« Follow Swing States Live | Main | Yesterday »
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Evening Open Thread
Posted by DavidNYCThe results, I am sure, must be pouring in, especially from the states with early poll closing times. As for me, I'm probably back on the bus right now, finally headed home. Keeping my fingers crossed for good news.
Posted at 08:00 PM in General | Technorati
Comments
Not looking good right now in Florida.
Posted by: David Trinh at November 2, 2004 09:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I hope I get to apologize but you can take your 50% rule and stick it up 50% of your butt. Your web site had me so confident of a Kerry Victory as did the European shmuck that I would have bet the house. Its still early and I hope I get to apoligize but how hell did you guys get so far off? Michigan, Florida, and Ohio are leaning towards the Georgie... THIS SUCKS AND SO DOES THIS WEB PAGE
Jerry
Posted by: Jerry Gels at November 2, 2004 10:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Great site but I am getting depressed.
Hope things turn out okay.
Posted by: The Other Rob at November 2, 2004 10:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Lay off the guys that post on the site. They were just reporting the polls. I'll tell you, the exit polls on CNN.com have been overshooting Kerry and the Dems about 1-2%. It doesn't look very good right now, but it's not over yet.
Posted by: Brett at November 2, 2004 10:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pennsylvania for Kerry, I'm sure glad my home state didn't flip.
Posted by: Brett at November 2, 2004 10:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Local Detroit TV is projecting Kerry over Bush in Michigan by 50 to 47.
Posted by: Randy K at November 2, 2004 11:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
hey girls - stop cryin, keep breathing: can you say 1.5 MILLION absentee ballots in FL? that's over 15% of total!! don't they go like 60-40 dem, or even 2-1? the moral: we won't know the result re: FL or ohio, and thus the whole elecchilada, for 1-2 days i think. GO KERRY !!!! GOOOOOOO KERRY !!!!
Posted by: BIGBOB at November 2, 2004 11:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Back in January, I recall a conversation between myself and a Bush supporter. It was just after Kerry won the Iowa caucuses. We were discussing the states that needed to shift from one column to the other in the Presidential election in 2004. I said 3 words, and I quote, "Ohio, Ohio, Ohio."
Posted by: bigguy at November 2, 2004 11:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
ABC has just put FLORIDA (!) in the Bush column. Oh. My. God. I cannot believe this. I'm STRESSED OUT.
Posted by: pepe at November 2, 2004 11:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The margins are extremely narrow in both places. It looks bad for Kerry, but then, it looked bad for Bush a few hours ago. There's a lot of game left.
If you're angry, don't blame a blogger donating his time to project something very difficult to predict.
But your anger where it belongs -- with the tens of millions of inbred morons casting votes for the most consistantly evil and incompetent administration in the past hundred years.
May they all burn in hell.
Posted by: Robert at November 2, 2004 11:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Robert-
I proudly voted for Bush this morning. If Kerry wins...he's the President. To suggest that half the voters in this country are inbred morons is disingenuous. You should vent your hatred somewhere more constructive...why not pick up a gun and go fight some terrorists?...you obviously don't enjoy living in the greatest Democracy in the world.
John
Posted by: John at November 2, 2004 11:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
god i can`t believe this shit, so much for the skins losing. how the hell are we going to survive the next 4 years.
Posted by: joel at November 2, 2004 11:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe:
I think it's over. I'll be honest. Tell me though, you, personally. Pepe, are you really disappointed? At this point, it doesn't matter. I know a lot of ppl. were pointing fingers at you a long time ago. Were you the devils advocate all along?
Posted by: bigguy at November 3, 2004 12:02 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It's not over yet; this is a close race and anyone who claims that a 49-48 or 51-49 election tells us who is better at policy or a better American is full of BS. But one thing I can say:
Run the averages for educational attainment; educational performance of high school students or the pulation in general; violent crime rate; and health and you'll see a big difference between the "red" and "blue" states in favor of the blue.
And the Senate runs another analysis of which states are net contributors to the national treasury and which are net recipients. As you'd expect, the blue states and a few "pink" states like Colorado are mostly paying the way and the red states are mostly recipients.
I wouldn't call anyone a moron but these facts show we are indeed two societies grounded in history. Massachussetts was the first state to have public education, at the beginning of our republic; in Alabama today they are still debating whether education should be included in the constitution.
As a Democrat (since 1994) I feel we need to do a better job building coalitions to win the "purple" states. AND we need to reform the electoral process so that soundbites (beneficial to the republicans) are replaced by real policy discussion (beneficial to the Democrats). We also need a more proportional system of election -- so that moderate Republicans don't feel forced to vote for an incompetent fanatic.
Posted by: Marc at November 3, 2004 12:13 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Once again... take your 50 percent rule and stick 100% up your butt.... You, Zogby,and electoral-vote.com. I hope I am still wrong.
Jerry
Posted by: Jerry at November 3, 2004 12:13 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
And the south is united. I'm glad I don't live there anymore.
Posted by: Brett at November 3, 2004 12:15 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Marc-
Two things...first of all...your red/blue state analysis is a load of shit.
Second...I agree that it does not appear that either party has a mandate. Even if the republicans control the White House, Senate and House, you still have to represent the forty-nine percent that voted the other way.
I would personally like to see more working across the aisle this go around...if Bush holds on to win this thing...the Dems could show good faith by approving a judicial nominee or two...they have blocked every nomination for four years. Ridiculous...(and I'm not saying that the Republicans aren't guilty of stonewalling, too, because they are.)
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 12:18 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bigguy, I'm pacing and highly stressed. I've made it clear on this board that I am a Democrat who has never gotten overly excited about Kerry. My vote for him was more a vote against Bush. Trust me, please, the thought of four more years of Bush--I can't even think about that right now.
Okay, it's not over yet. We have to wait and see what happens in Ohio--especially Cuyahoga County. I've been writing for several months that OH would be ground zero. I guess I got that right. I also thought it would be a very tough (but not impossible) state for Kerry to crack. It still is, but it's still not impossible. I hope the African-American turnout in Cleveland was extremely high.
I just can't believe it. The world must think the most powerful nation on earth is inhabited by a bunch of fools--and they're right. Sigh.
Posted by: pepe at November 3, 2004 12:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It isn't looking good in OH. 76% of Cuyahoga has reported. We need 120,000 votes and we might get 60,000 from Cuyahoga.
Posted by: DFuller at November 3, 2004 12:29 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Yep, the rest of Cuyahoga has to streak at 85%-15% to give Kerry a shot.
