NationStates Jolt Archive

While I believe that moral issues played a large role in this election, I don't believe that it was as big an issue as everyone would like to make out to be. The following article by Charles Krauthammer has some logical reasons why. The article in general points out the main problem that I myself have with polls, that they are inherently biased by the person asking the questions. Just the way you set up a question can reveal your bias.

Another problem that I have with polls is that they never show you on tv or in the newspaper the confidence level of the poll. I'm taking an economics stat class right now and I had a basic stat class last year and I can tell that the confidence level is the key ingredient in setting up the margin of error. The higher the confidence level, the larger the margin of error and vice versa. If the media truly wanted to be helpful in broadcasting these polls, then they would take the time to tell us the confidence that the pollsters have in their own polls.

The Myth of the Bigoted Christian Redneck
Charles Krauthammer

November 12, 2004

WASHINGTON -- In 1994, when the Gingrich revolution swept Republicans into power, ending 40 years of Democratic hegemony, the mainstream press needed to account for this inversion of the Perfect Order of Things. A myth was born. Explained the USA Today headline: ``Angry White Men: Their votes turned the tide for the GOP.''

Overnight, the revolution of the Angry White Male became conventional wisdom. In the 10 years before the 1994 election, there were 53 Nexis mentions of angry white men in the media. In the next seven months there were more than 1,400.

At the time, I looked into this story line -- and found not a scintilla of evidence to support the claim. Nonetheless, it was a necessary invention, a way for the liberal elite to delegitimize a conservative victory. And even better, a way to assuage their moral vanity: You never lose because your ideas are sclerotic or your positions retrograde, but because your opponent appealed to the baser instincts of mankind.

Plus ca change ... Ten years and another stunning Democratic defeat later, and liberals are at it again. The Angry White Male has been transmuted into the Bigoted Christian Redneck.

In the post-election analyses, the liberal elite, led by the holy trinity of The New York Times -- Krugman, Friedman, and Dowd -- just about lost its mind denouncing the return of medieval primitivism. As usual, Maureen Dowd achieved the highest level of hysteria, cursing the Republicans for pandering to ``isolationism, nativism, chauvinism, puritanism and religious fanaticism'' in their unfailing drive to ``summon our nasty devils.''

Whence comes this fable? With President Bush increasing his share of the vote among Hispanics, Jews, women (especially married women), Catholics, seniors and even African-Americans, on what does this victory-of-the-homophobic-evangelical rest?

Its origins lie in a single question in the Election Day exit poll. The urban myth grew around the fact that ``moral values'' ranked highest in the answer to Question J: ``Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?''

It is a thin reed upon which to base a General Theory of the '04 Election. In fact, it is no reed at all. The way the question was set up, moral values was sure to be ranked disproportionately high. Why? Because it was a multiple-choice question and moral values cover a group of issues, while all the other choices were individual issues. Chop up the alternatives finely enough, and moral values is sure to get a bare plurality over the others.

Look at the choices:
-- Education, 4 percent
-- Taxes, 5 percent
-- Health Care, 8 percent
-- Iraq, 15 percent
-- Terrorism, 19 percent
-- Economy and Jobs, 20 percent
-- Moral Values, 22 percent

``Moral values'' encompasses abortion, gay marriage, Hollywood's influence, the general coarsening of the culture, and, for some, the morality of pre-emptive war. The way to logically pit this class of issues against the others would be to pit it against other classes: ``war issues'' or ``foreign policy issues'' (Iraq plus terrorism) and ``economic issues'' (jobs, taxes, health care, etc).

If you pit group against group, moral values comes in dead last: war issues at 34 percent, economic issues variously described at 33 percent, and moral values at 22 percent -- i.e., they are at least a third less salient than the others.

And we know that this is the real ranking. After all, the exit poll is just a single poll. We had dozens of polls in the run-up to the election that showed that the chief concerns were the war on terror, the war in Iraq and the economy.

Ah, yes. But the fallback is then to attribute Bush's victory to the gay marriage referendums that pushed Bush over the top, particularly in Ohio.

This is more nonsense. George Bush increased his vote in 2004 over 2000 by an average of 3.1 percent nationwide. In Ohio the increase was 1 percent -- less than a third of the national average. In the 11 states in which the gay marriage referendums were held, Bush increased his vote by less than he did in the 39 states that did not have the referendum. The great anti-gay surge was pure fiction.

