The Folklore of Election '04

[Stud Diesel]

N O T E B O O K
The Folklore of Election '04
Debunking the falsehoods springing from this November's contest
By KAREN TUMULTY

Monday, Nov. 15, 2004

Few political rituals are so honored as overreading the results of an election. In the rush to explain this one, at least six myths have taken root:

A tidal wave of churchgoers won the day. As Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin notes, the percentage of the voting electorate that attends church once a week was 42%—precisely what it was in 2000. And President Bush's percentage of that vote was 58%, up a mere point from 2000. Bush's greatest gains came among voters who attend church less often, including an increase of 4 percentage points of those who never go.

People based their votes on their moral values. Though 22% cited their moral values as the deciding issue, the percentage that cited one of the two biggest foreign policy issues, Iraq and terrorism, was significantly higher—34%. And it turns out that a "moral value" is in the conscience of the beholder. In a poll due out this week from the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, 42% of respondents said the war in Iraq was the most important moral issue influencing their vote, compared with 13% who chose abortion and less than 10% who chose gay marriage.

All the hype about young voters was wrong; they stayed home, as they always do. Yes and no. After a lengthy slide in youth voting, nearly 21 million under-30 voters showed up at the polls this year, a 9% increase from 2000. But since just about everyone else showed up in bigger numbers too, their percentage of the total electorate was roughly what it was four years ago.

The hundreds of millions George Soros and other Bush foes poured into turning out the Democratic base was a waste. The outcome may not have been to their liking, but the Democrats' efforts paid off. Kerry got about 4.1 million votes more than Al Gore did four years ago. And nearly 60% of that increase can be found in the states that were targeted by the independent groups. What they didn't count on: that the Republican turnout operation produced an even bigger surge of 8.2 million votes nationally for Bush.

The country has moved to the right on social issues. TIME's polling suggests that voters remain where they have been for a very long time: in the moderate middle on the most sizzling social issues. They overwhelmingly favor (69% to 22%) using discarded embryos for stem-cell research; only 9% oppose abortion in all circumstances; and while 58% say they oppose gay marriage, about the same number—60%—approve of some kind of official recognition of gay unions, an AP poll says.

John Kerry didn't lose the election; it was stolen. Conspiracy theories abound on left-leaning websites—particularly about Florida and Ohio, the two states that determined the outcome. None of them seem to be holding up. Why, for instance, did Bush win many Florida counties where the majority of registered voters are Democrats? Those areas in the northern and central parts of the state have long traditions of voting Republican in presidential contests.

From the Nov. 22, 2004 issue of TIME magazine.

[bigboy]

thanks for posting that.

[archive_Ulter]

Karen Tumulty is as full of dog poo on this story and she was when she wrote that Newt Gingrich was a man with a vision. Geoffrey Garin better go back to Polling school. Yes Bush got 58% of the 42% that said they go to church once a week. What about the 84% of those who GO MORE THAN ONCE A WEEK? Up 18% over 2000. And OH BY THE WAY that measly 1 percent in the once a week group is a half a million votes. The margins of victory of Ohio and Florida combined. Oh and let's not forget that Catholics don't go once a week, so they are in the third group, and they gave Bush 5% higher vote than 2000.

In Florida, Catholics made up 26% of the electorate in 2000. This year, they made up 28%. In 2000, 54% of Catholics went for Bush; in 2004, 57% of them voted for him. The combination of those two factors meant a gain of 400,000 voters in the Sunshine State—about Bush's margin of victory.

Bush also did better among Hispanic Catholics, getting 42% of the vote in 2004 compared to 31% in 2000.

So here is the whole state of Florida handed over by the Catholic vote.


"and while 58% say they oppose gay marriage"

But not in the states where it was on the ballot. That's a national average. Gay Marriage Ban PASSED in Ohio with 65%, a far cry from his 58% against.


"Why, for instance, did Bush win many Florida counties where the majority of registered voters are Democrats? Those areas in the northern and central parts of the state have long traditions of voting Republican in presidential contests."

