I think so, and so does this blogger.

“It could not have been clearer if it had quoted from the Bible,” – John C. Green, a University of Akron professor who studies religion and politics. According to the Washington Post, “Green described one piece of mail from the Bush campaign that featured a beautiful church and a traditional nuclear family. It was headlined, ‘George W. Bush shares your values. Marriage. Life. Faith.'” That’s how they did it. The war was not the issue. Gays were.

Is there some irony here, that Sullivan has pounded the gay mariage drum louder than anyone, and now his dream has backfired, providing invaluable grist for Rove’s GOTV mill?

I’d have to say it is ironic, and maybe Sully should have known better. I’ve never been a vocal advocate of the issue because, while I believe in it, I know it’s an idea whose time hasn’t come — certainly not in Puritan America, where the sight of Janet Jackson’s breast on TV could set off a whirlwind of self-righteous indignation and horror.

I know a lot of Republican voters couldn’t give a damn about this, and voted for bush because they believe he’s more serious on national security or a stronger leader or he stays the course or whatever. But this issue, gay marriage, was the heart and soul of Rove’s successful appeal to get out the new conservative voters, and it worked brilliantly, with 22 percent of bush voters saying it was moral issues, not Iraq or Osama or tax cuts, that impelled them to pull the lever. Many hadn’t voted in the last election. The ingredient that got them out was homophobia, with anti-gay-marriage proposals on the ballot in 11 states.

So again, gay marriage wasn’t the only reason bush won. But it was the driving force behind the upsurge in right-wing voters who propoelled the GOP over the top. As Sully says, gays were the issue.

That’s what drudge says, in a one-line story with no link (sorry). If so, I ‘ll shed no tears. Of course, Rumsfeld and Powell will be next, any time now.

UPDATE: It’s true.

Andrew has some good insights.

Not only did Kerry win by an 86-13 margin among self-described liberals, he also won by a 55-45 margin among self-described moderates. So how’d Bush pull it off? He won 84-15 among self-described conservatives, and, more importantly, he made sure conservatives comprised a much bigger chunk of the electorate than they did in 2000. (Conservatives comprised about 34 percent of the electorate yesterday, versus 29 percent in 2000 — a huge shift, raw numbers-wise.) Anyone anticipating a conciliatory second Bush term should stop and consider how much Bush owes his base.

There you have the Rove strategy in a nutshell. If the ideological demographics had stayed the same as they had been in 2000, Kerry might have won. Two other small points: all those predictions of gay marriage moving African-Americans toward the Republicans didn’t pan out. All those predictions of the youth vote going for Kerry did pan out – but they were trounced by seniors shifting to Bush (I think the gay issue mattered there as well). The GOP’s weak spot is that they aren’t winning over the young; and that they won’t have gays to kick around for ever. I notice that in California and Massachusetts, marriage equality candidates all won big. The polarization continues. Let federalism work.

Could any Democrat have done better than Kerry? He won the liberals and the moderates. He won the youth vote. Was there a way he could have won those who believe abortion is murder and that gay marriage threatens civilized society? How do you win these people over when the sensitive wedge issues — guns, abortion, gay marriage — dominate their thinking, and the believe bush is on the side of God? I don’t know, and I don’t know what the Dems can do about this come 2008. These emotional triggers, used to such brilliant effect by Republicans, are so insidious, so divisive, I wonder if they might not leave us permanently polarized….

Andrew has some good insights.

Not only did Kerry win by an 86-13 margin among self-described liberals, he also won by a 55-45 margin among self-described moderates. So how’d Bush pull it off? He won 84-15 among self-described conservatives, and, more importantly, he made sure conservatives comprised a much bigger chunk of the electorate than they did in 2000. (Conservatives comprised about 34 percent of the electorate yesterday, versus 29 percent in 2000 — a huge shift, raw numbers-wise.) Anyone anticipating a conciliatory second Bush term should stop and consider how much Bush owes his base.

There you have the Rove strategy in a nutshell. If the ideological demographics had stayed the same as they had been in 2000, Kerry might have won. Two other small points: all those predictions of gay marriage moving African-Americans toward the Republicans didn’t pan out. All those predictions of the youth vote going for Kerry did pan out – but they were trounced by seniors shifting to Bush (I think the gay issue mattered there as well). The GOP’s weak spot is that they aren’t winning over the young; and that they won’t have gays to kick around for ever. I notice that in California and Massachusetts, marriage equality candidates all won big. The polarization continues. Let federalism work.

Could any Democrat have done better than Kerry? He won the liberals and the moderates. He won the youth vote. Was there a way he could have won those who believe abortion is murder and that gay marriage threatens civilized society? How do you win these people over when the sensitive wedge issues — guns, abortion, gay marriage — dominate their thinking, and the believe bush is on the side of God? I don’t know, and I don’t know what the Dems can do about this come 2008. These emotional triggers, used to such brilliant effect by Republicans, are so insidious, so divisive, I wonder if they might not leave us permanently polarized….

I’ve been having a difficult time all morning trying to make sense of all the emotions I’m feeling and all the data I’m trying to absorb and process. Obviously, it’s one of the darkest days I’ve had in some years. The mood in left-leaning blogistan is utterly surreal, a gloomy silence descending on even the busiest blogs like Atrios, Kos, TPM, etc. This one, too.

So why did bush win? Why did 51 percent of Americans elect a president who oversaw an unnecessary and bloody war, a deteriorating economy, a loss of international respect, policies that harmed the environment, etc., etc.? Most of those polled said they voted for bush because of “moral values” — wedge issues like gay marriage were more important than the war in Iraq or the state of our economy. As Joseph Bosco notes, America is a conservative country, and Rove understood just how to play his conservative base.

