Future of Politics

[Sensi]

Hey everyone, this is my first post, and maybe I shouldn't be making a topic like this, but I think there are a lot of good political opinions on this site (especially Cable, War, and Baatezu), and I would like to hear more from all of you. I read though all of the last political thread (took me all day) and I think there are some new issues to discuss.

First, I'd like to know how all of you feel about the direction that politics are heading in the 21st century. Specifically the trend toward sensationalism. I've noticed from many people that I have talked to that their determining factor in this election has come from largely sensational issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and less on national issues (economic/foreign policy). Do you think it is good or bad that we have a media system that concentrates on these issues? and if you don't like it, what do you think we should do to change it (after all, it's the public interest that dictates the ratings..)?

Second, now that Bush is in his second term, a certain amount of accountability is absolved from him, since he can't run for a third term. All that is left is how he will be viewed in history. What do you think he will do now to solidify his position as one of the most influential presidents?

and Finally, how do you all feel about "elitist" organizations (i.e. Skull and Bones)?. I think I know how Baatezu feels, and I would like him to explain it more (without getting into a conspiratorial rant). But I also know that there is a finite number of people that have the education, training, and connections to hold such prestigious positions. And a society that trains these people to hold powerful, world-changing occupations might not be that bad a thing, as long as they do it with good intentions.

Anyway, I think these issues are a good way to continue the Exp0sed political crossfire. If not, I hope someone else starts a thread, because I would still like to hear more from all of you.

 

[Stingray]

Re: New Politics

First, I'd like to know how all of you feel about the direction that politics are heading in the 21st century. Specifically the trend toward sensationalism. I've noticed from many people that I have talked to that their determining factor in this election has come from largely sensational issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and less on national issues (economic/foreign policy). Do you think it is good or bad that we have a media system that concentrates on these issues? and if you don't like it, what do you think we should do to change it (after all, it's the public interest that dictates the ratings..)?

Second, now that Bush is in his second term, a certain amount of accountability is absolved from him, since he can't run for a third term. All that is left is how he will be viewed in history. What do you think he will do now to solidify his position as one of the most influential presidents?

and Finally, how do you all feel about "elitist" organizations (i.e. Skull and Bones)?. I think I know how Baatezu feels, and I would like him to explain it more (without getting into a conspiratorial rant). But I also know that there is a finite number of people that have the education, training, and connections to hold such prestigious positions. And a society that trains these people to hold powerful, world-changing occupations might not be that bad a thing, as long as they do it with good intentions.

Okay...because I'm too lazy to break all that up & respond directly to the questions comments....I'm gonna go in order here from top to bottom.

~~"Sensational" topics.
Abortion & gay rights are sensational? No. Abortion & gay rights are necessary items of duscussion, given the frequency they come into the day to day lives of the citizens of the country. Perfectly valid points. Granted, not "political" points, but they're points that still do have a day to day effect on the country. When I first read the question, I thought you were talking about the non-stop commercials/phone calls, etc. That's gotten beyond "out of hand"....but it turns out you weren't, so that's a topic for another time. And truthfully, I don't think the media focuses MORE on those issues than the drop in job rates, minimum wage, social security, etc. It's just that those issues are mentioned first, to grab the attention of the audience. It's no different than an author writing a kickass 1st paragraph in a book to draw the reader in, or a film having an explosion in the 1st scene to get the audiences attention.

~~Bush & History
There's very little Bush can do that will mark him as "one of the most influential presidents". I'd go as far as to say there's nothing he can do. And it's not even because of anything he's done during his term, it's because of how the 2000 election went, and all the uproar from the anti-bush camp at the time (folk like Michael Moore) shouting about how Bush wasn't actually elected, blah blah. Regardless of the turnout in THIS election, Dubya will never be able to get away from that. At the same time, I think he WILL be looked at highly for his initial handling of 9/11. While he didn't really do anything spectacular in those first few days, a week or so, the way he spoke & the things he said did wonders for the workers & the nation's spirits. That'll probably be looked at as the high point in his political career.

~~Elite orgs & secret societies.
Plain and simple...there's not much that can be done about it at the moment or in the near future, whether you're for, against, or indifferent, so I'm not sure what the point in debating it is.

 

[Da' Pimp]

This is Officially the NEW Political Whatsamawhosits Thread!

There shall be NO other Political Threads started!

