Post-election Commentaries, Thoughts

[Irvine511]

I don't know of ANY newspaper that does that. They'd get in big trouble for that. Do you know what an editorial is? It's the writer's opinion. Some writers, that's their job, to write their opinions, to get a discussion going. It's not the newspapers' opinion.

most major newspapers in the US endorse a candidate. the NY Times and the Washington Post endorsed Kerry, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush.

a few things to keep in mind:

1. the election was, again, extremely close

2. the Republicans are simply better organized and got out their "base" -- white, evangelical Christians who are, in my opinion, homophobic bigots

3. the Democrats have no real message, Bush's victory is probably 50% due to Democratic ineptitude

4. domestic issues are far, far too complicated for anyone who doesn't live in the US to understand, so to all those from other countries, i say this: i feel your pain, and sympathize, but please try to understand the complexities of the domestic situation before you make sweeping judgements about 300m people.

5. the true danger in the Bush re-election isn't foreign policy -- both candidates had similar positions on Iraq, and the military is to strung out to go invading any other countries anytime soon -- but the culture war that is bound to follow, and that's really only going to affect Americans like me who are members of vulnerable minority groups.

what we're seeing, I think, is a huge fundamentalist Christian
revival in this country, a religious movement that is now explicitly
political as well. unsurprising given the uncertainty of today's world, the devastating attacks of 9-11, and the emergence of so many more liberal cultures in urban America.

and it is completely legitimate for such views to be represented in public policy. but the intensity of the passion, and the inherently totalist nature of religiously motivated politics means deep social conflict if we are not careful. we have to live and let live.

as blue states become more secular, and red states become less so, the only alternative to a national religious war is to allow different states to pursue different options. that goes for things like decriminalization of marijuana, abortion rights, stem cell research and marriage rights. forcing California and Mississippi into one model is a recipe for disaster. federalism is now more important than ever.

 

[mathieu_cpfan]

We're not in the best of times. There's nothing wrong with speaking about the country you live in and love, it's postives and negatives.

No country is perfect. I could make an even longer list with things that go wrong in my own country. We ALL have positive and negative things going on in our countries.

 

[DrTeeth]

I've heard concerns similar to those of Irvine511 on tv during the elections.

 

[RademR]

3. the Democrats have no real message, Bush's victory is probably 50% due to Democratic ineptitude

very true. It's tough to win an election when a lot of the people are voting for you because they don't like the other guy, not because of you.

 

[Zoocoustic]

very true. It's tough to win an election when a lot of the people are voting for you because they don't like the other guy, not because of you.

This is an excellent point. There were too many people I knew who were voting for Kerry, not because they liked Kerry, but because they hated Bush.

That doesn't work. You've got to have a clear message you're trying to convey.

Bush did. Many may disagree, but he was very clear with his position on Iraq and terrorism.

 

[bonosloveslave]

white, evangelical Christians who are, in my opinion, homophobic bigots

sweeping judgements about 300m people.

I'm sorry, what is YOUR definition of 'sweeping judgement'? It's not really fair to ask other people not to do it when you are doing it in the same breath.

 

[U2Traveller]

most major newspapers in the US endorse a candidate. the NY Times and the Washington Post endorsed Kerry, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush.

a few things to keep in mind:

1. the election was, again, extremely close

2. the Republicans are simply better organized and got out their "base" -- white, evangelical Christians who are, in my opinion, homophobic bigots

3. the Democrats have no real message, Bush's victory is probably 50% due to Democratic ineptitude

4. domestic issues are far, far too complicated for anyone who doesn't live in the US to understand, so to all those from other countries, i say this: i feel your pain, and sympathize, but please try to understand the complexities of the domestic situation before you make sweeping judgements about 300m people.

5. the true danger in the Bush re-election isn't foreign policy -- both candidates had similar positions on Iraq, and the military is to strung out to go invading any other countries anytime soon -- but the culture war that is bound to follow, and that's really only going to affect Americans like me who are members of vulnerable minority groups.

what we're seeing, I think, is a huge fundamentalist Christian
revival in this country, a religious movement that is now explicitly
political as well. unsurprising given the uncertainty of today's world, the devastating attacks of 9-11, and the emergence of so many more liberal cultures in urban America.

and it is completely legitimate for such views to be represented in public policy. but the intensity of the passion, and the inherently totalist nature of religiously motivated politics means deep social conflict if we are not careful. we have to live and let live.

as blue states become more secular, and red states become less so, the only alternative to a national religious war is to allow different states to pursue different options. that goes for things like decriminalization of marijuana, abortion rights, stem cell research and marriage rights. forcing California and Mississippi into one model is a recipe for disaster. federalism is now more important than ever.

