Advertise here: Contact FM.

Sad day for mefi.....
November 2, 2004 11:26 PM Subscribe

It's unOFFICIAL! yet again!
Bush wins re-election! And Nader nowhere to shoulder blame.
The consequences.
The deciding demographic? The Evangelical vote. (Interestingly, look how the vote went for Carter, born-again Southern Baptist, in the '76 election.)
So who's to blame? Personally, I point the finger at the PR. Because everyone should damn-well accept the fact that it's not about the issues.
Let the recount and litigation begin!
posted by Mach3avelli (316 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

It is?
posted by esch at 11:29 PM on November 2, 2004

Dear ask.metafilter, I'm thinking of killing myself. What's the most painless way least likely to cause unnecessary distress to my loved ones? Thank you.

And I'm Australian.

More seriously, it's not over until all the votes have been counted and re-counted in Ohio.
posted by krisjohn at 11:31 PM on November 2, 2004

That Ohio can even be contested is a joke. The margin widens with each successive precint reporting, and given the negligible change of counting every ballot, Kerry would need 75% of the provisional ballots. No chance.

Then Bush just needs a nudge from New Mexico, Nevada, or Iowa (which he, consequently, is winning).
posted by Mach3avelli at 11:33 PM on November 2, 2004

I'm sure Fox News had it called for Bush before the first vote was counted. The map certainly is disturbingly red at the moment, but I'm waiting until the contest is actually over before I start making plans to spend the next four years in a drunken stupor.
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:35 PM on November 2, 2004

If by "in a drunken stupor" you mean "volunteering to support my alternative party" then I'll see you in line (more than half-sauced, no doubt).
posted by scarabic at 11:37 PM on November 2, 2004

With all due respect wouldn't it be appropriate to wait until everything is counted and the states themselves declare before you do?
posted by filchyboy at 11:38 PM on November 2, 2004

Fox News and MSNBC are itching like mad to declare Bush the winner (having already given him Ohio). They just don't want to be caught under the consternation of their sic journalistic peers. Bush is up by 3.5 million in the popular vote. It's ridiculous. This is as over as Matt LeBlanc's career.
posted by Mach3avelli at 11:38 PM on November 2, 2004

I can be thankful for one thing this election has done, even if the final outcome does not please me. It has shown me how many people I know personally that do not deserve and no longer will have my respect because they told me they were voting Bush because "Kerry is for the homos". Disturbing as it is, I am thankful to know just what bigots they are none the less.

The people telling me Kerry is a flip-flopper or just parroting another anti-Kerry ad do not bother me nearly as much, they just fell victim to propaganda. Lots of voters do that on both sides of the vote. I wish they didn't, but at least if they are voting for that reason, they are not voting out of hatred or malicious intent.
posted by bargle at 11:39 PM on November 2, 2004

Let the sobbing begin.
posted by spilon at 11:43 PM on November 2, 2004

My prediction: Canadian dollar to reach $.92 within 2 years, break even within 4 (self link)

Your idiocy is our gain, mothafuckas.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:44 PM on November 2, 2004

Then Bush just needs a nudge from New Mexico, Nevada, or Iowa (which he, consequently, is winning)

As a consequence of you declaring him the victor?

Call me old fashioned, but I think they should count all the votes in Ohio, provisional or not, before they declare a winner.
posted by sic at 11:45 PM on November 2, 2004

Mach3avelli: chill, please. There are 250,000 provisional votes in Ohio, which traditionally lean towards Dems by a significant margin. And, as the 2000 election showed us, the popular vote doesn't mean shit.
posted by ben-o at 11:49 PM on November 2, 2004

There's this thing called civilization. It's built of hopes and dreams. It's only an idea. It's not real. It's artificial. No one ever said it was real. It's not natural. No one ever said it was natural. It's built by the learning process; by trial and error. It breaks easily. No one said it couldn't fall to bits. And no one ever said it would last forever. —Graham Swift, Waterland
posted by rushmc at 11:51 PM on November 2, 2004

THANK G-D: A VICTORY FOR SANITY, and a defeat for all things wuss-liberal, hollywood-icky.

And the morons at ABC radio are still holding out hope...
posted by ParisParamus at 11:52 PM on November 2, 2004

Congratulations America!

You only have yourselves to blame...
posted by metaxa at 11:54 PM on November 2, 2004

This is way too premature. Let the votes be counted--they're important.
posted by amberglow at 11:56 PM on November 2, 2004

DailyKos Blogger catches CNN pushing last minute Ohio poll result switcheroo
posted by troutfishing at 11:57 PM on November 2, 2004

There are 250,000 provisional votes in Ohio, which traditionally lean towards Dems by a significant margin.

And Kerry is down by ~125,000 votes. Which means Kerry needs at least 75% of those ballots in his favor. These are extraordinary numbers. I've tried googling on how the provisional votes were divided in 2000, but no such luck.
posted by Mach3avelli at 12:00 AM on November 3, 2004

Is there a party I can support that is primarily concerned with actual facts?
posted by kevspace at 12:01 AM on November 3, 2004

Are you afraid to print the word "GOD," Paris? you keep thanking "G-D." What's up with that? Is it some kind of weird superstition? You know, it will only take 3 letters to lay my questions to rest. Come on. Show us you're not some kind of paranoid looney typing from the floor of your filthy apartment in your underwear smoking a cigarette filter and enjoying it.
posted by scarabic at 12:02 AM on November 3, 2004

God. It's a Jewish tradition, a gesture of respect. It's negotiable, but I like it.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:04 AM on November 3, 2004

I have always loved ParisParamus.
posted by cmacleod at 12:05 AM on November 3, 2004

I meant, people do the G-d thing for various reason.
posted by Gnatcho at 12:05 AM on November 3, 2004

Paris's comments amuse me. For no other reason than to see how others get all worked up over it.
posted by Mach3avelli at 12:05 AM on November 3, 2004

reasons
posted by Gnatcho at 12:06 AM on November 3, 2004

Sorry, if Kerry got 75K votes out of those 250K, after the out-of-district, defective, and miltary ones were counted, he'd be very lucky. It's over--Let the recriminations begin!!!

The flippy-floppy empty man....
posted by ParisParamus at 12:06 AM on November 3, 2004

Mach3avelli: I caught a CNN talking head quoting 90% Dem in 2000, but they've been fucking up numbers all night so who knows.
posted by bingbangbong at 12:07 AM on November 3, 2004

Right. I think I'm done arguing with PP for many reasons that, cumulatively, add up to "unworthy opponent," but this one seems like the last straw.
posted by scarabic at 12:07 AM on November 3, 2004

Gnatcho, I am clearly Jewish.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:08 AM on November 3, 2004

FLIPPY FLOPPY FRENCHY FROGGY FRENCH FLIPPY FLOPPY FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM
posted by kevspace at 12:08 AM on November 3, 2004

More importantly, the delay in counting provisional ballots, and the surrounding legal challenges, will give both parties time to go vote-hunting.
posted by bingbangbong at 12:08 AM on November 3, 2004

Goodnight--at least for a few hours....
posted by ParisParamus at 12:09 AM on November 3, 2004

kevspace: LOL.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:10 AM on November 3, 2004

Mach3avelli - I heard 90% on NPR tonight, but I agree with bingbangbong that numbers aren't trustworthy anymore... not saying you're wrong, just saying it's too early to be so sure. On that note, this guy needs to sleep...
posted by ben-o at 12:11 AM on November 3, 2004

Sorry to say it, but this is over. Republican president, Republican house, Republican Senate. Again. By a lot this time. And now it's time to admit that there was no amount of cheating or rigging or whatever that led to a difference of more than 3 million votes nationwide. It's time to admit that the Democratic Party was beaten. And that Kerry was totally unpalatable for an electorate that was ripe to elect a new President. And that the youth vote didn't materialize, despite the hot air. It isn't the end of the world, 48+% of people voted Democrat, but it is the end of the election, despite the lack of anything resembling balls from the networks. Surely this is clear?

So next time, without Kerry and MacCauliffe and with a new and improved campaign, maybe the GDP will do better. Until then the democratic process that has elected a full slate of Republicans must be respected. The people have spoken, have they not?

So will we be seeing any retractions of the predictions of mass civil unrest?
posted by loquax at 12:13 AM on November 3, 2004

scarabic - yes. it's a religious thing that's been around for a couple thousand years in hebrew culture and extended into some christian beiefs as well. it's only weird to you because you have not been exposed to that culture and/or do not share those beliefs. why not open a separate thread on why God should or shouldn't be spelled out rather than picking on ParisParamus for something like that?
posted by stevis at 12:14 AM on November 3, 2004

Oh. My. G-D. STFU.
posted by scarabic at 12:16 AM on November 3, 2004

...a full slate of Republicans must be respected

not really. no.
posted by stevis at 12:16 AM on November 3, 2004

The 90% was the amount of provisional ballots that were accepted as legitimite, not who they voted for.

I want Kerry to win, but at this point I am resigned to the fact it won't happen. Especially with W. about to claim victory once Nevada and New Mexico go final.
posted by karmaville at 12:16 AM on November 3, 2004

Mach3avelli - It seems rather suspicious to me. If I were a Democrat, I'd dig in and fight for a proper vote count.
posted by troutfishing at 12:17 AM on November 3, 2004

A nationwide proper vote count.
posted by kamylyon at 12:22 AM on November 3, 2004

"scarabic - yes. it's a religious thing that's been around for a couple thousand years in hebrew culture and extended into some christian beiefs as well. it's only weird to you because you have not been exposed to that culture and/or do not share those beliefs." - stevis

The embargo against invoking the name of Yahweh has indeed been around for thousands of years but the G-D thing is something I have never seen before tonight.
posted by arse_hat at 12:23 AM on November 3, 2004

in the words of Bender:
"we're boned"
posted by gwildar at 12:25 AM on November 3, 2004

And now it's time to admit that there was no amount of cheating or rigging or whatever that led to a difference of more than 3 million votes nationwide.

With 92% of precincts reporting, Kerry has more votes than Gore got in 2000. And Bush somehow has 5 million more supporters than 4 years ago (with an estimated 4 million to come). Now where did these people come from? With the electronic voting machines we have, wholesale vote fabrication is easy and undetectable. The discrepancy between exit polls and vote totals? It's not necessarily the pollsters who got it wrong.
posted by wendell at 12:26 AM on November 3, 2004

99% precincts reporting: Bush by 145k. 90% of 250,000 provisional ballots = 225k. Kerry needs 82% of the provisional ballots.

Mach3avelli - It seems rather suspicious to me. If I were a Democrat, I'd dig in and fight for a proper vote count.

Can't do much here from California. I'm actually secretly happy Bush won. I work stand-up comedy on the side. And drama keeps life interesting. Sure, call me a fool, but I have something to look forward to either way.
posted by Mach3avelli at 12:31 AM on November 3, 2004

With 92% of precincts reporting, Kerry has more votes than Gore got in 2000. And Bush somehow has 5 million more supporters than 4 years ago (with an estimated 4 million to come). Now where did these people come from?

I'd chalk it up to an increase in population (from 285 million to 300 million over 4 years), in combination with increased voter turn-out. With a slogan like "Vote or Die", P Diddy really had a load on his shoulders.
posted by Mach3avelli at 12:35 AM on November 3, 2004

I've noticed Jewish people not spelling out the word "God" since high school. In college I did HTML coding for a Jewish student magazine, and the staff used "G-d" when writing, also.
posted by halonine at 12:40 AM on November 3, 2004

If you want to look forward to a vastly increasing national debt, the further merger of (fundamentalist) church and state, the erosion of citizens' rights, and the end of legalized abortion, great. All of these are inevitable in the next four years. Seriously, there's no way abortion will be legal in this country in 2008. This country is so fucked.
posted by Spacelegoman at 12:43 AM on November 3, 2004

> there's no way abortion will be legal in this country in 2008

I'm a conservative, but I don't see that happening. Come on.
posted by dand at 12:54 AM on November 3, 2004

Yup, CNN just scored Nevada for Bush. All on Ohio's shoulders now.
posted by Mach3avelli at 12:57 AM on November 3, 2004

I'm a guy. I'm totally manly. I'm 6'1" and 200. Beefy. chances are if you give me some lip I could totally rip your head off. But I've been sobbing like a baby for about an hour now. I just can't believe that my fellow Americans would reelect this total fuck up. So many Americans are going to die in the next four years because of this president. It fucking sucks. And I'm crying because of it.

I feel ya. I'm 6'2" and 190. I work as a bouncer. And this scares me more than the guy who pulled a knife on me and threatened to cut me up last week. The international community will not forgive us.

But I also can't help but feel excited.
posted by Mach3avelli at 1:00 AM on November 3, 2004

"...on several swing states, and EVERY STATE that has EVoting but no paper trails has an unexplained advantage for Bush of around +5% when comparing exit polls to actual results.

In EVERY STATE that has paper audit trails on their EVoting, the exit poll results match the actual results reported within the margin of error.

So we have MATCHING RESULTS for exit polls vs. voting with audits

vs.

A 5% unexplained advantage for Bush without audits.

Maybe Dubayah believes God will see him through this, but it's going to take more than blind faith to pull the wool over the data and the facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph..."
posted by Espoo2 at 1:02 AM on November 3, 2004

Now where did these people come from?

More than 100,000 new Republicans registered in the weeks prior to this election in Pennsylvania, which is an overwhelmingly Dem state, statistically. The same held true across the country. Democrats are not the only ones who added to their support base. But more importantly, the increase in Bush votes is not sufficiently centered in electronic-machine using areas to suggest that it is nothing more than a piece of manufacturing.

When are you Dem diehards going to accept that you were so convinced that everyone would accept your anti-Bush rhetoric and get on the ABB bandwagon that you forgot that the person that you were going to run against him needed to be palatable?

Now we've going to have two weeks (or more) of talk about counting every ballot cast (no matter how specious the registration data of the person behind it) we've got corporate interests preparing their planes to fly Dem party attorneys out to start the lawsuits, we're going to have declarations that it is somehow possible to find more than 143,000 legitimate Kerry votes in the provisionals to give him Ohio, and if there had been a man put up by the Democratic party who could convince the people of his qualification and preparedness to lead, none of it would be necessary.

You dropped the ball, your best and brightest were never in the running, and 30 bright red states on the electoral map are unquestioned testimony to that fact. Cry if you want, but I hope that some of your tears are out of shame for your own failure.
posted by Dreama at 1:03 AM on November 3, 2004

OK, so the US population is 295 million. Let's assume 75 million are under 18 (~25%)

So 120 million out of 220 million voted. 55% of the population.

What were the other 100 million doing?

Were they foreigners, in prison, too young to care, or what?

Seriously, how come 100 million people sat out the so-called "most important election ever"?
posted by Turtle at 1:05 AM on November 3, 2004

Bush Prepares to Declare Re-Election Win peech AP
posted by dand at 1:07 AM on November 3, 2004

There is no joy in Metafilter - Might Kerry has struck out.
posted by dand at 1:08 AM on November 3, 2004

Espoo2 - you want to finish that URL?
posted by Mach3avelli at 1:09 AM on November 3, 2004

add a p on the end of the url
posted by shoos at 1:12 AM on November 3, 2004

This is probably very bad news for ...
posted by mwhybark at 1:13 AM on November 3, 2004

it's from here.
posted by Espoo2 at 1:13 AM on November 3, 2004

wfrgms: I'm a moderate liberal, there are a good number of Republicans I would support for President. And I am astonished and deeply angry and disapointed in these election results. A whole bunch of Republicans have lost faith in this administration—for example, you can hardly find a Republican economist who thinks that Bush economics policy isn't nuts. So what gets me the most is that even on Republican terms Bush hasn't been a good president.

And what it apparently comes down to for all these voters that support Bush are two main issues. The first is the war against terrorism. They think Bush has done a good job because, apparently, he prosecuted the Iraq war so vigorously. All the facts say otherwise, however: Iraq had little to do with terrorism and bin Laden is still alive and al Qaeda still active. Yet these people remain convinced that Bush is protecting them from terrorists. So this is deeply, deeply disturbing that perhaps a majority of Americans can simply be very ignorant of reality. The second issue is cultural conservatism, and I suppose that here Bush is sincere and has delivered. Of course, almost all of those values are abhorrent to me, so I'm heartbroken that a large portion of Americans support them.

Tonight I think less well of my feelow Americans than I ever have in my life. Until today, I could confidently say that "I love America"...now I'm not so sure. If it were practically possible for me, I would leave the country. I am literally sickened by these election results. I'm not crying, I'm angry.

I didn't believe as strongly as others did about the Red vs. Blue ideological battle. Now I'm more convinced. I despise read America in a way I never did before tonight. And I had been living in Texas the last eight years.

On Preview: screw the idea of "tears for our own failure", dreama. I prefer to hate with an enduring passion each and every person who cast a vote for Bush. Starting with you.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:14 AM on November 3, 2004

a comment from the same thread:

"I'm too exhausted (in every way measurable) to do this myself, so here's homework for everyone.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

That page lists the votes counted for every state in 2000. Everyone agrees, record turn out this election...yet none of the state totals I've looked at seem to reflect the higher turn out. So....what has everyone been waiting in line for?

We're at 89% of precincts nation wide counted so far. And we're at a popular vote tally of 104.4 million, according to CNN. So, in 11% of precincts, we're going to count another 16 million votes (for an estimated 120 million voters total)? So...if there are 16 million votes left to be counted....where are they coming from? The west coast...and...Florida and Ohio? Maybe Iowa and N.M. too?

For a quick number, last time we had 594 thousand voters in N.M. This year, we have 525 thousand counted, and 96% reporting. WHAT THE HELL?

