Sometimes It's Nice To Be Wrong

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

I hope you and Doctor Dope keep spewing your venom, as it allows the Republicans to keep winning – even with a candidate who is bogged down in an unpopular war, who has lost over a million jobs and who can barely form a complete sentence.

Just keep pointing and yelling at other people and telling them that they are the problem because they are stupid, lazy, selfish, illiterate, and blinded by faith.

One day, you'll look in the mirror and see where the real problem lays.

While I mostly agree with you here, I think people complaining about people blinded by faith is fair game. But Democrats themselves are to blame for the loss. The people blinded by faith would not have been a problem if Democrats could find a message that appealed to the people who voted for Bush and were not blinded by faith. The fact remains that no matter how much of a mandate Bush claims he has, the race was extremely close, and could have been won by the Democrats with some changes to their message.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
2 wrongs = 1 right?

thats not what i was saying…..what i was saying was along the lines of the pot calling the kettle black.

i think they're both stupid. but people call me socialist so whatever.

(see, i used they're right that time)

Originally posted by hitman:
Thanks Doc…you have someone in agreement here..

Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
The election was overwhelmingly decided by frightened, petty, small-minded people who couldn't stand the idea that gays in states hundreds of miles away might decide to marry, and that this was more of a threat to the country than wars on false premises or soaring budget deficits. Not much to be proud of there.


<img src="http://www.alex.to/images/IQ2.jpg" alt=" - " />

The worst thing Democrats could now say is that Republicans won because in most states they carried, average IQs are lower than in the remaining states. This is stupid and won't help at all, actually it might backfire. There is nothing in politics I like less than the GOP (actually tied with the Popular Party in Spain and ARENA in El Salvador), but rather than blaming the loss to the low IQs in the south and midwest, democrats should start looking for a way of re-gaining some of those states in 2006, let's stop crying and let's look for good arguments. It shouldn't be that difficult to get states like New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, or Arkansas, the difference wasn't that huge, there sure are lots of moderate republicans left there who could swing to the Democratic party.

Bob Herbert asks a great question…with all this "values" nonsense, what about the ignorance issue? In other words, is wishing that people voted with actual facts in mind, inherently elitist?

Voting Without the Facts
By BOB HERBERT

Published: November 8, 2004


The so-called values issue, at least as it's being popularly tossed around, is overrated.

Last week's election was extremely close and a modest shift in any number of factors might have changed the outcome. If the weather had been better in Ohio. …If the wait to get into the voting booth hadn't been so ungodly long in certain Democratic precincts. … Or maybe if those younger voters had actually voted. …

I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.

This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won.

The survey, and an accompanying report, showed that there's a fair amount of cluelessness in the ranks of the values crowd. The report said, "It is clear that supporters of the president are more likely to have misperceptions than those who oppose him."

I haven't heard any of the postelection commentators talk about ignorance and its effect on the outcome. It's all values, all the time. Traumatized Democrats are wringing their hands and trying to figure out how to appeal to voters who have arrogantly claimed the moral high ground and can't stop babbling about their self-proclaimed superiority. Potential candidates are boning up on new prayers and purchasing time-shares in front-row-center pews.

A more practical approach might be for Democrats to add teach-ins to their outreach efforts. Anything that shrinks the ranks of the clueless would be helpful.

If you don't think this values thing has gotten out of control, consider the lead paragraph of an op-ed article that ran in The LA. Times on Friday. It was written by Frank Pastore, a former major league pitcher who is now a host on the Christian talk-radio station KKLA.

"Christians, in politics as in evangelism," said Mr. Pastore, "are not against people or the world. But we are against false ideas that hold good people captive. On Tuesday, this nation rejected liberalism, primarily because liberalism has been taken captive by the left. Since 1968, the left has taken millions captive, and we must help those Democrats who truly want to be free to actually break free of this evil ideology."

