On Losing Votes

[Cangamble]

I commend LGF (a Republican blog) for posting an article which gives a very good reason for why many people voted against the Republicans this year:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31928_On_Losing_Votes

Actually Charles (the blog owner) is a progressive Republican. He is completely repulsed by those who want to push intelligent design into classrooms.

Note: I think the Republicans would have lost regardless, because of the economy and the prolonged war in Iraq. But the reason they had their butts handed to them can be found in the doctor's article.

[ArlJim78]

McCains loss had nothing whatsoever to do with social issues like intelligent design, and this point was driven home repeatedly to the blog owner on that thread.

I'm curious, you say that Republicans would have lost anyway, but the reasons for the loss can be found in the article. which is it?

The guy at LGF is on a crusade against anyone belonging to a religion. Its like if you go to church you automatically support teaching creationism in schools and support abortion clinic bombings. he's a fanatic.

[Cangamble]

McCains loss had nothing whatsoever to do with social issues like intelligent design, and this point was driven home repeatedly to the blog owner on that thread.

I'm curious, you say that Republicans would have lost anyway, but the reasons for the loss can be found in the article. which is it?

The guy at LGF is on a crusade against anyone belonging to a religion. Its like if you go to church you automatically support teaching creationism in schools and support abortion clinic bombings. he's a fanatic.
I'm not saying that ID had anything to do with the election. Neither does the article. Did you read the article.
And I said that the reason the Republicans got slaughtered is because of the reasons cited in the article. Had those reasons not been around the Repubs probably would have still lost, but they wouldn't have got their butts handed to them.
And I haven't seen anything on LGF that goes against the church....only against the idea of putting creationism into schools.

[ArlJim78]

yes I read the article, he makes no sense. he claims that he didn't vote for Republicans this time because they embraced the religious right. he did say that he voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. the fact is that there was LESS embracing of the religious right this time than in the elections where he voted Republican. what changed this time? McCain wasn't a strident champion of banning abortions or gay marriage or embryonic stem cell research. when were those issues even brought up in the campaign or in the debates?

In fact people went out of their way to shoot down gay marriage everywhere it was on the ballot, while they were also voting for Obama. if you look at the exit polling data, there is nothing to suggest that people moved away from Republicans this time due to social issues. I know a few people are trying to make that claim, I just feel they are way off base. They basically think Republicans should become more like Democrats in order to win but in fact they would only lose bigger.

It was the economy and the fact that Obama was more charismatic, more dynamic, more inspiring to the average person than McCain. The economy and public perception are always the biggest factors.

the guy at LGF doesn't get on the church per se, but he makes it clear what he thinks of people of faith. basically he thinks they're knuckledraggin morons who commit child abuse if they teach their own children about creationism.
I'm not a person of faith either, but I can't stand how he constantly belittles people that are.

[Cangamble]

I think LGF calls Young Earth Creationists knuckledraggers. And he gets no argument from me. I don't think he ever goes after churches or God, just reality deniers.

As for this election. Palin was the wildcard along with McCain's age. McCain caved into the RR by selecting Palin, and it is just too evident that McCain could die in office since he is 72 years old.

I don't know what exit polls you are referring to, but I know from my discussions with many secular Americans, this doctor is not off base.

Also, gay marriage is a religious issue. And it shouldn't even be on the ballot.
Intermarriage was on a ballot in Southern state a while back, and it got voted down 70% to 30%. Governments are in place to prevent it when the will of the people supercedes individual rights.

[JustRalph]

LGF...........has lost its reputation and is mostly ignored due to this crap............

[Show Me the Wire]

As long as we are back to the ID discussion. Cangamble, do you believe in extraterrestial intelligent life? How about the philosophy contained in the CHARIOT OF GODS?

I would like to know.

[Cangamble]

LGF...........has lost its reputation and is mostly ignored due to this crap............
LGF ignored? It gets thousands of comments. It is one of the most popular blogs on the net.
Don't shoot the messenger. There are many Americans who changed their vote because of the reasons cited by the doctor thanks to the nomination of Palin.

[Cangamble]

As long as we are back to the ID discussion. Cangamble, do you believe in extraterrestial intelligent life? How about the philosophy contained in the CHARIOT OF GODS?

I would like to know.
I believe that with the billions of planets in the universe, it must be filled with intelligent life forms.
Can they travel to this planet? Perhaps, but I'm skeptical on that issue.

If you want to say they planted the seed for the first life on this earth, it still boils down to the idea of who how the aliens got their start, where I would lean on abiogenesis for that one.

