Dems lost because Republicans are gaining people......while you are losing.

I love how one of "your own" states, "we are losing because Republicans are outbreeding us".

Gee, Ya THINK!!!!? Feminists are liberal. They are also supporters of abortion. They are also usually not family-oriented.

So I ask, do ya think?

Long live the family.

RebelKev Wrote:I love how one of "your own" states, "we are losing because Republicans are outbreeding us".

Gee, Ya THINK!!!!? Feminists are liberal. They are also supporters of abortion. They are also usually not family-oriented.

So I ask, do ya think?

Long live the family.

its that what the problem is. :D

Schadenfreude Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:well, that's your word. got any of those, what do they call 'em, "facts" to support this "word" of yours?

It's conventional wisdom. Politics 101.

in other words, you have no factual support at all or anecdotal "facts" only, which i could easily rebut, such as:

Quote:In 1982, Democrats clobbered Republicans in Ohio. Dick Celeste beat old man Rhodes, and most of the other statewide offices went Democratic.

Asked what had happened, one prominent Ohio Republican said, essentially, "Too many people voted."

(I wish I could show you a link to back that up. I spent entirely too much time today trying. Maybe I'll try again later. It happened.)

that's it? that's your factual basis? one statement by one unidentified republican in an election 22 years ago in the very state which you acknowledge in your post below defies the stereotype you attempt to promulgate?

well okay; you convinced me.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:This Arizona proposal would seem to require people to register to vote in person. That's a big change. That means figuring out where the Board of Election is, perhaps driving downtown and paying for parking, then going in person to fill out a card, then presenting proof of citizenship.

again, your factual basis is? why have libraries and other agencies been conveniently excluded from your analysis of the horrible possibilities this minimal requirement will inflict? by statute, the arizona bmv's will accept and encourage voter registration with issuance and renewal of drivers' licenses. are you going to argue that requiring driver's licenses is a republican plot to keep democratic voters off the road?

Let's not get caught up in a side issue.

Presently, people may register to vote by mail. This is an additional convenience that encourages more people to register by making it easier.

By allowing registration by mail, the law leaves open a common Democratic get-out-the-vote strategy: registering people to vote by walking neighborhoods (usually poor, transient ones), signing people up to vote and then mailing in the cards for them.

The Arizona proposal would seem to eliminate this strategy.

Net result: Fewer citizens will be registered. Fewer citizens will vote.

It's that simple.

what's even simpler is that requiring some form of identification will reduce the opportunity for voter fraud and that there are good reasons the democrats don't want to see that happen. and it's also pretty simple to see that you routinely resort to exaggeration and hyperbole in describing what the implementation of this statute will mean.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:All I can do is suggest that some people do not believe they are in an economic position to call off work and go downtown between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on a week day and invest the time it takes to register to vote in person.

it is staggering the liberties you take. factual basis for claiming registration will be available only from 9-5 on weekdays? and only downtown?

Well, some boards of election (or DMVs or welfare offices) might open at 8 a.m. and close at 4:30.

Also, occasionally, boards of elections have been known to stay open past 5 once in a while -- usually right before the close of the registration period preceeding an election.

But, by and large, if one wants to register to vote, one should go to the board of elections between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

Boards of elections are typically located in the downtown of the county seat.

maybe you should take a closer look at the hours of operation in the very state you cite to so often (that would be Ohio). let me know what you find out about library hours and bmv weekend operations and such.

Quote:

Quote:you register to vote one time only. you act like it's a weekly event.

It's more common than "one-time only" -- especially if one moves around frequently, as many poor families sometimes do.

I've registered to vote about every two years since I graduated from high school.

well, unless you moved out of state, you either wasted your time or broke the law. once you register to vote in ohio, and vote in any election during a 4 year period, you never register again. you amend the registration when you move, change your name, etc.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:I can also point to the practical result: If this thing happens in Arizona, fewer eligible voters will be registered to vote, meaning fewer people will vote.

And that's the concern of Democrats.

.

hooey. the concern of democrats is it will disproportionately effect democratic voters.

You are trying to parse something that need not be parsed.

