|
11-07-2004, 10:06 AM | #1 |
Long lost mooter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,342
|
Post-Election Analysis
IMPORTANT: Read this entire post!
I closed the election thread, but I do feel there is room for a fresh new thread to discuss why the US presidential election went the way it did, the way the votes indicated the polarization of the country, and other such issues. This is NOT a thread to discuss why it is "better" to be a liberal vs. conservative, etc., nor is it the place to criticize anyone else's personal political views. If you disagree with a statement, give a calm, organized response as to why you disagree. I am opening this in the hopes that we can maintain a civil atmosphere. Sadly, I can't stay on right now to give my own views on the topic right now as I had wished, but I had tried to post this earlier and my phone lines went down; now I'm out of time for the moment. But I will be back on later to take part in the discussion. If someone wants to they can make a link to the other thread just for reference. The post from there that I think would make the best springboard for discussion here is the post IRex made regarding "moral values" (last page of that thread). I will personally be "babysitting" this thread for the next couple of days, as well as the other mods and admins checking in (or taking part) when they can. This is up to you, guys. If you want political threads in GM, you need to ignore or REPORT posts you find personally offensive rather than respond. That way this can stay open. I recommend re-reading the rules posts at the top of the forum before taking part in this thread so that you are clear on what is acceptable, etc. See you later! Be good! |
11-07-2004, 01:23 PM | #2 |
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Three cheers for azalea!
And I think that fact that this thread was CREATED by a mod should give those of us who silently grummbled about the mods being anti-politics on this message board a wake up call. *awake* AND it should also make it especially clear that the thread wont last long if all out mud wars take over. After all it IS owned by a mod. So no punches below the belt. Anyway as to what we were talking about before. Am I lead to believe that for those who voted for Bush that Iraq and terrorism WERENT as important as we were all lead to believe before the election? In the old thread I asked people what issues were most driving their decision as to who to vote for. I was curious as to what really motivated people. But everyone kept silent on that for some reason. Which was a shame because it would have really been interesting to compare it to the results post-election.
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
11-07-2004, 01:49 PM | #3 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Here's an analysis from Britain by M. Phillips in The Daily Mail that I think is accurate as a reflection from across the pond on the happenings in the USA.
link:http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/m...p?storyid=1618 Reflects on the cultural factors pretty accurately for both GB and US.
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
11-19-2004, 11:35 AM | #4 | |
The Intermittent One
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: here and there
Posts: 4,671
|
Quote:
not really a very nice newspaper at all! |
|
11-19-2004, 09:31 PM | #5 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
LCoU,
There are nice newspapers in Britain? Define "nice". Or, do you merely disagree with some stance of the paper? Is there analysis invalid or not in agreement with yours? As an American tabloid has it, Inquiring minds want to know!
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
11-22-2004, 08:47 AM | #6 |
The Intermittent One
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: here and there
Posts: 4,671
|
there aren't many 'nice' newspapers in uk, and by nice i mean at last partly
neutral, presenting issues in a concise and unbiased manner, but the mail truly is one of the worst - never do they present facts, and the owner is allegedly a top man in the porn industry - what does that tell you about their stance? - at least there isn't a naked lady on every other page, like it is with the 'redtops'. |
11-07-2004, 02:21 PM | #7 |
Long lost mooter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,342
|
Okay, here was my response for IR's post in the other thread.
First, I will state that I voted for Kerry because I don't think Bush is a good president. I would have voted for Nader again, because I didn't like Kerry either, but I liked him better than Bush and to me it was extra important to get him out of office because of his handling of the situation in Iraq, with which I disagreed. The preceding was not meant to begin an argument about Bush's handling of Iraq, which belongs in a different thread. I simply wished to give the main issue of importance to me during the election for the purposes of further discussion in this thread. That being said, I wanted to respond specifically to the confusion about what is meant by "moral issues." Basically, Kerry supporters were taking umbrage with the term being used to describe what was important to the Bush supporters, because they too were voting about "moral issues." The answer to that is that everyone has different moral issues on which they base their vote. In this election, the majority prefered Bush's stand on the three "moral issues" (a better term is "social issues") of abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage. The majority disagreed with Kerry's stand on these issues. And there you have it. As I said, social issues is a better term, but the media kind of siezed on the term and it stuck. So what happened is that the Dems counted on voters like me, who opposed Bush's handling of Iraq. They were cocky. They thought "Oh, he lost by such a narrow margin last time, and look at how many people disagree with the situation in Iraq! Surely we've clinched it!" However, the surprise was that the war was NOT the central issue, and neither was the economy, but it was these other "moral issues" that the MAJORITY of voters felt strongly enough about to choke down another four years (or happily emabrace another four years, depending on the voter). Furthermore, the Dems stupidly felt that the war issue (combined with their stance on said "social issues") would clinch them the far left vote, when in fact the far left voter might just as easily choose to vote for one of the minor parties. So not only did they lose those votes, but also they misjudged what was important to the majority of American voters. Instead of the war, it was abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage. [Let me post this much before I get kicked offline for inactivity.] |
11-07-2004, 02:40 PM | #8 |
Long lost mooter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,342
|
So now that Bush has been re-elected and can't run again, it doesn't matter to me what happens next time in terms of the Dems winning, because I really don't like them particularly either. I vote for the candidate, not the party. I pick what the most important issues are to me, and I vote based on that AND how well I think a candidate will lead the country (ie, will he make sound and intelligent decisions, whether I end up agreeing with them or not? Or will he simply tow the party line all the way to the end of his presidency without making any decisions based on his own common sense?).
