The Official DM Democrat wound licker thread (all welcome)

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Hitman
Bigoted, ignorant rednecks voted for Bush.

Really? All of them? How do you know? I know a lot of ignorant rednecks who are "yellow dog" Democrats.

I get tired of whining about how Republicans take advantage of uneducated hicks. Democrats take advantage of uneducated minorities (specifically, blacks and "youth" voters) and no one complains.

So yeah, Bush probably doesn't get elected without the rednecks (I'll leave off the derogatory adjectives), and no Democratic presidential candidate gets elected without the blacks.

So what?

[dude1394]

So you want to punch my lights out because more people voted for bush than kerry. Sorry you sound like one of those hicks you so despise for voting.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

It is accurate to say that a larger percentage of the voters want Bush than those who didn't. As far as the rest of Americans, that is unknown.

There have been many instances in history where the minority have been shown to be correct while the majority was found to be in error. History will be the judge on who is ultimately right or wrong, and that determination won't be made for several years.

You may be right, just as the minority was correct in 2000.

[Drbio]

The libs whining is so loud. It figures.

[mavsman55]

b) Bigoted, ignorant rednecks voted for Bush.

I guess bigoted, ignorant rednecks are smarter than you'll ever be.

[Usually Lurkin]

quick quiz: who said this

Ironic, isn't it, [XXXX]. This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost [XXXX] the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.

a) George Soros
b) Dean E. Murphy
c) Jane Smiley
d) Terry McAuliffe
e) John F. Kerry
f) C. Montgomery Burns

[MavKikiNYC]

OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Values-Vote Myth
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: November 6, 2004


Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.

In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.

This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.

Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.

It's true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues.

Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.

The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.

He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror.

The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That's policy, not fundamentalism. The upsurge in voters was an upsurge of people with conservative policy views, whether they are religious or not.

The red and blue maps that have been popping up in the papers again this week are certainly striking, but they conceal as much as they reveal. I've spent the past four years traveling to 36 states and writing millions of words trying to understand this values divide, and I can tell you there is no one explanation. It's ridiculous to say, as some liberals have this week, that we are perpetually refighting the Scopes trial, with the metro forces of enlightenment and reason arrayed against the retro forces of dogma and reaction.

In the first place, there is an immense diversity of opinion within regions, towns and families. Second, the values divide is a complex layering of conflicting views about faith, leadership, individualism, American exceptionalism, suburbia, Wal-Mart, decorum, economic opportunity, natural law, manliness, bourgeois virtues and a zillion other issues.

But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social issues are important, but they don't come close to telling the whole story. Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man.