Kevin's Watch

Well, I conceed to Bush--but I don't think A Gunslinger will. As a matter of fact I'm worried that he's left the country. The US looks like two different countries now-the NE, Chicago and the West Coast on one hand and the "Heartland" on the other...

Heh, yeah, Darth. While it's all fine to criticize candidates, it's typically not smart to criticize the voters of those candidates.

Looks like it's official now. Kerry conceded. Bush won.-jay

Brinn wrote:As of right now 99 percent of Ohio's precincts have been counted and Bush is leading Kerry by 134,019 votes according to totals provided by Sec. of State Blackwell's office shortly before 5 a.m. EST.

Blackwell said there could be as many as 175,000 provisional ballots cast, but only 135,149 had been tallied with the precinct count at 99 percent.

Assuming that there are 175,000 provisional ballots AND that all 175,000 ballots prove valid (a very big assumption but we will make these assumptions for the sake of argument) Kerry must win at least 154,510 or approximately 88% of the provisional ballots. In a state that currently has a majority of the popular vote going to Bush with 99% of the vote counted, what would make any rational person believe that Kerry has any chance of capturing 88% of the provisional votes?

That is why I am confident.

Darth wrote:Damn, why would the Americans vote in Bush? Are they stupid? (I make this only a reference to people who voted for Bush, not all Americans.)

Darth wrote:I pity them, oh wait, I don't.

If you hadn't already demonstrated your total lack of political savvy and/or informed opinion I'd be offended by that comment.

True, I'm rash when it comes to things like this... I'm too impatient. I'm not ever going to vote when election times comes for us, because I'm too impatient, and yes, have too much lack of political savvy to give a decent opinion...

I suppose some would take what you just said about me offensively; but I'm finding it hard to act offended when I agree whole heartedly with you

Glad I could Help.

Brinn wrote:Glad I could Help.

I'm sorry if I'm acting like an idiot. I've been in a foul mood lately. And take my anger out on idiots that annoy me, like Bush.

But, overall, you're right. My opinions doesn't matter, because I don't give a sensible one. Maybe I should take more time to think about things instead of rushing. Soz dude

Bush won; Kerry conceded. All exit poll data shows 99.999% of US voters believe that Revan is still a git, too.

danlo wrote:Well, I conceed to Bush--but I don't think A Gunslinger will. As a matter of fact I'm worried that he's left the country. The US looks like two difference countries now-the NE, Chicago and the West Coast on one hand and the "Heartland" on the other...

Yes, it was interesting looking at the map last night...especially if you clicked on the individual states on CNN.com and got the county breakdowns. For instance, here in Michigan Kerry carried the areas with lots of minority voters or blue collar workers -- or in large college towns like Ann Arbor, and in the outstate areas which tend to be poorer, whiter, and more rural and religious, Bush won by a landslide. In Colorado same thing -- Kerry was doing very well in both Denver and Boulder, and Bush throughout the rest of the state. And in Illinois the same sort of thing was going on. Or at least that's what was going on when I went to bed. It was such a close election some of that could have well changed in the meantime.

I would love to see some breakdowns of education levels, church attendance, and income among voters.

I think Danlo would see his two Americas right there.

Myste wrote:It also concerns me that the current Iraq War is being managed by the same team who brought us the inconclusive Gulf War--inconclusive because while we decimated Hussein's forces, the man himself remained in power. Rumsfeld, who's been around Washington for 40 years, did his best to get us out of Vietnam. We left, and the country collapsed. Basically, we've had three wars in forty years run by roughly the same crowd of people. The first two didn't turn out very well. The current one is a shambles. At this point, it seems to me that the question is simple: do we go with a familiar team that always loses, or do we go with a team that has no track record?

Myste, I never thought about it that way before, but you're right. OTOH, the point of war is only partly to win; the other point is to provide a steady stream of income for war-related industry. In that sense, both Vietnam and the Iraq War have been resounding successes.

I voted for Kerry, not because I like the guy all that well, but because I think Bush is largely a figurehead. The real "brains behind the rubber duckie" are Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., and I think they have led this country in the 180-degree wrong direction every time they've been in power. Too much of this country's power is held by the same people -- the presidency, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and corporate America -- and I'm sad because we're in for four more years of it. I look at the GOP's inaction on civil rights, social programs, US jobs going overseas, and even our reputation abroad, and I'm reminded of Nero fiddling while Rome burned....

YMMV.

duchess of malfi wrote:I would love to see some breakdowns of education levels, church attendance, and income among voters.

I think Danlo would see his two Americas right there.

I agree!

I think it is a shame Kerry lost.

I think it's a shame that Kerry was the candidate that the Dems put up to run against W. Heh. I mean, seriously. They couldn't find anyone more interesting or less annoying to run?-jay

Hmmm, he had his strengths as well.