This does not deter the myth of the Bigoted Christian Redneck from dominating the thinking of liberals, and from infecting the blue-state media. They need their moral superiority like oxygen, and cannot have it cut off by mere facts. And so once again they angrily claim the moral high ground, while standing in the ruins of yet another humiliating electoral defeat.

I just read this from the link on RCP and I have to say other people should read it, especially the people constantly talking (still) about how it was the bigoted christian rednecks who gave Bush the election :)

heh I created a thread with a similiar article and I got just about the same response as you. :fluffle:

I really don't like the way that guy starts off the article - basically taking a few paragraphs to bash liberals. But when he gets down to the facts, I do agree with him. I think Iraq and the War on Terror were the main reason Bush got re-elected. I just fail to see why people could honestly sit down, think it out, and determine that Bush would do a better job than Kerry. But, the voters have spoken, so I won't rant.

WOW!

Parts of my family or myths! :eek:

Ok am I locked away somewhere?

Is this the matrix?

Fact remains. Gay marriage won this election. If Mass and San Francisco hadn't done what they did, would the shrub have made it?

You seem to think that we liberals think "Bigoted Christian Rednecks" (your term, not mine) just popped up out of nowhere. Newsflash!!! They have been important to every Republican candidate since Carter.

This time they were just more motivated. Look at the different issues this year:
1. Gay marriage: Religious people from rural areas are vehemently opposed to gay marriage.
2. Terrorism and Iraq: Individuals from rural areas are in general very pro war and military.
3. Supreme Court: Many, many churches were urging their parish to go out and vote based on SCOTUS nominations.
4. Economy: I don't understand this much at all, as rural areas are almost always for smaller federal government and fiscal responsibility, and this admin is the opposite of that. So, I must conclude that this was not an issue in rural areas.

I really don't like the way that guy starts off the article - basically taking a few paragraphs to bash liberals. But when he gets down to the facts, I do agree with him. I think Iraq and the War on Terror were the main reason Bush got re-elected. I just fail to see why people could honestly sit down, think it out, and determine that Bush would do a better job than Kerry. But, the voters have spoken, so I won't rant.

If you take the time to reread how I started off this thread, you will find that I did not bash anyone but the ones who report polls and those who come up with them. How in the world do you get what you said vs. what I actually said?

And how about you try to respond to the basic thesis of the article?

WOW!

Parts of my family or myths! :eek:

Ok am I locked away somewhere?

Is this the matrix?

Fact remains. Gay marriage won this election. If Mass and San Francisco hadn't done what they did, would the shrub have made it?

probably

Nonetheless, it was a necessary invention, a way
for the liberal elite to delegitimize a conservative victory.
The article is immediately invalidated by this. Republicans invented the stereotype of liberals as elitists, and the guy who wrote this is using it. He's using one silly stereotype in order to debunk another.

If you pit group against group, moral values comes in dead last: war issues at 34 percent, economic issues variously described at 33 percent, and moral values at 22 percent -- i.e., they are at least a third less salient than the others.
Large majorities of voters who said the war and economy were most important voted for Kerry (74% and 81% respectively). People who found moral issues the most important voted for Bush 79%.

My personal opinion is that "moral values" didn't have much to do with the election outcome (like the writer says). I think it was much simpler than the economy, terrorism, iraq, and education too.

Basically, Bush as the incumbent had an advantage as being "known" in a sense. We've come to know how he will respond to things, what to expect of him, strengths and weaknesses, etc..
Kerry on the other hand was somewhat of an "unknown". I have to admit, the Bush camp during the campaign did give plenty of reasons to make people doubt in Kerry. I think a significant number of people must have thought neither candidate was significantly better than the other, but why take a chance with someone who isn't as well known, and worse yet makes you have doubts. This feeling was possibly amplified with the ongoing struggle in Iraq (that whole don't change the leader during wartime mentality).

The only advantage Bush had was the fact the only leg Kerry had to stand on was he wasn't Bush. You take that away, Kerry had nothing.

To be honest, the Bigoted Christian Redneck does exist. My father is one. I don't speak to him often for a reason.