Posted by: Brett at November 3, 2004 12:31 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe:
You have been saying that Ohio is ground zero in this election for months. You have made it clear that you have deep roots in Ohio, and understand the politics of the state better than most. You have also been saying that Kerry had little chance in carrying Ohio. I admit that I have been looking through rose-colored glasses, and was expecting a Kerry landslide. But you are still holding out hope in Cuyahoga county??? Do I read that correctly? BTW, Pepe, I am an ex-pat living in BC, Canada, originally from Northern Maine, and I am renouncing my citizenship tomorrow. I am serious! And God help all those who helped re-elect that motherfucker Bush!!! Because I wish nothing but fuckin' ill to all those Americans who voted for this fuckin' pig!! One more thing. I can only hope that Osama bin Laden brings the wrath down on Amerircans that is truly desreved after this fuckin' debacle tonight!
Posted by: bigguy at November 3, 2004 12:32 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bigguy-
good riddance....America doesn't want you, either.
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 12:39 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Although there are a lot of votes still to count, Fox has Bush at 266 votes (FL, OH) Alaska puts him at 269...NM or NV puts him over the top.
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 12:43 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
John,
I draw no conclusions from this except there are real cultural diferences at work. Of course, low crime rates and higher educational acheivement is a plus. I can give you the stats:
murder rate: 3x as high in the south as in New England or the upper midwest; the only exception is California.
NAEP scores measure acheivement of HS students: highest in the Upper Midwest, New England, and Pacific Northwest. Lowest in the South. Again, the Dakotas may be an exception for the Red States, and California an exception for the Blue States.
For the Senate study, I wish I could find the link right to the non-partisan study but the map of payer/recipient states can be found at:
http://www.edthibodeau.com/nonplussed/2003/10/im_surprised_th.html
and the pattern holds despite a few excpetions.
Divorce rates and teen pregnancy also follow a similar pattern, by the way.
Again, we're all entitled to our opinions but not to our facts. Facts are NOT a load of ____.
And yes, absent a moderate candidate or party, we do need across the aisle cooperation. It would be nice if we'd focus on electoral reform, i.e. non-partisan redistricting of House districts.
Posted by: Marc at November 3, 2004 12:43 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Now, let me put it THIS way.
We were trailing behind by almost 300 thousand votes in Ohio.
Alright, there aren't really a lot of precincts left to be counted in Ohio, BUT: which votes would you expect to turn out the latest in a state where polls had to be kept open for longer hours to have everyone cast a vote who had the right to do so and where the Republican party tried to delay and fight the turnout?
I'd guess: those which still haven't reported are a) biggies and b) not really GOP-leaning precincts.
I think that's still a "can do"!!!
Posted by: Bornheimer at November 3, 2004 12:45 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
269 does put Bush over the top. He does not need 270. The House will vote Bush and Senate vote Cheney if there is a 269-269 tie.
Posted by: DFuller at November 3, 2004 12:46 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
John, it's not nice to kick people where they are down. Please show some respect and just let us vent alone.
Posted by: Brett at November 3, 2004 12:46 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Yes, I heard in Cleveland and suburbs there were lines. And if its close enough, there are also provisional ballots. Anyone know if all the absentee ballots have been counted?
Posted by: Marc Cittone at November 3, 2004 12:48 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Fox is the only network to put Bush ahead in Ohio at this point... repeat of 2000, except I noticed they were one of the LAST to call Florida tonight. Irony?
Posted by: pwoodson at November 3, 2004 12:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Marc-
At the risk of sounding racist...which I am NOT, I would suggest that you could break those statistics down further, and find higher crime rates in the solid blue cities (Washington DC, Gary Indiana, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc). I think you would also find a larger education gap in those areas.
If you look at the electoral map by County, you will see that large areas of the States you name are actually red...the blue areas are concentrated around the Urban centers.
I think you will also find a disproportionate amount of public money going into those areas through a variety of tax breaks and/or social programs.
Having said that, I am actually a social moderate, and feel that we need to spend even more in these areas, focusing more on education, job training and intensive in-patient drug treatment as opposed to strictly enforcement. I worked for nearly a decade in Gary, Indiana. Do you know that there is not ONE intensive drug treatment center that Judges can refer addicts to? They are all out-patient type programs. Compare that with 18 million a year in HIDTA enforcement money being poured into federal task forces.
Also, I am a product of the Detroit Public School System, which (located in a blue city within a blue state) still did me Justice.
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 12:52 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Brett-
Sorry...not trying to kick you while your down...I really do mean it when I say that we need more bi-partisanship. It pisses me off the way politicians play all of us...if you don't feel like Kerry has played you...you ain't payin attention. We all get played...that's the nature of the game. We need to hold them accountable, and make them represent us.
Seriously...if you throw out the fifteen percent on the far right and the fifteen percent on the far left (to include Michael Moore), you end up with a seventy percent that actually agree on a majority of the issues. However, our party affiliations keep us at odds over silly details. I would like to see more cooperation this go around...maybe Barak Obama MEANS what he says and will be a voice of reason in the Senate. I wish him luck.
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 12:56 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Apparently, Fox has given Ohio to Bush. Has anyone else? You don't know how much I wish Shar had been right and I had been wrong about the Buckeye State.
Cuyahoga County is one of the most Democratic counties in America. I don't know how much of the vote is left to count there, but apparently it's not enough. I'm on the verge of tears. Yes, I always thought it would be a hard-fought election, and an uphhill battle for Kerry. Over the past few days, I was feeling more optimistic, though. I am extremely down right now.
So much for polls, which I felt were completely unreliable over the fiinal weeks. Zogby and others have a lot of egg on their face at the moment, don't they?
Posted by: pepe at November 3, 2004 12:57 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm afraid FOX might be right about Ohio, as OH has changed back to a Bush lead of 190 thousand.
Well, after all we might still see a tie if NH and Nevada stay the way they are as but at least that would mean an improvement to 266:271...of now and the other states don't change compared with 2000.
Doesn't change the effect, though.
Posted by: Bornheimer at November 3, 2004 12:57 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
NBC just projected Bush the winner of Ohio. I feel sick.
Posted by: pepe at November 3, 2004 01:00 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Thanks John. I'll admit I was never a Kerry fan and the Michael Moore wing certianly hurt Kerry's image more than the Pat Robertson wing hurt Bush's image.
Posted by: Brett at November 3, 2004 01:00 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm afraid we are all going through the steps of grief
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, & acceptance
I'm heading out of denial and right into anger.
The hell with bargaining. I think I'll be depressed for four years and ready to head into acceptance in 2008.
To all with sons and daughters in Iraq, my thoughts are with you. We tried.
Posted by: Randy at November 3, 2004 01:09 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
John, I agree in part with what you are saying but the 'burbs in many blue states and not a few rural areas in New England and Upper Midwest are blue ... the land are of red rural areas shouldn't obscure the population breakdown. I think a deeper analysis would point out that a moire integrated, middle-class society tends to be less right-wing -- i.e. its often said that Whites vote over 50% Republican but this doesn't bear out in much of New England. Divisions in society (ie where class and race overlap) create a sense of distrust.