Edit: 538 thousand in N.M. now with 98%. 107 million nation wide with 92%. That leaves 13 million in 8% of precincts. *boggle*"

This is where the news is.
posted by Espoo2 at 1:15 AM on November 3, 2004

I went to bed when Florida was conceded for Bush.

In other news, Edwards couldn't even win his home town...
posted by konolia at 1:19 AM on November 3, 2004

So the result appears to be:

KERRY: 56 million
BUSH: 60 million
WHATEVER: 120 million

WHATEVER wins again!

> I prefer to hate with an enduring passion each and every person who cast a vote for Bush

That's big of you. Hope you feel better in the morning.
posted by Turtle at 1:20 AM on November 3, 2004

> I despise read America in a way I never did before tonight. And I had been living in Texas the last eight years

> I prefer to hate with an enduring passion each and every person who cast a vote for Bush

> Tonight I think less well of my feelow Americans than I ever have in my life.

Yes, give it to me! Let it all out, boo f'ing hoo. And they're mighty charmed with you, Mr. Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing. Post more!
posted by dand at 1:22 AM on November 3, 2004

Sorry, WHATEVER only got about 100 million votes, not 120. Still, an impressive result for such a small campaign effort.
posted by Turtle at 1:24 AM on November 3, 2004

Can anyone field this sub-point: where do a draft and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" cross paths? I've considered subverting any sort of draft by "coming out". Thoughts?
posted by Mach3avelli at 1:26 AM on November 3, 2004

Watching the ABB crowd in this thread (and the other one with over 400 comments!) is a beautiful thing.

And dreama, I appreciate what you said -- I would very much like for America to have a viable, loyal opposition party, but the Democratic Party is just pathetic. How it is going to "retool" itself in the next 2-4 years will be interesting. Or scary.
posted by davidmsc at 1:30 AM on November 3, 2004

Edwards not only lost his home town, his seat in the Senate went red, too.

On Preview: screw the idea of "tears for our own failure", dreama. I prefer to hate with an enduring passion each and every person who cast a vote for Bush. Starting with you.

First, you don't know who I voted for. (But so long as you're presuming, I'll presume to tell you to bite my shiny metal Libertarian ass.) Second, what's the point in hating anyone? It's not going to further your agenda. It's not going to get candidates who embody your ideals elected. It's not going to change diddly squat. It's not going to do anything but burn you alive. Do something meaningful. Hate isn't meaningful. It's soul-crushing and a ridiculous waste of time.

Of course, if that's all you've got, and hating me and whoever else didn't vote for your incapable candidate will really make you feel better, well, go right ahead honey. I'm sure it'll be devastating to everyone in your path of futile wasted emotion.
posted by Dreama at 1:32 AM on November 3, 2004

Mach3avelli: First of all, there won't be a draft. But if there is, I suspect that the "don't ask, don't tell" crowd will be permitted to serve in non-combat support roles, or in some sort of civil-service capacity.

But don't worry -- there will NOT be a draft, contrary to the numerous FPPs around here.
posted by davidmsc at 1:32 AM on November 3, 2004

Mr. Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing.

Oh, I think it signifies quite a bit. You think you've seen hysterical anti-Bush hatred? You ain't seen nothing yet. Everyone left of center—and that includes all those people that are just slightly left of center—is going to be frothing at the mouth. There are going to be protests like we haven't seen since the Vietnam era.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:33 AM on November 3, 2004

> [draft] thoughts

There won't be a draft. Too many crybabies at home. Nobody cries when contractors die, so the Feds will use more of them.

Despite the rhetoric, Iraq isn't a war - its more of a police action. Only 1,000 killed in a year and half? Who would surrender? This isn't the Civil War, or Vietnam.

Future actions are likely to use less conventional miltary forces.

> There are going to be protests

Yawn. I mean "Oh no, not that!"
posted by dand at 1:36 AM on November 3, 2004

In other news, Edwards couldn't even win his home town...

Yeah ... that was a great strategy, eh? Edwards was Kerry's version of Dan Quayle: a lightweight who wouldn't overshadow Kerry, selected for superficial reasons. If we absolutely had to endure a Kerry candidacy, it would have been better to put Dean on the ticket.

What doubly sucks is that the DNC has already chosen our next candidate as well. Unless we get rid of people like Terry McAuliffe we'll just be going through this exact same flying-dutchman scenario in 2008 when they run Hillary (and lose). Hopefully this will shake them up, but I doubt it.
posted by RavinDave at 1:37 AM on November 3, 2004

Riiiiight, like those riots. Bring it on, Mao.
posted by shoos at 1:38 AM on November 3, 2004

But don't worry -- there will NOT be a draft, contrary to the numerous FPPs around here.

Well, that's the thing I'm most concerned about. So here's hoping you're right. *raises glass*

But to better understand your opinion: First of all, there won't be a draft. But if there is, I suspect that the "don't ask, don't tell" crowd will be permitted to serve in non-combat support roles, or in some sort of civil-service capacity.

Why would this crowd be any less apt for combat?
posted by Mach3avelli at 1:40 AM on November 3, 2004

There are going to be protests like we haven't seen since the Vietnam era.

Oh no -- they're going to be carrying PLACARDS and homemade SIGNS! RUN - RUN!
posted by davidmsc at 1:40 AM on November 3, 2004

...and maybe bricks and a molotov cocktail or six. Running may be a good idea.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:41 AM on November 3, 2004

Not saying less apt for combat -- but it would probably allow the military to keep the "don't ask, don't tell" policy intact without angering either the pro-gay or anti-gay side TOO much.

Of course, the real problem with that is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is completely foolish. If someone wants to wear the uniform of the US and is qualified to serve, I don't care which way he/she leans.

But back on point: there won't be a draft. If there is, I'll owe you a Coke.
posted by davidmsc at 1:43 AM on November 3, 2004

EB: exactly who would you be hurling these projectiles at? The White House? The entrance to the nearest military installation? Every person who didn't vote for Kerry?
posted by davidmsc at 1:43 AM on November 3, 2004

> ...and maybe bricks and a molotov cocktail or six. Running may be a good idea.

Will you be throwing any of those at real terrorist threats, like North Korean soldiers, or just your nighbors that support devil/Hitler Bush?

I've suspeced lefties supported terrorist methods. I'd love to see Micheal Moore blow himself up for the cause. Maybe a school bus in your hated Red Texas?
posted by dand at 1:44 AM on November 3, 2004

There are going to be protests like we haven't seen since the Vietnam era.

Uhm, didn't you guys get the chance to make your 'protest' by actually friggin' voting for the Democrat? Some protest that turned out to be!
posted by metaxa at 1:45 AM on November 3, 2004

Scattered thoughts:

Well fuck, if the numbers are right, there's less of a reason to riot in the streets.

Is it realistic to believe Cheney would run in '08?

I'm scared of how the Dems will approach '08. Like I noted in the FPP, it's all about the Evangelical vote. Interesting to see what approach the Dems will adopt to adapt (only 2 Dems have won in the last 40 years, and both were southern Baptist).

Let's not forget that Kennedy is the only non-WASP (Catholic) to ever hold office. And despite sharing the same initials, Kerry is no JFK.
posted by Mach3avelli at 1:45 AM on November 3, 2004

...and maybe bricks and a molotov cocktail or six.

What do you mean "maybe?" Are you wussing out already?
posted by shoos at 1:46 AM on November 3, 2004

...and maybe bricks and molotov cocktail or six.

Yes, because the logical response to electoral defeat and resultant unhappiness is to break and burn things. Og smash! How enlightened and liberal.
posted by Dreama at 1:52 AM on November 3, 2004

Maybe next time the Democrats will have a stronger campaign than "vote for me, I may not be much good, but at least I'm not that other guy!"
posted by davehat at 1:54 AM on November 3, 2004

Start a riot, I hope there are riots everywhere if Bush wins. Something major to be put in the history books over this bullshit. I still think Diebold did something.
posted by Keyser Soze at 1:55 AM on November 3, 2004

Start a riot you stupid cunt
posted by shoos at 2:02 AM on November 3, 2004

> How enlightened and liberal

Isn't that the truth? There's a brittle surface on these superior beings, so intent on lecturing everyone else, and once scratched, the bile just pours out. Examples: Richard Dreyfuss, Molly Ivins, Rosie O'Donnell...

Look at the disgusting posers in these threads:

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/36688
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/36692

Despite all the talk about liberals representing intellectual thought, its just pure emotional wallowing.

If Kerry wins, I would not upset at all. The opposition Congress would restrain his worst proposals. Heck, a split government might be better for the country than the Reps controlling everything, because they go soft when they have it all.
posted by dand at 2:05 AM on November 3, 2004

There are going to be protests like we haven't seen since the Vietnam era.

Protest what? Losing? The only indictment here is against the Left. All of us who voted for Kerry are now officially losers.

I hope there are riots everywhere if Bush wins. Something major to be put in the history books over this bullshit.

And, based on the rhetoric around here, whining losers. Those of us old enough to have voted more than once (presumably) understand the process of a representational democracy.

Sheesh.
posted by terceiro at 2:07 AM on November 3, 2004

I didn't say that I would do anything of the sort. That would be legally foolish, wouldn't it?

You guys don't get it. I'm a moderate. I'm not anti-war, I don't have a problem with the military (except Abu Ghraib sort of stuff). It's absolutely astounding that you'd mention North Korea, who is because of Bush's failure reprocessing nuclear fuel into bombs right now, which they very well may sell to terrorists. I was thrilled when we bombed the shit out of the Taliban and al Qaeda. I wasn't so thrilled when we failed to actually, you know, hunt every one of those al Qaeda fuckers down and shoot them in the head. Whoops...must fight a war in Iraq because there are terrorists there. Like Zarqawi, who had no ties to Hussein and who Bush deliberately ignored and is now a big part of the resistance? Riiight. Bush has not made America safer, he's made it less safe. I have no reflexive dislike of war or American military intervention—I've pretty much supported every war the US has fought in my adult lifetime, including both Iraq wars, the second very tepidly. I supported this war very tepidly because although I had no illusions about it having anything to do with terrorism and a threat to the US, I have no problems with finally ending the Hussein problem. But the thing is, they totally fucked it all up.

I support globalization and free-trade, and the Bush admin has been less supportive of free-trade than Clinton's was. Dreama voted for the libertarian candidate, which makes sense because there's very little that's liberatarian about the Bush admin. Reagan also ran a big deficit, but it was at least partly counterbalanced by decreases in domestic and discretionary spending. Bush has increased these. He's by no means a fiscal conservative.

I am livid with anger about this president and this election not because I'm a partisan Democrat, but because this is by many measurements the worst president in modern times. His administration is deeply hurting this country in a whole variety of way...and not by liberal standards, but by conservative standards, as well. That's what's incredible: aren't you conservatives paying attention?

I think there's something very, very wrong here and it's emphatically not because I'm a single issue liberal voter who is (pick one) anti-war, pro-abortion, pro-gay-rights, pro-health-care-reform, pro-Palestinian, whatever. I've never even remotely identified with the Berkeley leftist crowd. My hate for Bush is a centrist hate, and that's what I think is significant. I'm not alone. Of course all the people farther to the left are going to be outraged and march and protest and stuff. But this election defies an entire cross-political-spectrum of people that are very unhappy with Bush. Pretty much everyone that cares about actual policies, and not just symbols, is unhappy with this administration, both on the right and the left.

Bush continues to pour money into SDI. But the single most devastating and likely terrorist attack on the US would come in the form of a small nuclear weapon detonated in a ship in one of the US harbors. On every front where a "war" could be fought against such a thing happening, Bush has not even tried. This admin has put less money and emphasis in tracking and controlling nuclear weapons from the former USSR than the previous one. This administration essentially dared North Korea to start making nuclear bombs, and of course NK has obliged. It would have been difficult to do anything about NK in the best of circumstances, but with our military spread so thin, losing the continuing war in Iraq, almost any other military action is unthinkable. We have little to threaten NK with, and our (lack of) diplomacy has only encouraged them to manufacure weapons.

And so it could very well be one of those weapons, or one from the former USSR, that explodes in some boat in some harbor and kills, perhaps, millions of Americans. And Bush and his admin will be very directly responsible for being negligent in protecting Americans from their very worst fear and from pretty much exactly what they've been led to believe Bush would protect them from.

Just that, just that as a possibility, is enough reason to throw bricks and molotov cocktails. By the very standards of all the people fearing terrorism who voted for Bush, he's the antichrist.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:11 AM on November 3, 2004

In the words of Fred "Yabba Dabba Doo"...

Whatever everone above me said...I respect. Cedric.
posted by Cedric at 2:12 AM on November 3, 2004

Time to invest in the porn and alcohol industries. I see half the nation, and the rest of the world, trying to forget this nightmare for four more years.
posted by fleener at 2:14 AM on November 3, 2004

My hate for Bush is a centrist hate, and that's what I think is significant. I'm not alone.

Of course you're not alone. But we're not in the majority either. And to imagine that some magic majority is going to create a popular uprising is, well, delusional.
posted by terceiro at 2:16 AM on November 3, 2004

PP is doing the G-d thing because some gentiles have decided to imitated Orthodox Jews in the practice of not fully writing the name of God.

Various reasons, but I am usually wary of political opinions of gentiles who do this concerning the Middle East.

Nice assumption there, Gnatcho.

Listen, I think Paris is a troll a lot of the times. Sometimes, like the past 18 hours, he's been doing it just to get a reaction, which can be funny, because the response from the Dems/Left/Whatever while can be reasonable (amberglow has been a delightful example of such a voice), the other responses show that bile can come from any spectrum.

The thing that scares me and scares me for 2008 is the sheer amount of people that are saying that because the election is turing out the way it is, is because the electorate is stupid. Or xenophobic. Or Fundies. Or whatever. Take your pic. But stupid seems to be the forerunner.

This might be politically the dumbest thing to do. If you have this standpoint, you will never make inroads to to the Republican core because you come across as intellectually elitist. Walking up to a voter and saying, "I am smarter than you and you should listen to me because I know what's better for the country." lacks an emotional bond that is essential to politics. You need to convince, not lecture.

(Interesting to note that the Guardian's Write to Americans to Tell Them to Vote For Kerry campaign might have tipped the balance.)

The vibe I get from the two parties is Republicans seemed to try to persuade whereas the Democrats told. I am not saying that this is what was intended but what was perceived by me (and I'm in Europe so take what I say with a liberal dose of salt) and it appears, by a majority of the voting populace.

The Dems need to adopt a touch of Populist rhetoric in order to connect. And Christ, get a candidate with charisma. It might help.

(As far as spelling it G-D, it harkens back to the Hebrew language having a different structure. Take the Tetragrammaton, YHWH. The Hebrew language hasn't vowels in the proper Indo-European sense, but rather, dots that are placed around a letter to show what sound to make with the corresponding consonant. However, this can easily lead to mistranslation, giving rise to Jehovah, a name never used by the ancients. In any even, you are not supposed to say the name of The Divine, much less spell it out fully.)
posted by Dagobert at 2:18 AM on November 3, 2004

f-r f--ks s-ke.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:27 AM on November 3, 2004

> North Korea, who is because of Bush's failure reprocessing nuclear fuel into bombs right no

These ABB'ers always overreach. Who has time to correct every emotional outburst?

North Korea has nukes because Clinton had Carter broker a weak deal with them.

North Korea and President Carter Stanford

The results of Jimmy Carter's negotiations in 1994 with the North Koreans and their acceptance by the Clinton Administration have to be one of the most naive, appeasing and damaging efforts in US foreign diplomacy. I know hind sight is always 20/20, but it's been proven over and over that you can't deal with a brutal bunch of thugs and expect them to abide by their word or the terms agreed upon

And Kerry would be more of the same. This "centrist" is SOO over-the-top in assumptions. Nobody listened.
posted by dand at 2:32 AM on November 3, 2004

No, you're exactly wrong. NK may have already had one weapon already (which they sure as hell wouldn't have sold to anyone). But until Bush's inaction, all they had was spent fuel rods that were under lock and key and international monitoring. When NK threatened to take that spent fuel and start to reprocess it unless the US negotiated another deal, Bush said, "screw you", because, you know, he's a tough guy. And so they opened up that container and started building bombs. Bush could have made sure this didn't happen. Instead, he made sure it did.

I repeat: your assertion is wrong. No one, and I mean no one believes that NK could have had more than a single weapon or so before they started reprocessing this fuel. Which they did only during this administation and only because Bush refused to negotiate with them. Carter/Clinton's agreement allowed them the reactor from which they've gotten this fuel, yes. But that agreement kept this fuel under lock and key and international monitoring right up until Bush effectively told the NK to "make his day". Which they have, except Bush doesn't have a big gun to their head to shoot them with. On the other hand, they have weapons they didn't have before.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:41 AM on November 3, 2004

Andy Card declaring Bush the winner on TV, collecting NV and OH. 286 EV.
posted by dand at 2:44 AM on November 3, 2004

Furthermore, if you don't know enough about the North Korea situation to recognize that Bush has made things much worse rather than better, then it's evidence of how little you really know about any of this stuff. You're just a partisan who likes Bush because you don't know enough to realize that you've been duped. Policy experts across the spectrum, pretty much everyone agrees that the Bush admin's NK policy has been a disaster. There's no real debate on this.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:44 AM on November 3, 2004

Dear Democrats,
You did it to yourselves.
posted by seanyboy at 2:57 AM on November 3, 2004

> But that agreement kept this fuel under lock and key and international monitoring right up until Bush

Fronline sez they may have been doing it since 1994. I guess you'd know better, being an international nuclear inspector located right in NK and all. I know you wouldn't hang your political philosophy on a buncha unprovable assumuptions like this one: "Commies don't cheat".

Could North Korea Have a Bomb?