[Show Me the Wire]

I don't want to say anything. Just wondering where you stood on that issue. I beleive the real questions would be; did the ETs just colonize or insert the building blocks to begin humanity or manipulate the DNA code of another humanoid species.

[Cangamble]

I don't want to say anything. Just wondering where you stood on that issue. I beleive the real questions would be; did the ETs just colonize or insert the building blocks to begin humanity or manipulate the DNA code of another humanoid species.
I would have to say no, since planets didn't come about until just half a billion years before it is speculated life began.
It didn't give ETs a chance to evolve into sophisticated intelligent enough creatures to travel vast distances in the universe.
So I will stick with what Potholer54 speculates:
v8nYTJf62sE

[JustRalph]

LGF ignored? It gets thousands of comments. It is one of the most popular blogs on the net.
Don't shoot the messenger. There are many Americans who changed their vote because of the reasons cited by the doctor thanks to the nomination of Palin.


yeah, doesn't mean they aren't wasting their time on a faux conservative website............ the fact that they get into shit that they have no reason to, is why I don't like it. There are better places to go.

I only have so many hours in the day, As a certified news junkie....... I pick and choose and when half the shit you talk about is beyond what Conservatives should be discussing, I am outta here............or outta there as it may be

[PaceAdvantage]

yes I read the article, he makes no sense. he claims that he didn't vote for Republicans this time because they embraced the religious right. he did say that he voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. the fact is that there was LESS embracing of the religious right this time than in the elections where he voted Republican.Now this is an excellent point.

It probably should be noted that if the religious right had a candidate they could rally around (and McCain wasn't it, and Palin barely helped), the election would have been much closer. Doesn't this fact invalidate the main thrust of the good doctor's theory?

[Cangamble]

Now this is an excellent point.

It probably should be noted that if the religious right had a candidate they could rally around (and McCain wasn't it, and Palin barely helped), the election would have been much closer. Doesn't this fact invalidate the main thrust of the good doctor's theory?
No it doesn't. As I explained above.
Palin was forced on McCain as a selection to appease the RR. I don't remember another Republican nominee who got on the ticket that way.
I've stated this many times on the board prior to the election. The move alienated many Republicans who value separation of church and state and don't care for social conservatism (which does not need to be part of a political platform).
I'm in Canada, and I was hoping McCain would win, until the selection of Palin, when I changed my stance and wanted the Republicans to get destroyed.

[hcap]

Makes the situation 10x worse
Many creationists also believe in.....

http://www.pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=16945

"According to a 2006 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, a third of white evangelicals believe the world will end in their lifetimes. These mostly conservative Christians believe a great battle is imminent. After years of tribulation—natural disasters, other cataclysms (such as the collapse of financial markets)—God's armies will vanquish armies led by the Antichrist himself. He will be a sweet-talking world leader who gathers governments and economies under his command to further his own evil agenda. In this world view, "the spread of secular progressive ideas is a prelude to the enslavement of mankind," explains Richard Landes, former director of the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University"

When this stuff gets mixed in with politics, all rationality goes out the window.

[Boris]

When this stuff gets mixed in with politics, all rationality goes out the window.

Like Global Warming?

[Lefty]

LGF, this time, is way offbase. This election was lost because the media did everything in its power to destroy GW Bush for 8 yrs. Then they picked a candidate and didn't let the people in on Obama's savory connections and how he went back on his promise to give Ill the middle class tax cut he promised when he ran for State Senate. They didn't investigate his connections withthe gangster Resco and the terrorist Ayers, and rev wright and others.
They sent 30 reporters to Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin but they couldn't find any. They could have found plenty on Obama but they kept it to themselves.
Religion had nothing to do with losing this election. Pravda picked their candidate and rammed him down uninformed throats.

Intelligent design is a theory just like evolution is a theory and I think it's a small mind that can't embrace both.

[Cangamble]

LGF, this time, is way offbase. This election was lost because the media did everything in its power to destroy GW Bush for 8 yrs. Then they picked a candidate and didn't let the people in on Obama's savory connections and how he went back on his promise to give Ill the middle class tax cut he promised when he ran for State Senate. They didn't investigate his connections withthe gangster Resco and the terrorist Ayers, and rev wright and others.
They sent 30 reporters to Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin but they couldn't find any. They could have found plenty on Obama but they kept it to themselves.
Religion had nothing to do with losing this election. Pravda picked their candidate and rammed him down uninformed throats.

Intelligent design is a theory just like evolution is a theory and I think it's a small mind that can't embrace both.
I watched all three cable news shows. There was tons on Wright and Ayers.
Religion had a lot to do with it, but you can keep your head in the sand about it if you want. The doctor is not the only one who was repulsed by Palin.

