Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 29, 2014, 03:44:49 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results
| | |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | | |-+  Gender Gap in 2004
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Gender Gap in 2004  (Read 3980 times)
nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8762


View Profile
« on: February 05, 2005, 11:01:37 pm »
Ignore

The gender gap was less than in 2000 - only 7 points. What are the possible reasons behind this?

Most states, however, had a gender gap less than the national average...

[The blue states had a gender gap less than the national average (only Texas, Missouri, Mont., and W.V. had a gender gap in the opposite direction (more women voting Bush) and Miss. had no gender gap.)]

Logged



[George W. Bush] has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all. -- Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)

"George Bush supports abstinence. Lucky Laura."
- sign seen at the March for Women's Lives, 4/25/04

agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3751


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2005, 11:14:58 pm »
Ignore

security moms
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2005, 11:17:43 pm »
Ignore

Interesting. Can you make a map of what states more women and men voted for Bush, and what states were tied exactly?
Logged
nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8762


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2005, 11:18:57 pm »
Ignore

Interesting. Can you make a map of what states more women and men voted for Bush, and what states were tied exactly?

I think someone made those on a different thread. I'll try to find it...

Here they are...

WOMEN only vote.




MEN only vote.




Logged



[George W. Bush] has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all. -- Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)

"George Bush supports abstinence. Lucky Laura."
- sign seen at the March for Women's Lives, 4/25/04

A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2005, 11:22:30 pm »
Ignore

No, I mean with states where a larger percentage of women voted for Bush than men being one color, states where a larger percentage of men voted for Bush than women being another color, and states where there was no sex gap being gray.
Logged
nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8762


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2005, 11:32:31 pm »
Ignore

Here it is...

states where a larger percentage of women voted for Bush than men being one color - blue

states where a larger percentage of men voted for Bush than women being another color - red

"and states where there was no sex gap being gray"

« Last Edit: February 05, 2005, 11:34:33 pm by nclib »Logged



[George W. Bush] has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all. -- Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)

"George Bush supports abstinence. Lucky Laura."
- sign seen at the March for Women's Lives, 4/25/04

A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2005, 11:40:33 pm »
Ignore

Thanks Smiley
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15798


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2005, 05:11:59 am »
Ignore

The gender gap was less than in 2000 - only 7 points. What are the possible reasons behind this?

Bush gained 5 points among women, compared to just 2 points among men. I do not know if this would explain the gender gap falling so much, but its safe to say the the drop has come due to movement among women.

Here are some points-
1. In 2000, the debate was primarily over domestic and especially economic issues. In these issues, women are more liberal across the board by between a couple and several percentage points. In 2004, the debate was primarily over foreign policy. Women are also less likely to favor the use of force in foreign policy. However, Kerry never really made an issue of the war itself. He made an issue of how much body armor the troops were going to get, etc. In other words, Kerry did not hammer strongly enough the Democratic issues that women respond to, he only spewed rhetoric, and the campaign was largely based on around image.

2. Voting is often influenced by social (family, community, and national "environmental") cross-pressures. It is my personal hypothesis that women, being less knowledgeable about politics, as it is still stereotyped as a "man's game" to some extent, are more susecptible to these cross-pressures. For example, a Democratic woman married to a Republican man is more likely to change her view, all other things equal, than vice versa. When the national "climate" is either favorable or neutral to the woman's independent view, she is more likely to be able to withstand such pressures and vote her own mind. But when the national "climate", as indicated by campaigning tactics, incumbency, polling, media, and other factors favor the husband's view, she is more likely to be influenced.

This is the feminist position to take, because it hypothesizes that many women, because of mens' dominance in political officeholding and discourse, are not as knowledgeable about politics and thus feel pressured disproportionately to 'cave' to the husband's viewpoint instead of making up her own mind.

It also posits (implicitly) that the appearance of the gender gap in 1980 was due in part to more married women thinking for themselves rather than simply voting as their husbands did in ages past. The 1980 election was the first relatively polarizing (and relatively close, at least until the last weekend) election since the feminist movement occured.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2005, 10:47:52 am »
Ignore

Actually, I think the biggest gender gap is between men and single women.