Who would you have suggested, Jay? The Democrats don't have many that I would consider better. Consider this: Bush won in a squeaker, but Kerry was running against incumbency, a wartime president, and the man who led the country through 9/11. Is this a testament to Kerry and his campaign, or to Bush's unpopularity?
What I find most fascinating about this race is this: the stark difference between the coasts, and the American heartland. The country is divided and it has to change. For example, the biggest state in the Electoral College is California. Bush didn't even campaign there. The electoral college is such that it breeds this kind of stuff. The Dems and the GOP know what they can and cannot win.

kevinswatch wrote:I think it's a shame that Kerry was the candidate that the Dems put up to run against W. Heh. I mean, seriously. They couldn't find anyone more interesting or less annoying to run?-jay

Dick Gephart would've been a better choice, as would Hilary Clinton. But Gephart lacked funding and the political savvy to win the nomination, and Clinton did not want to run at this time.

The Democrats needed someone to answer for Howard Dean, who they knew was unelectable. They decided that that someone was John Kerry.

I didn't like Kerry, but I'll say this for him: He conceeded the race with dignity and grace. He wasn't another cry-baby like Al Gore. I gained respect for Kerry today.

Gephart a better candidate?!?! No way. If you guys think Kerry lacked the excitement wait till you see Gepardt. He's a real firecracker!

Lord Mhoram wrote:What I find most fascinating about this race is this: the stark difference between the coasts, and the American heartland. The country is divided and it has to change. For example, the biggest state in the Electoral College is California. Bush didn't even campaign there. The electoral college is such that it breeds this kind of stuff. The Dems and the GOP know what they can and cannot win.

Part of me thinks thats because the coasts have a largely younger population while the heartland and the south (ie. FloridA) have an older population. Perhaps the young move east and west towards the popular centers whilst older stay and the more traditional as well. This explains why kerry got the coast regions; the younger voted for him, mainly.
Ignore my post if it is BS.

Lord Mhoram wrote:Gephart a better candidate?!?! No way. If you guys think Kerry lacked the excitement wait till you see Gepardt. He's a real firecracker!

Who said anything about Gephart being exciting? I said he would have made a better candidate. Why? Because he is a man of substance, and at a significant level his career in Congress mattered. John Kerry was neither of those things, and that is why he lost the election.

Loremaster wrote:Part of me thinks thats because the coasts have a largely younger population while the heartland and the south (ie. FloridA) have an older population. Perhaps the young move east and west towards the popular centers whilst older stay and the more traditional as well. This explains why kerry got the coast regions; the younger voted for him, mainly.
Ignore my post if it is BS.

I think this is a good point, though I'm not sure it's entirely about the kids. The youth vote was one that Kerry was counting on to be higher this year than in 2000, and it wasn't. Take all the red states, and add up the number of universities in them, and you find that you've got a lot more college students there than you do on the coasts.

The real significance lies in the urban centers, I think. Population density is much higher along both coasts, particularly in California and the Northeast. Urban areas traditionally vote Democratic, while rural ones vote Republican. The reasons for this are complex. Knee-jerk elitism might cause you to say that urbanites are more cultured than ruralites, and therefore have more social conscience, but that's utterly specious and doesn't allow for the many well-educated, cultured people who vote Republican.

One idea is that it may have to do with the fact that people who live in high-population density areas are more concerned with domestic social programs like free health care because when you live side by side with 3 million other people, and have 6000 homeless people on the streets you walk on every day, those issues are more immediate and pressing--so people vote Democratic, the party of domestic policy. People who live in lower-density areas don't see the need for government to be involved in their personal lives as much, and feel that government is there to provide law, order, and national security, and that's about it--and hence support Republicans, who are traditionally a small-government, foreign-policy party.

This isn't to say that city people care more about other people than non-city people; it's just to say that the way they perceive solutions is different. You could also argue that urbanites are too busy to care about other people themselves, so they want the government to do it for them, and ruralites take care of their own, and don't see why they should have to pay higher taxes so the government can do something they can do for themselves. But this doesn't always hold water either, because it doesn't take into account all of the citypeople who give their time, effort, and resources to charitable concerns and programs.

There's lots of other reasons, and I don't know how clearly I expressed this one. The coast/inland–blue/red divide is one of those things that all the campaigners and political analysts have to figure out too, and they get paid the big bucks to do it, 'cuz it's hard. This post is a freebie, so if I've irritated or offended anyone (which wasn't my intent!), remember that you get what you pay for.

Actually, it's a great post.

Myste wrote: .......
This post is a freebie, so if I've irritated or offended anyone (which wasn't my intent!), remember that you get what you pay for.

Your posts are always articulate and well balanced. Anyone taking offense, whatever side they're on, isn't carefully reading! So you'll have to work harder if you're really trying to offend!