Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 9, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

TODAY'S LESSON: THERE IS NO LESSON....I finally got around to looking at the overall 2006 exit poll data in detail, and it's pretty interesting. Anyone planning to make any grand pronouncements about the "lesson" of the election really ought to spend a few minutes comparing the 2006 exit poll data to the 2004 exit poll data first. It turns out that the big lesson is that there's no big lesson.

Here's the baseline: the overall Democratic share of the congressional vote was about 5 percentage points higher than in 2004. And what you find from the exit polls is that Dems gained 2-7 points in practically every demographic group surveyed. It was an across-the-board sweep, not a victory that depended on any single big electoral shift.

So were there any big changes? Compared to the overall 5-point gain, did Dems get a bigger share of the white evangelical vote? No. Women? No. Young people? No. Low-income voters? No. Self-described conservatives? No. Suburban voters? No. The South? No. The Northeast? No. Any region? No. Dems gained a steady 2-7 points in all these groups.

In fact, I was only able to find a grand total of seven groups that broke for the Dems by substantially more than the overall gain of 5 points. Here they are:

Group

Gain

No high school

+15%

Those rating the economy "good"

+15%

Latinos

+14%

Jews

+11%

No religion

+9%

Income $200K+

+9%

Independents

+8%

Now, there are some stories here. Democrats obviously appealed to the middle a little better than in 2004. Republican pandering to the Christian right seems to have energized Jews and seculars to vote for Democrats. Latinos were pretty obviously turned off by the Republican hard line on immigration.

More interesting (though less important in raw numbers) is the fact that high-income voters broke for Democrats in large numbers. I'm scratching my chin over that one. And not only did the economy not help Bush, but apparently it actively hurt him. Those who rated the economy "good" voted much more strongly for Democrats than they did in 2004. (Those who rated it either excellent, not good, or poor voted about the same as last time.)

In the long run, I suppose the higher totals among Latinos and independents are the big news. Beyond that, there's not much. Keep this in mind when you start reading anecdotal analyses of "what happened." Most of it doesn't hold water. Based on the exit poll data, it was just a broad-based wave of disgust against Republican rule.

UPDATE: A bit more discussion and some further explanation of what I meant is here.

Kevin Drum 10:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (125)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

It should come as no surprise that the Democrats biggest gains are among those who have no morals, those who never graduated law school, and those deluded by the national media into thinking the economy is merely 'good' instead of 'excellent'.

Posted by: American Hawk on November 9, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

It turns out that the big lesson is that there's no big lesson.

Except maybe "don't stake your party's future on a war that can't be won."

Posted by: dj moonbat on November 9, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you more than anyone except maybe Ezra Klein should NOT be scratching your chin over the Dems' success among people making >$200K.

You've been following the top-1%-of-the-top-1% story pretty closely. I think it's clear that the merely rich and merely wealthy have started to figure out that even THEY are being excluded from the marginal gains of the Bush Economy, and that those gains are going exclusively to the people who make even MORE than they do.

Posted by: The Confidence Man on November 9, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

I saw stats showing huge Democratic gains among Catholics in certain states. In Ohio it was a 40-plus percent gain.

And American Hawk, is it Jews or Latinos who have no morals?

Posted by: david mizner on November 9, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you're showing your liberal bias here.

That's the trouble with us liberals. We're always stuck in the mud of reality. We need to break free of this counterproductive fact obsession, and, like the Republicans, create our own reality. It's been a smashing success (no pun intended, sort of) for them.

aa

Posted by: aaron aardvarka on November 9, 2006 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

david, you're missing AmHawk's premise: apparently, America as a whole became 2%-7% less moral.

... which, of course, I can only ascribe to a trickle-down lessening of morality, starting in the White House.

Posted by: The Confidence Man on November 9, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

I note there "no high school" group was only 3%, not a large of a part of the electorate. The shift in males and females accounted for more. Still, white stayed with the Republican Party, leading one to wonder what, if any, level of corruption and incompetence would lead that voting group to turn against Republicans and providing some evidence that racism is the core value of the Republican Party.

Posted by: Mike on November 9, 2006 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

David: I don't know about Ohio, but the overall Catholic vote followed the broad trend pretty closely. Dems got 49% of the Catholic vote in 2004 and 55% in 2006.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on November 9, 2006 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

Have you ever seen an American ChickenHawk running around with its head cut off? Reminds me of the gop!

Posted by: Ralphy D on November 9, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

I'm an agnostic Sephardic Jewish Zen Buddhist 747 Pilot with my GED.

Posted by: jerry on November 9, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

See?

It wasn't our fault!

Please don't purge us!

If you do, we'll have to join the Democrats, and they want us to be "out" and be married to our same-sex partners - so we can't live in our perverse self-loathing hypocrisy, and we can't have our fake wives and children.

It's not our fault!

It was the bribery stuff - those guys just got too brazen and arrogant.

Posted by: Secret Republican Gay Sex and Meth Ring on November 9, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

As to the $200K+ group, I would be inclined to attribute it to a clear-headed, well-informed understanding that the Bush administration has been mismanaging the economy rather seriously.

You've posted about many aspects of this yourself: the unsustainable fiscal and trade imbalances, the neglect of middle-class health care and education, the fantasy-world energy and environmental policies, the absurdly and increasingly unbalanced distribution of income and wealth, the idiotic squandering of treasure (not to mention blood) on the Iraq war, and underlying it all, the "crony capitalism" that has taken down so many second- and third-world economies.

These guys have been looting and pillaging for six years, feathering their own nests while systematically undermining the country's future, and the folks near the top of the economic heap know it.

We're gonna be a generation digging out from the wreckage that these idiots have wrought. For that reason alone, not to mention many others, they should be arrested, tried, convicted, and strung up.

Posted by: bleh on November 9, 2006 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

Right, there hasn't been a lot of realignment among specific groups recently, just a general shift from Democrats to Republicans and back to Democrats. For example, the 2004 Presidential vote looked very much like the 2000 Presidential votes, both by states and by demographic groups, just with Bush doing around 2 or 3 points better just about everywhere in 2004 than in 2000.

Posted by: Steve Sailer on November 9, 2006 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

Jerry: I think the GOP hates your kind.

This was a broad-based victory. Made sweeter by the fact that 50,000 GP staffers are now looking for jobs. Including one trollish
American-Hawk-Chuck-Al-Jeffrey-Thomas (talk about hyphenated Americans!).