Married women more often than not vote like their husbands.  Not because their husbands control their vote, but because they are in a similar position in life, and are apt to see the world in a similar manner.  Some things transcend the male/female divide, especially among women who have chosen to share their life with a man (and vice versa).

There are a certain percentage of married women who vote differently than their husbands, and that probably declined in this election as women with children became more concerned with security and less concerned with whether the bus taking their child to school is one or two blocks away, or some other such Clinton-era concern.

Stay-at-home mothers are the most conservative women generally, which makes sense in that they have bucked liberal feminist derision and disrespect to look after their children.  It stands to reason that they wouldn't tend to vote for those who view them as less of a person because they are not obsessed with building a career.

Single women in poor financial circumstances are of course the most strongly Democratic, as the Democratic party promises them something for nothing.

Men tend to vote Republican for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that the Democratic party is blatantly biased against men due to the influences of feminazi groups like NOW.  Also, men are less likely to want something for nothing, and less sympathetic to those who do.  Men are raised quite differently from women, and the male response to financial adversity is more likely to internalize the issue and soldier on, trying to do better, than to cry for somebody else to bear their burdens.  As boys, we're usually not given the option to behave this way, as girls are.

What I find infuriating is people who have made all the wrong choices in life insisting that other people should be forced to make things right for them.  It is to people like this that the Democratic party appeals the most, and like it or not, more of these people are women than men.  That is the basic reason for the gender gap.
Logged
scorpiogurl
Guest
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2005, 02:21:00 pm »


Single women in poor financial circumstances are of course the most strongly Democratic, as the Democratic party promises them something for nothing.

Also, men are less likely to want something for nothing, and less sympathetic to those who do. 

What I find infuriating is people who have made all the wrong choices in life insisting that other people should be forced to make things right for them.  It is to people like this that the Democratic party appeals the most, and like it or not, more of these people are women than men.  That is the basic reason for the gender gap.

Interesting views!!! I would be interested to know where your evidence for these views comes from.......or is this just your view on the issue with all its inherent prejudices?
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15798


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2005, 05:57:35 pm »
Ignore

Men tend to vote Republican for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that the Democratic party is blatantly biased against men due to the influences of feminazi groups like NOW.

What particular issues do you think the Democratic party is biased against men with regards to due to the influence of groups like NOW, and how might they (we) eliminate those biases? And if the Democrats were to end their so-called "bias" against men, would substantially more men seriously consider coming back to the party?
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12975


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2005, 01:00:50 am »
Ignore

Probably not.
Logged

only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58783
India


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2005, 06:56:03 am »
Ignore

Men tend to vote Republican for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that the Democratic party is blatantly biased against men due to the influences of feminazi groups like NOW.
Ah, a classical Dazzleman-Opebo meeting ground quote.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2005, 11:40:12 am »
Ignore


Single women in poor financial circumstances are of course the most strongly Democratic, as the Democratic party promises them something for nothing.

Also, men are less likely to want something for nothing, and less sympathetic to those who do. 

What I find infuriating is people who have made all the wrong choices in life insisting that other people should be forced to make things right for them.  It is to people like this that the Democratic party appeals the most, and like it or not, more of these people are women than men.  That is the basic reason for the gender gap.

Interesting views!!! I would be interested to know where your evidence for these views comes from.......or is this just your view on the issue with all its inherent prejudices?

My views come from my own observations, plus some research into the different behavior of women vs. men.  This was not meant to suggest that one is better than the other.

Men are taught to internalize their problems more than women.  This is a well-documented fact.  Men are more likely than women to think that if they have economic problems, it is their own fault, and not seek help from the government.  Poor women are often poor because they are raising children with no husband, and there are far fewer men in this situation.  Men also in general have more confidence in their own abilities to survive without government help.  This all translates into men being more conservative in general than women, especially poor single women.