Was this a cataclysmic defeat for the Democrats? It sure looks that way. But Josh Marshall, in an obviously anguished post, helps put the whole thing into perspective.

[W]hen I look at the results from last night what I see is that they are virtually identical to four years ago. Pretty much the same states going each way and a very close to even race — though of course the president’s 51% makes all the difference in the world.

As I said, if the Dems had been crushed, that would be one thing. If the American people were coalescing away from them, etc. But that’s not what has happened here.

I’m not sure I can agree, when I see all the red that’s been added to the map across the country, but he’s got a point — nearly 50 percent voted my way.

Amid the general misery of this morning, there’s another bright spot, namely the fact that bush will have to account for the results of that which he has wrought. Iraq and the economy won’t be on Kerry’s shoulders. No one can assign blame to the Dems for these things. Small consolation, I admit, but it’s good to know they now must be accountable; if things fail or succeed, we know who to blame (or congratulate). As I’ve said before, I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of the newly elected president, considering the shambles bush has made of the world.

And what to say about creeping conservatism? Watching the country shift over to the right scares the hell out of me, but I’m going to keep my faith that Americans will resist the temptation to force evangelical Christian values on the rest of us. The vote against the FMA was a positive sign, but now that the can claim a mandate, who knows what’s next from the Christian right? Like me, Andrew Sullivan finds this cause for serious concern.

What we’re seeing, I think, is a huge fundamentalist Christian revival in this country, a religious movement that is now explicitly political as well. It is unsurprising, of course, given the uncertainty of today’s world, the devastating attacks on our country, and the emergence of so many more liberal cultures in urban America. And it is completely legitimate in this country for such views to be represented in public policy, however much I disagree with them. But the intensity of the passion, and the inherently totalist nature of religiously motivated politics means deep social conflict if we are not careful. Our safety valve must be federalism. We have to live and let live. As blue states become more secular, and red states become less so, the only alternative to a national religious war is to allow different states to pursue different options. That goes for things like decriminalization of marijuana, abortion rights, stem cell research and marriage rights. Forcing California and Mississippi into one model is a recipe for disaster. Federalism is now more important than ever. I just hope that Republican federalists understand this. I fear they don’t.

And I live in a deeply conservative state; maybe it’s time for me to think about moving. Then again, if Sullivan’s right, it won’t matter — the evangelicals will try to nationalize their agenda, and there might not be a place to hide. That’s truly scary, but I won’t worry about it in advance. I’m depressed enough today.

Okay, I apologize for the disjointed and obviously depressed nature of this post. It totally reflects my present mood. For all the harsh words, the comment wars, the spats and quarrels, I know that each of us wants what is best for America, although we disagree with one another on what that should be. So thanks to all those who joined in these discussions, no matter what side you were on (and to the two commenters I banned from the comments for making personal cuts, send me an email if you want to be re-instated; this is a good time to call a general amnesty).

Now we have to move ahead and make the most of what we’ve got. I’m disappointed as hell, and I believe the American people voted foolishly against their better interests. But that’s democracy for you, and I accept it. And now, I’m going to hibernate for a while and think about what this blog should be moving forward. Or if it should be at all. At this moment, I just don’t know.

See Josh Marshall — the Republicans are using lawsuits to force polls to close.

Across the board the story is the same in Ohio, a lawsuit strategy from Republicans is causing delays and shutdowns in precincts that remained open to allow people who were already in line to vote. Lawsuits create delays; folks leave.

Very depressing. It seemed all day that the “challengers” were being gentlemanly, but now they’re baring their teeth. Just as in Florida 2000, they’ve learned that when you can’t win with the people’s votes, turn to the courts.

It looks like the shrub has the upper hand right now, but it’s still too early to tell. I wish this night were over.

That should be interesting. It’s a Kung Fu movie. I guess Gibson’s The Passion proved that blockbusters don’t need to be in English to make big money. Still, it’s definitely strange.

Of all days for the servers to go down, it had to be election day. There goes the site traffic. It wasn’t just me: Talking Points Memo and Gweilo Diaries and a whole lot of sites seemed to get hit at the same time, earlier this afternoon. Must be Karl Rove up to some desperate dirty tricks….

Update: It was a Hosting Matters downage. Even my friends at Little Green Cesspools were down.

According to this article, Hu’s style is markedly different than Jiang’s, and holds the promise of more toleration and a willingness to listen and learn.

Simply put, the biggest difference between Jiang’s old and Hu’s new leadership is that Jiang vowed to rule with an iron fist, while Hu enshrines the more common touch and urges leaders to listen to and learn from the people. Jiang’s mindset and approach to social control were similar to those of old bureaucrats in the former Soviet Union where government/party control prevailed in every aspect of life – politics, economy, culture and daily life at the grassroots level. As in the Soviet Union, the Jiang government even tried to determine and regulate what the normal and acceptable lifestyle should be.

Hu’s governance style is characterized by the government’s looser control of the state and greater leeway to trusted, reform-minded colleagues. The government retains firm control of political affairs but not of all aspects of life. In addition, diversity of lifestyle is tolerated by the Hu’s Communist Party regime.

I sure hope so. I always, in my heart, thought Hu and Wen were a different breed than their predecessors. Of course, Hu’s unwillingness to loosen control of political issues is depressing, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt — that won’t happen overnight. But don’t get any ideas; I’m still going to criticize them whenever i think they’re fucking up, just as I will John Kerry after he’s sworn in.