I agree with you about needing to find that middle 2/3 or whatever it might be. "Liberal" and "conservative" these days refer more to what kind of person the politician is and h/her view ona few social issues. Then they foist stupid policies on us like the deficits and libertarian/fundamentalist policies of the Republican right, or the defense of outdated welfare provisions of the old guard left.
The answer to me is always elecotrla reform. Isntant runoff voting; non-partisan redistricting; free air time to do an end-run around the money in politics. We as Americans too often don't understand these issues and so criticise the individual politicians. A better system would not only allow politicans to be better and more moderate people, but also attract better people to politics. Who wants to raise millions and have you and your family dragged thru the mud?
I recently talked with a Republican for Kerry about getting moderates to take over the Reform party (thye have ballot access in many places) and pushing these sorts of reforms.
Posted by: Marc at November 3, 2004 01:11 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It's over. Bush made an almost fatal error by ignoring OH for 20 days for states he couldn't win - MI & PA, but he prevailed. I thought we could capitalize off Bush���s error of trying so hard for PA. Honestly, I was thinking until about a week ago that OH was our best shot and FL was out of reach because of four hurricanes. I was right, but I had changed my mind after we got some decent polls out of FL. The Democrats must run someone out of the South or border states in 2008. Kerry did the best he could. The fact was he was too far left for the South and border states. Honestly, I really thought Gephart should have been on the ticket instead of Edwards. I thought that MO was a target state. Edwards brought us nothing. He was like Dan Qualye.
Posted by: DFuller at November 3, 2004 01:12 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This appears to be a terrible night for Democrats. Our party has to look itself in the mirror and figure out what is wrong. Today's election demonstrates that there is a huge cultural divide between north and south and that no matter what is happening in the news, a northern Democrat will never carry a southern state. Furthermore, this election demonstrates that at its core America is a conservative country. The Democrats are going to have to figure out a way to move right and soon.
Posted by: Michelle at November 3, 2004 01:14 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ahem... one really shouldn't bury a state that's still alive...
I've just crunched the numbers from Cuyahoga a little bit.
It looks as though there are still roughly 60 to 70 thousand votes potential lead for Kerry in Cuyahoga County alone to mount a bridge over the current 101 thousand votes lead of Bush in all of Ohio.
AND
There are roughly another 50 thousand potential lead left in Lucas County, where only 35.56 % of the precinct have been counted!!!
Including some Kerry gains in, say, Franklin County [potential additional Kerry lead there: 10 to 20 thousand] to outweigh Republican gains in some other counties' smaller precincts, the race for Ohio's 20 electoral votes might still be open!!!
Posted by: Bornheimer at November 3, 2004 01:15 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Looks bad in Ohio but you never know -- at least this was close. We need a midwesterner, or better yet, a southwesterner/Colroadoan next time. I always thought they should've held the convention in Columbus, OH, not Boston. And Edwards -- not the best decision, I heard the party insiders forced him on Kerry.
I think Kerry is not "too left" but too culturally liberal, coastal, blue, whatever you want to call it, for some. If you look at real divisions -- well, Bush in desperationa few days ago said he favored gay union.
Posted by: Marc at November 3, 2004 01:17 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
CNN hitting hard on the theme that the huge disparity in the popular vote due to a value/faith disconnect between the Democrats and most of America.
Posted by: Brett at November 3, 2004 01:18 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Fuller-
I figured Kerry was going to pick Edwards...and I thought it was a mistake. The South knows that Edwards is a liberal...he ran against Lauch Faircloth as a conservative D, and won....North Carolina had no plans to put him back in the Senate, never mind the white house.
Gephart, on the other hand, has maintained his popularity at home, and probably would have delivered a key state to Kerry...maybe even Ohio to go along with MO. I think Kerry should have thought twice about Edwards...interesting you felt that way, too.
As far as 2008...DON'T RUN HILLARY! If the Democrats want a serious shot at the White House, they have to find someone that everyone can identify with. They have to run a moderate to conservative candidate. They can put a liberal on the ticket with him, but they really need someone that doesn't have the baggage that Kerry had going in...the Liberal label didn't help him, either. If this election weren't a referendum on Bush, Kerry would have gotten blown out of the water...a lot of people simply voted against Bush.
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 01:19 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
CNN is saying there may be 200,000 provisional ballots in OH (may) and that in 2000, 90% were found to be valid. Given Bornheimer's numbers I wouldn't call it yet.
Posted by: Marc at November 3, 2004 01:19 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
DavidNYC, Pepe et. al.;
I am so grateful for the outlet you provided us throughout this electoral campaign. It was as much therapy as analysis on some days. For that, I thank you.
Now, regarding my rant. I will not apologize. America has gone in a very dangerous direction, and I believe the policies of Bush and co. are playing right into the hands of Bin laden and co. I see one religious zealotry versus another. So be it. I choose reason. I am afraid though that the American ppl. tonite have chosen zealotry. And I admit that I hope both brands of zealotry destroy each other!!!
As for DavidNYC, Pepe, DFuller, and others, I want to tell you. You and all like you are welcome up here in Canada. I have made a life up here, and it is beautiful. Finger pointing and ultra-morality just doesn't exist here. You wanna smoke a joint? That's your business! You wanna smoke pole? Again, your business!! Now guys, you just gotta ask yourself...who among us are actually living free????
Again, DavidNYC, thank you and good luck in the future
Geoff
Posted by: bigguy at November 3, 2004 01:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Michelle-
I think a lot of people felt that Michael Moore helped Kerry, by bashing Bush....I think it may have backfired to an extent. The Michael Moore's tend to be the faction that polarize people (like Newt Gingrich or Pat Robertson). He is really a repulsive human being.
Does anyone really think that his self-aggrandizing was about calling for reform? He made a mint off of the Democrat base, who were looking for something to hang their hat on. A lot of moderates don't want guys like him influencing the Presidency...when you see him in the Presidential box at the convention....it's just not good. I was personally glad when Newt Gingrich went back home!
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 01:26 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ohio has closed back down. 100k now. Heavy districts in Hamilton and Cuyu..err Cuy...CLEVELAND'S DANG COUNTY!!! all that's left
CNN took it off the board for Bush.
200 or so in cleveland still outstanding.
Plus, there's about 120k who demanded provisionals +teh absentees. About 2/3 of these usually end up having to be counted. But don't come back and tell me to shove those 2/3 if Kerry loses.
Just reporting what I see and hear.
Posted by: greg at November 3, 2004 01:28 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Yes, I am born American but to Canadian parents. A Canadian who taught English in Japan was asked, "Whats the difference between Canada and the U.S." He said, in general, Canadians love their family, Americans love money. I don't want to debate if this is true, but it shows the Canadian identity -- how they see themselves. Nova Scotia recently voted to maintain a Sunday closure on shops so that there is time for family life and leisure. In Canada, when you say "morality," it refers to tolerance (ie. culture, sexual orientation), health care for all children, murder and crime rates dramatically lower than in the U.S. (even if you just comapre white Americans to white Canadians, the murder rate is three times as high in the US). They are fighting with us in Afghanistan but opposed to the Iraq war. In America, on the other hand ... "morality" for many refers to a certain interpretation of scripture.
