Comments on: Not a good night for NOM http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/02/27720 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Tue, 21 May 2013 23:25:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: octobercountry http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/02/27720/comment-page-2#comment-82221 octobercountry Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:50:44 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27720#comment-82221 32%? That's not a terrible impressive showing. Given the fact that 1) there was bound to be a strong conservative swing this election, with or without NOMs participation, and 2) the way that NOM continually trumpets that their anti-gay agenda is the will of the majority of the American people... Well then, a 32% success rate on their part actually seems kind of pathetic. 32%? That’s not a terrible impressive showing.

Given the fact that 1) there was bound to be a strong conservative swing this election, with or without NOMs participation, and 2) the way that NOM continually trumpets that their anti-gay agenda is the will of the majority of the American people…

Well then, a 32% success rate on their part actually seems kind of pathetic.

]]> By: Ben Mathis http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/02/27720/comment-page-2#comment-82195 Ben Mathis Fri, 05 Nov 2010 10:38:43 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27720#comment-82195 NOM won only 32% of the races it backed. That's losing more than winning in any mathbook. NOM won only 32% of the races it backed. That’s losing more than winning in any mathbook.

]]> By: octobercountry http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/02/27720/comment-page-2#comment-82183 octobercountry Fri, 05 Nov 2010 06:06:19 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27720#comment-82183 "NOM lost some races and WON in a lot more." Um, do you have the numbers on that? I'm curious---nationwide, does anyone have the PRECISE figures of how many candidates were backed by NOM---and exactly how many of these people won in their races? “NOM lost some races and WON in a lot more.”

Um, do you have the numbers on that? I’m curious—nationwide, does anyone have the PRECISE figures of how many candidates were backed by NOM—and exactly how many of these people won in their races?

]]> By: BobN http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/02/27720/comment-page-2#comment-82160 BobN Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:27:41 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27720#comment-82160 This article is silly. NOM lost some races and WON in a lot more. They successfully brought down three Iowa Supreme Court Justices (and would have brought down all seven had all of them been up for a vote). In the next few months, at least three more states will vote to ban same-sex relationships and at least two will win. We could all stand to "lose" like NOM does. This article is silly.

NOM lost some races and WON in a lot more.

They successfully brought down three Iowa Supreme Court Justices (and would have brought down all seven had all of them been up for a vote).

In the next few months, at least three more states will vote to ban same-sex relationships and at least two will win.

We could all stand to “lose” like NOM does.

]]> By: Dakotahgeo http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/02/27720/comment-page-2#comment-82139 Dakotahgeo Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:48:29 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27720#comment-82139 Remember, all you GLBT hating people... the pendulum also returns from whence it came. Two years goes by fast, and the Democrats hopefully will be faster learners. The problems besetting this country are multitudinal. All played into the angst and faux anger of the Republicans/Teabaggers. My goodness, they can't even get along with themselves! The Republican Party has a lot of fence-mending and healing to d within its own ranks, not to mention the Teabagging Whackamoles. Good luck with that! Remember, all you GLBT hating people… the pendulum also returns from whence it came. Two years goes by fast, and the Democrats hopefully will be faster learners. The problems besetting this country are multitudinal. All played into the angst and faux anger of the Republicans/Teabaggers. My goodness, they can’t even get along with themselves! The Republican Party has a lot of fence-mending and healing to d within its own ranks, not to mention the Teabagging Whackamoles. Good luck with that!

]]> By: GavinC http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/02/27720/comment-page-2#comment-82134 GavinC Thu, 04 Nov 2010 15:06:44 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27720#comment-82134 And Minnesota is gone as well And Minnesota is gone as well

]]> By: Mykelb http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/02/27720/comment-page-1#comment-82098 Mykelb Thu, 04 Nov 2010 05:38:25 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27720#comment-82098 Did anyone or does anyone actually hold out hope for equality through legislation at the federal level? Keep dreamin. It will be done, but it will be done through the Judiciary, not Legislative Branch of government. Did anyone or does anyone actually hold out hope for equality through legislation at the federal level? Keep dreamin. It will be done, but it will be done through the Judiciary, not Legislative Branch of government.