If the North Koreans begin reprocessing the spent fuel that was removed in the 1994 shutdown, however, they could have enough plutonium for five or six bombs within months. If they complete construction on the two larger reactors that were halted in 1994, some estimate that within several years Pyongyang could be producing 30 to 50 plutonium-powered nuclear weapons annually
posted by dand at 3:06 AM on November 3, 2004

If you don't know enough about the North Korea situation to recognize that Bush has made things much worse rather than better, then it's evidence of how little you really know about any of this stuff. You're just a partisan who likes Bush because you don't know enough to realize that you've been duped.

“If you don’t know enough to realise that your conclusion is wrong; then this is evidence of how little you know. It is because of how little you know that your conclusion is wrong”

Hmmm!

(Note: It’s not that I think Bush has been of much use in North Korea or anything, but... yeah.)
posted by ed\26h at 3:06 AM on November 3, 2004

Metafilter: I prefer to hate with an enduring passion each and every person who cast a vote for Bush
posted by Turtle at 3:11 AM on November 3, 2004

Is there an election going on today?
posted by DrDoberman at 3:20 AM on November 3, 2004

My hate for Bush is a centrist hate

The words I haven't been able to find for myself. I'm more of a fiscal conservative, and social liberal, and I know there is a time and place for military action. (Iraq was not it)
Bush fails by all my standards, and by the standards of any kind of self-consistent position I can think of.
posted by bashos_frog at 3:29 AM on November 3, 2004

I'm not surprised. Sad, but not surprised.
posted by eustacescrubb at 3:32 AM on November 3, 2004

Random thoughts spawned from depression

Oddly enough, it's not the election that is depressing me at the moment. Until yesterday I was intending on writing in Dean's name in order to send a message to the DNC to let us pick our own candidates. I figure that message has been sent (though am doubtful it will be heeded), so I won't grouse about the election -- I consider it the fault of the DNC. I'll sleep with a clear conscience.

What depresses me is this: I dropped by my workplace for a moment on a quick latenight errand. We have a TV. It was tuned to CNN and the bulk of the room was in an understandable funk. Except a custodian, who was pumping her fist in the air celebrating the Bush victory. I was astounded (she's a good person and I had asumed we shared many common values) and asked her why. The first thing out of her mouth was: "Kerry supports gay marriage!" I said: "Um, that's not really true. He's stated flatly that he's against gay marriages. He supports civil unions and considers it more a matter for the state. Pretty much the position Bush took originally." I was informed that I was wrong and when I offered to bring it up in Google, she abandoned that complaint and launched into: "You think Kerry can protect us from terrorists? I don't want them damn Iraqians (*cringe*) knocking down any more towers!" She imagined she dealt me a rhetorical death-blow, since I stared blankly at her for a few seconds too long. "I finally told her that NONE of the hijackers were "Iraqian" -- that they were mostly Saudis, a few from the UAE, one was Lebonese and one was Egyptian." He snorted a few more things and it slowly, chillingly dawned on me: she was not merely blurring the line between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin-Laden -- to her they WERE ONE AND THE SAME. What sort of Orwellian disconnect does it take to think that? We have one guy in prison and the other just dropped us a video tape. Hello???

Now, as odious and uninspiring as I found Kerry (the wingnutz are right in at least one thing -- he was little more than lump during his entire Senate tenure), I can't really blame him for things like this. We simply have an alarming number of deeply stupid people. And I don't say that out of malice -- I say it out of despair.
posted by RavinDave at 3:34 AM on November 3, 2004

The thing is, RavinD, they don't care, and more importantly, they don't think they're stupid.

A sad day for this country. This is more embarassing than when we re-elected Reagan. I just hope the rest of the world gets its shit together fast and starts distancing themselves from us wackos.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:38 AM on November 3, 2004

Ugh, 11 days until they start counting Ohio. Patience is a virtue. But, Bush won the popular vote, unless you believe conspiracy theorists about the delta between exit polls and results in electronic vs non-electronic voting states. As that can never be proved, count it as another advantage of incumbency.

Well, if Bush does win, he gets the world he deserves. I for one will do my hardest not to enter the US for a while, and stay well away from harbours if I have to. We're entering an era of the fundamentalists, and the Chinese will sit back, watch their competitors destroy each other, and move inexorably to the place the middle kingdom thinks it deserves.

Organised religion. Bah humbug. It's just another excuse for tribalism. Spirituality I have a lot of time for (well not enough really).

Someone else said / posted it well. We must move on. Act local. Do good in your local community. Above all; don't, in your despondency, become what you most despise.
posted by ozjohn at 3:41 AM on November 3, 2004

Howard Dean, where are you?

My issue isn't so much with Bush, per se, but with a lot of his policies that make him a "divider, not a uniter", contrary to his election bullshit.

This election boiled down to some key issues. Gay rights, Abortion, Iraq, Economy.

Economy - Poor people are still poor, they don't see the difference. They are losing their jobs, but they don't care because it's protecting them from the spector of terrorism.

Iraq - George Bush kicks ass. Yes, we get it, he's a bad ass. He's a Texas Tiger. But maybe what we needed wasn't a bad ass, but a diplomatic ass.

Abortion - Why, oh why, do we need to keep coming back to this. Can't we just accept it as law and be done.

Gay Rights - In many states, people voted on the marriage rights for same-sex couples, and banned them. Despite the fact they weren't legal anyways. Why are we voting on people's rights? Are we going to sit here and say next, "let's have a referendum to give Hispanics a seperate minimum wage" or "let's have a referendum that blacks are only allowed to marry other blacks"? No? Why? That's right, because it's ok to pick on gay people, and deprive them of their rights, because some ancient tome has 2 words about it, a tome that is supposed to be severely restricted in the actions of the government. George Bush wants to ammend the constitution to ban gay marriage. Basically he is disenfranchising 10 percent of the populace in order to appeal to the fundamentalist voters.

So it came down to, "Who is going to kick ass, preach the bible, and keep the gays down?" And that is exactly what the president SHOULDN'T be doing.

So join me, as we sign petitions to protect marriage. I think a lot of evangelicals will get behind me on this drive. I'm doing it for Ohio. The new amendment will read:

"The state shall not have the authority to destroy the bonds of holy matrimony between only a man and a woman, and all bonds shall be in full effect until death of one party in the bond." See, that will protect marriage. By stopping divorce.
posted by benjh at 3:41 AM on November 3, 2004

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world."
Anne Frank
posted by JohnR at 3:46 AM on November 3, 2004

obviously nothing to do with me as I'm not American. Congrats to the monkey boy, democracy in action and all that. Not much can really be said or argued.

However, my belief that the majority of Americans are complete idiots has been confirmed. Way to go USA! Enjoy your 4 years of Anti-homo, Anti-Environment, pro-fundamentalist bliss!
posted by twistedonion at 3:47 AM on November 3, 2004

Despite the beliefs stated by a handful of Republican voters in this thread, some of whom who, until about 12 hours ago, had brains, there's no mandate here, regardless of who eventually wins, and that's the worst thing of all.

I'm a diehard liberal and I want Kerry to be President, but with it all coming down yet again to a as-yet undecided single state, we've proven what the pundits had been joking about: George Bush has Balkanized America.

There was a record turnout at the polls, but no landslide. By opinion and geography, we've solidified the fact that this country's ideology is split down the middle. And it scares me, because Bush's previous term has proved he is a divider, not a uniter.

I understand the joy from some of the right-wingers here, but it saddens me that they're actually proud of how Bush is going to run this country shoud this come out for him in the end: once again, pretending that 50% of the nation simply doesn't exist. Anyone who pretends that's not a dangerous thing cares more about their personal victories than they actually do about this country.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 3:49 AM on November 3, 2004

Civil_Disobedient:

Don't worry. Most of us have. It's pretty much the UK, a token gesture from Australia (much to my chagrin) and Poland (lest we forget) who are with you guys now.

Everyone else is just waiting for The Glorious Imperial Christian Empire of America to fall over, trigger a bit of a depression and then get over it so we can (hopefully) move on.
posted by cheaily at 3:51 AM on November 3, 2004

> We simply have an alarming number of deeply stupid people.

> Bush fails by all my standards, and by the standards of any kind of self-consistent position I can think of.

> they don't think they're stupid.

Not just losers, but POOR losers. Maybe the losers are the "stupid" ones? How did they get their egos so wrapped up in hating a mere politician and web postings? Why are they offended when others don't share their hate?
posted by dand at 3:51 AM on November 3, 2004

Also: I'd really like to see some of the issue polls start coming in. There's talk of a mandate for Bush, but for what? Did people turn out in record numbers because of the war, or because they hate gay people?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 3:53 AM on November 3, 2004

QUZYPHYR: Indeed. Can't you guys just split across the mason-dixie line and have it over with?

Sometimes I seriously wonder if most Americans wouldn't be happier as two seperate soverign states.
posted by cheaily at 3:54 AM on November 3, 2004

I'm surprised that you attribute George Bush's re-election to evangelicals. If anyone is to blame, it's the African-Americans. In the past, over 90% supported Democratic candidates, but in this election, exit polls indicate that Democrats can only count on just over 80% of their vote. What happened?
posted by army of one at 3:54 AM on November 3, 2004

What happened? Religiously-based homophobia happened. The gay marriage "issue" siphoned off a good bit of what should have been solidly Democratic votes.
posted by Tholian at 4:02 AM on November 3, 2004

just split across the mason-dixie line and have it over with

This is an old fallacy. The Mason-Dixon line doesn't separate much difference these days. Nowadays, it's coastal vs. everyone else. And really that just means California and New England. The exceptions are Illinois and Washington, and only because they have these marvelous places called cities where all sorts of colored people live.

Did you see that election map? See just how GI-NORMOUS that red area is? It amazes me that the vote could be this close with the vast underrepresentation of physical geography the Dems put up. We city folk need to encourage our crack-baby unwed mothers to breed more, then teach them how to vote.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:03 AM on November 3, 2004

> Religiously-based homophobia

I love the excuse makin' kickin' in!!!!

EZ answer: Most people went to the polls to vote AGAINST the other guy. That is all each candidate had : they weren't the other guy.
posted by dand at 4:05 AM on November 3, 2004

I didn't want Kerry. I wanted Howard Dean. Even if he did snub me (and even if the AP got my gender wrong in the article, bah.)

If, in fact, Kerry lost this election... I feel it is because Kerry LOST IT and not because Bush WON IT. Why? Kerry and the "establishment Dems" have dragged our party to the center again, and again, and again. And here we are, in the center, and close to Bush. So many people in the middle will just go to Bush at that point.

Kerry could have BLASTED Bush and his entire administration. That is what we needed, and what so many of my liberal friends were looking for. It never happened. How many untold votes were left behind?

If Bush wins (as opposed to "being ruled to be the winner"), then the ultra-left will have a reaction in our party just like the ultra-right did after Clinton won in 1992. Maybe we can make conservative a dirty word, just like they have made "liberal" right up there with "lunatic."
posted by andreaazure at 4:06 AM on November 3, 2004

I'm confused.

A number of Democrat-leaning Florida counties haven't counted absentee or provisional ballots yet.

Can someone explain why everyone's so sure Florida's gone to Bush?
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:08 AM on November 3, 2004

xqzy(etc): according to cokie roberts on npr, most voters voted on "moral issues". so many voters really do hate gay people.
posted by pxe2000 at 4:08 AM on November 3, 2004

[...] In Ohio, the legal struggle over Republican efforts to challenge votes continued throughout Tuesday, with the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to overturn a lower court ruling allowing GOP challengers to be present.

The controversy stoked resentment in the swing state's black community, and may have had the unintended effect of increasing turnout. The black vote in Ohio accounts for about 9 percent of the total, and exit polls indicated that roughly 84 percent were favoring Kerry. That helped offset a 6 percentage point Bush advantage among the state's white voters. [...]

"On edge"
posted by allaboutgeorge at 4:08 AM on November 3, 2004

why are ohio ballots being loaded in bush/cheney trucks when i can't even where a button to the polls?
posted by danOstuporStar at 4:11 AM on November 3, 2004

Of my three siblings, : Two Bush: Two Kerry: me includied I mean.. Oklahoma. Don't judge a Bush by its cover.

In Okla. the "Marraige" thing lost which means my sister is once again illegally marrried to her lover of 11 years. I'm registered republican, but I wanted Kerry this one time. I just wanted to see justice. I'm drunk, its my weekend now. I'm sad now too. wish kerry had won...
posted by Cedric at 4:16 AM on November 3, 2004

George Bush wants to ammend the constitution to ban gay marriage. Basically he is disenfranchising 10 percent of the populace in order to appeal to the fundamentalist voters.

I hate to be the one to bring this up (and, no doubt, incur the considerable wrath of my friend, amberglow) but I gotta point out: There were 11 STATES voting to affirm traditional marriage -- it was a clean sweep! That single issue almost certainly brought more conservatives to the polls than would went otherwise (and don't imagine that they were only wack-o fundies). And while they were there, most all certainly tossed a vote against Kerry. And what prompted all these ballot initiatives? Was it maybe the in-yer-face get'em-while-you-can marriage ceremonies performed last summer? You know ... the frantic movement that had to be done at that very minute and just couldn't be put on hold until after the election (as many of us begged)? That extra ooomph at the polls hurt Kerry much more than anything you guys think Nader did to Gore in 2000. Was it worth it?

On PREVIEW to "dand":

Calling someone who thinks Iraqis flew the planes in the WTC "deeply stupid" is being kind and diplomatic. If you pretend otherwise, I'll invent a new phrase to describe your brand of idiocy.
posted by RavinDave at 4:16 AM on November 3, 2004

Four more years of comedy gold from Bush or four years of Father Kerry? I think the land of the free, brave and constantly entertained, has chosen wisely.
posted by Onanist at 4:17 AM on November 3, 2004

I love the excuse makin' kickin' in!!!!

Shut up. I've just had my relationships de-legitimized in 11 states, and most of those also banned civil unions. I'm dealing with the fact that my own country just repudiated me; that I cannot go home again if I don't want to be a permanent second class citizen, and that the majority of USAians think that's just fine.

So pardon me if I'm a little short tempered with your gloating.
posted by Tholian at 4:21 AM on November 3, 2004

Move to Botswana. It's an economic success story. Use condoms.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:24 AM on November 3, 2004

I prefer to hate with an enduring passion each and every person who cast a vote for Bush. Starting with you.'

You know, I thought you had reached a low point in the reagin thread, and now this. Compassionate liberalism at its finest.
posted by justgary at 4:27 AM on November 3, 2004

Other suggestions
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:28 AM on November 3, 2004

I love the excuse makin' kickin' in!!!!

dude, are you not paying attn at all...? the very voters who put you in a position to be gloating like a slobbering goon have stated it long and loud for the last 24 hours - they purposely voted on so called moral grounds - their admitted reason (as if actual reasoning was involved, bwah!), not the opposition's excuse. face it, y'all just have a lot of wimps down there, afraid of catching the gay.
posted by t r a c y at 4:35 AM on November 3, 2004

Dagobert, as he ALREADY stated in this thread, Paris Paramus is a Jew. Let it go already.

George Stephanopolis is calling on Kerry to "for the good of the nation" go ahead and concede. And from the way he discussed the mathematics of the situation, that is what needs to happen.

And to the Democrats on this thread: as some have already said, you have to run someone who can actually win. There was much more passion for "anybody but Bush" and not nearly enough for your candidate himself.

And I have to applaud the restraint on this thread...you guys are grownups today and I am proud of you.
posted by konolia at 4:43 AM on November 3, 2004

justgary, eleven states just denied Americans basic humans rights. With all due respect, fuck your fake outrage. We're dealing with the real type right now.

This talk about how "the liberals" lost big is ridiculous. Moderates lost big. People who cared about the war lost big.

I really hope some of the warbloggers are reading the issue returns. It's amazing how quickly the election stopped being about the war. It stopped being about service records, and if Kerry was a "traitor" and what Dan Rather thinks when the camera's off. Bush went to Middle America talking about "moral values" and how homos were more dangerous than the daily roadside attacks in Fallujah. And Middle America bought it.

So I hope the "9/12 Republicans" and the "security moms" are looking at the results. I hope the people who told their gay friends that they weren't the "important issue" and the bloggers who were "uncomfortable" with Bush's platitudes to the religious right checked exactly what issues Team Bush sold to the American populace.

I hope they understand that Bush won these key states because Bush told them it would be horrible if some faggot was allowed to have health benefits.

That's your victory, guys. That's your winning team. "Moral values." Woo-hoo. Rah.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:46 AM on November 3, 2004

The Red Sox finally win and brilliant me switches parties to root for another sad-sack team. Great.
posted by yerfatma at 4:56 AM on November 3, 2004

> I've just had my relationships delegitimized in 11 states

Cheer up! Your relationships are precisely as legitimate as they were yesterday.

60% of Americans favor a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. You can either convince them otherwise, or sue to force them to do what they don't wish.

Given those numbers, Kerry nor any Democrat who wants to win would do anything for you.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112679,00.html

Democratic rivals John Kerry (search) and John Edwards (search) differed on the use of the death penalty Thursday night, but found common ground in opposing gay marriage in a debate five days before the biggest primary night of the campaign season.
posted by dand at 4:58 AM on November 3, 2004

So, the Daily Show is only shown in two time zones?

Callng this a victory of morals is, well, no joke can stand up to that. I'm not ashamed to be an American right now because some of the majority have spoken, and not too decisively, and not without reservation...we get the government we deserve (or buy, or intimidate people into voting for, or use some mighty effective propaganda to obtain). Reagan, even though he had the house and senate and even the astrology party behind him, couldn't always railroad his agenda through. However that was a time when being a moderate Republican was actually a good thing and not something that could cost you your job.

We ran an ineffective candidate, we didn't take the gloves off, the giant meteor missed Karl Rove, and we vastly underestimated the homophobic vote. It has now been proven that trees cause global warming, the earth is once again five thousand years old, and brown shirts can make for a dandy, er, fine fashion statement.

