Stop blaming Christians for Bush's victory

[ventvon]

Blame the people who nominated Kerry.

Do you use the term "blame" when you discuss Clinton's two wins?

He won the Christian evangelical vote both times.

It's all about the guy that you nominate.

A more universally appealing candidate could have pealed off some of those votes from Bush. It's not like these guys don't vote Democrat.

They vote for them in local and state races.

They voted for Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Democrats need to realize that it's all about the person that you nominate. Even more so than what he says, it's about how people view him.

When elderly people were calling in to CNN and C-Span saying that "I hope they nominate John Edwards, that Kerry man scares me," that should have sent red flags up, but you all keep thinking that it's about policy, and it's not.

It starts with the person and the "vibes" that that person puts off. Bush is as big of a crook as there is, but too many people don't see it. There lies the success of Rove and Bush. He put a simpleton who comes off like a regular guy out front and put a lot of shrewd crooks behind him because he realizes that most people will not look at anything more than the guy in the front, and these radicals in the Bush administration have seized power under a guise of sincere, compassionate, Christian, conservatism.

GWB's role: "look at me, you like me."
Voters: "I like Bush, I'll vote for him."
Behind the scenes: "we make the laws and do all of our dirty work while GWB just plays the likability card."

Democrats: "It's all about the issues"
Voters: "The issues are too complicated for me, nominate someone that I can trust and then I'll listen to you."

[Politicub]

1. Stop being so preachy

It isn't becoming.

[ventvon]

2. Brush it off at your own demise

Learn from your mistakes, don't just say whatever.

Besides, what's preachy about the facts.

Christian evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for Bush, both times.
They also voted overwhelmingly for Bill Clinton both times.

They will vote Democrat if you field a candidate like Clinton who appeals across the board.

You had one this time.
The GOP told you over and over again they didn't want to face him.
You said "it's reverse psychology", they are lying.

You overanalyzed just like the GOP knew that you would and you made the wrong choice.

Maybe a lot of Bush's voters have low I.Q.'s, but obviously GOP strategists don't.

[Politicub]

8. I don't agree with your assessment

I think people in middle America resent being preached to by outsiders, much like people anywhere. I feel that's how the folks in Iowa felt about the Dean supporters who flooded into the state because of the caucuses.

Politics is truly local. We need to work now on getting an organization in place on the ground in the swing states so we can have locals, not outsiders, presenting the democratic perspectives on the issues.

[ventvon]

10. I can agree with that as well

It doesn't change the fact of anything that I said though.

Clinton won the evangelical vote both times. Last I checked, he's a democrat.

Stop thinking that the GOP has a monopoly on Christian votes. Evangelical/"fundie" votes, because it's not true, period.

[Quill Pen]

11. "You had one this time?"

Que?

Who? Oh gad, you can't be talking about...Joe Lieberman, can you?

Excuse me, but...BWAHAHAHAsnort.

Or are you talking about Al Sharpton? Indeed, the GOP would have licked their chops to face him. All Rushbag OxyMoron would have had to do is huff and puff on a few shows about Tawanna Brawley, and Michael Medved would have squawked about some of Sharpton's more memorable gaffes in dealing with the Jewish community, and the good Rev would have been toast.

[ventvon]

21. John Edwards

Duh

See my post down the page.

[Quill Pen]

44. Duh, yourself

And how did John Edwards do in the primary? Yeah, that's what I thought.

[ventvon]

46. No, the question is

How did the media do Edwards in the primaries?

The same way they did Kerry in the Presidential race, duh.

Yeah, that's what "I" thought.

[chyjo]

64. The media liked John Edwards

n/t

[ventvon]

65. I guess that's why they called him a "lightweight."

I guess that's why he finished second in Iowa and they said he should go home he was running for VP.

I guess that's why they ignorned him during the Presidential campaign and said "which hole is he in", when they knew that he was out there campaigning.

James Carville, Bob Scheifer, and George Stephanopolous liked John Edwards.

No one else did.

Edwards was the most anti-big business domination of all of the democrats, and the "GOP-backing-Corporate-owned media" did not want Edwards anywhere near the White House.

[MrUnderhill]

"Blaming" the religious right is EXACTLY what we need to be doing.

At least publicly.

This happens after EVERY election. Both sides have their component parts fighting over WHY they won/lost so that people have to listen to their side next time. Our left flank will tell us we weren't liberal enough and that progressivism sells when you honestly pitch it... while our right flank will tell us that liberals from the NE NEVER win the White House any more and we need to pick a "moderate" Southern Governor next time.

The Republicans have their own divisions... and right now, the religious right wants to take credit for the victory so that Republicans will make sure they support all of those policies.

The problem will come for them if they actually BELIEVE the pitch.

[Royal Observer]

55. Oregon voters banned gay marriage

but went for Bush. My contention is that we would have taken Ohio if the gay marriage ban had not been on the ballot.

[MrUnderhill]

63. So? In case you didn't notice the margins those things won with...

... it wasn't the "religious right" that made the difference.

I don't know whether it's a "poor timing" thing and just needs to wait a decade or two... but gay "marriage" is not a winning issue for us right now. It cost us votes in our core constituencies. It didn't just "turn out" the religious right.

[Royal Observer]

123. You're right.

Christian socialists voted it down.

[Wright Patman]

3. I wouldn't blame

the Northeast and Upper Midwest one bit for forming their own country. It is obvious that the regional prejudice of the South in particular is such that no one from the Democratic Party and probably no one, period, can ever be elected president if he or she comes from those two regions.