I know you won't answer this directly, because nobody ever does, what exactly does the theory of intelligent design state regarding when life showed up on earth, the age of the earth, and what scientific research does it have going for it regarding the predictions? You say ID is a theory, I'd like to know what the theory states exactly.

But then again, by you saying evolution is just a theory, you are out of your league here anyway, I suggest you read up on what a scientific theory is (assuming you want to educate yourself):
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm

[Cangamble]

Another great article that was posted prior to the election:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/10/obama_mccain_palin_and_religio.html

I just want to add, I predicted an Obama landslide because of the Palin selection. The majority is fed up with the RR making social issues political ones.

If the Republicans continue blurring the line between separation of church and state down the road, they will be on the road to extinction. Mark my words.

The internet is killing the Young Earth Creationist movement. I see it every day on Youtube for example. More and more young people are learning that preachers and parents who teach that the earth is young and evolution is bogus are feeding them crap. And then they wind up questioning everything about religion. The reason I bring up YECs is that YECs make up a good chunk of the RR.

These are the facts, don't shoot the messenger.

[PaceAdvantage]

So on the one hand, in 2004, it was the RR that was credited with winning the election for George W. Bush.

A mere four years later, it's the RR that is credited (in part at least) for LOSING the election for McCain? And not because they didn't show up for McCain, but because people are so fed up with the RR that they voted for Obama?

Is that what the LGF blog is trying to get me to believe?

Let's just put it this way. It makes no sense on a purely logical level.

Then, when you throw in the fact that McCain was considered by most to be anything but a typical RR candidate, and you can see that the OPPOSITE argument might be more correct.

[PaceAdvantage]

I just want to add, I predicted an Obama landslide because of the Palin selection. The majority is fed up with the RR making social issues political ones.

If the Republicans continue blurring the line between separation of church and state down the road, they will be on the road to extinction. Mark my words.I believe you are making way too much out of this RR, separation of church and state, etc. etc. impact on the 2008 election. They were minor sideshows at best to the majority of the electorate.

This election was 90% about the economy and the media's influence on the masses.

[ArlJim78]

yes right, I'm sure the people who were supposedly so turned off by the religious right, felt totally at ease and comfortable with the religious left, represented by Obama and his Trinity church starring the Rev Wright and Father Phleger, where they talk openly of the evils of America.

This election had nothing to do with social issues. We're in what we're told is the worst financial collapse of the century, but we're supposed to believe that people were not looking at pocketbook issues. Instead they flocked to Obama because of issues like abortion and gay marriage? please.

[Cangamble]

I believe you are making way too much out of this RR, separation of church and state, etc. etc. impact on the 2008 election. They were minor sideshows at best to the majority of the electorate.

This election was 90% about the economy and the media's influence on the masses.
I've already said it numerous times, McCain would have lost anyway, he just wouldn't have got his butt kicked so bad if he had Romney on his ticket for example. Palin turned it into a landslide loss.

As for 2004, Bush won because of the War On Terror and the fact the economy was doing OK. The issue of separation of c and c was not a factor on his ticket.

I know for a fact that there were many people in America who thought like me, though I'm Canadian. I was all for McCain or the Republicans in general prior to the nomination of Palin.

The two articles I posted here represent the views of millions of Americans.

[rastajenk]

I'm still waiting for any evidence that Palin would have, or has, or has ever considered, cramming her religious beliefs, whatever they are, into her executive experience. You mentioned speeches last time...give me the good stuff. Where is it?

[ArlJim78]

The two articles I posted here represent the views of millions of Americans.
Its clear that is your opinion, but what is your opinion based on? How do you know millions of Americans views are represented by two anecdotal articles that you posted?

- Obama outspent McCain 2:1

- Obama had a 4:1 advantage in postive mainstream media coverage.

- McCain had the onus of running for the party whose president has been so tarred and feathered by the media that he is barely considered better than Stalin.

- historically no issue is bigger than the economy and six weeks before this election we had a mini stock market collapse, failures of large financial institutions, unprecedented government bailout activity, and words from the Treasury secretary such as "recession", "depression", "armageddon", "unthinkable meltdown".

that was enough right there for McCain to have his butt kicked as you say.