Name three. Central Florida, who by the way DID NOT VOTE FOR BUSH, Kerry won Orange and Volusia counties in dead central Florida, has only one tradition. Turnover. 57,000 people a year move to Orlando. 55,000 move out of Orlando. So how can they measure treads that mean anything when the voters turn over at this rate? Saying they are traditional ANYTHING is ridiculous.

"All the hype about young voters was wrong; they stayed home, as they always do. Yes and no. After a lengthy slide in youth voting, nearly 21 million under-30 voters showed up at the polls this year, a 9% increase from 2000. But since just about everyone else showed up in bigger numbers too, their percentage of the total electorate was roughly what it was four years ago."

This one is the best. We must discount the 9% increase in young voters because more older voters turned out so the average is the same. Hey Karen, a 9% increase in ANY group is significant so don't look down your nose at the young. If the Black vote increased by 9% they'd be writing books about it for 20 years.

I wouldn't wipe my butt with that article.

[This message was edited by Ulter on 11-17-04 at 08:28 PM.]

[bigboy]

I think it goes to show that all data can be manipulated to make a point....whether right or wrong, truth or lies...data can be manipulated...we know many other sources do this as well..

[archive_Ulter]

"Liars, damn liars, and statistics."

[archive_the truth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ulter:
"and while 58% say they oppose gay marriage"

But not in the states where it was on the ballot. That's a national average. Gay Marriage Ban PASSED in Ohio with 65%, a far cry from his 58% against.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe I'm misreading what you wrote, but what she's saying in that article is that 58% oppose gay marriage, not that 58% oppose a gay marriage ban.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ulter:"All the hype about young voters was wrong; they stayed home, as they always do. Yes and no. After a lengthy slide in youth voting, nearly 21 million under-30 voters showed up at the polls this year, a 9% increase from 2000. But since just about everyone else showed up in bigger numbers too, their percentage of the total electorate was roughly what it was four years ago."

This one is the best. We must discount the 9% increase in young voters because more older voters turned out so the average is the same. Hey Karen, a 9% increase in ANY group is significant so don't look down your nose at the young. If the Black vote increased by 9% they'd be writing books about it for 20 years.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're misunderstanding this one. She's saying that it IS a significant increase, but was effectively canceled out by higher turnout in older voters (which would presumably include more conservatives than the youth demographic. She is DEBUNKING the myth that the youth vote had no impact on the election.

With all due respect bro, I get the impression that your distaste for the current administration is affecting the way you interpret the printed word.

My apologies if I am the one misinterpreting here--this is just what I got from this post.

[archive_Ulter]

Yes you misunderstood, and maybe that wasn't clear. They say 58% opposed and I said yes on a national average but 65% opposed it in Ohio and other states it was over 65% where is was on the ballot, except Oregon. So the number of those who are NOT opposed is significantly lower in the states where it was not on the ballot. So the motherload portion of those voting for Bush were making that number as high as it was nationally. In other words, most of those opposed were Bushies.

On your second point I wasn't sure what her point was. The first polls showed young voter participation didn't increase at all so the myth was that the young vote would have an impact but they didn't show so it didn't. I see your point that she was saying "yes and no" because it wasn't that they didn't show. You're right I mis-understood. You are also right that I don't care for the woman. Or the administration.

Look, my point is that the Right is continuing to insist that Religion wasn't the reason for victory. And that's just plain stupid.

[archive_the truth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ulter:
Yes you misunderstood, and maybe that wasn't clear. They say 58% opposed and I said yes on a national average but 65% opposed it in Ohio and other states it was over 65% where is was on the ballot, except Oregon. So the number of those who are NOT opposed is significantly lower in the states where it was not on the ballot. So the motherload portion of those voting for Bush were making that number as high as it was nationally. In other words, most of those opposed were Bushies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, I see. Yes, I would tend to agree with you on this, at least to the extent that a higher percentage of Democrats would oppose a gay marriage ban. BUT if you're talking a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, then a lot of people on the right oppose this as well (in fact every Republican I know), mostly because it would supersede state rights on an issue that is best left to the states. Some of us, myself included, weren't overjoyed about states using this as a matter for voter initiative (I for one am opposed to legislation by referendum).
<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ulter:On your second point I wasn't sure what her point was. The first polls showed young voter participation didn't increase at all so the myth was that the young vote would have an impact but they didn't show so it didn't. I see your point that she was saying "yes and no" because it wasn't that they didn't show. You're right I mis-understood. You are also right that I don't care for the woman. Or the administration.

