The Fracturing of a Party...

[BVS]

Can you name anyone who voted, who would not have voted if that amendment was not on the ballot? Again, this was only on the ballot in 11 states and only 3 of those states were battleground states, and two of them went Blue, not red. Voter turnout for Republicans was up all over the country, not just in these 11 states.

Your point?

Reread my post...

 

[U2isthebest]

If one's beliefs lead to him or her supporting policies that do not guarantee equal rights for all people, then, yes, he or she is a bigot. A bigot is someone who considers himself, herself, or their group, superior to another. This always leads to them trying to deny the same rights, freedoms, and privileges they enjoy to the person(s) or group(s) deemed unworthy. If a person believes that another consenting adult doesn't deserve the same rights and privileges they enjoy as a married person, then, yes that person is a bigot.

 

[Strongbow]

How is Bennett's quote not a piece of evidence? The man's living is made in understanding the Republican voters in the state of Ohio. He certainly would know better than you.

And each and every person against gay marriage is a bigot. That's a fact, not an opinion.

Because Bennett is only expressing what he thinks without siting any sort of numbers or facts. He sees an increase in turnout and thinks that the amendment had an impact on that. But Republican voter turnout increased all over the country, not just in the 11 states where it was on the ballot. Bennett does not say Bush would have lost the election if the amendment had not been on the ballot.

 

[Irvine511]

Can you name anyone who voted, who would not have voted if that amendment was not on the ballot? Again, this was only on the ballot in 11 states and only 3 of those states were battleground states, and two of them went Blue, not red. Voter turnout for Republicans was up all over the country, not just in these 11 states.

you should probably ask Karl Rove and the Republican Party why they sought to get these amendments on the ballot just in time for the 2004 election.

 

[Strongbow]

you should probably ask Karl Rove and the Republican Party why they sought to get these amendments on the ballot just in time for the 2004 election.

Its irrelevant.

 

[martha]

Wouldn't it be really awesome if Crist does get picked as veep, and then is gently outed? Not with criminal behavior, but just outed. How many Republican heads would explode when someone they know and respect turns out to be a gay? Would it change their minds? Would they demand his head on a stick for being a gay? Would McCain stick by him?

 

[Irvine511]

Its irrelevant.

clearly, they didn't think so.

 

[Strongbow]

clearly, they didn't think so.

Doesn't matter what they think when were talking about the actual results. The amendment made it on to the ballot primarily in states where the election was not even going to be a contest. Republican turnout was up significantly everywhere, not just in states where this amendment was on the ballot.

 

[indra]

Doesn't matter what they think when were talking about the actual results. The amendment made it on to the ballot primarily in states where the election was not even going to be a contest. Republican turnout was up significantly everywhere, not just in states where this amendment was on the ballot.

Don't you think the Republican strategists know how to cover their asses by making damned sure those amendments were on the ballot in several states where it didn't matter worth a damn so they could play innocent when they got called on doing it in the states where it did matter? Do you really think they are so stupid they didn't have that all planned out?

 

[Irvine511]

Doesn't matter what they think when were talking about the actual results. The amendment made it on to the ballot primarily in states where the election was not even going to be a contest. Republican turnout was up significantly everywhere, not just in states where this amendment was on the ballot.

erm, everything in this post is irrelevant.

Republicans worked to get it on the ballot in every state they could BECAUSE THEY ASSUMED IT WOULD DRIVE UP TURNOUT AMONGST THEIR EVANGELICAL BASE AND THE RESULTS BORE THAT OUT.

 

[martha]

Why does this remind me of that Monty Python skit where the man comes in looking for an argument and gets a contradiction instead?

Here we go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

 

[yolland]

Right, right. That's just what was I gonna say. I was just. . uh. . testing to see if you knew. . . Yeah, that's it.

I don't in fact see a slam-dunk case for either side (or was that three sides?) in this who-gets-the-independents-in-battleground-states argument. I suspect the general election will most likely be another knockdown dragout fight, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. In any event, it looks like momentum rather than strategic hypothesizing is driving the Democratic race at this point, and will continue to do so.

More often than not I loathe the electoral college system.

 

[Strongbow]

Don't you think the Republican strategists know how to cover their asses by making damned sure those amendments were on the ballot in several states where it didn't matter worth a damn so they could play innocent when they got called on doing it in the states where it did matter? Do you really think they are so stupid they didn't have that all planned out?

