Four More Years: the Best from Elsewhere
Since I’m still somewhat dumbstruck, I’ll give you a roundup of some of the best stuff I’ve read from others about the Bush re-election.
Over at Stupid Evil Bastard, Les has some of the most practical consolation for Democrats and other progressives. As noted at the bottom of that article, ***Dave has some great advice on where we go from here and how to approach our continuing opposition to Bush — and make convincing arguments — without seeming like poor loosers. He explains some of the likely reasons that Bush won and Kerry lost — informative reading for anyone who has trouble understanding the other side’s perspective. Finally, there’s this informative popular vote map on Boing Boing, which does a much better job of showing how the country feels than the artificial Red vs. Blue distinctions imposed by the electoral college system.
To all that, I would only add an observation from The Young Turks radio program. During the rebroadcast I heard over the weekend (we don’t get it live in my area), one of the hosts noted that in 1965 most Americans probably supported the war in Viet Nam and the administration. By 1972, however, it was a whole diferent story.
Update: An excellent supplement to the popular vote map from Boing Boing that I mentioned is this one from USA Today, which breaks down the red/blue victories by county. Two things are immediately obvious from looking at this map and it’s year-2000 companion:
- All the same types of people in the same areas are voting for the same parties that they were in 2000. The difference, for the most part, is larger turnout rather than changed minds. Swing voters my hairy ass. This election was all about voter mobilization.
- The Democratic party needs to do some serious outreach work to connect with voters in rural areas, even in those states that the Dems think of as “theirs.” There has been an obvious disconnect here, especially when you consider that the Democrats really do have the policies and principles that are better in the long run for working-class, rural America. I have some thoughts on this — and on how little it really has to do with the Right’s version of “family values” — but I’ll save it for another post.
Update update: Some observant bloggers have pointed out why the USA Today county map is as deceptive as the state-based red/blue maps are. Here’s a cross between Boing Boing’s “purple” state map and USA Today’s county-based map. This should present a much more realistic picture of the vote spread across the country. For more insight into the proliferation of maps in the aftermath of the election, check out Mark Monmonier’s How to Lie with Maps.
Boulder Dude on Four more years • Wed., 12:11 PM :: Scott on Some solace • Wed., 6:34 AM :: *** Dave on Refresh … refresh … refresh … Most recent trackback pings … • 4-Nov, 7:32 AM :: 8 Ways to Sunday (Four More Years: the Best from Elsewhere)
Pingback by ***Dave Does the Blog — November 4, 2004 @ 2:25 pm
Adam,
The Princeton map is from 2000, but it gives you the idea of why the USA Today map is…well…slightly misleading. Also, I don’t like using “purple” in the middle. It’s too hard to tell where the majority went for one candidate or the other. I think majority is important in a First Past the Post system. A map using white as the 50/50 marker would be best because baby blue and baby pink (representing those counties/areas where one candidate’s margin of victory was slim) allows people to make that distinction. Purple is just doesn’t work with my eyes.
Since I’m an evangelical and a “right winger” I hope I don’t get too torn up by my fellow bloggers on the right side of Silicon Tower (whereas academic institutions are referred to as the Ivory Tower, I associate the academic/political/philospohical/theological blogs with the Silicon Tower).
Actually, my intention was to slam my counterparts on the right. We need to hold each other accountable somehow! If you pointed out their error, they would ignore you because you’re a liberal. If I point it out - they may listen. Lame, but that’s the way it works.
Comment by Rick Brady — November 6, 2004 @ 5:44 pm
Rick: Thanks for stopping by. I just double-checked and the Princeton map is indeed for 2004 returns, though there is also a link to a 2000 map at top of the page for comparison. Maybe I’ve missed something… if so, please feel free to point out where my error is so that I can correct it and stop looking like a fool.
We may not agree politically, but you have no idea how much I respect and appreciate your own efforts to keep your fellow partisans in line. Working from within to keep the process honest is one of the most patriotic things any politically passionate American can do, whatever your personal beliefs may be. I’ve tried to do the same with my recent post chastising the “move to Canada” block of the Left, and my hat’s off to you for doing your part on the Right.
If you’re looking for a map with white as a baseline color, you may be interested in this state-based map from Tilting at Windmills.
Comment by Adam M. — November 6, 2004 @ 8:24 pm
I made a concession speech on my blog in response to your comment.
Adam, I am really concerned about two things: 1) Democrats wanting to move out of the country; and 2) Christians segregating themselves and moving to “red” states.
I want to develop a post on this and I hope we (you, others like Les and SEB crew, and some of my friends on the right) can have a good dialogue about this issue. I’m so stinking busy, but I really need to find time to address this issue.
Look - you don’t know me, but I am the type of person who starts screaming when Anne Coulter and Alan Dershowitz debate each other on TV. Anne is a hack and Alan is a genuine intellectual. It drives me crazy. I don’t agree with Alan and I tend to agree with Anne, but that is not the point. Alan deserves respect and Anne deserves to be thrown into the gutter. Not for their positions, but for their delivery.
Okay, back to work…
Comment by Rick Brady — November 6, 2004 @ 8:48 pm
Why Democrats are blue…
Electoral College election-result maps now nearly always show Democrats as blue and Republicans as red. There have been many explanations as to why, but here are four new (?) theories: 1. Democrats are feeling blue (i.e. depressed) over the many
Trackback by OverMatter — November 8, 2004 @ 2:37 am