Axis Kast wrote:Riiight —it's merely a coincidence that the ideology of Bible-thumping fundies just happens to parallel the definitions of the "moral values" at stake in the election...
Nobody's denying that Bush sapped the fundamentalist vote. On the other hand, it's disingenous to imagine that bigotry results entirely - or even mostly - with fundamentalists. In fact, you're selling your own scare argument short if you ignore the fact that many, many people who never go to church more than once or twice a year are strongly bigoted against homosexuals.
Uh huh. More handwaving. How does this support your assertion for which you've offered not one scrap of evidence beyond your mere say-so that it does?
Magick
this away:
excerpt: While the war on Iraq, terrorism and economy were key issues in the 2004 election, the single top issue cited by voters was “moral values.” According to CNN’s analysis of the exit data, morality was cited as the number one concern by 22 percent of voters; four fifths of those voters chose the Bush camp. The data correlates with the high support received by President Bush from Protestants who go to church weekly – seventy percent of the cohort voted for Bush. According to an MSNBC poll, 78 percent of “white, evangelical born again Christians” voted for Bush and 96 percent of “white religious conservatives” gave Bush their votes.
"Despite the conventional political wisdom that moral concerns are a drag on a political ticket, it was values that energized voters," said James Kennedy, president of the Florida-based Coral Ridge Ministries.
“The faith factor was the difference in this election,” said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “Even The New York Times acknowledged that the faith factor was determinative.”
“Not only did more than three-fourths of evangelicals vote for Bush, but “a whole lot more of them voted” than in 2000,” continued Land. “[Ohio Secretary of State] Ken Blackwell estimated that 25 percent of Bush’s raw vote in Ohio came from white evangelicals.”
"We further celebrate the overwhelming successes of pro-family candidates in other races, and in the 11 states that passed amendments to their constitutions protecting traditional marriage. The victorious difference was made by 'values voters,' who have sent the clear message that morality in America is alive and well,” said (James) Dobson.
And
this:
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote:Thursday, November 4, 2004
Moral issues at the heart of the vote
By DAVID USBORNE
GUEST COLUMNIST
FT. LAUDERDALE, FLA. -- Call it the anti-Janet Jackson boob vote, if you like. The pro-gun vote, the anti-gay marriage vote or the Jesus vote.
For all the strategizing in both parties on which of the key popular concerns was most likely to win the election for their candidate -- would it be Iraq, terrorism or matters of the wallet -- it may have been none of the above that will end up driving the final result. The trump card appears to have been moral issues.
When they look back at Election 2004, political historians will see one trend above all others and it clearly worked in favor of George W. Bush and against John Kerry. Voters, especially those in the heartland states, took moral values as their core standard in deciding which candidate to support.
Indeed, this may emerge as the most surprising finding to emerge from this presidential race. Even if it meant voting against their more obvious economic interests and even when they harbored misgivings about the war in Iraq, voters everywhere found themselves guided by moral issues first. Family values means less about food on the table than about God at the table.
And as these questions come to the fore, so the country appears to have shifted culturally to the right. It's striking that ballot initiatives to ban marriage for same-sex couples were before voters in 11 states -- and they passed in all of them. In some, even existing domestic partnership rights will now be taken away. Perhaps the country was always thus, but either way it will give Democrats grave reason to worry. Their man was a Catholic, a war hero and yet he still failed to connect with the country's conservative mainstream. Can a candidate with even remotely socially liberal positions ever win in the United States again?
For evidence of what happened, you need look no further than Tuesday's exit polling numbers. Most surprising, a Los Angeles Times national survey found that more than half of voters for Bush cited moral issues as the principal reason for their support. They were more important to his supporters even than terrorism.
And then look at what was in the heads of Kerry supporters. By contrast, they cited the economy as their top concern over moral issues by a margin of about 2-to-1. Another survey taken in the three most important battleground states found that moral issues was first on the agenda of Bush voters in Ohio and was almost their top concern in Florida and Pennsylvania, coming second only to terrorism.
