I vow this: if the Democratic party moves any more to the right

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

I don't know what I'll do. I'm a dyed in the wool, true blue Dem. Have been all my life. Never voted for a republican EVER, not even in a local election. And I won't.

But I am dismayed by what I am hearing and seeing from the DNC. And anyone who ALREADY has a hate-on for Dems, just keep on going, nothing to see here, I won't take kindly to you taking this post as an excuse to Dem bash, got it?

But I am.....feeling afloat right now. And I don't like it one bit. I think maybe it's just too soon to tell what is going to happen. It's only been a little over a week, after all. Maybe I should just chill, enjoy the holidays, keep shunning the bush voters I know, and wait it out and see what the Democratic party does.

But if they move one more inch to the right, I'm going to be really disgusted. I'm not a Democrat to be a Sort Of Republican.

[chaska]

1. Yep, it's time to be dems again.

[RunningFromCongress]

2. agreed

[RyomaSakamoto]

3. MSNBC: is reporting the FRAUD... maybe the mediaherd will follow? --> mp3

http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/fraud04/countdown_on_voting_irregs_Nov10.mp3

[Selatius]

4. We need to get populist again

That's the short answer.

Our general platform should be nothing less than the reaffirmation of our support for health care, public education, the environment, jobs and the economy, civil rights, a foreign policy based on valid need instead of greed, and tax reform.

We should make it DAMN clear that we do not support abortion at all, yet because there are varying beliefs over the issue, we will respect the choices other make on the issue. Your religious beliefs are your business, and it should not be legislated upon the heads of those who disagree with you. That goes both for abortion as well as gay marriage or civil unions or whatever euphemism is used to make it sound "PC."

We should also make it clear we're not against the middle class and the lower class with tax cuts. What we should do is hijack Republican rhetoric of tax cuts for the people. What we need is a steeply graduated income tax. Or, to put more simply, a flat tax system with higher tax brackets aimed specifically at the biggest income earners in the country. You could perhaps call it an "L" tax because it remains flat until you hit the highest income earners. For instance, you could have a 17% tax on the portion of people's incomes that go over 35,000, and you could have several progressively higher tax brackets aimed at folks in, say, the top 10%, 5%, and even 1% of income earners both corporate and private. I mean, we've got CEOs who are pulling in salaries over 5,000,000 to 20,000,000+ a year, and that's not counting stock options. They should not be in the same pool of tax payers who earn only 200,000 a year, and we've got multinational corporations that are pulling in as much as 1,000,000,000 a year in net income or more. Hell, Walmart pulled in 8,000,000,000+ in net income in FYI 2003.

If we can lay down the groundwork for tax reform, then that should free us up and give us the revenue needed for things such as universal health care, subsidized college education for all who apply and qualify, better enforcement of labor standards, environmental standards, etc.

We shouldn't stop there. We should move even further and take up our old reputation as reformers and trust busters. We've smashed corporations before, and I think we should use the Sherman Anti-Trust Act once again. It has been used too little to fight market consolidation and corruption, and it should be used to break up mega news media outlets. We should seriously look at abolishing the Electoral College forever and instituting IRV for all federal elections, and we should ban all outside special interest/corporate money in favor of a taxpayer subsidized system. The people's voice should be the only thing affecting politicians, not the size of one's wallet.

[Ken Burch]

5. A few more ideas

1) The Democrats need to bar anybody who helped run the last six or seven presidential campaigns from participation in any future ones. If they couldn't get THEIR guy elected, they can't get anybody elected. And the only new ideas any of them ever comes up with are
"move further right" or "act like you've moved EVEN further right than you actually did."

2) NO MORE SOLICITING CORPORATE DONATIONS! The money is useless if IT DOESN'T ELECT YOU and if it moves the party further right(as business money always does)without electing you.

3) BACK Electoral Reform. All restricting ballot access and fighting to keep Ralph of the ballots and out of the debates did was piss off people who might have helped elect us. And every good Democratic policy idea of the entire 20th Century came from outside the party,
either from the minor parties(particularly the old Norman Thomas Socialist Party) or social movements(civil rights, environmentalism, feminism and gay rights.) From inside the party, the only ideas were to wear silly hats at the convention and have the band play "Happy Days are Here Again."

4) Get serious about talking about class, and try nominating a working class candidate for a change, or at least a non-Establishment, non-millionaire type. The only way for the Democrats to grow is to really engage those left out in the cold, and centrists and neoconservative Dems can't do it.

[deminflorida]

7. Don't agree there...

"The only way for the Democrats to grow is to really engage those left out in the cold, and centrists and neoconservative Dems can't do it."

We didn't run a centrist or neoconservative Dem, we ran a Liberal Dem from Mass....

and lefty's were not left in the cold this time, conserative dems were....read the Olberman blog...

"Regarding the Florida counties that went strongly for Bush, despite more registered democrats than registered republicans: In addition to the numbers listed on an earlier blog, I checked previous presidential elections... and those Dixiecrat counties have been trending republican for 12 years. Lafayette County, which has 3,570 registered democrats and 570 registered republicans... went strongly for President Bush this year as well as four years ago. It also went for Bob Dole over Clinton in '96... and for George H.W. Bush over Clinton in '92. Other Dixiecrat counties follow the same trend. The story is the same across the state."

