|
 |
Welcome to Backyard Blog, our group online journal for this election season. We've asked a broad array of people with deep ties to the region to share their views on politics during the 2004 campaign.
Send your comments to bbcomments@seattletimes.com. |
October 24, 2004
| Gay marriage and evangelicals will decide the race for Bush |
| Posted by Matthew Ranger at 09:19 AM |
And now, ladies and gentlemen, my prediction for the outcome of the Presidential race.
Here's the short story. George W. Bush will win Ohio and therefore the election, based on a higher than expected turnout, will break in his direction due to a gay marriage amendment being on the ballot.
For those of you who are still with me, here's the long story. In this year's Presidential election, 11 states will also have ballot initiatives proposing amendments to their respective constitutions defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. Of those 11, four are generally thought of as swing states in this election: Arkansas, Oregon, Michigan and Ohio. Currently, Arkansas looks to be breaking for Bush and Oregon for Kerry. Kerry is counting on Michigan big time, and currently has a lead there. Realistically, Kerry will lose a few other states, and the election for that matter, before he loses Michigan. This brings us to Ohio.
Current polls show the race there neck and neck with nearly every poll within the margin of error. With Nader off the ballot and the race nearly over, it is looking more and more like turnout will be the decisive factor in this race. It is my belief that the amendment initiative will have a profound effect on turnout and will push Bush over the top. How did I come to this conclusion? Two reasons: Missouri and evangelical Christians.
In September, Missouri had a similar initiative on their ballot. While it passed by an extremely wide margin (71% to 29%) the real story was in the turnout. 1.1 Million people were expected at the polls that day. 1.5 showed up, an increase of around 40%. Admittedly, I would expect neither the amendment victory margin nor the percentage increase of turnout in Ohio, but I believe that we can expect both an amendment victory and increased turnout due to it. I would expect that the increased turnout would greatly benefit the President, as the issue turns out more conservatives than it does liberals.
The President has courted evangelical Christians during his administration, and with good reason. It has been estimated that 4 million of them nationwide stayed home during the last election. Now this is a group of people that will break heavily in the president's direction. An amendment on marriage is just the kind of issue that will bring a great number of those, and more specifically a great number of those in Ohio, to the polls. While they're at it, you can be almost certain that they will leave a chad hanging for President Bush.
Respond
|
| In brief |
| Posted by Sierra Michels-Slettvet at 09:15 AM |
I do not believe it inaccurate to say that most of my friends await the upcoming election with indescribable fear.
We are not jaded, we are terrified. I apologize for any confusion.
Respond
|
| Calling names |
| Posted by Michael Moretsky at 09:12 AM |
After watching the debates and listening to the attack ads go back and forth, I have a few questions..
First, what exactly is the difference between a "Massachusetts liberal" and an ordinary liberal? Is it somehow worse to be from Massachusetts and be a liberal at the same time? And, if it is, why isn't Kerry calling Bush a "Texas conservative"? because being from Texas AND a conservative ... *yikes*
By-the-way, I was speaking with my father who lives in Massachusetts and is, I guess, a Massachusetts conservative. He tells me that people in Massachusetts will be voting for Kerry not because they want him to be president but because they don't want him to be their senator anymore. Funny dad.
Also, I find it quite fascinating that 'w' feels that we know how best to spend our own money ... but not nessasarily how to live our own life. He feels you shouldn't be able to choose who you want to marry if they happen to be the same sex as us. he feels we shouldn't be able to choose what to do with your own body. but he feels we can be trusted with our own money. Thanks for your faith in the people, George.
Respond
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 2004
|
|
|
|
Back to top