Post-Election Analysis

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I can not be more clear. I can only repeat. The platform of the Republican Party does not fit my understanding of Christianity, but I am not a Christain so this is my personal interpretation. I do not think GW Bush's actions and policies are moral. What more can I say? I do not want to see my party go that way just because they didn't defeat an incumbent.

That is one thing - that is not what the communication was in all the posts that got edited out though.

[Deleted as response to deleted post]

My party represents more than one religion.

Are you implying that the republicans don't represent more than one religion? I'm frigging atheist. I don't care one thing about religion.

I don't want that to change. I think the abortion/gay issues are nonsense. You can't overturn Rowe v. Wade and you won't get that silly amendment passed by 66% of both houses and ratified by the states. So those are red herrings thrown out to appease the Christian Coalition. I

I have said MANY MANY times that the amendment to the constitution won't go through. I have said many times that people should understand the president has control over and what he doesn't. I don't care about the gay marriage - except that it should be left up to the states. I don't care abotu abortion - except I disagree with abortion after the first trimester or if the mother's life is in danger and I will say it AGAIN - I don't care about the marriage amendment - because it will never pass Congress - nor will it pass the states.

In time, good people will realise they are being duped. It's just a fad!

So - in other words - unless people turn toward the democrats - they're bad people. That makes sense.


Last edited by Sister Golden Hair

[Sister Golden Hair]

Okay guys, I think that's about enough. I will be doing some more editing to these posts. Anymore of this bickering, and this thread will be closed.

[jerseydevil]

This is one of the reasons why the democrats lost the election...

Moore to shoot sequel to 'Fahrenheit'
Thursday, November 11, 2004 Posted: 2:23 PM EST (1923 GMT)

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Michael Moore plans a follow-up to "Fahrenheit 9/11," his hit documentary that assails President Bush over the handling of the September 11 attacks and the war on terrorism, according to a Hollywood trade paper.

Moore told Daily Variety that he and Harvey Weinstein, the Miramax boss who produced the film, hope to have "Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2" ready in two to three years.

"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them," Moore was quoted in Thursday's edition of Variety. "They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now."

A spokesman for Fellowship Adventure Group, formed by Weinstein and brother Bob to help distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11," did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

"Fahrenheit 9/11," which won top honors at May's Cannes Film Festival, became the first documentary to top $100 million at the domestic box office. Moore, who won the documentary Academy Award for "Bowling for Columbine," is pushing "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the best-picture category for the upcoming Oscars.

The issues for the follow-up film will remain the same, Iraq and terrorism, Moore said.

"The official mourning period is over today and there is a silver lining: George W. Bush is prohibited by law from running again," Moore said.

So let me get this straight - if people didn't vote the way Michael Moore wanted us to - then we were uninformed? and now he's going to have another go at it to educate us ignorant people who voted for Bush. Maybe it was that we were educated, did study the news, read the paper, etc - but just didn't agree with his conclusions on things.

[jerseydevil]

Carole Simpson of ABC News compared the states who voted for Bush to the slave holding states of the 19th century.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Carole Simpson of ABC News compared the states who voted for Bush to the slave holding states of the 19th century.

That's too bad. She obviously is confused by the red and blue map that indicates electoral votes. A more accurate map shows shades of purple in a county by county break-down. Anyone can tell by looking at it that there are reddish purples and bluish purples distributed pretty evenly throughout the country.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/...2004_small.gif

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So let me get this straight - if people didn't vote the way Michael Moore wanted us to - then we were uninformed?

Didn't you just say that nobody ever said Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks? Yet many people, especially those who watch FOX News, believe that they were and that that is why we invaded them. That means they are uninformed, doesn't it? And guess who most of those people voted for.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Didn't you just say that nobody ever said Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks? Yet many people, especially those who watch FOX News, believe that they were and that that is why we invaded them. That means they are uninformed, doesn't it? And guess who most of those people voted for.

