We may see a shift in the US political landscape.

[Any1]

On the other hand it doesnt make me more or les wrong on the actual issue.
[right][snapback]91134[/snapback][/right]

No. I actually happen to agree with you that for a significant number of the voters the elections are only about a few of issues.

[kandrathe]

On the other hand it doesnt make me more or les wrong on the actual issue.

Personally I took affront at being accused of making generalisations, when I didnt.

I dont really mind if he pouts and quits posting. I find little value in someones opinion who uses "hunches' rather than attempting objective analysis when the objust is appearent in its entirety.
[right][snapback]91134[/snapback][/right]

::: Hands Ghostiger 5 cents ::: Buy a clue! You can back peddle and argue the sematics of what you meant by "Key" if you like. 1% is not key, and 5% is not key. 40% would be key, but then again all you have offered is your analysis of ... What was it? Your opinion?

<=== HEAVY SARCASM INTENDED ===>

No, I think my hunch that you were over-generalizing may be accurate.

<=== HEAVY SARCASM INTENDED ===>

BY ALL MEANS, LET ME ADD SOME VALUE TO YOUR THREAD!

Zogby International poll of 2002-NOV:

Zogby International conducted the poll of 1,009 American adults from 2002-NOV-12 to 14. The poll's margin of error is about 3.2 percentage points. Unfortunately, media reporting of the poll results is difficult to interpret because reports do not differentiate between the subjects' personal decision whether to have an abortion, or their belief whether other women should be allowed access to abortion.

Some data is helpful:

• <>
  
• 22% of American adults are less in favor of abortion access than they were a decade ago; about 11% are more in favor of abortion access. The former shift may have been influenced by a number of factors:
  <>
  
• Extensive discussion in recent years of "partial birth abortions." A sizeable percentage of American adults oppose PBAs.
  <>
  
• Most people are probably now aware of sonograms, and thus are more likely to look upon the developing fetus as a human person.
  <>
  
• Two out of three American adults say that their views on abortion have not changed over the past decade.
  <>
  
• About 4% of American voters always vote for pro-choice candidates.
  <>
  
• About 13% of voters always vote for pro-life candidates.
  <>
  
• One-third of persons aged 18 to 29 say that abortion should never be legal -- apparently even to save the life of the woman. This support drops to 23% for those aged 30 to 64, and 20% for those over age 65.
  <>
  [st]

So rather than research your own opinion you have forced me to go figure out whether the premise you made has any merit, and from this somewhat dated Zogby poll that the number which you think is KEY is about 13% rabid pro-lifers. How many of these pro-lifers would favor democratic candidates if not myopically focused on this single issue? The funny thing is that this is the easiest constituency to win for a pro-life candidate. It's either the under-informed, "vote my gut/pocketbook", or well informed moderate multi-issue individuals that are hard to sway one way or another.

What does have validity in my mind has been the responses such as from Doc,

The abortion issue is a decoy. A "lookie here boy!" tactic. While the public and the media are busy paying attention to the ultimate distraction, other forces will be at work in future quaqmires like Iran or maybe Korea II.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Since, that 13% can be easily had with some careful tap-dancing a candidate, such as Bush, need not begin that actual civil war once elected. Now the candidate is free to focus on the remaining 87% of voters issues, many of whom are concerned about things like the economy, gas prices, terrorism or Iraq. Just as in the last two elections, the next one will focus on Education, Economy, Social Security, Health Care, and Homeland Security as well as the single issue constituencies of both camps. But I think Doc is right in a way, it seems that both sides have learned to use the Media feeding frenzy du jour to divert attention from other issues that they do not want scrutinized.

I have very little hope that you will discuss this in a civil manner, so insult away.

[Guest]

I really hoped you would keep your word and leave.

In an election that is wone by less than 2%(thanks Occhi for the correction the election before was by less 1%)) small percents are key.

Do you really understand what words like "signifigance" mean? Appearently not.

When you dont even know what you are saying and and attach seemingly subjective standards to words it makes your critique rather meaningless.

[kandrathe]

I really hoped you would keep your word and leave.
[right][snapback]91145[/snapback][/right]

;) What? And, leave the "Lounge" to be over run by midget-minded trolls. No.

In an election that is wone by less than 2%(thanks Occhi for the correction the election before was by less 1%)) small percents are key.