However, in the interest of analysis, here is my view on what they did wrong and how they can win the next election. In sitting back on their laurels and not seeking to reach out to those who voted for Bush in 2000 (ie, "Why Bush, what issues," etc.), they lost an opportunity to a) align the party stands better with what the majority of Americans want (ie, restrictions on abortion) and b) choose a candidate who could better represent or whose personal views better mirrored that of the majority of Americans. My recommendation to them if they wish to win the next election is this: recognize that most citizens in this country wish for [insert stand] (say, restrictions on abortion), and should then either take a party stand reflecting that, or choose a candidate (such as Joe Lieberman, he would have been a better candidate) that holds some strong "moral values" that he is not willing to compromise for votes! The fact that Kerry is a Catholic but is strongly pro-choice probably GREATLY damaged him. That appears hypocritical. If they had had a self-avowed athiest candidate who held that view, it would have at least seemed consistent to the average voter. If they don't wish to take my recommendations, then they need to get used to losing. They should recognize that something is better than nothing; if they followed what I said above they could get a candidate elected. They need to decide which of their less popular stands they are willing to move to the center/ compromise on, and which they will stay firm on. And that's my analysis. |
11-07-2004, 10:57 PM | #9 | |
I am Freddie/UNDERCOVER/ Founder of The Great Continent of Entmoot
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Plainsboro, NJ
Posts: 9,431
|
My vote had nothing to do with the moral values - nor is the electorate anymore polarized than during the two elections Clinton won (he never got above 50% of the vote). I voted on the war on terrorism - my brother is in afganistan and my cousin is off to Iraq. I think Bush understands what the only way to win the war on the fundamentist muslims - and it isn't through defense or appeasement. I also voted for bush because of michael moore and others. I wrote a letter to Time Magazine - of course it would be impossible to put all my reasons for voting in Bush - but it concentrates on something that I think the democrats don't want to face. The following is my letter...
Quote:
Azalea - under normal circumstances - I would probably vote for Lieberman - except for one thing - him being president would be the worst thing that could happen when dealing with the Middle East. Do you know how bigotted the Middle East is against Jews? {edit - the war was the central issue for me - that's why I voted for Bush, why my cousin voted for Bush and why my brother voted for Bush. I know others who also voted FOR Bush because of the war.
__________________
Come back! Come back! To Mordor we will take you! "The only thing better than a great plan is implementing a great plan" - JerseyDevil "If everyone agreed with me all the time, everything would be just fine"- JerseyDevil AboutNewJersey.com New Jersey MessageBoard Another Tolkien Forum Memorial to the Twin Towers New Jersey Map Fellowship of the Messageboard Legend of the Jersey Devil Support New Jersey's Liberty Tower Peacefire.org AboutNewJersey.com - New Jersey Travel and Tourism Guide Last edited by jerseydevil : 11-07-2004 at 11:07 PM. |
|
11-07-2004, 11:53 PM | #10 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
I saw something on the news in passing that was reporting on the Hollywood-type people who said they'd move to Europe if Bush got elected, but missed the actual report - anyone know what happened to them? Are they keeping their word, or making excuses?
Also, I heard that 75% of the military vote went for Bush - anyone heard any other numbers?
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
11-08-2004, 05:25 AM | #11 | |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
Quote:
But I can definitely understand why people nevertheless voted in respect to the war-issue. I suppose Micheal Moore and consorts did Bush more a favour than anything else. You push people one way and they'll go the other -regardless of the fact which road is better -simply because they don't like you deciding over which way they should go. Had I been an undecided American voter, I might have gone for Bush too, just to show 'em all. That's human nature for you. I don't think Bush is the right choice, thinking in the whole picture. I'm not saying Kerry would have been better, but I would have prefered anyone but Bush. But the choice is made and this time seemingly without any accusations of fraud. So we'll just have to see how it works out.
__________________
We are not things. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Teacup Café XV | hectorberlioz | General Messages | 1021 | 12-02-2006 12:28 AM |
Theological Opinions | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 992 | 02-10-2006 04:15 PM |
Character Analysis: Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin | Telcontar_Dunedain | Lord of the Rings Books | 1 | 09-19-2004 06:56 AM |