It's not about bigotry, at least not around here...it's about religious beliefs which don't equate to bigotry here. I'm sure there are a few bigots in the country who voted for it, but I know it wasn't about bigotry here.

We actually didn't think it was a good idea to have this vote here, which explains our results compared to the other states. I don't think people really knew what their alternative was, though. I think the side against it should've laid out an alternative plan.

 

[U2Traveller]

I'm sorry, what is YOUR definition of 'sweeping judgement'? It's not really fair to ask other people not to do it when you are doing it in the same breath.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm sorry, what is YOUR definition of 'sweeping judgement'? It's not really fair to ask other people not to do it when you are doing it in the same breath.

i'm talking about the people who voted against the gay marriage amendments. particularly in places like Ohio where the amendments also outlawed anything resembling civil unions. if you look at the tactics of Karl Rove, what they did was gay-bait to get out the evangelical vote. this is why they came out with the FMA to begin with way back in February, and why they were on the ballots in key states. this was all part of the GOP plan to get the base out, and the republican base dislikes homosexuals based upon their turnout and how they voted. that's not a judgement, that's a fact reflected in voting records and political strategy.

when you put a tiny and despised minority up for a popular vote, the minority usually loses. we have seen, and not for the first time, how using fear of a minority can be so effective a tool in building a political movement (think Irish in the 19th century, think african-americans in the 1960s). the single most important issue for Republican voters, according to exit polls, was not the war on terror or Iraq or the economy: it was "moral values." by demonizing gay couples, the Republicans were able to bring in whole swathes of new anti-gay believers into their party.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

since i enjoy copying posts from the closed threads and moving them into this one, let me now post this brilliant post by yours truely re: the assumption that bush won because of the gay marrage ban on the ballot...

let's annalyze this for a second...

the states that approved the gay marrage ban are arkansas, georgia, kentucky, michigan, mississippi, montana, north dakota, ohio, oklahoma, oregon and utah

all of those states went for bush with the exception of michigan and oregon

--bush won arkansas 55% to 44%, the gay marrage ban won 75% to 25%
--bush won georgia 59% to 41%, the gay marrage ban won 77% to 23%
--bush won kentucky 60% to 40$, the gay marrage ban won 75% to 25%
--kerry won michigan 51% to 48%, the gay marrage ban won 59% to 41%
--bush won mississippi 60% to 40%, the gay marrage ban won 86% to 14%
--bush won montana 59% to 39%, the gay marrage ban won 66% to 44%
--bush won north dakota 63% to 36%, the gay marrage ban won 73% to 27%
--bush won ohio 51% to 49%, the gay marrage ban won 62% to 38%
--bush won oklahoma 66% to 34%, the gay marrage ban won 76% to 24%
--kerry won oregon 52% to 47%, the gay marrage ban won 57% to 43%
--bush won utah 71% to 37%, the gay marrage ban won 66% to 34%

the point? many kerry voters voted for the gay marrage ban. in every state, the % of people who voted for the ban was more than the % of people who voted for bush, with the exception of utah... where more people actually voted for bush than voted for the ban. people from the south, midwest, north and west, red states and blue states, voted for the ban. to use this as the reason kerry lost would be, at best, an incomplete reason.



on a side note, if this ever came up for vote in new york, i would vote against the ban.

 

[U2Traveller]

Once again, I'm proud of Utah. Utah's vote would've gone for Bush no matter what.

 

[Irvine511]

since i enjoy copying posts from the closed threads and moving them into this one, let me now post this brilliant post by yours truely re: the assumption that bush won because of the gay marrage ban on the ballot...

you're correlations are too simple. it's not a because of A, B happened. this was one issue that motivates a base and gets them out to the polls. there are democrats who are against gay marriage, true, but it's not an issue that gets them up in the morning the way that it does the evangelical base. while the margins against gay marriage might have been similar due to the cultural conservatism of these states, the overal numbers of people who voted in these culturally conservative states went up due to the gay marriage iniative on the ballots. simply put: it whips the Republican base into a frenzy and gets them to the polls. dont' forget -- Rove was convinced that 4m evangelicals sat home in 2000. he knew that this was a way to get them to the polls, and probably explains much of Bush's winning by 3.5m in the popular vote.

