Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I hope President Bush has the wisdom to let the election play out, rather than try to preempt the count - and recount, if necessary. It will go a long way towards showing the commitment Karen Hughes says he has for uniting the nation.

I would be willing to wait for the count. What I worry about is the suing. It would inevitably set off a string of trouble. The margin in Pennsylvania with 21 Electoral votes, is smaller than Ohio’s, so is Michigan’s with 17 votes. Both these states are in the Kerry column. I suppose these states must also have absentee and provisional ballots.

President Bush’s lead in Ohio is 136,221, according to the Washington Post. So far Ohio has found 96,221 provisional ballots. Let’s be extravagant and assume that there is twice that number to be found eventually and round it off to 190,000 so I can do the math. Some of these ballots will be invalid. Prior experience in Ohio shows about 10%, but we can expect a higher percentage because of changes in the laws since the last election. Experience in Chicago showed that about 80% were INVALID. Recall that the validity of the ballots is decided BEFORE they are opened making it hard to cheat. But let’s be generous here too. 90% we will call valid. That will yield 171,000 votes. Of those, John Kerry has to win 153,611 in order to win by ONE vote. That is about 90%. Since Kerry won only 49% of the vote in general, why should he get 90% of these?

I emphasize that the numbers I am using for Bush are the lowest estimates so far. Those in favor of Kerry are the largest possible. They are outside the estimates of most people I have seen. If Kerry numbers are smaller or the Bush numbers bigger (both likely), Kerry requires an even bigger share. At some point there are not enough available ballots, even if Kerry wins 100% of all the contested votes. In true Democratic tradition, he would have to win 110% or more of the votes cast.

As a prominent liberal group says, move on.

“There’s no mathematical path to victory for Kerry in Ohio,” she said. “There aren’t enough votes there to alter the outcome of the re-election of George W. Bush.”

Interesting claim, but untrue, unfortunately. In the counted ballots, George Bush leads by 136,000. In a press conference held about half an hour ago, the sec. of state of Ohio announced that there were between 175,000 and 250,000 provisional ballots, meaning that depending on how many there are, Kerry has to get somewhere between 55 and 78% of the provisional votes. Now, assuming that 90% are approved, like in 2000, then that comes down to 61 to 87% of the vote. Difficult? Well, yeah. But considering the group that votes provisionally- last-minute votes and ex-felons that were never removed from the no-vote list- we’re generally looking at mostly lower class.

This means that we’re looking at mostly Kerry.

So if we end up with provisional ballots on the high end of that estimation, Kerry can win.

Recalling the words of H.L. Mencken … “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

But considering the group that votes provisionally- last-minute votes and ex-felons that were never removed from the no-vote list- we’re generally looking at mostly lower class.

This means that we’re looking at mostly Kerry.

Sometimes we type something that is a Freudian slip, while other times the language we use simply comes out differently than we intended.

Stephen, do you really mean to say that Kerry voters are “lower class”? LOL, I didn’t think so.

It is what it is. I voted and I didn’t die! Phewwww! At least Edwards can go back to being an Attorney and “helping the ‘people’”

There is definetly something wrong with the vote counts coming in. Expecially with Ohio. There is more people there with out jobs because of Bush then any other state. Why would they vote for Bush? This election does not make sense. Something is wrong, but the little people will never know what happened. I do not look forward to another screwed up four yrs. and can not afford it either. With Bush in office I am totally scared for what is coming next with him.

I do have ont comment , no actually a couple . We think that Kerry is grasping at straws . He has lost but can not accept the fact that we do not want him as President . The majority of Americans feel safer with Bush in the White House . Kerry is a whimp . I could not trust John Kerry for about as far as I could throw him . Which is not very far . He sounds like Al Gore in 2000 . He can not accept the fact that he has lost ! No one could even tell you where Kerry ztands on issues because he can not figure out what he wants to do from a whole in the ground . Kerry can not stand the fact that he has LOST ! He reminds me of a 4 year old who has not gotten his way and has to throw a temper tantrum !

I think kerry IS showing some class.
Instead of conceding to early and looking like an idiot, as gore did in 2000, kerry is waiting until all the votes are counted.
In a close race, there is nothing wrong with waiting for all the votes to be counted.

All Senator Kerry is doing is adding insult to injury for the Democratic Party. It is impossible for him to win now and anybody with an once of common sense knows it. Why embarrass himself or his party any further?