The party has to find a way to reach out to Neo-Conservative Democrats while not abandoning those on the left...and thus moving the party too far to the right. Wes Clark would have been a perfect candidate if you have ever considered his stand on issues. But the military label killed him with lefties....

[ever_green]

9. Kerry was labeled "liberal", but he was NOT.

He was pro-war, pro-corporations, pro-imperialism....
and now apparently he doesn't care much for democracy either.
The Republicans labeled him liberal, but real liberals know he was not.

[Mike L]

60. How Liberal was Kerry's voting record?

ChimpCo said it was the most liberal in the Senate, even more liberal than Kennedy's. Is there any independent scoring org out there?

[Selatius]

12. Kerry was NO LIBERAL

His economic policies are closer to neoliberalism than not. This is the same guy who voted for NAFTA as well as other DLCers. Remember? The same guy who voted for the PATRIOT Act. Remember? The same guy who voted for the IRW. Remember? And didn't he also say that he'd still have given Bush the authority if he knew then what he knows now?

[demokatgurrl]

18. No he wasn't- the problem is we can either let the neocons

paint every one of our candidates as a flaming liberal and get away with it because we don't want to denigrate the word, or we can stand up and say "No, John Kerry is not a liberal, we'd love to nominate a liberal but know it will be tough to get one elected". I for one want to embrace the word "liberal", not trash it- but I don't want it applied to someone who doesn't "earn" it.

[Skidmore]

20. Ohhh, man, just when I think I have my labels down you go and do

this to me. What, pray tell, is a neoliberal?

[Selatius]

55. Neoliberals believe in free markets ahead of everything else

These are the guys who pushed free trade agreements such as NAFTA and advocate privatizing social programs such as Social Security because they believe the free market is superior to handling the needs of the people. In short, these guys advocate that the government have little to no regulatory power over the markets because they think the markets handle themselves just fine. They're basically freemarketeers. Nevermind the fact that we got Enrons, Halliburtons, and other things running around, or the fact that the "free market" today (instead of "evil socialism" under universal health care) is too expensive for 45,000,000 as far as health care.

Augusto Pinochet was the ultimate freemarketeer. They championed his economic policies. When you think "neoliberalism," think of it as a new spin on the old idea of "laissez-faire" economic policy.

[Carolina]

36. yes, the same guy who ran from the word liberal

instead of pointing out to the dumbass 59 million Bushbots how they have benefitted from liberal policies of Democratic administrations!

[demokatgurrl]

19. Kerry a liberal? He was the DLC candidate. DLC is just

a hair away from Republican.

[ShaneGR]

43. The DLC Candidate?????

LOL, where in the hell do you people get this stuff? Uhhhh, Lieberman was the DLC candidate.

[IndianaGreen]

52. A liberal that voted for war and for the PATRIOT Act is not a liberal

Kerry himself said that he was a conservative on some issues. The GOP charge that Kerry was a liberal was ludicrous!

[Starlight]

70. factcheck.org has an article debunking that ridiculous "liberal" claim

http://www.factcheck.org/article284.html

"Summary
A Republican National Committee ad released Oct. 16 claims that Kerry is "the most liberal man in the Senate." It's true that vote rankings by the politically neutral magazine The National Journal rated Kerry "most liberal" in 2003 and in three earlier years during his first Senate term: 1986, 1988, and 1990. But over his entire career the Journal ranks Kerry the 11th most liberal Senator. And by other rankings he's only a bit left of his party's center."

[ever_green]

10. more good points!

Heck yeah.

[newyawker99]

25. Hi Ken Burch!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ever_green]

8. Good ideas, I support them.

Especially the "we don't support abortion at all". I'm pro-life with exceptions. Democrats have to welcome people like me.

[Cheswick2.0]

23. You need to accept a womans right to make decisions for herself

Don't like abortion, don't have one. Accept that your judgement about what exceptions to abortion should be is just as subjective and flawed as anyone elses. There for the only reasonable position is pro-choice. You mind your business and your body and I will mind mine. Why is that so difficult to understand?

The position of the democratic party on the issue is pro-choice. That is not going to change. If it does the party will give up the vote of millions of women.

PS... I will never support legislation that forces women with too many children they can't support or love to have abortions for the good of society.

[Wind Dancer]

41. I don't know your age but illegal abortions are not a pretty sight.

The Democrats don't all believe pro-choice is pro-abortion, I'm far to the left but feel education, birth control and a woman's choice is crucial for our party. As a Christian, it is not my place nor anybody else's to interfere with choices women make regarding their bodies and life.

Republicans use this as a control and wedge issue, they aren't willing to help poor women with babies financially or physically.

Republicans are supposed to represent less government yet they want to control every aspect of our lives. It is not a coincidence the abortion rate was higher under *'s policies.

[IndianaGreen]

51. No, we shouldn't! American populism has historically been racist.

What we need to do is to stand for a set of core values from which we should not deviate or compromise. The most important of those values ought to be the one that all Americans should have equal rights. Any de facto or de jure separate treatment of people on account of their race, gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, national origin, religion or lack thereof, should have no place in America.

The second most important core value is that we must stand for justice. Whether it is justice at home or abroad, such as Palestinian right of self-determination, we should not sacrifice justice just because some of our financial backers want us to turn a deaf ear to the cries of the oppressed.

