Random thoughts on what I think is wrong with the country, the Democrats, Republicans, and the world in general. Or whatever else I feel like talking about.
the real reason we lost
Published on November 3, 2004 By Psikotik In Democrat
I have to admit, I was one of those who supported John Kerry, and as a whole didn't like George Bush. I believe that the war in Iraq was a distraction and based on a predetermined notion by the administration that they wanted to take Saddam out. I believe that by far his policies help those who are more well off, an attempt to recreate Reagan's "trickle down" economics which created huge deficits. I have other policy differences, but that being said, except for Iraq, I think he has done well in the war on terror.

The candidates had clear differences in fiscal, economic, healthcare and other areas. This year would be a chance for people to make a choice in which direction they wanted this country to go, to make a statement about a war that many do not support. So imagine my surprise when I saw the data and "moral issues" was the top factor in how people voted, the economy second, and terrorism THIRD.

I have no problem with moral issues influencing a persons decisions, but with so much going on in the country and in the world, I think changing the moral fiber of the country isn't the top of the list. And let's be fair, when someone says moral values, they mean "MY moral values". A person in San Francisco and an Evangelical Chrstian may both be moral people, but their moral VIEWPOINT will probably not be the same. This does not make either person less moral, or right or wrong, simply different.

This goes to a much larger issue in this country - the role of religion in politics. Approximately 20% of the total votes for George Bush were from Evangelical Christians. They voted for him by a margin of around 80% to 20% for Kerry. Their turnout was also very high due to very effective voter registration drives, organized trips to the polls and the fact that 11 states were voting on amendments to ban gay-marraige. Evangelicals as a rule are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and to a lesser degree feel that sex and violence in the media is causing a "decay" in this country. They are highly motivated, getting highly organized and feel it is their spiritual duty to save the people and this country from what they define as evils. It is their right to their beliefs - religious freedom is a cornerstone of this country, it is the last part that scares me. The laws of this country should not be based on the beliefs of the church. That is not a democracy, that is a theocracy. Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, totally infallible and this belief give to them a strong sense of rightness to what they do. I honestly don't dislike Evangelicals, my uncle is one. I am not a church-going person, but I do consider myself moral and I am frightened that a religious group is getting very close to being able to legislate it's morals and force it's beliefs on everyone.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 06, 2004
They were approximately 11.5 million of Bush's 59 million votes. He won by 3.6 million. Do you think he could have won without their overwhelming support? Do you believe that candidates from either party don't pay back those who put them in power?


You can pick lots of bogeymen out of the voting statistics - any arbitrarily defined group of about 4 million voters would do.

This is an irrational fear. You won't be reading about the Salem Witch Trials being reinstated anytime soon.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Nov 06, 2004
"Let's stop allowing Christians to vote, but let's also stop allowing Pagans and Buddhists from voting too. They bother me too. Atheists too. Muslims too. Let's place our hands in good hands: Scientologists!"


ARE YOU STUPID? IGNORANT? YOu calim that republicans are trying to change that constitution what about not allowing people who this contry was founded with vote, that makes NO sense at all.
on Nov 06, 2004

Reply #17 By: Evan Trivett - 11/6/2004 10:57:14 AM
ARE YOU STUPID? IGNORANT? YOu calim that republicans are trying to change that constitution what about not allowing people who this contry was founded with vote, that makes NO sense at all.



What are you going on about? Your post makes no sense!
on Nov 07, 2004
I reread this and you guys are pretty much right. It was my first article and I did a lousy job of articulating and supporting my point and I pretty much apologize to you all for having posted it. I shall now hang my head in shame.
on Nov 07, 2004

you have no reason to apologize.  first of all, there may be some confusion here.  drmiler is slappin evan trivett--not you (possibly not grasping the fact that theyre both on the same side unless hell suddenly froze over in the past hour).  secondly, despite arguments to the contrary, its a problem when a political party connects with a large group of coalesced or organized voters whether theyre union members or christians.  whether its a bigger problem when it involves religion may be up for discussion but clearly power can and will almost always be used to exploit a situation in hopes of more power.  

on Nov 07, 2004

Reply #20 By: kingbee - 11/7/2004 2:58:26 AM
you have no reason to apologize. first of all, there may be some confusion here. drmiler is slappin evan trivett--not you (possibly not grasping the fact that theyre both on the same side unless hell suddenly froze over in the past hour).


I ain't slappin no one. Read the sentence he worte and tell me what it says.
on Nov 21, 2004
Do the math. By your statistics, Evangelists make up only 10% of the voting populace. And that makes them roughly 6% of the adult populace! And they are going to control the country? No more so that blacks, who represent 12% of the populace, or Hispanics (12% also). You theory is severly flawed. But you do come across as an evangelical bigot. They have a right to their opinion the same as you. Does not make them more right, or more wrong, just diffferent opinions.


Your statistics are flawed. According to the exit polls, white evangelicals made up 23% of those who voted. That's pretty close to the figure of 22% that said the most important issue they are voting on are moral issues. That 23% of the voting population is now demanding to dicate to the rest of the nation is supposed to think. They can garner that support because any large block like that can effect any election. They also state they are not interested in any compromise. You are either for them or against them.

Link

Let's play with some numbers. Approximately 120 million people voted in this election. 23% of that is 27.6 million. Of that 27.6 million their votes went 21.5 million to Bush, 5.8 million to Kerry, a difference of 15.7 million votes in an election decided by about 3.5 million votes. In other words, white evangelicals accounted for over 36% of every vote Bush got. The evangelical right dominated this election. If they had voted as the other 77% of the population voted then Bush would have received 49.86 million votes to Kerry's 62.05 million votes, it would have been a Kerry landslide. Let's say the numbers are a little more balanced and Bush pulls 65% of the evangelical number, its Bush pulling 55.9 million votes to 59.81 to Kerry.

Are the two candidates so different that such a difference should exist? Should this issue alone be so important to the electorate? Both candidates stated that the are against gay marriage, that marriage is between a man and a woman. Bush called for an ammendment to the Constitution while Kerry did not deem it necessary because of the DOMA. Kerry supports civil unions, I have hear Bush does as well but can find no documentation to support it.

Bush will do nothing to change the abortion stalemate in this country. It too much of an issue for Republicans to drop. If they can continue to bring out their constituency by keeping this issue alive they will. So if Bush will do nothing to change the status quo, doesn't he in effect support a woman's right to choose as is the law of the land at this time?
2 Pages1 2