assholes to everyone else.

[Guest Loss]

Honestly I voted for the ban in Ohio. A year ago I probably would've just ignored it but I've been so pissed off by the advocates that I voted for it. If one advocate could've actually debated me over it without calling me a homophobe and actually listened to what I said my mind might've been changed on the issue.

I'm listening. And I'm refraining from saying what I really want to say. What were your problems with the amendment? I understand that people feel like they're being attacked for NOT supporting the amendment, but that's probably because I haven't heard anyone actually tell me WHY they don't support the amendment.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I'm fine with civil unions and I don't really care what people do with their lives as long as I'm left alone. When you start becoming annoying and verbally assault me because I want to be sold on something I tend to turn on the idea. Like I said a lot of the gay advocates act like spoiled children and it gets really old after the first couple of incidents. I'm in no way a homophobe but people's behavior over it is so illogical and horrible that I went in the other direction. And it isn't even all gay advocates that do it, the idiot college liberals were even worse about it. But like I said people acting like spoiled children turned me on it. Loss is the only person I've come across that has any ounce of maturity when discussing it.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

And just to add, I got called a homophobe for even just suggesting to people long term strategies for getting same sex marriages down the road.

[Guest Loss]

Okay, I finally got some type of answer. Thanks for providing it. I can work with this.

 

 

I'm fine with civil unions and I don't really care what people do with their lives as long as I'm left alone. When you start becoming annoying and verbally assault me because I want to be sold on something I tend to turn on the idea.

 

What do you think the right way is to sell you on something? Is verbal assault just approaching you about the issue or is it calling you names because you don't know how you feel about the issue? I don't think you're a homophobe from the words you've provided here. I do think President Bush is, and I do think most Republican politicians are. Usually, THEY are the ones being attacked, and perhaps that's where the difference lies.

 

Like I said a lot of the gay advocates act like spoiled children and it gets really old after the first couple of incidents. I'm in no way a homophobe but people's behavior over it is so illogical and horrible that I went in the other direction.

 

I agree that a lot of the overreaction has been extreme. I, for example, despise it when I see gays referring to themselves as "second class citizens". HELLO, you can vote, you can voice your opinion, you can get any job you want, you can drink from any water fountain you choose, you can get medical care, you can buy a house or a car ... calling myself second class just isn't accurate. Saying that there are civil liberties that I'd like to have that I don't is far more accurate. I'd like to be able to get married, even though I probably never will, if only because it's the one piece missing to the puzzle. It's symbolic of full equality. It's the only right we don't have ... the right to marry, and the accompanying benefits marriage provides.

 

And it isn't even all gay advocates that do it, the idiot college liberals were even worse about it. But like I said people acting like spoiled children turned me on it.

 

The road to Hell is often paved with good intentions. This is a lesson many liberals could stand to learn. Political attack accomplishes nothing, but the fact that Mike seems to honestly have faith in the populace that they're willing to listen to reason on this issue has given me hope for the future. To play devil's advocate, perhaps the problem is that when Matthew Shepard is killed for being gay, some of us fear for our own safety outing ourselves by going door to door. That's why there's so much appeal to the government to protect us, instead of appealing to the better judgment of civilians.

 

Loss is the only person I've come across that has any ounce of maturity when discussing it.

 

Thank you, but I wouldn't even call myself mature on this issue because it's so close to home. That's something I'm trying to change.

 

My apologies for hi-jacking this thread.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Actually I got into the worst trouble with people for suggesting they compromise now with civil unions and let society get used to it and go for marriage in 15 or 20 years. I was somehow homophobic for suggesting that.

 

What do you think the right way is to sell you on something?

 

Basically what I typed above. You've just got to slowly ease society into it. Give what they take you at first and then go for more as they've become more comfortable with it. This "give me everything that I want or I'm going to hold my breath" 2 year old attitude does nothing but turn other people off to an idea.

[Guest BDC]

I think this is something that the nation as a whole just isn't quite ready for. That's what I'd attribute all the amendments to; despite what we're told/screamed/guilt tripped about, there are lots of folks in the country that just aren't ready for it yet. Give it some time, yes like Mad Dog said, but pushing too hard too fast will get you exactly what you have.

 

I can respect the desire. However, there are times when you just can't attain them. We haven't hit the time when you can yet.