OT: Wanna know why Kerry lost Ohio?

[wco81]

Jack forget Ohio. WTF happened in your state? Ohio was close. Florida was a blowout!

Hurricanes?

Maybe God really did want Bush to win?

But the Hurricanes hit mostly areas of the state which were going to support Bush anyways, right?

[spooky157]

I read that Floridians tend to vote for the incumbent when they've been hit hard in the preceding hurricane season. I guess Floridians were very grateful for all that federal aid. Plus they just love Jeb down there.

[hoserthehorrible]

After the dust has settled I think the Democratic party will have a lot of soul searching to do.

Consider the war in Iraq, the economy went through recession, Bin Laden is still alive and kicking, the federal deficit has grown, health care is a mess, there's plenty of unresolved environmental issues, etc, etc, etc. All of these problems were being blamed on the Bush administration by the Democratic political Ad campaign yet they still lost the election.

If the Democrats can't win an election when they've got plenty of the deck stacked in their favor then what does that say about their candidate and the shape the party is in as a whole? Add to that the Republicans added to their lead in the House and the Senate and the Democrats are hurtin for certain today.

All I can say is: "It's a great day to NOT be a Democrat".

[matthewk]

Ah yes Bad, our wonderful highly moral Christian forefathers who came to America and wiped out the native americans so they could take over the land for themselves. How very Christian of them. Why is it that we are so proud that we bascially invaded this land and instead of living with the people already here, we decided they needed to be forced out?

Bitter much?

How do you get bitterness from a quote that is 100% accurate?

Umm, yeah what's up with the bitter comment?

[pk500]

Hoser:

No doubt. I would think Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe should dust off his resume today and prepare to get the ax.

McAuliffe is a wise-cracking blowhard. He's also a native of Syracuse, which embarrasses me somewhat.

Take care,
PK

[K_Mosley]

just read that 1 out of every 4 voters from Ohio calls themselves a "born again Christian".

Needless to say, I'm very disappointed.

Gee, sorry to disappoint you... Fundemental Christians get attacked all the time on this board. I guess we're all a bunch of inbred, kool-aid drinking ignorant hicks that aren't as enlightened as people like you.

I'm sick of the negative commentary and generalizations about people who share my belief system. It's okay to be tolerant to everyone else, but if you believe in God, the Bible, and Christ as the savior, it's fair game to take shots at you all the time.

For the record, I'm as anti-abortion as you can get, and I will never condone homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. To clarify, before you put more labels on me, it doesn't mean I hate homosexuals, or that I think homosexuals don't deserve the same basic rights I have. The state of Ohio asked me my opinion on gay marriage, and I voiced it, which is my right, and homosexuals and other people that feel differently had the same right. It also doesn't mean that I think it's okay to kill doctors who perform abortions. Sorry to disappoint you again.

And, just to skew your brilliant research, I voted for Kerry. The Republicans have had 30+ years to end abortion, and they haven't done anything about it. Even though it is on the Republican "platform," it's clear that it's not a priority. I'm not happy with the state of affairs in our country, so I voted for someone other than the current president. Yet, I'm a born-again Christian, and proud of it. Didn't mean to let you down, Jack, wco, & others...

Kevin

[anchester]

PK and Brando, i do agree that the libertarian platform is really the best platform. It should be all about liberty, freedom, individual rights, take responsibility, minimal gov't. I do not like the "christian" side of the rebulican platform. Hell, all the problems in the world are cause by dark ages fundamental, oppressing religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, the libertarians are not a major force in politics. Also, it seems you can't be elected unless you promise the world to everyone, spend, spend, spend, and avoid making tought cuts in spending. Everbody wants their program. Short-sighted.

I hope Swartzeneggar will be allowed to run in 08.

[wco81]

McAuliffe was suppose to leave, regardless of who won.

Yeah the Democrats have to figure out where they are.

But these problems that existed, they still exist. It's just that the votes for whom moral issues was the most important thing decided the country could put these problems on the back burner.