Let the inquisition begin. I for one do not welcome our bible wielding insect overlords with southern accents...
posted by TomSophieIvy at 5:00 AM on November 3, 2004

60% of Americans favor a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. You can either convince them otherwise, or sue to force them to do what they don't wish.

I have a better idea. I'll just stay over here in Europe with the rest of the liberal peacenik homos, and let the US reinvent itself as G-d's Country.

Have a blast.
posted by Tholian at 5:01 AM on November 3, 2004

I look forward to the upcoming Gay Brain Drain from these states. You might not think those pansies are valuable now, but wait until your university professors, bankers and hair stylists move out.

But look, folks, none of this matters. The fact is, Kerry did not win this election in a landslide. What the actual results are, well, it'd be nice to see a win for at least one of our friggin' branches of government, but oh well. No landslide, and that's what we needed to have to prove to the rest of the world that we haven't gone completely off our rocker. But no, what do we give the world? A complete Republican victory in the executive, legislative, and soon judicial. Good-bye Roe v. Wade. Good-bye Social Security. Hello vouchers and bullshit wars.

The next four years are going to hurt like prison sex, so everybody just bear down.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:01 AM on November 3, 2004

sigh.
posted by LouReedsSon at 5:06 AM on November 3, 2004

I'm happy with the results, and people who are unhappy shouldn't blame Bush or his voters. They should blame:

(1) Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire for buying into the "Kerry is Most Electable" meme. First, using "most electable" as a basis to choose a nominee is timid, at a time when boldness was required. Second, Kerry was by virtually any objective measure the least "electable" of the major candidates.

(2) The Democratic establishment in DC for putting out the "Kerry is Most Electable" meme in order to keep Howard Dean from rocking their boat. They quite consciously made the decision that they'd rather lose with Kerry than have Dean win and threaten their power. They got their choice.

(3) HRCF, Lambda Legal, and kin. From 1980 (dawn of AIDS) gay rights have moved forward with extraordinary speed, far faster than did the civil rights movement for African Americans or the women's movement. The rewnewed judicial push on gay marriage was a singularly stupid piece of politics; recklessly impatient, really. While there are certainly many Republican politicians who are true believers on this point, it was painfully obvious how many others (Bush in particular) felt dragged into the fight. It was the "wrong battle at the wrong time" to appropriate a phrase.
posted by MattD at 5:08 AM on November 3, 2004

So let's see :

1. +- 50-60% of people with voting rights managed to vote and have their vote counted..that is more or less 100 million votes out of potential 200 million voters.

2. apparently the votes are split 50-50 between the two parties

3. therefore the vote of +-50 million people is going to win one party a. presidency b.house majority c.senate majority

4. therefore the vote of +-1/4 of population with voting rights is going to direct the politics of the next 4 years of a country of +-300 million people

I don't know .. is letting a 1/4 of voting population influence, even if indirectly, so much the life of a majority of 3/4 of population a really good idea ?
posted by elpapacito at 5:14 AM on November 3, 2004

MattD's points 1 and 2 are right on target.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:15 AM on November 3, 2004

> Good-bye Roe v. Wade

I'll bet ya $100 right now that won't happen. Same reason as gay marriage, not enough popular support.

> Good-bye Social Security.

That was always going away. The demographics aren't sustainable:

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10055.html

Social Security is now taking in more money than it pays out in benefits, and the remaining money goes to the program's trust funds. There are now large “reserves” in the trust funds, but even this money is small compared to future scheduled benefit payments. In 2018 benefits owed will be more than taxes collected, and Social Security will need to begin tapping the trust funds to pay benefits. The trust funds will be exhausted in 2042. At that time, Social Security will not be able to meet all of its benefit obligations ... if no changes are made.
posted by dand at 5:16 AM on November 3, 2004

> I for one do not welcome our bible wielding insect overlords with
> southern accents...

fuller smiles a broad magnolia smile, rubs back legs together to chirp. You know, Ah've tried and tried to chirp with a southern accent. Ah'll get it one day.

> I prefer to hate with an enduring passion each and every person who cast
> a vote for Bush. Starting with you.'

Heh. Even Daily Kos knows this is dumb:

OK. I read thousands of comments and dozens of Diaries last night and this morning. And you know something? I’m going to forget I read most of them. Just erase them from memory along with the names of those who posted them. Chalk them up to adrenaline crashes, too much rage and reefer and booze. Because what I found in my reading was a plethora of bashing Christians, bashing Kerry, bashing gays, bashing Edwards, bashing Kos, bashing America and bashing each other. As well as a lot of people saying they’re abandoning the Democrats, abandoning politics, abandoning the country. This descent into despair and irrationality and surrender puts icing on the Republican victory cake.

Considering those geniuses above and in the long election-night threads who say they're sick of America and plan to leave, I ask myself "Is there anything I could do to marginalize them any further than that?" Nope, can't think of a thing. You go, guys.
posted by jfuller at 5:18 AM on November 3, 2004

If US democracy is such a good governing model and US citizens are such educated people why have they re-elected such a fucking scumbag for another four years?
posted by DBAPaul at 5:19 AM on November 3, 2004

elpapacito, that's exactly right -- and that's how it's always been in modern America. And FWIW, there were even FEWER Americans who voted for Clinton in '96 than voted for Bush last night. If you're trying to make it sound as if Bush isn't "legitimate," you're dead wrong.
posted by davidmsc at 5:25 AM on November 3, 2004

DBA: because the scumbag is...Y O U
posted by ParisParamus at 5:25 AM on November 3, 2004

This is absolute bullshit. Those votes were rigged.
posted by Peter H at 5:25 AM on November 3, 2004

dand: Isn't that the truth? There's a brittle surface on these superior beings, so intent on lecturing everyone else, and once scratched, the bile just pours out.

Bitter, ironic laughter lurks on my lips.

The thing that most frustrates me about dealing with Bushite-followers is that you're all so profoundly un-self-examined. Really. You're so utterly incapable of perceiving your own actions and feelings accurately, that you have to project them onto others to make them visible. Use any of the Republican Conservative ur-punditry as your example -- Annie Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, ... it goes on -- spewing bile and hatred for years and occasionally trying to pass it off as humor, and then screaming "SEE!? SEE?! THOSE LIBERALS ARE FILLED WITH HATE! HATE! HATE!"

Well, yeah, Einstein, yeah, they are. We are. That's what you get when you get shovelfulls of hate dumped on you year after year after year. You start to hate back. Unless you're fucking Ghandi, you start to hate back.

The person we have at the root to thank for all of this is, ultimately, Pat Buchanan. Sure the roots can be traced back to Goldwater, but it was Buchanan that made the attack-dog style really work. Oddly enough, he looks classy and restratined in retrospect, or by comparison with the current crop of "big-lie" sleaze merchants fellow-travelling for the Republican machine.

Point being, this has been building for a long, long time, and it won't end now. The Republican establishment shall reap what it has sown. The problem for their opposition is that the harvest -- though profoundly toxic to America as we've been raised to know and love it -- it downright nutritious for the Rovian core of the Republican establishment. They would prefer to rule amongst the ruins of American culture and society, than to strive to make this country great. So if you're genuinely surprised to find people angry this morning, then dude, you're an idiot.

On preview: DBAPaul, that's a really good question. To answer it, you need to start by understanding that the model we superfically aspire to is far, far difference from the model to which we obtain. American culture is currently driven by the needs of a production and consumption system, which requires that the bulk of us be reduced to deeply neurotic units of consumption-function. They do this by pumping us full of religious moral fervor, then hyper-sexualizing our immediate environment; they do this by selling us the immorality of vice, and then in the next breath selling us the vice. They do this by confusing us, by making our priorities murkier.

DBAPaul, I don't know where you're from, but you're next, wherever it is. Take that as a warning from a guy with a lamp.
posted by lodurr at 5:28 AM on November 3, 2004

The thought of a country where people could do as they would, say what they would, be what they were, have freedom of choice where it didn't harm the majority, well, it was a nice dream for a couple of centuries.

:-(

This European is heartbroken. The country I twice tried to emigrate to, the country I grew up with is gone. But now that country is dead, or at the very least dying.
posted by tomcosgrave at 5:30 AM on November 3, 2004

I'll bet ya $100 right now that won't happen. Same reason as gay marriage, not enough popular support.

Gay marriage required legislation, and in particular, the amending of the very foundation of the country. Nobody gets popular support for that kind of shit.

Roe v. Wade, on the other hand, does not require oversight. All it requires is 5 conservative justices ruling on a newer case. The Senate and House will be used for some more of that good 'ol fashoined economic raping, but it's the judiciary that will win all their "moral" victories. Pledge of alliegance, prayer in school, flag-burning, abortion, etc.

It's gonna be a giant suck-fest for the next couple of decades. I hope we last as long without turning into Sparta.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:31 AM on November 3, 2004

The American people seem to have voted for Bush, folks. The hoodlum people will go back to resting now when they need be most watchful for their souls. But they will learn. What we need is to listen to Carl Sandburg on the subject:

The people yes
The people will live on.
The learning and blundering people will live on.
They will be tricked and sold and again sold
And go back to the nourishing earth for rootholds,
The people so peculiar in renewal and comeback,
You can't laugh off their capacity to take it.
The mammoth rests between his cyclonic dramas.

The people so often sleepy, weary, enigmatic,
is a vast huddle with many units saying:
"I earn my living.
I make enough to get by
and it takes all my time.
If I had more time
I could do more for myself
and maybe for others.
I could read and study
and talk things over
and find out about things.
It takes time.
I wish I had the time."

The people is a tragic and comic two-face: hero and hoodlum:
phantom and gorilla twisting to moan with a gargoyle mouth:
"They buy me and sell me...it's a game...sometime I'll
break loose..."

...

In the darkness with a great bundle of grief
the people march.
In the night, and overhead a shovel of stars for keeps, the people
march:
"Where to? what next?"
posted by Zurishaddai at 5:32 AM on November 3, 2004

I'm more deflated by the gay marriage votes than the presidential race. These referendums weren't just about reserving marriage for a man and a woman; they also deny gays the right to form civil unions and deny gay families health care access, survivor rights and the ability to make lifesaving medical decisions for each other.

So if a gay couple has a child, the non-birthing partner has less legal rights than a grandparent. They could swoop in and lay claim to their grandchild, even if they have no relationship with their own child. Read this Atlanta Journal-Constitution column for one devastating consequence, among many, to come from these votes.

Thanks, red states.
posted by rcade at 5:32 AM on November 3, 2004

Foolish me! I meant to say I welcome our insect overlords with open arms and Raid at the ready!
Most people who talk about leaving the country after the vote should probably just go. I just want to see how Episode Three of "Stormship Troopers" plays out. I wonder how many of the folks who want to leave have actually been to a school board meeting, or a zoning board meeting, or even know the locals in their party.
Oh, and Mattd - those gays shouldn't be so uppity now, should they? I mean we all know social change must be glacial and evolutionary, right? Not itching for a fight, but just wondering about your context. What kind of time frame should the 'gay agenda' have? Do you mean everyone else fought long and hard and so should they? Is this a dues paying issue?
posted by TomSophieIvy at 5:33 AM on November 3, 2004

kerry needs to concede ... it's not going to do the country any good to drag it out

bush needs to realize that his support is not that great, nor is it unconditional ... he's been reelected to govern not to shove his agenda down our throats ... which will not work

the hotheads need to shut up ... riots in the streets, my ass

and most important of all ... the democrats need to ask themselves ... how do we get white working class people voting for us again? ... what do they want? ... what do they need? ... and why don't they believe we can give it to them?

what can we say to convince them that leftist positions are based on morality, too?
posted by pyramid termite at 5:36 AM on November 3, 2004

[Social Security] was always going away. The demographics aren't sustainable....

I hear crap like this a lot. Oh, it's not crap on the raw numbers: The model isn't sustainable, that's true. But in just dismissing the whole system by saying that the modality by which it's delivered is not sustainable is profoundly disingenuouus: The real agenda is to eliminate the idea of social security. Crap like this is just intended to damn the concept by dissing the implementation.

After all, it's immoral (in the neo-Calvinist worldview that seems incresaingly to drive contemporary American moral thought) for people to support other people unless those peopel are moral or -- frankly -- class equals. That's the true crime of Social Security, when you strip away the rhetoric: That my contributions might support someone I don't "morally" agree with.

The unpleasant truth of the matter is that American society as we currently know it -- and that includes the way business and pay structures work in America, and our current standards of living, etc. -- are all dependent on Social Security. Incidentally, it fascinates and amazes me that Bushite and neo-Calvinist economists haven't figured this out. Eliminate social welfare programs, and American society as we have come to expect it to exist will collapse. These neo-Calvinists utterly and profoundly fail to understand how fundamental governmental social welfare is to the society they enjoy, or how profoundly their elimination will change the society they profess to love.

But hey, this is not a group known for rational analysis.
posted by lodurr at 5:37 AM on November 3, 2004

bush needs to realize that his support is not that great, nor is it unconditional ...

Yeah, right. Remember, he lost the election in '00, and he didn't realize that then -- why would he realize now, with an even stronger mandate and the benefit of four years of positive reinforcement in his Adminsitrative echo-chamber?
posted by lodurr at 5:39 AM on November 3, 2004

Well, I hope you guys enjoy your four more wars. Then again as a guy who lives in Canada and therefore gets paid in Canadian currency I can only applaud the electoral results -- both in the electoral college and the popular vote, apparently -- as it means greater purchasing power for myself.
posted by clevershark at 5:40 AM on November 3, 2004

Also, what lodurr said. There's no way the White House will NOT see the election as a strong mandate.
posted by clevershark at 5:41 AM on November 3, 2004

rcade: ... they also deny gays the right to form civil unions...

Actually, Rogers, it's worse than that: They mostly deny the right of anybody to form civil unions. The point is to prevent any alternative conception of marriage, at least in Michigan.

These fuckers went for broke, man.

The only workable counter-attack is a series of ballot initiatives outlawing divorce. Let's see what happens after a few years of that....
posted by lodurr at 5:42 AM on November 3, 2004

Is there any other election where the votes counted have no similarity to the exit polls? These results were rigged.
posted by Peter H at 5:42 AM on November 3, 2004

lodurr ... that's what he needs to realize for the good of the country ... i'm rather pessimistic about his doing so
posted by pyramid termite at 5:42 AM on November 3, 2004

> All it requires is 5 conservative justices ruling on a newer case

What the people want, the people get. If 60%-70%-80% of the people strongly oppose something, it ain't happenin, court or not.

$100 stands: RvW is NOT repealed. Abortion remains legal, despite strong minority opposed.

No draft, either.
posted by dand at 5:42 AM on November 3, 2004

The only good thing about this appalling nitwit being reelected is this...and it's a bitter way to look at things...now his adminstration will have to fix the problems themselves. With the President and the Congress now Republican, no one else can take the blame. Least of all the Democrats. And in four years, that may be a good thing. If Kerry had made it in, he would have had to fix Bush's f*ckups. Now, the d*mned neocons can drown in quicksand of their own making.

That being said, I'm not sure America will be smarter four years from now. I'm not going to count on it.
posted by Beansidhe at 5:45 AM on November 3, 2004

Bush has won the popular vote because of the gay marriage amendments.

Millions turned out to vote against homosexual unions, and while they were there, conveniently voted for Bush.

No thought of foreign policy, of consequence, of conquest.

The homosexual gambit has paid off. America has lost.
posted by four panels at 5:45 AM on November 3, 2004

> Crap like this is just intended to damn the concept by dissing the implementation.

I agree: Most concepts ARE pretty good till you have to implement them. Too bad everyone can't have everything, or small groups really could fund larger groups indefinitely.

How high did you find the tax would be to keep SS running forever?
posted by dand at 5:51 AM on November 3, 2004

> and most important of all ... the democrats need to ask themselves ...
> how do we get white working class people voting for us again? ... what
> do they want? ... what do they need? ... and why don't they believe we can
> give it to them?

I could bring myself to give up the fundie right if you guys could bring yourselves to abandon the Barbara Streisand left. But I'm not, y'know, holding my breath.
posted by jfuller at 5:54 AM on November 3, 2004

> You start to hate back.

Hey Loadie, time for some therapy.

Ya see, hate ties you to the object you hate. Its a feedback loop. Dangerous stuff, that hatin' is, you'll just be knotted up.

Now I hated all the anti-Bush posts on Metafilter. But I knew my day would come. Today, I get to watch your meltdown in real time. I'm dancing a jig with every fit.

Your day, however, is not going come.

Bush will remain 4 more years. He's not gonna be impeached. He's not even gonna be restrained; they picked up seats in Congress, and won the popular vote.

You can FPP here till the cows come home, but it will matter even less than the last couple year's worth of spew. Your opponents are hardening to your rhetoric. "Oh, Bush is an idiot, yeah yeah".

The righties had to learn that with Clinton; nobody listened after a while. Now you should learn that nobody listened to you about Bush, and just give it up. Ya wasted your time, cut the losses.
posted by dand at 6:06 AM on November 3, 2004

I could bring myself to give up the fundie right if you guys could bring yourselves to abandon the Barbara Streisand left.