BOT

 

[tobejohngalt1]

To Stingray:

How can you possibly think that Bush handled the 9/11 situation correctly? He raised everyone's spirits with lies to try to get the people on his side. A death toll of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians is hardly something for us to be proud of especially when there has yet to be any evidence of weapons in Iraq. It's amazing how ignorant most Americans still are to the situation in Iraq. THERE WAS NO REASON TO ATTACK THEM. They don't have the technological capabilities to hit us with missles, they were NOT affiliated with Al-Qaeda, and we had no evidence of weapons to support our attack. Our goverment manipulated us and made us believe that Iraq was a threat so that they could attack. This same ignorance and refusal to believe that the president was wrong in conjunction with religious intentions is the reason why Bush was re-elected. Also, Stingray, you were wrong about abortion and gay rights being sensational. An important part of our constitution focused on the separation of church and state and the fact issues such as abortion have been the sole issue that millions of voters considered in this election shows the raw stupidity present in the United States.

By the way, good post Sensi.

 

[obeseethiopian]

warning: much ranting ahead

abortion and gay rights are sensationalist issues, to a certain degree. what just about every person (educated or otherwise on the issue) fails to see is that there ain't a goddamned thing anyone elected to public office is gonna do about it

lemme explain my thought whilst everyones hackles are raised at that last comment.

if you're john q. political figure, and you're not like the other 5% of all 'politically involved' officials/in-duh-viduals that are polarized on the extreme right or left, you're going to want to court as much vote as possible in order to get into your desired office. this means that you will have your election team find out what the largest constituant percentile is on whatever side of the moral issue at hand, and will most likely court this voter base accordingly. once you are in office, that's it--you don't even have to worry about the issue, because the people you serve will be too busy bitching about how the roads in their area suck, or how much they hate paying 2.50 for a gallon of gas, or why their property taxes are so high.

summary? people don't give a damn unless the issue directly affects their wallets. for example (and i'm just using bush because he's currently the largest target for ridicule and satire right now....and because i think he abuses goats back on his ranch) bush told the public he was against abortion. since he got into office, he has not pushed, sponsored, approved of, or signed into law a broad-sweeping anti-abortion bill that outlaws this alleged 'ungodly practice'. neither has any senator, representative, or other political office holder because no one can agree on the bill when it is presented, or they don't want to rock the boat and risk not getting re-elected.

(and on a side note, you retards that are overly religious that don't believe in birth control? if i pull out at the last minute, and spill it on the ground, doesn't that damn me to hell anyway? i'd rather use the jimmy hat and not pollute than worry about pregnancy anytime)

gay marriage? same situation, same reasons, who gives a f*ck, just let them get married and divorced and suffer like the rest of Americans with one or more ex-others. (trust me people, gays getting married won't so corrupt your own bond to a spouse that you'll become disgusted and divorce someone just to spite a homosexual.)

media outlets should strive to provide more fair, unbiased information that can be backed up with facts. i still laugh when i flip to the FOX news channel and see a commercial about their fair practices and tough, honest standards--there are multiple occaisions of anchors blurting out on air how biased they are and they're proud of it. (another reason i listen to NPR on the old radio.) if they get a few scrotums w/ testicles to temporarily attach to their field reporters, we might be more informed individuals that make better decisions on Election Day instead of waiting for a few drops of urine to leak out of a white domicile to the public.

Bush solidifying his place in history? Already done. Grab a few beers and watch the next four years, people. You elected him, you get to deal with his Al-Qaeda Deficit Disorder for a while. (And last time i checked, the 'ritalin' he needs on a day-to-day basis in Iraq is rather costly). I won't digress into that rant, 'cause this is already getting long, but rest assured, I'm sure that along with all of Ronnie Reagan's spending mishaps and scandals, public schools will somehow skip over Bush's starry career except for the patriotic mention of 9/11.

Remember, uninformed schoolchildren are tomorrow's best voters.

Secret, cloak-and-dagger organizations that somehow influence the world? Notion seems kinda cool, but I can't say what i think on these--one of those 'powerful figures' could be reading this thread and i don't want to suddenly disappear because of something i bitched about :lol:

 

[RyanA]

Cant be said any better than this...
"Bad economy, completely mishandled situation in Iraq, lost jobs, poor health care, but apparently all of that was trumped by dudes kissing."
~Jon Stewart

EDIT
Check this out, interesting correlation (if true) between the election results and intelligence...
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

 

[Stingray]

To Stingray:

How can you possibly think that Bush handled the 9/11 situation correctly? He raised everyone's spirits with lies to try to get the people on his side. A death toll of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians is hardly something for us to be proud of especially when there has yet to be any evidence of weapons in Iraq. It's amazing how ignorant most Americans still are to the situation in Iraq. THERE WAS NO REASON TO ATTACK THEM. They don't have the technological capabilities to hit us with missles, they were NOT affiliated with Al-Qaeda, and we had no evidence of weapons to support our attack. Our goverment manipulated us and made us believe that Iraq was a threat so that they could attack. This same ignorance and refusal to believe that the president was wrong in conjunction with religious intentions is the reason why Bush was re-elected. Also, Stingray, you were wrong about abortion and gay rights being sensational. An important part of our constitution focused on the separation of church and state and the fact issues such as abortion have been the sole issue that millions of voters considered in this election shows the raw stupidity present in the United States.