Kirt, lay off characterizing others as having no common sense if you wish to continue to participate here. Critique the Message, Not the Messengers. — WatchBlog Manager

If you’re arguing that Kerry should concede the election, why? Only in this day and age do we think we need an answer RIGHT NOW. We could wait two weeks to have it exactly right instead. It’s not as if Bush would be evicted in a week or something even if he lost. He’s got another two months if he did. It doesn’t appear there is a need for the decision to be final inside of 24 hours. We just would prefer it.

Bush should do the right thing and allow the election process to continue without interjecting any nasty asides. If he thinks he won, and it’s proven albeit after a week or two he should be a big man about it. He’s the one espousing Christian values. Let him show it.

If you’re arguing that Kerry should concede the election, why? Only in this day and age do we think we need an answer RIGHT NOW. We could wait two weeks to have it exactly right instead. It’s not as if Bush would be evicted in a week or something even if he lost. He’s got another two months if he did. It doesn’t appear there is a need for the decision to be final inside of 24 hours. We just would prefer it.

Bush should do the right thing and allow the election process to continue without interjecting any nasty asides. If he thinks he won, and it’s proven albeit after a week or two he should be a big man about it. He’s the one espousing Christian values. Let him show it.

Kerry just can not accept DEFEAT !!!! He needs to accept defeat like a man and stop throwing temaper tantrums . Please ! He needs to save the democratic party the disgrace that is looming over them .

It surprises me how a whole state’s voting system would fail. With today’s technology, being in the year 2004, why can’t we create a fool proof system that will be flawless, especially when it’s being used for something so important, the Presidential Election.

Excuse me, I did not mean my statement to be taken personally by anyone. I am not arguing that Kerry should concede. I am arguing that he has lost the election. The election process is completed and he lost. He can wait two weeks or forever and it will not make a difference. My point is the Democrats already got hammered on election night, by losing the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. In my opinion the only thing left for him and the Democratic Party is to show some dignity and go on.

I am not arguing that Kerry should concede. I am arguing that he lost the election. The election process has completed and he lost. We could wait two weeks or forever and it would not change the outcome of this election. The Democrats got hammered on election night by losing the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, the only thing for Kerry and the Democrats to do now is show some dignity and go on.

Kerry concedes. Bush wins.

I am not arguing that Kerry should concede. I am arguing that he lost the election. The election process has completed and he lost. We could wait two weeks or forever and it would not change the outcome of this election. The Democrats got hammered on election night by losing the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, the only thing for Kerry and the Democrats to do now is show some dignity and go on.

nevada just announced, GWB won the state.

Well.. now that Kerry has conceded on the same day that polls close in the last state, I wonder if everyone who is flipping out because he didn’t concede quickly enough is wondering if they may have overreacted….

I don’t understand all this about “finally the hateful ultra-left liberals won’t rule the country anymore, now the RIGHT people will be in charge!” Where does this come from? How many Democratic presidents have we had in the last 30 years? How many of those Democratic presidents had a Democratic majority in Congress?

And what is with all this calling people stupid? People have widely divergent views about what’s right for the country — that doesn’t make anyone stupid.

For those on the Right:

First, congratulations.

Second, to answer your replies to the extreme reactions of those on the left to our defeat, I would like to share how I am feeling right now with you.

I keep hearing, over and over, that this election was a moral victory for christian americans. That the clear difference between Senator Kerry and President Bush was in their morality, and that it was his conservative christian stance on things like gay marriage that kept President Bush in office.

To me, that tells me that President Bush was reelected primarily to keep me and my boyfriend from marrying each other. From being able to inherit without taxation, from being able to visit each other in the hospital without drawing up extensive and expensive legal documentation. From being viewed as equal in rights and basic human dignity with heterosexual couples in the eyes of the law. That is what was, apparently, most important to the majority of americans. To condemn my relationship with someone I love, and to keep it sharing equal rights and legal consideration with their own relationships.

I’m not feeling too happy with the majority of americans right now. Or with the majority of christians, for that matter.

If others feel as I do, whether on this issue or others, it’s unsurprising that you continue to see such passionate opposition to this outcome from them.

For me this means at least four more years of having to struggle for basic human rights. Probably much more than that, since this will also give President Bush the opportunity to appoint rather conservative christian supreme court judges whose terms will greatly outlast his own.

I would ask, for now, that you have patience with us and our feelings on this matter. And also that you remember, while understandably celebrating your own victories, that we on the left are citizens too and should not be so thoroughly dismissed as irrelevant by the present majority.