I understand Norman Rogers can't even afford his rant against Kevin anymore, and will have to move to a low rant political blog.

Schadenfreude tastes kind of like cotton candy and chocolate, doesn't it? It is both whispy and creamy. Freedom is released with every bite.

Sheez, I am free associating like Jonah Goldberg and his bear fantasy. Or was that Scooter?

Can't wait for Speaker Pelosi.

Posted by: Sparko on November 9, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I don't know what I'm trying to poke holes in your conclusion--you've got the stats in front of you; I guess because it runs counter to my feeling that the Dems' populist message would help them with certain constituencies, like Reagan Democrats, which brings me to my point: In 04 Dems lost married men by 21 points, and I heard that this year they lost married men by only 4--a 17 point gain: do your stats say otherwise?

Posted by: david mizner on November 9, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

There are 77000 macacas in Virginia. Since Allen lost by 7000 votes, it's clear that the macaca vote was the deciding factor for the takeover of the Senate.

Macacas are just as easy to piss off as to please. It was easy for Webb to do the latter, once Allen had pissed them off.

Posted by: gregor on November 9, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

just with Bush doing around 2 or 3 points better just about everywhere in 2004 than in 2000.

Ah yes - the Diebold effect.

How can anyone trust these numbers? It was more than anecdotal evidence that the voting machines, where used, did not work worth a damn and were susceptible to manipulation.

These are the worst machines ever invented, and there needs to be a standard that all elections are held to--a standard that provides for a paper trail, for a complete rejection of these machines and a complete reform of the process.

That would be a nice bipartisan idea, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 9, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

Well, my household income is over $200K, and I'm sure I'm not the only high-incomer who realized I really don't want to live in a country like, say, Mexico, where there are a few very rich people and many many very poor people, which is what the Bush tax cuts are heading us towards. I am happy to give up $10K or so in income to live in a country where the middle class is the largest group, and even the poorest can hope their kids might make it into that group.

It's not just our own poverty that harms us, after all.

And -- trite as it is-- I want this to be a good country again, and that's going to take a Democratic majority.

Posted by: blast on November 9, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

Where the heck is rdw?

He must be off building three-car garages for the underpriviliged of France!

Posted by: Ralphy D on November 9, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans "pander" to voters, whereas Democrats "appeal" to them.

Kevin is funny. Not intentionally, though.

Posted by: am on November 9, 2006 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

The result about the Jews is interesting considering the efforts the RNC has made recently -- taking out full-page ads in Jewish weeklies across the country -- to curry favor with the Jewish community on the issue of supporting Israel ("instead of fighting terrorists the Democrats blame Israel"). Apparently we're not buying it, at least not for now -- of course they would say it's more of a long-term project anyway. But it's still disturbing that they would ever THINK such a strategy would succeed -- I guess it must really look to some people like all we care about is Israel!

Posted by: aaron on November 9, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

Also, the GOP's decline in the Latino vote was more likely 10 points than 14. The 2004 exit poll's figure of 44% of Latinos voting for Bush was pretty badly discredited and is generally not accepted by the mainstream media today. About 40% is more plausible. The national exit poll says that Hispanics voted 30% for GOP in 2006. That sounds plausible, although I haven't checked it. If the GOP's share of the vast white vote was down 6 points, then the relative loss of Hispanics was only 4 points. Since Hispanics cast about 6% of the vote, according to the Census Bureau surveys, that's 1/4th of one point lost by the GOP.

Not much.

Posted by: Steve Sailer on November 9, 2006 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

Made sweeter by the fact that 50,000 GP staffers are now looking for jobs.
Posted by: Sparko on November 9, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

50,000 GOP Staffers looking for jobs, who are probably among the bottom of the barrel of dime-a-dozen MBAs, with no real skills other than turning a dishonest phrase. Oh well. More used-car salesmen.

(I will now shed a tear for the deceased Hunter S. Thompson, who did not live to see today).

Can't wait for Speaker Pelosi.

Can't wait for PRESIDENT Pelosi.

Posted by: Impeach.Remove.Convict.Punish.Justice on November 9, 2006 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

the election was a do-over of 2004. Americans finally realized they made a worldclass historical fuck-up in 2004 and knew they needed to do what they could to rectify it. The couldn't undo the damage they caused with their 2004 unengaged stupidity, but they did what they could.

Now we need an impeachment movement followed by removal from office, war crimes trials and life imprisonment for the entire bushliar-criminal regime for America to regain any moral standing, and more importantly at least let the poor souls unjustly murdered by the bush regime's criminality not die completely in vain.
.

Posted by: pluege on November 9, 2006 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

Pluege,

Hear, Hear!!!

Posted by: Ralphy D on November 9, 2006 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, is it OK if I read your post's title in Ewan McGregor's voice from "Trainspotting?"

Posted by: Gold Star for Robot Boy on November 9, 2006 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

I note there "no high school" group was only 3%, not a large of a part of the electorate. The shift in males and females accounted for more.

Now there's a shocker.

Posted by: Boronx on November 9, 2006 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

I saw somewhere that the members of my tribe voted 87% for Democrats.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 9, 2006 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

Except maybe "don't stake your party's future on a war that can't be won."

Damn. First non-parody comment of the thread and you hit the nail on the head.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 9, 2006 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

OBF - I have a Dr. Gonzo story, but I'm not sharing it on the thread, but you can email me.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 10, 2006 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

Mary Matalin said tonight that the Governor of Ohio lost primarily because he had raised taxes.

rdw has the new Black Crepe concession stand in Chester County, PA - Lots of arm bands being sold. He has his three car garage filled with cartons. Hey, ole Witless, you did call only the loss of two Senators and a handful of Reps.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 10, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

THERE'S A HUGE LESSON:

HOWARD DEAN WAS RIGHT!

He targeted every single area instead of focusing on areas most likely to yield swings. It worked!

Posted by: Name on November 10, 2006 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

Yep, I'm in the higher income "the economy is good" bracket. We voted Democrat because we want the economy to be good for everyone else, too: our friends, our families, our employees, and our customers. It's not particularly beneficial to be successful while other people suffer. In fact, I wouldn't call that success at all. Just comfort at the expense of other people's misery.

Besides, economic unfairness trickles back up. A broke population over-extended on credit will stop buying what everyone else is selling. Some of them will turn to crime to meet their needs. So either way, you end up paying. Why not do it the way where everyone wins?