Look, my point is that the Right is continuing to insist that Religion wasn't the reason for victory. And that's just plain stupid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was A reason, one of many, and I'm OK if you choose to deny that, but if the Democratic Party as a whole continues to insist that GWB won (in addition to Repubicans picking up seats in the House and the Senate) because of religion, or because Republicans are stupid, or they're hicks etc.; and if the Dems continue with the self-referential attitude (no room for debate; someone who disagrees with a plank does so because of intellectual inferiority or blindness) and the sneering miscategorization of their opponents, they will continue to lose ground and relevance outside of their own immediate domains. That would be a shame--you, and people like you, have a lot to offer the political process in this country. This includes opening my mind to opinions other than my own--it would be unfortunate to see a party that has given us so many great people derailed because they refuse to do the same.

[archive_Ulter]

I hope I am not one of those who calls the Religious Right stupid hicks. I certainly don't think all of any group is stupid just because they belong to the Republican Party or Religious Right. My whole family is Republican, they're not stupid of hicks. But the fact is there are not enough Republican's outside the Religious Right to elect anyone. And this small minority is walking around with brass balls now, running ads against Arlen Specter, and tell the president he owes them and better come through or else Rove can't count on them again. WTF is that??? Even the most obvious campaign contributor who thinks he will get a return on his investment is not so over the top to the press. These people fear no one, they are above everyone in their eyes and NO I will not accept them, or their views, or anything about people like that. And I shouldn't have to. They say "you'd better listen to what we want on abortion and gay marriage and stem cell research because we've got the White House" and I say kiss my ass. They will not prevail. When this war tears this country apart and foreign policy isolates us and make us dangerous to the rest of the world the Right will lose and the Religious Right will be an asterisk in history.

	ASS Nelson Montana

http://www.irontrybe.com/forum/attac...achmentid=5383

[archive_the truth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ulter:
I hope I am not one of those who calls the Religious Right stupid hicks. I certainly don't think all of any group is stupid just because they belong to the Republican Party or Religious Right. My whole family is Republican, they're not stupid of hicks. But the fact is there are not enough Republican's outside the Religious Right to elect anyone. And this small minority is walking around with brass balls now, running ads against Arlen Specter, and tell the president he owes them and better come through or else Rove can't count on them again. WTF is that??? Even the most obvious campaign contributor who thinks he will get a return on his investment is not so over the top to the press. These people fear no one, they are above everyone in their eyes and NO I will not accept them, or their views, or anything about people like that. And I shouldn't have to. They say "you'd better listen to what we want on abortion and gay marriage and stem cell research because we've got the White House" and I say kiss my ass. They will not prevail. When this war tears this country apart and foreign policy isolates us and make us dangerous to the rest of the world the Right will lose and the Religious Right will be an asterisk in history.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not you bro, but enough in the Dems that it will hurt them. And the religious right does give the Repubs more clout for sure, but it's incorrect to suggest that they couldn't get anyone elected without them (I live in NYC; Repub Gov and Mayor for 12 years now--not too many members of the religious right here; many religious people yes, religious and right wing, no).

	ASS Nelson Montana

[archive_Ulter]

I meant elected to the White House. When I am tired I am often too brief and at the expense of clarity.