Women who are under the protection of a man are much more likely to be conservative than women who are not.  Many of these women, in essence, think like men because their interests are more parallel with male interests than with the interests of single women.  The more vulnerable in society, which includes single women, particularly those with children, are much more likely to be Democratic.  The less vulnerable are likely to be Republican, and this would include a higher percentage of men than women.

Women are also more emotional than men, in general, and the appeal of the Democratic party is more emotional, while the appeal of the Republican party is more cerebral.  Republicans also emphasize issues that are more appealing to men - toughness on crime, national defense, etc.  It is my opinion that while Democratic policies often sound better on the emotional side, Republican policies usually work better, but one must get beyond the emotional element to recognize that.  Because men in general are less swayed by emotion than women, men are more likely to support Republican policies.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2005, 11:52:00 am »
Ignore

Men tend to vote Republican for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that the Democratic party is blatantly biased against men due to the influences of feminazi groups like NOW.

What particular issues do you think the Democratic party is biased against men with regards to due to the influence of groups like NOW, and how might they (we) eliminate those biases? And if the Democrats were to end their so-called "bias" against men, would substantially more men seriously consider coming back to the party?

I think that most men resent the implication put forth by the women's movement that men are primarily responsible for all the problems in the world.  Therefore, the strong identification of the Democratic party with the women's movement can only hurt the party among men.

We hear all the time that men are toxic, that men are abusers, that men and only men are responsible for crime, wars, etc.  Men, and white men in particular, are deemed to be a group that it is OK to hold prejudice against, as opposed to women, minorities, etc.  That is why a high percentage of men are repelled by the Democratic party.

John Kerry made a comment during the campaign that he would "put the legal system on the side of women."  Imagine if Pres.  Bush had said he intended to put the legal system on the side of men.  The women groups, and many others, would have been absolutely outraged by this.  And yet it's OK to say that the legal system, which is supposed to be on the side of truth and justice, should favor one gender over another, as long as it's favoring the right gender.  The truth is, the legal system already favors women.  Men in general get shafted in divorce and child custody cases.  Women can make false accusations of rape and sexual harassment against men and are protected against any consequences for that.  I know four men who were falsely accused of sexual harassment in a work environment, and the woman making the false accusation was protected against any consequence for her malicious actions.  She made the accusations because one of the men spurned her dating advances.

Men are slowly waking up to the fact that the feminists have succeeded in constructing an edifice of discrimination against us.  And while the Republicans have not offered a remedy for it, they have not advanced the agenda as the Democrats have.

Political affiliation is much like friendship.  There are certain types of people we like to associate with as friends, and certain types that we do not like to associate with.  It's the same with political parties.  I couldn't be in the Democratic party because there are so many constituencies in that party that I just can't bring myself to associate with.  Many men feel this way.  They know they are not really welcome in the party, that the party is generally hostile to them because of the equipment they have between their legs.

This is not a specific policy issue, but an overall attitude.
Logged
nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8762


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2005, 12:01:51 am »
Ignore

Stay-at-home mothers are the most conservative women generally, which makes sense in that they have bucked liberal feminist derision and disrespect to look after their children.  It stands to reason that they wouldn't tend to vote for those who view them as less of a person because they are not obsessed with building a career.

Sadly, women are burdened by this double standard. It is acceptable for a man to put his career first, but not for a woman to do so.
Logged



[George W. Bush] has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all. -- Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)

"George Bush supports abstinence. Lucky Laura."
- sign seen at the March for Women's Lives, 4/25/04

dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2005, 04:25:45 am »
Ignore

Stay-at-home mothers are the most conservative women generally, which makes sense in that they have bucked liberal feminist derision and disrespect to look after their children.  It stands to reason that they wouldn't tend to vote for those who view them as less of a person because they are not obsessed with building a career.

Sadly, women are burdened by this double standard. It is acceptable for a man to put his career first, but not for a woman to do so.