Posted by: Steve Simitzis on November 10, 2006 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

The Republican sky is black with chickens coming home to roost.

(h/t to the late Ross MacDonald)

Posted by: Zany Cut-up on November 10, 2006 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

Let me toss out a couple of ideas on the $200K+ plus income folks. First, they are either top-tier professionals (Doctors and Lawyers who have "made it") or are middle-level managers of successful medium-sized companies, or the top-tier at smaller companies; or, alternatively, are successful DI(N/W)C professional couples, each at about the $100K+ level.

While having the top 1% of the highest incomes, these folks still have contact with the middle-class during their workday, either as staff, assistants, or other subordinates, and as customers and suppliers. Believe me, these folks do not live in social isolation: they are busy actually making a lot of money, and most have been converting their education, work and (often unacknowedged) bounty of good luck into wealth for quite some time.

The merely wealthy's main personal investment (beyond their almost unconsciously massive investment in their business) has been in their homes, paying for their children's current and future education, and the other trappings of wealth, including their taxes and insurance. In terms of housing, in some cases "circus-tent" houses, even in the Midwest, where I live, are priced upwards of half a million dollars.

As Kevin has noted, the air is being let out of the housing market. This, and some other factors that have been working to reduce both on the value of fixed assets and the ability to make money, are making a lot of the merely wealthy, the ones who have played "by the rules" (at least in their own minds), not quite so wealthy. Believe me, this situation has got their attention.

Too, many of the "merely wealthy" look askance at individuals who succeed at collecting unearned "rents" through the intervention or their influence with government. Ignoring that Dame Fortune has smiled upon them, they keenly see a distinction between their own hard work and application of their (expensive) education and the good fortune of (say) an individual who receives a sudden immense largess from a government entity, whether it be in the form of a lucrative contract, a favorable ruling in a court case, or sudden wealth due to the (capricious) operation of patent or copyright incentives. They can keenly sniff fraud, favoritism or corruption, and they despise it in others, even if they may not recognize a lesser form of it in themselves.

The other trait that exists in some of the merely rich is a streak of libertarianism. I don't think this is as important as the above points; but there is some blending of the notions going on here. I think that some of the recent characterizations of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, particularly those affecting habeas corpus really made some of the $200K+ folks sit up and listen. Unlike the politicos in the Republican party, these folks are certainly smart enough and educated enough to recognize that Republicans will not always control the Executive. What happens if a "merely wealthy" individual manages to anger a bull-like Democratic Chief Executive, who happens to decide to apply the MCA2006 to an American resident? I think this thought has sent chills down the spine of a few of the "merely rich."

Posted by: Dave Alway on November 10, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

You have to love it that Allen will spend the rest of his life wondering if the Maccaca incident cause him a senate seat and at least a shot at being president. I see a Citizen Kane moment when Allen dies and with his last breath says "Maccaca"

Posted by: R.L. on November 10, 2006 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK

American Hawk: the new Al.

Posted by: George Dorn on November 10, 2006 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

In 2008 there will be 21 Repub. Senators and 12 Dem. Senators up for re-election.More pick-ups?

Posted by: R.L. on November 10, 2006 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

I see a Citizen Kane moment when Allen dies and with his last breath says "Maccaca"

And then we pull back and discover that that was the name of his slave?

Posted by: craigie on November 10, 2006 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe the $200K+ groups has finally seen the light.

If you're in the six figure crowd, maybe you see that all the real perks of the "ownership society" are going people who are well above you on the ladder of greed. You've "made it", only to realize that making is isn't what it used to be. A few hundred grand a year makes for comfortable existence as long at the automatic deposits keep rolling in, but at the expense of a 80-hour work week with no time for family or personal fulfillment. You may even look longingly at the mechanic or store clerk who puts in a 40-hour week and has to pinch pennies, but can come home at the end of the day to a relaxing meal and some TV time before sending the kids of to bed. You're learning the eternal lesson, that money and possessions don't always equal quality of life, especially when you're feeding a $8,000/month mortgage in a high-pressure, high-risk job with a questionable 401K to finance you're golden years -- if you're lucky. If not, there's always Social Security and Medicare to fall back on. Thank God they're still around.

But now the Repubs want to give Paris Hilton a tax break and make Social Security and Medicare a gamble just like everything else. And what's that gay marriage and flag burning thing about? It doesn't solve any of your problems. You're being hit from all directions, and you don't like it. You've reached for the America Dream only to find that the Repubs keep it just out of your grasp.

Maybe it's time to give the Dems a shot. Could they do any worse? Maybe those higher taxes will be worth it if it leads to a society based less on greed and more on human values. It's worth a try.

aa

Posted by: aaron aardvarka on November 10, 2006 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

Interesting analysis. I am reminded of conversations after the 2004 election--some people argued that all we needed was 5% of Americans to vote differently, we didn't need a huge shift in direction & policy.

Your analysis suggests that proves to have been a winning strategy.

Posted by: PTate in MN on November 10, 2006 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

I think there is a lesson,


http://thismodernworld.com/3320


An historic blow-out

The good guys win is even more one-sided than it looks at first glance.

If the numbers stay as they are, heres the final scoreboard, assuming I havent missed something:

Not one Democratic incumbent lost in the Senate.
Not one Democratic incumbent lost in the House of Representatives.
Not one Democratic incumbent lost in any state Governorship.

All told, 504 major offices were at stake tonight.

Not one changed hands going Democrat to Republican.

Ive looked, and while several past elections saw a greater number of seats changing hands, I cant find a more one-sided repudiation of a ruling party in U.S. history. (Although I fully expect someone out there reading this will, about five seconds after I hit the publish button.)

posted by Bob Harris at 4:29 PM | link

Posted by: cld on November 10, 2006 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

The commenters are correct on the high-income point: it's just not high enough. High income usually means high education and high information, thus less lie-able to, and people making "only" $200,000 per year just didn't get enough from Bush -- about a 3% tax cut on the second hundred thousand, a capital gains cut, and maybe a small estate tax cut in the distant future (small since their estates will only barely get over the limit, if at all). That's just not enough to swallow all the lies, wars, vindictivenessm and other assorted crazy.

Posted by: Dennis on November 10, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

The lesson is that the election wasn't about specific demographic groups voting specific issues based on their own specific interests. This election was a nationalized election centered on a single issue of vital national interest that cuts generally across every demographic group.

Posted by: The Fool on November 10, 2006 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

There is a lesson, Kevin.