Democrats want more people to vote and they believe it favors them in elections for more people to vote.

no parsing needed. democrats want to win; so do republicans. increasingly, those eligible to vote identify with the republican party more than with the democrats. republicans have more incentive than ever to get out the vote.

Quote:

Quote:if i were inclined to make wild statements on the subject, i'd say that they really worry about losing all those illegal voters, both the living and the dead ones, who everone knows overwhelmingly vote democrat.

The right wing spin on this does feed quite a few standing myths about Democrats.

But it doesn't make any of them true.

well, it doesn't make any of them false either. you seem quite comfortable with left wing standing myths about republicans as you have incorporated so many into this thread.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:Good point.

Turnout was enormous in Ohio -- and, yet, Bush won. It flies in the face of conventional wisdom, and it has many Democrats scratching their heads.

One concept that is getting quite a bit of buzz lately is the idea of political micromarketing.

Instead of looking for a demon behind every door, why not simply apply Occum's Razor: The Democratic Platform is not popular w/ the majority of Americans.

Until the DNC recognizes this fact, they are wasting alot of time and money.

It's not the "technology" of direct mail. It's not "conservatives taking over news media" (as if).

It's simple and straightforward: the DNC, and those aligned with it, are not representing Americans, and people sense that despite what the NYT, Wash Post and major networks say.

This election had the highest voter turnout ever. The Democratic party was aided by support from Green Party voters and disheartened Libertarians. It was spurred on by money from Soros, Moore's movie, and numerous ads from 527 groups. (Not to mention an attempted hatchet job by Rather and company). Yet they lost the presidential election by 3M votes!

I find it ironic that the intelligence of conservatives is routinely insulted by those on the left, yet those who do the insulting cannot do a simple, unbiased assessment of their own shortcomings.

Quote:One crude example was this flyer...

... that was mailed to certain homes in Arkansas proclaiming that liberals will ban Bibles (a similar flier was mailed to homes in West Virginia).

This isn't a message that can be used broadly. Hand these things out in downtown Pittsburgh, and people will just laugh at you because its so absurd.

Maybe you'd do better if you came in w/ less bias. This should be absurd, I agree. But, it isn't. Spend a few days listening to Jay Seculow's show (yes, that's cruel to impose on anyone). Seculow may be a jerk, but listen to the callers: the average Janes and Joes who have a legitimate problem 60-80% of the time. The problem: religious discrimination that typically violates the Constitution and/or court decisions that deal directly w/ their issue.

You don't see that sort of stuff b/c you don't look for that sort of stuff. And if the modern-day "muckrakers" at Air America, the weekly alternatives, or even the mainstream media were really doing their job, they'd find an abundance of this sort of stuff too. But they don't care to look, becuase they don't really care. You think and state that there is no liberal bias in news media...that's because you don't even know the people who are out there.

Quote:If Ohio didn't have a proposal on gay marriage on the ballot, it is quite possible Bush's 112,000-vote margin would have evaporated. (It was clearly put there to motivate Christian conservatives to get out and vote, and it seemed to work).

Who's spinning now?
Why is it that is just put there to get "conservatives to get out and vote"? Why is it so hard to believe that some people have a concern about some issues?
And if you're right, why is it that this didn't backfire? If higher voter turnout really favors Democrats, then this was a bad choice. Maybe if this contraversial, and motivating issue wasn't on the ballot, more liberals stay at home.

Once again, if the DNC wants to improve its lot in life, then it should learn from its university consitutents, and apply logic and critical thought to their evaluation. Oh wait, I think Derrida destroyed those skills among the intelligenstia. Better yet, carry on with your current m.o.

gruehls Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:well, that's your word. got any of those, what do they call 'em, "facts" to support this "word" of yours?

It's conventional wisdom. Politics 101.

in other words, you have no factual support at all or anecdotal "facts" only, which i could easily rebut, such as:

Quote:In 1982, Democrats clobbered Republicans in Ohio. Dick Celeste beat old man Rhodes, and most of the other statewide offices went Democratic.

Asked what had happened, one prominent Ohio Republican said, essentially, "Too many people voted."

(I wish I could show you a link to back that up. I spent entirely too much time today trying. Maybe I'll try again later. It happened.)

that's it? that's your factual basis? one statement by one unidentified republican in an election 22 years ago in the very state which you acknowledge in your post below defies the stereotype you attempt to promulgate?

well okay; you convinced me.

I'm not going to indulge you by bothering to debate this.

Feel free to call up some Democratic chairmen in your area and ask them whether a heavy turnout tends to favor their candidates.

Or call up a political science department at a local state university.

Or ask yourself why, in Ohio -- a state with one of the lowest proportion of noncitizens in the country -- Republicans are now proposing to require that new voters present an ID at the polls if they registered to vote by mail.

Or why Ohio Republicans passed legislation last month that will ban the practice of paying people to register others to vote -- striking at the core of what liberal activist groups like Americans Coming Together were doing.

Or why Secretary of State Ken Blackwell took the most restrictive possible interpration of the federal requirement to accept provisional ballots.

Or why Blackwell insisted -- until he was shouted down by "radicals" such as the League of Women Voters -- that new registration forms be submitted on a specific weight of paper.

Or why motor voter was signed into law by President Clinton and not Bush, Bush or Reagan.

It is a free country. You can keep sipping the red Kool Aid if you wish.

DrTorch Wrote:Instead of looking for a demon behind every door, why not simply apply Occum's Razor: The Democratic Platform is not popular w/ the majority of Americans.

Because the presidential election was very, very close.

I know conservatives want so desperately to believe the 2004 elections represented a final, permanent, generational repudiation of what Democrats stand for.

But they reach that conclusion at their own peril.

The Bush administration is now earnestly spinning its tight victory into a mandate for its domestic agenda, and nothing could be further from the truth. Very little of the presidential election was about domestic issues. Most of what Bush stands for on domestic issues is unpopular with the American public -- and will become much more so as it is better understood.

Over the past 35 years, the GOP has very successfully stiched together conservative Christian social stances with Wall Street laisse faire ideology and a heavy dollop of anti-establishment populism.

But the rubber is starting to meet the road. The GOP is the establishment now, meaning the populist rhetoric will inevitably be ceded back to the Democratic Party (where, frankly, it belongs, as any student of American history should understand).

Almost as inevitable is that the GOP will start carrying Wall Street's water. That's what this Social Security privatization is about. That's what tax cuts for the wealthy are about.

But they will do so at their own peril. It will forge a larger Democratic coalition, as increasing numbers of disillusioned middle-class voters abandon the Republican Party.

The third thing I foresee is by no means inevitable, but I think it will start happening: A concerted effort by Democrats to reclaim the language of faith and values.

Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. But he said a great deal about compassion for the poor and reaching out to the least among us.

He also road a donkey into Jerusalem (not an elephant).

Quote:

Quote:One crude example was this flyer...

... that was mailed to certain homes in Arkansas proclaiming that liberals will ban Bibles (a similar flier was mailed to homes in West Virginia).

This isn't a message that can be used broadly. Hand these things out in downtown Pittsburgh, and people will just laugh at you because its so absurd.

Maybe you'd do better if you came in w/ less bias. This should be absurd, I agree. But, it isn't.

The idea that a Kerry administration would ban the Bible is completely absurd. Period.

Quote:

Quote:If Ohio didn't have a proposal on gay marriage on the ballot, it is quite possible Bush's 112,000-vote margin would have evaporated. (It was clearly put there to motivate Christian conservatives to get out and vote, and it seemed to work).

Who's spinning now?
Why is it that is just put there to get "conservatives to get out and vote"? Why is it so hard to believe that some people have a concern about some issues?

These ideas aren't mutually exclusive. Of course it was popular. But it was also put on ballots in a very calculated effort to motivate conservative Christian voters.

First of all, the constitutional amendment was mostly redundant. The state legislature had already passed a Defense of Marriage Act -- and its lead sponsor, Representative Bill Seitz, had said the constitutional amendment was unnecessary.

Also, where the constitutional amendment wasn't redundant, it was overkill. It looks like state universities may be barred from offering domestic parter benefits, a proposal that would not have been as popular standing on its own. Also, it appears that Ohioans may start using the constitutional amendment to escape domestic violence prosecution for beating their unmarried partners.