It is also acceptable for a woman to be financially supported by a man, but not the other way around.  This double standard cuts both ways, something that most liberals and feminists fail to recognize.  Not every double standard works solely to the benefit of men.  In fact, most do not.

Not every man is obsessed with building a career either.  But there are very few women out there who are willing to financially support a man, so he better figure out a way to make a living.

You are simply parroting the feminist viewpoint with your comment, and the reality is that it's not that simple.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15180
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2005, 08:57:33 am »
Ignore

I agree with much of what you say in principle, Dazzleman, about the fundamental differences between men and women. Women are more likely to seek protection, while the concept of rugged individualism appeals to men. Women are thus much more likely to be economically liberal, and also to be compassionate towards others. Both genders have their "role" that they are more naturally suited for. That's not to say that we should discriminate against people who don't fit into their natural "role" very well for whatever reason; but it's not wrong to acknowledge that men and women tend to be better at some things.

I think you overstate the significance of groups like NOW, however. I don't personally see them as a large force within the party.

I also disagree that Republican policies are cerebral and Democratic ones are emotional. I've always thought it was the opposite, actually. On issues like taxes, government spending, etc. the easy, emotional answer is "Cut taxes, it's my money, I deserve to keep it", and certainly that appeals to the selfish side of people (because people want something for nothing, as you say; and it goes both ways, if you don't want to pay taxes but do want to benefit from government services, and everyone benefits from them everyday even if they don't realize it, that's getting something for nothing, as well; it's not just women who are susceptible to this), while the logic and reason behind taxes and spending usually takes longer to explain; you have to get into the reasons why the existence of government enables you to earn a lot more money than you otherwise would if there was no government, so the whole "it's MY money" argument is not really true, as well as the fact that government can do things which individuals and corporations can't do on their own, or that wouldn't be profitable for them to do. I think conservative positions actually are a lot easier to explain on many issues because they do appeal to people more emotionally than liberal ones do.

It's easy to get angry about taxes, because the negative effects of them are more obvious and more direct, while the benefits that the tax money ultimately provides to people are more indirect, and less obvious, and thus require more thought and reason to be able to see clearly. That's not to say that logical, rational people can't still think that they are not getting a good deal for the tax money, but I think a lot of people who don't really think about the issue don't see the benefits.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2005, 10:47:24 am »
Ignore

Eric, you're right that there are a lot of people who don't want to pay for the services they get from government.  I'm not one of those people who thinks that all taxes are wrong, while at the same time driving on government-funded roads and relying on government-funded services like police and fire protection.

When it comes to economics and foreign policy, I think the Democratic position is easier to explain than the Republican one.  I agree with you that on taxes, the Republican position is easier to explain.

On economics, the Republican position is, essentially, that it is necessary to favor the rich at times, and permit a certain level of economic inequality, because the alternative is that society as a whole gets dragged down to a lower level economically.  While it may sound and feel good to tax the rich heavily, the Republican position is that this makes the economy worse for everybody.  So in this case, the Democratic policy appeals more to the emotions of the have-nots or relative have-nots.

On foreign policy, the Republican position is that we must make sacrifices, sometimes in lives, to prevent greater loss of life and conflict further down the road.  The Democratic policy is more short-sighted - peace at any price, at least for now.  This has more emotional appeal because the price of this policy won't be apparent until into the future.

No one party has all the right answers.  The best policy would be some mix of the policies advocated by both parties, in my opinion.  But I do believe that in general, men are more understanding of the need to stick up for yourself, or else you will suffer from increasing aggression.  This is something that women usually have to learn, while men know it instinctively, and that explains a lot of the different approaches of men and women toward foreign policy.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15180
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2005, 09:08:34 pm »
Ignore

Eric, you're right that there are a lot of people who don't want to pay for the services they get from government. I'm not one of those people who thinks that all taxes are wrong, while at the same time driving on government-funded roads and relying on government-funded services like police and fire protection.

When it comes to economics and foreign policy, I think the Democratic position is easier to explain than the Republican one. I agree with you that on taxes, the Republican position is easier to explain.