Gotta love it when people don't read what you type.

A) I never said Bush handled 9/11, in the long term, correctly. I said if there was a high point mentioned in regards to Bush's 8 years in office, it would be the "first few days, a week or so" following 9/11, in which he encouraged people to work together & show unity despite the blow. For that week or two, he handled the situation--meaning the despair of the country at said atrocity, the loss of life both in rescue efforts & the initial attacks, etc-- very admirably & compassionatly, with the aid of then-mayor Guliani. The military strikes that happened afterwards are seperate matters, which I didn't address whatsoever.

B) Iraq didn't come up for a good few months after that, and you'll notice I didn't mention it in my post at all. But, since you commented on it, let me say this:

We, the United States, were going to fight Iraq again. Period. Fact. If you don't believe that, you need to go back and read up on US/UN/Iraqi relations between '91 & right now. It was all a matter of time of waiting for a president to take office and either find a legitimate reason, or conjure up a reason that sounded legitimate, to go over and take out Hussein. Sooner or later, justified or not, it was going to happen. For no other reason than so many people were pissed off that they didn't remove him from power the first time. Sooner or later one of those pissed off people was going to wind up in the Oval Office. It so happens that it was Bush.

Now, do you REALLY, honestly believe that had Bush gone before Congress and said "they MIGHT" blah blah, "but we can't know for sure unless we go see for ourselves" this thing would've turned out any differently? If so, imo, you're deluding yourself. If they voted in favor, by quite the margin, IIRC, with sketchy evidence, they'd have voted in favor by presumably the same margin on the supposition of possible evidence.

C) Abortion & gay rights are no more sensational that black rights & sufferage were in their time periods. Some people are REALLY for it, some people are REALLY against it, and the rest simply don't care. The only thing that makes them "sensational" in any way, is the sheer number of religious activists that inject themselves into the issues. On THAT side of it, I agree they're sensational. But does that mean they shouldn't be discussed at all? Of course not. Anything & everything that is debated by the citizens of the country SHOULD be discussed between candidates for public office, because anything that's debated so heatedly as gay rights or abortion, or in earlier times, black rights & women's sufferage, is going to become a national issue of interest whether we like it or not. That's just a simple fact. And abortion's been an issue--and a sizeable one at that--for the better part of the last 20 years. Let's not try and make it sound like it's a new thing.

 

[cableguy]

for starters, to believe what you are hearing in the media about this being the result of a religious crusade, you also must believe everything in the few months leading up to the elections that was spoon fed to you by the major media outlets... those same outlets that skewed their exit polls heavily toward urbanites and single females, thusly predicting, falsely, a kerry landslide... those same media outlets brought you fabricated, false, or half true stories regarding national guard documents, explosives stockpiles, a complete absense of a call for accountability with kerry, and many other instances as well...

the religious vote wasnt any more of a factor than it has been in other elections... what the media wants to do, after their guy lost, is pin a reason on it that those who still have any respect for said media outlets can flock to and believe... go right ahead, as it ignores the real reasons the dems lost, and lost big, this past election...

security matters... terrorism is not a nuisance... the endorsement of kerry by one osama bin laden tells an interesting tale.. the guy who orchestrated the murder of thousands of US civillians wanted kerry to win... the thought process here need not be explained..

taxes matter... kerry has a history of supporting them, and opposing tax cuts... nevermind what he said on the campaign trail, what has he done in the past??

honesty matters... on this, as well as a number of other polls, the numbers consistantly told the same story... when President Bush speaks, like him or not, he means what he says... kerry says what he thinks his audience wants to hear... he even took a poll to figure out what he should say regarding the bin laden tape...

gay marriage does NOT matter, at least not in this election... kerry and President Bush both publicly voiced support for gay civil unions, and opposition to gay marriage...

michael moore and george soros matter... when a two bit liar is made into a prominent dnc figure, and when an upset immigrant dumps 27 million dollars or so into efforts to defeat President Bush, Americans see something they dont necessarily like...

common sense, and a well educated voter are becoming factors... not once have social security checks stopped coming to recipients... the mantra of "republicans will cut your social security" has proven false time and again... minorities, despite unproven claims to the contrary, have not been disenfranchised, suppressed, or discriminated against in the election process... again, the race card has become old and unplayable... the same old bag of tricks no longer works, because it has been recognized as the bundle of lies that it truly is.. every taxpaying American got a "tax cut for the rich" that was not only large enough to notice, but large enough to make a difference... when these same Americans were told otherwise, a quick glance at a paystub told a different story...