About 5% of the electorate can be swayed by liberal lies. And when that happens, good men like Rumsfeldt must be made sacrificail lambs.

Posted by: Al on November 10, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

More interesting (though less important in raw numbers) is the fact that high-income voters broke for Democrats in large numbers. I'm scratching my chin over that one.

Scratch away, retard.

As a partner in a million dollar/year household I can assure you that there are a lot of us who believe (gasp!) that money isn't everything.

Suck on that, Drum, you foolish fuck.

Posted by: I Mean It on November 10, 2006 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK


Can someone tell me how to dislodge a pencil from my urethra?

I pushed in too far, I think, and my mom is asleep.

Posted by: Al on November 10, 2006 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

Most of it doesn't hold water. Based on the exit poll data, it was just a broad-based wave of disgust against Republican rule.

Key sentence there. Now the democrats need to make to figure out a way to make the media more accountable.

Otherwise the same stuff could happen all over again.

Posted by: ppk on November 10, 2006 at 1:42 AM | PERMALINK

Latinos were pretty obviously turned off by the Republican hard line on immigration.

Obviously, that supposed fact needs a bit more analysis than Kevin Drum is capable of.

For instance, he might consider discussing the AZ anti-illegal immigration propositions that passed by wide margins, including around half of AZ Hispanics voting for English as the official language.

Posted by: TLB on November 10, 2006 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

The Fool: This election was a nationalized election centered on a single issue of vital national interest that cuts generally across every demographic group.

A good point, Fool (no offense intended), but it only tells part of the story. A lot of people who should know better are pushing the line that it's all about the war (Ariana H., for example). But it's really about something much more elemental.

Yes, it's the War. But it's also Katrina, and Terri Schivo, and Social Security, and Abrimov, and Foley, and the Dukster, and . . . The focus is the War because it's the oozing surface of failed Republican neoconservatism, but the underlying meta issue, and the one that really counts, is Republican incompetence. The Republicans have demonstrated to a discerning subset of the American public that they can't govern. We can tolerate arrogance, even hubris, but in return we demand competence. In fact, we expect Repubs to be arrogant and corrupt. But we were under the impression that in return we would get competence.

The Repubs failed to live up to their part of the bargin, and they are paying the price.

aa

Posted by: aaron aardvarka on November 10, 2006 at 2:05 AM | PERMALINK

AI: "sacrificail lambs"

Nice to know that Al stuck to his principles and wasn't one of the No High School voters who swung to the Democratic Camp.

Posted by: Bad Rabbit on November 10, 2006 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

Could those 200K+ voters have come from the coasts, where it's really really expensive to live? You should know that 200K doesn't get much out here in L.A.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on November 10, 2006 at 2:45 AM | PERMALINK
after the 2004 election--some people argued that all we needed was 5% of Americans to vote differently, we didn't need a huge shift in direction & policy.

Your analysis suggests that proves to have been a winning strategy.

Actually the 5% increase in the Democratic share of the vote required only 2.5% of Americans to vote differently.

Posted by: JS on November 10, 2006 at 2:48 AM | PERMALINK

Eno - My sister lived in Orange, just across Jamboree from Tarzana (do I have my OC geography correct?) It is nuts out there. When my husband went overseas durign the Balkan crisis I went to the West coast to be near her, but it was cheaper to live in Junction City Oregon and one of us fly to the other one once a month than it would have been to live nearer to her. This was the 90's and the days of budget flights and you could get away with a carry-on the size of a pony.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 10, 2006 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry -- that was wrong. I thought the 5% was the difference from Dems to Repubs -- but it was absolute, so 5% did change their vote.

The most interesting statistic seems to be vote by Church Attendance:

ATTENDANCE / VOTING DEMOCRATIC
More Than Weekly / 38%
Weekly / 46%
Monthly / 57%
A Few Times a Year / 60%
Never / 67%

Posted by: JS on November 10, 2006 at 3:02 AM | PERMALINK

"No high school +15%"

Aka people who risk to end up in Iraq. Seems like Kerry knew what he said after all.

Posted by: mg56 on November 10, 2006 at 4:08 AM | PERMALINK

WHOA DUDE!!

Wait a second.

Check out this post over at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/8/23121/8455

Dems did not make their gains evenly.

There were regional differences that have HUGE implications for 08'.


Posted by: DemAgend on November 10, 2006 at 5:01 AM | PERMALINK

That does it. We're having suckling pig for Thanksgiving. Whether we nickname the sucker "Dick" or "George" is immaterial. Stick a fork in that tasty little piglet.

The Republicans don't know what hit them. If they're extra especially clueless, they'll think it was because Mehlmans is gay. If they're ruthlessly cluelessly vicious (Nightmare on Maple Street) they'll think it's because Rove is gay.

I love the smell of the permanent Republican majority, dead and rotting in the sunlight. It smells just like Hitler's thousand-year Reich.

Posted by: bad Jim on November 10, 2006 at 5:33 AM | PERMALINK

The 14% Latino and the 15% "no high school" might be because of minimum wage.

Posted by: John Emerson on November 10, 2006 at 5:52 AM | PERMALINK

The 14% Latino and the 15% "no high school" might have considerable overlap as well.

We're Democrats, we're the party of "We're In This Together", not the odious crowd of "You're On Your Own." And we just got our hands on both houses of Congress again, because the party of fear and greed got out of control.

Posted by: bad Jim on November 10, 2006 at 6:21 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

Cherry picking the statistics again to swell up your sides' "Victory."

Just remember, libs. This is a one-time deal. Rove timed this just right. There is an on-coming economic recession, and Iraq will continue to go down the tubes. Guess which party the people are gonna blame in '08?

And I'll be the first one on hear laughing my ass off!

Posted by: egbert on November 10, 2006 at 6:54 AM | PERMALINK

The lesson is that republicans went crazy and normal people had to stop the insanity.

