American voters

[lifegazer]

The strange thing is, if I was to think of America and where the money is, I would guess at the west coast and the north-east corner. Go figure, as you say over there.

 

[jj]

The dems reside in or near big cities, where Federally funded entitlement programs are targeted. For fear of losing big cash handouts [bribes], and welfare checks, the big cities vote democrat. The biggest cities happen to be on the coasts.

The people who voted against Bush (not "dems", please, stop that dishonest characterizing) are centered in and near large institutions of learning.

That's the fact, Jack.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

The people who voted against Bush (not "dems", please, stop that dishonest characterizing) are centered in and near large institutions of learning.

That's the fact, Jack.

I think that argument will be lost on Richard G, as we all know that thar book larnin' don't do nuthin' but make a gul durned pinko librul outta ya.

 

[demon]

So, as it turns out that a majority of US citizens have in fact voted for four more years of the Bush Gang, are we entitled to call them a bunch of gullible, gutless, terror-stricken, half-arsed, quarter-witted, passive-aggressive, God-bothering, TV-addicted, bull(censored)-swallowing dupes, or do we have to respect the democratically-expressed decision of the American people?

Well, no one should get carried away. Afterall, one could easily direct the same comments at the British public. Thatcher anyone? And now Blair. I had a fairly intense row with someone the other day about the whole "yanks are thick" idea. This election was not won or lost over Iraq or terrorism.
This election was parrtly won because of the general misinterpretation of what Christianity is in the US. Ohio voters were also being asked to vote on some issue related to gay marraige. This brought extra homophobes out to the polls who swayed the state in Bush's favour. Bush's victory (and Kerry`s very existence as the only other option), demonstrates that theirs is a society which is suffering from a very poor education system and lack of information, nothing more.
It`s a little frustrating to hear such criticism from British people that I did the other day, from anyone in fact. I can think of very few places in the world where voters are not regularly duped. He who has not sinned cast the first stone and all that.

Anyway, here`s my opinion for what it`s worth:

Victory for Bush means:The U.S continues to show its aggressive, imperialistic, primitive face, without make-up.Domestically, democracy will keep fading, eroded by religious fundamentalism, aggresive"patriotism" and terror-mania.The world will have ample opportunities to see where "the leader of the free world" is leading them.
Victory for Kerry means:A Clintonnesque America, behaving dictatorically, ruling like an empire, bombing at will those that stray away from the flock, making all the time "liberal" noises and filling everyone with "center-left" manure, promoting the "progressive " face of captalism.

I hear that John "Dignified" Kerry conceeded and said something to the effect of: "It's Time to Let the Healing Begin".

Cue violins as the icecaps melt and Fallujah is vaporised.

 

[CapelDodger]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: universal suffrage gives democracy a bad name.

 

[SezMe]

The real joke, as far as I can tell, is that in fact it's the exact opposite... As far as subsidies and entitlement programs go, it's the poorer Red states that benefit from the more industrialized Blue states....

This is true. RichardG is a perfect parody of a conservative who ignores facts. The farm, rural and agribusiness subsidies throughout the red states dwarfs social programs in the inner city.

Here is an example. The feds own huge acerage in the mid- and far-west. They lease it to farmers for grazing...a rates WAY below fair market prices.

Here is another. Water is delivered to farms/agribusiness at rates way below cost because much of the infrastructure (dames, delivery systems, etc.) are funded by the feds (read, taxpayers).

In fact, there is a close corrrelation between federal largess and red states, where "rugged individualism" is prized. If would be ironic if it wasn't so painful.

Hey, Richard, you wanna speak to these "rugged individualistic" facts instead of the strawgiants you spout?

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, no one should get carried away. Afterall, one could easily direct the same comments at the British public. Thatcher anyone? And now Blair. I had a fairly intense row with someone the other day about the whole "yanks are thick" idea. This election was not won or lost over Iraq or terrorism.

18 years of Tory rule destroyed them. Blair's a sad substitute, but Labour were scared after '92. In truth, you could have put up a tub of lard as leader in '97 and Labour would have won. Because they weren't Tory.

Perhaps neo-conservatism can destroy itself in only 8 years. It does - as befits the US - run that much faster towards the precipice. I actually wanted Bush to win for this very reason. They have nobody else to blame for what's going to happen. Had Kerry won, he wouldn't have been able to govern, and every US casualty from today onwards would have been laid at his door. Every time the oil-price climbed or the dollar dropped - Kerry's fault. Every suffering experienced by a US citizen - loss of the god's goodwill. By 2008 the neo-cons could put up a barrel of RDX as leader and still win.

After 8 years of Bush/Cheney ... maybe Hilary?

Not that Cheney will get through the 4 years. Health problems. The next-annointed of the neo-cons will replace him before the next race. Mark my words.