This was not something they did in secret, nor did they target any particular state. The biggest battleground state based on the 2000 election was Florida, and the amendment did not make it on the ballot there. The only battleground states where it made it on the ballot were Michigan, Ohio and Oregon. A majority of voters in Michigan and Oregon voted for the amendment, but they also voted for John Kerry as well.

 

[Strongbow]

erm, everything in this post is irrelevant.

Republicans worked to get it on the ballot in every state they could BECAUSE THEY ASSUMED IT WOULD DRIVE UP TURNOUT AMONGST THEIR EVANGELICAL BASE AND THE RESULTS BORE THAT OUT.

What they assumed and what actually happened are two different things. The results show that Republican voter turnout was UP IN EVERY STATE, regardless of whether the amendment was on the ballot or not. There is nothing more relevant to this discussion than that simple fact!

 

[phillyfan26]

Because Bennett is only expressing what he thinks without siting any sort of numbers or facts. He sees an increase in turnout and thinks that the amendment had an impact on that. But Republican voter turnout increased all over the country, not just in the 11 states where it was on the ballot. Bennett does not say Bush would have lost the election if the amendment had not been on the ballot.

Except for the part where he said, "Look specifically at the results in the Bible Belt of Ohio."

But, other than him pointing to the facts and numbers, he didn't point to any facts and numbers.

 

[Strongbow]

Except for the part where he said, "Look specifically at the results in the Bible Belt of Ohio."

But, other than him pointing to the facts and numbers, he didn't point to any facts and numbers.

He points to the increase in the turnout there, but does not say that without the amendment on the ballot, Bush would have lost the election. Voter turnout for the Republicans was up throughout the entire country, regardless of whether the amendment was on the ballot, and in the vast majority of states it was not.

 

[phillyfan26]

He points to the increase in the turnout there, but does not say that without the amendment on the ballot, Bush would have lost the election.

Actually, he pretty much did say that.

Either way, you've gone out of your way to defend bigotry.

 

[Irvine511]

don't look now, but it's on the 2008 ballot for Florida.

but don't worry, it's not intended to drive up evangelical turnout or to placate conservative voters who shudder at voting for the less-hateful Giuliani (who was the likely nominee when the amendment was proposed) or McCain.

no, there's no strategy behind this at all. none whatsoever.

 

[Strongbow]

Actually, he pretty much did say that.

Either way, you've gone out of your way to defend bigotry.

Actually, if you read what he said, he didn't.

How is challenging the idea that Bush won the 2004 election because of a particular amendment that did not make it on the ballot in most states make someone a defender of bigotry?

 

[phillyfan26]

Actually, if you read what he said, he didn't.

How is challenging the idea that Bush won the 2004 election because of a particular amendment that did not make it on the ballot in most states make someone a defender of bigotry?

It doesn't matter he said to you, though, does it? I mean, really, even if he said that, you'd still say, "It's not REAL evidence." Last I check, there wasn't a place on ballots to indicate reasons for voting, so you base reasons off the people and the analysts. Based on that, it's clear that what Irvine said is correct.

I'm not saying that you've gone out of your way defending bigotry on this issue, I'm talking about things like specifically attempting to admonish BVS for calling them what they are.

 

[Strongbow]

don't look now, but it's on the 2008 ballot for Florida.

but don't worry, it's not intended to drive up evangelical turnout or to placate conservative voters who shudder at voting for the less-hateful Giuliani (who was the likely nominee when the amendment was proposed) or McCain.

no, there's no strategy behind this at all. none whatsoever.

What someone believes may work for them politically is not the issue here. Politics is littered with plans and strategies that never produced their intended results. The issue is claiming that without a particular amendment on the ballot in 11 of states, Bush would have lost the election. The results for the 2004 election show that voter turnout for Republicans was up all across the country, including the 39 states where the amendment was not on the ballot. Bottom line, having that amendment on the ballot does not explain increased Republican voter turnout since it was up everywhere else as well where it was not on the ballot.

 

[phillyfan26]

"I'd be naïve if I didn't say it helped," said Robert T. Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party. "And it helped most in what we refer to as the Bible Belt area of southeastern and southwestern Ohio, where we had the largest percentage increase in support for the president."

 

[Irvine511]

the increase in Republican turnout was due to Resolution 1441.

