The FACTS about election 2004...

[Larry Gude]

...while some of our left wing friends decry that God has smited them and some on the right want to believe that to be the case, Mark Penn, head of a left leaning polling firm has the goods:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29475-2004Nov5.html

Short version: While 10 milliom more of us than 2000 got out and voted, the facts are that increases, left and right, pretty much balanced each other out.

The real story is Hispanics went from 35% Bush in 2000 to 44% this year, enough to make a 1% difference in the total popular vote numbers and white women went from 49% W 2000, to 55% this time, enough to supply the other 2.5%.

So, George W. Bushs win was by 3.5% and it came not from the increase in volume of voters who basically cancelled each other out but from a real, identifiable shift.

Good piece if you care about what really happened.

 

[ylexot]

Cool. I had heard about the shift in Hispanics, but not about the shift in white women.

Take that UP.

 

[rraley]

Mark Penn is a very intelligenct, savvy politcal consultant...it is too bad that John Kerry turned to profound loser Bob Shrum and not to him.

I completely agree with Mark Penn. Democrats need to stop being valueless candidates; we have values, talk about them. Seems so fricken hard doesn't it.

 

[Bruzilla]

The problem is that you guys don't understand that your values aren't shared by a majority of Americans.

 

[rraley]

The problem is that you guys don't understand that your values aren't shared by a majority of Americans.

No, the way that the right projects our values is what isn't shared by a majority of Americans. For too long, Democratic candidates have stood by and allowed it to happen or have believed that religious morals or values had no place in the political discourse. They are wrong on both accounts. Look at the 2002 campaign of Senator Mark Pyor of Arkansas as an example of Democrats "sharing" the values of a majority of Americans.

 

[vraiblonde]

No, the way that the right projects our values is what isn't shared by a majority of Americans.

I disagree. It's the way YOU all project your values that the majority doesn't agree with. Pictures of our President as a Special Olympics kid? Likening him to Hitler? "That's My Bush"? "Farenheit 9-11"? Websites like killpresidentbush.com? Broadway plays about assasinating him?

You may have forgotten all those things, but I haven't. And, apparently, there are 58 million other people in the US that haven't forgotten either.

 

[Bruzilla]

Yes... look at what you guys stand for:

1. Abortion, even partial birth abortion. I'm pro-abortion, but even I have to admit that the partial birth variety should be banned. If the NRA could agree that selective-fire weapons should be banned, can't you guys agree to let PBA's be banned?

2. Gay Marriages. Not many folks outside of the Gay community, or those who want that community's votes, support that.

3. Legalizing Drugs.

4. No limits on what can be said or shown over the air waves.

5. No limits on what can be taught to our kids in regards to sex.

6. No limits on transferring wealth.

I mean c'mon. I'm not saying these are your values, but they are the values of the Democratic Party as a whole, and these just don't fly with mainstream America.

 

[rraley]

I disagree. It's the way YOU all project your values that the majority doesn't agree with. Pictures of our President as a Special Olympics kid? Likening him to Hitler? "That's My Bush"? "Farenheit 9-11"? Websites like killpresidentbush.com? Broadway plays about assasinating him?

You may have forgotten all those things, but I haven't. And, apparently, there are 58 million other people in the US that haven't forgotten either.

You see, I don't think that too many of the 58 million people in this country know about these things. And I hardly think that they made these things the deciding factor in their decision. Farenheit 9/11 is the only far left production that I think could have turned off base Republican voters, but on the same token, energized liberal, Democratic voters. These just seem to be far-off instances of radicals, not statements from the Democratic Party powerhouse.

 

[rraley]

Yes... look at what you guys stand for:

1. Abortion, even partial birth abortion. I'm pro-abortion, but even I have to admit that the partial birth variety should be banned. If the NRA could agree that selective-fire weapons should be banned, can't you guys agree to let PBA's be banned?

2. Gay Marriages. Not many folks outside of the Gay community, or those who want that community's votes, support that.

3. Legalizing Drugs.

4. No limits on what can be said or shown over the air waves.

5. No limits on what can be taught to our kids in regards to sex.

6. No limits on transferring wealth.

I mean c'mon. I'm not saying these are your values, but they are the values of the Democratic Party as a whole, and these just don't fly with mainstream America.

For number one, I agree, my party has become far too radical on the issue of abortion and then we hide behind different terms like "choice" and "abortion rights." The Partial birth abortion ban is something that the party should ultimately get behind.

Gay marriage...neither John Kerry or John Edwards supported it. The Democratic platform did not endorse gay marriage either.

"Legalizing drugs.." When I read the Democratic platform, I don't see that anywhere. Sure, some very liberal Democratic congressmen support some form of decriminalization, but once again, a fragment of the radical faction.

"No limits on what can be said or shown over the air waves" I'm not exactly sure what you are insinuating about this...I never knew a Democrat who promoted showing risque material on basic cable. I do know of a Republican who did do that: Pete Coors, the party's Senate candidate in Colorado, who is famous for "twins".

"No limits on what can be taught to our kids in regards to sex." I do believe that parents have to sign a permission form in order for a child to undergo sex education. If you don't want them to, don't let them.

As for the wealth comment, I am not sure what you are referring to.