Democrats should learn from this. We should never run away from the morality debate.
Posted by: Marc at November 3, 2004 01:31 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Something else I have said many times here, is that the Democratic party has got to find a way to make peace with the South. Kerry did say late last spring "he could win without the South." Well, when a large, powerful region like the South (whose influence is burgeoning) is largely ignored, it makes the pathway to victory so much harder. Yes, Edwards is a Southerner, but as I said, he was not very popular in his home state of NC. Personally, I like him, but Edwards was not the right choice. Until the Democrats find a candidate to appeal to at least some of the South, they will be marginalized and on the sidelines. This pains me to see the South more solid than ever--Bush won by large margins just about everywhere here.
I live in NC, but I live in one of the most liberal, Democratic parts of the state--Chapel Hill, which is as liberal as any place in America. Gays can be openly gay here, we love France, we hate the war in Iraq, and we are not religious zealots--well, you get the picture. Sorry for the rant, but I'm taking this all very hard.
Posted by: pepe at November 3, 2004 01:34 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm with you Pepe. Election is quite over yet, hopefully those Ohio provisional ballots are real.
Posted by: Brett at November 3, 2004 01:36 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Talking about FAUX NEWS's polls... They seemed to have called that Northern Maine Congressional District for Bush a while ago, as Maine was shown blue with red stripes. A new refresh showed an all-blue Maine.
Posted by: Bornheimer at November 3, 2004 01:37 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The Republicans have done a great job of using Congressional votes to entrap us and win big in the P.R. category:
Ban on partial birth abortion WITHOUT exceptions for life of mother.
Proposed Constitution Amendment to discriminate against homosexual.
The worst thing that could have happened in 2004 for the Democratic Party was the courts saying that laws banning same sex marriages in MA was illegal. Basically, they took the P.R. opportunity and ran with it. Their argument was moronic: it violates the sanctity of marriage. What does a homosexual couple getting married have to do with the sanctity of my marriage? There are only two people who can violate the sanctity of my marriage: my spouse and myself.
We fight the good fight too much. President Clinton could have cut taxes in the late 90's, but instead he felt it was necessary to work on reducing the federal debt. Now, Bush borrows more and spends more than anyone ever and they try to say we are the big spenders. Just like under Reagan: borrow and spend and let someone else pay the bill.
What we need in 2008 is a strong leader. A new face on our party to unite around.
Posted by: DFuller at November 3, 2004 01:38 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe,
I agree but how? Hopefully, appealing to more "purple" voters, plus population changes in NC and VA, can put those states in our column. Arkansas, we have a fighting chance.
What are the issues to make peace on. Is it abortion? (I've suggested protecting abortion rights only in the first trimester and for rape, incest and health; and letting the states regulate beyond that.) Is it race? Militarism?
Posted by: Marc Cittone at November 3, 2004 01:38 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
One more thing:
Whoever called Stark County a "bellwether" - I hope the guy was right...
Stark
Kerry, John F. Democratic 92,295 50.43%
Bush, George W. Republican 89,859 49.10%
Badnarik, Michael 463 0.25%
Peroutka, Michael Anthony 397 0.22%
Schriner, Joe -WI 2 0.00%
Zych, Thomas F.-WI 1 0.00%
Cobb, David Keith-WI 0 0.00%
Duncan, Richard A.-WI 0 0.00%
Parker, John T.-WI 0 0.00%
Harris, James -WI 0 0.00%
Precincts Reporting: 100.00% [!!!] 183,017
Posted by: Bornheimer at November 3, 2004 01:39 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
OH 102,000 votes for Bush with 92% reporting -- so 8% + absentee ballots (if not counted) + provisional ballots -- no one wants to call OH.
Posted by: Marc at November 3, 2004 01:41 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Born-
Fox didn't give Bush one main vote...they gave Kerry three and left one undecided. A little while ago, they said there is a complex formula for the final EV and it appeared that Kerry would win that vote.
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 01:43 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
And they say the law is they won't count (OH) for 11 days.
Posted by: Marc at November 3, 2004 01:44 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Sorry..that is Maine....not main.
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 01:44 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Can anyone recommend a good form of post election therapy? (I've already tried drinking, and I don't think that will last me 4 years)
Posted by: anonymous at November 3, 2004 01:45 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bless you, Geoff. I love your country, too, and thanks for the invitation! When I lived in Ohio, I often would go to Toronto--which remains one of my favorite cities. I just hope the rest of the world understands that nearly half of us Americans share their values and concerns.
Posted by: pepe at November 3, 2004 01:45 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Mark, I don't pretend to have the answers, but the party needs to do some soul-searching on how to make themselves competetive in the South. I'm sure this is something the Democrats will strive to do over the next eight years. For better and for worse, the South has always been an almost "larger than life" player in American politics--going back to when the colonies won their independence from England.
Posted by: pepe at November 3, 2004 01:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Hey...I'm not trying to stir things up...well, maybe just a little...
Does anyone know which two precincts these are that are only fifty percent in? They look like they are going heavy to the Republican in the House race...
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states/OH/index.html
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 01:50 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
My post-election therapy -- forget about it for a while. Then work on a ballot initiative campaign -- something progressive (ie forward thinking) that is liekly to pass. Maybe something on electoral reform. Also, all our cities have boards and commissions that serve to advise the decision-makers on certain specific issues. THey take volunteers and generally there's a lack of qualified people willing to put in the one meeting a month plus some reading. Anything to move my community forward.
Posted by: Marc at November 3, 2004 01:51 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It looks like Butler, Hamilton and Clermont County have a lot of numbers to kick in still.
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 01:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe,
If Colorado turns blue ... we really wouldn't need OH or FL or the south but still, I dont think thats the way to go. If we pursue what I've ehard called an Ohio strategy -- more moderate leadership true to our values but without the things that turn off some "purple" voters -- can we work on keeping the midwest and winning around the edges in the south -- ie NC, VA, AK, TN, Missouri ... or do we need an explicitly "southern" strategy. I cant imagine the deep south going Democratic for a generation or two.
The way the states break, as I see it, also causes challenges for Dems in the Senate.
Posted by: Marc at November 3, 2004 01:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Just a thought...about what might have gone wrong for the dems.
In Ohio...Bush won fifty percent of the women's vote, 16 percent of the african-american vote, thirty-five percent of the hispanic vote. He won twenty-seven percent of the male minority vote in Ohio.