So we will have higher health care costs, continuing environmental problems, etc. But remember, these voters think God will take care of those things in the long run and they believe God wanted Bush in office.

It'll turn out to be an extravagant indulgence but these people just want to bury their heads in the sand about the rest of the issues, as long as they get their "moral issues."

[Jackdog]

My bad. Double post.

[Jackdog]

Hoser:

No doubt. I would think Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe should dust off his resume today and prepare to get the ax.

McAuliffe is a wise-cracking blowhard. He's also a native of Syracuse, which embarrasses me somewhat.

Take care,
PK

Never liked him. I am glad he's not a Chairman for our party PK.

[DChaps]

Man, this thread, and the majority of these political threads really sadden me. I never post in these threads, but I read them all. However, I could not let this one go.

1) Bush seems to have won the popular vote and the electoral college fair and square, despite not the greatest showings at the debates, and despite large efforts by Moore, moveon.org, vote or die, liberal press, etc. Doesn't this mean that the person the people of the United States wanted is now who is in office? Wasn't that what everyone was complaining about in 2000?

2) Why does everyone seem to classify those voting for Bush as simple minded, uneducated, crazed lunatic Christians, hating on gays and the poor, and loving war and capital punishment? It's the most ridiculous stereotyping I have seen on this board. We jump on anyone who stereotypes a rapper, or pro sports "thug" or whatever, but its a-ok to make widespread blanket statements like this. PS - There are many Democrats that are Christians and vehemently opposed to Gay marriage.

3) There are many, many Christians who are educated, intelligent, giving, open-minded people with their own faults and problems, who live by Christ's teaching which he summed up as "Love the Lord God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself". That means all neighbors, regardless of sex, race, preference, etc.

4) Did anyone on the DSP boards change their minds for the presidential election based on information or debate you read or participated in here? I have been a fence rider for most of this year. I tried very hard to read up on the facts and figure out what I believed vs. what the media and or respective political campaigns were spinning. It was virtually impossible. I read threads here with the hopes of gaining insight. Unfortunately, as much as I respect everyone's opinions, it was not helpful at all. I really doubt anyone here gained much insight to the other side, or had any vote changing moments. All these political threads probably did help those participating feel more solidified in their candidate or opinions, but that would be it.

5) Why does anyone think that Bush or Kerry can protect us from terrorism? It is not possible. Just ask Israel or India where it has been going on for years. They may be able to do things to help prevent another 9/11, but no way can you stop the wack-jobs willing to kill themselves from doing something. Remember that some major terrorism on our own soil was perpetrated by former military in Oklahoma.

6) Why does everyone expect the Govt. to fix the problems of healthcare, the economy and the poor? We live in the wealthiest country in the world? Why can't we "the people" fix these problems ourselves? No Democratic or Republican party can do it for us. Why can't we all step up and be accountable?

7) We've got to get rid of partisan politics in this country. We've got to have more than 2 legitimate choices and not require candidates to have to run the party lines. In my voting life I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians, because I try to vote for who is the best person for the job, but that is becoming impossible due to partisan politics. I am really sick of it. I refuse to be classified and stereotyped in the way I see the media do this to Democrats and Republicans.

8 ) We still live in a country where there are more opportunities for all types of people than anywhere else in the world. It is not perfect, it will never be perfect, but it is pretty damn good.

[Jackdog]

just read that 1 out of every 4 voters from Ohio calls themselves a "born again Christian".

Needless to say, I'm very disappointed.

Gee, sorry to disappoint you... Fundemental Christians get attacked all the time on this board. I guess we're all a bunch of inbred, kool-aid drinking ignorant hicks that aren't as enlightened as people like you.

I'm sick of the negative commentary and generalizations about people who share my belief system. It's okay to be tolerant to everyone else, but if you believe in God, the Bible, and Christ as the savior, it's fair game to take shots at you all the time.

