Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Politics

Journal pudge's Journal: Proof 32

Journal by pudge

Is there actually any good evidence that gay marriage was a deciding factor in Bush's re-election? People keep asserting it, but I can't find anything that shows it.

There's no doubt that morality was involved, but why say gay marriage was the big issue? To most people, abortion, what John Kerry did when he came home from Vietnam, the war in Iraq, etc. are all moral issues too.

And yes, evangelical Christians came out more to vote this time, but so did every other group of people, including 18-29s. Everyone voted more this time.

I am not saying it was not a part of the picture, but *the* deciding factor? What am I missing?

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Proof More

Proof

Comments Filter:

  • Eating their own (Score:3, Interesting)

    by scupper ( 687418 ) * on Saturday November 06, 2004 @01:46PM (#10742132) Homepage
    I think it's a bad sign when the Democratic Party adherents begin to cannibalize their constituent groups, or "coalition" in a witchunt for a scapegoat. First it's the homosexuals, next it will be who? Labor? Hispanics? Minorities?

    The gays are up in arms about this, and I think if the Demos don't enact some serious spin control in among their ranks, they are going to start seeing some defections to the GOP, perhaps to groups like Log Cabin Republicans.

    Check it out...

    Blame gays? Don't buy it!
    Statement from Matt Foreman, Executive Director
    National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
    Press Release Thursday, November 4, 2004
    http://www.thetaskforce.org/media/release.cfm?rele aseID=757 [thetaskforce.org]

  • It's simple (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) * on Saturday November 06, 2004 @02:09PM (#10742276) Journal
    Anti-gay voters vote GOP. Like it or not, it's true.

    Rove understands this, which is why he made sure there were 11 (IIRC) anti-gay initiatives on the ballot in battleground states. Red meat for the right = more GOP turnout. Arizona did the same with its anti-immigrant Prop 200.

    The way for the Dems to counter this is to have left-wing red meat initiatives on the ballot to boost Dem turnout - e.g. minimum wage increases, anti-outsourcing, tobacco taxes for the kids, etc. This is the future of state politics, so the Dems have to play.

    • I agree with Gavin, by the way, that this all would have happened anyway, whether or not San Francisco had offered same sex marriage this year. It was already in Rove's plans.

      On that note, I agree with pudge that replacing marriage with civil unions for all would be great. But if you think red state voters would ever accept this, you're completely nuts.

      • I agree with Gavin, by the way, that this all would have happened anyway, whether or not San Francisco had offered same sex marriage this year. It was already in Rove's plans.

        Proof?
        • Bush said in January [cnn.com] that he wanted to "codify" marriage as being for heterosexuals only. And the State of the Union Message [cnn.com] included a claim that "the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage." Now this is not exactly what I mentioned, namely the initiatives as a means of boosting turnout, but it's clear that the GOP was planning to to slam same sex marriage, Newsom or no.
          • April CNN story [cnn.com] mentioning GOP plans to use anti-gay marriage initiatives to increase turnout."

            [W]hile polls show that many Americans are somewhat neutral about gay marriage (they neither support it, nor are they strongly against it), many Christian conservatives passionately oppose it. And Karl Rove, the president's chief political strategist, has said repeatedly that one of his major goals is to turn out those conservative voters in November in droves.

            • Insufficient. Rove wants to turn out the evangelical vote, but that doesn't mean these initiatives had anything to do with him.
              • Rove wants to turn out the evangelical vote, but that doesn't mean these initiatives had anything to do with him.

                Whether he was behind the initiatives or not, he tried to use them to his advantage. If he didn't, then he should be fired. But what you are asking is, did it make *the* difference. I say no. It padded Bush's margin of victory, but it was not the difference.

                Kerry should have won [1], but because he was a poor candidate he couldn't. He made ridiculous claims, spoke half truths, and attac
          • First, you said the initiatives were part of Rove's plans. I want proof the White House had anything to do with the state initiatives.

            And in January, the courts were already involved. That is why the President got involved.


    • The gay marriage initiatives won by huge margins, much larger than Bush won.

      Four years ago Prop 22 in California got twice as many votes in San Francisco than Bush did.

      Also, Kerry was against gay marriage.
      • Right, but nonetheless opponents of gay marriage are more likely to vote Bush than Kerry (and more generally more likely to vote GOP than Dem). You must admit that the GOP used it to boost turnout - even though some yes voters on the initiatives also voted Dem, on balance it increased the number of GOP voters.

        Meanwhile, gay men and lesbians in the US are more hated than ever, officially. How do you like that? Is that what Bush means by his God-loves-everyone rhetoric?