Bush may have even lost the popular vote by 1%, but that is irrelevent to your point. Your use of the word "key" is trivialized to sentence dressing then, since you are not using it as I understand, "an instrumental or deciding factor". My argument and presentation of facts, which you have ignored, has indicated that you are wrong.

Do you really understand what words like "signifigance" mean? Appearently not.

And, I dare you to look it up in the dictionary yourself, but it is spelled "Significance". I'm not going to get into a word smithing battle with an unarmed opponent.

When you dont even know what you are saying and and attach seemingly subjective standards to words it makes your critique rather meaningless.
[right][snapback]91145[/snapback][/right]

No, what is meaningless is my presentation of information and discussion in a thread you designed as a troll, and toward every response in which I try to have civil discourse you seem to try to further troll into a discussion of my mental faculties.

[Guest]

OK please leave - you say things that dont make sense then act like you validate them by repeatinng them.

1 Definition of "key" as I used it fits these definition(this is obvious.)

- A means of access, control, or possession.
- A vital, crucial element.

2 In the previous 2 elections the the majority was less than 2%

3 That means by definition a group of even 5% would be key.




Now go away and be silly somewhere else.

[Nystul]

I see the anti abortion crowd, which includes men and women, as at core against&nbsp; careless recreational sex, and as having convinced themselves "we have THE solution to this."&nbsp;
[right][snapback]91129[/snapback][/right]

I can't speak for other fundamentalists, but my way of thinking is much more straightforward than this. I have no delusions that making abortions illegal would stop people from being promiscuous and having unwanted pregnancies. I am not opposed to abortion in an attempt to stop people from having sex, and I can't imagine anyone actually thinking that would work. I understand fully that when unwanted pregnancies come to term, someone has to deal with it in one manner or another, and the child is likely to end up in a lousy situation. But only Scrooge would wish an innocent person to die simply to help the economic status of the society.

So in the end, with the exception of the few Scrooges of the world, it really is an issue of fundamental belief. Either you believe the fetus is an individual human being (at some point in development, which obviously not everyone agrees upon) or you believe it to be nothing more than a lump of tissue until it's birth. If someone believes the latter, they are free to consider any other nuances of the issue, from a woman's control of her body to health care costs to overwhelming the foster homes to increasing poverty, and decide how much it will affect their decisions. But if someone believes the former, then how can any of these other factors seem remotely significant in comparison to life and death?

And this is where it ties in to the original point of the thread. For those who do believe this is a simple issue of life and death, the issue becomes a far higher priority than it would be for anyone with secondary motives. If the Supreme Court is 5/4 split on their decision, the 5 win. But if the U.S. electorate is 5/4 split in favor of legalized abortion, the 4 are more likely to vote on the basis of this issue than the 5. And so we have the "pro-choice" language, and the woman's "right to control her body" existing as a counter to this force, to attempt to get people not only to passively view abortion as being a harmless procedure that might help the economy, but as being a *fundamental* right of womenhood. Both of these are real beliefs held by real people, and I might be naive, but I tend to think some of those real fundamentalists do get elected to office and vote based on their beliefs.

To cut to the chase, the feminist movement does not have the fire that it once did. I question whether a large portion of the population goes to the polls with rage in their minds over the thought of a woman having to carry a pregnancy against her will, although I'm sure some people do still have this in the front of their minds. Either way, the pro-life movement is not going anywhere, and a self-proclaimed "pro-choice" presidential candidate is not likely to win a stick of bubble gum south of the Mason-Dixon line until something happens to change the status quo.

Then again, if your political strategists say you need to win *California*, maybe appealing to the bra-burners instead of the bible thumpers wouldn't be such a bad idea...

[kandrathe]

First, what right do you have in telling me to go away? You are in serious need of a thrashing, and unfortunately I'm not the one to do it. I'll leave that to the mods.

...
2 In the previous 2 elections the the majority was less than 2%

3 That means by definition a group of even 5% would be key.
...
[right][snapback]91150[/snapback][/right]

Again ignoring your attempts at troll, and focusing on your unsubstantiated hypothesis...