Anyway, on topic: To be honest, I find the majority of the issues appealed to, well, Christians, who happen to be a majority of the US anyway. The issues were basically packaged and sold to people of a certain religion and, with how the US works, that's a pretty easy way to sell something to the populous. That's why Hubbard stated the easiest way to make money is to start a religion.

Originally posted<b>Snowboarding Maniacs</b><i> by I just fail to see why people could honestly sit down, think it out, and determine that Bush would do a better job than Kerry.

<p></i> I agree, from where I'm standing (The UK) Bush is turning the world against America.

I am staying away from politics but I am also going to give my 2 cents of opinion on truth (truth+politics=selfdefeating). I think the simple old ways played the largest role in this election. Taxes, Guns, History of American ways. Capitalism and the little amount of individualism Bush holds over Kerry.
Privatization. Then again who knows since every person on this planet holds a few different opinions to another on something out there.

I just fail to see why people could honestly sit down, think it out, and determine that Bush would do a better job than Kerry. But, the voters have spoken, so I won't rant.

Because kerry was a horrible candidate that ran a lousy campaign.

Especially at the end, when he discovered duck hunting and the catholic church.

It's pathetic.

Because kerry was a horrible candidate that ran a lousy campaign.

Especially at the end, when he discovered duck hunting and the catholic church.

It's pathetic.
I think by "sit down and think about it" the guy meant how each man would do the job as president. I doubt he was talking about things like ducks and church.

While I believe that moral issues played a large role in this election, I don't believe that it was as big an issue as everyone would like to make out to be. The following article by Charles Krauthammer has some logical reasons why. The article in general points out the main problem that I myself have with polls, that they are inherently biased by the person asking the questions. Just the way you set up a question can reveal your bias.

Im not going to get into arguing the specifics but I happen to agree that the confidence level should defiantly be include

Along with important factors in determining it (sample size and such)
I mean there are so many bunk studies that get published with a cl of well below acceptable levels but they are swallowed whole because they are a study

:)

Because kerry was a horrible candidate that ran a lousy campaign.

Especially at the end, when he discovered duck hunting and the catholic church.

It's pathetic.
He never discoverd the catholic church he was always a part of it. The catholic church was against him vecause he supported woman's right to choose abortions.

He has hunted multiple occasions in his life. So are you saying you can't hunt even when you like doing it because you are running for President?

When did you lose freedom when you ran for President?

He never discoverd the catholic church he was always a part of it. The catholic church was against him vecause he supported woman's right to choose abortions.

He has hunted multiple occasions in his life. So are you saying you can't hunt even when you like doing it because you are running for President?

When did you lose freedom when you ran for President?


irregardless of personal opinions you know very well it was not just a random "hunting" outing it was a publicity attempt

Just randomly going out in the woods hunting for the cameras (and he very well could have gone on private land where they couldent have followed if he really wanted to get away from them)

He never discoverd the catholic church he was always a part of it. The catholic church was against him vecause he supported woman's right to choose abortions.

He has hunted multiple occasions in his life. So are you saying you can't hunt even when you like doing it because you are running for President?

When did you lose freedom when you ran for President?
He was to much of a coward to carry his own kill. Doesn't sound like any hunter I know. He feared it would drive a substantial number of the PETA crowd to vote for Nader and the actual Green Party candidate.

irregardless of personal opinions you know very well it was not just a random "hunting" outing it was a publicity attempt

Just randomly going out in the woods hunting for the cameras (and he very well could have gone on private land where they couldent have followed if he really wanted to get away from them)

Really Sherlock? And you think Bush ever wants to step foot in a public elementary school or that he really cared about the well-being of the people in Florida following the hurricanes this year? The entire election process is about publicity. And I don't understand how you could accuse him of discovering the Catholic church, but at least you haven't tried to back that one up.

