11.06.2004

Babies and Homos

This election wasn't about national security, the war on terrorism, Iraq, or the economy. It was about two things: babies and homos. All the political pundits proved their appalling ignorance of the culture of the midwest. Too much time in D.C., New York, and L.A. I should've known better, cause I've lived here my whole life and I spent many of my formative years balls-deep in evangelical Christian fundamentalism. But it's not just Christians who hate homos. All the piece of shit white-trash-put-your-truck-on-a-lift-kit-nascar-watching-rednecks also hate homos, and lots of otherwise normal people over the age of 50 too. I say fuck-em. Let the republicans give them a 300 hundred dollar tax cut while they cut their food stamps. Let them dessicate their education funding. Who care's if they get condoms in school or not? Half of them won't go to school anyway, and the other half are too stupid to use condoms even if they could get em. Let them have their assault rifles. Too bad they can't eat them. I'm sick of advocating for the poor people in this country when the truth is that I don't like the sons-o-bitches anyway. I'll be fine. I'm white, and once I finish school, I'll be squarely in the middle-class, so I'll be alright if they cut medicaid, or medicare. I'll probably even be ok if they privatize social security, cause I'll have time to invest. Let the old people, the Christians, and the red necks fall on their own sword. Let them teach evolution in school. When India, China, and Japan fly past us on scientific research, I'll just sit back and laugh. Let them ban gay marriage. The midwest will conitinue to suffer the extremes of Brain Drain as the smart homos and those who support them move to the coasts. Let them have God's Country. I'll sit back and laugh as it turns to shit.

2 comments:

Andrew said...

Mark Steyn would disagree with you:

Believe it or not, it wasn't just rednecks who voted for Bush
By Mark Steyn

The great European thinkers have decided that instead of doing another four years of lame Bush-is-a-moron cracks they're going to do four years of lame Americans-are-morons cracks. Inaugurating the new second-term outreach was Brian Reade in the Daily Mirror, who attributed the President's victory to: "The self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport-ownin' rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong'."

Well, that's certainly why I supported Bush, but I'm not sure it entirely accounts for the other 59,459,765. Forty five per cent of Hispanics voted for the President, as did 25 per cent of Jews, and 23 per cent of gays. And this coalition of common-or-garden rednecks, Hispanic rednecks, sinister Zionist rednecks, and lesbian rednecks who enjoy hitting on their gay-loathin' sisters expanded its share of the vote across the entire country - not just in the Bush states but in the Kerry states, too.
The "red states are morons" excuse for losing the election is just another cop out for a party devoid of ideas and ideals. Democrats would be best served to first point the finger at themselves and not write off 51% of the electorate as hopeless morons.

Andrew said...

Paul Freedman would disagree also

The morality theory rests on three claims. The first is that gay-marriage bans led to higher turnout, chiefly among Christian conservatives. The second is that Bush performed especially well where gay marriage was on the ballot. The third is that in general, moral issues decided the election.

The evidence that having a gay-marriage ban on the ballot increased voter turnout is spotty. Marriage-ban states did see higher turnout than states without such measures. They also saw higher increases in turnout compared with four years ago. But these differences are relatively small. Based on preliminary turnout estimates, 59.5 percent of the eligible voting population turned out in marriage-ban states, whereas 59.1 percent turned out elsewhere. This is a microscopic gap when compared to other factors. For example, turnout in battleground states was more than 7.5 points higher than it was in less-competitive states, and it increased much more over 2000 as well.

It's true that states with bans on the ballot voted for Bush at higher rates than other states. His vote share averaged 7 points higher in gay-marriage-banning states than in other states (57.9 vs. 50.9). But four years ago, when same-sex marriage was but a twinkle in the eye of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Bush's vote share was 7.3 points higher in these same states than in other states. In other words, by a statistically insignificant margin, putting gay marriage on the ballot actually reduced the degree to which Bush's vote share in the affected states exceeded his vote share elsewhere.

Why did states with gay-marriage ballot measures vote so heavily for Bush? Because such measures don't appear on state ballots randomly. Opponents of gay marriage concentrate their efforts in states that are most hospitable to a ban and are most likely to vote for Bush even without such a ballot measure. A state's history of voting for Bush is more likely to lead to an anti-gay-marriage measure on that state's ballot than the other way around.

Much has been made of the fact that "moral values" topped the list of voters' concerns, mentioned by more than a fifth (22 percent) of all exit-poll respondents as the "most important issue" of the election. It's true that by four percentage points, people in states where gay marriage was on the ballot were more likely than people elsewhere to mention moral issues as a top priority (25.0 vs. 20.9 percent). But again, the causality is unclear. Did people in these states mention moral issues because gay marriage was on the ballot? Or was it on the ballot in places where people were already more likely to be concerned about morality?

More to the point, the morality gap didn't decide the election. Voters who cited moral issues as most important did give their votes overwhelmingly to Bush (80 percent to 18 percent), and states where voters saw moral issues as important were more likely to be red ones. But these differences were no greater in 2004 than in 2000. If you're trying to explain why the president's vote share in 2004 is bigger than his vote share in 2000, values don't help.

If the morality gap doesn't explain Bush's re-election, what does? A good part of the answer lies in the terrorism gap. Nationally, 49 percent of voters said they trusted Bush but not Kerry to handle terrorism; only 31 percent trusted Kerry but not Bush. This 18-point gap is particularly significant in that terrorism is strongly tied to vote choice: 99 percent of those who trusted only Kerry on the issue voted for him, and 97 percent of those who trusted only Bush voted for him. Terrorism was cited by 19 percent of voters as the most important issue, and these citizens gave their votes to the president by an even larger margin than morality voters: 86 percent for Bush, 14 percent for Kerry.

These differences hold up at the state level even when each state's past Bush vote is taken into account. When you control for that variable, a 10-point increase in the percentage of voters citing terrorism as the most important problem translates into a 3-point Bush gain. A 10-point increase in morality voters, on the other hand, has no effect. Nor does putting an anti-gay-marriage measure on the ballot. So, if you want to understand why Bush was re-elected, stop obsessing about the morality gap and start looking at the terrorism gap.


Paul Freedman, associate professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, has recently completed a book on television campaign advertising.