Oh- so where did you get this information "especially those who watch Foix News, believe [that Iraq was behind 9/11]" Keep fishing. There are some people who believe - I have heard it over in over on many media channels saying that "so and so was claiming that Iraq was part of 9/11" - funny - I was watch Fox as one of my news outlets - along with many many others - and I haven't heard them say it. Also - I never believed that Iraq was behind 9/11.

I can make the same type of snide comment about the liberals being uninformed though too and that's why they voted for Kerry.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

That's too bad. She obviously is confused by the red and blue map that indicates electoral votes. A more accurate map shows shades of purple in a county by county break-down. Anyone can tell by looking at it that there are reddish purples and bluish purples distributed pretty evenly throughout the country.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/...2004_small.gif

As I demonstrated with the map of NJ I posted.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Oh- so where did you get this information "especially those who watch Foix News, believe [that Iraq was behind 9/11]" Keep fishing. There are some people who believe - I have heard it over in over on many media channels saying that "so and so was claiming that Iraq was part of 9/11" - funny - I was watch Fox as one of my news outlets - along with many many others - and I haven't heard them say it. Also - I never believed that Iraq was behind 9/11.

I can make the same type of snide comment about the liberals being uninformed though too and that's why they voted for Kerry.

Granted. Republicans believe Democrats are uninformed and vice-versa. But here is a study of all people regardless of political affiliation. The perception of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 has always been high and is still prevalent. This one doesn't specifically cite one particular network. I can get the info showing higher rates among FOX viewers, too, if more people ask for it.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir..._03_Report.pdf

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Granted. Republicans believe Democrats are uninformed and vice-versa. But here is a study of all people regardless of political affiliation. The perception of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 has always been high and is still prevalent. This one doesn't specifically cite one particular network. I can get the info showing higher rates among FOX viewers, too, if more people ask for it.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir..._03_Report.pdf

And that study is dated October 2003 when there was much more confusion in the media over things that were said. Also - the democrats kept going on news networks and saying what people believed with regards to Iraq and 9/11. That does not mean that a year later that that study is still valid though.

Even in the first page of the document it says this...

In the January (2003) poll it was discovered that a majority believed that Iraq played an important role in 9/11 and that a minority even expressed the belief that they had seen “conclusive evidence” of such involvement. The US intelligence community has said that there is not evidence to support the view that Iraq was directly involved in September 11 and there has clearly never been any observable “conclusive evidence.”

...only 20% chose the option that “Iraq was directly involved in carrying out the September 11th attacks.” Another 36% chose the position that “Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11th attacks” –still a position at odds with the dominant view of the intelligence community, but less egregiously so. Twenty-nine percent chose the position that has some evidence in support of it, that “a few al-Qaeda individuals visited Iraq or had contact with Iraqi officials.” Just 7% chose the option, “There was no connection at all.”

One thing that they don't say - is what was being said by the guests on the shows and so forth. There could have been people on - claiming that there were links between Hussein and 9/11 - yet FOX News could have been saying that there was none - or not addressed it. That is the problem with debate - which Fox News has a lot of. I've never heard anyone on Fox News claim that there were ties between Hussein and 9/11 (at least within the last year while I was watching it) - yet I have heard their guests try making those claims. People have to make a judgement on the validity of the person making the claims. That's why I think Michael Moore is a nutcase - for the same reasons I don't believe the people who say that Hussein had a part in 9/11.

I don't really think that this report can be used to demonstrate - since it's a year old (October 2003) and the poll it's based on is almost 2 years old (January 2003) - that it can be shown that this is how people felt while they voted in November 2004.

Anyway - I for one have never believed that Hussein was involved with 9/11 - because right from the beginning - it has always been stated as being Al Qaeda and bin Ladin. There is however evidence of communication between Hussein and bin Ladin (in both directions) through the years and that is in the 9/11 Commission Report. So I don't know what kind of education Michael Moore feels he needs to give me.

[Elfhelm]

OK, you can go to the PIPA website's main page http://www.pipa.org to find more recent surveys. There aren't any exit polls. That is not what they do. They take surveys on public perceptions. That will give you an understanding of why liberals like me believe the public is misinformed on Iraq. Most of us blame the press, whether or not we are correct. And most of us liberals target FOX as the biggest offender.