        • even though some yes voters on the initiatives also voted Dem, on balance it increased the number of GOP voters.

          Proof?

          Meanwhile, gay men and lesbians in the US are more hated than ever, officially

          Banning gay marriage does not represent hatred of gays. As long as you don't understand this, you have no hope of speaking to the people who disagree with you.
          • Banning gay marriage does not represent hatred of gays

            Really? Show me a gay man or woman who feels that way.

            • I don't understand what the point of that exercise would be. Whether or not I hate someone is unrelated to whether someone thinks I do.

              You should really try talking to and understanding people instead of lashing out against them. Just because you believe "they" do that doesn't mean you have to.

            • Steve Yuhas, Camile Paglia and John McKellar just to name a prominant three.
        • You must admit that the GOP used it to boost turnout

          I don't think this follows either, these initiatives have been floated for six years now. These are just the eleven most recent of 40+.
      • Kerry was "against" gay marriage because he knew he'd lose votes if he said otherwise.

        The Dems attempted to find a middleground by saying they believe in civil unions, which would give them the economic rights that married couples have.

        I personally don't believe that Kerry is against gay marriage, but because of Rove's craftiness, he had no choice but to say he believes otherwise.

        Furthermore, going to the extent that Bush did in saying no civil unions, no anything would have lost him lots of liberal vote

        • You seem to have a lot of insider knowledge of Rove and Kerry tactics. Did you work for both those campaigns or are you just pretending to be smarter than you are?

          Either way, you tell me the block of voters somehow just knew that Kerry was lying when he said he was against gay marriage, and I'll give you the reason they didn't vote for Kerry.
    • Rove understands this, which is why he made sure there were 11 (IIRC) anti-gay initiatives on the ballot in battleground states.

      sulli, that's nonsense. There was only ONE on the ballot in a real battleground state, Ohio. Maybe you could include Oregon and Michigan, but Kerry won those anyway. The other eight were never in play for the Democrats.

      And you are not giving me what I asked for: evidence that the anti-gay initiatives caused people to come out and vote, and vote Republican. You're just provid
    • Prop 200 is not anti-immigrant. It is anti-illegal-immigrant. It makes law in Arizona what is already law in Mexico. When did enforcing immigration law become a sin?

      • Prop 200 is not anti-immigrant. It is anti-illegal-immigrant. It makes law in Arizona what is already law in Mexico. When did enforcing immigration law become a sin?

        Keep in mind that sulli is a California Democrat, and his party refused to even attempt to enforce the law in California. Prop 187 in 1994 -- which I voted for, and would do again -- essentially stated that most public services could not be given to illegal aliens. This was seen as hateful and bigoted (despite being the cause of a huge bulk
        • It's funny to me because illegal immigration is a ecological night mare. Illegals are trashing large chunks of the sonoran desert. I would think that would get liberals worked up. Not to mention what illegal immigration does to keep low end wages down. And finally-- the numbers of people who die trying to get here. It is morally responsible to try and make America less attractive to illegal immigration.

  • I voted for Bush, but against Prop 2 which would have banned gay marriages.
    • I voted for Bush, but against Prop 2 which would have banned gay marriages.

      Meanwhile, more people voted for those bans than for Bush, so only the "Bush stole the election in 2000" crowd could claim all the ban's voters were Bush voters too :-)


  • Or at least one should look at the data [powerlineblog.com] to understand its role better.
  • Today's Brooks editorial in the NY Times discusses this exact question. He names the source and gives lots of results from the data, but no link of course. You'll need to Google that yourself. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks .html?hp [nytimes.com]
  • I think it had a major impact in the states with the gay marriage amendments. Those brought out a lot of people that may not have voted otherwise, and most of them voted for Bush while they were there...
    • I asked for proof, evidence. I know people think that, but I see no reason to think that myself.
      • Well, you also said you wanted to know if it was the deciding factor. I don't think it is-- like I said, I think it had an impact (so do you, by saying you don't doubt it was part of the picture), but I don't think it's even possible that it was the deciding factor.

  • I've heard people quoting polls to say "moral issues mattered most in how they voted". Those people put it above security and economic concerns. I first heard that figure quoted on WBZ radio last Wednesday morning, but you can also find references to it in articles like http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3973197.stm [bbc.co.uk]. This did surprise me a bit because it seemed to me that economic and security issues took up more of the politicians and political reporter's time.

    That isn't quite the same as saying that g

Slashdot Top Deals

"Free markets select for winning solutions." -- Eric S. Raymond

Close