Time for some real discourse on Bushland part 2

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Why vsp is wrong (sorry dude): Andrew Coyne debunks the (lefty media) notion that Bush won with evangelicals "largest single block" turns out to mean 22%, meaning 78% of voters -- including two-thirds of Bush voters -- named some other issue.

I can't quite figure out Coyne's math, but whatever. According to what he says, one third of those who voted for Bush did so because of the "moral values" thing. Without the evangelical vote, Bush would not have won. I don't see how anyone can dispute this. Coyne treating one third of Bush's supporters as if they were merely some splinter group that is sheltered under the vast conservative umbrella is ludicrous, especially when the president shares the same values as that group.

Perhaps it is easy for people who live in the sophisticated metro areas in the eastern part of the US to write off the evangelicals as a minor voice - I don't know. I live too close for comfort to one of the country's religous right strongholds - Colorado Springs- home of Focus on the Family, etc., etc. The intolerance and prejudice evangelicals display toward members of different faiths is astonishing.

Some examples: I am friends with a man who runs a little Tibetan import shop in Colorado Springs. He carries a large stock of Buddhist related items. The last time I dropped over to see him, he related a story to me of how a woman had come into his shop in a rage and told him that his people and his religion did not belong in the US and that he should go to hell back home.

I took the daughter of a male friend of mine with me when I went to visit another shop in Colorado Springs. This one carried New Age books and items. When the girl's evangelical Christian mother found out about this, she went into hysterics and told her daughter that if she ever went to that place again, the girl was going straight to hell.

I was sitting in a coffee shop in Colorado Springs and fell into a conversation with a stranger who was sitting at the table next to mine. I mentioned the name of the town where I live, locally known as a Pagan hangout; and the man turned hostile at once. "I wouldn't keep staying up there if I were you," he said. "God is going to take care of all the witches up there, and the streets will run with blood!" I got up and walked away.

These are not isolated incidents. I could write down many, many more. Do not underestimate the religous right. They certainly are not cutting any slack to anyone else.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Do not underestimate the religous right. They certainly are not cutting any slack to anyone else.

No, I'm not ...

[jaguar]

UT - considering how close the election way, a block of 22% is huge. It is public knowledge that Rove's strategy this election was to win by motivating the religious right, it worked.

Yelof - oil is traded in Euros as well. I'm not going to say any more, such events inhabit a relm of disasters where all bets are off, I don't expect something that drastic, the world simply wouldn't let it happen, but I do expect the necessary........readjustment of things

[Undertoad]

A block of 22% is huge, but the point is that this is not the "story of the election". This is like, in American football, where the loss is blamed on the holding penalty that helped the final winning scoring drive, and the events of the previous drives are simply forgotten. Caring about that 22% means you're purposefully ignoring 78%.

Mari, there's no need for you to say something like "I can't quite figure out Coyne's math, but whatever." I actually assume a similar statement preceding every post you've ever written. "Whatever," indeed; no need to actually understand the world, full speed ahead with the blazing alarm bells you're hearing in your head today.

[jaguar]

But if you go though the groups and numbers it's that group that got him over the line, by targeting one group you're not necessarily ignoring the rest, it was a core strategy to get those groups out to vote - in many cases by *cough* subtle suggestions in church itself that did it. By the time they're finished the Supreme Court is going to make the KKK look leftist.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Mari, there's no need for you to say something like "I can't quite figure out Coyne's math, but whatever." I actually assume a similar statement preceding every post you've ever written. "Whatever," indeed; no need to actually understand the world, full speed ahead with the blazing alarm bells you're hearing in your head today.

I accepted Coyne's premise of 2/3 of Bush's support coming from people who considered other issues as or more important than the religous rights' agenda. That leaves 1/3 who considered "moral values" of primary importance. I didn't feel like going through the math to figure out how 78% of the vote over-all translated to 2/3 of Bush's support.

[vsp]

Coyne is a bit off.

True, it found the largest single block of voters identified "moral values" as the "most important election issue" -- a much cited factoid -- and that 80% of these respondents voted for Bush. But that hardly makes this election a triumph of theocracy. In the first place, "largest single block" turns out to mean 22%, meaning 78% of voters -- including two-thirds of Bush voters -- named some other issue. Second, the pollsters only managed to elevated "moral values" to number one by dividing up the other issues into subcategories. Thus "Iraq" and "Terrorism" are treated as separate issues, though grouped together as, say, "national security" they would have claimed the top spot, with 34% of the total. Likewise "taxes" and "economy" were named by a combined 25% of voters. Had "moral values" been split into "abortion" and "gay marriage," the spin would have been rather different.

1) Iraq and Terrorism ARE separate issues. Iraq has nothing to do with national security, other than how what we're doing there is increasing anti-American hatred.

There were indeed a lot of Bush voters motivated by terrorphobia and a belief that Bush would be a more competent war leader than Kerry, which is a sad indictment of much of the voting public.

2) Again, taxes and the economy are separate (if related) issues. When I think "economy" I think jobs, the stock market, layoffs, unemployment, etc., not 1040 forms. They're not unrelated, but they are distinct.

3) I'm not suggesting that EVERYBODY who voted for Bush was a raving bible-thumper, not by a long shot.

But what state was the turning point? Ohio. What drew a hell of a lot of religious folk to the polls, helping to counter the major turnout in Ohio's cities? Ohio's anti-gay-marriage proposition. If that's the two-minute drill that won the game, to use your analogy that popped up while I was posting, fine -- but this was a close game until that finish, not some 49-3 blowout where the Democrats are bitching about how the last touchdown scored. In a state that lived up to its billing as being crucial to this election, they made a significant difference.

