Media Got It Wrong: Young Generation Did Vote

Newsweek has a small story on MSNBC: Not Slackers After All?. It seems the media jumped to conclusions when it said, right after the election, that 18-to-29 year olds didn't turn out in record numbers. In fact, the participation of every age group was up, including young voters, but the youth vote wasn't up any more than other age groups, so the percentage was about the same from the 2000 election. I guess everyone rocked the vote.

Comments

Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[Ianoo]

... that young people are statistically less likely to vote than middle aged and older people, even if turnout compared to last time was up. There must be ways to get the MTV generation interested in politics, after all, it's rather important - but so far, attracting them seems to have eluded most of the Western World's democracies.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Free Britney Spears cd with every vote for Jeb Bush in 2008?

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[lsmeg]

Free Britney Spears cd with every vote for Jeb Bush in 2008?

Wouldn't that violate the "seperation of shitty music and state" clause in the constitution?

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a combination of poor candidates ("Yeah Bush sucks, but is Kerry any better?"), general apathy ("Does it really matter which one is president?"), and pessimism ("I live in a (red|blue) state, so my vote won't matter anyway").

Reason #1 is a current favorite among the media. The story now is that the Democrats lost because they've managed to systematically alienate pretty much every voter group in the country.

Reason #2 is my personal favorite, meaning the one which most worries me. Kerry was utterly unable to separate himself in terms of his policies from Bush on any important issue. His main arguments were about differences of rationale rather than differences of policy. Was going to war in Iraq wrong? No, but the way we did it was wrong. Was a huge budget deficit wrong? No, but the way we spent it was wrong. And so on. A President Kerry would've done all the same stupid shit Bush has done, and will doubtless continue to do. He'd just have given different reasons for it.

As for reason #3, well, that applies to every age group. Not really any way around it in a country this big. It may affect younger voters more because our parents, as a generation, are not fans of this country. So we have less patriotism than past generations and feel it's less of a civic duty to vote. You know, if the government's just going to do its own shit regardless of what we say, what's the point to even having an opinion?

Personally, I think the solution is not refusing to vote, but instead voting for someone who hasn't got a chance in hell of winning. 60% or so of our country voted. If the remaining 40% came out and threw away their votes like that, would it affect the outcome? Yeah, if we all voted for the same guy, but really what it would accomplish is sending a message. Not to the politicians, who are too thick to get any message that's not wrapped around a 2x4, but to the other voters: You don't have to settle!

It's all a pipe dream, of course. We're locked into mediocre, functionally identical candidates for the rest of time, but it's a nice dream. And so I act as if I had any effect on that dream coming to pass, even though I don't.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[BeyondHope]

But a greater percentage of young people DID vote. Not just a greater number.

On election day this was obscured by the fact that a greater percentage of all people voted, leaving the relative percentage of young people the same as last time.

Still, with all the effort to get out the youth vote, its dissapointing their numbers didn't rise by more than the other demographics.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, who cares? Voting is a sheepish act. It's like having two plates of shit and saying "what do you want for dinner? cow shit or horse shit?"

God you're a loser. You must be one of those teenagers who thinks he figured the world out.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reason #2 is my personal favorite, meaning the one which most worries me. Kerry was utterly unable to separate himself in terms of his policies from Bush on any important issue. His main arguments were about differences of rationale rather than differences of policy. Was going to war in Iraq wrong? No, but the way we did it was wrong. Was a huge budget deficit wrong? No, but the way we spent it was wrong. And so on. A President Kerry would've done all the same stupid shit Bush has done, and will doubtless continue to do. He'd just have given different reasons for it.

So if you think a lot about those is going to be the same, how about you look at issues like... if we have spots open up in the Supreme Court, who do you trust appointing judges? Or, the whole administration under the president is going to be replaced as well... please tell me you don't think that all the cabinet members would be the same if they are replaced. And do you really think that Kerry would be as bad on the environment, and give tax cuts when we're in a record deficit?

If you don't think these kind of things are important, it is because you fell for the spin of a Bush campaign. Things aren't very good domestically or abroad, but if you can convince enough people that Bush and Kerry are pretty much the same, those people will tend to conclude that obviously it would be smarter to stick with who is already there. It is one of the many things that helped put this guy back in office.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[I_Love_Pocky!]

the fact that a greater percentage of all people voted, leaving the relative percentage of young people the same as last time.

Well I think the issue was that P.Diddy said "Vote or Die," and he didn't specify that he was talking to young voters. Everyone felt they had to turn out to the polls or a psuedo-hardcore rapper was going to kill them. Hence the rise in voting percentages across the board.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[ChadN]

Only a liberal can spin massive borrowing and huge increases in government economic influence, as a bad thing. Ask an Economist whether the massive increase in government spending and government employment was good for the ecomony, he'll tell you that if Bush had spent more, using more borrowed money, it would have helped even more than it did.

Here is what I don't understand about the "Liberal Democrats":

They say the economy is in the shitter.
They say that Bush's massive spending increases, with drastically reduced revenues, were bad.

Now, you must realize that anyone with a clue knows that one way to stimulate an economy is to let the government spend more of the people's money.

Also, for everyone that claims the economy sucks, Bush did this, and Bush did that, I just remember that:

I now make a bit more than I did 4 years ago (but many my friends who worked in the private sector have been unemployed for months or years)
I am in the process of saving to maybe one day be able to afford to buy a house or condo (hopefully the government will keep interest rates low, despite massive debt and the possibility of higher inflation).
I am funded by government money (but science related, not war related, so I may lose my funding this year)
I am happy (and it has nothing to do with the election or president)

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Parent post would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Balanced budgets have been a core value of fiscal conservatives, mostly Republican, for decades. But then we had the Clinton surplus followed by the Bush deficit, and now the right-wingers insist that ... wait for it ... balanced budgets are a bad thing.

Here, let me refresh your memory. Notice the very first item.

There are, BTW, economists who claim that budget deficits are good for the economy. History has proven them wrong, time and again.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[cicatrix1]

Indivisible, under Britney...
In Britney we trust

Is it really any different?

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[flyingsquid]

Spending money to stimulate the economy isn't a bad thing, and deficit spending may be a reasonable way to do that. The problem is that Bush's tax cuts didn't primarily go to the people who could have done the most, and could have used them the most- the middle and lower income brackets. Hell, even Warren freakin' Buffett, the uber-Capitalist, has said all this is boneheaded, unfair, and greedy. The whole thing is Bizarro Robin Hood: take from the poor, give to the rich. Christian values my ass.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that the parent post you refer to is a sarcastic rewrite of the parent-of-parent post.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[political]

Old News. Michael Moore told the truth about youth voting a week ago, but nobody listened since it was Michael Moore.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[siriuskase]

Does he regret what he did now that he understands that he motivated more Republicans to vote than Democrats?

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[TykeClone]

Interest rates have been held low for too long and we're starting to see inflationary pressures. Count on them going up - the only question is how fast!

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[Golias]

Three points.

1. The tax cuts were weighted heavilly towards the middle and lower income brackets. Some people got rebate checks who didn't even pay any taxes in. It only appears to favor the rich if you look at it as an actual dollar ammount, rather than a percentage of total taxes paid in, because the rich pay in the vast majority of our tax revenues. I know this, because I got a tax-break check in 2002, and I was unemployed at the time.

2. Tax breaks for the rich help the middle-class more. If a poor person can buy Kraft macaroni & cheese instead of MegaMart generic macaroni & cheese, it doesn't help the economy much at all. It certainly doesn't help me in any way, unless I'm working for Kraft (and it could also hurt me, if i'm working for the generic food factory.) If the fat-cats who like to invest in the company I'm working for can suddenly collective put another hundred grand or so into growing the company, that's another co-worker in my department.

3. Warren Buffett is a partisan Democrat. The fact that he's gotten rich off his investments doesn't change that. There are lots of rich liberals out there. Saying "even Warren Buffett, the uber-Capitalist, says Bush was wrong" carries about as much weight as saying "even Rush Limbaugh, a member of the media (and we all know how pro-Democrat the media is...), thinks John Kerry would have made a lousy President."

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[Golias]

No. He's working on a sequel to F911. His films generally do much better when Republicans are in power. Why would he have any regrets? Democrats treat him like a rock star, and Republicans give him lots of free publicity by trying to shout him down. This election was the best possible outcome, as far as he's concerned.

By the way, the main story is stupidly misleading. The media said all along that youth turn-out was up, but since all voter turn-out was up the youth vote was still proportionately about the same as it has always been. Obviously, young voters were no more "energized" by all that "Rock the Vote" crap than anybody else.