You have presented no evidence to support the conjecture that anything has changed in the rabid pro-life voters in the past 20 years, so how do you know that these myopic single issue voters were key? They were not. Second, I offered a link to the Harris Poll of the last campaign that showed of likely Bush voters Education, Taxes, and Social Security were the top three issues. A direct refutation of your original premise. I also presented an analysis from the Zogby Abortion opinion poll showing that 2/3 of people have not changed their views on abortion in the past decade. Within the 33% who shifted; "22% of American adults are less in favor of abortion access than they were a decade ago; about 11% are more in favor of abortion access." does not indicate that the net 11% shift have become rabid pro-lifers. Finally, your comparison of the 2000, and 2004 elections is flawed. In 1996, Clinton beat Dole by 8.5%. What happened to the 7.5% Democratic lead? My conclusion is that the rabid pro-lifers are a stable voting block and about the same number of them voted for the pro-life candidate in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004, and will again in 2008.

This shift in the political landscape is your own fantasy, and not substantiated by anything you've presented, or I've discovered in my own explorations. So far your only defense has been to exclaim "If you don't agree, then you do not understand words."

[jahcs]

I tried to avoid this thread but I keep reading it. It's like a train wreck, I can't not watch.

This:

I suspect they may now finnaly realize the Republicans(and Democrats)have been playing them.
Abortion arguing has become a large industry itself. An industry that doesnt want to die itself and one that make huge abounts of money for both parties.

Anyway it may be a bit fanicful to think this, but imagine how great it would be if other important but less emotional issues(I know that event issues like war and terrorism DO effect elections) actually effected elections.

Goes hand in hand with this:

The abortion issue is a decoy. A "lookie here boy!" tactic. While the public and the media are busy paying attention to the ultimate distraction, other forces will be at work in future quaqmires like Iran or maybe Korea II.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

They say the same thing using different verbage - "Abortion is a topic that, when brought to the forefront of debate, gets in the way of discussing key issues."


And as for the use of the word "key" and the subsequent debate both sides are correct, in a way:
When an election is close (2%, in this case) almost any group of voters will affect the election outcome. All voting groups become important - or "key."
Using the Zogby poll 13% of the voters will not ever vote for Kerry, based on his platform at the time of the election. These voters are essentially a "lock" for Bush. The critical votes in a close election are the swing votes, not the locked ones - or not "key."

Perhaps what I wrote may help us Lurkers to find some common ground. If not, carry on and don't forget to wear your helmet, it's dangerous in here.

EDIT: I would just like to say quite a bit has been posted while I was working on this post at work. It may not necessarily apply any more. ;)

[Guest]

1 never said the "pro-life voters" themselves changed.

2 In a close election any definable group is key.




But over all I now realize you were even more confused than I originally thought.


The shift I was refering to was a potential one induced by events of the last month. It may or may not happen. You talking about a shift previously is something I NEVER said at all.

[kandrathe]

...
But over all I now realize you were even more confused than I originally thought.
The shift I was refering to was a potential one induced by events of the last month. It may or may not happen. You talking about a shift previously is something I NEVER said at all.
[right][snapback]91170[/snapback][/right]

No, I was not confused. Go back and re-read your original post. Your first statement is present tense, the next refers to past elections, the third is your conjecture, and finally you project a wistful "What If" hypothesis. I cannot predict the future, except through the lens of a trend from the past. Monkey's might fly out of your orifices, but not likely. It's hard to play the 'What If" game if it is based soley on your fantasies.

If you are specifically refering to anti-abortion groups feeling betrayed by Bush's selection of Harriet Miers, rather than their selections.... I see that as a adept move by an administration that is compromising to get government working and not create a political battle which will have casualties and bad ramifications for the American people in the longer run. I think more and more of the base you speak of, is taking a wait and see approach on Miers. They haven't heard anything to qualify or disqualify her.

[Occhidiangela]

OK please leave - you say things that dont make sense then act like you validate them by repeatinng them.

1 Definition of "key" as I used it fits these definition(this is obvious.)

- A means of access, control, or possession.
- A vital, crucial element.

2 In the previous 2 elections the the majority was less than 2%

3 That means by definition a group of even 5% would be key.
Now go away and be silly somewhere else.
[right][snapback]91150[/snapback][/right]

He's owning you, Ghostiger.

