[Krydor]

Ok, so the Democrats took control and it has been considered a rebuke of Republicans. I can buy into that. Not a fan of big government and overspending and the like.

The interesting thing, from this observer, is that (based on the results of some ballot initiatives) it wasn't a ringing endorsement of what one may consider liberal ways of thinking. Michigan to ban affirmative action. Gay marriage bans were voted for, except for Arizona.

What the hell is going on down there? Arnie wins? I can make neither heads nor tails of this kind of thing.

In the end, this election wasn't a rebuke of conservatism, but a rebuke of those who claimed to be conservatives. The Democrats had better take heed of such underlying trends. If they don't reign in spending or do decide to push a "moral" agenda, they might be in opposition in 2008.

There might be, finally, a push towards centre for both parties.

[williamssl]

We confuse YOU?? Shit...we confuse the hell out of ourselves.

A couple things: I don't see it necessarily as a rebuke of those who claimed to be conservative. I see it - and this is based on all the opinion polls and what not - as a rebuke:

• against W and anyone explicitly aligned with him
  
• against Iraq
  
• on a lesser scale but still significant, against some of the scandals that tainted the Repubs in the months leading up to this (Foley...)
  

Maybe this list does equal those who claimed to be conservative...but was just drilling down on that a little more.

And to the points I jokingly made in the "nothing" thread yesterday....this was much much more about what the Repubs did to lose than it was about what the Dems did to gain.

Clearly the repubs need to regroup. But clearly the Dems need to figure out where they go with this. Pelosi scares me as a Dean-esque extremist who runs the very probable risk of interpretting or positioning what happened yesterday as a "democrat mandate". There is a very big difference between a mandate FOR something and a mandate AGAINST something else that so happened to then benefit the other side. So Pelosi has a choice: stay on the fringe...or migrate towards the center. For 2008's sake I hope for the former...but in the best interests of this country over the next 2 years the latter is the only option.

I have and continue to maintain that Perot was several elections before his time. A cryogenically frozen Perot (or someone who could cater to middle and both sides of that but not the extremes)...unleashed now...or even a few years ago...would do very very well.

A last comment to minimize any "how dare you say the Democrats did nothing to win this" comments. I do give the Dems some credit in borrowing pages from the recent Republican playbook. Their "get out the vote" efforts were much improved over prior years. And they did get "decisive issues" like stem cell stuff on some ballots..which pull voters to the polls (a la gay marriage stuff). So some credit. But the majority of what we saw yesterday ties to backlash against what was laid out above.

God Bless America, and God Bless Texas.

[Loki]

I had already started typing a "Tex's Lament" thread when I saw this one. I answered some of your questions here:

www.natecorbitt.proboards81.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=events&thread=1163009359

[atothej]

krydor said:

There might be, finally, a push towards centre for both parties.

At least we can spell center and theater, and pronounce sorry and about. Sorry, had to make the easy Canadian joke.

[Krydor]

How do we pronounce "sorry"? We also like the letter "u".

[The Canadian Content]

krydor said:

How do we pronounce "sorry"?

It's likely more a matter of how often we say "sorry", rather than how we pronounce it.

[Ryan Who Loves Punk]

This is perfectly set up for a BIG HUGE SELL of an awesome book called How to Be Canadian by Will Ferguson. The last chapter is entitled "Twelve Ways to Say Sorry". It deals with the tone and stuff, it's great, and even provides a sample meaning of each kind.

[The Canadian Content]

Really funny book. A bit above your reading level, though, isn't it son?

[Ryan Who Loves Punk]

A bit too not-mentioning-thor's-penis for you, isn't it Psycho?

[The Canadian Content]

Um ... snap?

[Ryan Who Loves Punk]

yes.

[atothej]

krydor said:

How do we pronounce "sorry"?

"Soary".

[Krydor]

Why would the correct enunciation of a word be so troublesome?

[punk/core]

Woah, Woah, Woah... please stop everything here for a second.

Now, I'll admit that I've never paid much attention to CE over at OO. But what the fuck? Krydor is always arguing pro-Bush over there, and in the sports thread he is a Raiders fan. So I just always assumed he was from Nor Cal.

[Courtney]

Yeah, until I got over here, I at least thought he was American. Ya know, who could actually vote.

[williamssl]

punkerhardcore said:

Krydor is always arguing pro-Bush over there, and in the sports thread he is a Raiders fan. So I just always assumed he was from Nor Cal.

Whoa whoa whoa. The Raiders thing I get. But Northern CA being Pro Bush? No way. Northern CA is as bad (or good if that's your perspective) as Southern CA, especially the Bay Area. And Southern CA at least has Orange County which, while not as populous as LA county, still provides at least a perspective balance (OC has been a historical for the most part conservative oasis in an otherwise bleak desert).

I've done time in all of the above, and unless things have changed dramatically, the Bay Area sure ain't pro-Bush.

And yes I know the point was pro Bush and not liberal/conservative and my argument is more the liberal/conservative one. But I don't think there's anywhere that's pro-Bush right now so I opted for the political bents argument.

[Batman]

I think he meant like Eureka/Ukiah north.

[punk/core]

I actually just meant the fact he is always discussing politics. And it's not like there are ZERO Republicans in San Francisco.

Edit: Obviously it's largely liberal, but look...

2004 Presidential Election results for San Francisco County, CA:

-Kerry: 296,772
-Bush: 54,355

Obviously it's lopsided, but it's not completely fucking unbelievable that a conservative could live there.

[williamssl]

sergeial said:

I think he meant like Eureka/Ukiah north.

Yeah - the Eureka/Ukiah Raiders

Actually though I wouldn't put it past Al Davis to be in negotiations up there as part of his ongoing "wherever I am sucks and they screwed me and I'm moving my team" rhetoric.

punkerhardcore said:

I actually just meant the fact he is always discussing politics.

A better and less tenuous connection between Krydor and Northern CA, specifically San Fran/the Bay Area is "Krydor's teh gay". ;D

EDIT: And joking here. There ain't no "Republican on Republican crime/hate" going on, man. We brutha's don't do that.

[williamssl]

punkerhardcore said:

-Kerry: 296,772
-Bush: 54,355

Punker - I'm not arguing with you here. True, there are better arguments that could have been made here, but also true there is at least 1 Republican in the Bay area. Truce man. Let's both put on Vandal's "Urban Struggle" and enjoy!!!!

The reason for this response: I had just never actually seen or sought these stats and am somewhat surprised - I always knew there was a vast and overwhelming majority in the bay area...but these #'s really put it in perspective.

85% Kerry. Were there any other major counties or metropolitan areas so similarly frickin skewed? And in either way (85%+ Bush or 85%+ Kerry)? I'm not at all trying to dredge up the election. This may simply help folks on either side find their next home.

[punk/core]

Haha, I knew you weren't arguing. I just went MAD with stats! And I'm willing to bet there are voting pockets like that all over the country.

[atothej]

Philadelphia County (essentially the Philly metro area)- 80.4% Kerry. Just to support your discussion.