Personally, I consider this a Good Thing. I'm cheerfully advocate that all uninformed voters should just stay home on Election Day... and sitting in any coffee house near a college campus will give you a very real sense of just how uninformed a lot of 19-year old students really are about politics... and those are the ones smart enough to go to college!

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[tbannist]

1) Bull. Tax rebates as a percentage of income is a deliberately obfuscatory tactic. It was possible to give everyone who pays taxes an equal reduction in their taxes which would have spurred spending, especially since the poor and middle class are facing a declining real income because of rising insurance costs.

2) Bull. The middle class is helped more by tax breaks for the middle class.

Also, it doesn't matter what you think a tax break for the poor will be spent on, the fact that they get to spend it on what they want is what makes capitalism work, and that spending makes more money for the capitalists who run the businesses they patronize.

3) Your "ad hominem" attack on Buffett might matter if he was arguing about Bush's personal hygiene, however, Buffett's long term success as a financial manager qualifies him as a expert on financial matters. Even partisans who disagree with you on the merits of Bush can be correct about fiscal policy. You can't continually claim all Democrats are liers and wrong about everything without the refrain sounding tired and worn out pretty quickly. Try proving the argument wrong instead of attacking the expert's politics.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[Golias]

Tax rebates as a percentage of income is a deliberately obfuscatory tactic.

I didn't. I was speaking of the tax rebates as a percentage of taxes paid.

If we found a way to cut everybody's taxes in half, it would be perceived by the left as a huge give-away to the rich, because they pay most of the tax burden, so their equal rate reduction would represent a vastly larger sum of money.

Bull. The middle class is helped more by tax breaks for the middle class.

A tax break for me is a $300 check. Nice to get, but it's not going to change my life. A tax break for the mega-sized corporation which I work for is a huge bonanza for me and all of my coworkers, espcially since we are also share-holders. I define a supply-sider as somebody who understands this.

Your "ad hominem" attack on Buffett might matter if he was arguing about Bush's personal hygiene

It wasn't an attack on Buffett. It was an attack on you for trying such a silly tactic as selecting one financial manager who happens to be a liberal Democrat, and expecting us all to be shocked that he did not endorse the Bush tax cuts. When Alan Greenspan reverses his recent statement about the tax cuts being largely responsible for the current recovery, you will have a news story. Buffett being critical of a Republican policy is not worth raising an eyebrow over.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[tbannist]

Yes, some people would look at it as a give-away to the rich, particularly if you run a budget deficit while doing so. However, there is also a big difference when your tax cuts deliberately target the top income bracket for relief. If you reduce only the highest income bracket, you aren't cutting everyone's taxes, merely those in that bracket.

Nice to get, but it's not going to change my life. A tax break for the mega-sized corporation which I work for is a huge bonanza for me and all of my coworkers, espcially since we are also share-holders.

No, I think not. In equivalent tax relief you are better off with the $300 rebate. The only way you can expect to get more from an equivalently sized rebate to corporation is if you expect to profit disproportionately from that rebate, or you expect your company's stock price to rise dramatically. Neither seems terribly likely. You are also, of course discounting the cumulative economic impact of many people with their extra $300, which should benefit your company anyway. What you are preaching is essential corporatism, that the corporation knows how to spend money better than you. It's fundamentally the same as socialism, that the government knows how to spend money better than the individual.

"It wasn't an attack on Buffett."

I'm afraid it was, you discount his opinion on financial matters because of his political views. That's the very essence of an ad hominem.

I don't know where you got Alan Greenspan crediting the current recovery to tax cuts, but it seems like a dramatic oversimplification of his recent comments on the state of the American economy. The best I could find was a comment that he preferred lower income taxes, which is not a surprising statement from a conervative Republican. In fact, he did criticize the government for running a deficit.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[Golias]

The best I could find was a comment that he preferred lower income taxes, which is not a surprising statement from a conervative Republican.

Exactly my point. It's not a surprise when Greenspan supports tax cuts, nor is it a surprise when Buffett opposes them.

Buffett may, in fact, be correct. My point was simply that for you to say "even Warren Buffett says" as an example of somebody who you would expect to support the tax cuts was deliberately misleading. Anybody who knows about Warren Buffett's political views would expect his opposition to the tax cut, just as one would anticipate Greenspan's support for it.

Just for the record, I'm not a huge fan of Keynesian deficit stategies for pumping up the economy. I would prefer to see the scope and size of government sharply reduced.

That said, to imply that the massive deficit would be gone, or even small and managable, absent the tax cut, is utter folly. The dollar amount we are talking about with this cut is dwarfed by the revenue losses caused by the faultering economy, and the massive expenditures in social services in the year following the 9/11 attacks. (Remember all those "emergency" 3-month extensions of unemployment benifits? In the short term, that was far more costly than the tax cuts.)

Also, you continued to dodge my point, that if you cut everybody's taxes exactly in half, that would portrayed by the left as a huge give-away to the rich and a Bad Thing, because in actual dolloars they would be getting a tax cut which is shockingly larger than the middle class.

Finally, if you really want to soak the rich, an income tax is just about the worst way to do it. The truely rich folk in America (like Theresa Heintz-Kerry, for example) don't have "income." They have wealth. Top-bracket income taxes hit a few CEOs, but also nail almost every farmer and small business owner.

I went through the numbers a few months ago, and found that a mere 1% "wealth tax" on the actual holdings of Billionaires, and a 0.5% tax on those with $500 Million or more, would generate about $98 Billion a year, and the various Wal-Mart heirs and Microsoft board members who would be hit by such a tax would probably never miss it. If you genuinely think higher taxes for rich people is the way to go, I would suggest starting there.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

You of course understand that the "surplus" was a projection based on the continuation of the dot com boom right? So when the dot com boom became the doc bomb implosion so did the projected "surplus" it's not that hard to understand. Will the deficit last? No. Will it take a while to reach realistic economic growth we saw during the dot com boom? Absolutely but I'd rather have solid economic gains than ones based on money losing ponzey schemes. The budget "surplus" under Clinton was one of the biggest lies ever told.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[tbannist]

I'm just pointing out errors in your arguments. I didn't say "even Warren Buffet", that was someone else.

Just because you think the hypothetical "left" would hypothetically critize something, doesn't mean that anyone with sense would. There are nut cases across the spectrum.

"The truely rich folk in America (like Theresa Heintz-Kerry, for example) don't have "income." They have wealth. Top-bracket income taxes hit a few CEOs, but also nail almost every farmer and small business owner."

For example, I don't think you're right here. Those with "Wealth" use it to create more wealth, most of the time that counts as income. Except under the rules that Bush has proposed where capital gains and divdends will face much lower or nonexistent tax levels. Also, according to the actual figures, a maximum of 500,000 out of 32 million or about 3% of business owners qualify for the top tax bracket. That's because it applies to S-Corporations and unincomporated business owners only and they can deduct expenses from their income before figuring taxes on it. It could be as low as 90,000 out of 32 million business owners, because those specific figures are not made public. Even Bush only claimed it was 900,000 out of 32 million business owners.

Your wealth tax idea is amusing, it would likely provoke a mass defection of the richest people out of the U.S. rather than actually gathering any new taxes.

Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've haven't taken an econ class in my life so I don't really grasp all these crazy ideas about what a tax cut will do or won't do. However I do know when you decide to make a take cut and are sending out refund checks there are good and bad ways to do it.

Bad: Send out a freaking letter to everyone getting a refund stating when and how much they should expect only to actually get the actually check a few weeks later. How much money was wasted on sending out these stupid "informative letters"?! If you bothered to glance at a newspaper, watch the news or even talk to another human being you were aware you most likely were getting a refund check! I'm sure a significant amount of the money being refunded was actually wasted in materials and labor just to get these stupid refunds out!

Good: Not quite sure.. If I remember correctly these refunds when out sometime in the fall? Why not simply apply a credit to each person who's entited tax return?

OK so you NEED to get he money now! Well setup a web page or a 800 number that allows you to check if you are getting a refund instead of the stupid letters! Also allow for direct deposit or the option of delaying the refund until you get your yearly refund (or credit on what you owe).

On the other hand

[Dachannien]

Exit polls revealed that while the youngest age group still formed the same proportion of the voting population that it did in 2000, the next older group voted in a substantially lower proportion, and the oldest two groups voted in a somewhat higher proportion.