The political polarization of the country, which Tuesday's results again so vividly demonstrated, is thus also a cultural one. And deepening that division are matters of religious affiliation and degrees of religious zeal. About one-fifth of voters describe themselves as born-again Christians and on Tuesday they voted enthusiastically for Bush as "one of them," by a margin of roughly 4-to-1. Among regular churchgoers, Bush was the winner handily. Kerry fared better with occasional worshipers.
It is part of what appears to have lost Florida for Kerry. The incumbent took more than half the Protestant and Catholic vote in the state -- and about eight in 10 Floridians belong to one of those religions.
"As a Christian, Bush upholds the morals and values that I believe the Constitution was built on," explained voter Brett Williamson, a 20-year-old student in Tallahassee.
"I believe in many of the same values as he does -- against same-sex marriage, and not taking God out of the Constitution," echoed Chris Pierson, a nurse in the Orlando area.
For decades, the Democratic Party depended on inner-city churches, many of them Baptist with mostly black congregations, to bring out crucial chunks of support on Election Day. Now the church factor has become powerful for Republicans instead. Around the country, they were a crucial force in encouraging Bush voters to register and to vote.
A sign of the conservative shift may be the anti-gay marriage ballots, passed in Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Georgia and Ohio. And with the exception of Ohio, they went through by very large margins. It is in Ohio where existing domestic partnerships may as a result be stripped immediately from gay and lesbian couples.
The only standout in the trend was a vote in California, which voted heavily for Kerry, where voters strongly supported funding of stem cell research, which Bush has opposed.
Kerry's big mistake? Maybe that he simply couldn't shake the liberal label that Bush plastered on him. "Kerry came across as more liberal than Gore," argues Eric Buermann, chief lawyer for the Republicans in Miami. "It did not appeal to middle-of-the road voters."
If perceived liberalism is a handicap in Florida, it seems to be poison in the heartland states. That is where Democrats will have to do some serious thinking. "On values," remarked Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns, "they are really non-competitive in the heartland. This kind of elitist, Eastern approach to the party is just devastating in the Midwest and Western states. It's very difficult for senatorial, congressional and even local candidates to survive."
Kerry went goose hunting. He withheld offering support for gay marriage. He talked tough on defense and the military. But still it was not enough. He could cite economic statistics till the cows came home. But where there are cows in America, there are fewer and fewer Democrats.
David Usborne writes for The Independent in Britain.
And
this:
Barna Group wrote:Born Again Christians Were a Significant Factor in President Bush’s Re-Election
November 9, 2004
(Ventura, CA) - Most of President Bush’s supporters did at least two things during the first week of November: they voted to re-elect the President and they went to church. The acclaimed “values voters” turned out in huge numbers on Election Day to support the incumbent and thereby prevent a replay of the 2000 cliffhanger outcome. Had it not been for the unusually high turnout among voters driven by religious convictions, the results might have been different, according to a new nationwide survey by The Barna Group.
Christians Push Bush Over the Top
Overall, born again Christians supported President George W. Bush by a 62% to 38% margin. In contrast, non-born again voters supported Senator John Kerry by an almost identical 59% to 39% division. The difference was in the rates of turnout of each segment. Although the born again population constitutes just 38% of the national population, it represented 53% of the vote cast in the election. If the born again public had shown up proportional to its population size, Senator Kerry would have won the election by the same three-point margin of victory enjoyed by Mr. Bush.
Evangelicals not only turned out in large numbers; they also gave Mr. Bush an overwhelming endorsement. Although they are just 7% of the voting-aged population, evangelicals constituted 11% of the voters and chose President Bush by an 85% to 15% margin. Non-evangelical born again Christians, who cast a substantial 42% of all votes, sided with the incumbent by a 56% to 44% outcome. The combination of those two Christian voting blocs produced a 62% majority among all born again voters.
Protestants and Catholics Shift Allegiance
In the 2000 election, Catholics were more likely to side with Al Gore than with George W. Bush, with 49% voting for the Democrat Gore and 44% selecting the Republican Bush as their favored candidate. In this year’s race, however, the Catholic vote was evenly split. This indicates that President Bush did not hold on to all of the Catholic support he generated during the campaign, but he was able to increase his Catholic constituency enough to ensure the win this time around.