Posted by: repug on November 10, 2006 at 7:08 AM | PERMALINK

Outsourcing company
access_control_solutions
advantage
application_development_india
application_development_using_java
application_maintenance
application_porting
biometric_application_development
card_software_development
client_server_application_development
client_server_based_application
custom_application_development
database_application_development
database_solutions
develop_offshore_software
development_model_in_outsourcing
development_services
application_integration
enterprise_application_development
it_outsourcing
it_outsourcing_india
j2ee_application_development
java_application_development
java_card
java_card_applet_development
java_card_consultancy
java_card_programmers
java_card_programming
java_card_solutions
java_consulting
java_j2ee_development


java_programmers
loyality_solutions
loyality_solutions_on_card
major_benefits
microsoft_net_development
migration_porting
migration_services_software
mobile_application_development
mobile_solutions
net_application_development
odc_offshore_center
offshore_development
offshore_development_center
offshore_india_company
offshore_outsourcing
offshore_outsourcing_india
offshore_outsourcing_services
offshore_partner
offshore_product_development
offshore_programming
offshore_programming_india
offshore_services_of_realitexperts
offshore_software
offshore_software_development
offshore_software_development_to_india
offshore_software_india
offshore_software_programming
oracle_consulting


oracle_consulting_companies
oracle_migration
oracle_outsourcing
oracle_outsourcing_solution
oracle_programming
oracle_solutions
outsourced_product_development
outsourcing
outsourcing_application_development
outsourcing_common_fears_faq.
outsourcing_meaning
outsourcing_oracle_application
outsourcing_software_india
outsourcing_to_india
palm_application_development
pl_sql_programming
pos_programming
post_rfp_rfi
Title
programming_j2ee
programming_smart_card
programming_using_net
quality_engineering
site_map
smart_card
smart_card_consultancy
smart_card_development
smart_card_programmers
smart_card_programming
smart_card_solutions
software_application_development
software_development
software_development_india
software_development_outsourcing
software_migration
software_outsourcing
software_outsourcing_center
software_outsourcing_company
software_outsourcing_india
terminal_application_development
vb_application_development
vendors
web_enabling_legacy_application
web_enabling_legacy_applications
web_services
why_realitexperts
windows_application_development
wireless_application_development
wireless_mobile_application_development
wireless_solutions
xml_application_development
xml_development
outsourcing_application_development
software_development_outsourcing
development_services

Posted by: alan on November 10, 2006 at 7:26 AM | PERMALINK

Why are we talking about exit polls when we don't have any idea if they are acuurate anymore?!? If we can't rely on them for the outcome, why should we believe anything they put out? How well did they predict the outcome? Why have I not seen any of the data on how well they predict the outcome?

Posted by: Rick on November 10, 2006 at 7:47 AM | PERMALINK

"you have to love it that Allen will spend the rest of his life wondering if the Maccaca incident cause him a senate seat and at least a shot at being president."

you're projecting. people like allen don't do introspection.
.

Posted by: pluege on November 10, 2006 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK

Well according to CNN it was corruption, a majority of Americans know that the Bush administrations were not to be trusted and that the GOP was helping the administration to lie.

Bush finaly won the medal of mistrust.

Nancy Pelosi shouldn't just talk up bipartisanship, traping herself into a corner, but let the voters know she isn't a push-over, a wasted vote, since clearly the voters wanted a change. It remains to be seen if she can really lead but I don't know about that, it seem the Dems in the house always went their own way, regardless of Nancy's comments.

And Reid is worse than Daschle at pulling the Dems together, they have NEVER followed Harry's lead.

The problem is that these two Dem leaders have alway provided very weak leadership. They have never been able to get the party to do their bidding.

Are Nancy and Reid the real lame ducks after this election? That's my questions, I never, ever been impressed by those two.


Posted by: Cheryl on November 10, 2006 at 8:03 AM | PERMALINK

The problem is that these two Dem leaders have alway provided very weak leadership.

A well-disciplined minority in congress is like an amazing stage performance by a mime troupe in a blackout.

Posted by: rewolfrats on November 10, 2006 at 8:15 AM | PERMALINK

And Reid is worse than Daschle at pulling the Dems together, they have NEVER followed Harry's lead.

Disagree completely. Reid is tough, he has worked with what he's been handed, and he's going to be a great Majority Leader.

The conservative Democrats in the Senate have always been the drag on his effort to get things done. The Democrats who voted for torture--do you really think Reid was pleased about that? About the Alito nomination?

The effect of this election is going to be a wake-up call for the Democrats who have been absolute traitors to the constitution on the big issues--they're not going to be able to get away with that shit anymore. If I was Lautenberg and Menendez, two absolutely unprincipalled traitors, I'd be wondering what Reid has in store for them.

Just so we're on the same sheet of music:

Democrats in favor (12) -
Carper (Del.),
Johnson (S.D.),
Landrieu (La.),
Lautenberg (N.J.),
Lieberman (Conn.), (I)
Menendez (N.J),
Nelson (Fla.),
Nelson (Neb.),
Pryor (Ark.),
Rockefeller (W. Va.),
Salazar (Co.),
Stabenow (Mich.).

I also think Reid should get Rockefeller away from the Senate Intelligence Committee--he has no business being there now. How he handles these Senators will tell us how he plans to lead. I think he has to worry about Biden and he definitely needs to court Snowe, Collins, and Arlen Specter.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 10, 2006 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

I also think Reid should get Rockefeller away from the Senate Intelligence Committee--he has no business being there now. How he handles these Senators will tell us how he plans to lead. I think he has to worry about Biden and he definitely needs to court Snowe, Collins, and Arlen Specter.

This is mostly right on, I think. Biden, lost in dreams of a presidency no one in America but himself can envision for him, is a loose cannon where party unity's concerned. He rolls over to the GOP without even being asked. Rockefeller has proven he can't handle that committee seat with purpose and integrity. It will be very interesting to see where Snowe and Collins head in the next two years. I have no trust whatsoever in Specter's sense of right and wrong.

In other news, Linc Chafee's not ruling out becoming a Democrat. You cannot make this shit up.

Posted by: shortstop on November 10, 2006 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK

"Sacrificial, er whatever lamb"

More like the roasting of an old goat. If Rove was such a master manipulator, why wasn't Rumdumb jettisoned two months ago? And some immigration reform as well as raising the minimum wage also enacted? Would have taken some planks away. Sort of got lost in that ethereal wafting of hubris. Thank you Karl.

Global,

Tarzana and Orange - Think Blue Springs and Lenexa, or even further west towards Lawrence.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 10, 2006 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

The rational rich finally get that mismanagment, corruption, and deficit spending are bad for them and the nation - they jettisoned the ideological reflex to support "conservative" powers.

Posted by: Some jerk off the street on November 10, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

If Rove was such a master manipulator, why wasn't Rumdumb jettisoned two months ago?

that would've been an admission that things weren't going well.