Ultimately it's a matter of playing with numbers and interpreting the results in whatever way makes you feel good. In this case, the people involved in youth voter drives are spinning the numbers to say that their efforts actually did something, when really nobody can say one way or another what factors actually influenced the youth vote.

Re:On the other hand

[Spock the Baptist]

To get to the *whole* truth statistically speaking one needs to:
A) deal with both percentages, and raw numbers,
AND
B) deal with *all* pertinent statistics (note the plural) rather than *a* statistic.

An example of the former would be to not only determine what the mean of a population is, but also to determine the variance of the population. In other words to determine note only the central tendency, but the distribution as well.

In the context of the 'youth' vote in the 2004, and 2000 Presidential Elections, as well as earlier elections one needs to look at two things, the total number of 'youths' voting, and the percentage of the youth vote with respect to the total vote in that particular election.

I terms of the number of votes cast by 'youth' this months election saw an increase compared to the 2000 election. That said, the percent of the 'youth' vote relative to the total vote saw no change from 2000. In other words 'youth' has not changed its level of participation compared to that of older voters in this years election relative to the 2000 election. The increased level of the 'youth' turning out to vote matched that for other age groups, but did not exceed it.

The level of participation as a percent of the voters by 'youth' in the election this years election was very comparable to that of the 2000 election. Thus, the various groups that tried to get 'youth' more involved in voting failed to do so. While the total numbers of 'youth' voting increased, the influence of the 'youth' vote was static, and thus neither progressive, nor regressive. It appears that the increased number of 'youth' voting in this years election was a result of an overall increase in interest in this election as compared to the 2000 election. The goal of the 'rock the vote' movement was to get the percentage of the 'youth' participation to more closely align with that of older voters. This did not happen. One must therefore conclude that the 'rock the vote' program failed.

Re:On the other hand

[dave420]

But then the exit polls were off by tens of percentage points in some areas. Either their decades-old, predictable polling methods were vastly innacurate for some areas, or the result is screwy... either way, this is all complete speculation with no root in reality :)

The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[Noksagt]

and they all said the same thing as this article: more people voted across the board. Even though the number of youth voters increased, it is still an embarrasment! There was a huge push to get the youth to vote & no such push for older people (conspiracy theories regarding gay marriage ammendments aside). Yet obviously that push didn't do much!

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[tdemark]

So, what you are saying is that P. Diddy has his work cut out for him?

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[putch]

conspiracy theories regarding gay marriage ammendments aside

i'm guessing that you don't care much the 'theory of evolution' either. conspiracies are only conspiracies if they are secret. open statements about courting evangelicals and organizing an amendment that has no hope of ratification to boost turnout isnt theory. it's fact.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[Noksagt]

OK. First of all: I was against the ammendments & didn't vote for Bush (though I'm not gay and am an independent who has voted for republicans & did vote for some in the last election).

I haven't heard Rove or anyone else say that the ammendments were planned in order not to outlaw gay marriage, but to elect Bush. Please provide such evidence. I grant you that it is no secret that many for Bush were in favor of the ammendments, but correlation doesn't mean causation. And I've heard none try to claim that Bush, Rove, the RNC, or the citizens who voted for these ammendments aren't genuinely in support of them.

Also: I am skeptical that this would cause voters to come out of the woodwork in order to vote for Bush, especially in moderately liberal states such as Oregon. Why didn't the ammendment cause sympathetic liberals to show up in larger numbers too? I would have predicted this to be more likely, especially as the turnout for youth voters and other demographics who would be more inclined to be against the ammendment & against Bush & who often don't vote would showup in outrage of the ammendment.

The sad truth is that people are just less tolerant and more close-minded abouit marriage than either you or I would like to admit. But there is a very long way to go to try to prove the theory.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[Kwil]

Actually, there was a large push to get out the older people vote, and it's no conspiracy. It just wasn't orchestrated (directly) by the RNC.

However, if you went to church regularly before the election, church leaders were very much encouraging their congregations to get out and vote.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[Noksagt]

You don't see cats and dogs screwing their own sex.

Yes, actually: there are animals other than man who are homosexual. Zealots brush off this evidence with comments such as "but they don't have souls" or say that leprosy isn't "right" or "normal," even if it is a natural occurance. Of course neither argument is able to defend intolerance to animals, lepers, or gay people.

So continue believing what you will, as long as you strive for education and compassion.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[Noksagt]

Actually, there was a large push to get out the older people vote, and it's no conspiracy. It just wasn't orchestrated (directly) by the RNC.

However, if you went to church regularly before the election, church leaders were very much encouraging their congregations to get out and vote.

Well, this didn't occur at my Church, but I am aware of this happening. But there was also a push for young people to get out and vote. If you went to a college campus, I'd imagine you would get encouragement to vote against it.

I'm not saying it wasn't a volatile and partisan issue--just that I've seen no evidence that conservatives in favor of the ban outweigh the liberals against the ban & don't think we'll ever see evidence that there was a causal link of having that measure on ballots and having more Bush turnout.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[crazyeddie740]

>If the gays want more "fairness", push for laws that enable them to have more fairness.

Actually, that is pretty much the game plan for gay rights activists. I saw an article somewhere on the topic (nytimes?), and gay rights activists say that there judical efforts are 10 years ahead of their legislative and cultural efforts.

IMHO, it isn't the left that's pushing the issue. If the left just waits a few years, the demographics will shift. Younger people have a lot less trouble with gay marriage than members of the Greatest Generation. It seems to me that its the right that's forcing the issue.

>You don't see cats and dogs screwing their own sex.

Um, actually, I see male dogs humping each other all the time. Although they do seem to be "prison gay" than the regular kind. I don't know about cats or lesbian dogs though.

>Also, how is any species going to survive if there is no reproduction? Considering reproduction is one of the most natural things, it obviously doesn't fit into the picture.

First off, that's only a factor if you assume that reproduction is the only function of marriage. There are large number of "child-free" straight marriages. Also, one of the main motivations for gays to get married is to improve their chances of adoption.

I'm a bit confused on this issue myself. I believe that homosexuality is something you're born with. I'm no scientist, and I'm probably offending someone by saying this, but: Assuming that it is genetic, then why hasn't it been selected against? Does gayness confer some advantage? As somebody else pointed out, if you really are a homophobe, then you should support gay marriage - there'll be less pressure to "closet", and they won't reproduce.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[mjtaylor24601]

"Its the same way I've always felt about gays. If you're gay, that's fine. I don't care. But don't dare push your ways upon me. That's when I begin to get angry."

It's the same way I've always felt about straight people. If you're straight, that's fine. I don't care. But don't dare push your ways upon me. That's when I begin to get angry.

Forgive my asking but how is a law allowing gay marriage pushing you, as a straight person, to do anything? For that matter how is a law banning gay marriage not pushing your ways on gay people?

"If the gays want more "fairness", push for laws that enable them to have more fairness."

And that's what they're doing. And one of the first steps is challenging existing laws that are unfair.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[Grym]

Yes, actually: there are animals other than man who are homosexual. Zealots brush off this evidence with comments such as "but they don't have souls" or say that leprosy isn't "right" or "normal," even if it is a natural occurance. Of course neither argument is able to defend intolerance to animals, lepers, or gay people.

Regardless of your opinion on the morality of homosexuality, the fact that some animals engage in homosexual behavior is not a good basis for the argument that humans should too. Many animals, including male lions routinely commit infanticide (killing of another male's young). Many animals compete to the death over mates. Lastly, groups of male whales have actually been observed (I've seen the video tape... ugh...) gang-raping female whales. By your logic, should we humans do these things too?

Now, my statement isn't that the natural world is immoral. Quite to the contrary, my statement is that the acts of animals are neither moral nor immoral, simply because animals lack the ability to differentiate what is right or wrong. Humans do, by and large, have this ability. Therefore, justifying behavior for humans by pointing to animals is NOT a valid point.

-Grym

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[Noksagt]

Regardless of your opinion on the morality of homosexuality, the fact that some animals engage in homosexual behavior is not a good basis for the argument that humans should too.

I didn't say it was. The original post said that there was no homosexual sex outside of homo sapiens. This simply isn't true.

By your logic, should we humans do these things too?

What logic? I said there were arguments against us doing what animals did. I refuted the poster's FACTS (to say that there is homosexual sex in the animal kingdom), but reserved a value judgement on homosexuality. If you can construe an argument for homosexuality in my post, please tell me how! Conversely, if you can defend intolerance or bigotry of any group of people in anyway, let me know that too. Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, shouldn't you "hate the sin and love the sinner?"