Mr. Pastore goes on to exhort Christian conservatives to reject any and all voices that might urge them "to compromise with the vanquished." How's that for values?

In The New York Times on Thursday, Richard Viguerie, the dean of conservative direct mail, declared, "Now comes the revolution." He said, "Liberals, many in the media and inside the Republican Party, are urging the president to 'unite' the country by discarding the allies that earned him another four years."

Mr. Viguerie, it is clear, will stand four-square against any such dangerous moves toward reconciliation.

You have to be careful when you toss the word values around. All values are not created equal. Some Democrats are casting covetous eyes on voters whose values, in many cases, are frankly repellent. Does it make sense for the progressive elements in our society to undermine their own deeply held beliefs in tolerance, fairness and justice in an effort to embrace those who deliberately seek to divide?

What the Democratic Party needs above all is a clear message and a bold and compelling candidate. The message has to convince Americans that they would be better off following a progressive Democratic vision of the future. The candidate has to be a person of integrity capable of earning the respect and the affection of the American people.

This is doable. Al Gore and John Kerry were less than sparkling candidates, and both came within a hair of defeating Mr. Bush.

What the Democrats don't need is a candidate who is willing to shape his or her values to fit the pundits' probably incorrect analysis of the last election. Values that pivot on a dime were not really values to begin with.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
The election was overwhelmingly decided by frightened, petty, small-minded people who couldn't stand the idea that gays in states hundreds of miles away might decide to marry, and that this was more of a threat to the country than wars on false premises or soaring budget deficits. Not much to be proud of there.

statements like this is precisely why democrats cannot win in the south and midwest. you continue to think that because you are, supposedly, intellectually superior to everyone else, you, and only you, must be right. and the fact that the candidate that best represents what you think lost, again, drives you nuts. denial just ain't a river in egypt.

i'd argue that the notion that the south and certain parts of the midwest (suddenly wisconsin isn't the midwest?) are somehow morally superior to the west coast and northeasterners is just as absurd. the gop ran a superior campaign, framing a couple of issues as a moral the basis for reelection. the democrats did poorly in this regard, they should have made (say) healthcare a moral issue. but they didn't the republicans are supperior in ruthless campaigning and that was that. to further point fingers and say things like 'you people think you're so superior' is going to further divide this country. you have to admit the geographic divisions cannot be good for the future of the country.

Originally posted by Barcelona:
The worst thing Democrats could now say is that Republicans won because in most states they carried, average IQs are lower than in the remaining states.

That chart is ahoax

So by your chart, one could say that 18 of the top 37 went to Kerry, whereas only 1 (DC) of the bottom 14 went to Kerry. Certainly, there is some significance to that.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by Barcelona:
The worst thing Democrats could now say is that Republicans won because in most states they carried, average IQs are lower than in the remaining states.

That chart is ahoax

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
The election was overwhelmingly decided by frightened, petty, small-minded people who couldn't stand the idea that gays in states hundreds of miles away might decide to marry, and that this was more of a threat to the country than wars on false premises or soaring budget deficits. Not much to be proud of there.

statements like this is precisely why democrats cannot win in the south and midwest. you continue to think that because you are, supposedly, intellectually superior to everyone else, you, and only you, must be right. and the fact that the candidate that best represents what you think lost, again, drives you nuts. denial just ain't a river in egypt.

i'd argue that the notion that the south and certain parts of the midwest (suddenly wisconsin isn't the midwest?) are somehow morally superior to the west coast and northeasterners is just as absurd. the gop ran a superior campaign, framing a couple of issues as a moral the basis for reelection. the democrats did poorly in this regard, they should have made (say) healthcare a moral issue. but they didn't the republicans are supperior in ruthless campaigning and that was that. to further point fingers and say things like 'you people think you're so superior' is going to further divide this country. you have to admit the geographic divisions cannot be good for the future of the country.

