toomanyhelicopters wrote:

SixOhSix47 wrote:Protestant: 53% of Electorate: 43% Kerry, 56% Bush
-- Evangelical: 22% of Electorate: 23% Kerry, 76% Bush

this doesn't speak to the issue. sure, bush got the majority of the evangelical vote. but isn't that what happened last time? the question is, how did he go from slightly losing the popular vote last time to substantially winning it this time. the answer is, according to that guy anyways, *not* an increase in evangelical vote, but rather an increase in "normal guy/gal" vote.

I didn't think it was the end of the discussion; I'm asking for numbers. Can you find some to demonstrate what you're arguing?

I saw some side-by-side 2000 to 2004 numbers, but I was too hungover on Wednesday to remember them and I haven't had the time to hunt them down again this afternoon.

SixOhSix47 wrote:Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted today?

Bush supporters, top 4 in descending order:
Terrorism 85%
Moral Values 78%
Taxes 52%
Iraq 24%

Kerry supporters, top 4 in descending order:
Economy/Jobs 81%
Health care 79%
Education 76%
Iraq 75%

also, what the hell kinda numbers are these? if asked which ONE thing mattered most, why would the totals for each candidate's voters not add up to 100%? and how come everything i've heard so far said that the number one and two reasons were "morals" and "economy", at something like 15% each?

chicago tonight should be on tonight at 7pm on channel 11. it may well be a replay of the episode i saw at 4am or whenever that was. check it out or something. i'll look later for a transcript or the source of his statistics.

toomanyhelicopters wrote:

SixOhSix47 wrote:Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted today?

Bush supporters, top 4 in descending order:
Terrorism 85%
Moral Values 78%
Taxes 52%
Iraq 24%

Kerry supporters, top 4 in descending order:
Economy/Jobs 81%
Health care 79%
Education 76%
Iraq 75%

also, what the hell kinda numbers are these? if asked which ONE thing mattered most, why would the totals for each candidate's voters not add up to 100%? and how come everything i've heard so far said that the number one and two reasons were "morals" and "economy", at something like 15% each?

Sometimes questionnaires ask you to rank yr concerns in order, and then they report how many times one of the answers showed up in the top four. In the top example, that would mean that 81% of the people they surveyed had economy or jobs somewhere in the top four slots of their list of biggest concerns.

The last example you gave was prob a survey where they asked flat out, what's yr single biggest concern? And you get either a list or an open-ended response, but they record just the one answer.

toomanyhelicopters wrote:

SixOhSix47 wrote:Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted today?

Bush supporters, top 4 in descending order:
Terrorism 85%
Moral Values 78%
Taxes 52%
Iraq 24%

Kerry supporters, top 4 in descending order:
Economy/Jobs 81%
Health care 79%
Education 76%
Iraq 75%

also, what the hell kinda numbers are these? if asked which ONE thing mattered most, why would the totals for each candidate's voters not add up to 100%? and how come everything i've heard so far said that the number one and two reasons were "morals" and "economy", at something like 15% each?

That's my fault - I couldn't cut and paste and unfairly assumed the link would be followed. The original table looks more like this:

What's your biggest issue, and then who did you vote for:

Issue | Overall % of Electorate
Moral Values | 21%

Subset of this is your main issue:
- Voted for Kerry | 19%
- Voted for Bush | 78%

I then listed the biggest issues by who they voted for - it was an awkward extraction.

You can see the original table here: here

Chris G wrote:What I'm wondering is this: Why isn't there a Karl Rove of the left? Just because left-leaning folks might tend to be sensitive to the needs of others doesn't mean we have to be complete fucking wimps. Fight fire with fire. Or napalm. It seems to me that the left and the right are in an all-out war, only the left ain't fighting back. I'm not spineless and weak, and I sure as shit don't want the people who work for my interests to be, either.

While I will concede that Karl Rove is... "effective," I certainly don't want his evil twin working for my cause. He is a fucker, and will stoop lower than humans should allow in order to win. He readily lies, plants false stories, exploits racism and intolerance, and obfuscates by painting those who disagree as heathens.

What makes the left better than the right, in broadest terms, is that the left is concerned with the quality of life and freedom (of thought and behavior) for individuals, including a greater respect for them in policy and political behavior. The right is (and has always been) about consolidating power for those who have an advantage already (historically, the wealthy, industrial capitalists, white people, people who are protected-by rather than targets-of law enforcement, and Christians) and punishing those who disagree with it or those whose "morals" they disagree with.

One cannot behave like Karl Rove and be true to that difference, and I would argue that if the Left ever started behaving like that, it would not be worth whatever power it could accumulate. It would be an embarrassment.

If the left ascends, it should be because the public eventually becomes more humane, and then the change will (by its nature) be more secure. Getting there by trickery would invalidate the critical difference between the left and the right. When the fuckers win, we should not react by behaving like fuckers ourselves. We should be able to highlight their fuckery and let them be their own undoing. It happened with Nixon, it happened with Gingrich, and it will happen with these fuckers eventually.

indeed.

“You must be the change you wish to see in this world.â€

its as simple as this: next time dont bring a soggy french fry to a gunfight. and i dont mean fidel clinton.

Gotta love the British tabloid press:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/frontpages/

"Gee Ed, isn't that a little harsh? They're entitled to their opinion."

Interesting. Fuck you.

This, and everything that followed, were Beautiful. Your vitriol will be legendary, even in hell.