Protestant voters, on the other hand, increased their support for the President from a slim 51% to 47% tally in 2000 to a more comfortable 57% to 42% landslide in 2004. Turnout among Protestants was significant, rising from 56% of the vote total in 2000 to 62% of the turnout in 2004. In comparison, the percentage of the total votes that were cast by Catholics remained unchanged (24%).
Ethnic Believers Move Toward Bush
One of the most significant shifts since the 2000 election related to the preferences of ethnic voters. Traditionally aligned with Democratic presidential candidates, African Americans remained firmly associated with that party, supplying the challenger a whopping 87% to 13% mandate. However, a key comparison is the shift over the past four years among born again blacks. In 2000, this segment rallied behind Mr. Gore by a 92% to 7% margin. In the current election, the margin of preference was reduced to 85% to 15%. That reflects a doubling of the percentage of the black born again vote delivered to Mr. Bush.
Similarly, tastes have changed among Hispanic voters. Although Hispanics gave Al Gore a 2-to-1 margin of preference in 2000, they were less enthusiastic about Senator Kerry’s candidacy in 2004, giving him a 53% to 45% vote of confidence this year. However, when born again Hispanics are examined, President Bush was the favored candidate by a 56% to 44% differential. Among all Hispanic voters who made it to the polls, those who were born again constituted 5% of the total vote and 48% of the Hispanic voters. That is an unexpectedly high turnout among the born again segment since only four out of ten Hispanics are born again.
White born again voters, however, were the ethnic group that gave the President the biggest lift. In total, 72% of this segment backed the Republican candidate while only 27% supported the Democratic challenger. Nearly four out of every ten votes counted (39%) came from a white born again adult.
Bush Wins Born Agains of All Ages
As expected, young adults voted heavily for Senator Kerry. Voters under 30 awarded him 60% of their votes. However, when the entire Baby Bust generation is studied – that is, people of ages from 21 to 39 – President Bush received a slight majority (51%, compared to Senator Kerry’s 48%). The Texan also won among Baby Boomers (55% to 44%) and among Elders (i.e., people 59 or older, 51% versus 48%).
Faith was a factor even across generations. Among born again Busters, Mr. Bush defeated Mr. Kerry 62% to 38%. The difference was even more robust among born again Boomers (Bush 68% to Kerry 32%), and slightly larger than the 59% to 40% margin won among born again Elders.
Religious Convictions Emerge
Other indicators of religious conviction demonstrated President Bush’s appeal to the Christian community. For instance, 61% of the people who regularly attend religious services voted for him, compared to just 30% of the vote among unchurched adults. Similarly, those who described themselves as “committed Christians” chose the incumbent by a 60% to 39% margin; those who said they were “deeply spiritual” preferred the President by a 58% to 41% gap; and voters who said they were “concerned about the moral condition of the nation” registered a 55% Bush vote.
Adults who have an “active faith” – that is, in the past week they had attended a church service, prayed to God, and read the Bible outside of church – also provided the President with a 2-to-1 margin of preference (67% to 33%).
And
this:
The Wall St. Journal wrote:Beating back scapegoating and spin to understand election 2004
November 09, 2004
By CHARLES FORELLE, DAVID BANK, and SARA SCHAEFER MUNOZ
Wall Street Journal, November 5, 2004
Gay-marriage supporters scored a major victory earlier this year with the legalization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts.
This week, they found themselves fending off criticism from friends in the Democratic Party that the drive for gay marital rights had engendered a backlash that helped cost Sen. John Kerry the presidential election.
"I think that whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon," Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said Wednesday. "And people aren't ready for it."
Clarifying her remarks yesterday, Sen. Feinstein said she wasn't making a "value judgment" on gay marriages, just an observation on the issue's political impact. "I believe that the issue of gay marriage served as a rallying point to get conservative people to the polls," she said.
Voters in 11 states Tuesday drubbed the prospects of same-sex marriage, roundly approving ballot proposals curbing it by margins that ran from comfortable to lopsided. The narrowest margin among the 11 ballot amendments was 57% to 43% in Oregon, which has a relatively high concentration of gay couples and where marriage cases are before the courts. Some gay-marriage proponents had held out hope for an upset victory there. The results in many Southern states -- such as Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arkansas and Georgia -- were far more decisive. In Mississippi, 86% of voters approved a ban.