He follows through, and you are attempting to win a minor semantics skirmish when you are the poster boy for continued failures at the grammarian and word usage game. That doesn't render moot your observation that abortion is too weighted an issue in elections, or has been allowed to become so, a general premise with which I agree wholeheartedly. Your position's presentation has been shoddy, which is not all that new a scenario, but your sense of the problem is, IMO, dead on.

You aren't doing yourself any favors by insisting kandarthe is a candidate for leaving the Lounge.

I let your 'evidense' error slide in my springboard reply covering abortion as a political issue, having a while back lost interest in nitpicking the carelessness with which you craft a post.

The argument you and kandarthe are having hit the zero value added pont long since.

Occhi

[Guest]

Indeed on the last point. My hope that the religous-republican link might be ruptured seems to have died this morning.

[Guest]

Hes not "owning" me. Consider what you just saidd your self.


As you just said "but your sense of the problem is, IMO, dead on".

His initial post claimed a a flaw with my analysis(he accussed me of generalising) - he was wrong about that. Thats all I have argued since then.

I completely stand by logic. If he had simply challenged my communication skills, I would plead no contest.






Side note: I didnt mean for him to leave the lounge - he said he would stop posting in this thread and I was wishing he would follow through. As I said Im happy accept communication issues.


EDIT: Go back Occhi and see his initial response - the first paragraph he made. It was flawed and I think you see that. Im guessing he accidentally infered something that I didnt write which prompted his comment.

Also see a little later in his initial response, he used "David Duke" as an example of how people might put other issues before abortion. Obviously there are buttons hotter than abortion, but if you looked at my initial comment I only mention abortion as being hotter than economics for these voters.

That particular tactic was indeed intellectually dishonest on kandrathes part.

[kandrathe]

...
That doesn't render moot your observation that abortion is too weighted an issue in elections, or has been allowed to become so, a general premise with which I agree wholeheartedly.&nbsp;
...
[right][snapback]91180[/snapback][/right]

And, of course, I have no dispute with that perception of that small and vocal minority of rabid pro-lifers. My objection is in the generalization that the republican base is myopic to two issues. For those people that have made up their minds that any abortion = murder, it becomes a litmus test for who they will and will not vote for. I'm not in that single issue mindset, but reading the position papers of theologians who are is insightful. I guess one way to mentally step into that mindset is to replace the word "abortion" with "torture". How would we feel about voting for a politician that thought "torture" was a viable means to extract information from suspects? Or, for another example, David Duke as I raised above. For most people in Louisiana, his beliefs were so morally objectionable that they voted against him, rather than for Edwin Edwards.

[whyBish]

They are meant to discourage/punish/prevent anti-social behavior that can unravel the fabric of a community.&nbsp; Activities like murder, rape, and burglary are clearly detrimental to a production and evolution of a group of people living together.&nbsp; There is no morality consideration in this respect.&nbsp; A country, state, or town cannot allow criminal behavior and still maintain its cohesion.
[right][snapback]91130[/snapback][/right]

Well, isn't using the internet, computer gaming, reading books, and other 'solitary'* occupations anti-social.. in the sense that you are not socialising with others in your own (geographical) society?

The second sentence suggests that you are talking about legislating against actions that harm others (or their property)? So on the abortion issue you are still left with whether an abortion is harming the target, and balance that against whether withholding abortions is harming the mother.

"detrimental ... to people living together"
To me this phrase at first glance sounds like 'common sense', but underneath it still comes down to how you measure 'detrimental'. e.g. Capital punishment could reduce or increase detriment to society depending on what your measure is (One side claims it reduces detriment by reducing re-offending, the other side claims it via reduction in innocent deaths... or whatever was claimed elsewhere)

(Sorry if any of these are strawman-ing your position, I couldn't see exactly what you were trying to say)

Personally I don't know what I'd use as the criteria, but it comes down on the utilitarian realm somewhere, not the libertarian realm... so personally I'd be happy to make someone worse off to make the group better off, as long as the rules are predictable (i.e. capital punishment for violent crimes would satisfy this rule)... unfortunately with just what I've stated above it could be used to argue for taxing the poor to give to the rich (zero sum), or an argument against having government at all since tax collection is a cost so collection/transfers are negative sum ...

Maybe I need to spend some time thinking about it myself :P

[Any1]

Well, isn't using the internet, computer gaming, reading books, and other 'solitary'* occupations anti-social..
[right][snapback]91311[/snapback][/right]

No! Anti-social does not mean activities you do by yourself. It means activities that are against the societal standards/norms and well being of other members of society.

