Back in 2004, Bush’s vote total was described by right wingers as a mandate to destroy Social Security. I’m sure they’ll say this is a mandate for Obama’s agenda so things should be smooth sailing with them for the next 4 years.

Woohoo! 

Hey, the numbers don’t lie.

And no matter how those parrots on Fox News try to spin it, Obama’s win is a collective punch-in-the-stomach to Republican ideology, and it’s a loud declaration that “We’re mad as hell.and we’re not going to take it anymore!”

From this moment on, November 5 is going to a holiday for me, a day when I saw the impossible happened, and I felt that I finally saw what America is supposed to be about.

And it feels good.

The white separatist site Stormfront.org has banned guests and new members from reading the site, a worsening of their usual fascist policy of requiring all new comments to be moderated.(to be fair, they get more trolls than members, but still.)

But their existing members are going insane, and producing amazing content, which actually sounds like the comments of excited activists rather than rascists. For example:

Democracy leads to socialism, feminism, multi-culturalism and radical environmentalism. In a word communism. Take average people, who have read little to none of history, politicis and economics, and possessing merely average intelligence(or below), give them a choice in a democracy and they will over the long run always choose communism.

The only thing, the only thing that can stop and reverse the march to communism is a right wing dictatorship, with a rock ribbed leader who ‘will do whatever it takes’. With enough power invested in the central apparatus to crush an uppity bureaucracy, and to break socialist movements before they gain much strength. I’m hoping some serious well read white people who want political change in America finally learned something tonight, about the futility of pushing their ideas through democracy. The whole system is slanted in favor of socialism and always will be.

I love how a greater percentage of Hawaiians voted for Obama versus Alaskans voting for Palin (McCain).

So, I see that Yes on 8 got 52% with 87% of precincts reporting; please remind me, do they need a simple majority or do they need a certain margin? *cross fingers*

Oh, and it a was relatively close win for McCain in AZ…

So, I see that Yes on 8 got 52% with 87% of precincts reporting; please remind me, do they need a simple majority or do they need a certain margin? *cross fingers*
MadInscriber on 11/05 at 06:58 AM

Huh! I hadn’t thought of that, but by golly, you’d think a Prop that actually amended the state constitution would require some supermajority to pass.

But sadly, I forget if that is the case in California or not; fear tells me that nope, there is no higher bar—I distinctly remember voting for and against Props that were described in the Sample Ballot as “Amends the Constitution.”

Perhaps there was a higher bar in getting 8 on the ballot as an Amendment—it might for instance have required a certain number of legislators to sign off on it or something.

But the only initiative I remember that required a supermajority was local, regarding a proposed light rail system, and it failed (the vote had to clear a high bar in the consolidated district of several counties affected, and Marin voters blocked it).

IIRC, some bozos associated with Howard Jarvis in the late ‘80s or ‘90s did pass a Prop that set the bar for raising county/local taxes to 60 % of the affected electorate’s approval.

So yeah, amendments that affect basic civil rights should have as stringent a bar as protecting one’s precious pocketbook, but I fear not.

But at least MadInscriber, you give me some hope I am mistaken, and thanks for that!

No, Prop 8 did not require a supermajority. Just a simple majority, and with 52%, same-sex marriage is no longer recognized or valid in California.

Arizona passed its amendment banning same-sex marriage, as did Florida, and Arkansas passed its ban on adoption by gay people.

Yesterday was not a victory for equality everywhere. The saddest thing about California for me is that there were large numbers of people who voted both for Obama and against marriage equality. I don’t understand that.

Yeah, not really meaningful.  Can the same be said of McCain?

Sorry, I should be more precise. Arkansas banned adoption by unmarried couples. But the campaign was clearly and explicitly aimed at preventing same-sex couples, who cannot marry, from adopting. This way, they can pretend they are treating everyone “equally.”

Here’s another morning fact: I woke up smiling from dreams of progress. For the first time in 8 miserable years, I can see not only the end of this awful current administration, but its replacement by one that’s has the potential to be better than any I’ve seen in my lifetime.

With a turnout and a margin like this, I’m proud of the country again.