 

[vraiblonde]

You see, I don't think that too many of the 58 million people in this country know about these things.

Again, I disagree. It was far too public for it to not be common knowledge. The celebrities endorsing those things were quite visible.

Face it. People associate the Democratic party with pornography, obscenity and kooky drug-addicted celebrities who are ashamed to be Americans. They are NOT the party of family values, unless you're the Manson family.

You, personally, are a throwback to the Kennedy Democrats. Maybe you and young people like you are the hope of your party?

 

[willie]

Having an enthusiastic supporter like Howard Stern doesn't do much for the Democratic image.

 

[UrbanPancake]

Having an enthusiastic supporter like Howard Stern doesn't do much for the Democratic image.

But if you support the first amendment then why should the material on the airwaves become monitored and censored? Why not just turn off the TV and the radio? Why should the media become censored? I'm an adult and I can decide what I watch, and what my daughter watch. I don't want government telling me what I can and cannot see or hear. If I wanted that I would move to Russia.

 

[FromTexas]

But if you support the first amendment then why should the material on the airwaves become monitored and censored? Why not just turn off the TV and the radio? Why should the media become censored? I'm an adult and I can decide what I watch, and what my daughter watch. I don't want government telling me what I can and cannot see or hear. If I wanted that I would move to Russia.

Get a clue and try to understand the first amendment.

 

[UrbanPancake]

Get a clue and try to understand the first amendment.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

If you don't like it just turn it off. It's like when you turn on the country station by accident, you just switch to another station.

-no offense to anyone who likes country.

 

[rraley]

You, personally, are a throwback to the Kennedy Democrats. Maybe you and young people like you are the hope of your party?

That may be the greatest compliment that I have ever received. Thank you.

 

[willie]

That may be the greatest compliment that I have ever received. Thank you.

My compliments to you also but don't get big headed about it. The group that you are being compared to mostly have brains powered by fartgas.

 

[vraiblonde]

The group that you are being compared to mostly have brains powered by fartgas.

While I might agree with that, that's not what I meant by the comment.

What I meant was a party that promoted equality for all and wanted to lend a hand to those with the economic deck stacked against them. As opposed to these screaming Leftist militants and their "Hate America First" agenda.

So, RRaley, I was NOT insinuating that you have brains powered by fartgas.

 

[SamSpade]

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

If you don't like it just turn it off. It's like when you turn on the country station by accident, you just switch to another station.

-no offense to anyone who likes country.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes once famously said "Freedom of speech never gave anyone the right to falsely cry "FIRE" in a theater" and "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". There is free speech, and there is responsible free speech. If we can't agree on this point, there's no need to continue discussing it - freedoms are not absolutes that do not require scrutiny.

The air waves are monitored by the government, just as the roads and skies are. You can't ride your bicycle on the Beltway; if you think that is an infringement on your freedom, you don't understand that your freedoms, as in the nose analogy, involve others. You never have the right to endanger or threaten the safety of others. The government watches them for our safety.

We understand these things. We have freedom of the press BUT - we also have libel laws. Freedom of the press says you can say anything about the GOVERNMENT that you want; you may NOT, however, print anything you want about *ME*. You may get on the radio and say that the President is an idiot - you may not get on the radio and say that about *ME*, or you will find yourself unable to say anything for a week or two.

The problem with "just shutting it off" is manyfold - for one, there's no way of keeping it from children, no matter what people claim. If you talk dirty to my kid, you'll hear from me. If you say it on the AIR, you'd better show some responsibility.

Oddly enough - this is becoming an argument on the Democratic side. They can no longer ignore the fact that talk radio is serious stuff; that many more people get their news from Rush Limbaugh, Neil Boortz or Sean Hannity than Dan Rather and Peter Jennings. Ignoring them comes at their peril. Since they can't compete, they've begun measures to try to shut down venues for conservative talk radio. They've assaulted their parent companies and tried to halt the process. They're not for free speech if it's conservative speech.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. These are the same guys who, while insisting that every vote should count, fought long and hard to make sure that no votes were being counted for RALPH NADER. And contrary to widely spread rumors, Nader himself repeatedly denies being funded by Republicans - Democrats were trying to keep him from running because they feared he'd take votes from Bush (In a bit of irony, it wouldn't have made any difference; there were significantly less votes for Nader this time around).

I agree that we're becoming less tolerant towards the free expression of others; it goes both ways, and "politically correct" is its biggest enemy. We all need thicker skins.

 

[ylexot]

Nice Sam, but you forgot to mention that the airwaves are considered "public property" and that is why the government monitors/has rules for them just like the roads and skies. RRaley mentioned cable, but cable does not follow the same rules as the public airwaves, so that argument does not apply.

BTW, regarding old (Kennedy-era) Democratic party vs current Democratic party, Zell Miller considers himself to be a Kennedy Democrat. Since I agree with most of his views, maybe that makes me a Kennedy Democrat too It's just that the current Democratic party has gone sooooooo far left that even part of the left-of-center is now part of the Republican party.

 

[SmallTown]

freedoms are not absolutes that do not require scrutiny.

Funny how people with this view regarding the 1st amendment don't have the same view when discussing the 2nd amendment