[ventvon]

17. Not true

Kerry could have won this time if he'd have used John Edwards' message of how Bush is declaring war on work.

How Bush rewards "wealth, not work."

That summarizes everything that Bush proposes, and it would have been the perfect template for Kerry's campagin.

How we want to "reward work, not just wealth, but the other side just wants to reward wealth, and shift the tax burden onto those who work for a living."

Middle america would have run to that message.

It's why "conservative Independents" and "moderate Republicans" were rushing to Edwards in SC, GA, and Wisconsin. But what did most of you all say when those voters rushed to Edwards and his message?

DU and Dailykos: "The GOP is trying to sabatoge our primaries. Obviously they want Edwards to get the nomination because he'll be easier to beat."

But the exit polls are saying these people are voting for Edwards because they feel like he understands them, cares about them, they agree with him on the issues (agree with what he is saying). On the same front, they are voting for Kerry because he "can beat Bush" and he's "not George W. Bush" (I guess the rest of the candidates were Bush).

So, I repeat. Kerry never had a message, and it killed him. At the CNN/LA Times debate, he slapped Edwards in the face when he said, "I want to offer my Real Solutions for America to the American people," when Edwards' policy book was called Real Solutions for America.

Only to win the nomination, be pressured to tap Edwards as his running mate by most dems around the country and in congress because Edwards had more excitement surrounding him in defeat than Kerry had in victory, ensuring that Democrats would be united because they got the guy they nominated and they guy that most of them loved, and then after Kerry tapped the guy, he didn't even use the one message that would have turned the focus from himself to Bush, and helped him shift the focus from "values."

Bush's war on work.

John Edwards: "This president rewards wealth, not work...he wants to shift the tax burden in this country onto the backs of people who work for a living."

Simple terms everyone can understand, but Kerry wanted to keep talking about a middle class "squeeze." Middle class, middle class, middle class. Believe it or not, people don't wake up saying, "I want to be in the middle class."

Everytime that the Kerry campaign spit that out, "MIDDLE AMERICA" said, "he doesn't have a clue about me." And then Bush turns around and says, "folks this, and folks that," and Kerry looks even more elitist.

Sigh. It's a shame, it really is.

[frankly_fedup2]

93. What are you talking about? You think the south has more prejudice . . .

against other minority individuals than the north or midwest? You have got to be kidding me.

Not everyone in the south is as ignorant as that statement which in itself is a racist statement against the people that live in the South.

[seabeyond]

4. things are different in this world from 90's and now

it was bush and the fundamentalist that created this divide. it wasnt the dems.

it is the christians that have decided they want our power, to dictate how we all live our lives by their rules. not the other way around. it is the ones that for three years allowed fear to make their decisions allowing hate to be their path adn they told all of us too shut up

too many shut up., allowed this to happen

we are totally off base what you talk because you are not taking all into acct from 9/11 to now

[blm]

5. HORSEPOO. Clinton era evangelicals aren't the LEFT BEHIND evangelicals

we're dealing with today.

The LEFT BEHINDers are completely convinced that George Bush is leading them into the End Times.

The LEFT BEHIND series of books was meant exactly for the purpose of setting up total devotion to Bush and acceptance of his imperialistic maneuverings.

There were only about 80 MILLION of these fuckin' books sold.

[ventvon]

19. No

Actually, most of them think that George W. Bush is a Christian, which he is not.

They don't think that Bush is leading them anywhere.

They don't trust the seed of Ishamael, the Arab world.

Besides, just about everyone that voted for Kerry was a self-classified "Christian" as well.

[sonicx]

24. "about everyone that voted for Kerry was a self-classified "Christian"

that goes without saying. the issue it not christians. it's the Robertson sect.

[ventvon]

27. Which together account for how many voters?

Not more than the voters out there who classify themselves as democrats.

You all give those guys too much credit.

The only thing you can really blame them for is being more organized than their opposition.

Hey, I hate it that Bush is in the White House and that he is about to destroy this country's economy and end our influence in the world, but those guys had their stuff together, and they screwed the country by electing a guy who's playing them for fools with the "I'm a Christian" card. The Democrat's supporters, which outnumber GOP supporters, did not have their acts together. There are Democrats out there who are Christians who also do not support Gay marriage (you all won't ever win here with Democrats as a whole or Republicans). They could have helped the Democrats "image" with those who the Bush administration drove to the polls based on fear of this issue by saying, "I'm a democrat and I don't support that. The democratic party is a diverse group, just like America, and I do not support that, but there are other areas where the Bush administration is corrupt and sinful other than that issue..." and then go on to lay it on the GOP, just to give voters a choice.

When the Democrats don't have a counter-message other than, "I hate fundies" you can expect those people to keep voting one way. I see that some Christian Democrats have begun meeting now to form a message for their party. Why not before? Why not be organized?

The other side was organized. Who's fault is that?

While you're out canvassing, and walking from door to door, they are doing conference calls and mobilizing hundreds and thousands of people at a time through congregations at different locations, bringing undecided family members to those sessions with a better presentation and more information, winning more votes at a time.

Which is more efficient?

They were organized...

[blm]

26. HORSEPOO. There are two distinct types of Christians we're dealing with

and if you don't know that by now then I'd say your perceptions aren't very reliable.

[ventvon]

28. I'd say that you don't know what you are talking about

Prove me wrong.

Who are these distinct types? ;)

[blm]

31. If you don't know the difference between the LEFT BEHINDers and the

evangelical Christians of the Jimmy Carter variety, then you must have been asleep for the last 10 years.