<i>Yesterday was not a victory for equality everywhere. The saddest thing about California for me is that there were large numbers of people who voted both for Obama and against marriage equality. I don

Prop 8’s shameful passage did mar an otherwise wonderful evening—I was expecting it after seeing the startlingly close calls, but it still bummed me out.

Some small good news: it doesn’t seem to be retroactive, so people like my relative and her partner are safe. Also, I’m betting that the real side of decency and fairness will be back in full force next time with a Prop of its own aimed at either directly reversing or seriously conflicting with this discriminatory new amendment. A challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court is also a potential option.

It’ll take a few years, but after Obama’s victory the answer to whether Prop 8 can be undone is clear. Say it with me…

You are poetic and noble in defeat, MikeEss….

Dana: Bush in ‘04 only won between 50 and 51% of the vote. Kerry was 49 point something. So, no, Obama still got more votes this time. Gloat? Well, no, but glee for sure.

I am really bummed out about Prop. 8.  :((  Goddamn. I guess that’s one more thing we still have to work on. Block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand, teaspoon by teaspoon.

Dana -

That Barack Obama received more total popular votes is something of a function of increased population; his percentage of the vote—right now MSNBC is showing it as 52% Obama, 46% McCain—is what President Bush won in 2004.

Two things:

1) Jesse was making fun of a large assortment of right-wingers who went on a tear in 2004 claiming that Bush had a huge mandate because his vote total was the highest vote total EVAR for a president.  When the very obvious reason for this was pointed out to them (i.e. because of the changing demographics of the country), they did the digital equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and screaming LALALALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!  Jesse just likes to rub salt in old wounds.  (Not that I blame him for that - I’d use sea salt myself.)

2) Note that the vote totals for McCain don’t even come close to the vote totals that Kerry received in the 2004 election.  In fact, IIRC, in 2004 Kerry had the second highest number of votes cast for him EVAR in a presidential election.  Now Obama has the record, Bush is second and Kerry is third.  McCain didn’t even break Kerry’s losing total, and probably won’t given how much of the vote remains to be counted and how close 2004 was.  That actually says more than the raw vote totals - it kind of tells me that McCain supporters stayed home this year.  (And those votes didn’t go to Bob Barr either - Ralph fricking Nader picked up about 1% of the total votes, Barr got slightly less than that, and I don’t even see totals for the rest of the third party assortment pack that was running this year).

<i>To my fellow Californians who decided to support The Black Man and also support taking away civil rights for gay people — may your god damn to to your hell.

The rest of us will be living in the hell you gave us.  Thanks a lot, you fucking bigots

Won’t California still retain some form of domestic partnerships, and if so, what differences are there, legally, between domestic partnerships and legal marriages other than the name?

The legal difference that counts here is that explicit discriminatory language has now been added to the California constitution. It’s as unacceptable as adding language saying marriage is defined as being between people of the same race or the same religion.

Also, from what I understand, legal marriage automatically confers an entire package of spousal and family rights and privileges that doesn’t quite match what you get from a domestic partnership—at least, not without some extra effort.

The white separatist site Stormfront.org has banned guests and new members from reading the site, a worsening of their usual fascist policy of requiring all new comments to be moderated.

We have to be prepared for terrorism from that quarter. It’ll be bad enough for most of them, seeing a black man as POTUS every.single.day for at least the next 4 years, but the bitter violence inherent in anyone attracted to racial supremacism means that some will translate it into action.

But the only initiative I remember that required a supermajority was local, regarding a proposed light rail system, and it failed (the vote had to clear a high bar in the consolidated district of several counties affected, and Marin voters blocked it).

Sort of amusing about who blocked a green initiative: when I think of Marin, the first thing that comes to mind are the sort of selfish and prosperous ex-hippie Boomers who read David Brooks and nod sagely after taking their morning bong hits.

It’s a fantastic result for many reasons, and I support it completely, but didn’t Obama say something about invading Pakistan to wipe out terrorists?

No, he put our “good ally” on public notice that we’re well aware it’s a staging area for AQ and the Taliban, and that the Bush policy (which has involved small US incursions into Pakistani territory alongside the pretense that Pakistan is doing everything it can) is going to change. Saying “no more BS” isn’t necessarily saying “we’re gonna do a full-scale invasion.”