jobs matter, and so does the reason they were lost, and so does the unemployment RATE (largely unreported this past election season)... the unemployment rate is lower than the 70s, the 80s, or the 90s... many many jobs were lost while President Bush was in office... a big reason for this was 9/11... regular Americans can see this as painfully obvious, and not blame the President for it.. another reason for manufacturing jobs leaving (outsourcing), is nafta... bonus points for anyone who can tell me who signed that into law (hint: after President Bush, and before President Bush)... in any case, due to the remarkable efficiency of the American workforce, we also have something called "insourcing" which is the counterpart to outsourcing (foreign countries opening up shop here, and hiring Americans)..

the link between taxes and the economy is well established... more taxes and regulations mean fewer jobs, which mean less money spent on goods, services, savings, and investment...

folks, the choice was clear, and to most Americans, it wasnt at all about religion, faith, God, or aesthetics... it was about a clear choice for the future of this nation, for the voters themselves, and for the children of those voters... this nation voted for sustained economic recovery, for security, for honesty... believe the lies the media is still telling you at your peril... what happened on 11/2 can, and will, happen again in 2008... the democrat party needs to do some serious soul searching and figure out where and when it went so terribly wrong... zell miller wrote a book on that very subject... a national party no more...

may this trend continue...

 

[Your_Ass]

for starters, to believe what you are hearing in the media about this being the result of a religious crusade, you also must believe everything in the few months leading up to the elections that was spoon fed to you by the major media outlets...

we do? I think that we can make our own decision based on the facts presented to us on each issue independantly. We don't have to take the media on its word always. No one said the media is perfect, but it certainly isnt always wrong.

That logical fallacy is called the "slippery slope" for a definition of this fallacy go to: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Debating-1.html#Slope
(Don’t be dissuaded by the site’s UTTER nerdiness it’s a great page for learning all about logical fallacies, awesome if you want to call other peoples’ fallacies or if you want to avoid making them your self)

the religious vote wasnt [sic] any more of a factor than it has been in other elections...

Have you read the exit polls?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
“MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE
22% Moral Values
20% Economy/Jobs
19% Terrorism”

Compare that to the 2000 exit polls…
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
“Which issue mattered most?
18% Economy/Jobs
15% Education
14% Taxes”

Clearly you’re wrong. If you think that me and CNN are wrong, you could always support your argument with facts.

security matters... terrorism is not a nuisance... the endorsement of kerry by one osama bin laden tells an interesting tale.. the guy who orchestrated the murder of thousands of US civillians wanted kerry to win... the thought process here need not be explained..

Terrorism does matter, it just matters less than economy and moral values. However, you were wrong about the bin laden tape, it worked against bush.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
“OSAMA BIN LADEN VIDEOTAPE
Very Important 32% 47% voted Bush 53% voted Kerry”

Again, you should really support your argument with some kind of objective source.

honesty matters... on this, as well as a number of other polls, the numbers consistantly [sic] told the same story... when President Bush speaks, like him or not, he means what he says...

like security, it does matter but not as much as other issues…
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

“MOST IMPORTANT QUALITY
Will Bring Change (24%)
Strong Leader (17%)
Clear Stand on Issues (17%)
Honest/Trustworthy(11%)”

when President Bush speaks, like him or not, he means what he says

I hope you mean that PEOPLE BELIEVE he means what he says, I believe he said something about WMD a while back that didn’t quite work out that way.

gay marriage does NOT matter, at least not in this election... kerry and President Bush both publicly voiced support for gay civil unions, and opposition to gay marriage...

Once more, you are wrong.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

“POLICY TOWARD SAME-SEX COUPLES

Legally Marry (25%) 22% voted Bush 77% voted Kerry
Civil Unions (35%) 52% voted Bush 47% voted Kerry
No Legal Recognition (37%) 70% voted Bush 29% vote Kerry”

It is clear that it DID matter; people who opposed gay marriage overwhelmingly supported bush, much more than the national average. And people who support gay marriage overwhelmingly supported Kerry, are you saying this is a complete coincidence?

folks, the choice was clear, and to most Americans, it wasnt at all about religion, faith, God, or aesthetics... it was about a clear choice for the future of this nation,

While you may not WANT to think that evangelical christians GREATLY impacted this election, the numbers don’t back up your claims (maybe that’s why you didn’t cite any). The most damming stat is….

“WHITE EVANGELICAL/BORN-AGAIN?

Yes (23%) 78% voted Bush 21% voted Kerry
No (77%) 43% voted Bush 56% voted Kerry”

If nearly a quarter of the voters considered them selves evangelical/born-again Christians and more than three quarters voted for Bush and they mostly did it for religious reasons (moral values) than I would definitely say that religion and faith is what the election ended up being MOST about.

the democrat party needs to do some serious soul searching and figure out where and when it went so terribly wrong...