]]> By: Stefan http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/02/27720/comment-page-1#comment-82093 Stefan Thu, 04 Nov 2010 03:54:02 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27720#comment-82093 "By my count, there were 27 Republicans who voted against repeal earlier this year that were reelected. 12 did not choose to run again (no Republican marriage supporters were voted out) And 1 ran as a Democrat. While that’s not quite as good as having 40 in the house who already voted “no” to repeal, it is a good start. Of the four Democrats who voted for repeal, two were reelected, two were defeated by Republicans. This means that if all other Democrats vote against repeal and the 27 already opposed to repeal hold steady, then 5 more Republicans need to be convinced to vote against repeal. This is not a sure thing, but it is probably doable." That is also assuming that everyone shows up too. The vote to try and repeal it in February only attracted about 320 representatives. Clearly a large amount didn't even care enough to show up and vote. We also need to be sure to drive the point home that no Republican was voted out of office for supporting gay marriage (other then the one that switched parties, which was a stupid move) while 4 Democrats who voted against gay marriage were voted out. “By my count, there were 27 Republicans who voted against repeal earlier this year that were reelected.

12 did not choose to run again (no Republican marriage supporters were voted out)

And 1 ran as a Democrat.

While that’s not quite as good as having 40 in the house who already voted “no” to repeal, it is a good start.

Of the four Democrats who voted for repeal, two were reelected, two were defeated by Republicans.

This means that if all other Democrats vote against repeal and the 27 already opposed to repeal hold steady, then 5 more Republicans need to be convinced to vote against repeal. This is not a sure thing, but it is probably doable.”

That is also assuming that everyone shows up too. The vote to try and repeal it in February only attracted about 320 representatives. Clearly a large amount didn’t even care enough to show up and vote.

We also need to be sure to drive the point home that no Republican was voted out of office for supporting gay marriage (other then the one that switched parties, which was a stupid move) while 4 Democrats who voted against gay marriage were voted out.

]]> By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/02/27720/comment-page-1#comment-82084 Timothy Kincaid Thu, 04 Nov 2010 00:00:07 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27720#comment-82084 By my count, there were 27 Republicans who voted against repeal earlier this year that were reelected. 12 did not choose to run again (no Republican marriage supporters were voted out) And 1 ran as a Democrat. While that's not quite as good as having 40 in the house who already voted "no" to repeal, it is a good start. Of the four Democrats who voted for repeal, two were reelected, two were defeated by Republicans. This means that if all other Democrats vote against repeal and the 27 already opposed to repeal hold steady, then 5 more Republicans need to be convinced to vote against repeal. This is not a sure thing, but it is probably doable. By my count, there were 27 Republicans who voted against repeal earlier this year that were reelected.

12 did not choose to run again (no Republican marriage supporters were voted out)

And 1 ran as a Democrat.

While that’s not quite as good as having 40 in the house who already voted “no” to repeal, it is a good start.

Of the four Democrats who voted for repeal, two were reelected, two were defeated by Republicans.

This means that if all other Democrats vote against repeal and the 27 already opposed to repeal hold steady, then 5 more Republicans need to be convinced to vote against repeal. This is not a sure thing, but it is probably doable.

]]> By: occono http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/11/02/27720/comment-page-1#comment-82080 occono Wed, 03 Nov 2010 23:06:06 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27720#comment-82080 I don't really care about Legislative elections, as eventually things will swing back and more progress will be made. The Iowa retention vote was important to me, because it has much longer-lasting consequences, and was hugely depressing and enraging. :( I don’t really care about Legislative elections, as eventually things will swing back and more progress will be made. The Iowa retention vote was important to me, because it has much longer-lasting consequences, and was hugely depressing and enraging. :(

]]>