[ventvon]

33. Left behinders do not exist

You all can't say one day that they are preparing for the rapture, and then turn around and call them "left behinders" which is to say, "the rapture's taken place already."

If there were Christians who consider themselves to be left behind, they would be hiding in a hole somewhere, not running to a politician.

[blm]

38. People who follow the book, LEFT BEHIND. Geez, where have YOU been?

You think it's just a coincidence that Tim LaHaye is the force responsible for the LEFT BEHIND books AND the Council for National Policy?

[ventvon]

47. They don't think they are left behind yet.

Learn exactly what biblical prophecies say.

These people think Bush is a born-again Christian, and they are just as wrong as you are.

What Bush has done is hijack Christianity and he uses it as an excuse for anything that he does.

Bush: "Man, Iraq is going badly and I can't explain it."
Rove: "Just tell them God told you to do it and it'll shift the focus to you being a man of faith."
Bush: "God told me to do it."
Media: "Bush is a man of faith."
DU and EU: "Zionistic regime, I hate it."
Uninformed Christians: "They are persecuting a brother, let me support him."
Reverend Sun Myung Moon (self-proclaimed messiah): "George, Go into Iran next."

[blm]

52. I know they don't think they're left behind yet. Are you misinterpreting

my posts for a reason?

They THINK it's coming. They THINK it's Bush who will lead them through.

Anyone who comes to DU knows that there is a whole contingent of us here who stress that Bush is not really a Christian, but a fascist totalitarian who USES the beliefs of the evangelical right as his basis of power. It's all a numbers game to him, where he increases the numbers of those accepting of and devoted to his every word and move.

[ventvon]

53. No, they don't think Bush will lead them through anything

Left behind means, "Missing the Rapture."

They think they will make the Rapture.

They think Bush is a "born-again Christian" who will also make the Rapture.

They are not voting for him to lead them through anything.

They don't want gay marriage as long as they are here, and they think that as long as Bush is in office this country will be on "Israel's side" and on God's side.

Their votes have very little to do with a left behind scenario.

[blm]

59. No sh!t, Sherlock. But, I said they see W as leading them into End Times.

Guess you missed that TIME magazine article where some of these people were happy about 9-11 because they saw it as the event that signalled the beginning of the End Times.

[ventvon]

66. you said leading them "through"

They see Bush as a "good man". A "godly man." A "Christian."

They don't see him as any leader or savior.

[blm]

71. Then you don't understand a great portion of these folks.

.

[ventvon]

74. I understand them more than you do

[blm]

79. Really? You think Clinton evangelicals and Bush evangelicals are the same.

I think only someone who has been asleep for 10 years could be so wrong.

Or someone who came here to cause dissension.

[ventvon]

81. For the most part, yes they are

The issues have changed, and the leadership has mobilized "more of them" for Bush, but for the most part, they still have the same belief system.

[JVS]

45. Was there some kind of Rapture where Evagelical Democrats dissappeared?

:-)

[indigolady]

132. It's called "Dispensationalism" and is not in the Bible

The principle of "Rapture" was invented about 170 years ago. IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE.
" It started with a Scottish girl's "vision". The story of her vision was adopted and amplified by John Nelson Darby, a British evangelical preacher and founder of the Plymouth Brethren"

The book of Revelations is about the early Christians and Jews being oppressed by the Roman Empire. The vision of Revelations was seeing a world of HEAVEN ON EARTH, where all lived in peace. Not an escape for the choosen ones. There is not going to be a Rapture, just a bunch of destruction if these people stay in power.

THERE ARE MANY (LEFT WING) CHRISTIANS AND PEOPLE OF FAITH, SO LET'S NOT LUMP THE RELIGIOUS VOTE INTO ONE BASKET.

I always vote my values. and I believe my values to be derived from my spiritual beliefs.

[bullimiami]

6. go blame someone else.

we didnt care who the damn nominee was, we were going to beat bush.

kerry was a fine candidate. his one real flaw was ; he underestimated the massive fraud in the voting system and the criminality of rove.

[ventvon]

25. And he didn't have a consistent message

You forgot that one.

Bush had no business even being close with the damage he has done.

Kerry didn't provide enough of a reason to vote for him.

Theme of this campaign:

You can't find or define yourself doing the course of the campaign. If you don't come to the table prepared and know who you are, then stay home. You may be cautious, and not a flip flopper, but when you keep changing themes, you keep reinventing yourself, you make yourself look unstable and just like a flip-flopper.

Come to the table knowing why you are running, not just because you feel like you have paid your dues and it's time for you to run!

[JaneDoughnut]

7. Dumb it down

So the solution is to dumb down our candidates and party in order to reach voters? Kerry was too damn SMART to win?

[ventvon]

29. I knew someone would play that card

Do you think Clinton was "dumb"?

Of course not, but he knew how to talk to people, not over their heads.

[JaneDoughnut]

36. I think Bush is pretty dumb...

...even if he's surrounded himself with evil geniuses.

But you are saying that we need to dumb down our message and presentation, right?

Democrats: "It's all about the issues"
Voters: "The issues are too complicated for me, nominate someone that I can trust and then I'll listen to you."

[ventvon]

48. No.

I am saying that the messenger needs to discuss things in laymen's terms. Things that people can understand, and won't resent.

Clinton did it, Edwards did it, and that's why people crossed over to vote for him in the primaries, and would have in the General.

Kerry talked over people's heads from beginning to end, and when he was already saddled with the "elitist" label, that lack of connection during delivery certainly didn't help him any.