On economics, the Republican position is, essentially, that it is necessary to favor the rich at times, and permit a certain level of economic inequality, because the alternative is that society as a whole gets dragged down to a lower level economically. While it may sound and feel good to tax the rich heavily, the Republican position is that this makes the economy worse for everybody. So in this case, the Democratic policy appeals more to the emotions of the have-nots or relative have-nots.

On foreign policy, the Republican position is that we must make sacrifices, sometimes in lives, to prevent greater loss of life and conflict further down the road. The Democratic policy is more short-sighted - peace at any price, at least for now. This has more emotional appeal because the price of this policy won't be apparent until into the future.

No one party has all the right answers. The best policy would be some mix of the policies advocated by both parties, in my opinion. But I do believe that in general, men are more understanding of the need to stick up for yourself, or else you will suffer from increasing aggression. This is something that women usually have to learn, while men know it instinctively, and that explains a lot of the different approaches of men and women toward foreign policy.

Good analysis.

It's also worth noting, of course, that logic is not necessarily better than emotion. As you say, some combination of the two is good, but we certainly can't deny the importance of emotion to us as humans. While I would agree that men tend to be more logical than women, and women tend to be more emotional than men, that certainly doesn't make men's way of thinking about things better. I know you didn't say that it did, but I just wanted to point that out.

So yes, a big part of the gender gap is due to economics, because women naturally tend to prefer the idea of a protective government, while men have been conditioned to not seek help.

I still disagree that the Democrats are as liberal overall as you think they are, and likewise I probably think the Republicans are more conservative overall than you. The Democratic platform certainly didn't support "peace at any price". I haven't seen poll numbers, but I highly doubt whether a majority of Democrats want us to withdrawal from Iraq now, which is what it seems that you are portraying as the Democratic position.

The reality on foreign policy, I think, is that both parties tend to support military interventions by Presidents of their own party, and oppose them by Presidents of the opposite party. This might appear to be only petty politics (and certainly for some people, it is), but I think this goes to the heart of what we want in a military leader, which is first and foremost, someone that we can trust to lead our country. So if you trust a person's positions on other issues, and their character, you trust them to put the good of the country first in foreign policy, as well. I've admitted myself that while I support the overall goals of the Iraq war, I don't support the way it was handled, and a large part of the reason for my opposition is that I don't trust the President's motives; I don't think that if the interests of America and of the military-industrial complex and big business are at odds with each other, that he'll put America first. I don't think that's an unreasonable position; many Republicans on domestic issues seemed to think this about Clinton, as well ("Sure, what Clinton says sounds good, but he's a liar and a scumbag, so he must be doing it only for political advantage, not because he cares about America").

The conflicting perceptions that we have are understandable, considering that you live in a relatively libreal area, and thus both parties, locally, are probably more liberal than the national versions. Likewise, I don't think that NOW and the NAACP are great forces within the Democratic party, in large part probably due to the fact that they are fairly nonexistent in my local politics.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2005, 09:14:56 pm by Senator Nym90 »Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2005, 10:45:21 pm »
Ignore

Eric, I disagree with you that NOW and the NAACP are not large forces in the national Democratic party.  I think it would be fair to say that they have a stranglehold on the Democratic party.

Connecticut is actually a pretty moderate state, far less liberal than New York or Massachusetts.  Still, our Democratic party is certainly more liberal than the local southern or even midwestern versions of the party.  Much of my perception of the Democratic party comes from NY City Democrats, to which I am exposed on a regular basis.  These are a particularly noxious breed.

Connecticut Republicans are also more liberal than the national version, and I am fairly comfortable with that.  I would say that I am more conservative in general than the Connecticut party, but probably a little more liberal than the national party.

But just as it would be misleading to think that the Connecticut Republicans are indicative of the national party, it is also misleading to equate the Democratic party of a socially conservative area of Michigan with the national party.