oh, i think you mis-understood me. i was simply pointing out that herr doom believes that he is correct, his beliefs are correct and that the left (which reflects his beliefs) is correct, and that any other beliefs are in-correct, wrong and intolerant. it's in statements like that that upset people.. . .believe it or not, people in the south and midwest do think about things like that. they do not want californians or northeast liberal elites telling them what's right and what's wrong. if you look at a county-by-county map breakdown of this election, it's still the basic rural/urban split - even in states like california. it just happens that there are more people living in the city than in the country in those states.

as for wisconsin. . .both it, iowa and minnesota are trending republican, and unless the democrats are able to reshape their message and do it with conviction, you could probably add wisconsin to the red states.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by hitman:
Thanks Doc…you have someone in agreement here..

If you note at the bottom of that chart it says "This data has been published in the Economist." The Economist did run the chart in 2000, (replace "Kerry" with "Gore") when it was originally circulated. What the chart's author fails to note is that a week later The Economist ran a retraction in which they apologized for being taken in by a hoax and stated that the data had been thoroughly discredited.

I hope you and Doctor Dope keep spewing your venom, as it allows the Republicans to keep winning – even with a candidate who is bogged down in an unpopular war, who has lost over a million jobs and who can barely form a complete sentence.

Just keep pointing and yelling at other people and telling them that they are the problem because they are stupid, lazy, selfish, illiterate, and blinded by faith.

One day, you'll look in the mirror and see where the real problem lays.

I wasn't referring to the chart. I could care less about the chart. I was referring to his commentary. My biggest problem is the blinded by their faith part. Religion in this country is completely intertwined with politics when it shouldn't be. And when it comes right down to it, most devout Christians (especially the ones who have to state how devout they are) are mostly hippocrates. These are the same people who are supposed to be so loving of everyone, but end up being the most close-minded especially when it comes to homosexuality, interracial marriage, etc.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by sonickteam2:

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Just keep pointing and yelling at other people and telling them that they are the problem because they are stupid, lazy, selfish, illiterate, and blinded by faith.

because Republicans always respect other people's opinions and values?

2 wrongs = 1 right?

I respect other people's views if they can back them up. But they shouldn't be slammed down people's throats or become political doctrine.

I want to know if they're using the new, padded SAT scores, or the original ones well all had to get into college with…. I coulda gotten in to Harvard with 100 extra points, damn kids.

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
So by your chart, one could say that 18 of the top 37 went to Kerry, whereas only 1 (DC) of the bottom 14 went to Kerry. Certainly, there is some significance to that.

Only if you believe that everybody in the state has the exact same IQ and that everybody in the state voted the same way.

Any mention of "average IQ" without regard to the dispersion of the sample is useless, especially when the data is used as a corollary to a non-universal trait, such as presidential vote.

Since most of the states voted within the 60% and 40% range, and you have no indicator of the dispersion, you cannot even begin to make any assumptions about the individual correlation of intelligence and voting patterns.

Originally posted by hitman:
And when it comes right down to it, most devout Christians (especially the ones who have to state how devout they are) are mostly hippocrates.

Most devout Christians are a 5th century B.C. Greek physician ????

You don't make much sense, do you?

Originally posted by hitman:
And when it comes right down to it, most devout Christians (especially the ones who have to state how devout they are) are mostly hippocrates.

tsk tsk. . .i presume you mean hypocrites. . .as hippocrates was a greek doctor.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
and that any other beliefs are in-correct, wrong and intolerant. it's in statements like that that upset people.. . .

Are we talking about Bush here? It's incredible how Republicans can shape things to the direction they want. Come on, Venerable, at least acknowledge that if there is someone you can identify this way, that is G.W.Bush and his administration.

Good points. I don't really buy the whole IQ crap anyway.

Even if there was truth to it, it would be a load of crap anyway. One persons vote is equal to another, whether the person has an iq of 80 or 140.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
So by your chart, one could say that 18 of the top 37 went to Kerry, whereas only 1 (DC) of the bottom 14 went to Kerry. Certainly, there is some significance to that.

Only if you believe that everybody in the state has the exact same IQ and that everybody in the state voted the same way.

Any mention of "average IQ" without regard to the dispersion of the sample is useless, especially when the data is used as a corollary to a non-universal trait, such as presidential vote.

Since most of the states voted within the 60% and 40% range, and you have no indicator of the dispersion, you cannot even begin to make any assumptions about the individual correlation of intelligence and voting patterns.

Originally posted by Barcelona:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
and that any other beliefs are in-correct, wrong and intolerant. it's in statements like that that upset people.. . .

Are we talking about Bush here? It's incredible how Republicans can shape things to the direction they want. Come on, Venerable, at least acknowledge that if there is someone you can identify this way, that is G.W.Bush and his administration.

that's fair enough. but, the context of this entire conversation has been in regard to the reaction from the left to bush's re-election and how the left keeps wondering how could people vote for bush, especially when the left is all-knowing. this thread, so far, has not been a critique of the policies, et al. of this administration. if you want to have that conversation, go back to the please vote thread.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by Doctor Doom:
The election was overwhelmingly decided by frightened, petty, small-minded people who couldn't stand the idea that gays in states hundreds of miles away might decide to marry, and that this was more of a threat to the country than wars on false premises or soaring budget deficits. Not much to be proud of there.

statements like this is precisely why democrats cannot win in the south and midwest. you continue to think that because you are, supposedly, intellectually superior to everyone else, you, and only you, must be right. and the fact that the candidate that best represents what you think lost, again, drives you nuts. denial just ain't a river in egypt.

i'd argue that the notion that the south and certain parts of the midwest (suddenly wisconsin isn't the midwest?) are somehow morally superior to the west coast and northeasterners is just as absurd. the gop ran a superior campaign, framing a couple of issues as a moral the basis for reelection. the democrats did poorly in this regard, they should have made (say) healthcare a moral issue. but they didn't the republicans are supperior in ruthless campaigning and that was that. to further point fingers and say things like 'you people think you're so superior' is going to further divide this country. you have to admit the geographic divisions cannot be good for the future of the country.

oh, i think you mis-understood me. i was simply pointing out that herr doom believes that he is correct, his beliefs are correct and that the left (which reflects his beliefs) is correct, and that any other beliefs are in-correct, wrong and intolerant. it's in statements like that that upset people.. . .believe it or not, people in the south and midwest do think about things like that. they do not want californians or northeast liberal elites telling them what's right and what's wrong. if you look at a county-by-county map breakdown of this election, it's still the basic rural/urban split - even in states like california. it just happens that there are more people living in the city than in the country in those states.

as for wisconsin. . .both it, iowa and minnesota are trending republican, and unless the democrats are able to reshape their message and do it with conviction, you could probably add wisconsin to the red states.

see, i'm kind of agreeing with you. my point was that the west coast and northeast, cities, whatever don't like to be called immoral, just because you watch them on tv. and we've learned that the right can completely ignore them and still win. i don't want to be dictated that dudes kissing dudes is the reason to reelect someone by evangelical christians either. two wrongs don't make a right. it just looks more division is coming because all of the cities in america don't matter anymore, votewise

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
it just looks more division is coming because all of the cities in america don't matter anymore, votewise

thomas jefferson would be proud. :)

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
…believe it or not, people in the south and midwest do think about things like that. they do not want californians or northeast liberal elites telling them what's right and what's wrong.

Wait, isn't that exactly what those southern and midwestern voters are trying to do – tell the whole country what's right and wrong based on their beliefs, religion and assumptively superior morality?

Both sides proclaim some sort of superiority – it's what we do as humans. "My way is the correct way." I do believe, however, that Dems are more generally interested in what can help/work for the most people, while reps have a narrower view. If the reps were still the party of less government, they could protest that characterization, but they aren't that party any more. Less taxes, yes; less government, no way.