[saracat]

9. Excuse me, But I have in my district a PC who has had to leave his church

because his pastor told him he could not be a "christian" and a Democrat. His fellow church members shunned him. He said he had belonged to that chuech for thiry five years but he had been a democrat for sixity years! Busco turned out the "christians" ( loose interpetation of the word!) , They were ordered to vote for him or risk going to hell. And that is the truth. But the election was "stolen" as well

[ventvon]

30. Well, tell him to come to my church

100% democrat, except for me: Independent

Every church is not the same, and every preacher is not informed. Of course you all don't look through a lens that says the world is black or white, either/or, do you?

If these guys really knew about Bush, they wouldn't be supporting him.

Thomas Jefferson: "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny imposed upon the mind of man."

Media lie: "Bush is a Christian" = form of tyranny

William Colby (fmr. CIA director): "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

Media: Shapes public perception, but controlled by Government which controls CIA = system that imposes on the minds of people

I will inform these people about Bush over the next few years.

[angrydemocrat]

126. Exxxxxxxxxxactly!!!

I know people that went to the same church for years and the same thing happen to them. You had preachers telling people to vote Bush or they would go to hell. And YES this election was STOLEN I will repeat STOLEN! Kerry didn't lose anything except the support of people who trusted him a few weeks ago, voted for him and now that everything hasn't went to suit them and Kerry didn't do exactly what they wanted him to do when they wanted him to they all at once have resorted to calling the man names, making nasty remarks about him, and playing God judge and jury themselves! If you ask me the support couldn't have been much to start with for them to turn on him that quick. So in reality he hasn't lost much there either. Also I want to add that alot of people that voted Bush voted for him for one reason and that is they want to make as if gay people don't exist in this country and they are not worthy of anything. Had it not been for that they would have voted for Kerry! I don't know how many people I have heard talking about that. Its sickening that people hate gays so much they would vote against there own interest and values.But it is true. These people beleive that Bush will destroy gays.

[donheld]

134. Excuse my ignorance

PC?

I don't blame ALL christians, but when you have people like Bush, tom delay, and so may others claiming to be saints all the while screwing the life out of people it's hard not to resent christians. Then you have the damn bible beaters doing their best to out law anything remotely gay. Insisting it's a choice. Bitterness can get to one.

[OHdem10]

12. Do not blame Kerry either

While I hold Pres Clinton in high regard--he could not have won
this election. After all he was a "draft-dodger" as far as the right is concerned and our party has permitted the republcans to constantly all him weak on foreign affairs for the past four years.

We as a party have to come together and stand for something. Then we
have to permit our candidates to be a little populist in style. When
Bush campaigned his style was populist not on economics but on values.

Kerry had to straddles all wings of our party and then try to appeal the the rest of the country. As a party we have to have aproduct to sell. Njot a Candidate with a laundry list.

We must reach a point where every Americans--whether they agree with us
or not--knows exactly what the Democratic Party stands for. Then they will be more willing to look at our candidates.

That said, we should be darn proud of John Kerry --He got 56.000.000
votes.

[ventvon]

32. Yeah, Bush got the most votes in history, Kerry got second most in history

That simply means that more people voted than ever, and Bush doesn't really have a mandate, because he got the most anti-votes in history.

Whether Clinton could have won this election or not, John Edwards would have.

There was a deliberative study out there of candidates to face Bush that had Kerry and Bush tied 47 to 47, just like it was for most of the campaign.

Edwards led Bush 48 to 37 because he won the same Democrats that Kerry did, and pulled some Republicans and Independents from Bush.

They were people with POST-9/11 mindsets and they could care less about Edwards being a one-term senator, or not having much political or foreign policy experience, or never having been in the military, or being a trial lawyer.

It was all irrelevent.

In a Post-9/11 world, they wanted Edwards over Bush.

They were split between Kerry and Bush.

The study was done back at the beginning of the year, and it was right-on with Kerry v. Bush, and it would have been right on with Edwards v. Bush.

So, you say Clinton wouldn't have won "this election." I beg to differ. If Edwards would have, and he would have because he would have taken votes from Bush, then Clinton could have as well.

[blm]

39. Hey, let's divide the Kerry - Edwards supporters.

That will be great fun.

Sorry, but, the supporters of these two men have seen it all over the past year and don't fall easily for any tactic to stir up division.

Same with all our primary candidates. They know operatives are trying to play us and divide Dems using their names.

[ventvon]

49. I'm not dividing diddlysquat

If you want to keep living in your alternate reality go right ahead.

I'm telling you how to win here.

[blm]

61. You also don't see the difference between Christians who voted for Clinton

in 92 and the LEFT BEHIND reading Christians of today who are devoted to Bush.

So, I wouldn't trust you have a grasp on any winning formula in regard to the Christian vote. Your judgment is suspect.

[ventvon]

67. Your labels are way off

You all give too much weight to the "left behind" series.

They vote for Bush because they think he's a born-again Christian, period.

[blm]

75. HAHAH. You don't know the real Tim LaHaye, then.

In the late 70s he considered himself a mind-control expert. He has a long alliance with RevMoon who funded many of his ventures in the 80s and also started Council for National Policy. LaHaye is totally manipulative of religious thought to benefit political goals. Just like his buddy, RevMoon.

There is NOTHING benign about the LEFT BEHIND series.