I think the Democratic party has taken the african-american vote for granted for too long. Maybe AA voters are willing to stake their political capital for change. It seems like I am meeting more and more AA voters who are disillusioned with the party and really can't stand the likes of Jesse Jackson et al. They are progressives, only progression for them means making the most out of their political capital...not letting a devisive bomb-thrower tell them how to vote.
Also...I agree with the earlier post about Kerry about him being a little too Ivy League. That probably didn't help the AA vote, either. I'm thinking a lot of AA voters may have stayed home, too...
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 02:05 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm depressed (for some stupid reason, I posted as 'anonymous' above). I live in a conservative township, county, region... possibly even state.
In West Michigan, conservative faith seems to rule most politics. I've opted to stay here (I'm questioning why tonight), and I feel like any Democratic effort to change things here is in vain. Of course, I'm assuming Ohio will go to Bush--so I feel like I've gotten a 1-2 punch with the passing of the "we hate gays" amendment to our constitution. Add to that the re-election of a Senator who thinks with his bible... like I say, I'm depressed. I don't know what I can do politically to change things, and I've tried.
Tell me it's too early to feel defeated. Tell me that this nation will eventually realize that, if there is "sanctity" to marriage, God will protect it, and it is up to us to protect the sanctity of our constitution. Tell me that I will get to pay taxes and know that something is being done with them. Tell me, and I'll try to believe you--but it is getting difficult.
I don't want to run. I don't want to leave my home (Cannon Township, Grand Rapids, Michigan, America--take your pick as to what is my 'home'). But I don't know how to change it.
Posted by: cwhite at November 3, 2004 02:06 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
@John: You just can't stop rubbing salt into other people's fresh and bleeding wounds, eh?
Butler is at 100%.
Hamilton will be an increas of app. 5,000 votes for Bush.
Clermont County, though, is a 16,000 votes-difference-problem.
btw: You forgot Warren County - app. 7,000 more for your guy...
Summed up on the premise that the rest of the precincts does as the other ones in their counties AND being about the same size of population, the current ~150,000 Bush-votes lead in Ohio will be reduced to ~80,000 due to potential gains still left in the counties Cuyhoga, Summit and Lucas.
Posted by: Bornheimer at November 3, 2004 02:09 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Hey everybody...
I think I'm going to bed...I just had a couple of things left to say...
Sorry if I pissed anyone off...I am a political junkie, and like you...I support my guy.
However, like most of the people on this board, I and many other Republicans are getting tired of not seeing progress. I believe in Bush, and think he can turn things around...but he can lose a large portion of the Republican base if he doesn't deliver. We need to pay attention to the deficit, finish fixing the "no child left behind" program so it does everything it was designed to do, and repair our relationships internationally...where it is feasible to do so. (I think people might be surprised at which countries are actually helping us with the war on terror -- while publicly decrying US policy...I'll give you a hint...France and Russia are two of them).
Peace
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 02:17 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Yes. The deficit needs to be worked on.
Posted by: Brett at November 3, 2004 02:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm exhausted and feeling like that Statue of Liberty print at the top right hand corner of this board called "Statue of Limitations." It's been a long, almost surreal night that started out so promising and ended in a nightmare. Sigh.
Posted by: pepe at November 3, 2004 02:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Something else I have said many times here, is that the Democratic party has got to find a way to make peace with the South.
I disagree. It is precisely our attempts to make peace witht the south that have cost us our base. It cost us in minority turnout, and vote percentage. And that is what cost us this election. It's this pandering to a constituency we lost when LBJ signed the civil rights act that is costing us elections. We need to do what's right, not bow down to someone that's not going to vote for us anyway. This Zell Miller claptrap about how the Democratic party needs to go to the right is just that. Claptrap. It's cost us the women's vote too. The fact is, the racist, sexist, morality flapping Southerners are NEVER going to compromise with us. Our Oklahoma Senate candidate tried. Our N. Carolina Senate Candidate tried. Where are they today? Pffft.
If you bargain with the Devil, you will get burned. I think we ought to do precisely what the Union did in the civil war. Run right down old man river, pinch off the border states and choke the south right out. That's what Clinton did. He didn't make peace with the south. HE CARVED IT UP!!!
When you overly pander to those not in your base, you lose your base.
Posted by: Greg at November 3, 2004 03:04 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I am done with politics for good. Never getting involved again, never voting again, shredding my registration card.
Posted by: The Other Rob at November 3, 2004 03:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
DavidNYC--
We're lookin' at Ohio. Neither of us is happy. I'm drunk, cause what the hell else is there to do. Our fingers are crossed. We're awaiting the results of a referendum on American policy on a post 9/11 world...
This is my first post on your blog, but I've been reading for a long while. I congratulate you on a fine job of creating this site. I've learned alot. It's been interesting. Damned if I know what happened in never-outside-the-marign Florida; you and everyone else were right to call it close. The long and the short of this post is:
Come what may, DavidNYC, you built a great site, and I appluade your commitment and effort. Thanks.
Posted by: lenhart at November 3, 2004 03:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
welcome to Germany circa 1933
Posted by: larry at November 3, 2004 04:06 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bornheimer:
if you and other republicans are tired of not seeing progress, then why is Bush going to win re-election? I have read all of the thoughts here about the Democrats missteps, but to me the sad thing is that Bush will not win with a landslide. Right now the gap between the two candidates seems to about 3.5 million people. When I look at all of "almost" states for Kerry, I see that nearly half of the electorate didn't want Bush to be re-elected. Bush did not have a mandate last time and he won't this time, but that didn't stop him in Iraq. Terrorists need to anihlated, but American bi-partisan values need to be protected, like the environment and equal civil rights for all. The Bush administration has been regressive in so many areas that have received bi-partisan support for the past 20 years. Mandate or no mandate, they will continue this behavior. They will continue to ignore fiscal conservatives and then take military action against Iran, an oppressive theocratic that became that way as a result of America's support of the Shah. But how many of the Bush supporters know that the Iranians fighting for Democracy there have been violently persecuted for their beliefs? No, Iran is just a member of the "Axis of Evil". The Bush vision has depressing and terrifying ramifications for the planet. Iraq has been a propaganda windfall for global terrorists. How long do we have to wait before their new recruits hit us? And how long before Iraqi citizens and foreign troops stop dying because of our destabilization of their country?
If you and other like-minded Republicans want progress then why the hell is the world about to be subjected to 4 more years of the whims of this puppet and his masters?
I am less depressed by Kerry's loss than the perceived lack of political intelligence of those who voted for Bush. I don't want to dismiss these people, but so much of their support for him seems to be out of blind loyalty to him and not a careful and well-informed understanding of what his government is doing to this country. It nauseates me. Do they wake up in a month or a year or two and go "oops I did it again"? WTF? Bush and his masters will continue to shred the bill of rights, run up the deficit, protect polluters, militarize American culture and cut tax revenue. But he's a Christian, so praise him!!!