And regardless of how pivotal a role the religious right truly played, they _are_ lining up to take credit and demand action. We may not feel it quite as much up here, but there are going to be a whooooooole lot of Roy Moore and Santorum sound-alikes making life very uncomfortable in a lot of places, particularly if the Constitution Restoration Act goes through this time. With the newly revised Senate, I wouldn't bet against it, and that scares the shit out of me.

[Undertoad]

All that and he only won by 100,000? Booga booga.

If you're scared, get a dog.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag.../epolls.0.html

Taxes (5%): Bush 57%, Kerry 43%
Education (4%): Bush 26%, Kerry 73%
Iraq (15%): Bush 26%, Kerry 73%
Terrorism (19%): Bush 86%, Kerry 14%
Economy/Jobs (20%): Bush 18%, Kerry 80%
Moral Values (22%): Bush 80%, Kerry 18%
Health Care (8%): Bush 23%, Kerry 77%

Question #1. From this table, can you derive the "story of the election"?

Question #2. If "Moral Values" translates well to "evangelical", and these people were "targetted", why did 18% of them vote for Kerry?

[Undertoad]

Question #3. If some dude came up to you outside your polling place and wanted to ask you a long set of questions about why you voted the way you did, wouldn't you tell him to screw off? 3b. What kinds of people would NOT?

Question #4. If these results came from the same place as the now-infamously inaccurate "exit polls" which showed a decisive Kerry victory by mid-day, why would you want to take any lessons from them in the first place?

[Yelof]

Originally Posted by jaguar

Yelof - oil is traded in Euros as well. I'm not going to say any more, such events inhabit a relm of disasters where all bets are off, I don't expect something that drastic, the world simply wouldn't let it happen, but I do expect the necessary........readjustment of things

I believe that the only country to do that was pre-invasion Iraq!
There was some talk of Russia doing so (selling oil direct to Germany priced in €) around the time of the invasion, but I've heard nothing of it recently..I guess Putan has made his Peace with W, wonder what the price was.

I talked the pricing in Euro thing to a economist friend of mine who works in Brussels and he says it would never happen as most world government forigen reserves are in $ and the necessary re-alignment would be catistrophic.
However I guess I could imagine a regime coming to power in Saudi Arabia hostile to the US who starts an economic war on the US in this maner

[vsp]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If you're scared, get a dog.

I'd be afraid that Santorum would accuse me of harboring unnatural desires.

Question #1. From this table, can you derive the "story of the election"?

Question #2. If "Moral Values" translates well to "evangelical", and these people were "targetted", why did 18% of them vote for Kerry?

1) More people bought into the "Bush will protect us from terrorism" meme and the vague concept of "morality" (which IS a code word for religion and the pro-life movement, generally speaking) than anything else. I feel sorry for those people.

2) Not everyone who is religious is a crackpot.

The one comfort I'm drawing is from reports that if you single out the 18-29 vote in each state, Kerry wins 375-163 and takes almost everything in the eastern half of the US (excepting South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and (surprisingly) Maine). Maybe there's hope for the future.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by vsp

...If you single out the 18-29 vote in each state, Kerry wins 375-163 and takes almost everything in the eastern half of the US (excepting South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and (surprisingly) Maine). Maybe there's hope for the future.

Unfortunately, it's going to take a long time for the conservative geezers to die off.
Eh, Lincoln should have let the South go. We'd be better off.
- Pie, ashamed of my government.

[jaguar]

Yelof, depends on the level of trading. While at the moment there is no need to re-align things and yes, it would be a touch messy but in a scenario where the US currency stability is under serious doubt (generally we're looking at a scenario where the deficit increases or remains and current levels for a significant period of time combined with the current buyers of US debt - mostly Asian central banks controlling their own currencies floating their currencies forcing a situation where yields have to raise from their artificially low levels putting more pressure on the federal bank) it is a solution, or part thereof of a very complex series of political and economic machinations designed to deflect some of the impact to avoid another depression.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

All that and he only won by 100,000? Booga booga.

If you're scared, get a dog.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag.../epolls.0.html

Taxes (5%): Bush 57%, Kerry 43%
Education (4%): Bush 26%, Kerry 73%
Iraq (15%): Bush 26%, Kerry 73%
Terrorism (19%): Bush 86%, Kerry 14%
Economy/Jobs (20%): Bush 18%, Kerry 80%
Moral Values (22%): Bush 80%, Kerry 18%
Health Care (8%): Bush 23%, Kerry 77%

Question #1. From this table, can you derive the "story of the election"?

Question #2. If "Moral Values" translates well to "evangelical", and these people were "targetted", why did 18% of them vote for Kerry?

....

Question #3. If some dude came up to you outside your polling place and wanted to ask you a long set of questions about why you voted the way you did, wouldn't you tell him to screw off? 3b. What kinds of people would NOT?

Question #4. If these results came from the same place as the now-infamously inaccurate "exit polls" which showed a decisive Kerry victory by mid-day, why would you want to take any lessons from them in the first place?

1) Terrorism and moral values win the day with 20% of the reasons for voting not given.

2) Damn good targeting to pick up 82% of their vote. The other 18% didn't have the common sense brain washed out of them.

3) I might or might not tell him to screw off. Depends on how much time I had, the manner I was approached, the time of day, on and on. Without knowing the answers to these questions, I can't tell you what sort of people would be most co-operative.

4) The polls were within a 1% or 2% margin of error - enough to throw off predictions in a tight race, but still useful when analyzing over all voting trends. Also, the polls throughout the day were from an incomplete sample of voters. The final tabulations which show voting trends were finished after a complete sample was taken

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If you're scared, get a dog.

Pretty ironic thing for someone who backed the Bush terrorism = Iraq storyline to say. Paranoia isn't limited to the left.

A lot of regular Republicans got out to vote for Bush but I wonder how many election cycles they'll be on board for huge deficits and gay bashing?