Posted by: cleek on November 10, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

I also think Reid and Pelosi have gotten bum raps from certain segments of the left. Pelosi is extremely disciplined, and doles out favors and reprisals like a pol of 40 years ago. She grew up in the household of a machine politician, after all.

She held the Democrats to an 80% of voting with the party. That's much better than Gephardt ever attained, and the highest in modern memory. She was also brilliant in holding back on a Contract With America-like detailed Democratic agenda that the Repubs could attack. Instead, she argued for a pared-down Six in '06 that stuck with common-denominator non-controversial issues. Her argument was let the GOP self-destruct, and she was absolutely vindicated in that.

I agree with Pale that the national security hawks need to be held very strongly to account. A huge test coming up is the warrantless wiretapping bill Bush wants to see pushed through the lame duck Congress. It will be interesting to see how much pushback there is on that, now that the people have spoken so loudly.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider:

You wasted ammo, incidentally, defending Jeffrey against my calling out his "concern trollish question."

Consensus has emerged (at least according to my email and comments here) that "Jeffrey" is Chuck/Thomas1/Cheney/Charlie's new nom-de-troll.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

No high school +15%
Aka people who risk to end up in Iraq. Seems like Kerry knew what he said after all.

Actually, no. With rare exceptions the armed forces do not accept people without high school diplomas.

Getting back to the original posting, the fact that the Democrats took an increased share of the Hispanic vote is pretty good evidence that Republican efforts to attract more Hispanics are going precisely nowhere. It seems as if they've been saying for years that Hispanics are "natural Republicans" and their voting preferences will follow. Hasn't happened yet.

Posted by: Peter on November 10, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Please list any such "consensus" beyond shortstop and Stefan's conspiracy theory.

Posted by: Jeffrey on November 10, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

"Jeffrey" is Chuck/Thomas1/Cheney/Charlie's new nom-de-troll.

call in the impostors!

Posted by: cleek on November 10, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Please list any such "consensus" beyond shortstop and Stefan's conspiracy theory

after looking at your comments in the threads below, you can add me to the list.

you've got to change more than your name, Trolly. your commenting and rhetorical styles are a dead giveaway.

Posted by: cleek on November 10, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

I also remain proud of Lautenberg and Menendez (as a Congressman) for voting against the IWR/AUMF. And my own Congressman as well.

Helluva lot better than certain party "superstars" one could name.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

um, the Dems gain votes in every category? You make it sound like that's not so good. I'd say it's great.

Posted by: haha on November 10, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

At least Pale Rider and I disagree.

Posted by: Jeffrey on November 10, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Republican efforts to attract more Hispanics are going precisely nowhere

shocking, isn't it, that becoming the party of "quick! build a big fucking fence to keep the brown people out!" makes them less attrative to brown people...

Posted by: cleek on November 10, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Peter:

Absolutely. Karl Rove may not be a genius, but he's no idiot, either. He knew damn well that splitting the electorate could only take a national election so far. That's why he pushed so hard, both for Medicare Part D and the comprehensive immigration bill that emerged out of the Senate. He wanted inroads not only among Hispanics, but also among seniors, a large chunk of whom still consider FDR a saint and are one of the most loyal groups of Democrats. And also why Rove and Mehlman pushed so hard to recruit African-American candidates.

And each and every one of these ham-handed attempts to increase "diversity" in the GOP pranged hard -- but cutting directly against the grain of his fundamental base-energizing strategy.

The fiscal conservatives choked on Part D, the xenophobes had a Klan rally in the House and the racists polled just a *wee bit* higher for Steele, Swann and Blackwell -- who all got thoroughly *trounced*, not merely lost. Steele by almost 10, Swann and Blackwell by 23 and 27.

It's hard to put those dark jinnis back in the bottle, isn't it boys? :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

but cutting = by cutting

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Even in defeat Republicans showed Democrats how it's done.

and since they're so good at it, let's hope the Dems give them plenty of opportunities to show off their unique talent.

Posted by: cleek on November 10, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

cleek:

You're on a roll today, bro :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

About 5% of the electorate can be swayed by liberal lies. And when that happens, good men like Rumsfeldt must be made sacrificail lambs.

Al

1. Learn how to spell.

2. He was a scapegoat, not a lamb. Different species.

3. Learn to put "!!!!!!!!!" after your statements or learn how to actually make an arguement.

Posted by: tomeck on November 10, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Gas prices rising

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi%3Ff%3D/c/a/2006/11/10/BUGIAM9K811.DTL

Who'd a thunk?

Posted by: Hah! on November 10, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Dems got 49% of the Catholic vote in 2004 and 55% in 2006. Posted by: Kevin Drum

And once upon a time it was something like 75% until abortion and the non-issue of gay marriage seemed to become cemented center stage in national politics.

Posted by: JeffII on November 10, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

cleek:You're on a roll today, bro :)

Friday is coffee day. :)

Posted by: cleek on November 10, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, indeed, George Allen did act like a man. He kept his "Macaca" dry for another day.

I have noticed that so many trools have announced in advance their feelings concerning tomorrow's Veteran Day. I must join them in not only giving a Thank You for all who have toiled in National Service, but in Remembrance, as Canada will acknowledge all tomorrow, of those who fell in combat. And to all of the Veteran's who will march down various lanes of this great Land, hold your heads and flags proudly high.

And a sincere desire that "Johnny Will, Indeed, Come Marching Home, HooRah, HooRah".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 10, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Shortstop,

Lincoln Chaffey has had a problem with setting his clock either forward or back. As a result, he once again will be late to the Party.

Posted by: stupid git on November 10, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

I would like to propose a radical solution to high gas prices, oil companies buying off congressmen, oil companies obfuscating the very real issue of global warming, oil companies destroying the environment to enrich their bottom lines etc.

I propose that we nationalize the petroleum industry. IOW, that the government become a player in big oil and gas by buying up companies where it can and developing its resources where environmentally benign.

Too long this country has been held hostage to the whims of these oil barons. Maybe a little governmental competetion will humble them a bit.

Posted by: Spread the Word on November 10, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

There is a lesson, Kevin. About 5% of the electorate can be swayed by liberal lies. And when that happens, good men like Rumsfeldt must be made sacrificail lambs. Posted by: Al

Being a "sacrificial lamb" for being a complete fuck-up is certainly better than what I think he deserves, which is to be strapped to the front of an up-armored Humvee on patrol through Sadr City. He'd find out then just how "messy" war can be.