[Insidious Rex]

so when did this become a lets trash/defend michael moore thread exactly?

heres a few jokes to lighten things up a bit. then i say we get back to discussing the election and its after effects:

A vacationer from New York found his way into a bar in Billings, Montana and began some serious drinking. After he was well past the legal limit, he stood up and shouted, "Every last Democrats is a horses' ass!" The crowd jumped on him and beat him up. After a week he returned to the same bar and, had some drinks and stood up and shouted, "Every last Republican is a horses' ass!" The crowd descended upon him and beat him into silly putty again. He asks the bartender, "Who are these people anyway?" "You don't understand," the bartender replied. "This is horse country."

***

There's a new bumper sticker that says "Run, Hillary, Run." The Democrats put it on their back bumper, and Republicans put it on their front bumper.

***

Mrs. Bush is opposed to same-sex marriage. She’s been trying to get George to do something different for years.

***

Republicans and Democrats have a lot in common. Republicans wear $1,000 suits, and Democrats drive $1,000 cars.


with me now... ha ha...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

OK, you can go to the PIPA website's main page http://www.pipa.org to find more recent surveys.

You don't have to tell me to look at the front page - I did. But they don't contain information on the issue that was being discussed - so why bring up the front page?

There aren't any exit polls. That is not what they do. They take surveys on public perceptions. That will give you an understanding of why liberals like me believe the public is misinformed on Iraq. Most of us blame the press, whether or not we are correct. And most of us liberals target FOX as the biggest offender.

So - again a demonstration of the elitist attitude of the left. The democrats have taken it upon themself to determine that anyone not democrat must be "educated on the truth". I am not misinformed on Iraq - there are many reasons I support the war. I'm looking at the big picture - while it seems like Democrats only want to look at the here and now of it.

I'm wondering - how many people know that the Congressional Hearings on the Oil for Food Scandal will be held next week. It's amazing - the only way I hear about that is from Fox News, while CNN, ABC and others don't mention it at all. It's good that you targest Fox - but if you watch them, as well as other networks - it gives a more well rounded idea of what is going on.

I can go on CNN - see the statements about how the war is going terrible and the people hate us there, then I can go to Fox and get the other side of the story. That is how I make MY decisions.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

so when did this become a lets trash/defend michael moore thread exactly?

Well Moore is a key reason I think for the large turnout for Bush in this election. His current statements of needing to "educate" the people who voted for Bush - is just another example of why I feel people turned out.

heres a few jokes to lighten things up a bit. then i say we get back to discussing the election and its after effects:

with me now... ha ha...[/QUOTE]
Trying to play the part of Rian - by breaking the tension here?

[Elfhelm]

All I'm saying is that it is our perception on the left that the public is misinformed on Iraq, and we blame FOX to a great extent.

Another report that is linked to the front page of that survey website is called "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters". The PDF linked under "Report of Findings" (dated one month ago) indicates:

Despite the 9/11 Commission report saying there is no evidence Iraq was providing significant support to al Qaeda, 75% of Bush supporters believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda (30% of Kerry supporters), with 20% believing that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11.1 Sixty-three percent of Bush supporters even believe that clear evidence of this support has been found, while 85% of Kerry supporters believe the opposite.

There are numerous other results of that survey that would lead a liberal such as myself to believe that the public is misinformed. Naturally we are inclined to blame the media since informing the public is the primary job of the media.

[Rían]

(funny jokes, IRex!)

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

All I'm saying is that it is our perception on the left that the public is misinformed on Iraq, and we blame FOX to a great extent.

That's funny - since a lot of the other media outlets weren't that far off in the poll.

Another report that is linked to the front page of that survey website is called "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters". The PDF linked under "Report of Findings" (dated one month ago) indicates:

So what is a significant amount of support?

There are numerous other results of that survey that would lead a liberal such as myself to believe that the public is misinformed. Naturally we are inclined to blame the media since informing the public is the primary job of the media.

Liberal media also only informs the public on things it wishes to inform them on. The media has become a "mouth piece" for either party - that is why I watch multiple networks - including FRENCH news.

I can equally say the same thing regarding CNN in terms of this election - but instead siding with Kerry and twisting the truth there. I have seen no evidence of FOX ever making those statements - and I do watch FOX. Now do YOU watch FOX - or are you just going by a faceless poll to make your opinion stand that it is Fox's fault about what these people believe? Maybe they got their ideas from something else - but just happen to be FOX viewers. And anyway - if they ONLY watch FOX - do you really think that they're going to go watch a Michael Moore movie?

That's the problem with many polls and studies like this - they can ignore the other issues and try to fit something in to back up their preconceived notions. As I said - the people could have gotten their information from other sources that led them to believe this, but are FOX viewers. It does not mean that FOX is to blame for their views or even encouraged them.

BTW - I think much of the public is misinformed about a lot of things - I just don't think, like you seem to, that the majority of them are republicans. I think there are people who support both sides who are misinformed or believe erroneous information. It isn't like Michael Moore is spreading the truth.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well Moore is a key reason I think for the large turnout for Bush in this election.

I disagree. They are voting because of a movie? You give him way too much power I think. I think it has much more to do with the concept of supporting your leader during a time of defense then getting bent out of shape about a movie. maybe the obsessive republicans who thrive on vendettas. but i think most republicans shook their head and grumbled for a while but didnt wake every morning with a burning desire to make a personal statement to michael moore. no more so then democrats vote to stick it to rush limbaugh. i mean can you imagine electing a president JUST to spite a person? seems kind of politically blasphemous to use your vote that way.

Trying to play the part of Rian - by breaking the tension here?

Trying to get you jokers back on topic and keep this thread from being closed. It looks like swiss cheese the way the moderators have cut holes all through it.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I just don't think, like you seem to, that the ... etc.

This is what keeps getting deleted out. If you and I are going to have a chat we are supposed to do it in PMs. Same with calling each other things like "elitist". It's a waste of time for me to reply to these statements since SGH will just delete the statements and the replies.

I was very careful to word my reply. I think the American public is misinformed. I blame the news media. I did not point at specific people in specific parties. The 15 page PDF, however, does line up those who were planning to vote one way or the other with their perceptions.

In any case, I think the survey is sufficient to show why we on the left feel the public in general is misinformed about Iraq. For the record, the Ba'ath Party are secular socialists and al Qaeda is theocratic, as is Saudi Arabia where most of the hijackers originated. Al Qaeda and the Ba'athists have long held one another in contempt.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I disagree. They are voting because of a movie? You give him way too much power I think. I think it has much more to do with the concept of supporting your leader during a time of defense then getting bent out of shape about a movie. maybe the obsessive republicans who thrive on vendettas. but i think most republicans shook their head and grumbled for a while but didnt wake every morning with a burning desire to make a personal statement to michael moore. no more so then democrats vote to stick it to rush limbaugh. i mean can you imagine electing a president JUST to spite a person? seems kind of politically blasphemous to use your vote that way.

Of course go back to exagerating my statement as you usually do. I do think that Michael Moore was a key issue that brought people out - I'm not saying that they were thinking about it every waking moment. I'm not a "obsessive republican" and he was in the top 5 reasons why I was making sure I was voting for Bush this year. The only key issue I was voting on Bush for was the war on terrorism (which includes Iraq - becuase without changing the Middle East - we will always be playing defense with the terrorists).

Michael Moore is far far more out there than Rush Limbaugh. Which - I'm sure you'll disagree with. But they're not comparable. Michael Moore's movie was shoved in people's faces wherever you turned, tv commericial, new media, european movie awards, theater marques, hollywood - it was all over the place and his lies and his attitude were pissing off people.

Do you really think it's any different to vote for Bush because of Michael Moore than the ridiculous democrat position of "anyone but Bush". So to answer your question - yeah I can see voting for someone just to spite a person - because most democrats weren't voting FOR Kerry - but AGAINST Bush - and you can't deny that. How many Kerry avatars were on entmoot, compared to the number of "anyone but Bush" avatars?