Posted by: djk at November 3, 2004 04:31 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Comparison to state polls with final vote result. I use my own estimates, based on a weighted average of the last 5 polls on race2004.net, looking only at those states that have at least 5 polls in the last two months. The numbers are: projected difference, realized difference, and difference between those two. Differences in favor of Kerry are shown as positive, and the states are given in categories by projected winner and ordered by poll-vote difference within categories.
strong Bush states:
LA -20 -15 +5
TX -23 -23 0
KY -19 -20 -1
KS -24 -25 -1
OK -31 -32 -1
IN -18 -21 -3
SC -13 -17 -4
GA -13 -18 -5
SD -15 -23 -8
AL -14 -26 -12
weak Bush states:
NV -5 -3 +2
CO -4 -7 -3
VA -5 -8 -3
MO -5 -8 -3
AZ -7 -11 -4
NC -9 -13 -4
AR -3 -9 -6
WV -7 -13 -6
TN -7 -14 -7
swing states:
MI +2 +3 +1
WI 0 +1 +1
MN +3 +3 0
PA +2 +2 0
NH +2 +1 -1
NM 0 -1 -1
OH 0 -2 -2
IA +2 -1 -3
FL +2 -5 -7
weak Kerry states:
NJ +4 +7 +3
ME +8 +8 0
WT +8 +7 -1
OR +8 +5 -3
strong Kerry states:
NY +17 +18 +1
IL +11 +11 0
CA +10 +9 -1
MD +11 +7 -4
On average the voting came out about 2% better for Bush than the state polling. However, that difference is larger in the Bush states and smaller in the Kerry states.
Posted by: Andre at November 3, 2004 05:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
@djk
I beg your pardon? "Bornheimer: you and other republicans"?
*lol* Now, THAT'S a nice one!
A fellow student once told me that I was "too much of a conservative catholic" on some issues - but usually I am moreoften referred to as a "this horrible leftist menace"... ;-)
I happen to be a die-hard left-wing German Green (and union member, of course! - just in cases someone in here is into "party identification"... *g*), currently acting as some sort of "chief whip" of a university's student parliament's biggest (and only left-wing-) opposition group... ;-)
May I just advice you that the signature of an entry in here is placed *BELOW* the entry...?
Therefore I guess you're most certainly refering to "John".
Regards,
PJ.
Posted by: Bornheimer at November 3, 2004 05:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm up, looking the way I feel: dressed in black from head to toe, and going to work on less than two hours' sleep. Oh, and I have a meeting after work, too. I still cannot believe the events of last night. What went so wrong? I experienced it all, and I still feel like a doe in the headlights, not knowing what the heck hit me.
Adding insult to injury, people in 11 states voted for gay discrimination--and by large margins, too. I weep for my country. I guess the one positive to remember is that about half of us really do think like Canadians and Europeans.
Posted by: pepe at November 3, 2004 06:40 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Well,
It looks like it is time to make some decisions in the Democratic party. To lay it out on the line, the Dems lost this election based on one issue: Abortion. I come from a practicing Catholic family from PA. We are all Democrats and vote that way consistantly. I do not vote the abortion issue even though I see abortion as a moral wrong. I am a Democrat because I want economic security for my family and respect in the word for my country. My question to all of you: Is there room for a Bob Casey Jr. among you? (or the like) He is the poster-child Pro-Life Democrat. I am tired of seeing us go down to defeat by being dragged down by abortion. If not it may be time to shatter the Democratic party and let hard-line social libs go their own way. That way I will not have to see good people vote against their economic interests (and for big corporations!) because they can't live with themselves to for for a candidate that supports abortion.
Posted by: Tom at November 3, 2004 07:36 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Tom-
What about Barak Obama? He definitely has a bright future...he is already talking about listening to his constituents...the ones who voted for him AND the ones who didn't. Finally a Senator who gets it. He is a guy that can get things done in Washington...I'm predicting it here first...he will co-sponsor some good bi-partisan legislation that helps America.
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 08:20 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I doubt that Gephardt would have done better than Edwards on the ticket. If he's that popular in Missouri, why isn't he a Senator ?
Ultimately, the crucial decision of the election may prove to be Kerry's decision to spend time in FL towards the end. I can understand the rational for doing so --- it protected him against the possibility of a defeat in WI. But that time spent in OH may have won him the election.
Kerry actually did manage to defend PA, MI, WI and MN. He seems to have done better in IA and NM than the polls indicated. But OH, the big prize remained just out of grasp.
I think turnout was key. In OH and FL, Republicans had spent years building a disciplined turnout machine. The Democrats could not match that effort in the few months they had.
I continue to believe that Bush Jr is one of the worst presidents of the 20th century, and that a stronger, more centrist Democrat could have shredded him. The consolation is that all of his life, Bush has had others such as his dad clean up his messes. Now, he's got s into a mess in Iraq and in the deficit that he has to clean up by himself.
The other minor consolation is that I'm not likely to see my taxes raised (I belong to the $200K plus crowd that Kerry had said would get tax increases), although I believe they are necessary to fix the deficit. Let George Bush try and fix the deficit too.
Posted by: erg at November 3, 2004 08:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
As a Brit, I can say this -- who bloody cares ?
Look, economic might is slipping away from the US, as its huge budget and fiscal deficits continue. Manufacturing and high-end services are moving abroad. I admit I was ambivalent earlier about the prospect of China and India getting more powerful economically and militrarily (especially China -- India at least is a democracy).
No more. As the US involves itself in misadventures like Iraq, it loses blood and treasure. Britan did so 60-80 years back, only to lose our empire and predominant power position. The same will happen to the US.
It wont happen in 4 years, or 8, or maybe even 20. But it will happen. And I for one am pleased, especially if the US continues to elect warmongers like Bush.
Posted by: jik at November 3, 2004 08:35 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
John -- I think you've been a lot more restrained than some of us might have been in your situation, so thanks from me for that.
I think the Dems need to groom strong Governor's better, they are excellent candidates for president. If it had not been for the power crisis, Gray Davis could have been a contender this time around.
I will also repeat that the Dems should shut up completely about gun control at the Federal level. Gun Control cost the Dems the House in 1994, cost them the Presidency in 2000. On the subject of God and Gays, I do not believe they should change.
The Democrats also need to reach out even more to Hispanics. Its not easy to do that without losing the white blue collar voter or the African american voter. But in the West, which has few AAs, it should be possible. One of the reasons CA seems to have fallen permamently into the Dem camp at the Presidential level was Republican Pete Wilson's perceived Hispanic bashing. I think that Arizona, NM, NV and CO should be very competitive in 2008 (unless its McCain running !!). Even Texas may be competitive in 20 years.
The North East, including NH next time, will probably remain Dem territory. The Left Coast seems to remain Democratic at the Federal level. IL will remain Dem. That means, the battlegrounds next time may be the same as this time: MI, PA, OH, FL. If a Bush is not running, I think FL is takeable for a Dem.