You don't get core values by polling or through focus groups. You don't get core values by catering to influential donors.

[Selatius]

57. I don't advocate racist populism

What we need to do is to stand for a set of core values from which we should not deviate or compromise. The most important of those values ought to be the one that all Americans should have equal rights. Any de facto or de jure separate treatment of people on account of their race, gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, national origin, religion or lack thereof, should have no place in America.

Irregardless of what happened in previous populist movements, I don't support racism, being a minority myself. The populism I'm talking about is the kind that addresses the needs of everyday people, the kind that speaks to them directly, not the elites in their estates or the corporations. Racism and bigotry should be fought wherever it appears.

The second most important core value is that we must stand for justice. Whether it is justice at home or abroad, such as Palestinian right of self-determination, we should not sacrifice justice just because some of our financial backers want us to turn a deaf ear to the cries of the oppressed.

I don't disagree at all. I do agree with you, but it's the "financial backers" we're running into trouble with. When you've got the damn Bradley Foundation, an ultra-rightwing outfit, giving money to the DLC (not to mention Amoco and Chevron), you've got problems in the Democratic Party that need to be addressed.

You don't get core values by polling or through focus groups. You don't get core values by catering to influential donors.

Maybe your criticisms should be leveled at Bill Clinton instead of here. The kind of populism I'm talking about speaks about putting food on the table, clothes on your kids' backs, paying the bills at the end of the month, making sure people get help when they're sick or injured, and ensuring that the next generation won't inherit a polluted, misery plagued cesspool that was once called Earth and tries to find a way to make things better than what they are today.

[IndianaGreen]

71. We are in agreement then

My concern was with the historical populism, people like Wm Jennings Bryant, Huey Long, George Wallace, etc...

[Dr Fate]

6. Apparently they will find "Swing voters" to volunteer for them too.

We certainly need to do all we can to keep the party honest- these people at the top are clueless-we need Howard Dean as chair of the DNC...

[Cheswick2.0]

24. We need Howard Dean to run again in 4 years

If he becomes head of the DNC he can't do that.

[Skittles]

11. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE

I refuse to compromise my principles to cater to racist, sexist, homophobic ASSHOLES.

[bliss_eternal]

13. I'm w/Moonbeam_Starlight! I won't go any further right!

Thank you for saying this Moonbeam! There are some other interesting and valid points here also. I hope that we do return to our Democratic roots. I've never voted for a Repub and I never will. Blue through and through.

Skittles--loved your post too. Cracked me up!

:)

[Perky]

14. The other sid od this

is that there are fols out ther that are rleived that on some issues that the Republicans are acting like Democrate with ntable exceptions.

We did not abandon the middle the middle abandoned us for wha they perieve as a better message,,

Of couse the other side of this is that we have not had a liveral president elected Predisdent since ummmm LBJ...and He waspresident only by tragedy. Kennedy a true liberal.. thats to be debated.We need to face the fact,,,drink some coffee and maybe get bitchslapped a few times: the Country doe not elect liberal presidents.

[MadHound]

15. Sad to say though

That the party leaders will take these results as another excuse to move even further to the right. Quite frankly, I'm sorta hoping they move waaaay right, it will make it all the much easier to form a coalition party around a true progressive, liberal party, the Greens, who have much more in common with old school Dems than these New Dem scum.

[ShaneGR]

16. Well, we'll have to nominate a candidate from Amsterdam next

I mean, seriously, we nominated one from Massachusetts this time!

[Mike L]

29. Funny, and true.

Did Kerry really have the most liberal voting record in the Senate?

I never heard him or amyone else dispute that claim.

[ShaneGR]

40. I believe he did...

May have been top 5 though.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

33. So what?

If you tell me Kerry was a true liberal I'll tell you about the swampland I have for sale in Arizona.

[ShaneGR]

42. Uhhh, Kerry was a true liberal.....

Take that!

[AntiCoup2K4]

65. Sure he was...

...in 1971.

[demokatgurrl]

17. I don't know if it will help but you could let the DNC

know where you stand. I am a small donor so I get emails sometimes askign for input (and I think Terry McAuliffe just sent one out to just about every Democrat). Even better, send a check WITH a letter. Get involved in your local party or even Democratic party meetups. I think (hope) if enough of us let our opinions be known, they'll listen. It all depends on how much continued influence the DLC has.

[robcon]

21. If we didn't learn anything from this election...

we won't ever win a national election.

We need to motivate the party faithful, but, even more importantly, we HAVE TO WIN INDEPENDENTS AND CENTRISTS TO WIN ELECTIONS!

[blindpig]

26. if the Democratic party moves any further to the right

there's no point in winning. Why take the trouble when you're going to behave like a republican anyway?
A clear economic message, a reaffirmation of the New Deal(please see the Kucinich economic plan), and a purge of the DLC money dems is the only way to save the Party's soul and retain revelance. Anything else is repub light.
If that doesn't work we are fucked and deserve to be.

[Protagoras]

32. So which fundamental values do we abandon to achieve

a "centrist" position on civil rights, right to choose, worker protection etc. I'm not even sure what "centrism" means other than pandering to RW distortions.