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[Grym]

Oh. I didn't read the context of your post within the discussion. Sorry for making the assumption that you were taking that position.

Regardless, I've seen that kind of argument (i.e. "animals do it too!") in the past, and it always irked me a bit.

Conversely, if you can defend intolerance or bigotry of any group of people in anyway, let me know that too. Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, shouldn't you "hate the sin and love the sinner?"

Nope, you're absolutely right. I do not condone intolerance or bigotry of any group, including homosexuals.

That being said, I'm not convinced that the gay marriage issue constitutes either. Homosexuals aren't being put to death. Homosexuals can vote. Legally, a homosexual has just as many rights as a heterosexual. Moreover, given the fact that hate crime legislation is only enforced for minorities, one could say they have MORE rights than heterosexuals.

I think the gay marriage issue is less about tolerance and more about acceptance. There is a difference. I tolerate the fact that you have a different opinion than I do but that doesn't mean I accept your opinion as right. Groups like GLAAD aren't so much as challenging the idea that people have different opinions as they are about making homosexuality accepted; hence, the challenging of definition of the institution known as "marriage" instead of pursuing other avenues such as civil unions.

In fact, from a purely tolerance standpoint, I would say that the gay marriage issue is a perfect example of the ideological intolerance that politically-correct politics creates. For instance, look at how those who oppose gay marriage are portrayed. They're backwater bigots or bible-thumping zealots rather than people with different opinions.

-Grym

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[Noksagt]

Sorry for making the assumption that you were taking that position.

No problem. Thanks for your interesting arguments.

I think the gay marriage issue is less about tolerance and more about acceptance. There is a difference. I tolerate the fact that you have a different opinion than I do but that doesn't mean I accept your opinion as right.

This is interesting. Since gay marriages couldn't be granted in the states, I saw the measure as preemptive and/or an act of intolerance to those who had been married by other states. The states who instituted the ban don't even recognize marriage licenses from out-of-state being signs of a civil union. Thus, gay couples living in those states did lose rights (spousal priviledge, right to visitation in hospitals, inheritance, etc., etc.) they had prior to the bans.

Legally, a homosexual has just as many rights as a heterosexual. Moreover, given the fact that hate crime legislation is only enforced for minorities, one could say they have MORE rights than heterosexuals.

Well, homosexual couples don't have the same rights as legally married heterosexual couples. No proposed civil unions would grant them the same rights: all are at the state level, some define limitations to the rights (though some states propose to handle it exaclty as marriages). Under all current propositions, they wouldn't be given the same rights and responsibilities at the federal level.

challenging of definition of the institution known as "marriage" instead of pursuing other avenues such as civil unions.

Well, they've changed my mind, but probably not in the way you or most others believe. Very few of those who were for the bans that I talked to were against same-sex couples having the same legal rights as granted by marriage. Almost universally, their arguments were based on some other conotation about "marriage," usually (but not always) springing from their faith. Because of this, I now thing the State should have nothing to do with marriage at all. There should only be "civil unions" All currently married couples should be recognized as being in such a union, which shouldn't be denied based on race, religion, sexual preference, etc. Rather than getting a marriage license, people should get a license for a civil union. Churches and other such organizations should be able to grant marriages using whatever guidelines they see fit, just as they dictate diet, ceremony, and moral (rather than legal) behavior in ways they see fit.

I would say that the gay marriage issue is a perfect example of the ideological intolerance that politically-correct politics creates. For instance, look at how those who oppose gay marriage are portrayed. They're backwater bigots or bible-thumping zealots rather than people with different opinions.

I agree with your point entirely. It often swings the other way as well. I've been called a "Godless fag" (though I'm a religious heterosexual) and a leftist queer-lover who doesn't share the morals or understand the arguments of the rest of the country. It is always refreshing to hear people who disagree who don't resort to name-calling.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[flyingsquid]

There are also lots of hermaphrodites (sea slugs, for instance), transsexuals (various types of fish which start out female and then transform into males) and asexuals (the most famous being whiptail lizards, which reproduce without sex).

Nature is far more open-minded and pragmatic than an evangelical Christian. If a gene is on the whole more useful than harmful, it tends to perpetuate itself.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[siriuskase]

I didn't vote for the amendment either. I'm not gay, but I don't think the Feds belong in the mariage business at all, so maybe my vote was illogical, but it didn't matter much.

It seems here that although 85% voted to define marriage as a union of a man and a women, most are for civil unions, but that's not what was on the ballot.

In fact, they only put the first line of each amendment on the ballot. That pissed me off so much, I didn't vote for any of them. The ole butterfly always had the whole thing on it, now they expect me to study up on it all before I vote. How inconvenient.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[dondelelcaro]

Assuming that it is genetic, then why hasn't it been selected against? Does gayness confer some advantage?

There are numerous hypotheses as to the nature of the comparative advantage to having a certain percentage of homosexual individuals in a population.

My personal favorite, although not as favored in the field, is kin selection, where the presence of offspring who do not reproduce themselves but instead increase the fitness of the parent and the ability of the parent to transmit genes successfully into successive generations.

Some of the others can be found through a trivial google search, like here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB403.html (Unfortunatly, some of the author's citations are wrong.)

Finally, the phenotype of homosexuality isn't necessarily expressed purely from genes, or purely from environment. It is quite likely that there is both a genetic component, and an evironmental component to the trait, just like there is with almost every other phenotype out there.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[Anonymous Coward]

in ohio the new amendment also banned civil unions and all sufficiently marriage like states this included a partner registry open to both gay and strainght couples living together allowing for hospital vistation rights (cleveland heights ohio)not to mention ohio has had for some time now a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman it was a simple act of intolerance against people not living the idealized christian life it slaps monogamous heterosexual and homosexual couples who either dont believe in or cant get married in the face

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[Anonymous Coward]

Go watch Frontline. Frankly, since what you're talking about is relatively common knowledge if you don't have to bust your ass 60 hours a week, any episode. But specifically about Bush and his roots in Evangelical Christianity Choice 2004. Supposedly there are 40 million evangelicals in the US. Now not all of them voted for Bush, but a hell of a lot more of them picked him over Kerry. I'm not saying they single handedly elected him but he got 54+ million votes. He all but owned a huge segment of the population, and provided them an issue in many states to get out there and vote. They weren't voting only for the next president, but for vidication of their religion in their own home town. Has MTV ever offered that kind powerful carrot to their audiance? NO. That and churches becoming more political, and the nature of their particular flavor of Christianity, they are a political force that's been purposefuly ignored. They even have their own creation myth of the United States, that one can frequently read about on Slashdot, with an attendant mountain of bullshit that rivals "intelligent design." Once more, none of those amendments will survive contact with the equal protection clause (Marrige is a legal construct, with some states providing for common law marriges; with Montana over achiving with pretending to be man and wife for one day equaling marrige.) Make no mistake, they're not just voting against someone's freedom, they're voting that their religion should have its voice included in the discussion.

The facts are thus: Young people have lives. And if something is cramping their style so they're forced to stay at home, they'll be out being fun and having some. Grown-ups, have responsabilities that demand they do things like read their mail in a timely manner.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[Noksagt]

Nice troll. I'm always happy to bite!

homosexuality is not moral, good, right, or equal. it is a deviation.

Note that I still haven't spoke of the morality of homosexuality and have not made an argument why you should accept homosexuals, just as I haven't declared homosexuality a sin. I've only discussed the legal rights of homosexuals. Alcoholism isn't moral, good, right, or equal. But evan alcoholics can form unions for rights under the law.

The argument "but we're just born this way," can be equally applied to paedophiles.

Note also that I've reserved judgement on whether it is nature vs. nurture vs. choice that determines are predilections. However pedophiles can never be defended as homosexuality can be defended: they prey on those who can't give legal consent. The same is true of rapists.

someone cannot just stop being black (except michael jackson), however one can choose not to do gayness.

See analogy to alcoholism. People can choose not to drink. But that doesn't mean they have any fewer rights if they don't pose a tangible threat to the public (such as throgh driving while intoxicated).

in order to give in to base animal passion which has no chance of reproduction, which not only was God's "first commandment" (go forth and multiply), it is also the reason for sex.

Sexless marriage and sex for purposes other than reproduction are legally permissable.

It will merely contribute to the spread of aids

While homosexual sex is potentially a health risk, so are many other practices. Heterosexual sex spreads STDs as well!

and the decline in birthrate.