Mildly clever sound bite. But what does it actually mean?
posted by Slothrup at 6:07 AM on November 3, 2004

Someone else said / posted it well. We must move on. Act local. Do good in your local community. Above all; don't, in your despondency, become what you most despise.

i gave blood after i finished voting. it was the first time in 10 years that i'd done so. i was feeling optimistic. i don't know what to think now. at least one thing i did yesterday will help someone, i guess.

i was looking forward to a nation more united and less divided. guess i should have remembered that this nation is huge, and lots of areas are pretty contentious. given our history it seems the only way we can unite is if we're attacked.

so maybe i don't want us to be united again after all. the last time we were united, all it got us was a theocracy.

so the presidential election, it's still not completely in the bag - no concession speeches yet, no recounts have been completed. but i think even more than the presidential election the anti-homo stance makes me feel the worst for our future. i think i'll get myself a tee shirt that says "America Hates Fags". boy, will i ever be popular then. the majority of americans will give me the thumbs-up. great.

we'll see how the fallout from this ends up... i forsee a lot of people leaving the gay-hating areas. i do so hope that it backfires. i do so hope that the states that voted against human rights are hurt by the intolerance they so wanted to add.

so, great. i now live in a state that amended its constitution to show that we hate fags and yet we grant consititutional protection to casinos. hooray for democracy.

at least on the electoral vote map my state is blue.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:09 AM on November 3, 2004

I'm not really sure that's analogous, jfuller. The Democratic Party is the traditional party of the big tent, meaning everyone is welcome to come along, for good or for bad. I'm not exactly sure what it means to abandon the Hollywood left (which believe me, if we could do it, I would urge it). When you are up against a (seemingly from the outside), monolithic and strong GOP, you take any help where you can get it. It's hard to abandon a group that brings their own cash and their own microphone, even if it were possible.

From a purely spiteful standpoint, part of me does hope that the fundies get everything they want in the next four years. If nothing else, it would teach all those moderate republicans that it really does matter who you climb in bed with. Imagine if the Democrats came out next January, and said, "with this mandate, I'm not sure how we can oppose the banning of abortion." You'd hear anguished screams from the Philly main-line all the way to the OC.
posted by psmealey at 6:12 AM on November 3, 2004

Come on, people, don't give up. Out of a country of 300 million people, Bush got a little over 58 million votes. There are such things as pressuring existing governments to do what you want them to do. There are such things as impeachments. There are good people among Bush's administration - they may be beleaguered, but they are there. There are people like Michael Moore who came out of nowhere and have come to wield a lot of influence. There are things that can be done.
posted by orange swan at 6:13 AM on November 3, 2004

Sure, orange swan, all of those things are true. But last night demonstrated to me that the most powerful issue for a substantial plurality of voters is this: avoid teh gay.

And that's depressing.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:18 AM on November 3, 2004

With the President and the Congress now Republican, no one else can take the blame.

Hasn't that been the case for the last 4 years though?
posted by clevershark at 6:20 AM on November 3, 2004

Sadly elections in a democracy or a republic are not decided by who is smart or stupid, right or wrong. They're decided by who can round up the greatest number of dupes and prod them to the polls. This state of affairs has been a long time coming. The politicians in Western democracies started to give up on truth as an ideal in the 1950's, and the tipping point was reached in the 1980's. With Bush's victory, truth has become officially irrelevant. Perception alone stands supreme. Almost no politician shows the slightest guilt about saying anything whatsoever, however obviously wrong it is, in order to get elected. Those who retain a conscience about the concept of truth are forced out. The system has become faith-based (where you choose to accept something or not based on whether it emotionally appeals to you), not reality-based. This is why 100 million Americans voted "whatever": because the system is so obviously, thoroughly, rotten.

This is what's wrong with your society (and to a lesser extent, mine): you've all but given up on truth and consensus in public discourse. The purpose of intelligent discussion is to convince all reasonable participants to accept a point of view. The flaw in liberalism--the flaw that has allowed ignorant idiots and lying assholes to turn liberalism into a dirty word--is the idea of "respect" for a "deeply-held" opinion such as a religious or political belief. This is not respect, it is cowardice, and it has allowed demonstrably wrong-headed beliefs to prosper because it has removed them from serious examination.

This horrible idea, the failure to engage error, the "every child wins a prize" approach to education and public discourse, has encouraged slapheaded wingnuts like RavinDave's custodian to stay stupid. RavinDave clearly proved the woman wrong, but, because of her upbringing in a society where all ideas are considered equally worthy and thus equally unworthy, she felt herself entitled to keep those wrong opinions. She didn't have any reason for believing gays marrying was a threat to her, or that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 - because there aren't any such reasons.

So why do people do it? Because it's easier to keep thinking the same way, to be a stupid person. Taking the low road, letting any contrary evidence sink down into the mental shitmire - it takes no effort. You can just do something else, ignore the inconvenient fact, and it will cease to bother you. Or you can deflect your energy away from thought, into giggling, sneering or shouting at the person who presents the contrary opinion. This is why there's so damn many stupid people, and so few who actually think: the social environment lets them get away without being challenged.

I'm not advocating forcing people to accept one opinion over another against their better judgement, or shouting people down if they express ideas against the prevailing trends. I'm advocating them dusting off their better judgement and using it for once. If you think something, no matter what it is, you ought to be able to say it (because an idea can't be examined unless it is expressed), and say why you think it. If you can't say why, you ought to have the self-discipline to admit that it's a "gut feeling". Either way, you ought to have the honesty to examine evidence for and against and admit any flaws in your argument, and the courage to change your mind if you are wrong.

This--the public exercising their natural intelligence--won't lead to a wholesale adoption of currently-fashionable liberal ideas, or the wholesale abandonment of everything the Republican Party stands for. (Though maybe most of the latter.) What it will lead to is policy that's brought up for clear and rational reasons, has its potential consequences critiqued, and that goes into effect with the informed consent of the people. Unlike now.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:21 AM on November 3, 2004

There's talk of a mandate for Bush, but for what? Did people turn out in record numbers because of the war, or because they hate gay people?

According to this story linked last night by a guy called allaboutgeorge, it was both.

It claims that 80% of those who thought "moral values" was the most important issue voted for Bush, and 85% who said it was terrorism. Most of the people who support the war mean the war on "terrorism", and don't distinguish between that and Iraq.

With the religious crazies and the easily-frightened going for Bush, it's already a close election. Add in the usual crowd who for various reasons always vote for the Republican or against the "liberal" no matter what, and Bush has the 30% support it takes win an election.

Moral values and terrorism. When the people think the campaign is about ineffable abstractions like those, anything factual or concrete doesn't seem to matter.
posted by sfenders at 6:24 AM on November 3, 2004

time for some therapy.

for you as well: you sign up, then (luckily for us) disappear from the site, and finally come back only to post in "Bush won" threads 15+ or 20+ "neener-neener" comments. are you, like, nine?
posted by matteo at 6:24 AM on November 3, 2004

Bush got more votes than Reagan. I love it!
posted by ParisParamus at 6:25 AM on November 3, 2004

I don't think that George Bush is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil, and I don't think that John Kerry is a communist traitor. I know that puts me in the approx. 0% of metafilter members who don't have a strong opinion, but what can I say? I think that both candidates were overwhelmingly ambitious (you, of course, would have to be to want to run for president), and both of them are trying to do what they think is the right thing for the country.

Furthermore, the republic survived Nixon, Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan (barely!) and Herbert Hoover, and we will survive 4 more years of Bush. (no, I didn't vote for him).

The thing that I am interested in is that the democratic party really, really needs to start trying to figure out how to get elected without being the junior republicans that they are trying to be.

Or maybe the republicans have started winning by being junior democrats, I don't know. What I do know, is that there are LOTS of things that neither party really wants to talk about (i.e. trade deficits, entitlement reform, etc).

Instead, we spend our time calling one party's candidate a "chimp", and the other parties candidate a "Euro-Weenie" and totally avoiding any substantive debate.

I don't think that the level of discourse in american politics has ever been particularly high, but until there is a real, substantive debate, we are just going to continue muddling along like we have for the past few elections.
posted by stupidcomputernickname at 6:27 AM on November 3, 2004

Yeah, and Reagan got more votes than Jefferson. The population has grown a bit.
posted by psmealey at 6:28 AM on November 3, 2004

Bush has won the popular vote because of the gay marriage amendments.

You are 100% correct. In Ohio, even in counties that lost thousands upon thousands of jobs, Bush still won the counties. Why, because the #1 or #2 issue on their minds was 'moral values', which is obviously just code for 'we hate gays'. Bush won Ohio and thus the election because he was able to bring out the hate vote.
posted by graventy at 6:29 AM on November 3, 2004

Millions turned out to vote against homosexual unions, and while they were there, conveniently voted for Bush.

Arkansas: 54% Bush, 75% pro-amendment.
Georgia: 59% Bush, 77% pro-amendment.
Kentucky: 60% Bush, 75% pro-amendment.
Michigan: 48% Bush (state went to Kerry), 59% pro-amendment.
Mississippi -- 60% Bush, 86% pro-amendment.
Montana: 59% Bush, 66% pro-amendment.
North Dakota: 63% Bush, 79% pro-amendment.
Ohio: ~51% Bush, 62% pro-amendment.
Oklahoma: 66% Bush, 76% pro-amendment.
Utah: 71% Bush, 66% pro-amendment.

Democrats, and in some cases (Arkansas, Georgia & Mississippi) a very large number of Democrats were a big part of every amendment's passage.

I'm not exactly sure what it means to abandon the Hollywood left (which believe me, if we could do it, I would urge it).

Well, let's see, start with rejecting the re-election candidacy of any lawmaker who does not represent any portion of California yet accepts "advice" faxes from California dwelling celebrities, large cash donations from California dwelling celebrities (thankfully this was the case in Kentucky) or travels around with celebrities as endorsers. Work from there.
posted by Dreama at 6:29 AM on November 3, 2004

Ya see, hate ties you to the object you hate. Its a feedback loop. Dangerous stuff, that hatin' is, you'll just be knotted up.

Now I hated all the anti-Bush posts on Metafilter. But I knew my day would come. Today, I get to watch your meltdown in real time. I'm dancing a jig with every fit.

Your day, however, is not going come.

So, you don't think that your first bit of "friendly advice" is just a tad disingenuous, in light of the following paragraphs?

Gloating is unattractive, dand. Of course, I can't stop you from doing whatever the fuck you want -- it's a "free" country, as we used to say here in America -- so you can indulge in disingenuousness and hypocrisy to your tiny heart's content. You can gloat all you want. But if you genuinely believe that people won't get angry at you for it, then you're an idiot. And if you genuinely believe that they ought not get angry at you for it -- that it's somehow morally wrong for them, us, to get angry at you for gloating like a preening skunk, and morally right for you in turn to gloat like a preening skunk -- then you're really not worth having a discussion with. Because you'll clearly always redefine your own terms to define yourself as the winner of any argument.

And hey, I guess that's what creating your own reality is all about. So more fucking power to you. I do pity your grandchildren, though.
posted by lodurr at 6:30 AM on November 3, 2004

The thing that I am interested in is that the democratic party really, really needs to start trying to figure out how to get elected without being the junior republicans that they are trying to be.

As much as I'd like that, I'd like more to see a major realignment (if not a third party). Try to move the socially progressive, but fiscally responsible elements of both parties together. Like a McCain/Dean faction. Yeah, I know, it's unlikely, but today is a day for optimism.
posted by psmealey at 6:31 AM on November 3, 2004

Word up, aeschenkarnos.

You elect it, you have to live with it, America. Best of luck for all concerned.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:31 AM on November 3, 2004

> are you, like, nine?

Matteo, you guys ran off all the fun and funky people that gave Metafilter its character in 1999. Its just an echo chamber for Bush bashing now. But now Bush rants only draw 4 comments? tsk-tsk

> then (luckily for us) disappear from the site

The quality of material your cyber sisters post left little choice.
posted by dand at 6:41 AM on November 3, 2004

davidmsc: If you're trying to make it sound as if Bush isn't "legitimate," you're dead wrong.

It's interesting that you jumped to this possible conclusion (attempt to delegitimize Bush presumed victory by being passive aggressive toward the current voting system)..because quite frankly and evidently I haven't mentioned neither Bush or Kerry nor Martian Emperor in my post. In other words , could it be that the last months of spinning and counterspinning, propaganda and counterpropaganda are making you see attacks everywhere ?

I make no secret of the fact I favoured Kerry over Bush when it comes to the "debates" they held in MiamiU and other places..what troubles me is that favouring one side these days is going to color me as "enemy of the other" as if holding a diverse opinion is grounds for immediate rejection and antagonization.

What is further troubling is that the 1/4 of population indirectly ruling the country could hold such an antagonistic stance that their representatives (which are -country- representatives, NOT only representatives of their 1/4 supporters) may be as well antagonistic against the remaining 3/4.
posted by elpapacito at 6:41 AM on November 3, 2004

I just realized that this is finally giving the lie to that "if the Redskins lose the game before the election" streak.
posted by alumshubby at 6:44 AM on November 3, 2004

You elect it, you have to live with it, America.

I didn't elect him, and neither did about 48% of the electorate, but yeah, we do have to live with it.

But instead of pissing and moaning, we gotta look at what we can learn from this. Next time we gotta reach out to the red states and somehow convince them that the Republican program is not in their best interests, which is true. The "metro" and rust belt base was not enough to carry the election. But even in a lot of the red states Kerry had more that 40% of the vote which gives me some hope, that at least this wasn't a coronation a la Reagan. I predict that after 4 more years of this Nimrod, we will be ready for a Democratic president, simply because of the damage he's done.

What we gotta do now is either find or groom a candidate with the requisite cahrisma and coalition-building skills to pull it off. So quit being crybabies.
posted by jonmc at 6:44 AM on November 3, 2004

I rise in opposition of this bill, but I would like to clarify something. We're not trying to scare kids, this president's foreign policy is what's scaring the kids of this country. And if people had said today, why are people believing this? Why are people believing this 'big Internet hoax'?

Well, [these are the same people that] told us Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, same people that told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, same people that told us we were going to be able to use the oil for reconstruction money, same people that told us that we'd be greeted as liberators, not occupiers, same people, same president that told us the Taliban is gone, same president that told us that Poland is our ally two days before they pull out, same president that tells us Iraq is going just great, same president that tells us the economy is going just great, same people that told us the tax cut was going to create millions of jobs. Same people that told us that the Medicare program only cost $400 billion, when it really cost $540 billion. So please forgive us for not believing what you're saying! Please forgive the students of this country for not believing what you're saying. Not one thing, not one thing about this war that has been told to the American people, that's been told to these college students has been true. Not one thing. Bremer says we need more troops, the Pentagon says we need more troops, and this president can't get them from the international community. There's only one option left [the draft]. Let's be honest with the American people.

~Tim Ryan (D) of Ohio. video here if you haven't seen it. I think he spells out nicely why everyone in america lost yesterday.
posted by mcsweetie at 6:46 AM on November 3, 2004

nice post, aeschenkarnos ... if our country's ever going to get back on the right track, people on both sides of the aisle have got to be willing to seriously question themselves and what they believe

i don't see much sign they're willing to
posted by pyramid termite at 6:48 AM on November 3, 2004

I hate the "every child wins a prize" culture and I wouldn't be surprised if it impacts elections. I'd love to have smarter voters and, who knows, maybe they would vote for Democrats.

However, it was liberals who were/are detracking schools, making GATE programs recognize "multiple intelligences," eliminating class rankings, multiculturalizing the curriculum, opposing school choice, reducing the pure-test-based selectivity of elite public schools, and, for God's sake, banning dodgeball.

If you want to have some more smart adults, you ought to start with religning our school's incentives and priorities towards intelligence.
posted by MattD at 6:49 AM on November 3, 2004

"I could bring myself to give up the fundie right if you guys could bring yourselves to abandon the Barbara Streisand left. But I'm not, y'know, holding my breath."

Am I the only one who read "Barbara Streisand left" as the gays?
posted by fullerine at 6:50 AM on November 3, 2004

elpapacito, better get used to the idea that if you're not for them, you're against them. It's readily apparent to our foreign investors and domestic policymakers. It will become even more so over the next year as Rove & Co. start setting their post-election plans forward, with the apparent mandate of the country.
posted by FormlessOne at 6:51 AM on November 3, 2004

Why, because the #1 or #2 issue on their minds was 'moral values', which is obviously just code for 'we hate gays'.

Oh, it is? I'm glad you have that all figured out. The "hate vote"? Please. You're an idiot.

A great day indeed for MetaFilter.
posted by Witty at 6:53 AM on November 3, 2004

JonMC -- you ought to worry about the high-40s of the vote that Bush got in some very politically correct places, in many cases with no help from organized GOTV at all -- and there aren't many Evangelicals in New Jersey that I know of.

And that's to say nothing of all the moderates of correct address who support most-to-all of the Bush agenda but just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Bush because of their personal distaste for the man.

I suspect that they'd find it a lot easier to vote for any one of 100 Republican prospects who are just as urbane and articulate as any Democrat you could name.

If Terry McAuliffe is still sitting in the DNC on Friday, that'll tell me all I need to know about Democrat resolve to win.
posted by MattD at 6:55 AM on November 3, 2004

Yes, it is a vote for hate, dipshit. What the fuck else could it be?

A great day for dipshit dumbfuck motherfuckers like you to gloat and sing as the country burns to the ground.
posted by graventy at 6:56 AM on November 3, 2004

jonmc: -- But instead of pissing and moaning, we gotta look at what we can learn from this.

I learned that the DNC doesn't give a fig about what membership thinks, that they have a borderline psychotic tendency to repeat the same mistakes and expect different results, and we all know that no matter what anybody wants, they will run Hillary Clinton in '08 and you will get a creepy feeling of deja vu on that election night.

Frankly, I'm focusing on one of the Olsen twins in 2020.
posted by RavinDave at 6:57 AM on November 3, 2004

I could bring myself to give up the fundie right if you guys could bring yourselves to abandon the Barbara Streisand left. But I'm not, y'know, holding my breath.

some life advice: basing decisions and opinions on whether or not you like the people who have made similar choices is, if you'll pardon the alliteration, super duper damn dumb.

Am I the only one who read "Barbara Streisand left" as the gays?

nope.
posted by mcsweetie at 6:58 AM on November 3, 2004

Witty, your righteous indignation would ring truer if you didn't have such a history of flame-baiting.