Finally something we can agree on.

[NOTE, anything I didn’t address specifically I either agreed with, or couldn’t find valuable, reliable data to contradict it.]

 

[cableguy]

please enlighten us on who those same exit polls showed as the CLEAR winner of the office of President of the United States of America... was it perhaps senator kerry?? hmmmm... if the ONE measurable, verifyable certainty was that far wrong, id say your data taken from these same polls might be a tad bit off, wouldnt you agree??

again, please continue to think the way you do... i tried to help, but you wouldnt listen... actually, continue to act the way you do, speak the way you do, and think the way you do... also, please encourage any others you talk to to do the same... the republicans just might be able to get a supermajority in congress in 06... :lol:

 

[Your_Ass]

please [sic] enlighten us on who those same exit polls showed as the CLEAR winner of the office of President of the United States of America...

The exit polls show President Bush as the clear winner of the election. Did you read them?

was [sic] it perhaps senator kerry [sic]??

No.

if [sic] the ONE measurable, verifyable [sic] certainty was that far wrong, id [sic] say your data taken from these same polls might be a tad bit off, wouldnt [sic] you agree??

False Dilemma Fallacy
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Debating-1.html#Dilemma

First, there are literally DOZENS of measurable and verifiable “certainties” that can be extrapolated from the exit polling. Again I suggest you follow the link (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html) and see for yourself how many different aspects of the motivation and character of voters can be determined.

Second, you are wrong, the exit polling shows a Bush win exactly on par with the percentages that he won by in the official election. Although a cursory glance could affirm this, you could easily work it out with some simple math. The number of respondents (13660) multiplied by the percentage of male voters (46% = .46) multiplied be the percentage that voted for Bush (55% = .55) plus the total number of respondents (13660) multiplied by the percentage of female voters (54% = .54) multiplied by the percentage that voted for bush (48% = .48 ). Then take that number and divide it by the total number of respondents (13660). [(((13660*.46*.55)+(133660*.54*.48 ))/13660)= 0.51 or 51%] Which, surprise surprise, is the exact percentage he got in the official election.

Since your FALSE DILEMA was wrong the conclusion that you drew, that the exit poll results are unreliable, is also wrong. So, No I wouldn’t agree that the data taken from these polls is “a tad bit off” I would say it’s highly accurate. Otherwise why would they even bother to do them? Again I suggest that you actually read the information I present before responding to it with knee-jerk partisan hackery.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

First off everyone here needs to fully understand that anything typed in this thread is YOUR OPINION!!!! Its not law and this isn't a place to prove just "how smart you are"! Though i think its funny to read you peoples "ha take that" statements they tend to rile up unneeded BS from others.

Bout the exit polls if they are anywhere near accurate it was by accident because the political game played here is telling you voted for the opposite candidate so your party will get up and vote when they see their man behind in the polls.

 

[Your_Ass]

First off everyone here needs to fully understand that anything typed in this thread is YOUR OPINION!!!! Its not law and this isn't a place to prove just "how smart you are"! Though i think its funny to read you peoples "ha take that" statements they tend to rile up unneeded BS from others.

I understand it's my opinion. But it’s also the opinion of the NEP (more on them later). It’s a bit like saying Evolution is your opinion, well it is, but it is also the opinion of every reputable scientist in the world. About whether or not they rile up people, that’s not really my fault. If someone chooses to be sensitive because I don’t believe the same thing they do, they probably shouldn’t be posting their opinions on a public forum.

Bout the exit polls if they are anywhere near accurate it was by accident because the political game played here is telling you voted for the opposite candidate so your party will get up and vote when they see their man behind in the polls.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. Exit polls are conducted by the NEP (National Election Pool) which is a consortium of ABC News, AP, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News. (http://www.exit-poll.net/faq.html#a1) They certainly aren’t done by the Republicans and Democrats. Those early reports that favored Kerry were a result of leaked information from the incomplete survey. Besides, the exit polls aren't even FOR determining who is going to win, but rather why people voted the way they did. People (like all the news stations in the 2000 elections) like to look at the exit polls to try and project winners, but in 2000 and again in 2004 that is shown as an unreliable way to predict a winner. However when the data is fully compiled it tends to be accurate.