A spokeswoman for Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who co-sponsored a federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage, said the state-approved amendments "are a strong statement on protecting marriage." She said Sen. Santorum would continue to work to protect marriage at all levels of government.
But gay-rights activists detected some silver linings in the Tuesday polling. Exit-poll data show that 60% of voters favor either gay marriage or civil unions. In addition, some state legislatures saw the election of more pro-gay candidates.
"The way we do this is through a period of what I call patchwork," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a pro-gay marriage group in New York. "Some states move toward equality faster and some states resist and even regress."
Opponents of gay marriage credited the issue with rallying conservative and evangelical Christian voters, who turned out heavily to propel President Bush to re-election and a popular-vote majority.
Matt Daniels, president of the Virginia-based Alliance for Marriage, which is spearheading the effort for a federal constitutional amendment, said gay-rights advocates are now "paying the price for their political arrogance" in seeking court-ordered marital rights without popular support. He said Tuesday's results will "soften the ground in the House and the Senate" when the federal amendment is reintroduced next year, and showed that the amendment "will fly through the states" if it is approved by Congress.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who shocked residents of California by defying a state law and issuing marriage licenses to gay couples earlier this year, disclaimed responsibility for any backlash that may have been caused by his move. "I'd like to think I'm that influential," he said. "But I hardly think I was. The point being gay marriage wasn't something I conceived of. It was something we advanced."
Mr. Newsom's move garnered criticism from some gay leaders; Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, one of a handful of openly gay congressmen, denounced it as detrimental to the cause of establishing legal gay marriages.
"I do think that helped provoke some of the referendums" in favor of curbing same-sex marriage, Rep. Frank said. He recommended that gay-marriage advocates "pursue this state by state."
But Jenny Pizer, an attorney with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles, said the well-publicized weddings were "immensely positive in showing America these are joyous couples."
Gay-marriage proponents now say they are concentrating on bite-sized pieces: court actions to legalize marriage, the election of pro-gay-marriage state legislators and defeating attempts to pass a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Mary Bonauto, lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Massachusetts' landmark marriage case and a lawyer at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, says that promising court cases are proceeding in Connecticut, Washington, New Jersey, New York and elsewhere.
Mr. Wolfson and others were comforted by the exit-polling data, which showed that 25% of voters nationwide supported gay marriage and an additional 35% were in favor of so-called civil unions, which extend many of the rights of marriage to gay couples but fall short, by varying degrees, of the embracing a legal marriage. Thirty-six percent opposed any legal recognition at all.
That a majority favor marriage or civil unions, they say, provides an opening to persuade voters that gay couples deserve recognized marriages.
Supporters also detect a growing acceptance of civil unions, which they believe augurs well for the ultimate goal of marriage.
In comments that largely slipped beneath the radar in pre-election coverage, Mr. Bush didn't oppose the idea of civil unions -- even though more than half of the measures that passed Tuesday had language that effectively bars them.
"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so," Mr. Bush said in an October interview on ABC's "Good Morning America." He said he disagreed with the Republican Party's platform that opposes civil unions.
In the final debate with Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bush reiterated his support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but emphasized: "We have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that. And I also know in a free society, people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live. And that's to be honored."
Gay activists also pointed the finger back at Mr. Kerry, who supported civil unions but said he felt marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. Mr. Wolfson, author of "Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry," said Mr. Kerry missed an opportunity make a moral appeal, saying it is unjust to deny gay people rights.
"That's the kind of clarity and moral vision that I would like to see our standard bearers have," he said. "I believe that when people make the clear and moral case for marriage equality and ending discrimination, the American people are ready to receive it."
Copyright 2004, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
The reportage and the polling data
all show the correlation between the moral values agenda and opposition to gay marriage, moral values and support for Bush, and said voters with said agenda passing constitutional bans —by overwhelming margins— against gay marriage in 11 states which went for Bush. Gay marriage framed the moral values issue in this election, and that was what sold the overwhelming bulk of moral values voters on Bush.
You have no argument.
