More red than blue

[DaveW]

DC has always been that way. It's actually a bit of a dump.

Yeah I know DC is solidly Democratic.

I was just extending the point that those most likely to struck by terrorism weren't the ones responding to Bush's call to keep them safe.

 

[Mead]

To summarise, the majority of well-educated, intelligent and reasonably affluent people voted Kerry.

Its a bit different from the Australian election- Howard got in mainly because the majority of middle australia was pretty satisfied with the economic good times and trusted him to keep on delivering him.
Clinton's 'its the economy, stupid' slogan held true again and I think a lot of people who were less impressed with the foreign policy situation went for Howard anyway.

The thing about Bush's reelection that defies logic is he's done a downright terrible job with the economy and run up huge deficits. In the end it wasn't the economy or the war on terror that got him reelected, it was that a lot of Americans shared his line on moral issues

As it happens, I tend to agree with Bush on more moral issues than I care to admit, but the idea of legislating morality gives me the creeps- by definition, morals are personal things that cannot and should not be enforced upon society.

All that tells me is that in this instance 'its the economy stupid' suggests that it should have been the economy, but Americans are too stupid.

 

[dan warna]

To summarise, the majority of well-educated, intelligent and reasonably affluent people voted Kerry.

Its a bit different from the Australian election- Howard got in mainly because the majority of middle australia was pretty satisfied with the economic good times and trusted him to keep on delivering him.
Clinton's 'its the economy, stupid' slogan held true again and I think a lot of people who were less impressed with the foreign policy situation went for Howard anyway.

The thing about Bush's reelection that defies logic is he's done a downright terrible job with the economy and run up huge deficits. In the end it wasn't the economy or the war on terror that got him reelected, it was that a lot of Americans shared his line on moral issues

As it happens, I tend to agree with Bush on more moral issues than I care to admit, but the idea of legislating morality gives me the creeps- by definition, morals are personal things that cannot and should not be enforced upon society.

All that tells me is that in this instance 'its the economy stupid' suggests that it should have been the economy, but Americans are too stupid.

bush links well with American morons

the whole 'morals' debate is subjective, bush's morality is based on penticostal 'born again' philosophy which teachs creationism, literal interpretations of the bible (Where appropriate for their philosophy), ignores contrasts, and refuses to debate or discuss issues when in conflict with their 'universe'.

I believe an America whose philosophy, foreign relations and policy is dictated by the penticostal churches is as dangerous as say an iran dictated to by the ayatollahs with nukes...

 

[Mead]

bush links well with American morons

the whole 'morals' debate is subjective, bush's morality is based on penticostal 'born again' philosophy which teachs creationism, literal interpretations of the bible (Where appropriate for their philosophy), ignores contrasts, and refuses to debate or discuss issues when in conflict with their 'universe'.

I believe an America whose philosophy, foreign relations and policy is dictated by the penticostal churches is as dangerous as say an iran dictated to by the ayatollahs with nukes...

For once i agree with you.

The thing which bothers me is not so much the morals themselves, but the idea that when you're voting for a candidates religous beliefs, you're effectively voting for a theocracy.

Protection of the rights of an individual and limitation of the powers of the state are what differentiates western democracy from mob rule. The problem I have with Bush's policies on things like gay marriage is that its effectively putting the christian perspective ahead of the rights of an individual which is just downright wrong. In liberal democracy, the political system and individual rights of an individual are what is sacrosanct, not one particular religion.

Lets assume that the majority of Americans hold religious beliefs and that the majority of americans want the tenets of those beliefs protected (as the anti-gay marriage stance would appear to indicate).

So I'd say it would follow that an anti-blasphemy law would also have a fair chance of public support. Now if, Bush thought that god wanted him to, eg, suspend free speech guarantees to allow blasphemers to be publically flogged, the fact that free speech is another cornerstone of liberal democracy would mean nothing besides god's will right?

As I said, that creeps me out a lot, its no different from the brutal, primitive excesses that islamic law embodies.

 

[Mr Q]

Its a bit different from the Australian election- Howard got in mainly because the majority of middle australia was pretty satisfied with the economic good times and trusted him to keep on delivering him.

That said, I thought there seemed to be a fair swing toward an American left/right divide in Australia at the last election. In the US, there is a tendency for educated people to vote Democrat and less-educated to vote Republican. This movement seemed to have some impact in Australia at the last election, with Labor (and the Greens) doing best in the inner city electorates (Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne etc), and other than that the biggest swings toward Labor were in the Liberal heartland, where some of the more educated were drawn away from the Government on social issues - although not enough to actually make a difference. (Certainly North Sydney/Warringah/Mackellar/Bennelong in Sydney were a good example. In WA where most electorates swung toward the Coalition, one of the smallest swings was in Curtin which is a Coalition stronghold).