Second: Secretary of State Ken Blackwell led the effort to amend Ohio's constitution at the request of the Bush campaign.

<a href='http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories04/04sep24.htm#story5' target='_blank'>http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories...ep24.htm#story5</a>

Third: Consider how quickly Bush dropped the idea of a federal constitutional amendment on marriage once he had won the election.

The bottom line: The enormous force with which the gay marriage issue swamped the United States last year was primarily tactical. It was about re-electing Bush.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:that's it? that's your factual basis? one statement by one unidentified republican in an election 22 years ago in the very state which you acknowledge in your post below defies the stereotype you attempt to promulgate?

well okay; you convinced me.

I'm not going to indulge you by bothering to debate this.

phew! that's a relief. i was worried about making you look even sillier.

Quote:Feel free to call up some Democratic chairmen in your area and ask them whether a heavy turnout tends to favor their candidates.

you're the self-annointed guru of ohio politics. i live in hamilton county. i like tim burke, but he can't even field democrats for all of the county races. why don't you call any democratic chairman in southwestern ohio and ask if heavy turnout doesn't favor the republicans?

as for the rest of your rhetorical nonsense directed to the dubious proposition that republicans seek to suppress the vote, because heavy voter turnout always helps you democrats, i note the following:

- the 2004 presidential race saw the highest actual voter turnout in history, and the highest percentage turnout in decades. the republican candidate won by about 3.3 million votes;

- in the record setting voter turnout for 2004, george bush received more votes than he had in the 2000 election in almost every single state and in the district of columbia. as a percentage of the vote, he improved in every single state except vermont and south dakota;

- in 2004, 6 states set voter turnout records. they were alabama, florida, georgia, south carolina, tennessee and virginia. every single one went for george bush. i'll repeat that just for you: where voter turnout set statewide records, the REPUBLICAN won;

- the most recent gallup poll documents that more individuals now identify themselves as republicans than as democrats, by a margin of 5 - 6%. that's a reversal of the political reality during clinton's presidency. if your intellectually dishonest theories ever had any validity, it was at a time when the democrats had a numerical superiority. they no longer do.

as for kool aid, put some vodka in your next batch; maybe it will help you get over those "too few blue" blues.

gruehls Wrote:

Quote:Feel free to call up some Democratic chairmen in your area and ask them whether a heavy turnout tends to favor their candidates.

you're the self-annointed guru of ohio politics. i live in hamilton county. i like tim burke, but he can't even field democrats for all of the county races. why don't you call any democratic chairman in southwestern ohio and ask if heavy turnout doesn't favor the republicans?

Google is a fine thing.

Here is Tim Burke's law office number.

(513) 721-5525

Let me know what he says about turnout.

Quote:as for the rest of your rhetorical nonsense directed to the dubious proposition that republicans seek to suppress the vote, because heavy voter turnout always helps you democrats,

Look, the goal, in any election, is to turn out *your* people and avoid doing something that would encourage the turnout of *their* people.

That's why Republicans in the Ohio House and Senate opted to give in and negotiate with unions and drug companies on a state prescription drug discount program two year ago. It allowed them to avoid a union-led statewide ballot issue that could have turned out the Democratic vote.

And that's why Republicans pushed ahead with a constitutional amendment on gay marriage even though the state legislature had enacted essentially the same thing into statute the previous year. It was about turning out conservatives.

Conventional wisdom remains, however, that anything that turns out the vote in a politically neutral manner will tend to favor Democrats, who are generally harder to get to the polls.

You can point to the 2004 election all you want. Yes, some aspects of turnout did seem to fly in the face of conventional wisdom. Rove's whole strategy was to turn out the base. I was skeptical; I wasn't sure there was much more base to turn out.

But it doesn't mean the conventional wisdom didn't exist -- or that it won't persist.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:you're the self-annointed guru of ohio politics. i live in hamilton county. i like tim burke, but he can't even field democrats for all of the county races. why don't you call any democratic chairman in southwestern ohio and ask if heavy turnout doesn't favor the republicans?