I’ve been crunching some numbers (not just for you guys I have an essay to write on the subject). Essentially I’m trying to figure out how much Evangelical Christian turnout affected the election. They asked voters this year if they consider themselves Evangelical Christians, but in 2000 they didn’t, so it’s a little hard to accurately calculate the figure. But I tried to do it anyway. In 2000 they did ask how often the voter went to church. I then considered people who go to church once a week “Evangelical Christians”. This is where my numbers could go terribly wrong, this isn’t really the definition of Evangelical Christians, but even if it isn’t Evangelical Christians, it’s still a good number for Christians. Which is good enough for me, anyway…

In 2000:
50,996,116 voted for Gore
50,456,169 voted for Bush
3,874,040 voted for “other”
105,326,325 voted in total

9,289,781.865 people voted for Bush that go to church more than weekly.
15,009,001.3125 people voted for Bush that go to church weekly.
A total of 24,298,783.1775 people voted for Bush that go to church at least weekly.

23% of all voters are Evangelical Christians that voted for Bush

In 2004:
59,459,765 voted for Bush
55,949,407 voted for Kerry
400,706 voted for Nader
115,809,878 voted in Total

11,858,931.5072 people voted for Bush that go to church more than weekly
17,464,129.6024 people voted for Bush that go to church weekly
A total of 29,323,061.1096 people voted for Bush that go to church at least weekly

25% of all voters are evangelical Christians that voted for bush

Conclusion:
Voter turnout is up 9% (105 mil divided by 115 mil)
Evangelical Christians who voted for Bush increased 17% (24 mil divided by 29 mil)
The increase in total voter turnout didn’t match the increase in total Evangelical Christians that voted for Bush. I’m no statistician, and since we’re dealing with some percentages I could be absolutely wrong. But there is an 8 point difference between the increase in voter turnout and the increase in Evangelical Turnout. If Evangelical Voter turnout grew at the same rate as the rest of the vote, it would have been 26,485,673. However the actual number was 29,323,061. This is how the 8 points are represented, 2,837,388 votes. Initially, it doesn’t seem like this affected a whole lot. But 2.8 million votes swung the other way, would put Bush’s popular vote at 56,622,377 and Kerry’s popular vote at 58,786,795. That’s a considerable margin (2,164,418), four times the margin Gore had over Bush (539,947). A county by county examination would be required to conclusively tell if this would have swayed the results of the election in the other direction. However I am confidant it would have, given the closeness of the previous election with the difference of only 500k votes. I think this (almost) conclusively proves that Evangelical Christians dramatically affected the Election.

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

PLEAE NOTE: I am not a math major, and I am a human, there may be some considerable logical/mathematical errors in my calculations. If there are any problems please PM me and I’ll do my best to correct the numbers, thanks.

EDIT: my numbers for evangelical Christians that voted for bush are 9 million higher than the number of people who claimed to be in the 2004 exit poll, either a couple of percent of people disagreed with being called "Evangelical" or my definition of Evangelical Christian is wrong, its probably the later.

 

[oscaraustin]

Voter turnout is up 9% (105 mil divided by 115 mil)
Evangelical Christians who voted for Bush increased 17% (24 mil divided by 29 mil)
The increase in total voter turnout didn’t match the increase in total Evangelical Christians that voted for Bush.

Percentage-wise you are accurate, but percent is not the important thing here. Total voter increase (i think 115 mil is low, may be wrong, but i thought i'd seen reports of much higher than that; ~120 or so), went up 10 million(105 to 115). Evangelical increase here is 5 million (24-29). Therefore, we have 5 million more evangelical voters, and 5 million more non-evangelical voters according to your deductions. What this means is that there is no change in advantage, just more weight to be thrown all around.

In order to get the accurate increases, i think you need to divide evangelicals by the total number of voters, not just evangelical 2000 / evangelical 2004. Good attempt though, i know i would not go anywhere near those numbers.

 

[Supafly]

Your, 76.5 of all Americans Claim to be Christian. (I'm one of the other 23.5%)

So your "25% of all voters are evangelical Christians that voted for bush", Doesn't really justify your claim that the "Religous Right" has taken over.

If your number was a little higher then I might be concerned.

One thing that life will teach that college doesn't is that anything can be manipulated in any way to help prove a point or opinion. Even science and math. They are both creations of man and man is definetly not perfect.

 

[Texan]

I am a "Christian" and I voted for Bush. I voted for Bush not because of religious beliefs, but for his political stances. To say that the Christian right is the reason for Bush's reelection is the biggest pile of "Donkey Dung" I have ever heard. Except it Bush won, maybe the people of this great country are just tired of constantly being fed donkey dung sandwiches.

 

[Gonjawolverine]

To say that the Christian right is the reason for Bush's reelection is the biggest pile of "Donkey Dung" I have ever heard. Except it Bush won, maybe the people of this great country are just tired of constantly being fed donkey dung sandwiches.

Donkey Dung? I can only assume that is knock on the democrats, cute. But all the shit sandwiches we have been fed for the last 4 years belong to the republicans in office. I don't like being lied to repeatedly, but with the talking corporation Dubbya Bush in office, that is exactly what we are going to get, lies, lies and guess what? More lies. This country is in a downward spirial right now. Throughout the world, America used to stand for something. Now we are a joke. With Bush at the helm, we are only headed for more debt and problems. The War in Iraq is costing us well over $700 Billion right now, and before this thing started, Bush claimed that the oil they were confiscating would pay for the war and the rebuilding efforts. I can almost assure you that when Bush's time in the White House is over, we will still have a military presense in Iraq. If this war ever comes to an end, Do you think that "Free" Iraq wil just write us a 1+ Trillion dollar check and say (in a Canadian voice) " Thanks a lot a lot buddy." I fucking doubt it. Truth is, both your's and my Grandchildren will be paying that shit off, all of their lives. But honestly even if Kerry would have been elected, we would've and are having such a hard time clearing up all the fucking debt we have as a nation. But the problem is Dubbya had to invade Iraq, he had to finish his daddy's fuck-up, so he created the problem. That is, more debt. But we are in so much debt right now it doesn't matter to bush what fiscal responsibility is, he's got someone on the payroll for that, Right?

United States National Debt Cock------>LINK<----------
Damn, That is a lot of fucking debt. Thanks Dubbya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Your_Ass]

@ oscaraustin

Percentage-wise you are accurate, but percent is not the important thing here. Total voter increase (i think 115 mil is low, may be wrong, but i thought i'd seen reports of much higher than that; ~120 or so), went up 10 million(105 to 115).

According to CNN.com its 115. If you could provide some link showing it as 120 mil that would change the numbers a bit.

Evangelical increase here is 5 million (24-29). Therefore, we have 5 million more evangelical voters, and 5 million more non-evangelical voters according to your deductions. What this means is that there is no change in advantage, just more weight to be thrown all around.

No see my numbers covered that. The total increase in voter turnout is 9%, the increase in total evangelicals voting for Bush is 17%. So they did increase their advantage.

In order to get the accurate increases, i think you need to divide evangelicals by the total number of voters, not just evangelical 2000 / evangelical 2004. Good attempt though, i know i would not go anywhere near those numbers.

I did, the 23% and 25% figures represent the total number of evangelical Christians divided by the total number of voters for the respective years.

@Supafly

Your, 76.5 of all Americans Claim to be Christian. (I'm one of the other 23.5%)

So your "25% of all voters are evangelical Christians that voted for bush", Doesn't really justify your claim that the "Religous Right" has taken over.

Well first, that is called the Straw Man Fallacy
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Debating-1.html#Strawman

It is the straw man fallacy because I never claimed the “religious right” has taken over. My point is to counter cableguy’s point that this election was not “about” religion. And when the majority of people vote based on morals I would say that Christianity had a huge impact on this election, particularly those who go to church at least once a week. This is all backed up my numbers, which are based on the exit polls.

If your number was a little higher then I might be concerned.

I’m not trying to “concern” you. I’m trying to prove that Evangelical Christians had a substantial impact on this election, probably more than any other one group.

One thing that life will teach that college doesn't is that anything can be manipulated in any way to help prove a point or opinion. Even science and math. They are both creations of man and man is definetly not perfect.

Well, first, college does teach you that. Second I agree. Time and time again in studies, biased researchers come up with results that are heavily in favor with their hypotheses. This may, in fact, be what’s happening here. But since you don’t actually cite any problems with my logic or math you aren’t really presenting any kind of argument. Saying that because math isn’t perfect we shouldn’t trust statistically derived information is not only a logical fallacy, but just wrong.

It’s the leap in logic fallacy.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Debating-1.html#Leap
Essentially you have two points, 1) that science isn’t perfect and 2) that my numbers are wrong and connect them without any logical linkage between them. In order to avoid this you have to attack some part of my argument.

Again I don’t take particular pride in my mathematical abilities, so if you are going to disagree with my results, you need to actually present some kind of argument.

@Texan

I am a "Christian" and I voted for Bush. I voted for Bush not because of religious beliefs, but for his political stances. To say that the Christian right is the reason for Bush's reelection is the biggest pile of "Donkey Dung" I have ever heard. Except [sic] it Bush won, maybe the people of this great country are just tired of constantly being fed donkey dung sandwiches.

Texan, this isn’t really about what your personal opinions are. The argument we’re having is one with numbers, not with un-cited personal opinions. Unless there is an exit poll that says “75% of Americans say they don’t like shit sandwiches” then I don’t think it can reasonably be brought into the argument. It sounds like your just having an emotional reaction to my point. Although I don’t know why, in essence I’m saying that you are part of a group that has more power than any 1 other group.


It’s important to realize that this isn’t a theory that I came up with on my own. This is a highly commented on conclusion made by political analysts at a number of different news stations. I am just doing the math that brought them to that conclusion. It’s also important to realize that this is certainly not a case of the religion right taking over. In essence they only have the power they do, because other groups didn’t come out like they were supposed to. If, for instance, the youth vote had been heavily Kerry and they came out in higher number they would have effectively “blocked” the Evangelical Christian vote. It’s a delicate balance we have because of our diverse society. Any extremists (in this case Evangelical Christians and the Youth Vote btw I’m 20) usually provoke an equal reaction in the extremists that oppose them. In that way the extremists usually cancel themselves out, and the moderates typically run away with the election. This didn’t happen in this election and I am merely bringing light to it.


P.S. what is the code to have the “Supafly Says” style quotes. I tried .

but that didn’t do it, any ideas?

 

[cableguy]

was there a question regarding nra membership in the election exit polls??? how about naral affiliation??? exit polls are, because they have to be, very limited... if you are only offered 5 choices, most people will pick the closest one... a question i have problems with is this: "are you concerned about gun control?" yes, i am, but NOT in a way that would favor more of it... the nra endorsed President Bush, and has yet to endorse a losing Presidential candidate... this group, i have no idea how large it is, but it would include members and fans, is NOT small... their numbers are in the millions... and they vote...

ya, good analysis, but i still have one problem... you are making an assumption that the "new" "evangelical" voters were going to vote either kerry or bush... i offer an alternative--that those same voters would not have voted for kerry, but stayed home instead... in terms of raw popular vote, this shrinks the margin, but does not change the outcome... that would depend on the electoral college, and which states lost voters... i still dont buy that this was a religious victory... a victory for religion, perhaps, but not because of it...

in other news, is anyone familiar with frances unilateral warmaking in the ivory coast??? where is the global outrage?? where are the protest marches??? it simply isnt fair to fight half naked people wielding machetes and spears with helicopter gunships and machine guns... personally, i have no dog in this hunt, so i dont much care based on what i know now, but there is a striking similarity between this and what the frenchies, the germans, and the liberals SAID was happening in iraq... all comments and clarifications welcome, as i see this as a blatant double standard...

 

[Your_Ass]

was there a question regarding nra membership in the election exit polls???

To my knowledge the only gun related question was, “GUN OWNER IN HOUSEHOLD?” of which 41% said yes, and of those 63% voted for Bush.

how about naral affiliation???

No but there was a question that dealt with abortion. “ABORTION SHOULD BE...” of which 55% of voters said they think it should be mostly, or always illegal and they voted for Bush 73-77%.

exit polls are, because they have to be, very limited... if you are only offered 5 choices, most people will pick the closest one...

I agree. But, so what?

a question i have problems with is this: "are you concerned about gun control?" yes, i am, but NOT in a way that would favor more of it...

a question I have a problems with is “do you like shit sandwiches?” You know what our questions have in common? They both weren’t on the 2004 exit polls (at least the questions reported on CNN.com I suppose there is a chance that CNN edited the questions and there is in fact a shit sandwich question on the full exit polls). But again you are half arguing your point. I agree that there could be potential problems with the WAY they ask questions, but you failed to prove 2 things. 1) that it happened with these exit polls (specifically the ones I used) and 2) that it makes the results of my analysis inaccurate.

the nra endorsed President Bush, and has yet to endorse a losing Presidential candidate... this group, i have no idea how large it is, but it would include members and fans, is NOT small... their numbers are in the millions... and they vote...

I agree, and I don’t like them either, but what do they have to do with anything? We’re talking about Evangelical Christians.

ya, good analysis,

Thanks!

but i still have one problem... you are making an assumption that the "new" "evangelical" voters were going to vote either kerry or bush... i offer an alternative--that those same voters would not have voted for kerry, but stayed home instead...

Wait…. Are you serious? Your one problem with my analysis is that I assumed voters had voted? THESE ARE EXIT POLLS. They are done AFTER PEOPLE VOTED, ON THEIR WAY OUT OF THE POLLING PLACE. I capitalize that so you’ll realize how silly it is to say, “well you’re problem is that you assumed new voters have voted”. There is a good number of people who stayed home, but none of them are relevant because they aren’t represented in the stats. So now that your one problem is gone, do you agree?

i still dont [sic] buy that this was a religious victory... a victory for religion, perhaps, but not because of it...

Now that your “one problem” is fixed maybe you will buy that religion played a substantial roll in this election.

I don’t mean to be rude or offensive, but you have demonstrated again and again that you.. 1)haven’t even viewed the exit polls, and 2) Don’t understand what an exit poll is. I strong recommend you check them out at the following links.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html