Really Sherlock? And you think Bush ever wants to step foot in a public elementary school or that he really cared about the well-being of the people in Florida following the hurricanes this year? The entire election process is about publicity. And I don't understand how you could accuse him of discovering the Catholic church, but at least you haven't tried to back that one up.
Wow how quick you are to categorize me for pointing out something is true

You seem like you assume I was on bushes side … lol

If an example of that had been put forward I would have argued it … it is all shameless lol

Lol and I didn’t accuse him of that :) (though I would have had some guff with it if all of the sudden there were pics and stories and quotes of him in the church when there weren’t before) but that is a bit different situation

I pointed out the hunting because that had the biggest obvious flaw to me in the statement

Lol nice assuming I wouldn’t do the same about bush :) (though that logic seems flawed to me … but maybe it is just me)

The elections are all public publicity. It is a sad world we live in. I do not blame Kerry for hunting. I just find it's sad that he had to HUNT to convince voters. When the qualifications of a president are hunting and carrying a bible around, you know the redneck christian has become a major portion of the people. Why do canadites do this if there isn't that group. Answer this: Do you think a athesist canadit would stand a chance in 2008? Hell no!!!!! Why, because unfortanitly people bring religon into politics despite the seperation of church and state. The people who do this don't realize that the amendments they use could be turned against them if they weren't the majority. Now try and tell me there is no such thing as a redneck bigoted christian.

The elections are all public publicity. It is a sad world we live in. I do not blame Kerry for hunting. I just find it's sad that he had to HUNT to convince voters. When the qualifications of a president are hunting and carrying a bible around, you know the redneck christian has become a major portion of the people. Why do canadites do this if there isn't that group. Answer this: Do you think a athesist canadit would stand a chance in 2008? Hell no!!!!! Why, because unfortanitly people bring religon into politics despite the seperation of church and state. The people who do this don't realize that the amendments they use could be turned against them if they weren't the majority. Now try and tell me there is no such thing as a redneck bigoted christian.
I am sure there are a few … the point originally of the thread was not to contest their existence rather that the growth of voting population for bush include minorities (in a larger percentage then the redneck growth) that the election results have to be based on more then just some redneck with a gun
Its like you mashed a lot of the people that voted for him together (specially the ones you can stereotype with un appetizing qualities)
Specialy when you can stereotype it and not get in trouble for being sexist racist/bigoted

I mean what if I said that only “Black ignorant women” voted for Kerry

It would be incorrect as well as me getting beat over the head for being sexist and raciest but it is fine to pick on Christians men and white (the redneck stereotype) without fear :)

Rather silly … and I even see that as one of those “northern “ folk lol and you are calling cristians bigoted while sounding like even being cristian is a curse lol replace christian with "black" and see how pc your statements are

Seriously hypocritical

[QUOTE= Lol nice assuming I wouldn’t do the same about bush :) (though that logic seems flawed to me … but maybe it is just me)[/QUOTE]

I honestly didn't. One of Bush's big selling points at the end of the election was that he was a screw up and that there is a lot of stuff he does wrong. I don't know how that was supposed to get votes, but it did. Although most of votes came from the fact that Kerry is a pretty pathetic campaigner. :)

I lived in Mississippi for most of my life, and there are biggoted rednecks and, yes, they do vote Republican. But they always have, so there's no way that's what won the election.

The elections are all public publicity. It is a sad world we live in. I do not blame Kerry for hunting. I just find it's sad that he had to HUNT to convince voters. When the qualifications of a president are hunting and carrying a bible around, you know the redneck christian has become a major portion of the people.
Yeah it's the part of the US population that proudly carries a Bible and a gun as its two main symbols that I don't want deciding their foreign policy. Not that I'm anti-Bible, but I'm against forcing it on people or making foreign policy decisions based on theology.

Has anyone also considered that even people who were moderately pro-Bush - who might have refrained from voting - were goaded into casting a Republican vote by the vitriolic hatred spouted by some very vocal Kerry advocates. I don't want to say that only Kerry-supporters are capable of tyrades that completely alienate moderates (cough Zel cough), but in general, any time I proposed that I might even consider voting for Bush I had to quickly mumble and apology and explain that I'm generally more Libertarian to avoid hearing "Bush is a moron," followed usually by some variant of "You're so stupid," or "You're a fascist." Then again, I live in Jersey, what should I expect?

I remained mostly undecided until about a week prior to the election- based on the feeling that Kerry was probably better for international relations I was leaning left, but sitting through another anti-Bush diatribe (at my Church, by the way), I realized how repetitive the Bush-Haters had become, and how perhaps they just needed four more years to get their second wind.

While I believe that moral issues played a large role in this election, I don't believe that it was as big an issue as everyone would like to make out to be. The following article by Charles Krauthammer has some logical reasons why. The article in general points out the main problem that I myself have with polls, that they are inherently biased by the person asking the questions. Just the way you set up a question can reveal your bias.