Google is a fine thing.

Here is Tim Burke's law office number.

(513) 721-5525

Let me know what he says about turnout.

only one of us needed google to figure out who the chairman of the hamilton county democratic party is, and how to reach him. it wasn't me. but then again, i don't go around making absurd generalizations about ohio politics.

i don't need burke's input on this issue. here's reality for southwestern ohio in 2004:

County Bush Kerry

Brown 12,647 7,140
Butler 109,866 56,234
Clermont 62,946 25,885
Clinton 12,938 5,417
Hamilton 222,404 199,499
Warren 68,035 26,043

Totals 488836 320218

now, please pontificate some more about how i should call any nearby democrat county chairman so he can tell me that a heavy voter turnout helps the democrats more than the republicans.

Quote:Look, the goal, in any election, is to turn out *your* people

duh! you think so? your political acumen becomes more apparent with every post.

Quote:and avoid doing something that would encourage the turnout of *their* people.

perhaps on some issues, but the republicans emphasize the issues that matter more to more people. your preferred routine is often the coward's way. democrats try to stand for everything, and in the process stand for nothing.

Quote:That's why Republicans in the Ohio House and Senate opted to give in and negotiate with unions and drug companies on a state prescription drug discount program two year ago. It allowed them to avoid a union-led statewide ballot issue that could have turned out the Democratic vote.

And that's why Republicans pushed ahead with a constitutional amendment on gay marriage even though the state legislature had enacted essentially the same thing into statute the previous year. It was about turning out conservatives.

blah blah blah; blah blah blah. it's amazing how you gain blazing insights into every issue pursued by republicans, their rationale and motives. the democrats could use you as a consultant as they still cannot win a statewide election here.

Quote:Conventional wisdom remains, however, that anything that turns out the vote in a politically neutral manner will tend to favor Democrats, who are generally harder to get to the polls.

that's your conventional wisdom, not mine. and i'll just bet that you get to define "politically neutral manner" for everyone else, right?

Quote:You can point to the 2004 election all you want.

thanks, i will. it seems moderately relevant to this discussion, what with the facts of the election being totally at odds with most everything you postulate.

Quote:Yes, some aspects of turnout did seem to fly in the face of conventional wisdom. Rove's whole strategy was to turn out the base. I was skeptical; I wasn't sure there was much more base to turn out.

But it doesn't mean the conventional wisdom didn't exist -- or that it won't persist.

continue to reside in your alternate version of reality. i look forward to the republicans continuing to do what they have been doing and therefore continuing to make gains and continuing to consolidate them on the state and national level.

you know, it's a part of that republican conspiracy to appeal to more voters than you democrats do.

I love it. Dems lose and they continue with this conspiracy theory BS. That works well for the Conservatives because the Liberals refuse to recognize why they really lose, because they have become a party of the far left.....which is NOT popular with most Americans. So, what do they do? Blame Republicans and keep heading further and further left, meanwhile losing more and more votes. Conventional wisdom Schad? That's conventional wisdom. Until the Democrats recognize the fact that it IS the party of leftist lunatics like Kennedy and Boxer.....you're party is doomed. Look at the numbers.

I think the law is a great step, and the fact that some will perhaps still commit fraud with false credentials is unfortunate, but it will make it more difficult and that is the goal.

Gruehls:

Call Burke.

Ask him if he'd rather run Democrats in a presidential year or a non presidential year.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Gruehls:

Call Burke.

Ask him if he'd rather run Democrats in a presidential year or a non presidential year.

schad,

i went you one better. i called the former republican chairman of hamilton county. i gave him your "republicans seek to suppress the vote everywhere" theory. he said you're full of hot air.

that's good enough for me, and consistent with my own observations.

gruehls Wrote:schad,

i went you one better. i called the former republican chairman of hamilton county. i gave him your "republicans seek to suppress the vote everywhere" theory. he said you're full of hot air.

that's good enough for me, and consistent with my own observations.

Of course he's going to say that, especially considered how horribly you mangled what I have said here.

The question you should have asked him is simple: Would he rather run Republicans in a presidential year or a non presidential year?