[Cangamble]

I'm still waiting for any evidence that Palin would have, or has, or has ever considered, cramming her religious beliefs, whatever they are, into her executive experience. You mentioned speeches last time...give me the good stuff. Where is it?
gGft5zNurFY

[Lefty]

Cangamble, intelligent design is an alternative theory to Darwin's theory. why not present both sides? My mind is not closed and I think both sides should be presented and then the individual can make up his own mind. I personally think God is a scientist so he is responsible for evolution. That's my theory.
If Palin hadn't been on the ticket I think Mcain would have lost even bigger. So we have differing opinions, and they are just that, opinions. No one can lay claim to the absolute truth here but Palin was drawing big crowds.
Yes, the cable shows had a lot about Wright and Ayers but did ABC, CBS and NBC? They would rather inmvestigate Joe The plumber and Palin. They didn't hardly bother to hide the fact that thery were for Obama. It's a shame our once free press has picked one party over the other and influenced the election.

[delayjf]

The majority is fed up with the RR making social issues political ones.
The RR didn't make gay rights a political issue - the Gay rights movement did. And if these social issues are so detrimental to the Republican cause, how do you explain the overwhelming support for Prop 8 in CA by Obama supporters. (70% of Black Voters supported Prop 8)

Curious,
Is polygamy legal in Canada and if not, can you explain why a progressive country like Canada would deny the rights of individuals to a consensual relationship of their choice.

[Cangamble]

Cangamble, intelligent design is an alternative theory to Darwin's theory. why not present both sides? My mind is not closed and I think both sides should be presented and then the individual can make up his own mind. I personally think God is a scientist so he is responsible for evolution. That's my theory.
If Palin hadn't been on the ticket I think Mcain would have lost even bigger. So we have differing opinions, and they are just that, opinions. No one can lay claim to the absolute truth here but Palin was drawing big crowds.
Yes, the cable shows had a lot about Wright and Ayers but did ABC, CBS and NBC? They would rather inmvestigate Joe The plumber and Palin. They didn't hardly bother to hide the fact that thery were for Obama. It's a shame our once free press has picked one party over the other and influenced the election.
Science doesn't negate the idea of God being a scientist or a Leprechaun or a martian being a scientist. How many theories should be taught?
These are not scientific theories, if you read the link I provided.
Where did God come in and what is the evidence for it? What exactly do you want taught in school regarding intelligent design? That God might be responsible for evolution? Tell me exactly what you want taught.

Again, I saw the news channels investigating what the people were interested in. I think nowadays news channels are the tail, while the public is the rest of the dog.

And I disagree regarding Palin. To me, it is more than an opinion that I'm right about this.

[Cangamble]

The RR didn't make gay rights a political issue - the Gay rights movement did. And if these social issues are so detrimental to the Republican cause, how do you explain the overwhelming support for Prop 8 in CA by Obama supporters. (70% of Black Voters supported Prop 8)

Curious,
Is polygamy legal in Canada and if not, can you explain why a progressive country like Canada would deny the rights of individuals to a consensual relationship of their choice.
Blacks tend to be more religious. Gay marriage tends to be a religious issue.
Also, I read that many blacks don't feel that the US is equal, so there could have been some stance in not giving gays equal status...It sort of makes some sense.
Many Obama supporters are religious, 85% of Americans believe in God. But most Obama voters voted against prop 8.

As for polygamy, please don't equate that with gay marriage, it is not the same. Polygamy has costs associated that make it easier to beat the welfare system if implemented. Plus many times minors are involved.

Two consenting adults should have the right to marry each other, no matter what the sex is of both adults. The gay marriage issue has to do with TWO consenting adults, not 3, no animals, etc.

As for incest, some states I believe allow it. To me, that is wrong because it increases the odds of deformed children which is knowingly going against the welfare system, where public money has a good chance to be used out of proportion to care for the children of the incestuous couple.

The will of the people is also a silly argument in the case of gay marriage.
In a Southern state not so long ago, 70% of the people voted against interracial marriage. Should that have even been on a ballot? NO. Same with gay marriage in my opinion.

[prospector]

"in my opinion."
you say that a lot...like it means something
we all got opinions...then again, we all got buttholes

[delayjf]

As for polygamy, please don't equate that with gay marriage, it is not the same. Polygamy has costs associated that make it easier to beat the welfare system if implemented. Plus many times minors are involved.
They are the same in that they are examples of exemptions to civil rights laws based on morality. The laws of this country should reflect this countries morality. We could fix the loop holes in the welfare system, but that would not pave the way for the legalization of polygamy. The Public would still vote it down on moral grounds. There has and always will be a moral line in the sand so to speak, it’s just a matter of where society draws that line that will impact the legal code, we simply disagree as to where the line is.

I don’t feel comparison between Gay Rights and Civil Rights is justified. Gays are not a race that has been denied its very freedom, the right to vote, own property, public access, equal education. In fact Gays have exactly the same rights I have.