 

[FullonEdge2]

Wow. I know some of you are a little upset over the election, but some comments I'm reading are utterly irrational. I guarantee (I know this doesn't mean much to you) there will be NO draft. If anyone wants to bet on that, I will gladly take you up on that.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

you're correlations are too simple. it's not a because of A, B happened. this was one issue that motivates a base and gets them out to the polls. there are democrats who are against gay marriage, true, but it's not an issue that gets them up in the morning the way that it does the evangelical base. while the margins against gay marriage might have been similar due to the cultural conservatism of these states, the overal numbers of people who voted in these culturally conservative states went up due to the gay marriage iniative on the ballots. simply put: it whips the Republican base into a frenzy and gets them to the polls. dont' forget -- Rove was convinced that 4m evangelicals sat home in 2000. he knew that this was a way to get them to the polls, and probably explains much of Bush's winning by 3.5m in the popular vote.

in most of these states the percentage of people in favor of the ban was 20 to 30 times more than the percentage of those who voted for bush. that's an awful lot of kerry supporters. yes, a large number of bush's base came out strong to vote for the ban... but you can't place that much of the blame for the loss by kerry on this issue, because in these same states large numbers of dems also voted for the ban.

so as i said... it's a reason, but it's an incomplete reason, not the only reason. there's more to why bush defeated kerry in these states.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Wow. I know some of you are a little upset over the election, but some comments I'm reading are utterly irrational. I guarantee (I know this doesn't mean much to you) there will be NO draft. If anyone wants to bet on that, I will gladly take you up on that.

if you find someone willing to take you up on that action, send them my way, as well.

 

[Irvine511]

so as i said... it's a reason, but it's an incomplete reason, not the only reason. there's more to why bush defeated kerry in these states.

yes, you're right. bush was going to win those states anyway, probably, except for Ohio (which he did win) and Oregon (which he didn't). but this helped immeasurably with the popular vote.

incidentally, guess which states in the US have the highest divorce rates? Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.

lowest divorce rates? Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

classic scapegoating. it's comforting to believe that the problems of marriage lie with a distant "other" than in the heart of your own neighborhood and culture

 

[WinnieThePoo]

i feel like a bladerunner , in next 4-5 years i'll be eligible for U.S. citizenship ( just recieved my green card ) , i work everyday , i study everyday , what can i say ? best of luck to the winner , the funny thing is that people in my area voted for kerry and all the states from the area voted for kerry , and kerry lives right across the sea from me , now u know where i live

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Sounds overheard at Kerry headquarters...

 

[deep]

incidentally, guess which states in the US have the highest divorce rates? Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.

I guess these women were not obedian to their husbands. shame

 

[drivemytrabant]

for all you people that are saying that Bush only won Ohio because the gay marriage ban brought out his base--please explain how he won the state in 2000.

 

[Irvine511]

for all you people that are saying that Bush only won Ohio because the gay marriage ban brought out his base--please explain how he won the state in 2000.

he won in 2000 due to a tactical blunder on the part of the Gore campaign -- they thought Ohio was in Bush's hands and pulled out their ground troops and resources and sent them to Florida.

 

[RademR]

To lighten up the room, if anyone is a fan of Triumph the comic the insult dog (I think hes hilarious), click on the link to see him interview politcal heavyweights after the third debate:

http://www.ifilm.com/viralvideo?ifilmid=2653646

funny stuff.

 

[drivemytrabant]

he won in 2000 due to a tactical blunder on the part of the Gore campaign -- they thought Ohio was in Bush's hands and pulled out their ground troops and resources and sent them to Florida.