Something I would fully support. God didn't say how much we should multiply & there is tangible evidence that excess population growth is harmful. In any case, no it won't--unless you propose to require to make sure 100% of the population engaged in heterosexual sex, you can't suppor that gay people would have children if they were denied the right to be with members of the same sex. These previous two points were the only points you brought up that are concerns of the State. And they don't support your premise.

It is a subversive, unpatriotic practice, unclean, and wicked.

No. As it is not currently illegal, it isn't in opposition to the law, so is not subversive. As loving your country has nothing to do with your sexual habits, it is not unpatriotic. Neither is pedophilia. Something can be leggally or morally wrong without being nearly treasonous.

Finally, not all that is morally wrong is legally wrong.

People disagree with what is morally wrong. They not only disagree as to what the :Laws of God are, but they disagree as to who that God is or if he even exists. If you are Christian, would you outlaw hinduism or islam or atheism in the US? These are practiced by choice & yet would be counter to your faith.

The US separates Church and State. None of the arguments that you've provided have supported the State ban of homosexual practices. While such practices remain legal under the laws of this country, those who practice them should be entitled to equal rights.

Under my wish to have the State only recongnize civil unions, homosexuals should be entitled to the same rights as others who choose to cohabitate and share their legal, financial, and personal affairs.

You can argue all you want with your Church over whether they should allow same-sex couples to marry under your God, The US has a responsibility to keep out of that argument

If you'd like to argue law, which is what I've been talking about, rather than (mostly faith-based) morals, feel free to start at anytime.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[will_die]

The answer is very simple.
All thoses get out the youth vote did was sign up a bunch of people who had no interest in voting, so they did not show up to vote. Alot of the groups went around with pre-filled in cards, the applicate just had to sign the filled in form and they were done, or in some cases they got a prize(t-shirt,underwear,cheap item) for filling out the paperwork. Thoses types of people do not go and vote.

Also the Republicans did focus on older people and others who were already registered but had not voted in a while. Since they were already registered and had shown an interest of voting in the past, you have a better chance of getting them to vote in the future.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[WhiplashII]

Some other interesting research that could factor in here is that Homosexuals are more likely in second children than in first. Biologically, that may make the first children more likely to prosper.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. He has a lot of people who didn't vote who he apparantly intends to kill.

Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages

[Golias]

lol

The guy says he doen't go for wacky conspiracy theories, and you suggest he watches Frontline. That's pretty funny.

Wacky conspiracy theories is what Frontline is best at! It's a fantastic show, but they are prone to connecting dots based on very flimsy evidence and wild speculation.

You might as well have suggested watching F-9/11 to learn about that oil pipeline which was the REAL reason we attacked the Talliban.

Then, when he was done with that, he could watch "WACO: The Rules of Engagement" so he could learn about how Bill Clinton and Janet Reno sent in stormtroopers to murder those clean-cut religious people in a massive fireball for almost no reason.

Ooo... don't forget about how Mark Fuhrman planted that bloody glove at O.J. Simpson's house, or how JFK was murdered by a cabal lead by Lyndon Johnson and included his own brother.

He won't believe any of that though... he's probably one of THEM!

Rock the vote

[isorox]

Rock the vote
dont rock the vote baby
Rock the vote
dont tip the vote over
rock the vote!

More Young must have Voted Republican

[redelm]

... in the privacy of the voting booths. Otherwise, Kerry'd've won.

Anyone have a graph, %Kerry versus average reg.voter age by state? NY is old, yet went Kerry. TX is young, yet went Bush.

Re:More Young must have Voted Republican

[Dachannien]

West Virginia is the "oldest" state in the Union, even older than Florida, but went Bush, despite its long-running history of being extremely pro-labor and generally very pro-Democrat. Of course, it also has the highest military recruitment rate of any state, and those people are almost exclusively in the youngest voting demographic.

Re:More Young must have Voted Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

Brain dead, he was talking about the age of those voting not the age of the state.

Re:More Young must have Voted Republican

[tres]

This may be true, but I think the "young" in this case are young churchgoers.

This doens't preclude the original assessment that more young may have voted republican, but it's not the same traditional young voters that were counted on as a demographic group.

Rove's genius was bringing a whole group of voters that normally sit out simply because
1) no one thought that there were so many and
2) no one has been so openly willing to mix politics and religion.

So, although I don't disagree, I do think that you can look at that younger group as the same demographic group that was traditionally put into that category.

In other words, republicans didn't "win over" anybody. They just managed to capitalize on an untapped source of votes. By demonizing gays and gay marriage, they were able to turn out an amazing number of voters who didn't care about any other issue.

Re:More Young must have Voted Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations on the grossest overstatements I've read on /. to date.

First, how can you say Republicans didn't win anybody over when they won the popular vote this election and didn't in 2000? "Capitalize on an untapped source of votes?" Puh-leez.

Second, banning gay marriage is not demonizing gays.

Finally, and most egregious of your overstatements, many who voted Republican cared deeply about a great many issues other than gay marriage. Who's demonizing who with this statement? Fucking asshole.

Fester for another four years, bitch.

Re:More Young must have Voted Republican

[cold fjord]

There have been quite a few stories in the mainstream media in the last couple of years about how young adults are growing more conservative. That might be part of what is going on.

Re:More Young must have Voted Republican

[tres]

Aww, did I hurt your feelings?

I guess it's kinda hard to read with your feelings all hurt and stuff. There, there... I know it's hard, but you can understand the post you replied to if you try real hard.

Go ahead, try reading it.

I won't misunderstimate you; I know you can, pal, just try.

Re:More Young must have Voted Republican

[Dachannien]

It's too bad you posted AC, because now you'll probably never get to see yourself get pwned:

http://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/oehp/hsc/briefs/ten/defa ult.htm

As a member of the Religious Right...

[RealProgrammer]

This is intended to be 'interesting', nothing more.

As a conservative Christian, I heard all the appeals from the Hollywood Left (Bruce Springsteen, Snoop Doggy Dog, MTV, et al) and thought, "Man, I'd better make sure to vote! The college kids are going to turn out and who knows what will happen!"

Perhaps the Get Out the Vote campaign was more effective than they thought.

Re:As a member of the Religious Right...

[Darth_Burrito]

As a young columbus resident, I heard all the appeals from P-Diddy, Chris Rock, John Kerry, and everyone else at least once each every day ... on my phone ... at my door ... on my tv.

I think we had 7 messages on our answering machine the day before elections and those are just the times we didn't answer the phone. We would see a canvaser a day at our door every day of the week leading up to the election. Sometimes there would be several in one a day.

What was the effect of this? We developed a strong hatred for anyone invading the privacy of our home in order to tell us to go vote. We'd tell them everyday, yes, we're voting, we put up a frickin political sign in are yard... but still they would come back day after day after day. At the end of it all, my room mate was actually threatening not to vote if people didn't stop pestering us.

It was harassment.

Re:As a member of the Religious Right...

[RealProgrammer]

So did you vote?

No, really. Did you?

I think it's really important. I have to tell you that it's important. Vital to democracy.

So did you vote?

No, really. Did ....

Re:As a member of the Religious Right...

[Darth_Burrito]

And what makes it worse is they would knock on my door and then sit there and lie to my face.

Hi, I'm Susie from a non-partisan organization trying to get out the vote. Blah blah blah. Here's a checklist to help you determine who to vote for. Gee, thanks susie, all these issues are so complex and I'm too young and naive to figure out anything on my own. The checklist would make Bush appear to be the prince of darkness while Kerry was some angel dedicated to the social well being of america.

Next Susie would ask you who you were planning to vote for. If you said Kerry, she'd make sure you were registered. Let's just say I doubt many Republicans were registered by Susie.

So when Susie said she was part of a non partisan organization trying to get out the vote, she actually meant to say she was part of a democratic slush fund trying to get out democratic votes.

What makes these guys think that young people like being lied to and condescended to by stupid celebrities? I hear people raise the draft issue all the time as if it's some sort of evil republican attempt to enslave the youth of america. It's like they think we are too stupid to figure out the lie. When I get a phone call from P-Diddy telling me to vote or die, I don't think it's cute, it doesn't make me want to vote. What it does make me want to do is call the police and file a formal complaint for harassment, voter intimidation, or whatever else you wanna call it.

Re:As a member of the Religious Right...

[voisine]

should have put up a bush cheney sign in the yard... that'd stop the door to door canvasers anyway.

Re:As a member of the Religious Right...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

The checklist would make Bush appear to be the prince of darkness while Kerry was some angel dedicated to the social well being of america.