[saracat]

40. Baloney. Edwards couldn't carry his own state!

Who are you kidding? I love Edwards but they would have eaten him alive! They wanted a "war" president who panders to their fear, and with his boyish looks and inexperience, Edwards wasn't going to make anyone safe! And he wouldn't have been perceived as more "god fearing" than Bush. I guarantee you Elizabeth's fertility treatments would have been used as a sign of evil!

[ventvon]

50. Really???

Then how did he end up IN THE SENATE???

Last time I checked, that's a statewide race.

He carried it when he was the person at the top of the ticket, and he would have if he'd been at the top of the ticket this time.

You can't expect any ticket with Kerry on it to win NC or any other southern state, even if Jesus was his running mate.

[blm]

84. Isn't there a Kerry haters forum that you'd find a more comfortable fit?

.

[ventvon]

92. What a way to try and sway a moderator.

"Oh no, he's hating on Kerry, he's hating on Kerry."

Wake the heck up!

I'm trying to tell you how to win!

My argument isn't geared towards Kerry.

[blm]

120. Your argument has no basis in reality.

If you can't recognize there are Christian fundamentalists who aren't reading from the same Bible as other Christians, then why should your voice carry any import to those of us who know better?

[MatrixEscape]

13. One would have to be rather uninformed ...

to believe that Rove and the GOP didn't work the fundies up and get them out.

One would also have to be looking the other way not to see the Dominionist agenda and its goals and expectations. Many people are inclined to reject a Theocracy, so that is the line that we are approaching. Perhaps we have already crossed over it? It remains to be seen if Shrub will go with it or abandon the promises and paybacks.

When they put religion BACK into the churches and leave governing to the shared issues of a secular society as per the Constitution, then I will be inclined to not consider the Chisto-Fascist element as so impactful.

[Blue Wally]

54. Rove worked everybody, not just the fundies

I am a registered Democrat. My wife is a registered independent. I got one phone call about going to early voting and one mailing. My wife got numerous mailings, applications for an absentee ballot, recorded messages from both George and Jeb, and a nice rolled packet of literature fastened to the door knob.

Our precinct tends to lead Republican (a rarity in Broward County). At the polling place (which serves two precincts) there was ONE Democratic demonstrator, a fat woman in a K-E T-shirt waving a sign off to the side. Vans came up dropping off Republican voters. Now over in a Democratic area, the polling places had huges mobs of Democratic demonstraters waving sings and screaming.

We got out-organized.

[sonicx]

14. thanks for the advice, preacher.

[bowens43]

15. Nope, it's the fundies and those who committed the fraud

who are at fault. They see an emerging theocracy and it gives them a hard-on.

[CTD]

16. Make distinction between Christians and fundamentalist Christians

Then blame the fundamentalist Christians.

I honestly believe there is no greater threat to the principles on which the US was founded then that which is presented today by the fundamentalist Christian movement. They advocate a bluring of the line between church and state and they preach intolerance and hate.

By and large, mainstream Christian and Catholic churches are fairly harmless. But the fundamentalists are dangerous.

[Alpharetta]

20. I'm concerned for mainstream churches

More and more fundies are joining mainstream churches. More and more Christian radio is converting mainstream members to fundamentalist views.

I've seen it at my church. The minister is spiritually a liberal but since we're here in Atlanta the fundies who are members don't see it. He doesn't talk about Satan, they do. He doesn't preach Rapture, they do.

He never endorsed a candidate. But members thought for sure it was okay to be sending emails supporting Bush to folks on the church list.

I honestly believe Christianity is due for another giant split like the Reformation, where we'll split between the Jesus folks and the Rapture folks.

[arewenotdemo]

57. as an ex-Cathoholic let me be the first to say it

Kerry was also targeted by the bishops, and probably a lot of the priests, as well. I suspect that he didn't pass the Vatican litmus test.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

125. He was targetted by the Opus Dei wing of the church

very much like the Dominionists...Scalia is one of them

[indigobusiness]

18. Really. There's plenty of other stuff

to blame on them.

[ventvon]

35. Like what?

AIDS?

You can blame anyone for anything, it's not going to solve anything.

I'm telling you how to win votes, and it starts with the person you nominate.

I don't think the democrats are in trouble because of the reasoning behind their proposals, they are in trouble if the best candidates they can field are Al Gore or John Kerry.

[indigobusiness]

43. That was meant as a joke.

See where taking everything literally gets you?

[ventvon]

51. I know it was meant to be a joke

Problem is, losing over and over again is not funny, and loses are going to continue to happen until "mindsets" change.

[kimchi]

22. Stop blaming Kerry for Bush's "victory".

Newsflash: there is no way the man won fairly. The polls, conventional wisdom, exit polls, and the millions of books and F911 videos sold agree with my premise. The man is loved by the kooks and hated by those with a brain; and we outnumber the kooks.

Welcome to DU. Please visit the "Election" forum and you will see: the election was rigged. Period.

[ventvon]

34. Of course Bush didn't win fairly

Bush it shouldn't have even been close enough to steal.

[prayin4rain]

23. They voted for Clinton because they had not yet been

called to this "holy" war. Many on the religious right have been itching for a holy war and now since 9-11 they have recruited several thousand cowards. You cannot compare the way the cowardly vote from when they weren't scared to when they were scared.

[saracat]

37. It was mainstream Christians as well. Sorry but Catholic

and Protestant pastors were handing out voter guides and threatening people with excommunication if they voted for Kerry. In my state the Catholic bishop said people who voted for Kerry would be denied communion! This resonated with the Hispanics of whom 44% voted for Bush. Instead of pandering to these people ,I say through the book at their leaders and take away their tax deduction. That will fix them, or maybe not ,they make too much to pay taxes! They should be imprisioned for violation of Church and State. I am sorry if I offend anyone, but I don't want to live in a "Christian " nation. I have given up my Christianity completely as a result of this election. I do NOT respect organized religion but I respect those of you who attempt to practice it in the manner it was intended without interfering with the government.

[Royal Observer]

56. Has anyone ever been imprisoned tn the United States

for disobeying the separation of church clause in the Constitution? I believe the clause starts with,"Congress shall make no law..."

[OSheaman]

41. agreed

[TheDonkey]

42. Please, look at what % Clinton got of his first win

it was dismal at best. If it wasn't for Perot we'd be having a very different conversation.

[CanonRay]

58. Need New Democratic Leadership

Let's face it, our party leadership sucks. I worked hard this election, and the I never saw a more confused, misdirected bunch than the so-called pros they sent into our county. Plus, the leadership gets behind certain candidates and we get locked in. We need to scrap the whole DNC and start over.

[angrydemocrat]

127. This is A joke right?

Because if not you are a joke! Alot of people worked hard this election not just you and I can tell you this the only one confused and misdirected is you. These so-called pros as you want to call them have served this country and people of this country for many years and will continue to do so proudly!

[charlie]

128. Maybe in 2008

Old pro Bob Schrum can proudly notch the 9th loss in his unbroken losing streak.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

60. I'm calling you on this

I want figures. What percentage of evangelical Christians voted for Carter and what percentage voted for Clinton in both 92 and in 96?

Cough 'em up before I accept the premise of your argument.

Oh and give me the percentage of evangelical Christians who voted for bush in 00 and 04.

If you can't come up with those figures, you are just talking out your ass.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

62. I'm waiting.

[ventvon]

68. I don't need a freaking percentage!!!

Clinton won the evangelical vote both times!!!

I'm calling you on it.

Prove me wrong!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

69. Sorry, but the burden is on the one making the assertion..prove it

[ventvon]

70. Like I said...

...prove me wrong:

BROWN: Well, let me—in the context of that, if he needs spiritual help, there are some people who would argue that Clinton understands religion and spirituality and probably communicating that more so than John Kerry. Clinton won the evangelical vote in both ‘92 and ‘96. Do you think he gets that much more than Kerry does?

ROBERTSON: Of course he does. He‘s a Southern Baptist. He‘s Bubba from Arkansas, you know?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5277869/

Statistics are overrated.

They prove nothing.

As long as Democrats keep focusing on issues in a quantitative, scientific way, they will continue to speak over voters heads.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/evangelicals/vote.html

http://gadflyer.com/politicalaims/index.php?Week=200426

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

77. Yes you do need to provide some percentages

You said in your opening post that Carter won the evangelical vote and that Clinton did too (I am assuming you meant both in 92 and 96). Then you make your argument that we need to win them over in order to win again.

But I cannot accept your argument until you give me some backup on that statement that they won the evangelical Christian vote.

Any assertion worth a warm bucket of spit has at least got some facts to back it up. You are simply telling me this and I am supposed to take it on blind faith? And you've got some quote from Brown on MSNBC? Where'd HE get that information?

Sorry, this is what intelligent people do--they refuse to carry on the argument until they see the facts underpinning it. If you don't have them, your argument is lost.

[charlie]

80. Every time I've seen that assertion

it's been qualified -- Clinton bested Gore and Kerry amongst a certain type of Evangelical, the non-conservative so-called "freestyle", but didn't win the bulk of the Evangelical vote.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

82. ah the

non-conservative freestyle ones? LOL!

So I guess this guy's theory is bunk then, because he is talking about the hardcore conservative evangelicals.

[charlie]

86. Actually, look upstream

where he's going round and round with blm. It seems he doesn't accept that there's a difference between them, at least not a difference between Clinton Evangelicals and the Left Behind Apocalyptics.

(Gotta go out for a bit, be back in 20)

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

89. I see that

and it is amazing me.

The evangelicals who voted for bush this time are NOT the same people who voted for Clinton in 92 and 96. Not by a LONG shot. LOL!

[ventvon]

103. Left behind apocalyptics are not "fundies"

Anyone preparing to be left behind is not intending on being "raptured" away.

[charlie]

106. In spite of everything blm was trying to tell you

you still insist that "Left Behind" is a name for their millennial intentions and not because they're enthralled with the book series. I can only say it one more time -- they're hellbent on getting raptured (and that won't happen until Armageddon is nigh), they're not "preparing to be left behind."

[ventvon]

87. Yeah, and those "free-style" evangelicals...

...sound a lot like black evangelicals to me, which always vote Democrat anyway.

Bottom line, Clinton won the evangelical vote both times.

Until YOU prove me wrong, I will continue to say it because it is true.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

90. It is not my job.

It is the job of the person making the argument to provide sufficient proof of the argument in order to win it.

You brought the argument here, but refuse to back it up. That's the bush way, not the Democrat's way.

If you are so sure of it, what's the problem with coughing up the numbers? Or do you not have any?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

95. No.PROVE your assertion or stop asserting it..repeating it doesn't

make it true.

[ventvon]

99. Prove me wrong

You want numbers, provide them.

Show me where Clinton failed to win the evangelical vote both times, and I'll stop saying it.

I'm not just talking about "white evangelicals," I'm talking about the evangelical vote.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

112. Nope...you are now changing the terms of the debate..your statement

was that he overwhelmingly won these votes...he didn't...I did prove you wrong as did Charlie...now admit you were wrong

[ventvon]

114. So, you focus on the one word "overwhelmingly"

I could have sworn that your counter-argument was that he did not win the evangelical vote.

Overwhelmingly is irrelevant at this point.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

118. Uh...no...overwhelmingly DOES matter

because you are asserting that we lost HUGE amounts of votes that Clinton had in this class of people when nothing could be further from the truth...so yes...that one MODIFIER in that it describes a large block of people who mostly NEVER voted for us but for about 10-15% more of the "freestyles" basically undemines the crux of YOUR argument not mine.

There's a big difference between "overwhelmingly" and 10%

[charlie]

98. Here we go

and I found the article that called them "freestyle" too :)

Table One shows that 84 per cent of observant white evangelical Protestants voted for Bush. This is a striking increase from our 1996 survey, when this group voted 70 per cent for Bob Dole. Less observant white evangelical Protestants did not vote as strongly Republican, just 55 per cent. But in our 1996 survey, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole broke even in this group, and some other people’s surveys showed Clinton winning this group. So less observant white evangelicals returned somewhat to the Republican fold. There are similar patterns among white mainline Protestants: 66 per cent for Bush, up from 58 per cent for Dole in 1996.

http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.1542/pub_detail.asp


Bill Clinton in 1996 won the majority of freestyle evangelicals. But in 2000, George Bush won the majority of freestyle evangelicals. It shifted by about 10 percent away from Gore towards Bush, which, in an election that close, it was a very important shift.

...

Well, when an election's so close, you know, Joe's bar could be a swing vote. It's like any group moving a little bit in any direction can turn an election. Freestyle evangelicals are not as big as the rest of evangelicals. But they're about as big as Hispanics as a voting block, to give you a sense of perspective.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/evangelicals/vote.html

[ventvon]

100. "white evangelical Protestants"

I said Clinton won the "evangelical vote" both times.

[charlie]

102. Did you read the second article?

It doesn't make the white/other distinction, only between conservatives and freestyles.

[ventvon]

105. Yes, I saw those numbers

Clinton won the "evangelical vote" both times.

The Christian "white" doesn't represent "all" evangelicals.

[charlie]

109. Gee, you didn't read the article OR my post

The second article said Clinton won the smaller group, the "freestyles." It said nothing about whites.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

111. Here are your words..admit they were wrong and that you can't tell

the difference between Al Sharpton and Tim Lahaye..admit it...you were incorrect and now all you can do is embarrass yourself and stick to your incorrect script:

. Brush it off at your own demise

Edited on Mon Nov-15-04 12:06 PM by ventvon
Learn from your mistakes, don't just say whatever.

Besides, what's preachy about the facts.

Christian evangelicals voted overwhelmingly for Bush, both times.
here is your incorrect statement..admit it is WRONGThey also voted overwhelmingly for Bill Clinton both times.

They will vote Democrat if you field a candidate like Clinton who appeals across the board.

You had one this time.
The GOP told you over and over again they didn't want to face him.
You said "it's reverse psychology", they are lying.

You overanalyzed just like the GOP knew that you would and you made the wrong choice.

Maybe a lot of Bush's voters have low I.Q.'s, but obviously GOP strategists don't.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

107. No you didn't...you said he OVERWHELMINGLY did...you were wrong

the problem for you is your prior posts demonstrate your petulance and lack of distinction...that and you don't know the difference between Al Sharpton (evangelical) and Tim La Haye (evangelical). Now...repeat after me...VENTVON WAS WRONG AND ONLY KNOWS HOW TO REPEAT HIMSELF.

[ventvon]

83. Prove me wrong

Clinton won the evangelical vote both times.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

91. I tell you what.

Why don't you actually learn to debate?

It's VERY simple: YOU made the assertion. I'm calling you on the carpet for a lack of facts to back up your assertion.

Now it is YOUR job to come up with said facts, or admit you have none.

Some statements are general knowledge and accepted without much backup simply because they are commonly known to be true. "On September 11, 2001, over 3000 people were killed in terrorist attacks on American soil" is generally considered to be a true statement.

But your statement, that evangelical Christians voted for Clinton in large numbers in both 92 and 96, is NOT a commonly known thing, and thus you need some facts, some sources, something, to back up this assertion. Otherwise, your argument goes nowhere.

Now. Where are those facts?

[ventvon]

101. Why don't you learn to debate.

Until you throw out some numbers, I don't have to.

I'll just disagree with you.

[ISUGRADIA]

72. Clinton did not win the evangelical vote!

His % both times was lower than Bush and Dole according to exit polls from those elections. And Jimmy Carter's election was almost 30 years ago.

I don't blame Christians for Bush's victory but I do blame the goose stepping fundis.

[ventvon]

73. Clinton won the evangelical vote both times

duh

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

78. No

"duh" and you simply repeating something doesn't cut it.

Back your argument up with facts. YOU are the one who stated it, so the onus is on YOU to back it up.

Get some facts in here, some sources, some links, besides a talking head on TV saying it (that's no better than you saying it) or you have no argument.

[ventvon]

85. ARe you blind???

Numbers don't prove anything.

The "numbers" said Bush won Florida in 2000!

Clinton won the evangelical vote both times.

Prove me wrong.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

88. You still don't seem to get it.

So let me break it down. I have a lot of patience.

1. You made an assertion and provided no facts to back it up.

2. I asked for facts to back it up before commenting on your assertion.

3. You have refused.

What does that say about your argument?