Really? So you think a couple of more tv ads in the last weeks would have put Gore over the top? So Gore lost because he didn't stay there long enough and Kerry lost because of gay marriage. Ok I guess its not possible that two elections in a row the majority of the citizens of Ohio thought that Bush was the better choice.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I, like many Canadians, watched with great interest until the wee hours. Ironically, from what I hear, Kerry's protectionist economic agenda would have been worse for Canada then it would be with Bush - and Bush has been pretty bad for us (softwood lumber, Canadian beef, etc) - which says a lot. But the reason I stayed up and watched wasn't because of how I thought it would affect Canada. It was because I care about the world at large. This election had a massive impact on the planet in a multitude of ways. I thought the U.S. was ready for a change, that it was ready, once again, to come along with the rest of us. Sure, the economy in the US and its national debt and deficit will not have the best effect on Canada, but it's so much bigger than national interest. Most Canadians are really disappointed in the result, and obviously almost half of Americans are too. I actually began to like Kerry after a little bit of digging. He has done much more than people really know, and I believe he actually had the average American's interest at heart. I began to see this as the more I watched him. I feel profoundly disappointed....which might seem odd given I'm not American. Please don't get offended by this. It's just my opinion.

 

[U2girl91289]

I had a nightmare last week where we watched all of the states south of Jersey turn red, and with a few exceptions, my nightmare came true. What I love about the Bush administration is that Wyoming gets more money for Homeland Security than New York does. Gotta love it. I think I'm going to start a Democrats in Denial club

 

[Irvine511]

Really? So you think a couple of more tv ads in the last weeks would have put Gore over the top? So Gore lost because he didn't stay there long enough and Kerry lost because of gay marriage. Ok I guess its not possible that two elections in a row the majority of the citizens of Ohio thought that Bush was the better choice.

of course it's possible, and in the end the people of Ohio spoke, but when elections are as close as they were in 2000 and 2004, it's these little things that pollsters, pundits, and political scientists point to that make the difference.

 

[drivemytrabant]

of course it's possible, and in the end the people of Ohio spoke, but when elections are as close as they were in 2000 and 2004, it's these little things that pollsters, pundits, and political scientists point to that make the difference.

Well I'm pretty sure that there was no way that Gore could have won the state in 2000. Kerry was another matter. He had a real shot in Ohio this time around. Dems need to migrate about 300,000 people to ohio for the next election.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But didn't you hear, Dick has a gay daughter

 

[Hawk269]

Most Canadians are really disappointed in the result, and obviously almost half of Americans are too. I actually began to like Kerry after a little bit of digging. He has done much more than people really know, and I believe he actually had the average American's interest at heart. I began to see this as the more I watched him. I feel profoundly disappointed....which might seem odd given I'm not American. Please don't get offended by this. It's just my opinion.

Thanks for sharing your sentiments. I'm sure these thoughts are echoed around the world by more people than we can imagine. It is a sad day for true freedom and democracy everywhere.

 

[A_Wanderer]

WTF?

People voting giving George W. Bush a proper mandate, with both electoral college and popular vote and you call it a sad day for true freedom and democracy? Does this mean that if it doesn't go your way then it isn't true freedom and democracy?

Those that must suffer for such things under the thumbs of despots may have a slightly different opinion than those arrogant Americans who think that they are so much better than everybody else.

Iranians welcome massively Bush's re-election
SMCCDI (Information Service)
Nov 3, 2004

Millions of Iranians expressed their satisfaction of the outcome of the US Presidential elections and George W. Bush's victory by calling and congratulating each other or waling in the streets and shaking each others hands or showing the V sign.

Many are speaking about the promises made by Mr. Bush to back the Iranian Nation in its quest for freedom and democracy.

As Iranians and especially the younger generations have become happy , those affiliated to the Islamic regime are seen deeply worried about their future based on crimes and corruption.

The regime and its US based known apologists and lobbyists had tried hard to make fear to Iranians on the outcome of a Bush win. Money was poured by controversial individuals, such as Akbar Ghahary the treasurer of IAPAC, to money oriented TV and radio networks, such as, 670 AM, Tamasha TV, Melli TV and a specific program of Apadana TV hosted by an ideologist named Faramarz Foroozandeh.

But all these desperate tries were not able to lure the Iranians of inside and nor especially the members of the Diaspora.

Witnessing such fiasco, the Islamic regime tried hard to bring the few thousands of professional demonstrators for its organized celebration of the 1979 attack against the US Embassy in Tehran. It's to note that the Iranian Capital has over 12 millions of inhabitants and that the today's official commemoration of one of the main Islamist act of terror ecountered another massive popular rejection.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_9114.shtml