For the record, I'm as anti-abortion as you can get, and I will never condone homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. To clarify, before you put more labels on me, it doesn't mean I hate homosexuals, or that I think homosexuals don't deserve the same basic rights I have. The state of Ohio asked me my opinion on gay marriage, and I voiced it, which is my right, and homosexuals and other people that feel differently had the same right. It also doesn't mean that I think it's okay to kill doctors who perform abortions. Sorry to disappoint you again.

And, just to skew your brilliant research, I voted for Kerry. The Republicans have had 30+ years to end abortion, and they haven't done anything about it. Even though it is on the Republican "platform," it's clear that it's not a priority. I'm not happy with the state of affairs in our country, so I voted for someone other than the current president. Yet, I'm a born-again Christian, and proud of it. Didn't mean to let you down, Jack, wco, & others...

Kevin

Ditto Kevin! Except I voted Libertarian.

[FatPitcher]

It's funny to see people who want to impose their morals on others complain about people who want to impose their morals on others.

When you quit trying to force your morals (stealing from rich to give to poor is good, killing a fetus is perfectly fine in any case, affirmative action, etc., all of which hurt one group to benefit another group) on others, then you have some room to talk. But that is not likely, because "our morals are right and theirs are wrong." Heh.

[Jackdog]

Man, this thread, and the majority of these political threads really sadden me. I never post in these threads, but I read them all. However, I could not let this one go.

1) Bush seems to have won the popular vote and the electoral college fair and square, despite not the greatest showings at the debates, and despite large efforts by Moore, moveon.org, vote or die, liberal press, etc. Doesn't this mean that the person the people of the United States wanted is now who is in office? Wasn't that what everyone was complaining about in 2000?

2) Why does everyone seem to classify those voting for Bush as simple minded, uneducated, crazed lunatic Christians, hating on gays and the poor, and loving war and capital punishment? It's the most ridiculous stereotyping I have seen on this board. We jump on anyone who stereotypes a rapper, or pro sports "thug" or whatever, but its a-ok to make widespread blanket statements like this. PS - There are many Democrats that are Christians and vehemently opposed to Gay marriage.

3) There are many, many Christians who are educated, intelligent, giving, open-minded people with their own faults and problems, who live by Christ's teaching which he summed up as "Love the Lord God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself". That means all neighbors, regardless of sex, race, preference, etc.

4) Did anyone on the DSP boards change their minds for the presidential election based on information or debate you read or participated in here? I have been a fence rider for most of this year. I tried very hard to read up on the facts and figure out what I believed vs. what the media and or respective political campaigns were spinning. It was virtually impossible. I read threads here with the hopes of gaining insight. Unfortunately, as much as I respect everyone's opinions, it was not helpful at all. I really doubt anyone here gained much insight to the other side, or had any vote changing moments. All these political threads probably did help those participating feel more solidified in their candidate or opinions, but that would be it.

5) Why does anyone think that Bush or Kerry can protect us from terrorism? It is not possible. Just ask Israel or India where it has been going on for years. They may be able to do things to help prevent another 9/11, but no way can you stop the wack-jobs willing to kill themselves from doing something. Remember that some major terrorism on our own soil was perpetrated by former military in Oklahoma.

6) Why does everyone expect the Govt. to fix the problems of healthcare, the economy and the poor? We live in the wealthiest country in the world? Why can't we "the people" fix these problems ourselves? No Democratic or Republican party can do it for us. Why can't we all step up and be accountable?

7) We've got to get rid of partisan politics in this country. We've got to have more than 2 legitimate choices and not require candidates to have to run the party lines. In my voting life I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians, because I try to vote for who is the best person for the job, but that is becoming impossible due to partisan politics. I am really sick of it. I refuse to be classified and stereotyped in the way I see the media do this to Democrats and Republicans.

8 ) We still live in a country where there are more opportunities for all types of people than anywhere else in the world. It is not perfect, it will never be perfect, but it is pretty damn good.