He'll opt for an off year. Burke will prefer the presidential year. And the reason is turnout.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:schad,

i went you one better. i called the former republican chairman of hamilton county. i gave him your "republicans seek to suppress the vote everywhere" theory. he said you're full of hot air.

that's good enough for me, and consistent with my own observations.

Of course he's going to say that, especially considered how horribly you mangled what I have said here.

The question you should have asked him is simple: Would he rather run Republicans in a presidential year or a non presidential year?

He'll opt for an off year. Burke will prefer the presidential year. And the reason is turnout.

i don't need to mangle what you say since so much of what you say is simply the regurgitation of democratic party talking points. the voting public has already mangled those for me.

you started this with some overblown attack on the new arizona statute and how it will disenfranchise the working poor, all part of a clever republican strategy to universally suppress the vote. you spout generalities and "conventional wisdom" as if they were gospel, yet you are incapable of reconciling your political worldview with the realities of the last election. you always have some underhanded plot by republicans to blame for the democrats' failures but you refuse to consider the most obvious explanation: republicans and republican values are now favored by a majority of americans.

and you have the nerve to start yammering about kool aid drinkers. sheesh.

gruehls Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:schad,

i went you one better. i called the former republican chairman of hamilton county. i gave him your "republicans seek to suppress the vote everywhere" theory. he said you're full of hot air.

that's good enough for me, and consistent with my own observations.

Of course he's going to say that, especially considered how horribly you mangled what I have said here.

The question you should have asked him is simple: Would he rather run Republicans in a presidential year or a non presidential year?

He'll opt for an off year. Burke will prefer the presidential year. And the reason is turnout.

i don't need to mangle what you say since so much of what you say is simply the regurgitation of democratic party talking points. the voting public has already mangled those for me.

you started this with some overblown attack on the new arizona statute and how it will disenfranchise the working poor, all part of a clever republican strategy to universally suppress the vote. you spout generalities and "conventional wisdom" as if they were gospel, yet you are incapable of reconciling your political worldview with the realities of the last election. you always have some underhanded plot by republicans to blame for the democrats' failures but you refuse to consider the most obvious explanation: republicans and republican values are now favored by a majority of americans.

and you have the nerve to start yammering about kool aid drinkers. sheesh.

I've never used the word "surpress" or "underhanded."

All I sought to do was explain why Democrats could sincerely and vigorously oppose a law that requires people to present identification when registering to vote while in no way condoning illegal voting by non citizens.

Democrats believe it is in their best political interest for as many citizens to vote as possible. Anything that discourages citizens from voting tends to be opposed by Democrats.

Republicans always have a explanation for pursuing policies that tend to discourage people from voting. Utlimately, they have a different heirarchy of values, e.g.:

1. The value of making it easier to register to vote by not requiring the presentation of a identification card is not as important as keeping closer watch on whether people are attempting to vote illegally. (Arizona, 2005; Ohio, 2005)

2. The value of encouraging a higher voter turn out (by allowing not-for-profit organizations to pay people for each voter registration they successfully solicit) is not as important as cutting down on the burden such efforts pose to boards of elections. (Ohio state legislature, December, 2004)

3. The value of allowing people who sincerely want to register to vote to do so is not as important as ensuring documents are submitted on the proper weight of paper (Ken Blackwell, 2004).

I hold firm to the idea that it is not in Republicans political self interest to make voting easier. I have pointed to a trail of policy decisions over the years that appears to reflect that view, and I can easily come up with more.

But, ultimately, to demonstrate my original point, it doesn't matter whether Republicans actually acknowledge whether their political self-interest influences their policies on making it easier to vote.

It only matters whether Democrats believe they are better off politically with policies that encourage more people to vote. That's the core of my explanation of how they could come to oppose the proposal in Arizona.

Nothing you have said rebuts that this is a core Democratic belief.

It is Democratic conventional wisdom that higher turnout helps them -- a conventional wisdom that will need to be pored over carefully in light of the 2004 election, but conventional wisdom nonetheless.

Schad, more Democrats voted this election than any other in history. Did it help them?