Also, the Republican turnout machine seems to have finally matched the Dem machine. The Dems need to work on the mechanics of this.
Posted by: erg at November 3, 2004 08:57 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think that you all did a stellar job of informing eachother and others about the polls. However, I am deeply dissapointed to read a list of concessions that you think might make Dems viable among the mainstream. By this logic, maybe the Dems should look at becoming the party of the rich. Maybe they should look into policies of exclusion. If we deprecate homosexuality we could pick up some Southern states.
I am personally sad and afraid for this country. Our supreme court will be the most hateful we can imagine. We will have huge deficits, war un-ending, and hateful laws of exclusion. College is not affordable, healthcare is not attainable, and Walmart is unstoppable. I have no desire to continue supporting this trend. I will be looking for a new country. Thanks again for your hard work.
Posted by: Sad Black Man at November 3, 2004 09:14 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Erg-
Gloating won't fix a system that needs attention...I am sincerely hoping things will be different this time.
I think the Republicans may be strong again in 2008...depending on a number of factors. Bush tends to be overly loyal to his appointments...he even admits that he made mistakes in some of his appointments...watch for John Ashcroft to go bye-bye.
What I wonder is whether Dick Cheney will step down for "health reasons" and Bush appoint a moderate in his place. This could be McCain or it could be (pick one: Mitt Romney, Pataki or Guiliani). These guys are all left of the current Administration, but are all extremely popular in the NE. They probably also represent a broader segment of the population...which means that one of them running as an incumbent Vice President might be hard to beat.
However, I don't see Bush pushing Cheney to step down...maybe Racicot or other GOP strategists, but Bush will stand by his man...that's actually one of the things I like about him...although at some point you have to cut wood.
A moderate Republican Party would be really hard to compete with.
Also...I agree with your statement about the Republican Ground Game...putting Conservative issues on the ballot as well as mobilizing the base helped Bush a lot.
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 09:14 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Tom - I have always thought the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party in the South was Roe vs. Wade. It hurts us with the Hispanic vote and the Conservative Christian vote in the South. Although we do the work of God, the Christians here can���t get beyond abortion. The Republicans do a good job of talking about God although they never follow the footsteps of Christ. I honestly think most the South is beyond LBJ and the Civil Rights Act. Of course, this year we got backed into a corner because of gay marriage too. The Republicans did a terrific job in exploiting the issue but I still think our main problem is Roe vs. Wade.
My personal opinion about abortion: I think it is morally wrong, but I do believe the government should legislate personal morals. I came to that realization a couple years ago when I was very close to switching to the Republican Party because of the abortion issue. My wife and I were going through infertility treatments. We were at a friend���s house who is as far right as they come. It was about the same time someone had quintuplets. My friend ask me ���what would we do if we had quintuplets��� because we were going through similar treatments. I told him that we would do selective reduction (reducing the number of children down to two which would have been someone a human could safely carry.) Well he went ape and told me it was murder and wrong. I realized that our moral values were different. I didn���t think it was moral to have my wife carry more children than biologically feasible. I would be insensitive to my wife and probably cause the children to be born with major medical problems. He didn���t think it was morally right to kill a fetus, period. Who is right and who is wrong? The answer depends on your personal morals and beliefs.
Luckily, the treatments didn���t work because we adopted a beautiful girl who was born in China and I couldn���t imagine my life without her. See her pictures sometime, she is beautfiul:
[link]www.geocites.com/danlu75023[/link]
Posted by: DFuller at November 3, 2004 09:33 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I didn't get a direct answer to my last post but I think I've had some indirect ones. Can Dems come up with a more pro-life stance? Catholics are still voting Democratic 50/50 or better but I think the Dems will start to lose the Hispanic vote on this issue soon enough. From the exit polls it appears that 1/3 of Bush supporters supported him for this issue as their #1 concern!
Are you willing to soften your stance on this issue in exchange for healthcare, education, an end to warmongering and taking on corporate America?
If not, get ready to lose more elections and never see a Democratic congress again!
Posted by: Tom at November 3, 2004 09:33 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
John,
I think NM was lost this year for Kerry mainly on the abortion issue. To me "moral values" of the exit poll is basically equal to abortion.
Posted by: DFuller at November 3, 2004 09:48 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The undecided voters didn't break strongly enough for Kerry. People who decided who to vote for on Election Day:
OH (5%) Kerry 61%, Bush 39%
FL (6%) Kerry 53%, Bush 44%
NM (9%) Kerry 56%, Bush 41%
NV (8%) Kerry 48%, Bush 49%
CO (6%) Kerry 51%, Bush 46%
Posted by: DFuller at November 3, 2004 10:04 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
DFuller,
I went and saw the pictures of your daughter. She is beautiful! Congrats! Thank you for sharing your story.
Your story reveals a lot of the practical problems with the goals of the pro-life movement. There are many other factors that are tied up in it.
If the Dems are going to go in the pro-life direction they need a credible spokes person. Any long running pro-life Dem would do. Also they need to form a party position that will create real results. Constitutional restrictions on the practice, assistance for prenatal care, maybe laws to encourage adoption. There is a lot of good that can be done here and people want it.
Posted by: Tom at November 3, 2004 10:06 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
For those of you advocating the party adopt a more pro life stance, exactly how do you propose to do this? Support a constitutional ban on abortion? Abandon the idea of a litmus test for pro-choice federal judges? I agree that it is an issue that is hurting us with many voters. You could abandon the absolutist position. But remember the partial birth abortion ban was first passed by the Senate with the support of many Democrats (was it a Dem majority then?)but was vetoed by President Clinton. Support parental notification laws? Abandon support for Roe v Wade and say the states should decide? We see how well that worked for gay marriage. Maybe we need to do a better job of defining it as a women's health issue. The reality is you are not going to force women to have babies they do not want. Abortion is portrayed as something sought by irresponsible unmarried women. I think many Americans would be surprised how many of their mothers and grandmothers received abortions prior to 1973. What about every married pregnant women who receives pre-natal testing? I'm sure women in their 30s and 40s opt to abort after they hear a fetus has genetic abnormalities.
I agree, it is apparent that something in our 2004 didn't work, but I don't think abandoning the party's position on abortion will turn our fortunes around.
Posted by: Sue at November 3, 2004 11:20 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bornheimer:
All apologies. Thanks for offering a funny story and not just calling me a moron. It was late and my brain was upside down after the turn of events.
To all posters suggesting that the Democrats now change their stance / approach to abortion and other issues: WHY?
This loss sucks, but look at Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico: Bush won by between 10 and 15 thousand in each state. 10 to 15 thousand. I am no great fan of Kerry, but frankly I'd like to know how many newly registered voters in those states who favored Kerry actually voted. If Kerry had carried Nevada and New Mexico and all of the other states went the way they did, then we would be looking at a different result.