What you say about people supporting military interventions by presidents of their own party is true, but regrettable.  Politics should stop at the water's edge, but it's not that simple today, and probably never really was.  Still, watching the Democrats, it often seems that they would rather see President Bush fail than see something good happen for America.  I think that's a shame, and I don't think that Pres. Clinton got that type of treatment from Republicans on international affairs.  Domestic affairs, yes, but not international affairs.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15180
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2005, 03:19:04 pm »
Ignore

Eric, I disagree with you that NOW and the NAACP are not large forces in the national Democratic party. I think it would be fair to say that they have a stranglehold on the Democratic party.

Connecticut is actually a pretty moderate state, far less liberal than New York or Massachusetts. Still, our Democratic party is certainly more liberal than the local southern or even midwestern versions of the party. Much of my perception of the Democratic party comes from NY City Democrats, to which I am exposed on a regular basis. These are a particularly noxious breed.

Connecticut Republicans are also more liberal than the national version, and I am fairly comfortable with that. I would say that I am more conservative in general than the Connecticut party, but probably a little more liberal than the national party.

But just as it would be misleading to think that the Connecticut Republicans are indicative of the national party, it is also misleading to equate the Democratic party of a socially conservative area of Michigan with the national party.

What you say about people supporting military interventions by presidents of their own party is true, but regrettable. Politics should stop at the water's edge, but it's not that simple today, and probably never really was. Still, watching the Democrats, it often seems that they would rather see President Bush fail than see something good happen for America. I think that's a shame, and I don't think that Pres. Clinton got that type of treatment from Republicans on international affairs. Domestic affairs, yes, but not international affairs.

As I said, it's not just politics, though for some people, it is. But I think there really is something to the concept of trusting someone to put the nation's interests first. For some people, it's just a cover for partisanship, but the concept of needing to trust a leader to support them taking us into battle is something that isn't totally without merit.

I agree that anyone who wishes that things go badly in Iraq just to hurt Bush and the Republicans politically is despicable. I certainly hope that I am completely wrong, and that Iraq becomes a fully functional, flourishing democracy with relatively minimal loss of lives or expense.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2005, 03:36:48 pm »
Ignore


I agree that anyone who wishes that things go badly in Iraq just to hurt Bush and the Republicans politically is despicable. I certainly hope that I am completely wrong, and that Iraq becomes a fully functional, flourishing democracy with relatively minimal loss of lives or expense.

It's good to hear that you feel this way.  I fear that many, if not most, in your party do not.  At least that is how the public face of the Democratic party comes across.

I think it strengthens the country to have different viewpoints, and to be honest, I wouldn't want any administration, even one for which I voted and which I support (i.e., the Bush administration) to not have any opposition.  But the opposition must not hate the administration more than it loves the country, and that is what I fear when I look at a good chunk of the Democratic party. 

I hope I'm wrong.  I know you won't agree with my perception of the Democratic party, but from the outside looking in, it's hard for me to convince myself otherwise.  I wish I could, because I fear for the country with a party like this holding almost half of Congress and getting almost half the votes in a presidential election.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15798


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2005, 12:57:54 pm »
Ignore

Unfortunately politics is getting more and more totalitarian. It's not about the issues anymore. The issues are disappearing. Bush and Kerry should have debated whether or not Scott Peterson should have been convicted or whether or net Michael Jackson is a pedophile, that would have gotten people's attention. Politics, it is now all about style and who you identify with more, what you see your place in society as being, what your race, gender, and culture is, who you hang out with, how religious you are, etc. etc. We all belong to special interests now, which come to define the stereotype of ourselves, and we think in terms of "us" vs "them". The Enemy Within is more important than the enemy without. The "other side" doesn't count, they aren't true americans, if they die who cares, etc. etc. This is what it seems like in the media. Why, because people gobble up this sh**t. The same reason they gobble up Janet Jackson, Bill Cosby, and various other homosexuals and fetuses. No it is not true but the media is making it true. It is all the same paradigm. Entertainment. That is what this forum is, is it not? Ha ha. WHat a century.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines