Social Issues have really helped the Democrats
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:51:58 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Social Issues have really helped the Democrats
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Social Issues have really helped the Democrats  (Read 8473 times)
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 05, 2005, 05:55:04 PM »

1976
Carter beats Ford 50.08%-48.02% nationwide

CA: Ford beats Carter 49.35%-47.57%, winning several bay area counties
VT: Ford beats Carter 54.34%-43.14%, winning every county in the state


2004
Bush beats Kerry 50.73-48.27% nationwide

CA: Kerry beats Bush 54.31%-44.36%, winning every bay area county, landsliding most of them
VT: Kerry beats Bush 58.94%-38.80%, just a couple hundred votes away from winning every county in the state
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2005, 10:28:45 PM »

I wouldn't be so sure that this is "social issues" based.  In 1976, Carter really emphasised his moral tone and his Christianity.  I think he had the "evangelical" vote then.
Logged
PBrunsel
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,537


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2005, 10:31:06 PM »

Big deal, Social issues cost the Democrats the South.

1976: Carter wins every state in the South but Virginia.

2004: Kerry loses every Southern state.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2005, 11:04:13 PM »

And the point of this is?

Carter (the Democrat) won 2 percentage points nationally.

Bush (the Republican) won by 2.5 percentage points nationally.

In my book, that's a 4.5% swing towards the Republicans if we want to use this comparison.

Picking two states out of 50 to make the comparisons doesn't make that top figure look any better.  After all, compare Alabama, West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky and Tennessee (to give some prime examples) from 1976 to 2004 and things don't look so good for the Democrats on the basis of social issues.

JJ's point is also partially correct, in general terms at least.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2005, 05:12:12 PM »

Big deal, Social issues cost the Democrats the South.

1976: Carter wins every state in the South but Virginia.

2004: Kerry loses every Southern state.

Correct, PBrunsel - tolerance wins on the coasts, intolerance in the South. 

Not exactly big news.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2005, 05:25:20 PM »

Typical of jfern.  He looks at on or two points (doesn't even nessesarily get those right) and totally ignores the bigger picture.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2005, 05:33:04 PM »

Typical of jfern.  He looks at on or two points (doesn't even nessesarily get those right) and totally ignores the bigger picture.

What?
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,808
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2005, 09:10:26 PM »
« Edited: July 06, 2005, 09:15:45 PM by Senator Preston Caldwell »

Well, hell.  California and Vermont must represent the whole damn nation, then!
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2005, 09:13:34 PM »

Well, sh**t.  California and Vermont must represent the whole damn nation, then!

Why are they less important than anything else with 58 electoral votes?
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,808
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2005, 09:25:41 PM »

Well, sh**t.  California and Vermont must represent the whole damn nation, then!

Why are they less important than anything else with 58 electoral votes?
I can think of about 200 EC votes at least that Democrats have lost to the Republicans because of their abandoment of populism.  And California isn't even nessicariliy libertarian.  It's got a high populist latino population and the river-valley area is populist.  Sure, we've gained maybe 100 EC votes due to our shift.  But you can't deny that we aren't doing too well.  The new deal coalition trimumphed much more than our current Democratic coalitition has.  If you need any proof, just look at the party affiliation of Presidents.  We had many Democratic Presidents in the past, not so many now.  And the only Democratic Presidents we've had is Carter, who was a southern populist, and Clinton who was a Southern moderate with populist rhetoric at least.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2005, 01:56:11 AM »

Well, hell.  California and Vermont must represent the whole damn nation, then!

Compostition fallacy, committed by jfern!
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2005, 02:30:39 AM »

Put down the crack pipe, jfern
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2005, 09:02:33 PM »

Big deal, Social issues cost the Democrats the South.

1976: Carter wins every state in the South but Virginia.

2004: Kerry loses every Southern state.

Correct, PBrunsel - tolerance wins on the coasts, intolerance in the South. 

Not exactly big news.

By that logic, morality wins the South and immorality wins on the coasts.
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,808
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2005, 09:06:10 PM »

Big deal, Social issues cost the Democrats the South.

1976: Carter wins every state in the South but Virginia.

2004: Kerry loses every Southern state.

Correct, PBrunsel - tolerance wins on the coasts, intolerance in the South. 

Not exactly big news.

By that logic, morality wins the South and immorality wins on the coasts.
Yep
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2005, 10:42:10 PM »

Big deal, Social issues cost the Democrats the South.

1976: Carter wins every state in the South but Virginia.

2004: Kerry loses every Southern state.

Correct, PBrunsel - tolerance wins on the coasts, intolerance in the South. 

Not exactly big news.

By that logic, morality wins the South and immorality wins on the coasts.
Yep

And to "those of us on the coasts," your views are just as immoral as you think ours are.  Or, at least, we could think that way; I personally don't, and I'd appreciate if others didn't, too.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2005, 02:25:44 AM »

Big deal, Social issues cost the Democrats the South.

1976: Carter wins every state in the South but Virginia.

2004: Kerry loses every Southern state.

Correct, PBrunsel - tolerance wins on the coasts, intolerance in the South. 

Not exactly big news.

By that logic, morality wins the South and immorality wins on the coasts.

So, in conclusion:

Tolerance = Immorality
Intolerance = Morality

How strange. However, this does explain why Southerners love the Bible so much.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2005, 05:48:25 PM »

Big deal, Social issues cost the Democrats the South.

1976: Carter wins every state in the South but Virginia.

2004: Kerry loses every Southern state.

Correct, PBrunsel - tolerance wins on the coasts, intolerance in the South. 

Not exactly big news.

By that logic, morality wins the South and immorality wins on the coasts.

'Morality' is just subjective preference, Brandon H.  You prude.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2005, 05:51:11 PM »

So, in conclusion:

Tolerance = Immorality
Intolerance = Morality

How strange. However, this does explain why Southerners love the Bible so much.

Tolerance = Nothing
Intolerance = Something
Logged
DanielX
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,126
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2005, 06:03:38 PM »

Big deal, Social issues cost the Democrats the South.

1976: Carter wins every state in the South but Virginia.

2004: Kerry loses every Southern state.

Correct, PBrunsel - tolerance wins on the coasts, intolerance in the South. 

Not exactly big news.

By that logic, morality wins the South and immorality wins on the coasts.

'Morality' is just subjective preference, Brandon H.  You prude.

Wrong. Morality, at least ideally, is a code which allows for a proper functioning of society.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2005, 07:10:08 PM »

Big deal, Social issues cost the Democrats the South.

1976: Carter wins every state in the South but Virginia.

2004: Kerry loses every Southern state.

Correct, PBrunsel - tolerance wins on the coasts, intolerance in the South. 

Not exactly big news.

By that logic, morality wins the South and immorality wins on the coasts.

'Morality' is just subjective preference, Brandon H.  You prude.

Wrong. Morality, at least ideally, is a code which allows for a proper functioning of society.

Yes, it is someone's subjective preference imposed on others.
Logged
DanielX
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,126
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2005, 07:15:42 PM »

Big deal, Social issues cost the Democrats the South.

1976: Carter wins every state in the South but Virginia.

2004: Kerry loses every Southern state.

Correct, PBrunsel - tolerance wins on the coasts, intolerance in the South. 

Not exactly big news.

By that logic, morality wins the South and immorality wins on the coasts.

'Morality' is just subjective preference, Brandon H.  You prude.

Wrong. Morality, at least ideally, is a code which allows for a proper functioning of society.

Yes, it is someone's subjective preference imposed on others.

Umm... I'm not describing alternate or different moralities. Just the base concept of morals. And some morals aren't subjective.For instance, 'thou shalt not murder' is very much not subjective (Although some might argue the definition of murder).
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2005, 07:21:24 PM »
« Edited: July 09, 2005, 07:23:43 PM by Adam Griffin »

So, in conclusion:

Tolerance = Immorality
Intolerance = Morality

How strange. However, this does explain why Southerners love the Bible so much.

Tolerance = Nothing
Intolerance = Something

Oh, so intolerance = something? I assume that you are stating that as a general assumption. In that case, you should have no problem whether it be black lynchings in Virginia or public Christian executions in Iran. Too bad there's not a Virginia state icon in the Atlas file library for the Dumbass Party.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2005, 08:35:24 PM »

You aren't from Virginia, so there's no need for one.

Black lynching and Christian executions are both something. I don't know what kind of dictionary you're into, but the general consensus is that 'something' is not inherently good.

Tolerance, on the other hand, does not exist as a political ideology, as complete adherence to it would imply tolerance of intolerance. If you are tolerant of intolerance, you are not actually tolerant. On the other hand, if you're intolerant of intolerance, it's not universally true to say that you are tolerant either—and so the adjective 'tolerant' applies no more to you than to any other person, all of whom tolerate some things and don't tolerate others.

The ideology of tolerance is, essentially, a rule against rules.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2005, 09:46:51 PM »

Hah, nice one Booth.

While your statement is somewhat accurate and I have always thought that way to an extent, it is impossible for someone to be entirely tolerant or intolerant, so in essence those extremes do not really exist. My definition of intolerance is an ideal in which a person or a group of people find all differences outside the majority of their culture to be incorrect or offensive. Essentially I am against xenophobia and discrimination based on useless factors such as skin color, race, gender, or sexual orientation because in the end, individuals will always find other individuals within their own social and cultural cliques with more flaws than the people that they discriminate against and fear.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 10, 2005, 10:12:07 PM »

It's not really useful to be intolerant of anything, unless you actually care about something. And there's very little more subjective than caring.

What's useful for one thing is not useful for another. It all comes down to subjective preference.

By the way, I'm no Booth fan. I am a fan of the Virginia state motto, attributed to Brutus at the assassination of Julius Caesar. There is considerable doubt as to whether or not John Wilkes Booth ever uttered the phrase at the time of Lincoln's assassination.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 12 queries.