Amen.

[hoserthehorrible]

McAuliffe was suppose to leave, regardless of who won.

Yeah the Democrats have to figure out where they are.

But these problems that existed, they still exist. It's just that the votes for whom moral issues was the most important thing decided the country could put these problems on the back burner.

So we will have higher health care costs, continuing environmental problems, etc. But remember, these voters think God will take care of those things in the long run and they believe God wanted Bush in office.

It'll turn out to be an extravagant indulgence but these people just want to bury their heads in the sand about the rest of the issues, as long as they get their "moral issues."

Do you believe the Bush administration is directly responsible for the recent economic recession? Do you believe the Bush administration is directly responsible for the state of health care in this country.

Bush and his cabinet aren't that powerful. No president and his cabinet are.

[pk500]

I hope Swartzeneggar will be allowed to run in 08.

Agreed. While I'm very much opposed to Constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage and flag burning, I'm very, very, very supportive of a Constitutional amendment to allow all U.S. citizens to run for President, regardless of their birthplace.

What makes someone like Schwarzenegger less American than me? Nothing. In fact, Schwarzenegger probably appreciates being an American more than me because he came here because he WANTED to be here and experience liberty. He had to study the Constitution and American civics to become a citizen.

I became a citizen the moment I was born at St. Joseph's Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y., in 1965. Not nearly as much work or desire as Arnie or any immigrant who becomes a citizen.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

So if you can't ever condone the "homosexual lifestyle," what do you do about them?

Treat them? Cure them? Force them to get married and raise families?

Threaten to lock them up if they don't change?

Didn't they kill sinners in the Bible?

I'm not so sure the State of Ohio put the gay marriage issue on the ballot. I believe it was Republicans who put it on the ballot, to draw people who have impractical views about not tolerating the "homosexual lifestyle" to come out to vote. It's no accident that 10 other states had similar ballot initiatives.

Michigan voted for Kerry but they also passed their marriage ballot initiative.

Anyways, even social conservatives must realize that the problem they have with the homosexual lifestyle won't be solved any time soon. So it's amazing that they put such issues ahead of more pressing issues like the economy and health care.

But looks like Roe v. Wade may finally be challenged in coming years. Just pray for the retirements or deaths of Justices Stevens and Bader-Ginsberg.

[kevinpars]

Unfortunately, Terry McAuliffe has a lot of support in the party - in particular Bill Clinton.

But he should definately go. He is an abomination.

[wco81]

McAuliffe was suppose to leave, regardless of who won.

Yeah the Democrats have to figure out where they are.

But these problems that existed, they still exist. It's just that the votes for whom moral issues was the most important thing decided the country could put these problems on the back burner.

So we will have higher health care costs, continuing environmental problems, etc. But remember, these voters think God will take care of those things in the long run and they believe God wanted Bush in office.

It'll turn out to be an extravagant indulgence but these people just want to bury their heads in the sand about the rest of the issues, as long as they get their "moral issues."

Do you believe the Bush administration is directly responsible for the recent economic recession? Do you believe the Bush administration is directly responsible for the state of health care in this country.

Bush and his cabinet aren't that powerful. No president and his cabinet are.

No Bush isn't responsible for the recession, which incidentally lasted between like March and Sept. of 2001. It lasted exactly two quarters.

Bush campaigned in 2000 on tax cuts, especially big cuts on the marginal rates and cuts like the capital gains and dividend tax cuts which tend to favor the wealthy. His rationale was that we needed to give people their money back instead of the govt. accumulating surpluses.

He got his tax cuts in the first year and then after the recession officially ended, we had two years of sub-par economic and jobs growth. So last year, he pushed a "stimulus package" of more of the same tax cuts. IOW, regardless of the economic situation, his prescription was tax cuts heavily weighted towards the top brackets.

The problem was, historically, true stimulus packages involved more cuts to the lower and middle brackets, to increase demand and consumption. People suggested alternatives but those were ignored.