 

[BPSCG]

The strange thing is, if I was to think of America and where the money is, I would guess at the west coast and the north-east corner. Go figure, as you say over there.

You've gotten some pretty good answers here and some pretty stupid ones - on both sides. I think you can figure out which ones are which by reading them aloud. If you have to wipe the spittle off your chin after reading one, it's one of the stupid ones.

That having been said, I heard something today that I haven't thought through completely, so i don't know how much water it holds.

The "media elite" are located on the coasts. "The Paper of Record", the New York Times is located in New York (really!), and the center of the entertainment industry is in Hollywood, California.

The hypothesis I heard today was that people in the "red" states know that the media elite hold them in contempt, as stupid, uneducated, uncultured boors. As such, they are justifiably suspicious of any values that come out of New york or Hollywood. The media elite do nothing to prove that worldview wrong. In fact a few years ago, the Oscar for best picture of the year went to "American Beauty", a film that savaged middle-class America. Hollywood, it seems, makes more movies about people in the entertainment industry and their problems, than any other kind. New York's Broadway is the same with shows: the biggest smash on Broadway right now is a musical version of Mel Brooks's movie, "The Producers." One of the two main characters is a nebbish accountant, living a dreary life, until a crooked producer persuades him to join a crazy scam. Then everything gets better for him (until the scam blows up). Sitcoms are full of characters who are struggling actors. The message: Better to be a struggling actor in Hollywood or New York than a punch press operator in Springfield.

There are probably big holes in this hypothesis, and it certainly doesn't explain everything, but I think it's a significant factor.

Last thing: You'll note the states around the Great Lakes also tend to be Democratic. Reason there is that these states were major manufacturing centers in the 19th and 20th centuries, and have fallen on hard times, compared to the rest of the country, over the last 30 years. Those industrial workers were largely members of labor unions. Unions have always been big supporters of the Democrats.

Hope this helped.

BTW, you raise some excellent questions.

 

[SezMe]

18 years of Tory rule destroyed them. Blair's a sad substitute, but Labour were scared after '92. In truth, you could have put up a tub of lard as leader in '97 and Labour would have won. Because they weren't Tory.

Perhaps neo-conservatism can destroy itself in only 8 years. It does - as befits the US - run that much faster towards the precipice. I actually wanted Bush to win for this very reason. They have nobody else to blame for what's going to happen. Had Kerry won, he wouldn't have been able to govern, and every US casualty from today onwards would have been laid at his door. Every time the oil-price climbed or the dollar dropped - Kerry's fault. Every suffering experienced by a US citizen - loss of the god's goodwill. By 2008 the neo-cons could put up a barrel of RDX as leader and still win.

After 8 years of Bush/Cheney ... maybe Hilary?

Not that Cheney will get through the 4 years. Health problems. The next-annointed of the neo-cons will replace him before the next race. Mark my words.

The problem here in the USA is that Bush is probably going to appoint several Supreme Court justices. And with the Elephants in stronger control of congress, his nominations will only be stopped by filibuster.

Bush has publically pointed to Scalia and Thomas as his models. The former is an EXTREME religious fundamentalist (our rights come from god) and the later has opined that the constitution only applies to the states.

His appointments may sit for decades so the lasting effects of this administration will be seen for a generation.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

So, as it turns out that a majority of US citizens have in fact voted for four more years of the Bush Gang, are we entitled to call them a bunch of gullible, gutless, terror-stricken, half-arsed, quarter-witted, passive-aggressive, God-bothering, TV-addicted, bull(censored)-swallowing dupes

Every body else does, so why not the British public too? Frankly, by now I have been called so many names by Europeans, thanks to my religous countrymen, that I'm immune.

But I will admit tht it is nice to see a post from a European admitting that we aren't the ONLY country to elect whackos to office.

 

[CapelDodger]

This is true. RichardG is a perfect parody of a conservative who ignores facts. The farm, rural and agribusiness subsidies throughout the red states dwarfs social programs in the inner city.

Here is an example. The feds own huge acerage in the mid- and far-west. They lease it to farmers for grazing...a rates WAY below fair market prices.

Here is another. Water is delivered to farms/agribusiness at rates way below cost because much of the infrastructure (dames, delivery systems, etc.) are funded by the feds (read, taxpayers).

In fact, there is a close corrrelation between federal largess and red states, where "rugged individualism" is prized. If would be ironic if it wasn't so painful.

Hey, Richard, you wanna speak to these "rugged individualistic" facts instead of the strawgiants you spout?

I'm not sure about "dames" being part of the infrastructure (not exactly "new man", is it?) but that aside ... (and taking account of the whole new circle of Hell dug specifically for FDR)

Secession of the modern states should not be dismissed. All the arguments for states' rights have already been made by what would be the remnant. There wouldn't even have to be a war. Gay marriage could take the place of slavery as the trigger-issue.