[Mountainman]

44. If we win by not being Dems, what have we won?

I want this country to solve the social issues effecting the working class. If we don't work on that we are no longer the party of the people. If we imitate the repubs we have become repubs only calling ourselves Dems.

Winning and being on the right is not winning at all in my book.

[Walt Starr]

22. Movement to the right is a loser's strategy

Read don't thnk of an elephant by George Lakoff. He explains why movement to the right is playing into the hands of the GOP and does so effectively. Moving to the right is precisely what the right wants us to do! It means more and bigger wins for them as it frames the debate under their terms.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

34. Exactly Walt, exactly how I feel

I mean how exactly does it benefit us to move to the right?

So we move to the right, then they move further to the right, then we move further to the right, and pretty soon we're all falling off the cliff?

People have to have a real CHOICE. The centrists can decide where they belong, but we must offer a true choice, not watered-down republicanism.

Grrrr.

[DemCam]

56. This all misses the point, imho

It isn't a question of moving this way or that way....it's being able to articulate an agenda an be proactive instead of being reactive.

We're all over the place, really...but so are the Republicans. They have quit fighting among themselves and have sucked it up and stayed together and let the party articulate the message. It is a fragile thing for them...just like it is to us.

Both parties are the strangest mix of disparate groups. In fact, after reading these forums for the last week, I am beginning to wonder if there is such a thing as a Democratic Party that I can be a part of.

And yet...we dropped most of our carping and negativity and outright nastiness that we flagrantly displayed in the primary season and got behind John Kerry. So...we were 1.5% away from winning the presidency and now we're back to our primary levels of "wisdom".

How the hell are we going to congeal the jello enough to saddle up and ride off in the same direction?

So...those of you who think we should move left...of which I am not one...please write down that platform so I will even know what you're talking about.

(on edit...damn, I posted it the wrong place. Hate it when I do that.)

[mondo joe]

27. If the party moves right I move to the Libertarians

Simple enough.

[mortimer_az]

28. Stick to the high ground

Every trend has a natural cycle. The warmongering homophobe Religious Wrong are riding their tide right now. But just like Pet Rocks, their time will end.

It may take some time, but if we keep fighting now, we will regain our voice, and retake control of our own country.

[AP]

30. Where exactly do you see them going to the right?

[underseasurveyor]

31. You're hardly alone M_S

If Democrats want to act like repubs in order to win, that's not winning at all. Not in my book and not for me. Democrats are Democrats and should remain steadfast and true Democrats.

I don't expect much change either, not soon anyway. There needs to be a major shake-up somewhere before anything meaningful occurs, IMHO.

This Dem has a death-grip on that last hanging thread. I can't ever imagine letting it go. I think your idea of getting through the holidays is sound advice. Holidays can be stressful enough on their own.

And I sooner pull all my teeth out with no anesthetic before I ever voted for a repub.....:shudder: Sort Of Republican, as you put it, is not acceptable to me either.

Come, let's all go drink some eggnog ;-)

[GreenPartyVoter]

35. If you want to the the DNC what kind of candidates you feel you should

put up, get a movement started to:

a) Switch to Instant Runoff Voting in the primaries.

b) Have all the state primaries held on the same day.

------------------------------------------------------
Fight the fraud; fund the recount!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[Gold Metal Flake]

37. We do NOT move. We bring voters to us.

Let's think of ways to do that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. The party chose to "play it safe" this time

even though it had candidates who thought outside the box, and look what happened. As a Kucinich supporter, I was told over and over that yes, everyone loved Kucinich's ideas, but we needed to win this time, so just go along and play it safe with Kerry.

Kerry is no longer the "flaming liberal" of his youth and has become a soft centrist. It's hard for someone who voted for NAFTA and the Patriot Act and other such measures to portray himself as a "champion of the little guy." He's a better campaigner than Al Gore, but he didn't inspire the same kind of intense personal loyalty that Kucinich, Dean, and Clark did. He didn't fight back early enough against the Republican machine or very intelligently.

For example, one line of attack that the Republicanites took was to say that in 20 years in the Senate, Kerry had sponsored very little successful legislation. That should have been his cue to come out strong about his roles in investigating Iran-Contra and BCCI, scandals that current members of the Bush administration were involved in. Yet he just let that criticism slide, giving voters the impression that he had just marked time in the Senate.

I could go on and on, but in short, the reason I supported Kucinich and others supported Dean or Clark is that we want the Democrats to stand for something besides being Not Bush. Hell, I'm Not Bush, either. Should I be president? :eyes:

[briankup]

39. The Question for me is....

....at what point should one jump off a right sailing ship? At what point does the party move so far to the right that it is time to build a new party or work with an existing one like the Greens? I'm not saying we are there but it seems to me that if we move any more toward the right these sorts of questions will become very valid. I hope Dean gets control of the party.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

45. I am with you...

I believe that Democratic values are winning values, if we would just not run from them like they have cooties.

We have let the RW define us and twist/define our values. Enough.

I can understand that there needs to be moderate/centrist candidates in certain areas of the country, but I'll be DAMNED if they take the entire party there with them!

I will take every opportunity to tell the DNC that this Dem will vote 3rd party in protest in the next presidential election if they take one more step towards abandonment of those values.

I encourage everyone to do the same.

And I encourage everyone to advocate fair, auditable elections, because it won't MATTER who we run if the machines are fixed.