Another problem that I have with polls is that they never show you on tv or in the newspaper the confidence level of the poll. I'm taking an economics stat class right now and I had a basic stat class last year and I can tell that the confidence level is the key ingredient in setting up the margin of error. The higher the confidence level, the larger the margin of error and vice versa. If the media truly wanted to be helpful in broadcasting these polls, then they would take the time to tell us the confidence that the pollsters have in their own polls.

The Myth of the Bigoted Christian Redneck
Charles Krauthammer

November 12, 2004

WASHINGTON -- In 1994, when the Gingrich revolution swept Republicans into power, ending 40 years of Democratic hegemony, the mainstream press needed to account for this inversion of the Perfect Order of Things. A myth was born. Explained the USA Today headline: ``Angry White Men: Their votes turned the tide for the GOP.''

Overnight, the revolution of the Angry White Male became conventional wisdom. In the 10 years before the 1994 election, there were 53 Nexis mentions of angry white men in the media. In the next seven months there were more than 1,400.

At the time, I looked into this story line -- and found not a scintilla of evidence to support the claim. Nonetheless, it was a necessary invention, a way for the liberal elite to delegitimize a conservative victory. And even better, a way to assuage their moral vanity: You never lose because your ideas are sclerotic or your positions retrograde, but because your opponent appealed to the baser instincts of mankind.

Plus ca change ... Ten years and another stunning Democratic defeat later, and liberals are at it again. The Angry White Male has been transmuted into the Bigoted Christian Redneck.

In the post-election analyses, the liberal elite, led by the holy trinity of The New York Times -- Krugman, Friedman, and Dowd -- just about lost its mind denouncing the return of medieval primitivism. As usual, Maureen Dowd achieved the highest level of hysteria, cursing the Republicans for pandering to ``isolationism, nativism, chauvinism, puritanism and religious fanaticism'' in their unfailing drive to ``summon our nasty devils.''

Whence comes this fable? With President Bush increasing his share of the vote among Hispanics, Jews, women (especially married women), Catholics, seniors and even African-Americans, on what does this victory-of-the-homophobic-evangelical rest?

Its origins lie in a single question in the Election Day exit poll. The urban myth grew around the fact that ``moral values'' ranked highest in the answer to Question J: ``Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?''

It is a thin reed upon which to base a General Theory of the '04 Election. In fact, it is no reed at all. The way the question was set up, moral values was sure to be ranked disproportionately high. Why? Because it was a multiple-choice question and moral values cover a group of issues, while all the other choices were individual issues. Chop up the alternatives finely enough, and moral values is sure to get a bare plurality over the others.

Look at the choices:
-- Education, 4 percent
-- Taxes, 5 percent
-- Health Care, 8 percent
-- Iraq, 15 percent
-- Terrorism, 19 percent
-- Economy and Jobs, 20 percent
-- Moral Values, 22 percent

``Moral values'' encompasses abortion, gay marriage, Hollywood's influence, the general coarsening of the culture, and, for some, the morality of pre-emptive war. The way to logically pit this class of issues against the others would be to pit it against other classes: ``war issues'' or ``foreign policy issues'' (Iraq plus terrorism) and ``economic issues'' (jobs, taxes, health care, etc).

If you pit group against group, moral values comes in dead last: war issues at 34 percent, economic issues variously described at 33 percent, and moral values at 22 percent -- i.e., they are at least a third less salient than the others.

And we know that this is the real ranking. After all, the exit poll is just a single poll. We had dozens of polls in the run-up to the election that showed that the chief concerns were the war on terror, the war in Iraq and the economy.

Ah, yes. But the fallback is then to attribute Bush's victory to the gay marriage referendums that pushed Bush over the top, particularly in Ohio.

This is more nonsense. George Bush increased his vote in 2004 over 2000 by an average of 3.1 percent nationwide. In Ohio the increase was 1 percent -- less than a third of the national average. In the 11 states in which the gay marriage referendums were held, Bush increased his vote by less than he did in the 39 states that did not have the referendum. The great anti-gay surge was pure fiction.

This does not deter the myth of the Bigoted Christian Redneck from dominating the thinking of liberals, and from infecting the blue-state media. They need their moral superiority like oxygen, and cannot have it cut off by mere facts. And so once again they angrily claim the moral high ground, while standing in the ruins of yet another humiliating electoral defeat.