 

[lifegazer]

You've gotten some pretty good answers here and some pretty stupid ones - on both sides. I think you can figure out which ones are which by reading them aloud. If you have to wipe the spittle off your chin after reading one, it's one of the stupid ones.

That having been said, I heard something today that I haven't thought through completely, so i don't know how much water it holds.

The "media elite" are located on the coasts. "The Paper of Record", the New York Times is located in New York (really!), and the center of the entertainment industry is in Hollywood, California.

The hypothesis I heard today was that people in the "red" states know that the media elite hold them in contempt, as stupid, uneducated, uncultured boors. As such, they are justifiably suspicious of any values that come out of New york or Hollywood. The media elite do nothing to prove that worldview wrong. In fact a few years ago, the Oscar for best picture of the year went to "American Beauty", a film that savaged middle-class America. Hollywood, it seems, makes more movies about people in the entertainment industry and their problems, than any other kind. New York's Broadway is the same with shows: the biggest smash on Broadway right now is a musical version of Mel Brooks's movie, "The Producers." One of the two main characters is a nebbish accountant, living a dreary life, until a crooked producer persuades him to join a crazy scam. Then everything gets better for him (until the scam blows up). Sitcoms are full of characters who are struggling actors. The message: Better to be a struggling actor in Hollywood or New York than a punch press operator in Springfield.

There are probably big holes in this hypothesis, and it certainly doesn't explain everything, but I think it's a significant factor.

Last thing: You'll note the states around the Great Lakes also tend to be Democratic. Reason there is that these states were major manufacturing centers in the 19th and 20th centuries, and have fallen on hard times, compared to the rest of the country, over the last 30 years. Those industrial workers were largely members of labor unions. Unions have always been big supporters of the Democrats.

Hope this helped.

Interesting post, thankyou for your time.

BTW, you raise some excellent questions.

Thanks, though I'm sure they are not original. But as an outsider, I was highly curious.

Btw, has this "red in the middle - blue to the edges" stuff ALWAYS reigned in American politics, or have things changed with time?

 

[Savagemutt]

Re: Re: American voters

* For a while, the South used to be heavily democratic. Since the 1980s with the advent of the religious Right, they have shifted to support socially conservative ideologies. The Black vote shifted from highly Republican in the 50s and 60s (because that was the party of Lincoln) to highly Democratic today due to low income and ethnic diversity.

The shift actually started 20 years earlier than that (Take it from someone in the land of Jesse Helms). There was a significant north/south split in the Democratic party during the 60s as a result of the Civil Rights movement and Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act.

Nixon was the first presidential candidate to take advantage of this split with his "Southern Strategy", taking advantage of disgruntled segregationists to get them to cross very entrenched party lines.

By the end of the 70s, we (in once Democratic ruled North Carolina) had a Republican US Senator (Helms), and even a Republican Governor (for the first time since Civil War Reconstruction, IIRC).

They did solidify their Southern support by openly embracing the religious right during the Reagan years. The fundies were so firmly established by 1988 that the formerly pro-choice "Country Club" Republican, Bush I, had to embrace them to ensure a victory. And (almost) every nationally significant Republican pol since then has had to as well.

Any mistakes in this brief political history are entirely due to my tiny brain size.

 

[CapelDodger]

The problem here in the USA is that Bush is probably going to appoint several Supreme Court justices. And with the Elephants in stronger control of congress, his nominations will only be stopped by filibuster.

Bush has publically pointed to Scalia and Thomas as his models. The former is an EXTREME religious fundamentalist (our rights come from god) and the later has opined that the constitution only applies to the states.

His appointments may sit for decades so the lasting effects of this administration will be seen for a generation.

New Confederacy, new Supreme Court. Ditch the dross and keep the good. The USA is looking increasingly like a bad marriage, and there's nothing to be gained by dragging it on. There aren't any offspring, so sort out the finances and the division of nuclear weapons and make a clean break.

Immediately setting up a menage a trois with Canada and Mexico would be a bit crass, of course, but after a year or two, who knows? There are far more fish in the sea than there are inland where the weirdos vote.

 

[demon]

Capel Dodger:
"18 years of Tory rule destroyed them. Blair's a sad substitute, but Labour were scared after '92. In truth, you could have put up a tub of lard as leader in '97 and Labour would have won. Because they weren't Tory.

Perhaps neo-conservatism can destroy itself in only 8 years. It does - as befits the US - run that much faster towards the precipice. I actually wanted Bush to win for this very reason. They have nobody else to blame for what's going to happen. Had Kerry won, he wouldn't have been able to govern, and every US casualty from today onwards would have been laid at his door. Every time the oil-price climbed or the dollar dropped - Kerry's fault. Every suffering experienced by a US citizen - loss of the god's goodwill. By 2008 the neo-cons could put up a barrel of RDX as leader and still win.