And don’t believe that the American populations desire to change their economic situation means they want to change their culture.

I’m certain people like that were the ones who made Obama’s better-than-expected margin. But the bulk of those who voted for Obama were looking for more than economic change.

Amusing tidbits from ballot initiatives (and by amusing, I mean possibly cognitively dissonant given the loud conservative standpoint of the electorate):

AZ: Said no to gay marriage; yet refused to penalize employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants (I guess that would impact their bottom line too harshly)

CA: No to gay marriage; No to abortion limits involving underage patients

CO: 50/50 split on ending affirmative action; 70/30 - for No - on defining life as beginning at conception!

Michigan is looking good these days (apart from the weather) - they voted to allow both medical marijuana and stem cell research. OK, so they’re a pretty solid blue state, but hey, I’ll take my carrots where I can get ‘em.

Aw, Franken lost. But so did Dole. Heh.

“Democracy leads to socialism, feminism, multi-culturalism and radical environmentalism.”

Good!

Oh, I almost forgot: South Dakota still refuses to ban abortion! It’s amazing how people will vote when there’s no one looking over their shoulder.

<i>No, he put our

Aw, Franken lost. But so did Dole. Heh.

You don’t lose by less than a thousand votes in a state that big without a recount.

Are there more than 700 absentee or provisional or military ballots?  Um, yeah.

My ten-year-old son wondered what kind of puppy they were going to get, and what it would be like to be ten years old and moving into the White House.  He then noticed that the older one was hauling around a book he recently read.

I suggested that he write the Obama girls and ask them himself.

The biggest actual legal difference between the remaining Domestic Partnership benefits and the marriage rights that were taken away is that, written into the State Constitution is a denial of Federal benefits and portability to other states.

I was married to my husband last month in San Francisco. He and I don’t get any benefits here in Illinois, but if we move or travel to Massachusetts, New York, or Connecticut, or travel to Canada, our marriage is recognized. A domestic partnership isn’t.

If at some point, the federal Defense of Marriage Act is repealed, modified, or declared unconstitutional, then same-sex married couples will instantly get full federal recognition and benefits, including Social Security, and 1000 other benefits that come with marriage. Domestic Partners will not. Unless a federal law is passed explicitly stating that Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions are given all the rights of marriage, they won’t.

As for retroactivity, don’t count on it in the sense you mean. The amendment clearly states that same-sex marriages are neither valid nor recognized. The retroactivity will ONLY be that a marriage contracted in California before the Amendment goes into effect doesn’t get voided. It doesn’t mean it will get recognized within the state. Married Californians will still be married - in Massachusetts, but not in California, even if the DOMA is repealed. Unless the US Supreme Court declares that individual states cannot define marriage in their Constitutions. I’m not holding my breath.

But the problem is that he will be constrained to some extent by polls and a desire to appeal to the majority. He is president of the U.S after all, not a free agent.

I suspect that we are all a bit more cognizant of that simple fact than, say, your typical McCain/Pailin supporter who thinks that John and Sarah Maverick could do just what they wanted at any time, just like Bush and Cheney did.

I know that Palin has demonstrated no understanding whatsoever of any such limitations.  That would require picking up a copy of the Constitution and demonstrating reading comprehension ability that she simply does not possess.

Guys, much as I am annoyed that Prop 8 passed, we have to remember that the Loving decision nullified a whole pile of state constitutional amendments regarding interracial marriage.

So, whats the fine line between saying ‘no more bullshit’ and ‘we’re doing an invasion’ if the ISI doesn’t change it’s behaviour?

That’s up to Obama to decide, but the key phrase here is “fine line.” Fortunately, unlike his predecessor Obama has more than a hammer in his foreign policy toolbelt, so he doesn’t instantly see every problem as a nail to be whacked in by military invasions.

I’m glad you mentioned the ISI, because my best guess is that Obama’s approach will have a lot to do with finding interesting ways to reduce its out-sized influence on Pakistan’s government.

I am deeply upset about Proposition 8, even though I am overjoyed at the overwhelming Obama victory and the defeat of all the anti-choice initiatives.