As nauseating as this is, those who support the Democrats should ask "why did me miss out by so little in those states" and "where and how did the Democrats lose certain types of voters". The right-wing doesn't surrender their values, so why should we surrender ours? We need a candidate who stands for our core values and is not a clone of the Republican candidate in too many key areas. I have a difficult time with Abortion morally, but it is a legal right and a wrenching experience for the women who choose to have it. If the Democratic party is unwilling to support difficult POV's, then why should I or any other progressive support them? They ceded the moral high ground to the Republicans on Iraq and the Patriot Act. I will continue to support Democratic candidates that appeal to me, but the party itself has alienated me by drifting from it's core values.
Posted by: djk at November 3, 2004 11:28 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Sue,
I agree that there are a lot social consequences of abandoning Roe vs. Wade.
A. unlicensed hacks performing secret abortions which are highly risky to the pregnant woman.
B. More children will be born in poverty.
C. Will there be enough people willing to adopt the additional children available? There is a surplus of people wanting to adopt now but what happens if people can no longer have abortions?
D. It is difficult enough now to find people wanting to adopt older children. When an onslaught of new babies there will be even more children in the foster child crisis.
E. The tax burden will be great on us with young mothers with no job and no insurance having babies. We will have to pay the bill for the hospital and welfare dollars to a new needy child being born.
F. Children in orphanages in China (probably Russia too) which depend on United States adoptee money will suffer greatly. (This issue is near and dear to my heart since my child was an orphan in China.) I have talked to some of the frontier families who adopted from China in the mid-90���s and they tell me of how bad the orphanages were back then. In my opinion no child should have to live in such conditions as they were before international adoption.
Also, international adoption has been great for international relations. My fellow adopters and I have show China, Russia, etc. that we are really all just caring and loving people around the world. When you go to a place like China you realize that even though your governments don���t agree on things you are all basically the same.
I morally disagree with abortion but what is the solution? The Republicans scream about the evils of it but are they willing to deal with the social issues that abolishing abortion creates?
Posted by: DFuller at November 3, 2004 11:45 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Does anyone have any desire to visit Alaska in its present pristine state? Do it quickly, because within the next 3-6 months, the equipment will be rolling in! The kids have been set loose in the candy store, and ANWR will quickly become a thing of the past. "Gotta get from under the dependence on foreign oil!!"
Posted by: bigguy at November 3, 2004 11:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bigguy,
The Republicans can only think in two year cycles.
A. Foreign oil dependence. We should be looking at the demand side not the supply side. The only way to get out from under this is to reduce consumption. We can produce near the amount we consume.
B. Huge deficits. It isn���t their problem. They don���t have to pay on it before next election. They will just pass more tax cuts and add to it because it will not have to be paid off before the next election. Shouldn't family values mean that you don't pass your unpaid bills to your children?
C. Global warming. There is no such thing to them. They don���t believe in science.
Posted by: DFuller at November 3, 2004 12:07 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bigguy-
Alaska is three times the size of Texas and much of it is uninhabitable...even for wildlife.
To suggest that opening drilling in Alaska will spoil the state is ridiculous. The impact will be minimal...
And Republicans ALSO like clean water and clean air...and wildlife...some of which can be killed for consumption. Why can't there be middle ground on some of these issues...I think that is one of the problems with the Democratic Party...it seems that everything is all or nothing.
Posted by: John at November 3, 2004 12:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Your web site was one the highlights of this election. See you in 4 years when McCain faces Hilliary.
Posted by: WistheOne at November 3, 2004 02:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'd vote for McCain in that situation.
Tom's concern over abortion is a valid one, and personally I lean slightly to the pro-life. It's such a difficult question without easy answers, but the key is eliminating the view in middle america that democrats are the party of abortion. I'm beginning to think a move to the right on abortion and gun-control is the only way to compete. The huge popular vote defeat is a statement that the democrats are hopelessly a party of the left coast, northest and Illinois right now. I don't the currently consituted democratic party holding on to places like Wisconsin and Minnesota much longer. The situation in the Senate is dire, the south is not voting for democrats in any circumstance anymore. Sheer state numbers hugely favor the GOP. Our big chance is that Bush screws up much in Iraq and other places that an angry tide votes his party out of congress in a reversal in 1994. Not something I want to hope for, but that seems to be the only way.
Posted by: Brett at November 3, 2004 03:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
ITs not a huge popular vote amrgin or huge electoral college margin. Its 3% of the popular vote. I agree that the Dems need to move to the right on gun control, dramatically. Abortion, maybe a little bit. I'm still unsure how that can be done without losing the suburban women's vote.
As far as the Senate goes, most of the South is already gone in terms of Senate seats. This was the election where practically the final Southern seats left, although Louisiana still has one Dem senator. We do need some sort of vehicle for the re-emergence of Dem leaders in the South.
Finally, we have to court the Hispanic vote. Endlessly. Salazar is the wave of the future. Without Hispanic vote, the West is gone as well.
We also need to get previously unethuasistic voters out to the polls. The Republicans did a brilliant job this year with the Evangelicals, but there are still millions of Americans who could be induced to vote Dem.
Maybe the Repubs will overreach the way they did in 1994. For all the rhetoric about small government, in most of Red America there is *NO* enthuasism for their favorite crop or ranching subidies being cut.
Posted by: erg at November 3, 2004 03:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Brett and erg:
When you suggest moving to the right on gun control and abortion, what position do you suggest the party to adopt on each issue? As I posted before regarding abortion, I don't see where there is to move except to keep it out of the platform completely. And for gun control, I think our problem is with the NRA, that any sane measures like safety locks or the assault weapons ban are publicized as attempts to completely eliminate gun ownership.
As much as I can't believe it because I dislike the man, W may just have been a tough candidate to beat. The idea that he is tough on terror. Why do people believe this? Because he says so? Because he started a war? He was president on 9/11, but people argue that to his credit we haven't had another terror attack since. He gets kudos for no terror attacks since 9/11, but not the blame for 9/11 itself! How slick can you be!
Posted by: Sue at November 3, 2004 04:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Brett and erg:
When you suggest moving to the right on gun control and abortion, what position do you suggest the party to adopt on each issue? As I posted before regarding abortion, I don't see where there is to move except to keep it out of the platform completely. And for gun control, I think our problem is with the NRA, that any sane measures like safety locks or the assault weapons ban are publicized as attempts to completely eliminate gun ownership.
As much as I can't believe it because I dislike the man, W may just have been a tough candidate to beat. The idea that he is tough on terror. Why do people believe this? Because he says so? Because he started a war? He was president on 9/11, but people argue that to his credit we haven't had another terror attack since. He gets kudos for no terror attacks since 9/11, but not the blame for 9/11 itself! How slick can you be!
Posted by: Sue at November 3, 2004 04:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment