American voters

[SezMe]

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.

Peppy had some minor errors in his message so I thought I'd fix them up for him, to wit:

"I hope the Republican pary realizes that it won this election by the spewing of constant vitriol like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Project for the New American Century and all the rest of the American haters."

 

[michaellee]

pepto and SezMe illustrate the point I made in my previous post perfectly. No differences between the two sides except for how they perceive that their side is better, no matter the circumstances or how utterly abysmal their candidate of choice may be. Red or Blue? We all would better off color blind.

 

[H3LL]

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.

I will take your word for it as I have no idea. However, although the money is in those areas is that were it was generated?

I'm thinking growing crops in Kansas selling them in Wall Street. Could that explain it?

What way might a corn-trader in Wall Street vote?

 

[cbish]

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of any state by county. I suspect it would be the same; urban counties-blue, rural counties-red.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of any state by county. I suspect it would be the same; urban counties-blue, rural counties-red.

This is purely anectdotal, but I know it was true in Nevada. Clark County (Where Las Vegas is) went solidly for Kerry and the rest of the state (which is pretty much rural) went for Bush, with him getting 75%+ in some places.

 

[cbish]

It's true for California pretty much.

Here is a state by state break down. Click on a state for it's county by county results.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

 

[Nikk]

Northern resentment against southern governments is nothing new - Edward the Confessor had trouble up North.

Jim Bowen

On the other hand the wars of the roses are hardly a demonstration of northern political skills. The Stuarts were a dead loss too.

 

[Nikk]

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?

We seem to be sharing the same song sheet.

I look forward to watching Bush and his cronies struggle with the mess they have created. Pity about all those in the US who did their best to get rid of him who will suffer at the same time.

 

[CapelDodger]

On the other hand the wars of the roses are hardly a demonstration of northern political skills.

Sadly, I feel that they are, and an honest one. Anyway, the Nevilles were mostly southern and faded away, while the Percies of Northumbria are with us to this day - an indication of political acumen, I'd say.

 

[CapelDodger]

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

Internationalism v Nationalism
Creationism v Education
Welfare v Dog Eat Dog
Public Health v Big Insurance
Merit v Accident of Birth

The list could go on.

 

[CapelDodger]

Capel Dodger:
A few points I`d like to add.
Firstly, this is not really a mandate for an even more agressive foreign policy.

It might be taken as such, though.

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.

I think the hawks have it, and the rest of the US establishment is getting squeezed out of influence. Time will tell.

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.

I think they'll continue to make policy whatever the opposition - unless it comes from the House or the Senate, which is possible. As to whether they'll be able to carry out policy, they don't seem terribly good at that at the best of times. Except when it comes to the looting of the economy by the top 1% of families ( I really must find a snappier term; Establishment doesn't do it).

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.

They're no going to stop the looting. With the deficit, they're actually looting future generations, not just the present. It must be a hell of a buzz, and they're not going to give it up easily.

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 ... 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.

I am watching eagle-eyed. I'd hate to think the time I spent learning classical economics was wasted. At least I realised Latin was a waste of time. Earth to USA : "Things can't go on like this"

 

[jay gw]

The reason is that the coastal states like California and NY tend to be liberal/democratic and the central states tend (strongly) toward conservatism.
_____

As far as why people on the coasts are more liberal and vote Democractic, and those in the interior are more conservative, here are a few variables that explain some of the reasons why:

Income - the richest people in America live on the coasts. The higher a person's income is, the more likely they are to be liberal. Even though Republicans do get alot of rich supporters as well.

Education - New England is where most of the best colleges are, and the Eastern population is far more likely to be educated than those in rural areas. Think of the populatiions of London, Paris etc. versus rural England. Same thing exactly.

Age - people in cities are young, people in the country are older. As a person ages, they don't want to live in a city anymore, and move to quieter parts. Older people are always more conservative (vote Republican) than younger people are (vote Democrat). Again, the rural parts are the interior, the cities are the coasts.

Diversity and multiculturalism - the rural areas of any country are always less culturally diverse than cities are. There are far fewer points of view and diversity of ideas in the interior of America than there are in the cities like New York or Los Angeles. Just like Londoners poke fun at "backwards" people in rural places. Exactly the same.