If we were a truly democratic nation that cared about human rights, we'd turn him, Cheney, Powell, Rice and Wolfowitz over to the International Court to be tried as war criminals.

Posted by: JeffII on November 10, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with a lot of what has been said here about the +200K crowd. To those observations I would add the deficit in general, and the pig trough profiteering of the Iraq reconstruction effort in particular. Professionals in the business of making money hate to see money mismanaged and wasted.

Posted by: Pennypacker on November 10, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Saw this interesting quote from Rush Limbaugh on his website dreaming about what he's do if HE were President (UGG!) about minimum wage.

"'Let the Democrats have it!' House Republicans are going to propose it anyway. [yeah right!] 'What the hell? It's chump change, small potatoes. Let 'em have it.'" http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110906/content/go_for_broke.guest.html

So he'd go ahead and raise he minimum wage because "It's chump change, small potatoes" in the big scheme of corporate execs makeing a hundred to a thousand times what the people who do the actual work make.

Hmmm. Well if it's chump change then WHY THE HELL have Republicans like him fought it tooth and nail for so long?! Greed.


Posted by: OMG! on November 10, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

When I moved to Georgia 30 years ago it was a rural and somewhat backward place. Since the Republicans have won big here in 2006, I guess it's still true. But the federal cash cow has dried up, the boom here is slowing to a halt and so it should be an interesting next few years.

Posted by: slanted tom on November 10, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

No high school +15%

Bush lost his other base group. Many poorly educated people finally understood Iraq is wrong and supply sided economics is not in their best interest. They may be poorly educated and hate homosexual unions, but the war and their economic well being finally aroused them to vote past their prejudices.

Posted by: Hostile on November 10, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

You wasted ammo, incidentally, defending Jeffrey against my calling out his "concern trollish question." Consensus has emerged (at least according to my email and comments here) that "Jeffrey" is Chuck/Thomas1/Cheney/Charlie's new nom-de-troll.

Well, Lord knows you wouldn't have figured it out if it had been shoved down your throat with the rubbing alcohol you've been slurping like Kitty Dukakis since your endless unemployment made the buck and a half for Mogen David more than you could pull together. I'm nursing a hangover the size of New Brunswick myself this morning, but I can at least attribute it to 20 year old Scotch. Take that, loser liberal lushes; lying in the gutter too dumb to locate the stars to look up at, you can only dream of a morning after of this quality.

Anyway, I'd say it's up to this Pale Rider pale imitation of a man to decide what he's wasting his squirtgun ammo on, sir. Evidently he thinks you're even more worthy of his contempt than this Jeffery/Chuck/whatever low-income name fellow. Naturally I agree, as embarrassing as I admit the latter is for our side with his provincial disdain for extramarital sex and abortion (hel-LO! How many promising Republican political careers would be ruined if the campaign staff sluts had the babies?). I am nothing if not pragmatic in these matters. No.

Do not dare to mention Tuesday night to me today, liberals. I've got a fearsome head and I'm more than willing to get on the horn and call in some chits from my old associate Joseph in Connecticut. He owes me for having those two papier-mache-wielding morons, the ones who made that silly float, audited and their car tires slashed once a week since Labor Day. You Dumbocrats thought you were the only ones with gangsta connections, did you?

And you wonder why my hand shakes--with laughter, mind you, only laughter--as I lift the tumbler and salute your brave new Dumbocracy.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 10, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: And what you find from the exit polls is that Dems gained 2-7 points in practically every demographic group surveyed. It was an across-the-board sweep, not a victory that depended on any single big electoral shift.

Gaining 2-7 points across all demographic groups across the entire electorate is a big electoral shift, and much more significant and important than a bigger shift in one or two particular groups. It shows how widespread was the disgust with Bush and his Republican Party of greed, corruption and criminality, and how widespread are the hopes for something better that people have put on the Democrats.

Kevin wrote: More interesting ... is the fact that high-income voters broke for Democrats in large numbers. I'm scratching my chin over that one.

They've already got their tax cuts, they've already gotten astronomically richer, and many of them have probably become uneasy at the grotesque incompetence, irresponsibility and delusional arrogance of the Bush administration, to the point where they began to see it as a threat even to themselves, and were willing to deal with the prospect of some potential modest shift back towards fair, equitable, progressive tax policy by the Democrats rather than let Bush continue wrecking the entire country.

America's ultra-rich corporate ruling class is ruthless and greedy, but they are mostly not insane.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on November 10, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Just because the Dems won doesn't mean there wasn't election fraud. The electronic voting machines are still a new phenomenon and we should keep our eyes on it until the most doubtful among us (myself included) feel a heck of a lot more confident our votes are being recorded and counted and audited/recounted properly.

For more on the topic visit www.bradblog.com

Posted by: MarkH on November 10, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe because a little "chump change" here, and a little "chump change" there, all add up in the long run?

Posted by: Jeffery on November 10, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

That being said, I doubt that $200K+ qualifies as "low income" in anyone's book.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 10, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffery/Jeffrey: Make up your mind, you illiterate twit, how you're going to spell that gay-as-a-goose name of yours. My God, but you're a pathetic addition to the ranks of courageous conservative keyboard soldiers who spend their nights prosecuting an unpopular but just war the liberal do-gooders run crying from.

I'll handle the crowd here. Go pull yourself together and don't come back until you've got a plan. Say a prayer to your little polyester Jesus or watch some 700 Club or whatever calms you, but get it together or we're disavowing you. I mean it, sir.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 10, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

It's spelled both ways. But I'm not a Christian, or even American, sir. Just an interested party, that's all. I believe the bigger story than small gains by the Democratic party is the large number of Bush 2004 voters who stayed home.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 10, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

So when you were about unconscious from the 20-year-old single-malt -- did you shit the couch again?

Since, you know, Depends or Serenity pads would probably wreck the svelte lines of your suits :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Not that there's anything wrong with being gay as a goose. Right, Bob?

Posted by: Jeffery on November 10, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey:

Nobody spells their first name either of two ways. The way I've addressed you is the way it's conventionally spelled. Especially since you're trying *so hard* for sincerity by concocting a real-looking email address -- as if your name is *actually* Jeffrey Berman or something. Besides which, if you're really are a new addition to our fun li'l menagerie of political animals -- what happened to Chuck? :)

Sheesh Chuckles -- do you really think anybody's going to spend more than 30 seconds falling for this?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey:

No, in fact, there isn't. But since only a certain species of paranoid fundamentalist Christian seems to particularly *give a shit* one way or another -- how to you square this with your supposed self-identity as "not a Christian?"