Part of the problem was that the pro-Prop 8 people simply *lied*. Ads went out claiming that the lack of Prop 8 would require that *your* church marry gay people, that it would be illegal to preach that homosexuality is wrong, and all kinds of bullshit that seemed to religious Californians like an attack on *their* rights. Yes, if you reality check you realize that the right to say “It’s bad to be gay, mmkay?” is not nearly as valuable as the right to get married, but then if they were reality checking they’d have realized that not having prop 8 would not cause the problems they thought it would.

But I will say, as sorrowful as I am about Prop 8, that I hope married Californian gays consider moving to New York, where the governor has declared that all same-sex marriages from out of state will be recognized (he doesn’t have the power to declare that New York can have gay marriage, by fiat, but he can declare that New York can recognize out of state marriages.) Aside from the radical difference in the weather, New York is actually a lot like California politically—extreme bastions of liberalism and cultural transformation living in the same state cheek to jowl with conservatives. Also, New York is not as cold as Massachusetts.

Seriously, this means more work needs to be done. Obama being elected by so many social conservatives who were influenced by bread and butter economic issues does tell us that Obama might be vulnerable to pressure from social conservatives—blacks and Hispanics were an important part of his coalition, and they tend to be much more anti-gay than white Democrats. Black and Hispanic Democrats who are pro-gay rights will have to do a lot of work in their own communities to try to help people who have suffered much bigotry themselves recognize that shitting downhill makes them just as bad as their own oppressors. And all of us who are pro-gay rights will have to work to convince the ordinary people of America that marriage is a basic civil right that shouldn’t be denied to anyone.

<i>I

Some small good news: it doesn’t seem to be retroactive, so people like my relative and her partner are safe.

I wouldn’t count on that.  As far as the state of California is concerned, your relative’s marriage is not valid.  I don’t see any way that the courts could find differently now that it’s in the constitution. 

Thank you, out-of-state bigots for lying to my fellow citizens in California to get your way.  It’s always fascinating to me when it turns out that “Christians” think it’s more important to interfere in the lives of strangers than it is to follow the word of God.  Ninth Commandment?  What’s that?

At what point does this aim become ‘regime change?’ While the ISI may not officially be the regime

You can end it right there, because when an organisation isn’t the official regime and excercises its power from the shadows, it opens up all sorts of possibilities.

How would the U.S influence their behaviour without intruding on the sovereignity of Pakistan?

You’re assuming there’s absolutely no opposition to the ISI in the Pakistani government. Even if President Mr. 10% is a bit happless, he knows the ISI had a hand in the assassination of his wife, and probably doesn’t want to end up a pathetic slave of the ISI like Mushaffaf.

Are the ‘interstingways’ you mention any less imperialist than bombing? Or just more media friendly?

Accusations of imperialism are always pretty rich coming from the American right (unless it’s coming from a Buchananite, which is a different type of funny). I’m not an imperialist, but I’m not an isolationist either—just someone who understands the value of realpolitik, and knows enough history to understand that it’s not the sole province of conservatism, and isn’t always exercised by force of arms.

Just because an organisation doesn’t work in the same way as the CIA doesn’t give you the right to intervene in their country. Do you even know exactly how the CIA works? Perhaps it just the same as the ISI, but with better media.

And I’m not assuming there is no opposition to the ISI, I’m just aware that Ahmed Chalabi was encouraging the U.S government to take out the Iraqi government, and that was convenient for the Republicans.

Finally, I’m not American or right wing. I’m not the one talking in favour of attacking Pakistan, after all, you are, so you must be more right wing than me. Finally, all the guys in favour of the Vietnam War would have described themselves as people who understand the value of Realpolitik, so you’re putting yourself in cynical company there. Enjoy it, I suspect you’ll find your new president will be sympathetic to your views.

Just because an organisation doesn’t work in the same way as the CIA doesn’t give you the right to intervene in their country. Do you even know exactly how the CIA works? Perhaps it just the same as the ISI, but with better media.

I’m not much for conspiracy theories about the CIA or the NSA secretly running the US, but whatever works for you. In any case, I’m not arguing that the U.S. act against the ISI because they don’t work like the CIA, I’m arguing that the USA can act against a rogue intelligence agency that provides succor to terrorists without being accused of imperialism (e.g. wanting to occupy foreign territory or appropriate its oil resources and services).