Those are a few, there are other reasons like history, heritage etc. For example, the Southern states like Georgia, Tennesse, Alabama etc. were slave states. The Northern states like Massachusetts (John Kerry) went to war to free the slaves. North and South really dislike each other.

Kerry is from a liberal Northeast, pro gay marriage multicultural state, Bush from a Southern ex slave state. Epitomizes the differences.

 

[Jim Bowen]

On the other hand the wars of the roses are hardly a demonstration of northern political skills. The Stuarts were a dead loss too.

Nice one, Nikk , although as CapelDodger points out, the Nevilles and indeed, many of the Yorkists had their powerbases in the South of the country. The north has never really done that well when it comes to the old north south game. The Rebellion of the northern earls was a bit of a fiasco; the Pilgrimage of Grace was also another one to sit out, the house of Bamburgh ended up submitting to Edward the Elder without much of a fuss; we were even unlucky in 1984. I guess we've had quite a run of bad luck . Mind you, we do have nicer weather up here. Then again, maybe I'm wrong about that one, too....

Jim Bowen (possibly living in the wrong part of the country)

 

[H3LL]

....Bush from a Southern ex slave state. Epitomizes the differences.

Aren't both Big Bush and Little Bush from New England (MA, CT) and both had their college education in New England too?

Those southerners do love yankees after all.

Edit to add:
Kerry was born in Colorado (Not in the NE if I remember right). I can't be bothered to find out more.

 

[BLACK HAT]

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

I believe George Washington strongly disapproved of political parties for fear that it would tear the country apart.

It seems that his fears were well founded.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Peppy had some minor errors in his message so I thought I'd fix them up for him, to wit:

"I hope the Republican pary realizes that it won this election by the spewing of constant vitriol like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Project for the New American Century and all the rest of the American haters."

LOL

Very funny.
Rush has been around for how long? I guess he's the reason Clinton lost, eh? The only ones who listen to him are the true believers anyway.
Most people I talk to in real life have no idea who Ann Coulter is, but they sure know who Michael Moore is.

What prompted me to make the comment you refer to is that within hours of Kerry finally admitting defeat liberals / Democrats were out in full force saying what the Republicans had better do to get along with the rest of the country.

Look at the number of Republican seats won, it wasn't just the presidency. This was Republican smack-down time. The Republicans don't have to do jack - they won. The Democrats should learn from the Republicans if they want to have a chance in '08. Side bet - it won't happen.

I'm starting to think that a third party has a real chance in the next election. Shanek, I may be voting Libertarian next time.

 

[H3LL]

IMHO the very worst thing for any democracy system is weak opposition.

I'm no Bush fan, but from what I could see, Kerry & Co. were weak, ineffective and wishy-washy and have rightly got their ass kicked.

It the UK, weak opposition has produced the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Blair with almost dictatorial power.

Strong opposition is the best way to counter the abuse of power, whether from the left or the right.

With no third term to worry about and strong support, Bush can do almost anything he wants. I wonder if that is anything to worry about?

 

[BobK]

Here's a map with the county by county voting pattern of the country, for 2004, and if you click on the tab you can view the 2000 election breakdown.

Only a few counties, shown in gray, were not tallied at the time of the map.

USA Today

 

[Kopji]

It's really simple: The Democrats will keep losing elections as long as they keep being such wimpy pussy's.

The Bush supporters can gloat over this kind of disgusting campaigning and call the vote a "mandate", but stop the bull about morality, honesty, unity, and character.

Bush played it smart by not appealing to new voters, but by getting his existing base fired up. There is no other reason Bush was reelected but that the white evangelical church goers of this country put him there.

This is your show now Falwell & Friends, and the whole world's watching.

 

[evildave]

I don't really care for people who like inflicting torture and starting wars.

I don't have a problem with being ready to SQUASH someone who starts a war.

I have a problem with just up and starting a war.

As has been said many times, half of all humans are below average intelligence. They voted republican. Average intelligence isn't very high. Plenty of delusional/stupid people left above the line to outvote sensible people every time.

It's unfair to call Republicans 'conservative'. After all, Dubya's deficit spending at record levels and giving away money to stay popular. Your grandchildren will curse you for their taxes... if they aren't stupid enough to just accept servicing ever-increasing debt as their 'duty'.