After 8 years of Bush/Cheney ... maybe Hilary?

Not that Cheney will get through the 4 years. Health problems. The next-annointed of the neo-cons will replace him before the next race. Mark my words."

I think that`s pretty much on the mark.
A few points I`d like to add.
Firstly, this is not really a mandate for an even more agressive foreign policy. The highpoint of US unilateralism was in the weeks following the "victory" in Iraq. It has been downhill ever since and we have seen the power of the neo-cons recede as the situation in Iraq worsens. It is obvious that the US desperately needs to repair those alliances that have been so damaged in the last 18 months. This would have been the centrepiece of Kerry's foreign policy. As it is, I expect that there will be very strong pressures on Bush to try to do something similar. These pressures will not come so much from the electorate as from elements within the US establishment. At the same time, there will be conflicting pressures from the hawks, leading to a situation of instability and quite possibly, stasis.
Secondly, the world is not suddenly going to start liking Bush just because he has finally won an election. The US has chosen as its leader a man who is deeply reviled around the world. This is of more than superficial importance. US businesses and brands will continue to suffer from America's poor image abroad, intensifying the divisions within the business class and undermining the administration's ability to make policy.

Thirdly, pressure will grow on the second Bush adminstration to reverse its flagship tax cutting policies. There will be ever growing concern about the size of the deficit and its effect on the wider economy. Again, we will see growing and bitter divisions within the business class which Bush is hardly the man to negotiate.

Whether or not he does, the chances are that the US will soon enter a period of severe economic malaise, far worse than the last four years, and the chances are that it will hit home within Bush's next term of office. There may prove to be some interesting parrallels between this election and the 1992 election in the UK. It seems that many voters told exit pollsters that they would be voting Kerry but then voted Bush, just as many Tory voters said that they had voted Labour in 1992. The Tories were re-elected, but the electorate was deeply ambivilant about its choice. When the pound collapsed, the Tories had no resources of goodwill to rest on and they have never recovered. The Republicans are in a far stronger position that the Tories in 1992, for all sorts of reasons, but the US is entering a period of crisis far worse than Britain problems with the ERM. I believe that the consequences for the Republicans will be grave.

The Bush administration has created a number of serious difficulties for itself which the second administration is ill equipped to deal with...the approaching "precipice" as you say. The second term will bring many more. There will no doubt be much sickening hubris over the next few months, but we should not be fooled.
The cracks will soon appear.

 

[CapelDodger]

Re: Re: Re: American voters

By the end of the 70s, we (in once Democratic ruled North Carolina) had a Republican US Senator (Helms), and even a Republican Governor (for the first time since Civil War Reconstruction, IIRC).

The Union was Republican, so secessionists were Democrat. Neither of them gave a toss about the Black Man. But when opposition to Republican became alliance with Northern "Johnson" Democrat, well, that other stuff was a long time ago.

 

[Jim Bowen]

The north-side divide in the UK can basically be summed-up by two reasons:-
(1) Generally, southeners have more money than northerners, whether they are city/town dwellers or farmers.
(2) There is northern resentment for being governed by people "down there".

The North, generally being poorer, sees more possible benefits in a 'Socialist' Labour govt than a Tory one. Apart from that, Thatcher helped to make the Tories unelectabale in the northern coalfields. Northern resentment against southern governments is nothing new - Edward the Confessor had trouble up North.

Jim Bowen

 

[michaellee]

red vs. blue states
right vs. left wings
democrats vs. republicans
liberals vs. conservatives
socialists vs. moralists
government vs. big business

The list could go on but all of these examples have been and will continue to be brainwashed into the American masses by the media, taught in schools, and espoused by politicians.

The supposed differences between these groups are flaunted over and over, making for interesting diversion from the real facts. Regardless of which side is in "power", the United States of America and its political machine operates almost in the exact same way when it comes to the things that actually have an effect on individual American citizens and how they lead their daily lives.

Without stressing the "differences", the citizenry might actually wake up to the fact that the ever growing government screws them with either side in power, just putting a different spin on the reasons for the screwing.

But to answer your main question, God placed all the democrats near the shoreline so at a whim he can wipe them out with an earthquake, tidal wave, or moderate nuclear blast, while salvaging his beloved fundamentalist, uneducated Christian farmers who live and worship in the cornfields of America.

 

[peptoabysmal]

hmmm...

So what do you guys hate more, Republican / conservative philosophy or Religion?

I hope the Democrat party realizes that it lost this election by the spewing of constant vitriol like Michael Moore, Katie Couric, moveon.org and all the rest of the America haters.

You guys (Democrats) need to get these losers to disassociate with the party and go support Nader or some other crackpot if you want to win in '08.

 

[riverlethe]

Democrats should become even more like Republicans to win? Why even have two parties?