I agree. You'd never see the Republicans implying that Kerry is the spawn of Satan while Bush is chosen by God... They'd come right out and say it.

Re:As a member of the Religious Right...

[stanmann]

Hey, The American people obviously are tired of all the lies in politics, and any sort of straightforwardness is inately appealing. Hence the popularity(at the grassroots level) of McCain, Bradley, Keyes, etc. Many don't care what you believe anymore so much that you believe. Bradley IMO was as far from the center(to the left) as I am(to the right) but he seemed to have a core set of beliefs that drove him. Gore, not so much.

Re:As a member of the Religious Right...

[Anonymous Coward]

"As a conservative Christian"

translation: "as a misled, bigoted ass"

Re:As a member of the Religious Right...

[Rayonic]

I agree. You'd never see the Republicans implying that Kerry is the spawn of Satan while Bush is chosen by God...

We're talking about this one guy's experience. He's young and in a swing state, so odds are the Kerry supporters would be dogging him.

Oh, and I think this election the Democrats took the cake on demonization.

Can you imagine this horror?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Kerry had won, P. Diddy may have gotten some credit. P. Fucking Diddy! Might have even shown up on the same stage as the President. As much as I wanted Dubya to lose, this would have been too much to stomach.

Slashdot for dummies?

[Oz0ne]

Seriously.. How is this not completely obvious?

No media outlet I saw reported that youth numbers dwindled, or were "the same as 2000." They reported percentages. They also reported total votes, etc. They made a big deal about how this was one of the largest voter turnouts in decades.

Seriously, if people can't put 1 and 1 together, why are they reading slashdot... a place for geek minded?

I'm tired of seeing such drivel.

Reading between the lines

[shaka999]

From the article above

And throughout modern history, those aged 21 to 29 have typically been less likely to vote than older Americans. After a brief spike in 1992, turnout among 18- to 29-year-olds in the 2000 presidential election dropped more than 20 percentage points below the national average--46 percent to the other age groups' 72 percent.

turnout among the under-30 set shot up 9 percent from 2000

Since every age bracket voted in higher numbers than in 2000, the exit polls showed about equal youth shares of total voters for 2004 and 2000

So, doing the math, the under 30 set was up 54% to other age groups 82%. Still seems pathetic to me especially when compared to other age groups.

Thank God

[MarkPNeyer]

Allow me to say "Thank god" - young people are idiots. I say this with certainty because I am one of them. Most of us have the attention span of gnats and would have been making votes based on stupid ideas - the draft? Give me a goddamn break, MTV. The whole 'Rock The Vote' charade was a thinly veiled attempt to get young people afraid they were going to be drafted if George W. Bush stayed in power. When I told people it was a democrat that introduced a draft bill into congress, it was democrats who voted for it, and that it was john kerry who called for mandatory service, they would go 'oh' and realize they'd been duped. If you want to get young people interested in the political process, telling them to 'vote or die' and filling their head with rediculous lies isn't the best way to do it.

Re:Thank God

[Anonymous Coward]

And maybe you could go on to explain to them that this draft bill had no chance of being passed, and was more than likely done to make it more of a reality that we might have to have a draft. Or, less cynically, with it being right before an election, there was absolutely no way the Republicans would introduce a bill like that, because of what it implies about the president. Just because Democrats introduce a draft bill, doesn't mean Democrat = going to war. Without Bush's aggressive nature in going off to war, things would be different regardless of any bill. You have to have wars going on for a draft in the first place. But if we are in a war, which is where Bush had put us, and a draft is necessary, someone has to bring it up. You should be going to war as a last result, which Bush didn't do, but if you go, and it's big, you might need to draft troops! It is kind of like Bush and cutting taxes while we're in a deficit. Extremely short-sighted and bad for us in the long run, but in the short term, people say, "hey I'm getting $600 cash!" And then if Democrats want to roll back this over-the-top tax cut during a war, they look like the killjoys.

Re:Thank God

[An Onerous Coward]

A few clarifications:

There are two draft bills, not one.

S.B. 89 has never gotten out of committee, so Democrats could never have voted for it.

H.R 163 was defeated 402-2, so even if both "for" votes were cast by Democrats, that's about 1% of all the mules in the House. To say "it was Democrats who voted for it" is misleading.

John Kerry's plan didn't call for mandatory military service. Instead, it provided incentives like college tuition. Republicans were quick to mischaracterize the term "national service", even though much of the plan was simply meant to increase volunteerism. Read more.

Re:Thank God

[goon america]

The whole Bush campaign for the last two years has been a thinly veiled attempt to get people to think that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were the same person. And, it worked: most Bush voters thought that there was proof they were working together, and also thought that WMD was found in Iraq, and that the war was popular worldwide.

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions. (...)

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

link

Most surveyed agreed that it was the Bush administration who were origin of these beliefs. It drives me up a wall that these guys were able to win an election in part because they were able to successfully misinform people.

Re:Thank God

[SuiteSisterMary]

And I seem to recall that the entire POINT behind HR163 was that the Republicans would never ever send their own kids off to war.

Re:Thank God

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Bush has lied to America so many times, there really isn't anyway to tell if there will be a draft or not. You sure can't go by what Bush said he would do. The next four years are going to be completely unrelated to his campaign. Big issue pre-November: Terrorism. Big issue post-November--privatizing Social Security. You wouldn't expect all those old retirees and baby boomers to vote for taking 2 trillion dollars out of the system, would you? In the 2006 congressional elections, we'll find out if the elderly aren't too senile to know that they've been stabbed in the back.

Re:Thank God

[Swifti]

The whole 'Rock The Vote' charade was a thinly veiled attempt to get young people afraid they were going to be drafted if George W. Bush stayed in power.

Oh please, stop with the tinfoil hat assertions. As a former intern at Rock the Vote's offices, my experience at the office headquarters had been entirely bi-partisan. Our goal was straight and simple. Increase voter turnout among the nation's youth. Saying we had an insidious goal to oust Bush is absolutely ridiculous. Nice try, but no cigar.

Re:Thank God

[cold fjord]

It drives me up a wall that these guys were able to win an election in part because they were able to successfully misinform people.

I suspect that the only thing that makes the Kerry supporters look good is that the researchers are focusing on misperceptions that would be most likely held by Bush supporters. I don't think it would take much to reveal the Kerry voters to be similarly misinformed, and for practical purposes, the Bush voters to be much closer to the truth.

For example, ask the average Kerry supporter if Iraq supported international terrorism. I suspect that the answer is NO, since they have had drummed into them that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The fact is that Iraq was a significant sponsor of international terrorism. Iraq paid for Palestinian suicide bombers. It offered refuge to a number of the most notorious terrorists of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. It offered refuge to Zarqawi (the guy giving us fits in Falluja). The Bush voter may be wrong in that Iraq didn't have close ties to Al Qaeda, but in the more general sense they are right since Iraq was a significant sponsor of international terrorism. The Kerry voter may be right in the narrow sense that there was no known close ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but in the more important general sense of supporting terrorism, they are wrong.

The same hold true for WMD. While the reports show that there was no actual manufacturing of WMDs going on, it is also clear that Saddam was nursing what was left of his programs, trying to retain expertise & equipment, and expand dual-use technologies. The was no doubt on the part of the Iraqis that Saddam wanted to restart his WMD programs as soon as he could shake off the sanctions. Iraq actually was building new missiles that were banned. In general, Saddam was not acting in good faith. And I think it is worth noting that there are a growing number of WMDs that have been recovered in Iraq since 2002, at least 30 or so that I know of. That is not a militarily significant number, and they are generally left-overs. However they are plenty good for use by terrorists. Now, the Bush voter might say Saddam had WMDs. In the narrowist possible sense, they are right. In the normal sense of looking for militarily significant stockpiles, they are wrong. In the more general sense, they are closer to the truth than the average Kerry voter. The average Kerry voter would say that Saddam didn't have them, and indeed never had them. The average Kerry voter would say this despite the fact that it is well established that Saddam manufactured enormous amounts of chemical weapons and used them against Iran and his own people. Iraq developed biological weapons, including anthrax bombs.

The same pattern holds in international relations. The average Bush voter would be literally wrong if they believe that the US invasion of Iraq had the support of the majority of the world. The average Kerry voter would be wrong if they really believe that it was literally a unilateral action. The US went to the UN repeatedly on the matter. There were something like 60 countries that aided the invasion in some way, and about 30 that sent in troops, no matter how small the number. 60 / 30 nations is only a fraction of the world. 60 / 30 is not unilateral.