That said, equating the "moral values" vote with the "I hate gays" vote is more or less completely mistaken.

The most heartening point that I've seen so far is that Bush's "mandate" constitutes an endorsement by something like 18% of the American populace...
posted by lodurr at 6:58 AM on November 3, 2004

What graventy said.

My sig other was crying this morning because she couldn't believe people turned out to be so afraid, so lured in by a school-yard bully. I'm not surprised, given the idiotic gloating and face fucking going on in this thread.
posted by tr33hggr at 7:00 AM on November 3, 2004

Okay, so... all those opposed to four more years of tax cuts for the super-wealthy? All those opposed to ending a woman's right to choose? All those opposed to a mandate to invade any country that profits the administration's backers? And those opposed to "privatizing" (i.e. ending) Social Security? And those opposed to clearcutting what's left of America's pristine forests?

No one? NO ONE? Oh, well, a few, but not nearly enough? Not enough to stop an idiot? Not enough to stop a warmonger and a misogynist and a total fuckup who gave us EVERY opportunity to capitalize on his unprecedented buffoonery?

This is the last time I trust a Democrat to save the US. People, it was a give away. We were the biggest chumps of all. But now it doesn't matter. The bastards have four years of all three houses. And the supreme court.

America is going to get exactly the government she deserves. May she choke to death on it and shatter like glass in a hail of shrapnel.
posted by squirrel at 7:01 AM on November 3, 2004

Because everyone should... accept the fact that it's not about the issues.

I think it's more about the issues than you realize, especially for evangelicals. Not all of us are crazy about Bush, but the abortion and homosexual issues make a vote for Bush 100 times more sure than a Kerry vote. Such is the case with most of my brothers and sisters in Christ.

One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society
posted by aaronshaf at 7:02 AM on November 3, 2004

JonMC -- you ought to worry about the high-40s of the vote that Bush got in some very politically correct places, in many cases with no help from organized GOTV at all -- and there aren't many Evangelicals in New Jersey that I know of.

No, but there is a lot of money in NJ, which is what drives GOPers in those states. Maybe those people should worry that without re-election to worry about, W's fundy side will overtake his money side.

History will bear me out. After 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush, people had had enough and We got 4 years of Clinton, a moderately liberal Democrat who could communicate with both the metro and retro bases, which was just fine with me.

We need an image overhaul and we need to expand our base. Quit worrying about the blue states, we already have 'em.

Frankly, I'm focusing on one of the Olsen twins in 2020.

Keep that between you and the preist in confession.
posted by jonmc at 7:05 AM on November 3, 2004

Bush won Ohio and thus the election because he was able to bring out the hate vote.

It wasn't Bush who brought out the hate vote. It was the Democrats, whose celebrity endorsement strategy backfired bigtime. There were lots of decent, borderline evangelicals who might have voted for Kerry, if he hadn't been obnoxiously and aggressively promoted by everyone from Eminem to Whoopi Goldberg to the union of porn stars, whom even non-bigots might find hard to swallow. If these people had shut up, maybe more of the mainstream would have felt more comfortable voting for Kerry. I know I (an Ohioan) would have.
posted by Faze at 7:05 AM on November 3, 2004

Has anyone else noticed that the places directly affected by the terrorist attacks of 9/11 -- the people who had the greatest excuse for letting their "fear of terrorism" dictate their vote -- the ones who might be beguiled by the bogus "only Bush can save you from OBL" meme -- that all these states voted for Kerry?
posted by RavinDave at 7:06 AM on November 3, 2004

... between you and the preist ...

Christ, aren't they legal yet? (Not that I really care -- personally, I find them kind of repulsive...)
posted by lodurr at 7:08 AM on November 3, 2004

I can understand why people are making these "America asked for it" comments, but they aren't constructive, or even really fair.

Again, Bush got the votes of 58.3 million out of over 300 million. You don't need to just roll over and let him screw you for the next four years. Please start thinking about what can be done to make things better. I would love to see what a few thousand MeFites can come up with.
posted by orange swan at 7:10 AM on November 3, 2004

Conventional wisdom is that an election such as this is a referendum on the incumbent. Since Bush's approval rating hovered around 48-49%, conventional wisdom would have had Kerry win the election 51-48 or 50-49. Instead, about 2-3% of the electorate voted for Bush despite not being particularly enthusiastic about his performance.

Since they did in fact vote for Bush, they didn't think he was the stupid, evil, the worst president ever, or a "fucking scumbag." However, opinions such as these were prevalent among mainstream Kerry supporters.

When this small group of people finally decided to align themselves with a candidate, they also had to align themselves with that candidate's supporters. How could they stand with people who considered them complete idiots for even considering a vote for Bush?

Think about yourself. Don't you feel some sort of comfort level with the "kind of people" that also support Kerry? These swing voters can't. On the Bush side, however, they slipped comfortably into the "we honor his service, but he's not resolute enough for the job" position.

(In the last 6 months, I think Bush's numbers were at their highest when people took to the streets in NY to protest the Republican convention. I am sure that an inability to relate with the protesters -- not to mention "Bush = Hitler" or "Bush knew about 9-11" signs -- drove that too.)
posted by probablysteve at 7:11 AM on November 3, 2004

Those states have been through the terrorism. You can't scare people with shadowy bogeymen when people already know what the shadows look like.
posted by casarkos at 7:11 AM on November 3, 2004

I prefer to hate with an enduring passion each and every person who cast a vote for Bush.

That is an appalling, depressing, disturbing, misanthropic, dangerous and unproductive attitude.

And I agree with you completely. I will never forget and I will never forgive.

You owe me $10 (he said sadly).
posted by rushmc at 7:12 AM on November 3, 2004

Graventy: Yes, it is a vote for hate, dipshit. What the fuck else could it be?

So very intelligent.
posted by Jase_B at 7:15 AM on November 3, 2004

And I agree with you completely. I will never forget and I will never forgive.

Yeah, let's widen the chasms and make the polarization worse. That's worked great for us so far.

Please just because the GOP wants to be that way dosen't mean we need to.
posted by jonmc at 7:16 AM on November 3, 2004

The thing that I am interested in is that the democratic party really, really needs to start trying to figure out how to get elected without being the junior republicans that they are trying to be.

It interesting how the election is always defined in terms of how the Democrats need to identify themselves. It's always about what we did. Always about what we said. Always about the mean things we said about the other guy. Horse shit. We didn't just finish off a platform of how certain people are a moral abomination.

What makes this election so scary isn't simply the GOP victory, which is mere partisanship. It's the fact that, just last night, Pat Buchanan's 1992 vision of the Republican Party finally came into the light.

I watched MSNBC from 6:30 to 2:00 AM straight through. With possibly an occasional blurb, they didn't mention the war. They didn't mention bin Laden. They didn't mention any of the PNAC/neocon foreign policy. It was as if the war in Iraq suddenly didn't exist.

It was all domestic. Moral issues. The gay marriage bans. Scaring evangelicals to go out and vote. Logic like Faze's is moronic- these voters don't hate Whoopi Goldberg, they hate homosexuals.

And there is no room for argument on that term- hate. Not in the sense of some of these ballot initiatives. To say two people can't have rights- that they can't share benefits, inheritances, control over the custody of their own children- to say they don't deserve that is hate.

If Bush had to win, I would rather he had won a landslide, allowing moderate Republicans to join in on the victory party. Instead, it's a condensed victory to be claimed by a selective few within GOP ranks based on a singlular issue of intense right-wing concern. Bush used his neocon foreign agenda to get his paleocon domestic agenda approved.

This wasn't a victory for supporters of war, it was a victory for opponents of civil liberties. The Guys With Websites should be furious that George Bush proved last night he didn't give a fuck about defending them from terror; he cared about defending them from those dirty, dirty homos.

It's obvious that Republicans are going to celebrate Bush winning here and everywhere else. Are they really happy, though, that the GOP finally became the God Hates Fags party that for twelve years prior had merely been a stereotype?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:17 AM on November 3, 2004

...Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. ...

... And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
posted by seanyboy at 7:18 AM on November 3, 2004

I'm late to the table because I actually went to sleep last night. Drema's analysis is quite correct. The push by the gay lobby to force so-called "gay marriage" down America's throat forced a backlash, and now we reap what we sow. Rather than live with civil unions that gave homosexuals most of what they needed, the gay lobby had to push to change society itself. Guess what? Society ain't playing. And when the Massachusetts Supreme Court showed states that their legislation could be overruled, they upped the ante and amended their constitutions.

Some quick bites from the last 12 hours of rants:

Shut up. I've just had my relationships de-legitimized in 11 states ...
Relationships? Isn't this part of the problem?

I look forward to the upcoming Gay Brain Drain from these states. You might not think those pansies are valuable now, but wait until your university professors, bankers and hair stylists move out.
This had to be a joke comment, right? You're kidding. Losing a few university professors, ATM jockeys and hairstylists isn't going to wreck my state's economy. What a laugher.

I'm more deflated by the gay marriage votes than the presidential race. These referendums weren't just about reserving marriage for a man and a woman; they also deny gays the right to form civil unions and deny gay families health care access, survivor rights and the ability to make lifesaving medical decisions for each other.
Rights homosexuals had in most of these states until you overreached and tried to change the very fabric of society. You push too hard, you get pushed back.
Oh, and if you're gay, you still have the "right" to get married ... as long as the person you're marrying is of the opposite sex. You haven't lost that right.

So if a gay couple has a child, the non-birthing partner has less legal rights than a grandparent.
Gay couples shouldn't be having children. It's a selfish act. Study after study has shown that the best environment for a child to grow up in is the traditional intact male-female family. Most homosexuals I know who have adopted children think they're doing something noble, but within a year or two it's apparent it's an ego-gratification action.
posted by darren at 7:20 AM on November 3, 2004

Hey, this is cool. I get to be a CANADIAN now!! WOOOOO
posted by Eekacat at 7:22 AM on November 3, 2004

Things do fall apart. And afterwards they regroup, coalescing into something else.
posted by orange swan at 7:24 AM on November 3, 2004

Oh, and if you're gay, you still have the "right" to get married ... as long as the person you're marrying is of the opposite sex. You haven't lost that right.

Oh shut the fuck up. Seriously. Just shut the fuck up.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:24 AM on November 3, 2004

darren, 1962: "you still have the right to get married, just as long as it ain't to a nigger!"
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:26 AM on November 3, 2004

Gay couples shouldn't be having children. It's a selfish act. Study after study has shown that the best environment for a child to grow up in is the traditional intact male-female family. Most homosexuals I know who have adopted children think they're doing something noble, but within a year or two it's apparent it's an ego-gratification action.

Show me the numerous studies please.
posted by dig_duggler at 7:27 AM on November 3, 2004

darren, the only tiny sliver of a point in your entire screed, was that pressing the gay issues too hard caused a backlash. The rest is anti-gay screed. I personally believe gay marraige will come, but it'll happen through the courts.

I know that most gay people I know are frustrated by the suggestion that soft-pedaling and pussyfooting around is the way to gain the rights they want and I agree with them, but it's an issue that cost the Dems a lot of votes because we made it a centerpiece of the election.

My main worry right now is that instead of mobilizing and reaching out, the American left is going to become more bitter, smug and sanctimonious, which is only going to make things worse.
posted by jonmc at 7:28 AM on November 3, 2004

What a fucking yawn this thread has become. Things don't go your (not directed at anyone in particular) way and you care so much about this country you're going to leave? I cannot imagine why that kind of elitism didn't catch fire this year. If you honestly care, stay and fight for what you believe in. Honestly, you Yankee fans (and West Coasters) take one bad beat and you're ready to hang yourselves.
posted by yerfatma at 7:29 AM on November 3, 2004

My main worry right now is that instead of mobilizing and reaching out, the American left is going to become more bitter, smug and sanctimonious, which is only going to make things worse.

God, I know, jonmc. Imagine if a party representing about half the electorate acted as though their opponents had no say in policy decisions whatsoever and just continued to push item after item of an agenda serving only the most radical end of their base, mocking them as out of touch with normal America.

That would suck.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:31 AM on November 3, 2004

Absolutely, jonmc.
posted by orange swan at 7:31 AM on November 3, 2004

Darren: I've looked at a number of those "studies after stuidies, and they're mostly pretty poor quality. As a student of anthropology, I know that there are many different forms to the human family. The studies you cite are designed to validate our form.

what am I talking about... sorry... i was thinking as though we still lived in a reality-based world. Carry on...
posted by lodurr at 7:33 AM on November 3, 2004

The thing I find most dismaying is that in this, the greatest nation on earth, with 300 million people, we can only find these two jokers to run the show? What is it about being president that the only people who want the job are so, um, "sub-optimal"? It seems anyone having real leadership qualities will always choose to do something else like, say, run a company or organize a charity. Perhaps we should draft our government, instead of voting for anyone foolish enough to run for office?

"Dear Ms. Schomwiszieki,

This letter is to inform you that you have been drafted as our next president. We apologize for the inconvenience, knowing how this will impact your career and family life. But each of us, as Americans, has a sworn duty to serve our country. It's nothing against you personally. The computer just picked your number. Please report to the big black helicopter parked on your front lawn for service. And let me add on behalf of all America, Thank You!

Sincerely,
The United States Selective Service"
posted by gregor-e at 7:33 AM on November 3, 2004

If you're going to draft anyone, frigging draft Oprah for '08. With Hillary Clinton as her VP.
posted by orange swan at 7:36 AM on November 3, 2004

Look on the bright side.

The Bush administration must now squarely shoulder all potential fallout from the Iraq war, they can no longer blame anything on 'changing horses'.
Zell Miller will never be relevant to anything ever again.
posted by darukaru at 7:37 AM on November 3, 2004

I must admit, darukaru, that I have found some satisfaction in the fact that Bush will actually have to deal with the mess he created.

Impeach him, people. He's given you enough reason.
posted by orange swan at 7:39 AM on November 3, 2004

'Since they did in fact vote for Bush, they didn't think he was the stupid, evil, the worst president ever, or a "fucking scumbag."'

I don't think those positions are at all incompatible with a vote for Bush. It's entirely possible to think he was all of those things and still vote for him, and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:40 AM on November 3, 2004

I LOVE METAFILTER.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:44 AM on November 3, 2004

Oh, come on: These guys make their own reality. If last night proves anything, it's that they can fucking make that actually work for them. The fallout from the war is pretty much irrelevant to this crew -- if they decide it doesn't matter to them, it won't matter to them. They have the power and capacity to remake "reality" (really, of course, the American public perception of it) to shift the fallout to whoever they want.

Shit, they could make it stick to Howard Dean, if they wanted.

Prev: PP, are you jerking off right now? I thought so...
posted by lodurr at 7:45 AM on November 3, 2004

XQUZYPHYR, you know as well as I do that syle and spin and how you present your platform is at least, if not more, important than the platform itself.

And yeah, that sucks, but it isn't changing anytime soon. The GOP has managed to make the left seem sactimonious, snobbish, disdainful and exclusionary. There's no reaseon we should make it easy for them.

We gotta use every resource to counteract that image and bring more people in. That's all I'm saying and that's all I have been saying for the past three years. Just because you don't wanna hear it dosen't make it untrue. Or would rather just be more right than the next guy or actually get into a position where you can get things done?

In Mefi world, i'm sometimes called a conservative. On the street I'm a flaming liberal. I'm against the war in Iraq, I'm pro-choice, I'm pro gay marraige, I think the wacky ward fundies hold too much political power and that Bush's tax cuts are a disaster. Yet the left has still managed to infuriate and alienate me quite a bit. Imagine what it's doing to the rest of the country. That's what costs us votes my freind.
posted by jonmc at 7:46 AM on November 3, 2004

Can anyone (maybe Witty or lodurr) explain to me what "moral values" are? I can't think of anything besides abortion and teh gay.
Be honest. If those are your crucial issues, that's ok, but is there anything else?
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:49 AM on November 3, 2004

jonmc: Lots of bitterness and anger this morning. Maybe, don't expect people to hear you just now. Not saying you're wrong, just that you should be more surprised to have that message heard than not heard. At least, right now.
posted by lodurr at 7:50 AM on November 3, 2004

PP: I LOVE METAFILTER.

Oh, right. Sorry, PP, sorry... we hadn't been paying much attention to you recently in this thread, had we?

Yes, you are still the reigning troll. Don't worry. darren -- or anybody else -- isn't going to steal that title from you, big guy. They're all just pretenders. And it's so great to have you back.
posted by papercake at 7:53 AM on November 3, 2004

That is what's happening here, lodurr. But some of us can't help wanting to speak up and urge people to take a more constructive point of view. The tide needs to turn sometime. Why not start it now?
posted by orange swan at 7:57 AM on November 3, 2004

I don't know whether Witty thinks he can explain what they are, but I know I can't -- not th eway you want. Becuas ethey basically don't exist. "Moral values" as posed to people as a polling question is really code for people buying into the idea of elects -- and a very vague idea, at that. Put another way: The idea of blessendess.

The beauty of modern Protestantism is that it's so vague about what the moral ideals are. In many Protestant congregations, the pastor essentially makes it up as he goes along. There are a few basic hot-buttons (e.g., teh gay, "killin' babies") that have some deep psychological resonances; but the rest of it is whatever the momentary arbitrator of blessendess wants to say that it is.

Ultimately, it's basically similar to bullying, in that people flock around the "strong" actor -- which in American terms, for those of you who haven't had the benefit of growing up here, means the person most skilled at seeing and exploiting the weaknesses of others for his own personal gain. We worship that, here; that's why we make heroes of schmucks like Steve Jobs and Donald Trump.
posted by lodurr at 7:58 AM on November 3, 2004

I posted my analyis on my blog at paradox1x.org. I'm proud of my state, I'm proud of my city, and I'm proud of the various efforts I took part in to get out the vote. I am so frustrated today.
posted by kmartino at 7:58 AM on November 3, 2004

I think I'm going to declare California a seperate nation. I just can't stand to have my existence dictated by rednecks and racists.