So now, we continue with good GDP rates but still poor jobs and wage growth. Look around and see how many people who have jobs have had to put up with salary freezes or even cuts. Or reduced health benefits or increased out-of-pocket health care costs.

As far as the health care situation, again, Bush didn't create the problems but he's basically insured that the status quo is preserved, which is insurance and drug companies making tons of money while we shoulder the increasing burden. Not just employees paying more premiums and copayments but businesses raising prices to cover their health care costs and/or more and more of their costs to employees.

In the last 4 years, 4 or 5 million more people lost their health insurance. Well we insured end up basically subsidizing those uninsureds. A big part of the reason why health cares costs go up double-digits every year is that we are bearing the health care costs for those uninsureds, who will go to county emergency room for conditions which may have been prevented in the first place if they had coverage for preventive care.

Now Bush's proposal for health care reform and the Medicare drug prescription program ensures that the businesses of the insurance and drug companies are not threatened at all. They can continue to price their services and products as they see fit.

Those of us who go to doctors to address health problems can expect higher costs. But those who depend on faith-healing or refuse modern medicine shouldn't have any problems.

[JackB1]

I know. Very disappointed in FL and I think I need to move back up north
to the blue states?

Jack forget Ohio. WTF happened in your state? Ohio was close. Florida was a blowout!

[Brando70]

Man, this thread, and the majority of these political threads really sadden me. I never post in these threads, but I read them all. However, I could not let this one go.

1) Bush seems to have won the popular vote and the electoral college fair and square, despite not the greatest showings at the debates, and despite large efforts by Moore, moveon.org, vote or die, liberal press, etc. Doesn't this mean that the person the people of the United States wanted is now who is in office? Wasn't that what everyone was complaining about in 2000?

Yes, DChaps, you're right about this. Part of living in a democracy is that you have to accept that sometimes your beliefs are in the minority. As far as I am concerned, the Republicans have the ball in their court for at least the next two years and likely the next four. They are going to have a rare opportunity to shape the country the way they want, and in four more years, we'll vote on that.

[hoserthehorrible]

McAuliffe was suppose to leave, regardless of who won.

Yeah the Democrats have to figure out where they are.

But these problems that existed, they still exist. It's just that the votes for whom moral issues was the most important thing decided the country could put these problems on the back burner.

So we will have higher health care costs, continuing environmental problems, etc. But remember, these voters think God will take care of those things in the long run and they believe God wanted Bush in office.

It'll turn out to be an extravagant indulgence but these people just want to bury their heads in the sand about the rest of the issues, as long as they get their "moral issues."

Do you believe the Bush administration is directly responsible for the recent economic recession? Do you believe the Bush administration is directly responsible for the state of health care in this country.

Bush and his cabinet aren't that powerful. No president and his cabinet are.

No Bush isn't responsible for the recession, which incidentally lasted between like March and Sept. of 2001. It lasted exactly two quarters.

Bush campaigned in 2000 on tax cuts, especially big cuts on the marginal rates and cuts like the capital gains and dividend tax cuts which tend to favor the wealthy. His rationale was that we needed to give people their money back instead of the govt. accumulating surpluses.

He got his tax cuts in the first year and then after the recession officially ended, we had two years of sub-par economic and jobs growth. So last year, he pushed a "stimulus package" of more of the same tax cuts. IOW, regardless of the economic situation, his prescription was tax cuts heavily weighted towards the top brackets.

The problem was, historically, true stimulus packages involved more cuts to the lower and middle brackets, to increase demand and consumption. People suggested alternatives but those were ignored.

So now, we continue with good GDP rates but still poor jobs and wage growth. Look around and see how many people who have jobs have had to put up with salary freezes or even cuts. Or reduced health benefits or increased out-of-pocket health care costs.

As far as the health care situation, again, Bush didn't create the problems but he's basically insured that the status quo is preserved, which is insurance and drug companies making tons of money while we shoulder the increasing burden. Not just employees paying more premiums and copayments but businesses raising prices to cover their health care costs and/or more and more of their costs to employees.

In the last 4 years, 4 or 5 million more people lost their health insurance. Well we insured end up basically subsidizing those uninsureds. A big part of the reason why health cares costs go up double-digits every year is that we are bearing the health care costs for those uninsureds, who will go to county emergency room for conditions which may have been prevented in the first place if they had coverage for preventive care.

Now Bush's proposal for health care reform and the Medicare drug prescription program ensures that the businesses of the insurance and drug companies are not threatened at all. They can continue to price their services and products as they see fit.

Those of us who go to doctors to address health problems can expect higher costs. But those who depend on faith-healing or refuse modern medicine shouldn't have any problems.

Do you believe Kerry and his cabinet would have been powerful enough to solve all these issues but that it was simply the moral majority who prevented that from happening?

[TRI]

just read that 1 out of every 4 voters from Ohio calls themselves a "born again Christian".

Needless to say, I'm very disappointed.

It's pretty sad when people are disappointed that people have faith in God and/or that they went out and voted. It's no wonder Bush gets so much of their vote. If someone said that they were disappointed that a large percentage of African-Americans (used as an example here because 89% voted for Kerry) voted, would that have been acceptable?

Maybe you should focus your disappointment on the Democratic party and their utter failure to capture the votes of this segment. Instead of trying to understand that conservative values are important to a vast majority of Americans and trying to incorporate that into the platform somehow, most Democrats that I know ridicule people of faith as "simple", "misinformed", or "uneducated." You aren't going to get many votes that way and the Republicans are only going to get stronger given the population shift to the Republican strongholds in the west and south.

But Leebo, there is no point in even trying to court the evangelical vote if you're a Democrat, because their lock-step anti-abortion stance means the vast majority of evangelicals will vote against Democrats as long as Democrats believe abortion should be legal. That's an even bigger wedge issue than gay rights.

I have no problem with people having strong faith. My parents are very devout Catholics and Republicans. But these political evangelicals have cherry picked what they want to believe. They can cite all the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament to argue against homosexuality and abortion. Yet you bring up the poor, and it's like they skipped over all those passages in the New Testament. I don't remember Jesus yelling at the poor to get off their lazy asses and find a job. Or that it was okay to beat your chest about how much of a Christian you are when you're wearing nice clothes, living in a nice house, and driving a nice car. When they are ready to stop being culture war hypocrites, I will take them seriously.

Brando......... True Christians do care about the poor and prehaps some people who call themselves Christian do not, but anyone can say anything and it means nothing. I know Christians and yes they are pro life and believe in all of the moral values taked about, but they also care very much about helping the poor and give lots of money to churches and charitys to assist the poor. Simply supplying material needs to people is helpful and many true Christians do this, but they also minister to them and change their hearts to become better people. True Christians love the poor and really truely want to help them.

[wco81]

Hoser, I don't know if Kerry would have solved these problems.

For one thing, the Republican Congress would have resisted his major programs. A lot of people think that would have been a good thing, at least fiscally speaking.

Bush ran in 2000 and talked about responsibility.

So it wasn't just a question of which guy would do a better job with these domestic/economic problems. It was about holding the incumbent accountable for his failures.

Ultimately a lot of people believe the president can't do anything about the economy. That may be true but you know, coaches and managers get fired even if he has no talent.

Now if you wanted to judget these guys on which was more likely to do better, the only thing I could say is that Kerry seems more pragmatic and may have adjusted to changing economic conditions. So even though Kerry ran on a big health care program, if he got in and saw that it was unworkable, I think he would have modified it or tried to compromise.

Bush on the OTOH would have stuck to his plan no matter what, as he demonstrated with the tax cuts. First it was going to be about reducing surpluses and later it became economic stimulus.

The choice was in many ways between a pragmatist and an ideologue.