Certainly, if the major parties in Australia matched politically to those in the US we'd have a different political map - and the "Democrats" would win most elections based upon picking up a majority of the urban vote. On the whole though, US politics is well right of Australian politics - for now. A continued slide right might see a change in the nature of Australian politics.

 

[DaveW]

In fairness, I don't see the idea that the affluent and educated went for Kerry reflected in the exit polls.

(Maybe those farmers are richer and more educated than we thought.)

The lower the income the more solidly they voted for Kerry. Whilst the richer voters went for the guy who's given them four years of tax cuts.

Education looks like a mixed bag. Of the five categories, post-grads went the most solidly one way: Kerry 55-44, living up to the stereotype. But then other graduates and college attendees went for Bush.

http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

 

[funkyfreo]

In fairness, I don't see the idea that the affluent and educated went for Kerry reflected in the exit polls.

(Maybe those farmers are richer and more educated than we thought.)

The lower the income the more solidly they voted for Kerry. Whilst the richer voters went for the guy who's given them four years of tax cuts.

Education looks like a mixed bag. Of the five categories, post-grads went the most solidly one way: Kerry 55-44, living up to the stereotype. But then other graduates and college attendees went for Bush.

http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

I think you have a point. As someone who may consider himself an "intellectual left winger", it is easy to look at the USA map and feel smug that all the affluent arty cultural types in the north east and the west coast voted for kerry, just as I would have done. But the more likely truth is that it is the poor underbelly of the USA that is concentrated in major cities that really influences the vote in these regions.

 

[Mr Q]

In fairness, I don't see the idea that the affluent and educated went for Kerry reflected in the exit polls.

Mind you, if you looked at the exit polls, Kerry would have won easily, so I'm not sure how much can really be read into them.

 

[DaveW]

Mind you, if you looked at the exit polls, Kerry would have won easily, so I'm not sure how much can really be read into them.

There's always a margin of error with these things.

 

[Thrawn]

You also have to take into consideration that at least half the population don't even vote.

 

[DaveW]

You also have to take into consideration that at least half the population don't even vote.

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

 

[kirky]

DC has always been that way. It's actually a bit of a dump.

I'm assuming you have actually been there.

 

[kirky]

I thought there was a reason I keep going back to Massachusetts/New York and Washington - not full of redneck right wing christian voters. I reckon a lot of disappointed people at Harvard and neighbouring areas - can't get this out of my head - "Compassionate conservatism is an oxymoron - George Bush is just a Moron"

 

[Tim56]

..

 

[dan warna]

So I'd say it would follow that an anti-blasphemy law would also have a fair chance of public support. Now if, Bush thought that god wanted him to, eg, suspend free speech guarantees to allow blasphemers to be publically flogged, the fact that free speech is another cornerstone of liberal democracy would mean nothing besides god's will right?

As I said, that creeps me out a lot, its no different from the brutal, primitive excesses that islamic law embodies.

Its scarey.

While no friend of Iran, its interesting to see that democracy is coming to the fore and battling for the hearts and minds of the populace against the theocracy.

in Saudi the monarchy and theocracy battle for supremacy, but the money and military might as well as the backing of the US forces is for the monarchy, any developing democracy would be hard pressed to overwhelm the sauds, the theocrats and the US.

In the US you still have a powerful democracy, however with the republicans bedding with and being 'captured' by the penticostals you have the potential of theocratic proxy government.

WHile they will move at a moderate speed in social reforms, you can be sure that the voting block of WASP penticostals is possibly the biggest single religious voting block in the USA ATM.

The catholics are not organised, anglicans too few in numbers and pre-penticostal protestants to diverse in nature to form a unified block.

If you can capture 80% of the born again vote, and get them there in sufficient numbers, you can, as seen in the last two fed elections, get a religious fruit in the white house!

 

[Tim56]

So I'd say it would follow that an anti-blasphemy law would also have a fair chance of public support. Now if, Bush thought that god wanted him to, eg, suspend free speech guarantees to allow blasphemers to be publically flogged, the fact that free speech is another cornerstone of liberal democracy would mean nothing besides god's will right?

As I said, that creeps me out a lot, its no different from the brutal, primitive excesses that islamic law embodies.

What is the difference between this and 'anti-discrimination' legislation which the Bracks Government has passed? In any case, Bush hasn't proposed such a thing, and it would obviously be unconstitutional.