[Cheswick2.0]

53. I agree with everything you just said

The republicans don't win because they move to the center. Yes of course we need to appeal to the middle but we do it by educating them and convincing them of the correctness of our ideas. We don't need to go right. I too will leave the party if and when is abandons equal rights, choice, the environment, labor etc...

[MisterP]

67. cooties! ha! perfectly the right word!

[Goldmund]

46. I'll tell you what I'll do if the Dems move one inch to the right

Fucking leave.

[Wind Dancer]

47. Well said, Moonbeam!

We must reclaim our party and not be ashamed of the word "liberal". We must embrace our progressive beliefs but reframe our platform.

[Hamlette]

48. We do need to change the rhetoric which may sound like it though

join the "culture of life" but what we mean is no unjust wars and taking care of the poor and providing health care.

Most Americans believe in our positions. Hopefully our leaders will understand that.

[madfloridian]

49. I am with you on that.

I hope the progressives fight back hard.

[IndianaGreen]

50. I am sure many more will willingly drink the new flavor of Kool-Aid

the one in which gay rights and abortion rights are sacrificed for the sake of appealing to some elusive bigoted middle.

[Bridget Burke]

54. Damn straight!

(as it were....)

[Mike L]

58. OK, then solving the "values" problem is up to you.

Unfortunately, "educating the masses" won't work. Putting out new spin phrases won't work either. If the Democratic Party is not going to adopt middle America's cultural values, you have a very difficult problem on your hands. Better get to work figuring out a solution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Culture Wars: Winning the 'Values' Vote

It was on 11 ballots, and won on all of them. How the anti-gay-marriage initiatives shaped the presidential contest

By Debra Rosenberg And Karen Breslau
Newsweek

For weeks, gay-rights activists had been bracing for the worst. Pre-election polls told them that contentious anti-gay-marriage initiatives, on the ballot in 11 states, would likely pass in all but Oregon. One by one on Election Day, those predictions came true. And then some. In the end, it was a clean sweep—even libertarian-leaning Oregon eventually voted to outlaw same-sex marriage by 56 percent, despite a $2.8 million push by gay groups. In eight states, including Ohio, Michigan and Utah, the measures went even further. They curtailed rights granted under civil unions and domestic partnerships, which could affect unmarried straight couples, too—a position to the right of President Bush and other Republicans. Ohio's Republican governor opposed his state's initiative. It still passed with 62 percent of the vote.

Religious groups vowed that gay marriage would send evangelicals flocking to the voting booth. Exit polls showed that 22 percent of voters named "moral values" as the most important issue to them—ranking it higher than the economy and the Iraq war. Of them, 79 percent voted for President Bush. In Ohio, 24 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as "white evangelical/born-again Christians."

Gay marriage was a key part of Karl Rove's turnout strategy, and stood out as one of the cultural fault lines dividing the two Americas. Overwhelmingly, Americans say they oppose same-sex marriage, yet favor civil unions and other rights for gay couples. But the issue became a catchall for the concerns of Christian conservatives, who were already fed up with the many restrictions "activist" judges had imposed on them: rulings protecting abortion, banning school prayer and limiting religious displays in public buildings. The biggest concern: that judges in their states would follow the Massachusetts Supreme Court and force gay marriage on them. "It was a target," says Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council. "It was a very clear focus of where to channel their frustration, their aggravation at what the courts have done."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6401635/site/newsweek/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 11, 2004

Clarence Page

"In a black vote that surged upward about 25 percent from 2000 to 13.2 million voters, 11 percent of it went to Bush, compared to a paltry 8 percent in 2000. But the real cost to Sen. John Kerry appeared in key battleground states like Ohio, where Bush took 16 percent of the black vote, 7 points more than in 2000. Since African Americans are the Democratic Party's most loyal major ethnic or racial group, that's a lot of Kerry's political base that jumped the fence. Many of those fence jumpers appear to be new voters, among the 4 million evangelical Christians who reportedly stayed home in 2000. The "moral values" issue apparently proved a big draw for black Bush voters, too.

A recent poll by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington-based think tank, found that pro-Bush blacks were more likely than Kerry supporters to be regular churchgoers, over age 50, opposed to gay marriage and not as worried about their next dollar.

"If the Supreme Court put Bush in the White House in 2000," David Bositis, the Joint Center's senior political analyst, observed, "the Massachusetts Supreme Court (which upheld gay marriage in that state) probably put him back in the White House." "

http://springfield.news-leader.com/opinions/today/1111-Democratsc-223610.html

[sonicx]

59. "Contrary to spin, gay rights did not determine election, data show "

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/document.asp?doc_id=2039

In the 3 battleground states where an anti-marriage amendment was on the ballot, Kerry did better than Gore

Sen. Kerry carried Oregon by a wider margin than Vice President Gore in 2000. (In 2000, the vote was 713,577 for Gore (47%) to 720,342 (47%) for Bush. In 2000, the vote was 889,005 (52%) to 819,207 (48%) for Bush.) In other words, Kerry’s support was 24% higher than Gore’s, while Bush’s support grew by only 18%.

In Michigan, Sen. Kerry received the same percent of the vote (51%) as Vice President Gore and increased the number of votes in the Democratic column by 227, 422. Finally, in Ohio, Sen. Kerry won at least 49% of the vote (Gore won 46%) and 199,435 more voters cast a vote in the presidential race than on the marriage amendment, indicating that the presidential race - not the marriage amendment - was the pull to the polls. There is a greater analysis of Michigan and Ohio below.

Eight of the 11 states would have gone Republican anyway

Eight of the 11 states with anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot have gone Republican in most or all of the recent presidential elections: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah.

In Michigan and Oregon, anti-gay marriage amendments were approved. Voters in those states also backed Kerry over Bush.

Michigan and Ohio are very similar states: industrial, with a struggling manufacturing sector, with high rates of union households and similar racial demographics (Michigan voters are 82% White, 13% Black, 2% Hispanic; Ohio voters are 86% White, 10% Black, 3% Hispanic).

snip

An in-depth analysis of responses to this question conducted by political scientist Ken Sherrill of Hunter College finds that “moral values” is less of an explanation or a cause of voting behavior, and more a correlate or consequence of liking President Bush and supporting his policies.

snip

[Mike L]

62. ?????????

"In the 3 battleground states where an anti-marriage amendment was on the ballot, Kerry did better than Gore."

So what? We can assume that Kerry would have done even better if the anti-gay marriage amendment wasn't on the ballots. This doesn't indicate anything. We know that an additional 4 million fundis showed up in 2004 nationwide (3.5% of total voters). That doesn't include the moderates who were swayed by the state amendments or Chimp's support of the FMA. Kerry only lost Ohio by 2.5%.

"Sen. Kerry carried Oregon by a wider margin than Vice President Gore in 2000. (In 2000, the vote was 713,577 for Gore (47%) to 720,342 (47%) for Bush."

These numbers are apparently reversed.

"Finally, in Ohio,......199,435 more voters cast a vote in the presidential race than on the marriage amendment, indicating that the presidential race - not the marriage amendment - was the pull to the polls."

That doesn't indicate anything of the sort. Many people vote on the office races and skip the initiatives. I bet that's ALWAYS the case.

Also, that's not a very independent website you quoted.

[sonicx]

63. Why are you excepting Rove propaganda?

<<We can assume that Kerry would have done even better if the anti-gay marriage amendment wasn't on the ballots.>>

Why? proof please.

<<We know that an additional 4 million fundis showed up in 2004 nationwide (3.5% of total voters).>>

proof please. read this while you are at it: http://slate.msn.com/id/2109275/

<<That doesn't include the moderates who were swayed by the state amendments or Chimp's support of the FMA.>>

Kerry won moderates and independents (nationwide and in OH). look at the exit polls. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297182

and did you read the article? only 3 swing states had amendments.

<<These numbers are apparently reversed.>>

point is Kerry did better in OR than Gore did. explain.

<<Many people vote on the office races and skip the initiatives. I bet that's ALWAYS the case.>

then how can people say the anti-gay amendments helped bush if people skipped them? get your story straight, DLCer. :eyes:

<<Also, that's not a very independent website you quoted.>>

right, and DLCbots are independent...

PS: if you think the medical procedure 'dialation and extraction' is 'spin,' you should just go ahead and join the republican party.

[Mike L]

64. !!!!!!!!!

<<We can assume that Kerry would have done even better if the anti-gay marriage amendment wasn't on the ballots.>>

"Why? proof please."

The 4 million new fundie voters; 22% of voters said "moral values" was their top issue; the overwhelming margins with which the amendments passed; and common sense telling me that the amendments and Chimp's endorsement of the FMA swayed some Independent voters.

<<We know that an additional 4 million fundis showed up in 2004 nationwide (3.5% of total voters).>>

"proof please. read this while you are at it: http://slate.msn.com/id/2109275 / "

We have proof. In 2000, the turnout was 39% Dems and 35% Repugs. This year, the turnout was the same for each.

<<That doesn't include the moderates who were swayed by the state amendments or Chimp's support of the FMA.>>

"Kerry won moderates and independents (nationwide and in OH). look at the exit polls. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297182 "

Pollsters expected Kerry to pick up 2/3 of the undecideds. Because they were still undecided late in the election, the expectation was that they would break against the incumbent. He didn't get that many.

"and did you read the article? only 3 swing states had amendments."

So what? There were 11 state amendments in total and Chimp had campaigned on the FMA. That affected every state. However, the state that tipped the balance was Ohio, and it did have an amendment on the ballot.

<<These numbers are apparently reversed.>>

"point is Kerry did better in OR than Gore did. explain."

Uhhhhh.....People hated Bush more in OR this time. People in OR had actually seen Chimp in action. Thus, more voted for Kerry than Gore.

<<Many people vote on the office races and skip the initiatives. I bet that's ALWAYS the case.>

"then how can people say the anti-gay amendments helped bush if people skipped them? get your story straight, DLCer."

5.5 million people voted in the OH pres. race. 200,000 skipped the initiative. So, only 3.6% skipped the initiative.

<<Also, that's not a very independent website you quoted.>>

"right, and DLCbots are independent..."

The sources I quoted were independent, left-leaning sources.

"PS: if you think the medical procedure 'dialation and extraction' is 'spin,' you should just go ahead and join the republican party."

As I said earlier, a rose by any other name.........

ta ta!

[sonicx]

66. back for more?

<<The 4 million new fundie voters; 22% of voters said "moral values" was their top issue; the overwhelming margins with which the amendments passed; and common sense telling me that the amendments and Chimp's endorsement of the FMA swayed some Independent voters.>>


sorry, Kerry won independents (even did better than Gore). try again.


<<We have proof. In 2000, the turnout was 39% Dems and 35% Repugs. This year, the turnout was the same for each.>>


Are all republicans fundies? no. Just like all Democrats aren't liberals.

now, please give proof.


<<Pollsters expected Kerry to pick up 2/3 of the undecideds. Because they were still undecided late in the election, the expectation was that they would break against the incumbent. He didn't get that many.>>


can you read? Kerry won moderates and independents. why the fuck are you talking about undecideds?


<<So what? There were 11 state amendments in total and Chimp had campaigned on the FMA. That affected every state. However, the state that tipped the balance was Ohio, and it did have an amendment on the ballot.>>


Kerry won moderates and independents in OH. try again. correlation does not equal causation. why didn't Bush win OR and MI?


<<Uhhhhh.....People hated Bush more in OR this time. People in OR had actually seen Chimp in action. Thus, more voted for Kerry than Gore.>>


Oh!! so the rest of the country hasn't 'seen chimpy in action'? OR voters must have special vision! Oh and the amendment passed there, why didn't they vote for Bush too if it drove fundies and evangelicals to the polls?

Keep digging DLCer.


>>5.5 million people voted in the OH pres. race. 200,000 skipped the initiative. So, only 3.6% skipped the initiative.>>


But you said people went to the polls to vote for amendment. which is it?


<<The sources I quoted were independent, left-leaning sources.>>


my source liberal and had no connections to a party. your source is DLC.


<<As I said earlier, a rose by any other name.>>


in other words, you use right-wing propaganda terms. Thanks for helping Republicans win.


btw, how old are you? just curious...

[Selatius]

69. He reminds me of a DLC apparatchik in damage control mode

The only thing you can do is to put out the facts on the matter. That should counter any distortions as to what happened that's coming from any corner be it both the DLC or the right. In the end, it's all subsidized by corporate money and rightwing foundations.

[Mike L]

72. *************

<<The 4 million new fundie voters; 22% of voters said "moral values" was their top issue; the overwhelming margins with which the amendments passed; and common sense telling me that the amendments and Chimp's endorsement of the FMA swayed some Independent voters.>>


"sorry, Kerry won independents (even did better than Gore). try again."

Not by as much as the pollsters anticipated.


<<We have proof. In 2000, the turnout was 39% Dems and 35% Repugs. This year, the turnout was the same for each.>>


"Are all republicans fundies? no. Just like all Democrats aren't liberals.

now, please give proof."

I gave you proof.


<<Pollsters expected Kerry to pick up 2/3 of the undecideds. Because they were still undecided late in the election, the expectation was that they would break against the incumbent. He didn't get that many.>>


"can you read? Kerry won moderates and independents. why the fuck are you talking about undecideds?"

Because undecideds ARE independents. Do you think Dems and Repugs were undecided so late in the election?


<<So what? There were 11 state amendments in total and Chimp had campaigned on the FMA. That affected every state. However, the state that tipped the balance was Ohio, and it did have an amendment on the ballot.>>


"Kerry won moderates and independents in OH. try again. correlation does not equal causation. why didn't Bush win OR and MI?"

There are more Dems/liberals in OR and MI than in OH.


<<Uhhhhh.....People hated Bush more in OR this time. People in OR had actually seen Chimp in action. Thus, more voted for Kerry than Gore.>>


"Oh!! so the rest of the country hasn't 'seen chimpy in action'? OR voters must have special vision! Oh and the amendment passed there, why didn't they vote for Bush too if it drove fundies and evangelicals to the polls?"

There are more Dems/liberals in OR, and less fundies. The fundies couldn't make up the difference.


>>5.5 million people voted in the OH pres. race. 200,000 skipped the initiative. So, only 3.6% skipped the initiative.>>


"But you said people went to the polls to vote for amendment. which is it?"

As I said, only 3.6% skipped the amendment vote.


<<The sources I quoted were independent, left-leaning sources.>>


"my source liberal and had no connections to a party. your source is DLC."

Your source is biased in favor of concluding that the amendments did not affect the election. My sources were Newsweek, Clarence Page and an independent political analyst, not DLC.


<<As I said earlier, a rose by any other name.>>


"in other words, you use right-wing propaganda terms. Thanks for helping Republicans win."

I use terms the public knows. Not being a doctor, I had never heard the term you used. Since I'm a highly educated person, it's likely that not many people outside the medical community have heard that term. Anyway, partial birth abortion has now been outlawed. It would be political suicide to push for allowing it again.


"btw, how old are you? just curious..."

43

[sonicx]

73. why not write something in the subject?

<<Not by as much as the pollsters anticipated.>>


Who the fuck said anything about pollsters?

You say the hate gay bills helped Bush with Independents. But Kerry WON Independents and did better than Gore did (when there were NO hate gay bills). why?


<<I gave you proof.>>


I asked you to prove there were 4 million more evangelicals votes, but you give me the republican turnout. "republican" does not equal "evangelical." try again.


<<Because undecideds ARE independents. Do you think Dems and Repugs were undecided so late in the election?>>


Yes, every catergory has undecideds, but we aren't talking about undecideds. We are talking about ALL Indepedents.

Now explain to me how Kerry did better than Gore with Independents when you claim the hate gay amendments swayed them to Bush.


<<There are more Dems/liberals in OR and MI than in OH.>>


Got proof? If true, Bush would have won OH whether there was a hate gay amendment or not. keep digging.


<<There are more Dems/liberals in OR, and less fundies. The fundies couldn't make up the difference.>>


Prove it please. You said the amemdments helped fundie turnout, but Kerry did better in OR than Gore (who faced no amemdments). Why? Bush should have did better this time.


<<As I said, only 3.6% skipped the amendment vote.>>


Why did they skip it if it helped drive up fundie turnout? Did the fundies forget it was on the ballot?


<<Your source is biased in favor of concluding that the amendments did not affect the election.>>


There are several sources, both liberal and conservative, that have concluded from the evidence that the hate gay amemdments did not decide the election. Read:

Andrew Sullivan: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_10_31_dish_archive.html#109968333683256538

Paul Freedmon: http://slate.msn.com/id/2109275/

David Brooks: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html


<<I use terms the public knows. Not being a doctor, I had never heard the term you used. Since I'm a highly educated person, it's likely that not many people outside the medical community have heard that term. Anyway, partial birth abortion has now been outlawed. It would be political suicide to push for allowing it again.>>


If you were a highly educated person, you'd know that...

1. the so-called "Partial Bith Abortion" Ban was declared unconstitutional several times and is NOT in effect. Read: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/08/nebraska.abortion.ap/

2. You'd stop using Right Wing terms like "Partial Birth Abortion." I am not in the medical community either and have heard the term "Dialation and Extaction" many times. If the public doesn't know the term, you are not doing anything to help them learn it. RWers are greatful for people like you for advancing their agenda. Thanks for helping keep the public uninformed.

3. Noone is pushing to allow it again and noone ever will. It's already allowed.


<<43>>


That's pretty scary...

[Sterling]

61. You will watch us do it and you will like it.

If you don't what are you going to do anyway, you are stuck with us. Sure we sucked you in with Dean but when the primary came we let the media spin him as a maniac and diebolded the Iowa to our Skull and Bone boy Kerry who politly bowed out when Bush Diedolded the election.

Over the next for years you will watch us cower down everytime a key vote comes up but we will still tell you we are fighting for you and we will still take your money. Maybe we will let a person run in the primary on an agenda we know will apeal to you but we will ultimately field a candidate that will do his best to please the people most likely to vote for the other side.

Welcome to hell.

[AgadorSparticus]

68. i'm reallly tying to put all my emotions that you are feeling on

ice right now. i'm giving kerry and the democratic party until december 13th to show me they have my back. if i've been taken for a ride, i guess i will join either the green party or george carlin in his political creed. <sigh>

to add: however, if howard dean is the new DNC chair, well, that's just going to throw a big ol wrench into my plans.

[CitizenRob]

74. Here's a suggestion

we should form regional Democratic parties that represent the very different ideas of the very different parts of our country. Right now we're caught up again in a North/South cancerous divide that is destroying our country as a whole. But how does this represent anybody to the west of the Missippi? It doesn't. What if the Democrats were to cease being a formal national party and instead broke down into regional/local/state level parties with messages specific to those regions? At the Federal level the Democratic regional parties would exist solely to aquire majority control over congress/senate. I'm not sure how the Presidential election would work into this scheme, but that's something that can be worked out.

DU Board post on this topic

[djg21]

75. No offense, but this gave me a chuckle!

I vow this: if the Democratic party moves any more to the right . . . . I don't know what I'll do."

Now that's an unequivocal threat!

What will you do? My guess is that you'll still vote for a Dem because the alternative of voting for a Repuke, or for a third-party candidate like Nader (which is the same as voting for a Repuke), is much, much worse.

[eridani]

76. Yes, but voting is ALL she'll do.

No canvassing, no donations to the max that her family can afford, no local party activism.

[genius]

77. This is cute. Republicans infiltrate looking for a new Republican Party

The Democratic Party used to be the majority. However, people on the left have become declines to state (now 1/3 of all voters) or have joined third parties. How about if we start becoming Dems again and encourage the disgruntled real Dems to join us. Let's forget about the Hooverites.

[Selatius]

79. You can't be a Dem if you take corporate cash (DLC)

Look at the DLC and their donor list. It's getting money from Fortune 500 giants, and their economic interests simply don't square with the interests of the majority of Americans. Nader is right and wrong when he says that both parties are the same. He is wrong to assume that grassroots Democrats are the same as their counterparts on the right, but he is right if we're talking about the leadership and the careerists in the Democratic Party taking corporate cash and looking out for the corporatists and their own interests instead of the people's.

As long as you have an election system where politicians must go out and solicit money for their campaigns, then the ones with the most money and the most resources have an advantage everytime. There are exceptions where the underdog can win, but generally, the system is stacked against the little man.

If we want to change the country for the better, we must change our party first before anything else. We need to get our household in order before we even think of taking it outside to the rest of America.

[Vadem]

78. I'm right there with you, honey!.....n/t