So. Try again, and this time, get me some numbers and then we'll talk. Until then, you got nothing. I simply cannot take "Clinton won the evangelical vote both times" on your word. I want to see the percentages.

If numbers mean nothing, then how can you say Clinton won the evangelical vote both times? Maybe he didn't. But we can't know, since you either refuse to cough up the numbers or don't know where the hell to find them.

[Forkboy]

96. "What does that say about your argument?"

That's he's full of shit or himself...or both :)

[ventvon]

110. You make an assertion and don't provide any numbers to back it up

I disagree with your assertion.

I never said Clinton won "the white Christian vote."

I said he won the "evangelical vote."

[Forkboy]

97. Martians are really ancient humans

Prove me wrong!

[DuaneBidoux]

76. I do believe Edwards Would Have Beaten Bush

Although I feel Kerry would be a better President than Edwards.

When I watched Clinton speak one night on Leno I realized that Kerry was in trouble. And when I watched Edwards speak the next day, I said "He could have beat Bush." From an experience and intelligence perspective he is okay, whereas Kerry is a brilliant and accomplished man. But, that doesn't count, and Dems do need to pay attention to this. This is the impact Hollywood has had on America.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

104. Since all you can do is repeat PROVE ME WRONG! PROVE ME WRONG

I am proving you wrong. In post number 2, you claim Clinton OVERWHELMINGLY won evangelicals. YOU are wrong and here is the proof. Clinton only got about 10% more than Bush in 92 and the same spread in 96. The REAL challenge for our party is to get WORKING class voters and I propose doing that by modifying our position on Affirmative action to include economically disadvantaged white males.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/evangelicals/vote.html

BTW..this article confirms that Clinton only won the majority of FREESTYLE Evangelicals...not ALL evangelicals...consider yourself proven WRONG...now if you would like to PONY UP FACTS..feel free..repeating yourself isn't a fact..it's an annoyance.


People tend to think of evangelicals as a monolithic group. All conservative, all Republican, a lock for Bush. We looked at the evangelical voting block and actually, there are actually two types of evangelicals politically. There's conservative evangelicals and a group that we call "freestyle evangelicals."

Theologically and spiritually, they share a lot with their evangelical brethren. They also have the Bible as a central part of their life. They also have a personal relationship with God. But politically, they're different. They care more about things like environmental issues, poverty issues. They tend to be politically more moderate.

Bill Clinton in 1996 won the majority of freestyle evangelicals. But in 2000, George Bush won the majority of freestyle evangelicals. It shifted by about 10 percent away from Gore towards Bush, which, in an election that close, it was a very important shift.

[ventvon]

113. Yeah, and Clinton won the evangelical vote

I agree with your point about focusing on the working class, duh, that's why I went on and on about the right kind of candidate who has "universal appeal" (mentioned that yesterday).

Consider myself not proven wrong.

If there are more "freestyle evangelicals" than "conservative evangelicals," and if Clinton won "freestyle evangelicals" by 10%, then he won more evangelicals.

There are different kinds of Christians.
There are different kinds of Religious voters.

If you just go off of the label "Religious" voters, then Gore won more of them than Bush did.

There are different "subgroups" within each of those groups. There being "conservative" evangelicals, and "freestyle" evangelicals doesn't prove anything but the fact that the media has a label for everything.

If "freestyle" evangelicals agree with "conservative" evangelicals on issues like gay marriage and abortion which is the reason why people call "conservative evangelicals" conservative, then there is really no difference between them.

Clinton won the evangelical vote, not matter how you slice it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

116. Not overwhelmingly as you asserted. Now..admit your premise is incorrect

and that IGNORANT SO CALLED CHRISTIANS ARE TO BLAME FOR THIS ASSHAT BEING RE-ELECTED.

Thanks for proving MY point. HYPOCRITICAL CHRISTIANS whose morality is jaded by lies from false prophets...and who certainly don't love their neighbor as themselves, took NOT THEIR CHRISTLIKE image but their fucking hypocritical bigotry to the polls...and neither John Kerry nor John Edwards stood a snowball's chance in hell of winning their votes.

You want to triangulate...I'm happy to play the game the way you do.

[charlie]

119. Again, you didn't read

If there are more "freestyle evangelicals" than "conservative evangelicals," and if Clinton won "freestyle evangelicals" by 10%, then he won more evangelicals.

Freestyles are the smaller group. It's in the article.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

121. does not compute...does not compute...does not compute..does not...

[charlie]

124. Yeah, really strange

Imperious and obtuse, not the most winning combo.

[Rambis]

108. Cheney the "christians"

image and perception over substance unbefuckinlievable!

[ventvon]

117. Gone for the day

It was fun while it lasted, lol... :D

[Skittles]

115. what a load of hogwash

as long as we do not have a free press OR fair elections it's not going to matter WHO we nominate

[leftofthedial]

122. okay, I'll blame protestants and conservative catholics instead

better?

[arwalden]

129. BULLFUCKINGSHIT... I'll Blame Them If I Want To... And Rightly So.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

130. It sure wasn't atheists that ignored

The lies that took us to war
the half a trillion dollars worth of debt
the budget deficit into the next ten years expected to top a trillion
the fact that 911 happened unde Bush's watch
his family's coziness with the bin Ladens..and so on :D

[arwalden]

131. Yet Nobody Mentions That

hmmm

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

133. There's something about basing your actions on facts vs belief systems

that just seems to work, eh? ;-)

[mmonk]

135. When they stop claiming responsibility for the bush win