The Republic of California (that's right, say it like Arnold, Callie-four-nee-uh). And just like that, things look better. No longer subjected to the fearful reactionism of the south (are they truly still getting back at the North for the Civil War? was having slaves THAT great?). And we've got hotter women.

Count the votes, by all means, count the votes but I don't think it'll change much. Republicanism (and, by extension, assholish cronyism and utter self-absorption) is the prevailing attitude in this country today.

I didn't want to have to consider what I would do if Bush won again because I truly did not think he had a chance of winning. But he is likely to win and now I need to honestly consider if I want to raise my family in this country anymore. I am very seriously considering taking my family and moving overseas. Or Canada, or anywhere else. I want to live among my peers, not among people who's political thought process has to do with with hate, intolerance and fear.
posted by fenriq at 7:58 AM on November 3, 2004

OK swan, valid point. I'll do my part by shutting up, for now.
posted by lodurr at 7:59 AM on November 3, 2004

'Since they did in fact vote for Bush, they didn't think he was the stupid, evil, the worst president ever, or a "fucking scumbag."'

I don't think those positions are at all incompatible with a vote for Bush. It's entirely possible to think he was all of those things and still vote for him, and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

It is entirely possible. You just have to think Kerry is or could be worse. Then you vote for the lesser of two evils.

The DNC really needs to find a candidate that they can sell to the country. Kerry isn't/wasn't it
posted by a3matrix at 8:02 AM on November 3, 2004

Kerry will officially concede at 1:00PM, says ABC, CBS
posted by macadamiaranch at 8:11 AM on November 3, 2004

Okay, I'm sort of thinking that, after all, this result is not so surprising from the country that talked about Janet Jackson's nipple for three weeks after the Superbowl. I'm American, but I've been gone a long time, and the country becomes more and more opaque to me with each passing year. I admit it: I don't understand the fascination with J.J.'s boob, and I don't understand why Bush was elected. Not at all. But I'm sure that, somehow, they have to do with the same thing, and that thing make me shiver.
posted by taz at 8:12 AM on November 3, 2004

Kerry just conceded. It's official now.
posted by David Dark at 8:13 AM on November 3, 2004

*ahem*

When I was named "Anthony Paul Shubert" I married my wife "Deborah Haber." Legally I was male, and Deb is female. Everyone (with about 5 exceptions) at the wedding knew the real score; I am transgendered.

In early 2002 we decided that a child would be the perfect expression of our love. We were fortunate, and lucky, and despite 6 days of labor (!!!!!!), our daughter Zoë came to be on October. She is two years old now, and loves both here Mommy and Momma.

Yep, in May of 2002 I began the medical portion of my transition. Specifically, this meant 1mg of Estradiol and 100mg of Spironolactone every day. "Hormones." I had long-sense been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, and the cure entails fixing my body to match my mind (as the other way around is technically impossible at this time).

In early 2004 I legally changed my name to "Andrea Jennifer Shubert." I am still, legally male. And I'm physically male too -- but you can only know that by being my doctor, my wife, or someone I tell. (Like all of you. =) I don't look like "Anthony" any longer, and while I'm not done with my physical transition, I can pretty much "pass as a woman" whenever I want.

The ONLY THING keeping my marriage from being exactly like a "same sex marriage" is the fact that I haven't had GRS. (Or SRS, if you prefer. Or, to be crude, "The Surgery." I prefer "Twenty-first Member Inversion" myself.)

When that happens next summer (or whenever), legally, I'll be female. It doesn't matter if I think GRS should be the "threshold issue" or not. It doesn't matter if you think it should be. That is what it is in 48 states and also on the federal level. Texas and Ohio have gone out of their way to ensure that one can't ever legally change their gender, but that causes other fun issues... I'll get back to that. (55 years of laws and court rulings back this statement up.)

Before the Massachusetts Supreme Judical Court ruling, and before these 12 amendments, my marriage would still have been deemed legal. All laws regarding marriage talk about the giving of licenses. If you fulfilled the terms of getting a marriage license, the rest doesn't matter. No amount of change after the fact can annul a marriage license, or a marriage, that was legally entered into.

Unfortunately, all of that is now up in the air and likely to come down poorly for our legal status. Either way it is hypocritical, and my GRS hangs in the balance. Either my legal gender status change also changes my marriage, or it doesn't.

If you think my marriage's legal status DOES change: I can live the female role, be an aunt and "momma" to my child, pass at will, etc. etc. But once I have a $20,000 surgery that IS NOT COVERED by health insurance but IS DEEMED medically necessary, I can no longer be married to my wife? That her grandparents will then get superior custodial rights than me, one of her biological parents? How does this make any sense, even to the ultraconservatives?

If you think my marriage's legal status does NOT change: The only difference between my marriage and other "same sex marriages" is the fact that I had $20,000 surgery. So, would it be OK if two lesbians wanted to get married, and one of them transitioned to male? Then they could get married, and then maybe even transition back. Sure, this would cost about $60,000, take 6 to 10 years, take a huge physical toll on someone and force them to basically lie about who they were – but anything for love, right? That is basically what you're saying if you are against "gay marriage" but also believe that my situation is one that should be OK.

It gets better. Texas, of all places, has already sorted this out for me.

http://www.advocate.com/html/news/091900/091900news01.asp
http://www.advocate.com/html/news/092200/092200news02.asp

In Texas, it seems, it all goes back to the DNA. So, if my current marriage is annulled, we could move to Texas and then get married, even after GRS.

How does this make any sense? Yesterday's amendments make a very complex issue even more complicated, while settling absolutely nothing.

(This post is going onto my website. Wow, I was inspired there.)
posted by andreaazure at 8:17 AM on November 3, 2004

formlessone:
better get used to the idea that if you're not for them, you're against them.
That is, maybe, what has been suggested to part of population and evidently some of them swallowed hook, sinker and line, but
I doubt that this will deter foreign investors as I personally can't still see warning signals of civil unrest ; lotsa foaming
mouths from both sides, punditry a go-go but no strong social movement lingering.
posted by elpapacito at 8:18 AM on November 3, 2004

Thoughts from North Carolina:

Things I am sad I will miss:
The fruition of Kerry's ideas and plans. I was very excited by his ideas for health insurance, for one example.

The political future of John Edwards. I think he is dead in the water after this. Most N.Carolinians hate him because he has been too busy running to vote in the senate. John Kerry will still have his seat, but Edwards couldn't get elected dogcatcher in this state.

George Bush eating humble pie. Sorry, I'm not usually revengeful, but I admit I was looking forward to this. I thought he was going to be held accountable for all his mistakes, and I hoped he would have a lifetime of reflecting on just where he went wrong. Now, unless he is impeached for some extraordinarily bad behavior, he can go to his grave thinking he is the new Ronald Regan.

Things that make me angry:
That "family values" was used by Republicans to push their pro-rich, pro-business platform. "Family Values" to me is just a code phrase meaning "We don't want anybody but ourselves to have sex." Divorce, adultery, doesn't matter because everybody does it. Beating your wife and kids isn't a national agenda. Paying your employees a below-poverty-level-wage while you reap millions is good American behavior. Raping the environment is fine. Just make sure that homosexuals can't get married and teenagers learn that abstinence is the only form of birth control.

The Republicans are calling this election a strong mandate from the people. They seem anxious to forget all the millions that voted against them, as well as all the Republicans that were voicing dissent before the election. Right after (R)Burr took John Edwards' Senate seat here, (R)Elizabeth Dole, the now senior Senator, was rejoicing how the two of them were going to work together in the Senate to push legislation past the "obstructionists". Legislation like welfare reform. NOT corporate welfare, mind you. That is sacred-- and besides, corporations have lobbies with big fat juicy checks, welfare mothers do not.

Forgetting that pre-election 74% of people polled said this country was headed in the wrong direction, now that Bush has this "strong Mandate from the people" I am very afraid of what he will do in the next 4 years.

The increasing power of the fundamentalists. I don't get this. (But then I also don't get the increasing power of the Taliban.) I just wish if the if the fundamentalists are so convinced that armageddon is going to happen soon, they would all just go away and pray and leave the rest of us to try and figure out a future for this country.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:19 AM on November 3, 2004

And Kerry concedes...
posted by robocop is bleeding at 8:20 AM on November 3, 2004

Blixful Ignorance loses!
posted by ParisParamus at 8:24 AM on November 3, 2004

No one likes a quitter.
posted by adampsyche at 8:26 AM on November 3, 2004

RIP America: 1776 - 2000.

it was a good run.

sure, there were some hairy moments, some colossal fuckups and some questionable actions along the way, but i hope that people will remember the times that you got it exactly, perfectly right. and this is coming from a guy whose people got the shit end of the stick for most of your run.

still, i, for one, would like to have seen you give it a go for at least a couple more decades, but i guess it just wasn't meant to be. the ideas and philosophies of karl rove and dick cheney are just stronger than the ideas of your founders.

some people like it that way, and i'm happy for them that they will be supremely joyful in the coming years. everyone deserves a shot at happiness, and their numbers are the ones that got called this time. more power to them.

a lot of the rest of us, however, are very sad to see you go. maybe you'll come back one day. maybe we'll be able to appreciate you more now that you're gone, and you'll hear our cries and come back.

one can hope.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:28 AM on November 3, 2004

Paris, you are well aware that you would have gotten your teeth kicked in by now if you were actually around people and spouting your hateful bile? You do know that, don't you?
posted by fenriq at 8:30 AM on November 3, 2004

Maybe Cameron Diaz will cry herself to death.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:30 AM on November 3, 2004

Let all those who feel that Americans can be as easily led to beauty as to ugliness, to truth as to public relations, to joy as to bitterness, be said to be suffering from Hunter Thompson's disease.

(from Kurt Vonnegut's review of Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72)

Got a bad case of Thompson's disease this morning myself. Time for this Canuck to start lobbying his MP in favour of Canada joining the European Union post-haste.
posted by gompa at 8:32 AM on November 3, 2004

Let the sack dances, open taunting, lunch-money theft and third-grade-level bullying continue. I knew and expected no less of the right wing here that you'd all be less than gracious in victory.

Somewhere, Bill Hicks is very glad he's dead and doesn't have to have number-one fingers shoved in his face every time he turns on a TV set or goes out in public.
posted by chicobangs at 8:34 AM on November 3, 2004

Looks like 'ol grampa Paris done creamed hisself.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:36 AM on November 3, 2004

a lot of the rest of us, however, are very sad to see you go. maybe you'll come back one day. maybe we'll be able to appreciate you more now that you're gone, and you'll hear our cries and come back.

"America: the land that never was, yet must be." - Langston Hughes.

But seriously, enough with the fatalistic stuff. This was not like the Reagan/Bush years where we got soundly trounced 3 elections running. The fact that half the country voted for Kerry tells me that there's still plenty of hope. Hell 3 percent more of the country and we've got it.

Talk about jumping ship all you want, I don't give up that easy.
posted by jonmc at 8:38 AM on November 3, 2004

I'm actually not annoyed with PP, he's proving what I said earlier that the pro-war Republicans are in denial that there's still no affirmation of the war, only an affirmation of the GOP's new platform of hate.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:39 AM on November 3, 2004

Talk about jumping ship all you want, I don't give up that easy.

Neither do I jonmc. I'm just too upset to think straight at the moment.

Give me 24 hours. Then i'll wake up.
posted by Stynxno at 8:44 AM on November 3, 2004

JonMc: Give it up. You were lied to by the Democrats who lied when they said Bush lied to you. You need to get rid of all the Bush=Hitler hatred, and so much more.

YOU ARE IN DENIAL.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:44 AM on November 3, 2004

i agree with the bush supporters: there will be no draft and no repeal of abortion rights.

instead, we will get the "love your country act" and the "mother's love act."

the "love your country act" will not be a draft: it will simply mandate service in the national guard for a period of 2 years for males 18-35, so that they learn a sense of civic duty and appreciation for the efforts of our armed forces. people who become a part of the nat'l guard as a result of the lyca will not be rotated into "zones of action" (i.e., the front lines), but certainly if their country needs them, they can expect to serve some time overseas for a period not to exceed 3 months (or longer, if they love their country. and they do.)

the "mother's love act" will make it illegal for a mother to do anything unloving toward her children. of course, this will include unborn children as well. so if the states' courts want to decide that an abortion is an unloving action, well, it'll be up to them to decide it, and washington will just leave it in their hands.....
posted by lord_wolf at 8:45 AM on November 3, 2004

Study after study has shown that the best environment for a child to grow up in is the traditional intact male-female family.

So I guess this means we can we look forward to future state efforts to ban divorce?
posted by rcade at 8:45 AM on November 3, 2004

When one concedes, does the vote counting stop?
posted by RavinDave at 8:45 AM on November 3, 2004

Paris, I'm making a gesture involving my fist and the nether regions of my torso. I'm sure you can figure out what it is.

You serve a wonderful purpose for me, PP. Everytime I get frustrated with the left, you show up to remind me that the right is even worse. Thanks.
posted by jonmc at 8:47 AM on November 3, 2004

And now, like the puppy that's done its toilet on the living-room carpet, America will get its nose rubbed in it's own mess.

Maybe that's a good thing in the long run, because Bush can only continue to fuck things up.

The next four years: do you see? do you see what you've done?

Also -
1. Launch unnecessary war.
2. Fight election on 'war-leader' ticket.
3. Re-election!
posted by Blue Stone at 8:49 AM on November 3, 2004

You know how they say the left hates America? It's official now, I do. Then again, America hates me too.

*back to drinking & crying*
posted by dame at 8:50 AM on November 3, 2004

I blame the Red Sox.
posted by mkultra at 8:52 AM on November 3, 2004

Blue Stone, I think you forgot...

4. Profit!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:54 AM on November 3, 2004

Graceless Bush partisans like Dreama, who have showed up only to gloat, are hurting their own cause.

You still have to govern the country for the next four years, kids. Widening the gap between your America and ours will not make the war on terror, the war on Iraq, the war on science, or the war on fags any easier for you to win.

You are still hoping to win all of those, aren't you? Sometimes I think you're all just marking time for the Rapture.
posted by rcade at 8:56 AM on November 3, 2004

You still have to govern the country for the next four years, kids.

Why start now?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:00 AM on November 3, 2004

My prediction: Canadian dollar to reach $.92 within 2 years, break even within 4 (self link)

Your idiocy is our gain, mothafuckas.

And my prediction - the PetroDollar is doomed during Bush's 2nd term. This doomage will hurt worlwide - and done out of spite to do more damage to America than to the switchers.

Hope I survive the riots and Patriot Act III so I can gloat. While watering down and adding salt to my beer with tears.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:00 AM on November 3, 2004

jonmc:
Paris, I'm making a gesture involving my fist and the nether regions of my torso. I'm sure you can figure out what it is

That was unnecessary jonmc ; apparently some people enjoying pointing at other people "vulgarity" and "obscenity" to reinforce their lack of points. Don't give them a chance.

You serve a wonderful purpose for me, PP. Everytime I get frustrated with the left, you show up to remind me that the right is even worse. Thanks

Fantastic !
posted by elpapacito at 9:01 AM on November 3, 2004

Gay couples shouldn't be having children. It's a selfish act.

Brilliant moralization! Guess we have to learn to love GOP extremism.

Unless the Democrats can come up with a few more Obamas, their best hope of regaining the Senate is that the GOP will try to parlay their success on Christian wedge issues into a mandate on the moral direction of our country. Up till now they could carry the Pat Robertson crowd just by taking moral stances. Now that the Republicans control the entire apparatus of government, it's time for Christian accountability. No more blaming the national moral decay on Clinton or Hollywood or Activist Judges.

God is now on our side, and he is pissed. Give me Christian Rock. Give me church marm cred. Give me unaborted fetuses praying in school. Give me PAX on every channel. Give me federal money for churches, the ten commandments in every town square, and jail time for sabbath breakers. March, Oh Armies of Compassion! Hunt down the Haters of our Freedom -- just so we can turn the other cheek on them. We're in for a four year national field trip to Branson, Mo. God up my country, yo!
posted by eatitlive at 9:02 AM on November 3, 2004

Talk about jumping ship all you want, I don't give up that easy.

i'm not jumping ship, my friend. i'm not going to canada or mexico. i'm not completely powerless and disenfranchised -- yet -- so i'd like to stick around and do what i can for those who are, in what little ways i can: it may be as "combative" as attending a gay friend's illegal wedding or fighting against displays of the 10 commandments in govt buildings, but i'll be doing something.

however, i am giving up on the idea of democracy being sustained on a national level. democracy requires an informed citizenry to work. as a nation, we have demonstrated that the facts don't matter: what matter is that gays be kept as 2nd class citizens (if even that!) and a-rabs get blown up.

i just don't see what common ground i possibly have with a bush supporter at this point. please note that i am making a distinction b/t republicans, conservatives and bush supporters. there are a great many republicans and conservatives that i disagree with (and who can kick my mothafuckin' ass in a debate) but that i have no trouble relating to or understanding. with them, it's like: "dude, you're fucking crazy to believe that about the economy or the social pyschology of the human race. now pass that joint, brotha."

however, i have nothing i can say to or want to hear from bush's fanboys and fangirls. i have given up on them.
posted by lord_wolf at 9:04 AM on November 3, 2004

Finally, the NY TImes is enjoyable to read! Is Al Franken unemployed yet? Air America in bankruptcy?
posted by ParisParamus at 9:04 AM on November 3, 2004

So will we be seeing any retractions of the predictions of mass civil unrest?