Although the Bush and Kerry voters both tend to get some aspect of the questions wrong, the Bush voters are generally closer to a more useful general understanding of the problems than the Kerry voters.

Re:Thank God

[geminidomino]

Don't feel bad, Swifti. Remember, you're arguing with the same kind of lackwit who thinks a 2% majority is a "mandate."

Re:Thank God

[dave420]

he shoots... he misses!

I accept that people on both sides will be wrong about certain things. That's because we're people. The main difference is, the President of the US and his team actively spread those lies to ensure their re-election. Any incorrect details believed by Kerry supporters weren't learned through Kerry or his campaign.

Also, Saddam wasn't a massive supporter of international terrorism. Paying $1,000 to families of palestinian suicide bombers isn't a great deal compared to the $1bn given to Israel by the US. Zarqawi was protected by the Kurds in the north, not by Saddam. Anyway - those two facts are NOT enough for a UN member-state to invade and depose the regime. Sure, Iraq and Saddam did some bad things, but they don't warrant invasion.

The ISG released its report on the state of WMDs in Iraq. They showed that Saddam not only didn't have WMDs, but that he hadn't had them for ages. It also showed the UN sanctions were working, and that Saddam couldn't re-start his programs even if he wanted to. Lots of Bush supporters think Saddam actually used WMDs on invading US troops. The Bush regime changed from saying Saddam had WMDs, to "WMD-related programs", which under their loose definition included any school science lab. That's not "closer to the truth" - that's complete nonsense.

The invasion was unilateral. Does a dog and its fleas act multilaterally when it licks its balls? No. The fleas go and do what the dog does. They're too small to object. That's what the coalition was. Small nations looking for favor from the US administration. Most people supported the effort with non-combat troops, equipment and money. Why did you mention the UN when trying to defend Bush's unilateral position? He went to the UN, then ignored them. If I ask a policeman if I can shoot someone and he says "no", I'm not allowed to go out and shoot someone. That's ridiculous logic. The whole point of this war was because Saddam didn't obey international will and the UN, then Bush goes and defies international will and the UN to get rid of him. Mixed messages?

The surveys are extensive. Some Kerry supporters get the wrong end of the right stick - Most Bush supporters get the wrong end of the wrong stick.

Re:Thank God

[goon america]

Step one: for each of the misperceptions, come up with something sort of related that is strictly true. In each of these cases, you just laid out what the Bush administration laid out to mislead people into thinking the misperception.

Most of the world opposed the war in terms of people. But, you can say that a large number of countries supported the war, it is merely an attempt to imply that much of the world supported the war in the general sense. But you had to rely on this very specific wording in order to get that implication. Many countries supported the war, yes, but most of them are tiny countries supporting it in name only and contributing little or nothing. You say that 30 countries "sent troops", but for some reason neglect to mention that very few of these sent more than a handful, and in terms of percentage the number was miniscule. The reason anyone plays any of these rhetorical games is that they want to try to make it look like most of the world supported the war when it did not.

Step two: define the something that is sort of related are true in the "more general sense", whatever that means. In order to support this, you always tried to assert that something more specific is true and simply called it more general.

The example of not "literally" unilateral is not "more generally true". This is a definition you've teased out to have the lowest possible bar of truth. It is not more general.

Further, that Iraq supported some international terrorism at some point is the "more important" general truth is also contradicted by the study itself, which found that most Bush supporters said, that if Iraq did not have "substantial" Al Qaeda support or WMD than the US should not have invaded. The questions that asked this used the very same terms as were used when it was asked whether the respondent thought the two things were true or not.

Why, I might ask, did you use the careful wording of Iraq's support for Zarqawi? Iraq gave "safe refuge" to Zarqawi, but he had always been operating in the north of Iraq, which was always under US/Kurdish control, outside of the control of the Iraqi government. Again, this is the same "fact" that is used for no purpose other than to imply that the Iraqi government supported Zarqawi. There were, in fact, plans to get him before the war started, but they were scrapped because then it couldn't be used to mislead people into the larger war. Again, why did you feel you had to use the careful wording here, if it was the "more general truth"?

Step three: declare, in the absense of evidence, that Kerry voters must not have believed in this more specific truth that you've derived. Again, there is no reason to buy this, since you're just pulling it out of thin air.

Had you actually read the PDF version of the questionnaire itself, you would have seen that many of your assertions are false. Most Kerry supporters thought that Iraq had "limited activities" that could be used to help a WMD program. Most did not think that he did not ever have weapons at all, which you would have known had you read the study. Obviously you did not because you asserted the opposite apparently solely on the basis that it sounded plausible to you.

In short: excellent spin. You should be doing this professionally if you're not already. I hear there are going to be some opportunities opening up at the State Department sometime soon.

How com every time I read...

[tod_miller]

a msn*.* new article I deicde that a news source field in each /. story would be a good idea, and new source modding would be a great idea.

Something like:

if newsource contains [ MSN ] then [ -6 ] :-) in fairness, they are either reporting the truth, but selectively, or even worse, not reporting certain areas.

This is why /. is good, many many news sources. And news.google.com of course.

Yeah, of course

[philthedrill]

Of course, when they're giving the stats in relative percentages, the numbers don't tell the whole story. Yet people were quick to make a judgment call before working out all of the numbers.

With that said, I would have liked to see an even higher turnout. I've read that the national turnout was roughly 60% according to this article.

But part of that was because Wisconsin had high voter turnout (see here), which was 72% statewide and 80% in Dane County (where Madison is). I guess I should blame myself since the campaigns really focused on the swing states... I'm sure the youth turnout in the non-swing states wasn't nearly as high.

This article says the same thing as this post, except it noted towards the end that most of the youth voters are in or have attended college. The non-college youth are the people that I'd like to see vote.

As it turns out... the Media...

[Dozix007]

As it turns out... the Media did say that numbers were up, but not percentage of the vote. I clearly recall hearing that election night. What the author of this article is hearing is the constant repetitive nature of 24hr news networks. You crazy Dems. are gonna have to live up to the fact that your party base would rather Stay at Home then vote if it ment them going through rain, or waiting in line.

Re:As it turns out... the Media...

[evilmousse]

>As it turns out... the Media did say that numbers
>were up, but not percentage of the vote. I clearly
>recall hearing that election night.

I clearly remember hearing the same, so this article wasn't news to me either. Personally, I think this is a case of the reactionary and non-critical listeners catching up with the people who were listening carefully in the first place.

Now to your trollish quip:
>You crazy Dems. are gonna have to live up to the fact
>that your party base would rather Stay at Home then
>vote if it ment them going through rain, or waiting in line.

Ordinarily, after a blaming generalization like that I'd just write you off as an idiot and let it go. But seriously, think about what you just said. Did you see the lines of people in Philly waiting in the rain for hours to vote? Have you seen the election graphs posted and re-posted on here, comparing population density to party vote? If there IS an divisor apparant, surely that is it: people in rural/suburban areas generally voted bush, and metro went to Kerry. Do you REALLY think that's a fair election, middleclass-suburban-man can vote on his lunch hour and still get a latte, while lowerclass-urban-man and his extended family have to wait for hours?
I'm not all up in arms and spitting nails over it, but it seems like an easy enough thing to fix, so let's fix it! More polling places in densely populated areas! ta-dah, next problem.

Re:As it turns out... the Media...

[Dozix007]

I think that you need to think about the demographic that lives in the areas you speak of though.. The people in Urban areas, whom tend to be Democrats, historically are lazy at voting. It is a trend that has plagued the Dems. for a while. That is why I said "your party base would rather Stay at Home then vote if it ment them going through rain, or waiting in line.", because that is seriously the case. I am in the "youth vote category", and while I hate to put my "people" in a stereotype, the youth vote is horrible. It is a fact that Republicans kill Dems. on voter turn out.

Re:As it turns out... the Media...

[evilmousse]

so what's your logic here, "they're democrats, therefore they're lazy" or "they live in urban areas, therefore they're lazy"?

i don't really appreciate hearing either.

Re:As it turns out... the Media...

[Dozix007]

Actually... my logic was the demographic that the Dems. normally win. Young Registered voters did not vote this time around. Pick up any book relating to American Government and Elections and it will tell you that Democrats historically have a poor voter turn out. If every registered voter would have voted, the Dems. would have won by a landslide, that however is not the case. And why would you not appreciate hearing it ? If it is fact, then why do you hide from it. I am sure you "wish" that wasn't the case, but it is. The type of people who vote for Democrats are less likely to vote, it is fact, not fiction.

Re:As it turns out... the Media...

[evilmousse]

I do not dispute that these groups vote less. I look BEYOND that single statistic and ask "WHY?" What I dispute is that it is laziness. There are some very real issues worthy of addressal that prevent the ease of voting that suburban/rural areas get. It is very CRUEL to dismiss urban-waited-in-line-3-hours-and-gave-up-person, and minority-scared-away-person (I admit, that didn't happen this time so I hear--good job gov--but it definetly DID last time) alongside non-political-young-person. I have no idea whether these groups (outside uninterested young people) will statistically vote less once it is exactly as fast and easy as it is to vote in rural-land, but isn't that a worthy undertaking for chrissakes?

MOD PARENT UP!

[Rayonic]

Also mod up his followup post (to himself, yes, I know, but it's good too.)

Long lines

[MarkusQ]

the fact that your party base would rather Stay at Home then vote if it ment them going through rain, or waiting in line.

I saw an interesting graph of line-length vs. "major party of precinct" vs. "party affiliation of election official"; it appeared that lines were significantly shorter if the precinct tended to vote for the party of the person in charge of the process. Of course, this doesn't have to mean anything ominous (it could, for example, have been due to subconscious bias in allocation of resources) but my experience with political types makes me doubt their innocence.

Oh, and (at least in the graph I saw) there didn't seem to be more of a problem with the red team or the blue team; in that sense, at least, it was "fair".

-- MarkusQ

They still don't think their vote counts

[KevinIsOwn]

As a college freshman at RIT, I can tell you first hand that people here still do not think their vote counts. That is, if they are not from a swing state. I didn't meet one person who was from a swing state who didn't vote, but I met numerous from the state's that were considered to be "taken" by one candidate or the other.

Students just felt that it was a waste of time voting in these states. It's hard to convince them to take the time when the winner is essentially decided. They don't get it that they are contributing to the popular vote, making their opinion known, and helping to ensure there is no upset in that state. Unfortunately nobody is sending these messages over the media. All students hear is "Vote or Die," and "Rock the vote," which came here and perpetuated the feeling that both sides just talk and talk, but never listen by having two large sheets of paper where people could write their opinions. There was a Kerry paper and a Bush paper, and all that came out of it was how much Bush sucks, or how much Kerry flip-flops, or how there is no paper for Nader and that Rock the Vote perpetuates a two party system.

What the young need is a new approach to get them to vote. One that emphasizes how much their vote counts, rather than how cool it is to vote, or how P-Diddy and his gang of thugs will kill you if you don't vote. The big names and celebrities should still be involved, they are great at getting a message out to people, however they need to reform their message to one that more accurately addresses the reasons young people do not vote.

Media probably just repeated GOP spin

[Cryofan]

They are too lazy to actually do any real research, and the GOp probably wanted to dampen any bnadwagon effect, and fed the media that no-youth-vote spin, and the media reported it, like the good little lapdogs they are.....

Re:Media probably just repeated GOP spin

[voisine]

Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence.

Re:Media probably just repeated GOP spin

[Anonymous Coward]

Well didn't the numbers show that the youth vote was percentage-wise no better in 2004 than in 2000? It seems to me that is either true or false... if true than it does go against the common wisdom of everybody leading up to the election and if so, was certainly newsworthy...

Yes, but...

[flyingsquid]

Scientists have observed animals voting against gay marriage in the wild, so it must be natural and right.

Why do we think this is an embarrasment?

[Thunderstruck]

Too many posts start with the assumption that everyone should vote. I can't think what supports this. Everyone who cares, or has an interest should probably vote but consider this:

1. Why should someone with no property care how I get taxed?

2. Why should someone with no children care how schools are operated?

3. Why should someone with 60 productive years ahead of him worry about his retirement plan?

Of course there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions, not the norm. It seems to me as long as they know how the system works, 18-25 year old citizens should be left to decide for themselves when it is appropriate to start voting, not pressured.

Re:Why do we think this is an embarrasment?

[dave420]

1. Because someone they love might have property and they care for them.

2. Because someone they love might have kids, and they care for them.

3. Because someone they love might be retiring sometime soon, and they care for them.

It's not all about "me, me, me!", you know. I wonder how you voted... ;)

Why is everyone kissing slacker ass?

[Lord Kano]

I'm at the upper end of "young voters", I'm 29. I've been registered for over 11 years. I have missed exactly 1 election since I registered. It was a primary and I didn't support any of the candidates and there were no ballot initiatives.

That old addage that "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" is true about lazy ass potential voters. You can present him with the issues, but you can't make him think.

If it takes P. Diddy and Andre 3000 to make you vote, you shouldn't be voting.

LK

The media DIDN'T get it wrong.

[CaptRespect]

That's the exact story that I've always read since the day after the election. The percentage of kids wasn't any more than in 2000. Everyone expected that the kids would show up in a higher percentage than everyone else, but didn't. That's why its a story. No story said that the young turnout was less than 2000.

Re:The media DIDN'T get it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually what the media reported was the percentage of voters 18 - 24 who voted, NOT 18 -29. See how a little change of FIVE FUCKING YEARS can give you different results.

MSNBC is playing with the stats, the one tried and true way of telling a BIG one.

This is the same way that they screw with stats that tell how many "children" die from handguns every year. They have to include "children" who are 22, 23, 24 ....... Yeah, sure, tell me another one.

Re:The media DIDN'T get it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean everyone? I remember being told over and over again by the media what was going to happen, but just because someone says so doesn't make it true. I remember thinking, 'they're doing pretty much the same thing now as they've done for at least the last 20 years. What makes them think it will be any different?'

also.. assuming each generation rebels against their parents POV, what makes them think the 'new batch' will be democrats

I think the poster jumped to conclusions

[Omega1045]

It seems the media jumped to conclusions when it said, right after the election, that 18-to-29 year olds didn't turn out in record numbers. In fact, the participation of every age group was up, including young voters, but the youth vote wasn't up any more than other age groups

It would seem to me that the poster jumped to conclusions. I have heard and read about this same analysis on CNN and FoxNews several times since the election. I believe I recall this very fact being talked about the next day (after the election) on CNN. I would imagine that CNN market share + FoxNews market share = the vast majority of the TV media market.

I'm 24yrs old and I didn't vote...

[Wescotte]

Ok, I dislike Bush and Kerry equally.. But that's not why I choose not to vote. I personally think the entire system needs to be completely restructured. We make a big fuss about voting for a few months every 4 years and then we ignore it. We vote for a person who we believe will represent us best. Well that's the problem right there.. Why not represent your views all the time?!

Get rid of all politions!! We don't need them anymore. We live in an age where our techology allows us to communicate with the entire country instantly! Why don't we remove our current system and replace it with one we have direct control over? That would be a real democracy.

Ok, so you say well the money we'd spend on all this equipment would be astronomical? Well, we're not paying minimun wage to represent us! Also we already have the internet accessiable to virtually everyone. If you don't have it in your home you can go to your public library, a friend or neighbor's home who does have access.

I propose we setup a system of 3 levels (district, state and national) where any person of age 16 or above can simply post (must like slashdot) an idea on eithe rthe district, state or national level. Everyone can simply read this idea and decide if it should advanced to the next stage. After X amount of approval it becomes a topic of it's own where for/against topics can be generated on an open forum for dicussion. After X amount of time has passed the forum is closed and a final vote takes place.

Alright, it sounds insane, I mean who has time for all this? Well, I would must rather spend my time having a direct effect on things than watching a stupid presidential debate on TV.

Re:I'm 24yrs old and I didn't vote...

[Wescotte]

Yes, I am aware I have the spelling and grammatical skills of an 8 year old. Does that really make me a bad person? :)

Re:I'm 24yrs old and I didn't vote...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that really make me a bad person?

No, that does not make you a "bad" person. It does make you appear to be uneducated, ignorant, or slow. You may have a mental disability that keeps you from learning how to express yourself properly, but don't despair. There is a future for you in rap music, membership in the Democrat Party, the fast food industry, or as a public school teacher. Just think, if you were any less educated, you could be Michael Moore's heir apparent.

If you had no communication skills at all, you could grow up to be a slashdot editor.

Re:I'm 24yrs old and I didn't vote...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we remove our current system and replace it with one we have direct control over? That would be a real democracy.

Real democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. You REALLY don't want a real democracy. Are you gay? In a real democracy, you'd be toast. Are you pro-choice? You'd be out of the mainstream. etc. etc.