I have not met a single person who has given me an answer besides Bush went and blew up stuff and he is a good "moral" man who protects things like marriage for giving their vote to Bush. Married women increased because they are married, christian women. Not educated, professional women. Bush won and I hate the media so don't try to say I was listening to it. He played on two points, I can protect you and I can protect you by marginalizing small groups like gay people. He didn't say anything about his work with the economy, didn't give any proof for educational change, job growth, nothing concrete. JUST, I can protect you......the coward waited till after the election to actually do anything strong in Fallujah. Something that should have happened a long time ago. It isn't about being liberal it is about asking, what is really going well. Nothing. I have asked so many people I can't count any higher, educated, youth, elderly.......never once did they give me a good answer. White, redneck, uneducated, religous. Maybe the media was right for once.

I have not met a single person who has given me an answer besides Bush went and blew up stuff and he is a good "moral" man who protects things like marriage for giving their vote to Bush. Married women increased because they are married, christian women. Not educated, professional women. Bush won and I hate the media so don't try to say I was listening to it. He played on two points, I can protect you and I can protect you by marginalizing small groups like gay people. He didn't say anything about his work with the economy, didn't give any proof for educational change, job growth, nothing concrete. JUST, I can protect you......the coward waited till after the election to actually do anything strong in Fallujah. Something that should have happened a long time ago. It isn't about being liberal it is about asking, what is really going well. Nothing. I have asked so many people I can't count any higher, educated, youth, elderly.......never once did they give me a good answer. White, redneck, uneducated, religous. Maybe the media was right for once.

Well maybe you aren't looking hard enough. I have seen more then one reference gay marriage was a battle cry to get people out to vote.

One of our workers said his wife is a democrat(Ohio) and she voted for the shrub because of gay marriage.

Moral issues(no gay marriage) was the primary reason.

I just read this from the link on RCP and I have to say other people should read it, especially the people constantly talking (still) about how it was the bigoted christian rednecks who gave Bush the election :)

Kwangistar - you are a man amonst men. Keep it up, buddy.

The elections are all public publicity.


Not when the Demos and GOP won't let the Libertarian and Green party candidates join the debates...

Not when the Demos and GOP won't let the Libertarian and Green party candidates join the debates...

Damn right! Badnarik for president in 2036!

Plus ca change ... Ten years and another stunning Democratic defeat later, and liberals are at it again. The Angry White Male has been transmuted into the Bigoted Christian Redneck.Funny, while trying to debunk one stereotype this article buys into and promotes another: the stereotype of the hateful, petty, liberal elite.

I live in a state in which every county voted for Bush, and I can ASSURE you: there is a lot of truth behing the 'bigoted christian redneck' stereotype. Am I saying every Bush voter falls into that category? Even most of them? No. But dismissing the idea completely in order to attack liberals - that's stupid too.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
While Evangelical Christians did vote overwhelmingly for Bush, they were far from a main factor, being less than a quarter of all voters. In nearly every demographic group, even blacks, Bush gained more voters.

I live in a state in which every county voted for Bush
What state is that?

What state is that?


The fairytale one because looking at the stats I don’t think there is one (not even texas)

The fairytale one because looking at the stats I don’t think there is one (not even texas)
Try Nebraska, Utah, and Oklahoma.

Well, the guy decides that homosexual marriage, abortion and religion deserve one category each. Education and homosexual marriage valued as equally important, this is a nightmare.

I'll add to this that 22% is a huge number, the simple fact that the author tries to deny it is ridiculous.

Btw, I'm not talking about something I don't know, I've seen the rednecks. They are what they're called.

Well, the guy decides that homosexual marriage, abortion and religion deserve one category each. Education and homosexual marriage valued as equally important, this is a nightmare.

I'll add to this that 22% is a huge number, the simple fact that the author tries to deny it is ridiculous.

Btw, I'm not talking about something I don't know, I've seen the rednecks. They are what they're called.

Sound like you are talking about something in a zoo lol “Ive seen them once” lol sense you have seen one do they always maintain all the stereotypical redneck features?

(oh btw the original author was not saying they didn’t exist more that they really didn’t affect things as much as everyone makes it seem like.)