And I’m not assuming there is no opposition to the ISI, I’m just aware that Ahmed Chalabi was encouraging the U.S government to take out the Iraqi government, and that was convenient for the Republicans.

Chalabi wasn’t working on behalf of any government at the time (except maybe Iran)—he was basically a self-interested lobbyist feeding bad advice to an administration that had an insatiable taste for it. Also, unlike the ISI, the only Islamic terrorists Saddam supported were clowns who posed no real threat to his or anyone else’s regime.

Finally, I’m not American or right wing. I’m not the one talking in favour of attacking Pakistan, after all, you are, so you must be more right wing than me.

After reading my earlier statements, you must have a very broad definition of “attack” and a very narrow definition of “Pakistan.” Which leads me to suspect you’re the sort of left-wing fantasist who ends up making common cause with guys like Buchanan (sort of a BNP- or LaPen-lite guy, if you’re from Europe).

Finally, all the guys in favour of the Vietnam War would have described themselves as people who understand the value of Realpolitik, so you’re putting yourself in cynical company there.

I don’t mind putting myself in the company of cynics at all—it’s the fantasists and bunglers who trouble me, and the groups in favour of the Vietnam war were chock full of both types, regardless of party.

Enjoy it, I suspect you’ll find your new president will be sympathetic to your views.

It’ll be a nice change after 8 years of magical thinking combined with rank incompetence.

Dana -

That Barack Obama received more total popular votes is something of a function of increased population; his percentage of the vote—right now MSNBC is showing it as 52% Obama, 46% McCain—is what President Bush won in 2004.

Two things:

1) Jesse was making fun of a large assortment of right-wingers who went on a tear in 2004 claiming that Bush had a huge mandate because his vote total was the highest vote total EVAR for a president.  When the very obvious reason for this was pointed out to them (i.e. because of the changing demographics of the country), they did the digital equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and screaming LALALALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!  Jesse just likes to rub salt in old wounds.  (Not that I blame him for that - I’d use sea salt myself.)

2) Note that the vote totals for McCain don’t even come close to the vote totals that Kerry received in the 2004 election.  In fact, IIRC, in 2004 Kerry had the second highest number of votes cast for him EVAR in a presidential election.  Now Obama has the record, Bush is second and Kerry is third.  McCain didn’t even break Kerry’s losing total, and probably won’t given how much of the vote remains to be counted and how close 2004 was.  That actually says more than the raw vote totals - it kind of tells me that McCain supporters stayed home this year.  (And those votes didn’t go to Bob Barr either - Ralph fricking Nader picked up about 1% of the total votes, Barr got slightly less than that, and I don’t even see totals for the rest of the third party assortment pack that was running this year).

In truth, it’s a bit silly for anybody to use “most votes ever” as an argument of proof for the popularity of their candidate.

It is likely that sometime in the next 50 years that some Republican will win the Presidency and win more votes than Obama did this year - using the logic that “most votes ever” = best, would that mean that we would declare a GOP winner in, for example, 2032, as the “best”, because his/her vote total surpasssed Obama in 2008?  Of course not.

Obama won a very decisive victory - far more so than Dubya did in 2004, and well, we don’t need to mention 2000 - and it is fair to consider it a electoral landslide and a mandate for change.  He won a larger percentage of votes than any Democrat since LBJ in 1964.  There is much to celebrate in those things.

But it is silly to use the raw number of 65+ Million votes as a type of statistical benchmark for his success over history, when there weren’t even 65 Million citizens in this country 150 years ago, let alone 65 Million voters.  I got so tired of hearing PUMA crowds constantly hawking their line of “but she got the most votes EVER” and citing Hillary’s 18 Million votes (when you add in MI & FL) as somehow being indicative that she was the most popular Democrat to ever run for the party nomination in the history of the universe.

Sorry to be persnickety about this… it just reeks of an anti-intellectual argument, something I would expect to hear from a douchenozzle like Karl Rove had McCain won.  After 8 years of anti-intellectual logical fallacies, I’m ready to turn the page.

Obama won pretty big, and there is no doubt that a decisive majority of the country stood up for change on Tuesday.  I’m happy enough with that.