 

[Strongbow]

It doesn't matter he said to you, though, does it? I mean, really, even if he said that, you'd still say, "It's not REAL evidence." Last I check, there wasn't a place on ballots to indicate reasons for voting, so you base reasons off the people and the analysts. Based on that, it's clear that what Irvine said is correct.

I'm not saying that you've gone out of your way defending bigotry on this issue, I'm talking about things like specifically attempting to admonish BVS for calling them what they are.

You can't call someone a bigot if you in fact do not know how they voted on the issue or do not actually know anything about them other than that their an evangelical or a registered Republican.

Republican voter turnout was UP in nearly every single State in the country. Not just the 11 states where the amendment was on the ballot. Bennett thinks the amendment helped because voter turnout was higher in a particular area of Ohio, but he can't actually prove that, and he is certainly NOT claiming Bush would have lost if the amendment had not been on the ballot.

Increased Republican turnout was not a case isolated to Ohio. Every state in the Union experienced increased Republican turnout, regardless of whether the amendment was on the ballot or not.

 

[Strongbow]

The fact that a particular area of Ohio had the largest increase in percentage turnout from the previous election doesn't prove that the result would not have happened if the amendment had not been on the ballot. AGAIN, look at the 39 states where the amendment was not on the ballot. They all had large increases in Republican turnout.

 

[phillyfan26]

You can't call someone a bigot if you in fact do not know how they voted on the issue or do not actually know anything about them other than that their an evangelical or a registered Republican.

Republican voter turnout was UP in nearly every single State in the country. Not just the 11 states where the amendment was on the ballot. Bennett thinks the amendment helped because voter turnout was higher in a particular area of Ohio, but he can't actually prove that, and he is certainly NOT claiming Bush would have lost if the amendment had not been on the ballot.

Increased Republican turnout was not a case isolated to Ohio. Every state in the Union experienced increased Republican turnout, regardless of whether the amendment was on the ballot or not.

We're calling the people who are against gay rights bigots.

But, here's the thing: Bennett is an EXPERT. He knows more than you do. His area of expertise is Republican voters in Ohio. He said the amendment helped. He said turnout was highest in the Bible Belt counties. Higher than your overall Republican turnout.

It's all a matter of connecting the dots. For example:

In this drawing, connecting the dots creates the image of George Washington, 1st President of the United States.

In the same way, connecting the dots of evangelicals, this amendment, and the increase in voters in the evangelical counties being higher than in any other county in the state all paint the same picture ... the one Irvine's been talking about.

 

[Strongbow]

We're calling the people who are against gay rights bigots.

But, here's the thing: Bennett is an EXPERT. He knows more than you do. His area of expertise is Republican voters in Ohio. He said the amendment helped. He said turnout was highest in the Bible Belt counties. Higher than your overall Republican turnout.

It's all a matter of connecting the dots. For example:

In this drawing, connecting the dots creates the image of George Washington, 1st President of the United States.

In the same way, connecting the dots of evangelicals, this amendment, and the increase in voters in the evangelical counties being higher than in any other county in the state all paint the same picture ... the one Irvine's been talking about.

The fact is that Republican turnout was UP in every State in the country regardless of whether or not the amendment was on the ballot. Bennett thinks that it helped, but considering what happened in states without the amendment on the ballot, its doubtful that it did. States like Pennsylvania and Indiana had increased Republican voter turnout, but there was no gay amendment on the ballot.

 

[phillyfan26]

In what counties did turnout increase most in Ohio?

The ones Bennett referenced.

Which counties are considered the "Bible Belt" counties of Ohio?

The ones Bennett referenced.

Evangelicals tend to hold what issue as one of their biggest motivators?

Banning gay marriage.

What amendment was in the state of Ohio?

Hmmm...

Not. That. Hard.

 

[Strongbow]

In what counties did turnout increase most in Ohio?

The ones Bennett referenced.

Which counties are considered the "Bible Belt" counties of Ohio?

The ones Bennett referenced.

Evangelicals tend to hold what issue as one of their biggest motivators?

Banning gay marriage.

What amendment was in the state of Ohio?

Hmmm...

Not. That. Hard.

Was Ohio the only state in the country to experience an increase in Republican voter turnout? NO

In fact every state experienced what Ohio experienced even though the vast majority of them did not have a certain amendment on the ballot.

Increased Republican voter turnout was not an event isolated to Ohio or states with the amendment on the ballot.

 

[BVS]

Fracturing of a party, we've gotten off topic...