Liberals need to stop sneering at people

[Drake Tungsten]

More fun with statistics!

ABOUT THAT URBAN/RURAL DIVIDE.
Gallup's post-election poll seems to do some major damage to the rapidly emerging conventional wisdom about the 2004 election. According to Gallup, George W. Bush improved his share among suburban voters (51 percent in 2000, 54 percent in 2004) and among urban voters (35 percent in 2000, 44 percent in 2004) while doing worse among rural voters (60 percent in 2000, down to 54 percent in 2004). Similarly, while Bush gained among all categories of educational attainment, his biggest improvement was among those holding postgraduate degrees (47 percent, up from 43 percent) while his smallest gain was among those with high school or less (46 percent, up from 45 percent).

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/11/index.html#004734

Bush won because of ignorant rural folk, right?

[Ramo]

I am just pointing out to PV the implications of the Brooks column he posted- it does not say I agree with Brooks.

For example, the imporved Bush outcome in the blue states could have been due ot better approval, as Brooks says, or due to decreased turnout amongst Kerry backers in states that they saw as safe. Given our election method here in this country, the question is what occured in the few states that are competative in this all or nothing system.

That's correct. One major flaw in the Kerry campaign was to focus GOTV exclusively in the battleground states, while the Bush campaign had a country wide GOTV operation. The popular vote would've been far closer if he'd spent just a little of his resources in other states.

And it's pretty absurd to claim that there wasn't a huge evangelical turnout when the proportion of evangelicals stayed the same, and there was a large increase in turnout. If there's a 10% increase in turnout, that'd mean there's a 10% increase in evangelical turnout. Which is not just "a few more."

Dear Leader wedded his victory to the fundies, to the bigots. If Brooks or Drake don't like it, TFB.

So back at you.

[Ramo]

In Travis County (where I live), where other races brought out the left, Kerry in fact did 14% better than Gore and 4% better than Gore+Nader in 2000.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Ramo
In Travis County (where I live), where other races brought out the left, Kerry in fact did 14% better than Gore and 4% better than Gore+Nader in 2000.

In total numbers or in percentage of overall vote?
Also, what are the demographics of Travis County?

[Ramo]

Percentage of the overall vote. In total numbers, it'd be much more than that. It's mostly white, large hispanic minority, lots of students (UT has over 50,000), mostly urban.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48453.html

[pchang]

So Nader got 10% in 2000. That would be a particularly high Nader vote.

[Drake Tungsten]

Dear Leader wedded his victory to the fundies, to the bigots.

I'm still waiting for the evidence of this. Got any, slick?

[Ramo]

Depends on what you mean. Leftists in red states generally voted for Nader in high proportions in 2000. IIRC, he got 10% statewide in Alaska.

[pchang]

I thought he pulled about 6% nationwide. Thus, 10% would be high.

[Ramo]

I'm still waiting for the evidence of this. Got any, slick?

The moral values exit polling (and moral values is codeword for fundie Christian values - the media interprets it this way because that's how it's generally used), the large fundie turnout, and it's remarkable that the anti-gay marriage amendments won in all 11 states. So extremism against gay marriage is likely not limited to fundies.

[Drake Tungsten]

That's a pretty sad showing...

[GePap]

See PV, to continue making your case with NY Times evidence (ironic, no?)

Maybe Same-Sex Marriage Didn't Make the Difference
By PAM BELLUCK

Published: November 7, 2004

BOSTON — In deconstructing the Democratic Party's Election Day failure, a number of fingers have been pointing to the push for same-sex marriage.

The charge has come not only from leaders on the right - those who assert that voters eager to preserve traditional marriage swarmed to the polls and voted for George W. Bush. Even within Democratic circles, gay marriage is being held responsible.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat, said that the thousands of same-sex weddings at San Francisco City Hall "did energize a very conservative vote." She added: "So I think that whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon. And people aren't ready for it." Other Democrats are privately saying similar things.

Did the push for gay marriage really hurt John Kerry's campaign for president? Gay rights' advocates bristle at the charge, not least because they do not want their movement to lose traction, and they have marshaled statistics and logic to refute it.

"To blame gay people for the failure of the Democratic message to motivate people is frankly unfair, and frankly, it's homophobic," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Yes, the right wing was energized as never before to turn out for George Bush, but it's energized over a whole range of issues. Karl Rove has catered to their every need, with stem-cell research, the ban on late-term abortion, faith-based initiatives, restrictions on funding for overseas contraception, prayer in the schools. Was gay marriage a factor? Yes, along with a lot of factors."

Conservatives have crowed that in 11 states voters passed constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. And in pivotal Ohio, a sweeping ban on gay marriage won by a 62 percent to 38 percent margin.

Even so, gay-marriage advocates say they do not believe that the amendments had a great effect on the presidential vote, especially because 10 of those states already had laws against gay marriage. "You can look at the three battleground states - Oregon, Michigan and Ohio - where amendments were on the ballot," Mr. Foreman said. Mr. Kerry carried Oregon by nearly 5 percentage points more than Al Gore did, Mr. Foreman said, and won more votes in Michigan than Mr. Gore. In Ohio, he was 2 points closer to victory than Mr. Gore.

Advocates also pointed to exit polls showing that 27 percent of voters support same-sex marriage and another 35 percent support civil unions.

''That means 62 percent of the American public believes in those values I believe in: fairness and equality," said Mary L. Bonauto, civil rights project director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who argued the case that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

She added: "Why did President Bush have to say in the last 10 days of the campaign that he supports civil unions? Why did he have to say he was repudiating the Republican platform on civil unions? There's some good news here, too." (She referred to an Oct. 24 statement by Mr. Bush, who said that people should have a right to civil unions if their state chose to allow it.)

Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a coalition based in New York, said the poll results show remarkable progress made by gay-marriage advocates.

"Civil unions didn't exist five years ago," he said. "If the center of the country has moved to a place of civil union or gay marriage, that suggests that the idea that there's a massive public rejection of gay people is ridiculous."

Mr. Wolfson, author of "Why Marriage Matters," likened the status of gay marriage to the status of racial equality after the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, which, he said, led to years of upheaval and backlash before legislation was passed that supported racial equality. "This is the classic American pattern of civil rights advance," he said. "It's patchwork. Some states move toward equality faster, while others resist and even regress."

Yet gay rights' advocates will need to grapple with the surge in voting by evangelical Christians and those who ranked "moral values" first among their concerns. "When the right wing attacks us it hurts, but it can help," Ms. Bonauto said. "This is going to be an enormous unifying force for us. They had a good day, so to speak. But not as good a day as they think they had."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/weekinreview/07bell.html?pagewanted=all

[Ramo]

I thought he pulled about 6% nationwide. Thus, 10% would be high.

Around 3 or 4% IIRC. It's pretty high compared to the country, but it's not all that high for an urban center with tons of students in a red state.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GePap
See PV, to continue making your case with NY Times evidence (ironic, no?)

[q]Maybe Same-Sex Marriage Didn't Make the Difference
By PAM BELLUCK

Published: November 7, 2004

insightful article . . . . .

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Agathon
I have science on my side.

You lie.
Snoped http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/gop.asp