Jarin —

I live in Ohio, one of the eleven states with “marriage protection” issues on the ballot. I’m not proud of my state right now at all.

and to keep it sharing equal rights and legal consideration

I mistyped this, it should say “and to keep it FROM sharing equal rights and legal considerations”.

Quote:Interesting claim, but untrue, unfortunately. In the counted ballots, George Bush leads by 136,000. In a press conference held about half an hour ago, the sec. of state of Ohio announced that there were between 175,000 and 250,000 provisional ballots, meaning that depending on how many there are, Kerry has to get somewhere between 55 and 78% of the provisional votes.

I know it doesn’t matter now, but jsut want to point out a little math mistake.
If Kerry got 55% of the 250,000 provisional votes, that would indeed give him approximately 137,000 additional votes, but Bush would get another 45% (appr), so he would still lead by about 100,000 votes.
In order to break even, Kerry would have to get 77% or more of the 250,000 provisional ballots.
In this case, Kerry gains 192,500; Bush gains 57,500 for a total of 192,500 (136,000+57,500).

Any reduction in number of the provisional ballots makes the required percentage even higher, which makes it almost mathematically impossible.

For example, if there are only 150,000 of them, Kerry would have to get 143,000 (95%).
If there are only 136,000 provisional ballots, Kerry would have to get 100% to break even, etc., etc…

In other words, you forgot to add remaining votes to the Bush’s existing 136,000 lead… Maybe Kerry’s campaign made the same mistake last night. :)

Jarin —

You know, I was just saying this morning that the thing that disappointed me the MOST this morning was that Issue 1 here in Ohio (so called protection of marriage) passed.

I cannot understand AT ALL, why anyone would think that this is right. I cannot fathom any reason whatsoever why anyone would vote for this. I am so saddened by the citizens in my state, I want to throw up.

So called Judeo/Christian morals may be running this country now, by a slim margin - I may add - but they’re NOT what this country was founded on. People may deride secularists today, but freedom from religious oppression was exactly what our founders wanted and now look at us.

So sad.

Dear Jarin, I want to answer your post.
I have had worked with gay people, and am very supportive of their rights.
Furthermore, I never go to church and am not religious at all…
It surprises me that gay people blame “church-goers” for Bush’s victory. Seems a little hypocritical, but maybe I misunderstand something.
I’m not from this country originally, and I can’t quite get a grasp on this issue, please help me out.
1. Isn’t Bush supportive of civil unions for gay people?
2. What is the difference between a marriage and a civil union?

If I understand it correctly, the only difference is that you don’t need to go through church…
One more question: is there such thing as a civil union for straight people? Because if there is, I may consider it for myself over marriage, although I’m straight.

With the ‘marriage protection’ issue being on ballots in a good many states, there is no wondering why Bush won. The voter turnout for the gay marriage issue AND the presidency was bound to be massive. What a payoff for going to the polls.. it’s Two, Two, Two votes in one!!

Ella:

First, I do not blame them… my post was in reaction to the statements I have read from a great many happy republicans that this is a victory for conservative christian morality. They claim the credit for his victory themselves.

1. Yes he is. To me, however, that is analogous to someone supposedly being for equal rights while espousing the doctrine of seperate but equal. Civil unions are not equal to marriage, they’re just seperate.

2. Civil unions carry no federal rights, marriages do. Civil unions do not continue to exist if you move to another state, marriages do. Fundamentally, the only reason to legally distinguish between civil marriage and civil unions is to create such inequalities.

The difference between marriage and civil unions is not just that you don’t have to go through the church. Currently, we have the institution of civil marriage, which is distinct from religious marriage in that you can get married by a judge rather than a member of the clergy. And that is all that gays want: civil marriage, the right to be married by a judge. It has nothing to do with religious marriage. Making a seperate institution is unnecessary, and can only be divisive and promote inequality.

Incidentally, to answer your final question, what you describe yourself as wanting is probably best covered by civil marriage as well.

John Kerry showed himself to be a good man and a good American. I am glad that he did not prolong the process and create greater divisions in America. I am not thinking about what happened yesterday and I don’t know what will happen tomorrow, but I will remain grateful for what John Kerry has done today.

With the ‘marriage protection’ issue being on ballots in a good many states, there is no wondering why Bush won. The voter turnout for the gay marriage issue AND the presidency was bound to be massive. What a payoff for going to the polls.. it’s Two, Two, Two votes in one!!

Ella,

I’m not sure I understand what you mean here, “It surprises me that gay people blame “church-goers” for Bush’s victory. Seems a little hypocritical, but maybe I misunderstand something.”

Why is this hypocritical?

CER, I thought it was hypocritical because I didn’t realize there were differences between marriages and civil unions other than those involving religion. I mean, some democrats keep saying “those conservative church-goers are for banning gay marriage”. It made me think, “If they are not church-goers themselves, why do they want to get married in the church?” Thanks Jarin for explanation, I didn’t know there were legal differences as well.

In this case I agree, you should fight for your rights and others should support you. I don’t see why you have to pay higher taxes or go through different legal procedures than those who have conventional marriage.
As far as church goes - personally, as I said, I’m not religious, and can care less about getting married in the church. I’d want nothing more than for someone to love me “‘til death us apart,” but not because he made a promise long time ago. We can’t make anyone remain in love simply because they promised. I also want all people to love each other, but definitely not because God told them so, or because they want to go to Heaven.

I’m a Bush supporter, although it seems from Jarin’s explanation, I disagree with Bush on this issue. I also disagree with him on some other issues, health care for example, but it’s hard for any two people to agree about everything. Overall, I still like Bush hundred times over Kerry, even though I don’t consider myself a conservative. I’m a liberal person by definition, but I’m embarrassed of democratic party at this time.
Jarin, are you sure Kerry would keep his promises? I watched the debates, and I remember him being somewhat elusive talking about gay marriages. I think he’d say anything to get some votes from you guys. At least, in my opinion, Bush has moral values he adheres to, and one of them is love and respect of all people. I think he’ll compromise if you keep fighting for your rights. Don’t give up. There are a lot of us who love and support you guys!

Ella:

No, I don’t know that Kerry would have kept his promises, but at least he has not actively supported legislation to block people like myself and my boyfriend from having equal rights. Bush has, with the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have not only denied gay couples the right to marry one another but also would have denied them and any other unmarried couples the “legal incidents” of marriage… in effect, making civil unions worthless by taking away the already-limited marriage-like rights associated with them. I don’t feel that Bush is ready to work with us on this, and based on how little he has changed his social policy in the past four years I do not anticipate that changing in the next four. The log cabin republicans did not endorse President Bush’s reelection campaign for good reason.

Another Michigan Embarrassment!
As W sets RECORDS for voting, and Michigan overwhelmingly approves a highly conservative CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, we still can’t get Michigan for him? Then, we lose three seats in the Michigan house?
I’m embarrassed. Michigan is NOT a union state anymore. Engler for 12 years. We still have both sides of the state legislature. I can see Levin winnning, by name only to the uninformed voter, but Stabenow? She was the embarrassment of her OWN party, now the ultimate democrat yes-man schill? As senator?
It is time for BIG change in the Michigan Republican Party. Effective IMMEDIATELY.
The entire board must resign prior to the next convention to allow for better qualified candidates to come forward.
Unbelievably hard work and commitment plus zero results equals zero.
Times up.

Jarin,

According to the exit polls on CNN Bush won in the category for Civil Unions 52%-47%.

Results:
Legal Marriage(25%) Bush 22% Kerry 77%
Civil Unions(35%) Bush 52% Kerry 47%
No Legal Recognition(37%) Bush 77% Kerry 29%

This shows me that a few more people trust Bush to at least give some recognition more than Kerry would.
It also shows me that Bush voters don’t hate the idea of Gay couples being recognized as much as some people think.
I wonder what the results would look like if the No Recognition choice was left out. My guess is it would be closer to 50/50.

dawn:

Yes, Bush was favored both by those who think gay couples should only get civil unions, not civil marriage, and by those who think gay couples should get no legal recognition… this should make me want to vote for him why? Kerry was clearly the person supporting full rights for people like myself and my boyfriend in this election. This statistic only further supports the fact that Bush supporters saw him as the path to limited or no rights for gay couples.

Imagine for a moment if this was a hundred years ago and the poll question was on black americans.

Option one, the policy held by 25% of voters, would be desegregation.
Option two, the policy held by 35% of voters, would be seperate but equal.
Option three, the policy held by 37% of voters, would be slavery. (aka having no legal status.)

If the polls showed that voters favoring segregation and slavery supported a candidate, would the fact that he was favored by those offering black americans limited rights make him a good civil-rights candidate?

Likewise, the fact that Bush is favored by those offering gay couples limited rights does not make him a good gay-rights candidate, especially when he is also favored by those wishing to deny gay couples all legal consideration.