[Cangamble]

They are the same in that they are examples of exemptions to civil rights laws based on morality. The laws of this country should reflect this countries morality. We could fix the loop holes in the welfare system, but that would not pave the way for the legalization of polygamy. The Public would still vote it down on moral grounds. There has and always will be a moral line in the sand so to speak, it’s just a matter of where society draws that line that will impact the legal code, we simply disagree as to where the line is.

I don’t feel comparison between Gay Rights and Civil Rights is justified. Gays are not a race that has been denied its very freedom, the right to vote, own property, public access, equal education. In fact Gays have exactly the same rights I have.
A mixed couple each have the same individual rights as you do as well, but if put to a vote in at least some southern states and probably many more, intermarriages would be voted against. Would that be right? Moral grounds or grounds of prejudice: where do you draw the line? Many people vote against gay marriage out of prejudice.
How about a vote that makes it mandatory to go to church once a week? That could pass in many counties. Do you think that should stick because it "reflects the counties morality?"

[chickenhead]

I don't think a majority of the votes against gay marriage have anything to do with morality, unless we're talking only broadly about "cultural norms" (to distinguish it from say, murder or theft). It has more to do with gay sex being nasty, and people finding some/many gay folks annoying, than it does with hard morality, imo.

Which is also why gay marriage most likely will be widely "accepted", if still not exactly embraced, at some point in our future. It's a cultural norm that is going to change. The only real difference with regards to polygamy and it's prospects, is that there are fewer of them, and they're not likely to shift the cultural perception of themselves anytime soon.

[JustRalph]

They are the same in that they are examples of exemptions to civil rights laws based on morality. The laws of this country should reflect this countries morality. We could fix the loop holes in the welfare system, but that would not pave the way for the legalization of polygamy. The Public would still vote it down on moral grounds. There has and always will be a moral line in the sand so to speak, it’s just a matter of where society draws that line that will impact the legal code, we simply disagree as to where the line is.

I don’t feel comparison between Gay Rights and Civil Rights is justified. Gays are not a race that has been denied its very freedom, the right to vote, own property, public access, equal education. In fact Gays have exactly the same rights I have.

Great points! Another example is the "hate crime" laws

It's all bullshit. There is no such thing as a hate crime.

[PaceAdvantage]

I've already said it numerous times, McCain would have lost anyway, he just wouldn't have got his butt kicked so bad if he had Romney on his ticket for example. Palin turned it into a landslide loss.All reports and statistics seem to contradict your opinion. Last I saw, Palin helped McCain by about 4 points.

As for 2004, Bush won because of the War On Terror and the fact the economy was doing OK. The issue of separation of c and c was not a factor on his ticket.I suppose we're talking about two different things. The religious right came out in droves for Bush in 2004, and they are often attributed as the deciding factor in the outcome.

[PaceAdvantage]

As for incest, some states I believe allow it.Really? Which states would those be?

[ddog]

it is really simple and incredible to me that people agonize over it,

any two people can get married. as long as gvt issues the licenses, then that's the end of that. gvt doesn't get to pick and choose here.

any three or five or twenty can as well.

that doesn't confer your or your churches moral sanction on same.

really none of your business.

what you should be focused on is the devaluing of marriage that has taken place via the free and easy divorces over the last several decades.
if you want to see the destruction of the "institution" many moan about , then this is your target.

a far larger and more revealing problem than this queer marriage tempest in a teapot ever was or will be.

[Cangamble]

Really? Which states would those be?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_states_allow_first_cousins_to_marry

[DanG]

There is no such thing as a hate crime.
Could not agree more Ralph!!! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[delayjf]

Moral grounds or grounds of prejudice: where do you draw the line? Many people vote against gay marriage out of prejudice.
Most do not see it as a matter of prejudice but a matter of right and wrong. Is society being “prejudice” for sending criminals to jail??
You can call it prejudice if you wish, I understand in so doing you want to conjure up the same images associated with the civil rights movement, and again you compare of Gay rights with interracial marriage. And again I disagree with your comparisons. Laws against interracial marriage were overturned because the courts correctly saw them for what they were – laws designed to perpetrate white supremacy. The issue with the Civil Rights movement was about race, not immoral behavior.
any two people can get married. as long as gvt issues the licenses, then that's the end of that. gvt doesn't get to pick and choose here.

any three or five or twenty can as well.

that doesn't confer your or your churches moral sanction on same.

really none of your business.
While the above my reflect your opinion – its obviously wrong and certainly not reflected in criminal or civil code. The United States is not a totally libertarian country, our laws have always had to pass through a filter of society’s values.
really none of your business.
If they kept their lifestyle within the confines of their homes, I would agree with you, but that is hardly the case. The Gay rights movement is attempting to force an agenda on a the American people that has rejected it over and over again.