[archive_therealj]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Though 22% cited their moral values as the deciding issue, the percentage that cited one of the two biggest foreign policy issues, Iraq and terrorism, was significantly higher—34%. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If terrorism was such a deciding factor, it strikes me as odd that Bush had his ass handed to him in the city that faced the worst terrorist attack on US soil. I was having a conversation with one of my good friends the other day and he was talking about who his brother voted for( as most of you know I live in Canada as does he, his brother lives in Indiana) and he voted for Bush, and his brother agreed with him, I was told because they both oppose gay marriage and they both oppose abortion, they are also both born again christians, my friend told me everyone his brother is friends with in Indiana voted for Bush because of these reasons. On a funny side story my above mentioned friend was in Cleveland for business last week and told me about a meal he was having in the hotel bar, when this lady sat beside him and decided to talk politics. She asked him who he voted for and he explained to her that he's Canadian and was just there for business, but also said if he had a vote it would be for Bush for the reasons stated above. Now telling most women you oppose abortion is bad enough, but telling them you also oppose gay weddings without knowing they have a gay brother only made his experience that much better,lol....She yelled at him for a good 10 minutes before he could finish his meal and go back to his room ....If Kerry was a devout christian I'd bet good money he'd be in office

-----------------------------
-----------------------------
therealj@anabolicfitness.net

	ASS Nelson Montana

[archive_the truth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ulter:
I meant elected to the White House. When I am tired I am often too brief and at the expense of clarity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may well be right on that one.

realj: NYC and NY State will always vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate in a Presidential election. A Repub can be a Mayor, Governor or even a Senator, particularly if his/her name ends in a vowel (not a name like Garcia though), in New York, but the Dems will always get NY's nod for the Presidency.

Also, Kerry mentioned his religious faith a lot, but, for the most part, the people who will base their vote for President on a candidate's religion tend to be Republicans. And let's be real: Kerry is a Catholic--we've only had one Catholic President in our history. Catholics don't tend to pick up a lot of swing voters.

[Stud Diesel]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ulter:
Karen Tumulty is as full of dog poo on this story and she was when she wrote that Newt Gingrich was a man with a vision. Geoffrey Garin better go back to Polling school. Yes Bush got 58% of the 42% that said they go to church once a week. What about the 84% of those who GO MORE THAN ONCE A WEEK? Up 18% over 2000. And OH BY THE WAY that measly 1 percent in the once a week group is a half a million votes. The margins of victory of Ohio and Florida combined. Oh and let's not forget that Catholics don't go once a week, so they are in the third group, and they gave Bush 5% higher vote than 2000.

_In Florida, Catholics made up 26% of the electorate in 2000. This year, they made up 28%. In 2000, 54% of Catholics went for Bush; in 2004, 57% of them voted for him. The combination of those two factors meant a gain of 400,000 voters in the Sunshine State—about Bush's margin of victory.

Bush also did better among Hispanic Catholics, getting 42% of the vote in 2004 compared to 31% in 2000._

So here is the whole state of Florida handed over by the Catholic vote.


"and while 58% say they oppose gay marriage"

But not in the states where it was on the ballot. That's a national average. Gay Marriage Ban PASSED in Ohio with 65%, a far cry from his 58% against.


"Why, for instance, did Bush win many Florida counties where the majority of registered voters are Democrats? Those areas in the northern and central parts of the state have long traditions of voting Republican in presidential contests."

Name three. Central Florida, who by the way DID NOT VOTE FOR BUSH, Kerry won Orange and Volusia counties in dead central Florida, has only one tradition. Turnover. 57,000 people a year move to Orlando. 55,000 move out of Orlando. So how can they measure treads that mean anything when the voters turn over at this rate? Saying they are traditional ANYTHING is ridiculous.

"All the hype about young voters was wrong; they stayed home, as they always do. Yes and no. After a lengthy slide in youth voting, nearly 21 million under-30 voters showed up at the polls this year, a 9% increase from 2000. But since just about everyone else showed up in bigger numbers too, their percentage of the total electorate was roughly what it was four years ago."

This one is the best. We must discount the 9% increase in young voters because more older voters turned out so the average is the same. Hey Karen, a 9% increase in ANY group is significant so don't look down your nose at the young. If the Black vote increased by 9% they'd be writing books about it for 20 years.

I wouldn't wipe my butt with that article.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Very impressive response Boss man. You really know your sheet about politics. Thanks for the balance. I have a subscription to TIME magazine and I always thought that they leaned slightly towards the left and so I took that article at face value.

Now my Rolling Stone subscription… WOW, that’s a left leaning pub if there ever was one.