Isn't it funny how now all of a sudden the Leftists are telling us how "divided" the country is and that Bush needs to bring us together? Check out THIS MAP which colors the nation county by county between Bush and Kerry supporters. Doesn't look too divided to me. In fact, it just proves that Bush has been given a mandate! BTW, when are Carl, Mr. Engineer, and others who made so many "in your face" predictions going to admit that they are completely out of touch with our country? BLD
Bush was clearly ahead in "square miles" won. But I think the 51% to 48% split in the popular vote is more revealing. Unless square miles are more important than people? But a few days of gloating are OK.
LOL! Right now, dude. Yes, we were wrong. I thought that the country would be as outraged by the really super important things that Bush has screwed up than they are. Things like the conduct/non-conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, things like not pursuing al Qaeda vigorously enough, things like not capturing Osama bin Laden. But no, the big thing for people this year was apparently "moral issues", specifically candidate stances on abortion and gay rights. The nation has spoken - we are conservatives in these areas, and we'd rather see women arrested on operating tables and hauled off in handcuffs, or driven to back alleys for their abortions at the hands of filthy barely qualified "abortionists" than deal with the very real issues of bad management of the matters of war and foreign policy. We'd rather see gay people kept in the closet - how DARE they think they should be recognized as "couples"? Better that than having to face the music on the fact that we are losing the war on terror. And if we do lose, it must be the fault of those French and other non-allies we used to have.... damn their eyes! So - yes I admit it. Satisfied now?
Carl, It's not that the country thinks all of these things are OK. It's that most people don't buy your propaganda and scare tactics. Most people don't think Bush has screwed-up the war. Bush never said it was going to be easy or quick, and most people don't expect it to be. The media trys to portray it as a quagmire, but the majority of Americans don't buy it. Mainly because over the past ten years or so the left and the media have shown that they can't be trusted. Noone can say that the war has gone perfectly, but what does? Everyone understands that there will be mistakes but they're willing to accept that in exchange for our safety. Bin Laden will be captured or killed. It's just a matter of time. It took five years to get Hitler, and we knew where he lived. As much as the left wants to pretend 9/11 never happened, most Americans will never forget it. Many think about it everyday. Reasonable people know that women are not going to be arrested on the operating table. The also know that seniors and children are not going to starve. They know that we are not going to be forced to worship the God of Bush and Ashcroft. They know that Bush didn't lie about the war. They know that most of the lies the left spreads are just that... lies. Clinton proved that the left will do or say anything for political gain. In Clinton's case it's usually more personal gain than political. Then you run out people like McAuliffe, Carville, Begalla, etc. Most people know when they're being lied to. The left hasn't figured that out yet. They still believe that all Americans are just sitting aroung waiting for the exaulted Democrat leadership to tell them how to think. Face it Carl, America has wised-up.
Oh, I don't know. I think that us leftists are going to be much less vituperative now because President Bush was really and truly elected this time. The outrage from the 2000 election is somewhat dissipated now. As to "moral values", welcome to America. We periodically have attacks of vigorous piety. Witness the "Great Awakening" in the 19th century or, I suppose in its way, the "Red Scare" of the 1950s. The fact is, Bush and the Republicans are a symptom of the country's direction and not the cause. Evangelical Christian churches are growing like weeds while moderate mainline churches stagnate or decline. It's even tue to some extent amongst Jews. Orthodox sects, particularly the more emotional forms of Hasidism, are attracting people who are looking for spiritual answers. Rational, legalistic Judaisms, such as my own brand of Reform, don't satisfy this hunger. Sometimes good things come of it. Abolitionism was a primarily Christian movement for example. On the other hand, so was Prohibition. On the other hand again, the Black Churches were vital in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. We'll be okay.
They know that Bush didn't lie about the war. I don't like either Bush or Kerry, but I have to tell you, I thought you sounded reasonable until you said this. I find it impossible to accept that the administration really believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The steady shift in administration commentary from WMD to "liberating the people of Iraq" in the weeks up to and after the invasion demonstrate that to me. Face it Carl, America has wised-up. I don't accept this either. What percentage of Americans (especially in those red states) think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11? Americans haven't wised up; they simply don't think critically about what their government does, and they see the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as against "those crazy Muslims" without thinking any more about it. -=Steve=-
I thought I'd way in, I hardly see how Bush and the Republicans can claim a mandate when the popular vote split 48%-51%. To mee that looks like just about like it's half and half. What is troubling to me is the seeming devide between urban and rural America. Most of the areas in blue, are areas of large population. Even DC was overwhelmingly for Kerry. There doesn't appear to be much of a midlde ground either.
Exactly what did Bush say that was a "lie"? He may have relayed incorrect information due to faulty intelligence, but when he said Saddam had WMD's he, along with everyone else, including Kerry believed it to be true. Stating something you believe to be true is not lying. The left wants us to believe that Bush created the idea of WMDs. That is a lie. Noone has ever said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. That's another lie of the left. It is true however that he supported terrorism and Al-Quaeda. When Bush told the country about his plan for the war on terrorism, he made it clear that anyone who supports or harbors terrorist will be considered our enemy. That alone is enough to remove Saddam from office, let alone the line of broken UN resolutions. Your assumption that Americans don't think critically only makes my point about how the left feels about Americans in fly over country. The left leadership believes Americans can't think for themselves. Your "crazy muslims" statement proves your feeling that Bush supporters are gun rack in the pick-up, confederate flag waving, cousin marrying, toothless rednecks running around burning crosses and kicking faggot's asses. I stand corrected. It's the left that had better wise-up.
If I hear that word "mandate" again, I'm gonna puke. What mandate did Clinton ever have? Nobody complained about that. Bush's mandate (I just made myself puke) is the greater Republican control of both Houses, as well as, Governorships. The Democrats just got a thorough clock-cleaning. Put that in your mandate (here I go again) pipe and smoke it. By the way DC is always overwhelmingly Democrat. They elected a convicted concaine addict as mayor. Need I say more.
I've really never understood this whole notion of a "divided country." Many Presidential elections, especially in recent times, have been close and the results were not known until the next day. Nixon-Kennedy was close; Nixon-Humphrey-Wallace was close; Carter-Ford was close, etc. Yet, no one talked about a "divided country" then. In a number of states that went for Bush, moderate to liberal Democrats were also elected to state and federal offices. Differences of opinion yes, division, no!
I'm not sure the map is entirely accurate. (Did Cook County IL (Chicago) really go to Bush?) But the map is certainly interesting. It suggests that our "red state"/"blue state" division might be simplistic. Oxpecker already suggested what the real division is: urban vs. rural. Metropolitan America tends to be Democratic, as well as being more diverse and liberal, while small town America is like small town anywhere, remaining more traditional and in this case Republican. The reason why the Democrats got something like 48% of the vote out of a relatively small number of counties is because those were the populous urban counties. Just as a reminder, Los Angeles County, a blue bastion, has 10 million people, about the same population as the entire state of Michigan. It's smaller than Rhode Island and doesn't make a ripple on the map, but it takes a lot of North and South Dakotas to balance it out.
A little known fact is that when Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, he stated that his fantasy was to develop a technology that allowed the US to cut off the northeast coast of the country and allow it to float to Europe. His words ring true 40 years later.
I think 48% - 51% would represent a divided nation. How coudl it not be? This has to be the most vile and dirtiest campaign in recent memory, if not ever! The country has been split between democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, leftists and right wingers. Look at these labels! This is a difficult country for someone like myself who is a moderate - I have no one to side with! I will tell you one thing, this reconstruction is going to be difficult, if not impossible to do. I think it is indicitave by the notion of "moral" and "values" being the big issues that turned people out this year. Exactly whose values are we speaking of? Both sides have their own ideas, and both think the other side is nuts. Go read the blog sites. The Right Wingers are saying that they won because the left are a bunch of godless socialists, with the left calling the right racist madmen that want to invoke biblical law and murder gays. HOW EXACTLY ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO COME BACK TOGETHER AFTER DIATRIBES LIKE THESE???? Bush backers believe that Kerry supporters should just concede tio their whim because they lost. Kerry supporters don't want to. And if your conservative, just think if Bush had lost Ohio or Florida, wouldn't you be feeling the same way right now? If you were expected to drop your feelings of outrage and hate after such a campaign? The message and issues in this campaign will be indicitave of the next four years. I think we will continue to be more polarized, and it will only get worse as the term goes on. With presidential hopefuls campaigning earlier and earlier (average is 2 years out) the divisions will only be excentuated. Senator Kerry and President Bush both ended theri statements the other day with the common phrase, may "God bless America," but I think it is more fitting for us to say may "God help America." Not from its leaders, but from its people, before they tear in two. IMHO
People need to look at the facts Almost everyone that wasn't personally involved in Iraq believed they had WMD. There is tons of data and literature pointing to that belief. Here is just one article that shows just how pervasive that belief was: http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/views/articles/pollack/20040108.pdf To now say Bush lied is pure monday morning quarterbacking. Cook county didn't go Bush but DuPage county did. So did my highly democratic county. We haven't had a Republican office holder in 34 years but Bush won the county. People see the truth if they take their blinders off.
Perhaps GW won because people didn't like Kerry. I wasn't that impressed by JFK, but I voted for him as a vote against GW (frankly, I would have voted for a trained chimp if they were a viable candidate against GW). I was really hoping that Wesley Clark's campaign would take off - I think he would have been a better challenger to GW. Of course GW (well, really GW's handler, Karl Rove) would have thought up some way to slander the man's military career. It matters not what a man says, it only matters what a man does. GW has shown that his religious beliefs are more important than the consitution and that allegance to him is more important than the truth or national security.
Hardly a mandate by GW. In 1976 it was 297 to 240 JC won 80 489 to 49 RR won 84 525 to 13 RR won 88 426 to 111 GHWB won 92 370 to 168 BC won 96 379 to 159 BC won 00 271 to 266 GW won 04 286 to 252 GW won Clinton had more of a mandate for both of his elections. If you really want to see a mandate, look at both of Reagan's wins. GW squeaked by. And the popular vote is meaningless (GW proved that in 00)
I, for one, believe Gore won the '00 election as I think the EC is simply wrong and harms democracy. Since every vote is important as close popular votes have shown in a number of elections, candidates would have to campaign in nearly every state. The EC denies voters access to the candidates in less populated states as candidates only concentrate on heavily populated states. GET RID OF THE EC!
I would agree with this assessment. I think the need for the EC is long gone. The popular vote works. However, at this time, the popular vote is of no consequence on the national level. I think that JFK threw in the towel at least partially because GW won the popular vote. Had GW not won the popular vote, we would have seen a protracted legal fight. At least JFK was prepared to fight it out. You don't run for office to conceed - you run to win.
The EC should not go away. Simply, a candidate should win a proportionate amount of EC votes based on their % of popular vote. So if a state has 10 electoral votes and a candidate wins 60% of that state's popular vote, they should receive 6 of the electoral votes with the other 4 going to the 40% winner, etc.