As far the rest of your post goes, I've already stated my opinion as clearly as I can. I'm sorry I'm not getting my meaning through. :)

[kandrathe]

Criminal law has nothing to do with morality.
[right][snapback]91053[/snapback][/right]

And yet it does. If it did not then we would not consider murder anything other than murder and penalties would be uniform. Hate crimes, terrorism, and many other types of murder are considered more heinous and the penalties are more severe.

The first mistake is made by some activists—at all points on the political spectrum—who believe that the legal system should accurately mirror their normative vision of society in every respect. They treat any divergence between the two as an unfortunate compromise, to be overcome as soon as politically feasible. This approach, of which the Prohibition movement was a paradigmatic example, tends to reduce the moral analysis of lawmaking to scrutiny of the actual content of the legal norm at issue. Its fundamental problem is that it treats an act of law almost as if it were an act of magic. It assumes that by passing a law, we can bring about a desired state of affairs instantaneously, without any effort, cost or abuses.

But this is not the case. The legal system is administered by flawed individuals and institutions. It is applied to flawed individuals and institutions. Moreover, the law is not a collection of discrete elements, but a complicated and interlocking web. Moral analysis of the human activity of lawmaking must take into account far more than the moral content of the law in question, considered in the abstract. It must also consider how the law will actually function in the particular time, place and community that it purports to govern.

The opposite mistake is made by those who say that law has no business imposing or even promoting one or more particular visions of morality; that its purpose is simply to function as a police officer, by preventing people from being harmed without their consent. According to modern proponents of this view, which is heavily indebted to the 19th-century liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill, the law should ban neither “harmless immoralities” nor even harmful activities to which all participants have consented. This approach fails to grapple straightforwardly with the considerable influence that moral considerations do have on our views of what law is and our view of what it should be. Law, Morality and Common Ground By M. Cathleen Kaveny

[Occhidiangela]

And yet it does.&nbsp; If it did not then we would not consider murder anything other than murder and penalties would be uniform.&nbsp; Hate crimes, terrorism, and many other types of murder are considered more heinous and the penalties are more severe.
[right][snapback]91343[/snapback][/right]

The bit from "Law, Morality and Common Ground By M. Cathleen Kaveny" is very well put. I also feel that "hate crime" is a fundamentally flawed premise, and needs to be extricated from American legal lexicon. Each crime tends to have a motive and a method, but the act itself is a crime, and the hate either is or is not part of the motive. Method can corroborate assertions of motive in some cases.

Occhi

[Any1]

And yet it does.&nbsp; If it did not then we would not consider murder anything other than murder and penalties would be uniform.&nbsp; Hate crimes, terrorism, and many other types of murder are considered more heinous and the penalties are more severe.
[right][snapback]91343[/snapback][/right]

I can argue that they are more heinous because they have much greater potential in disrupting social cohesion and stability.

However, I do understand the point you're making. Since the legislators and judges are all human, the process of making and applying laws will be inevitably influenced by their sense of morals. I liked the text you quoted on this subject, it's very insightful. I especially like this passage:

Moral analysis of the human activity of lawmaking must take into account far more than the moral content of the law in question, considered in the abstract. It must also consider how the law will actually function in the particular time, place and community that it purports to govern.

However, I also see the potential pitfall of rushing to "tune" laws to the fickle taste of the populace. Again, I'd prefer if there is a need for the periodic adjustment of laws based on the evolution of a community, it should be done on a local (i.e. state, county, town) level.

[kandrathe]

...
However, I do understand the point you're making. Since the legislators and judges are all human, the process of making and applying laws will be inevitably influenced by their sense of morals.
...
[right][snapback]91350[/snapback][/right]

Yes, for legislators and elected individuals in determining what laws should exist, how they are selectivly enforced, and what is included in their wording. Yes, for judges in how they conduct the trial or determine sentencing within their powers. But, also for juries,and lawyers. Also prosecutors in how they rely and attempt to sway peoples opinions based on their moralities and prejudices. As such, daily their are miscarriages of justice and we boggle at how some cases are decided or sentenced, but over time this swirling chaotic mess of laws does represent societal norms.

Luckily our system expects errors to be made and we have an extensive appeals process.