The Fracturing of a Party...

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Strongbow


It did not scream Gay to most of Florida's section of the Bible Belt. But it does seem to scream gay to people in this forum. Interesting.

these things don't "scream" gay to me. i know they are very common characteristics of gay men of a certain age. it's been written about all over Florida, and much more since he's been elected, and not before.

i'm sorry your boy Crist is gay and therefore unable to be on the ticket with McCain. he will receive scrutiny as a Veep pic that will go far beyond what he received as a candidate for governor, and with an entire nation of Republicans to choose from, i'm afraid he's not even going to make the short list, his popularity nonwithstanding.

it is too bad. and Karl Rove would quite disagree with you about the importance of getting gay bashing amendments on the ballot in 2004. he was quite right that something like this would mobilize the Republican base, and it certainly did in Ohio, and particularly in SE Ohio, which is quite conservative. 2004 was an election that was won by the base of the Republican party. they were able to mobilize their grassroots because they had superior organizational skills and because that amendment provided motivation for some evangelicals to get to the polls. and Ohio was the determining state. if Kerry had won Ohio, he would have won the election. Bush won the election because he won Ohio. and he won Ohio because of the gay bashing amendments.

it's quite simple.

there's a reason why David Dreier will only go so far in the Republican Party. it's the same reason that Crist will never be the Veep.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511




if Kerry had won Ohio, he would have won the election. Bush won the election because he won Ohio. and he won Ohio because of the gay bashing amendments.

it's quite simple.

there's a reason why David Dreier will only go so far in the Republican Party. it's the same reason that Crist will never be the Veep.

Well, exactly how many people voted in Ohio for Bush because of the gay bashing amendment that would not have voted for Bush anyway?

Unless you can answer that question, its simply a theory that Bush won Ohio because of the amendment.

While Florida is a battleground state, its probably the one of the 7 the Republicans have to worry the least about in this election. Unemployment there is below the national average at 4.7% and McCain will obviously do well with Florida's much older population. In addition, active duty military personal get to pick their "home state" and many pick Florida(expecially career military officers) which will bode well for McCain in the general election. Florida has only voted for the Democratic President 4 times since World War II, and in 1996, the last time the Democrats won the state, they likely only won it because Perot was a candidate who took away nearly 10% of the popular vote there.

So, perhaps having Crist on the ticket is not really needed in order to secure Florida. The real battles in November will likely be in places like Ohio, Missouri, and New Hampshire. The Republicans could actually lose Ohio but win the election if they pick up New Hampshire, which McCain has an excellent shot of doing.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Strongbow
Well, exactly how many people voted in Ohio for Bush because of the gay bashing amendment that would not have voted for Bush anyway?

It's more of how many people voted because of the gay amendment that would not have at all if it wasn't there.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


It's more of how many people voted because of the gay amendment that would not have at all if it wasn't there.

Thats what I was saying. Again, tell me who would not have voted if the amendment had not been there.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Strongbow


Well, exactly how many people voted in Ohio for Bush because of the gay bashing amendment that would not have voted for Bush anyway?

Unless you can answer that question, its simply a theory that Bush won Ohio because of the amendment.

what exactly is your point here? are you actually only going to concede the point that gay bashing helps get the Republican base out to vote if every voter filled out a form that says "i hate gay people"? the leaps and wild inferences you make when it comes to Iraq, and yet you won't even countenance this?

i am not saying that Bush won Ohio because of the gay bashing amendment. i am saying that the Republican base won the election for Bush, especially in Ohio, and one thing that encourages the Republican base is bashing gays. this is why Rove sought to get these amendments on the ballot in 2004, and that's one of the reasons why Bush won states with such amendments. it helped overall base turnout, which gave him the election. it's the Rove strategy. all he wants is a 50%+1 election victory.

So, perhaps having Crist on the ticket is not really needed in order to secure Florida. The real battles in November will likely be in places like Ohio, Missouri, and New Hampshire. The Republicans could actually lose Ohio but win the election if they pick up New Hampshire, which McCain has an excellent shot of doing.

i'm glad you've conceded the point. it's too bad for McCain, especially now that he might almost have to choose Huckabee.

[phillyfan26]

I think Irvine made that clear: The "values" voters in Ohio.

[Irvine511]

[q]Same-Sex Marriage Issue Key to Some G.O.P. Races
By JAMES DAO

Published: November 4, 2004

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov. 3 - Proposed state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage increased the turnout of socially conservative voters in many of the 11 states where the measures appeared on the ballot on Tuesday, political analysts say, providing crucial assistance to Republican candidates including President Bush in Ohio and Senator Jim Bunning in Kentucky.

The amendments, which define marriage as between only a man and a woman, passed overwhelmingly in all 11 states, clearly receiving support from Democrats and independents as well as Republicans. Only in Oregon and Michigan did the amendment receive less than 60 percent of the vote.

But the ballot measures also appear to have acted like magnets for thousands of socially conservative voters in rural and suburban communities who might not otherwise have voted, even in this heated campaign, political analysts said. And in tight races, those voters - who historically have leaned heavily Republican - may have tipped the balance.

Advertisement

In Ohio, for instance, political analysts credit the ballot measure with increasing turnout in Republican bastions in the south and west, while also pushing swing voters in the Appalachian region of the southeast toward Mr. Bush. The president's extra-strong showing in those areas compensated for an extraordinarily large Democratic turnout in Cleveland and in Columbus, propelling him to a 136,000-vote victory.

"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."

The other states that approved the amendments on Tuesday were Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Utah. In Georgia, gay rights groups said they planned to ask a judge to strike down the amendment as soon as the election results were certified.

In Kentucky, many political analysts say the proposed amendment brought out conservative rural voters who helped Mr. Bunning, whose campaign had been foundering amid concerns about his mental health, pull out a narrow victory over Dr. Daniel Mongiardo, a Democrat. Though Dr. Mongiardo had endorsed the amendment, the Republicans ran commercials using the sound of ringing wedding bells to accuse him of being weak on the issue.

With little presidential campaigning in Kentucky because of Mr. Bush's hefty lead there, many conservative voters might have stayed home if it were not for the proposed amendment, analysts said. Supporters of the measure used extensive church networks to persuade people to vote.

"I give this amendment more credit for re-electing Jim Bunning than George Bush's coattails," said Al Cross, a longtime political reporter in Kentucky who is now interim director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky.[/q]

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511



what exactly is your point here? are you actually only going to concede the point that gay bashing helps get the Republican base out to vote if every voter filled out a form that says "i hate gay people"? the leaps and wild inferences you make when it comes to Iraq, and yet you won't even countenance this?

i am not saying that Bush won Ohio because of the gay bashing amendment. i am saying that the Republican base won the election for Bush, especially in Ohio, and one thing that encourages the Republican base is bashing gays. this is why Rove sought to get these amendments on the ballot in 2004, and that's one of the reasons why Bush won states with such amendments. it helped overall base turnout, which gave him the election. it's the Rove strategy. all he wants is a 50%+1 election victory.

I'm challenging the claim that the gay bashing amendment won the election for George Bush. I simply asked you to provide numbers about something that is VERY specific. You post an article that amounts to simply "political analyst" claiming the turnout was increased by the amendment, but they provide NO evidence that is in fact the case.

Yes, it was apart of Rove's strategy, but that does not prove that it in fact brought out anyone who would not have voted anyways let alone that it won the election for Bush.

The wild leaps and inferences on Iraq belong to you.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Strongbow


I'm challenging the claim that the gay bashing amendment won the election for George Bush. I simply asked you to provide numbers about something that is VERY specific. You post an article that amounts to simply "political analyst" claiming the turnout was increased by the amendment, but they provide NO evidence that is in fact the case.

Yes, it was apart of Rove's strategy, but that does not prove that it in fact brought out anyone who would not have voted anyways let alone that it won the election for Bush.

The wild leaps and inferences on Iraq belong to you.

and this is why it's impossible to have a discussion with you, no matter the topic.

[q]"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."[/q]

what do you want? and why are you getting so bogged down in this when the overall argument -- Republicans kick gays to turn out the base -- is 100% true?

they put it on the ballot in Ohio. conservative, evangelicals had increased voter turnout that was enough to counter the Democratic increase in the cities, and Ohio went for Bush thus giving him the election.

[anitram]

Originally posted by Strongbow

Yes, it was apart of Rove's strategy,

Does it make you proud to vote for a party running on a strategy of bigotry?

[Dreadsox]

There was plenty of evidence posted by me at the time of the election. A little research and it can be found in here.

[BVS]

Originally posted by Strongbow


I'm challenging the claim that the gay bashing amendment won the election for George Bush. I simply asked you to provide numbers about something that is VERY specific. You post an article that amounts to simply "political analyst" claiming the turnout was increased by the amendment, but they provide NO evidence that is in fact the case.

Yes, it was apart of Rove's strategy, but that does not prove that it in fact brought out anyone who would not have voted anyways let alone that it won the election for Bush.

The wild leaps and inferences on Iraq belong to you.

The evangelicals themselves bragged that they came out in record numbers and gave Bush the win. It was all over the media for months, you can't have this short of a memory...

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511




and this is why it's impossible to have a discussion with you, no matter the topic.

[q]"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."[/q]

what do you want? and why are you getting so bogged down in this when the overall argument -- Republicans kick gays to turn out the base -- is 100% true?

they put it on the ballot in Ohio. conservative, evangelicals had increased voter turnout that was enough to counter the Democratic increase in the cities, and Ohio went for Bush thus giving him the election.

Thats what Robert Bennett says, but where is the evidence? Voter turnout increased for Republicans in nearly every single county in the country over the year 2000, regardless whether the amendment was on the ballot or not.

The fact is, no one knows exactly why each of the 2,859,768 people who voted for Bush in Ohio in 2004. No one knows under what circumstances how many, if any, of these people would have stayed home that day.

Yes, there was exit polling done that indicated this or that, but it also indicated that John Kerry was going to win and he didn't.

The only thing we know for sure is that Bush came out on top.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


The evangelicals themselves bragged that they came out in record numbers and gave Bush the win. It was all over the media for months, you can't have this short of a memory...

Thats great, but thats not evidence that these people would have all stayed home and Bush would have lost the election. Most of these people were going to vote for Bush no matter what. Republican turnout was up everywhere regardless of whether the amendment was on the ballot.

[BVS]

Yes, if by evidence you want exact numbers you won't get them, I can't recall a box labeled bigot to be checked off.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Yes, if by evidence you want exact numbers you won't get them, I can't recall a box labeled bigot to be checked off.

Yet, your ready to lable many if not most of them as bigots.

[BVS]

If a "defense of marriage act" or a gay marriage ban brings you out to vote, then yes I'm ready to call you a bigot.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
If a "defense of marriage act" or a gay marriage ban brings you out to vote, then yes I'm ready to call you a bigot.

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.

[martha]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
If a "defense of marriage act" or a gay marriage ban brings you out to vote, then yes I'm ready to call you a bigot.

I'm in on that one, too.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Strongbow
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.

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.