Depends. Is the unrest part of voting issues or is it a shortage of oil cascading to the food supply? Cuz even if Dibold machies could be proven to have been tampered with, I don't see mass civil unrest.

My vote is for food shortages.

(Need to check the Mormon food guides.....)
posted by rough ashlar at 9:08 AM on November 3, 2004

Dand: You're about as irritating - and logical - as a pair of Fiberglas underpants full of chili-powder coated sand fleas. Go away. No, seriously. Go take a flying fuck at the moon you wretched, puking, air-sucking skinbag.

*cough*

Progressives: Don't give up. Don't leave the country. Hunker down. Fight the good fight. But fight it with beneficial, positive actions - not violence, or even worse, apathy. It's high time to stop whinging about stuff and talking a mighty big talk and high time to start actually doing something constructive. Peace begins at home.

Recommended: Do your finances and see how much per week or month you can set aside for direct-action charity. Take that amount and buy clothes and blankets at thrift stores, buy simple toiletries, clean socks and underwear from discount stores like the 99 cent store, procure free food or buy nutritious and portable food. Distribute to those in need, but don't be afraid to be a little careful and selective about who you give it to. (IE, if the recipient is unreceptive or it doesn't look like they're actually going to use your offerings, move on. Cultivate and trust your intuition. You have limited resources.)

This is totally technocratic and elitist of me, but maybe it's high time for some sort of mandatory aptitude test that must be passed before voting. Not an IQ test, but some sort of a current events, cultural, and history test or something. Anything to prevent anyone from voting merely on the cult of personality, anything to prevent voting from a position of ignorance, willful or otherwise.

On a different tangent: Motion to draft future Presidents from lottery: Seconded. Those who desire to lead the most are the least fit to lead. This axiom is true regardless of sociopolitical vector, support, or affiliation.

Meanwhile... we're doomed anyway. Enjoy your triple Mocha half-caf Frappucino, you DVD-equipped super-sized SUV driving flag-wavin' stone-cold stupid-ass motherfucka. I sure hope that glorified battlewagon has tracks, amphibious capabilities and a Mr. Fusion retrofit.
posted by loquacious at 9:10 AM on November 3, 2004

You're about as irritating - and logical - as a pair of Fiberglas underpants full of chili-powder coated sand fleas.

Dan Rather, is that you?
posted by jonmc at 9:13 AM on November 3, 2004

The fatalism from some in this thread is nauseating. It was a very close election. The Republicans didn't win it, the Democrats lost it. They put up a mediocre candidate in the hope dislike of Bush would swing it their way. I suspect that many voters, especially undecideds, don't like being played that way. It was a spineless and miscalculated strategy that ended up playing to Republican strengths. I'm not happy with the result, but my hope is the Democrats learn from it. Grow some balls next time around and nominate a candidate who isn't a compromise.
posted by normy at 9:16 AM on November 3, 2004

This is totally technocratic and elitist...

Not to mention that it has about as much chance of coming to be as a constitutional amendment making homosexuality mandatory.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:18 AM on November 3, 2004

When one concedes, does the vote counting stop?

CNN just reported that the provisional ballots will be counted because there are other races to be considered.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:20 AM on November 3, 2004

loquacious: Progressives: Don't give up. ... [It's] high time to start actually doing something constructive.

If you can you suggest a way to get rid of Terry McAuliffe, I'm all ears and eager to take up your challenge. That is a "constructive" fight I'd gladly participate in. But unless he goes, I'm deaf to the Democratic party.
posted by RavinDave at 9:22 AM on November 3, 2004

I blame FDR. Really.
posted by majcher at 9:26 AM on November 3, 2004

I'm a diehard liberal and I want Kerry to be President, but with it all coming down yet again to a as-yet undecided single state, we've proven what the pundits had been joking about: George Bush has Balkanized America.

I'm not seeing it. The red vs. blue maps exaggerate differences to a large degree. Kerry was pulling 40% consistently through the south, and there was a fair amount of vote splitting with two red states electing democratic senators and two red states electing democratic govenors.

Really, most of the United States is not red or blue, but varrying shades of violet.

The real challenge of democracy is not in getting out in voting, but learning to agree to disagree in supportive ways. I'm finding many of the attitudes expressed here that democracy is great, except when people disagree with me to be just as disgusting as the corruption in the Bush presidency.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:26 AM on November 3, 2004

I was waitin for Cadenhead to show. In the middle of liberal pissfest, he sez the Conservatives are mean. Gotta love that cruel one. Carry on, flame warrior. Better luck next time.
posted by dand at 9:27 AM on November 3, 2004

My prediction: Canadian dollar to reach $.92 within 2 years, break even within 4 (self link) Your idiocy is our gain, mothafuckas.

Wouldn't this actually be pretty terrible for Canada in terms of trade with the US?
posted by transient at 9:28 AM on November 3, 2004

RavinDave: The "good fight" most often has jack-squat to do with politics, and never with partisan politics. To be clear, I entirely do not mean to suggest any sort of "political action". Hell, the very phrase "political action" is making me want to vomit.

What I do wholeheartedly mean is for people to go out and build the world they want, and build it now.

Me, I'm voting for dancing right about now, 'cause it's good for the heart, mind, body, spirit and soul. Watch me now! HIT ME!

dand: Psst! Hey, kid! Did you know there's lots of free, delicious candy in the bottom of those colorful cement mixer trucks?
posted by loquacious at 9:48 AM on November 3, 2004

I'm actually not annoyed with PP

he's actually greatly amusing to some of us... zarah's psych class has been monitoring him (and a few other trolls) for the last year or so, while they did a study of online behaviour. the notes on him in their group paper are a total hoot, heh.
posted by t r a c y at 10:12 AM on November 3, 2004

t r a c y, link it up! I'd love to read some professional opinions of why idiots like PP exist.
posted by fenriq at 10:37 AM on November 3, 2004

> The ONLY THING keeping my marriage from being exactly like a "same sex
> marriage" is the fact that I haven't had GRS.

REALITY-BASED! (and carefully avoiding loaded pronouns): if this person were really transgendered, this person could have had that baby. Since this person could not, it is demonstrated that this person is in fact just what this person always was, only now in an unusually complicated and expensive form of drag.

Speaking as a trained biologist and experienced bench chemist (six years as director of the stable isotope laboratory at the University of Georgia Institute of Ecology, the premier such institute in the world, founded by Eugene Odum, universally acknowledged as the founder of modern scientific ecology) I correctly assert that anybody who believes "transgendering" exists, and can take a human male and turn him into a human female, is exactly and precisely as much HAPPY-FUN-FAIRYTALE-BASED as somebody who believes the whale swallowed Jonah and Jebus walked on the water.
posted by jfuller at 11:07 AM on November 3, 2004

jfuller, you are full of shit--do not talk of things you know nothing about. Biology/Nature makes mistakes and deviations all of the time--if you don't know that, you're not much of a biologist. (and i don't mean mistakes and deviations from any moral or judgmental sense)
posted by amberglow at 11:16 AM on November 3, 2004

>> My prediction: Canadian dollar to reach $.92 within 2 years, break even
>> within 4 (self link) Your idiocy is our gain, mothafuckas.
>
> Wouldn't this actually be pretty terrible for Canada in terms of trade
> with the US?

Caddy 'Slades would be cheaper in the White North if anybody up there wants one, but they wouldn't get squat for their beaver skins.
posted by jfuller at 11:18 AM on November 3, 2004

elapapcito: I don't anticipate any immediate actions yet in terms of foreign investment. It'll take a few months or longer for reverberations to be felt and acted upon. My primary concern is that, although this was a very close election, the polarization experienced on both sides will encompass more than just political rhetoric. It's my belieft that we're going to see more polarized activity, because the election has "vindicated" the polarized viewpoint of the right. I believe we'll see some pseudo-elation as domestic investors inflate the stock market and slightly devalue the dollar early on, followed by scrambling as foreign investors further devalue the dollar by cashing in on our staggering debt. I could be wrong, but it'll be interesting to watch.
posted by FormlessOne at 11:20 AM on November 3, 2004

(Sorry about the misspelling - finger misfire...)
posted by FormlessOne at 11:22 AM on November 3, 2004

> do not talk of things you know nothing about.

fuller tries to be serious, to a person he likes and admires. Actually, amber, I do. For a degree in zoology I had to pass any number of examinations in things like plant and mammal species identification based (in the tests) on a few wretchedly inadequate lab specimens, and I'm truly, deeply impressed by the amount of natural variation there is out there (the tests were f*cking hard to pass, because the test specimen never looked anything like a "typical" specimen.) And when I taught human anatomy I had a lab cadaver to work with whose skull didn't even have the right number of foramena for the classic Twelve Cranial Nerves to go through. On lab practicals I was reduced to sticking a pin in roughly the correct area and asking something like "There ought to be a hole here. If there were, which nerve ought to go through it?"

And (yet another and) I have a particular interest in nonhuman primate behavior. I've certainly seen male monkeys fuck other male monkeys (though to me, having seen it live many times, it looks like dominance behavior and not sex) -- anyway I'm aware there's nothing "unnatural" about it. Happens all the time, platyrrhini or catarrhini notwithstanding.

As for the rest, I can only say the same thing I already said -- here in perhaps a less contentious fashion, but I'm still right.

Transgendering is a cultural fiction. You can do surgery to a human male to make his nads look different, you can do hormone therapy to a human male to make him grow big boobs, you can dress him in Barbie clothes instead of Ken clothes or GI Joe clothes, all you get is a human male to whom some unusual physical things have happened. You don't get a woman, because pace the recently deceased j derrida there's a lot more to it than mere cultural preference. And this subject is an excellent counterexample for those of you who imagine there is some fundamental difference between yourselves -- rational, reality-based -- and your dimwit opponents who base their lives on fairytales. My point is that for both sides there are intersections at which physical truth crosses paths with socially constructed truth, and gets trampled by what the crowd wishes to think.

I didn't mean to hijack the thread and I'll save the rest (of which there is a great deal) for an appropriate place (here, probably) and time (later.)
posted by jfuller at 12:13 PM on November 3, 2004

Why is so hard to accept that there are people who are in the wrong bodies?

I don't think it's a cultural fiction at all, and there have always been people of variant sex, gender, and sexuality (in all possible combinations), in all cultures and throughout history. Human history is full of people like andrea, and it's only now that there are procedures to realize it that it's being realized.
posted by amberglow at 12:19 PM on November 3, 2004 [1 favorite has favorites]

(and this is a good distraction for me from the election disappointment, anyway.)
posted by amberglow at 12:22 PM on November 3, 2004

> Why is so hard to accept that there are people who are in the wrong bodies?

Sorry, the Jrun ghod was angry and wouldn't let me on for a long time

> Why is so hard to accept that there are people who are in the wrong bodies?

In the context of particular cultural value judgements, not hard at all. But there is no "wrong" in nature. You got what you got. "Wrong" is entirely and exclusive a human cultural value judgement. Imagine a pterodactyl that thinks it was born in the wrong body, it "ought" to have been born a giant tree fern. What can such an "ought" possibly mean?
posted by jfuller at 3:51 PM on November 3, 2004

But you're leaving out our brains. We're much more complex, and all wired differently. If tree ferns and pterodactyls had consciousness, you could compare.
posted by amberglow at 4:05 PM on November 3, 2004

I see it more as a quirk of nature than a value judgment.
posted by amberglow at 4:11 PM on November 3, 2004

jfuller: Where do intersexed humans fit in to this? There are people born with both genitals. What about the rather routine "corrections" doctors make on infants and toddlers?

The pain I've witnessed in transgenders attempting to simply become what they feel (and know) is truly "them" makes it extremely difficult for me to accept the idea of transgenderism as a "cultural fiction". This isn't a choice someone makes, or a symptom of disease or aberration. All at once it is a personal requirement, compulsion; manifest destiny and eminent domain of Self.

Regardless of the biology, the psychologies of optimal experience and the individual pursuit of geniune happiness trump biology - as much as knowledge and technology will allow - within the framework of being human. We are more than animals, and certainly a hell of a lot more than prehistoric plants.

There's a functional difference between how the individual who seeks personal freedoms changes culture from within and when culture - as a mob - attempts to force individuals - with true coercion of varying forms no less - to conform and change to a norm. The former is creative, and comes from a place of hope. The latter is destructive and comes from a place of fear.

To bring it back to biology, for any culture to even expect our species or any species to remain static puts a bit of a damper on evolution. Where is it written that evolution cannot be self-actuated as a conscious act?
posted by loquacious at 4:25 PM on November 3, 2004

The image of a pterodactyl forlornly lamenting the cruel fate of not being a tree fern just made me laugh.

First one all day.

Thank you.
posted by dness2 at 4:37 PM on November 3, 2004

Tracy: I have reports on you, but you'll have to pay to see them.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:45 PM on November 3, 2004

Looking at this thread, I guess we can add "schadenfreude" to that list of republican moral values.
posted by lilboo at 4:58 PM on November 3, 2004

tracy: psycologial profile of PP ? Derived from PP metafilter posts ? Oh come on I can't believe it ! Anyway that'd make a nice 780 posts thread for mefi comic relief.
posted by elpapacito at 5:14 PM on November 3, 2004

> Where do intersexed humans fit in to this?

Nowhere, obviously. We're talking about categories--a cultural notion if there ever was one--which we notoriously create by forcibly assimilating all cases to a few perfectly clear cases, while suppressing intermediate and unclear instances.

> Regardless of the biology, the psychologies of optimal experience
> and the individual pursuit of geniune happiness trump biology -

If the "pursuit of genuine happiness" trumps other considerations for folks who want to believe they were born into the wrong sort of body, and that's OK with you, then it's equally true that your "psychology of optimal experience" trumps other considerations for people who like to believe in demons and angels, and that must be equally OK. And that's fine with me, just don't then turn around and presume to place yourself in amongst the "reality-based" intellectual hard core. Can't have it both ways.

> The image of a pterodactyl forlornly lamenting the cruel fate of not
> being a tree fern just made me laugh.

Harsh old fuller unbends ever so slightly and tips hat. (and goes to bed, good night all, happy next 4 years.)
posted by jfuller at 5:28 PM on November 3, 2004

Graceless Bush partisans like Dreama, who have showed up only to gloat, are hurting their own cause.

One more time for the apparently hard of hearing, I'm a Libertarian, not a Bush partisan. And if recognizing and pointing out that the Dems fielded a bad candidate and relied on outdated strategies and completely ignored the stuff that people made their decisions over in favor of flogging their agenda is "gloating" then well, fine, I'm gloating.

In reality, I'm trying to help you guys because helping you helps me and the Republicans and the other Libertarians and the Democrats and even the folks who keep voting Nader. I'd love to see some kind of real debate happening in this country. I'd love to see some brisk opposition that creates a cycle of constant improvement, steel sharpening steel rather than rock splintering rock. Behind the scenes, the GOP spent the 8 years of the Clinton presidency frothing up their issues and cementing their base.

The response of the left over the past four years has been to protest and complain, but no real work has been done with the people. You know, the ones who actually go into the booths and make the decisions.

The ones who feel okay about homeland security because no more planes have flown into buildings and no suicide bombers have shown up in their local shopping mall or the bus their kids ride to school.

The ones who know that we haven't had a bunch of people disappearing into federal gulags or even a bunch of computers confiscated because of the Patriot Act so it might not be such a big hairy deal after all.

The ones who are damned sure that if we are in Iraq only to get cheaper oil and getting rid of Saddam is just a side effect, just as well, and keep on until gas prices go down, because it's getting hard to manage at $2.09/gallon.

The ones who are perfectly able to rationalize the loss of manufacturing jobs by noting that the writing was on the wall for that industry 30 years ago, and that's why they learned how to do something other than work on an assembly line. (Or talk on a phone in a call center that now resides in Bangalore.) And while they feel bad for people who lose their jobs, they look at the displaced workers in the DNC ads and think "why don't they get some new skills if they need to, make the changes to their lives which come with unexpected crises, and get on with their lives." Just like they did when they got fired or downsized or laid off or their spouses left or died over the last 30 years. They faced the problem and worked through it.

The ones who might very well have a different opinion about marriage equality or at least civil unions but don't know that anybody they know is gay and think that gays are part of that nebulous world of the people (who they don't think they know) who do things they disapprove of, the characters on television shows they don't watch or worse, the guys in the outrageous costumes dancing on floats in that parade they've seen images of on the news.

The ones who spend time in some kind of house of worship on a fairly regular basis and use what they learn there to inform their lives and their opinions.

The ones that you eschew so strongly. The ones that you call ignorant, bigoted, stupid, blinded, selfish, self-righteous, worse. The ones who you disdain so deeply. They are the ones who wrote the nation's ticket yesterday, and they did it largely on the backs of a lot of hard grass-roots work that you aren't even aware of. Learn from their example, look to them and find where you can create alliances and mend breaches and find common ground or we will all lose. We will continue to be divided, we will continue to live in an aura of constant contentiousness.

You can whine and cry and call names and rue our fate or you can be an agent of change for our fate. Make your decision. Pick your side. Are you going to be with the movers or are you going to be an obstacle that the movers have to work around?
posted by Dreama at 6:42 PM on November 3, 2004

tracy: psycologial profile of PP ? Derived from PP metafilter posts ?

hey it's not my study, but it was amusing. pp was hardly the star, it was a large collection o' trolls from here and a few other sites. currently i have no idea if there's an online link to it from her uni or not, i've been reading the hard copy. i'm not posting anything without permission.

Tracy: I have reports on you, but you'll have to pay to see them.

bwah! it might help to pique my interest if you called me by my real name.
posted by t r a c y at 6:48 PM on November 3, 2004

« Older iN-PUBLiC... | Cosmic ray air shower simulati... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Sad day for mefi..... November 2, 2004 11:26 PM Subscribe

Sad day for mefi.....
November 2, 2004 11:26 PM Subscribe