Is Berman supposed to be a Jewish name? You do realize, of course, that zoe kentucky is a Reform Jew who was married to her female partner by her synagogue, right?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

How am I supposed to know what happened to Chuck? All he said was that he proved you guys wrong by being here the day after the election. He didn't promise anything more than that. BTW, my full name is, in fact, "J. Jeffery Berman" -- blame my parents if you must -- plenty of religions denounce homosexuals and so-called "Reform" Jews are not real Jews anyways.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 10, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffery:

Then why did you spell Jeffrey *correctly* the first few times you posted here? You trying to tell us you typoed your RL first name? ROTFL !

Though they might have debates about it among themselves, no Orthodox or Conservative Jewish person tells the goyim on a public forum that Reformed Jews are "not real Jews" -- especially since that turn of phrase positively reeks of anti-semitism.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Well, look at Slow and Slower trying to figure it all out. You can almost hear the rusty wheels grinding in Bob's concrete-encased noggin: Hey ... it ... could ... be ... a ...fake ...no ... one ... spells ... that ... way ... Jewish ... uhhhh. As for the schizophrenic Jeffery/Jeffrey, tap dance a little faster, sonny, and you might make up a fraction of the lost time. Truly, how you liberals managed to totter into the voting booths and register your drugged, effluvious preferences is a mystery to me.

And you wonder why you can't get any traction on the speedway of life.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 10, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, for fucks sake. Now he's insulting Reform Jews. Just block his god-damned IP address and be done with it.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 10, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Please relate to us the story of how you posted bail on election night :)

We truly are all waiting with bated breath :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

For instance, there is no doubt that Islam considers homosexuality as "sinful" and a profound mistake (as are all sins if they are not intending to do wrong). Islam clearly believes that humans are not homosexual by nature and that people become homosexuals because of their environments. Keep in mind, I have not told you what religion I am, just that I am not Christian. That doesn't stop me from knowing what other religions believe.

There are five references in the Koran that have been cited as referring to gay and lesbian behaviour. Some obviously deal with effeminate men and masculine women. Both references relate to gay sexual activities; lesbian practices are interestingly not mentioned in the Koran, so perhaps zoe kentucky should covert. The references seem to imply that there was no homosexual behaviour before it first appeared in Sodom. This is a uniquely Islamic concept; it does not appear in Jewish or Christian beliefs. That specific passage also explictily links the sin of Sodom (the reason for its destruction) to homosexuality, unlike the Bible which does not specifically state that is the sole reason.

According to a pamphlet produced by Al-Fatiha, there is a consensus among Islamic scholars that all humans are naturally heterosexual. Homosexuality is seen by scholars to be a sinful and perverted deviation from the norm. Most Islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence consider gay acts to be unlawful. They differ in terms of penalty:

The Hanafite school (currently seen mainly in South and Eastern Asia) teaches that no physical punishment is warranted.

The Hanabalites, (widely followed in the Arab world) teach that severe punishment is
warranted

The Shafi school of thought (also seen in the Arab world) requires a minimum of 4 adult
male witnesses before a person can be found guilty of a homosexual act.

As you point out, there are differences of opinion within even Judism. Similarly, there is a Gay and Lesbian Muslim group in the USA called "Queer Jihad":

http://www.stormpages.com/newreligion/index.htm

Posted by: Jeffery on November 10, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

The Wikipidiot shows his true colors once again !

Nice deflection!

ROTFL !

Positively Chuck-fucking-tastic :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

So the sociopath has finally decided to deny Christ. I figured this day would come, but assumed it would be accompanied by a hail of bullets in a shopping mall. Poor thing, the utter humiliation of the election results must have been too much for it to handle.

Oh well, I hear salvation is overrated anyway. Isn't there supposed to be a special section of Hell reserved for apostates? Or am I thinking of Dante's Inferno?

Posted by: trex on November 10, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

trex:

Chuckles obviously thought that *nobody* would suspect him of being Chuckles if he masqueraded as a non-Christian :)

Of course, the doctrinal bloviation on homosexuality kind of, umm, severely undercut that argument -- if it had any salience to begin with :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

I think that last sentence should read "...if It had any sentience to begin with."

Bob, you know an awful lot about soteriology. Just what are the consequences for a believing Christian denying Christ in public? They can't be good -- right?

Posted by: trex on November 10, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

I didn't get that from Wikipedia. Here's the web site if you want to double check it http://www.glcsnsw.org.au/documents/Infopack/11_religions.pdf

trex:

Who said I denied Christ? All I said was that I'm not a Christian, or even American, so how can your election results be too much for me to handle? Since you can at least type, though, I am not denying your sentience either. Not sure about your IQ yet.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 10, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

the "lesson" if there is one, is don't be the party of naked corruption and incompetence.

but that should go without saying.

Posted by: st on November 10, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK
More interesting (though less important in raw numbers) is the fact that high-income voters broke for Democrats in large numbers. I'm scratching my chin over that one.

Why? How hard is it to understand that even modestly high income voters ($200K/year isn;'t tremendously rich) were the easiest sell for the Republican policies of the last several years, so they had plenty of room to swing. But they are no less capable than anyone else of seeing that the present course isn't in even their long-term interest.

And not only did the economy not help Bush, but apparently it actively hurt him. Those who rated the economy "good" voted much more strongly for Democrats than they did in 2004.

That doesn't mean that the economy hurt Republicans, it means that either (1) the economy was less important to people than in 2004, meaning people were less likely to vote based on it, so those that would have voted for the Republicans because of the economy in 2004 had other concerns in 2006, or (2) people who believe the economy is good gave the Republicans less credit for creating the conditions. It doesn't mean that the economy hurt the Republicans, though, that's just a ludicrously bad reading of the data.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 10, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 美少女图片 日本av电影 情色电影 同志电影下载 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 免费电影网站 韩国电影 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费黄色电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 美女写真 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 写真集 全裸美女 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性教育电影 同志电影 舒淇写真 写真集 性虐待电影 淫书 人体写真 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 三级片 性爱电影 联通铃声下载 联通炫铃 联通彩铃下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购

Posted by: st on November 11, 2006 at 3:43 AM | PERMALINK

Anybody,

Who are the douchebags who post the above shit?

Posted by: Ralphy D on November 12, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly