Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on November 09, 2004, 08:36:42 PM
-
This is prolly my laziest post ever (though one would really need an atomic microscope to spot the difference) but here goes...
One week after the election, trying to digest (then purge) everything I've read about why what happened, happened (values? the no-show youth vote? weak candidate? swifties? Iraq? terrorism? gheys?)... I haven't a clue....
But in my travels, a few things I've spotted along the way paint a sort of picture. Now there may be something to it (though the "it" is less an answer and more of a question in and of itself), or there may not be. That's where I'm hoping you come in.
So, okay...
Here's the gist of it, unsupported by any links, tangible data, or support of any kind. If you're that hungry for it, say so and maybe (not today) I'll try and retrace my steps and locate the places I've come across it. Hopefully it's not so absurd as to really require that, but I'd understand.
When you compare the red states who voted for Bush against the blue states who voted for Kerry, some striking things seem to jump out at you.
I saw a list of the average IQ of different states. It ranged from 110 down to 90ish. Except for Colorado and one other state that I can't remember, the top of those were entirely blue, and the bottom entirely red.
The next is, the so-called donor states as compared to the free-loader states. That is, what states pay in taxes as compared to the states who pay less and benefit from the taxes paid by the other states. Again, except for a few examples it was blue at the top, red at the bottom.
Now we come to the values thing. The blue states were again at the top, having less divorces, and the red were at the bottom.
But maybe the Daily show put it best.
Stephen Colbert: Two issues, John. Exit polls of Bush voters said the issues most important to them were terrorism and cultural values. Both of which fall under the umbrella of fear.
JS: So, how are both of those issues "fear"?
SC: Well, first look at terrorism. It tends to terrorize people. One of its defining aspects. And Bush's hardline anti-terror rhetoric served voters in the Heartland, which is filled with such obvious Al-Qaeda targets as Nebraska's Carhenge and South Dakota's Corn Palace. In short, so many of the things we Americans hold kitschiest.
JS: Well, what about cultural issues?
SC: Well, that's fear as well. Eleven states approved anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives. Clearly our deep national fear of hot man-on-man monogamy drove turnout among the nation's so-called "value voters". And here's what's interesting: these voters see the connection between terrorism and what I'll call "homo-ism". Think of it, John. Both groups recruit impressionable young men, at camp, in remote mountain regions. Then, they videotape it and release it on the internet. Or so I've been told.
JS: First of all, what a gay staff we have.
SC: Oh yeah!
JS: Second of all, if those are the two major issues concerning voters, and again, why would New York City, which really has the most significant gay population in the country and has already had the most significant terrorist attack in the country, vote overwhelmingly for Kerry?
SC: Well, here's the thing, John. We in New York are too close to the terrorism and the gay people. Only the red states with the advantage of a safe distance can take in the whole picture and clearly see what we should do about those issues. And so, on behalf of everyone living in the blue states, I'd like to thank the red states for saving us from ourselves. John?
I'm absolutely certain that you could take the sort of damning case I've made against the red, turn it around, and make an equally damning case against the blue. It's not really my intention to do a tit for tat. What I'm trying to do is draw a distinction between the two, and I'm more at home with the blue's argument, so that's the one I gave.
On its surface, you could say that 52%-48% appears to be a nation almost evenly split. But if you look at both sides, some clear differences, and commonalities within each side emerge.
Two sides with clear differences vying for power. Not a population split so much as a regional split. It's not 50-50 in California, Texas, New York or Alabama. It is these states versus those states.
If I were a typical Georgian and Kerry had won, it wouldn't be "What's wrong with people?!", and it wouldn't be "Those damned Liberals", it would be "Those damned North Easterners" or "Those damned West Coasters" (battleground states excluded).
The same would be true of the typical New Yorker. I bet they feel that they're being held hostage by the "heartland" states that dictate the government they are under.
It's like... I dunno, a civil war in the germination stage. Right now it's a cultural war/class war/ideological war, and for the time being, purely academic. But the lines that are dividing the two seem clearer now than I can ever remember them being. Ie. southern democrats are a thing of the past.
So...
Does this portend something? Do you think it will settle down and become a less discernable split? Or even more clearly divided? If yet another election falls along these same lines and illuminates the divide even more so, will folks come to recognize that whoever gets into the White house depends on the victor of North vs South, Red vs Blue?
Lastly, and again, I know I raised issues regarding the differences between the two, and they were one sided. It was only done to illustrate the divide or, at the very least, how that divide may be perceived by one half of it. But it is the divide that matters.
What of it?
-
Let me put it this way. If it ever get's to about 70/30 for one party, I will start worrying.
-
Just quick and off the top of my head.
The IQ thing means nothing. The best and brightest are going to gravitate to the big cities like NY and LA. And even if the blue states have an overal higher IQ, that doesn't represent the actual IQ's of voters who voted. I'm sure there are more low IQ types in NY and LA than any other place also.
Also, A lot of the Dems voter base are not the higher edjucated types.
I was always stedfast in my view of the outcome.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The IQ thing means nothing. The best and brightest are going to gravitate to the big cities...
But once there, the so-called "best and brightest" voted for Kerry. It doesn't matter that there may be more low IQ types in these places, that's a population thing. The average is higher, dumb folks included, and they voted for Kerry.
Though really, I don't want this to be a tit for tat. If you do want to engage in it, I'd rather hear the "tat" (for illumination's sake) and not just an attack on the "tit". (did I just say that?)
-
"The best and brightest are going to gravitate to the big cities like NY and LA. And even if the blue states have an overal higher IQ, that doesn't represent the actual IQ's of voters who voted. "
love that one...lol
But really nash. no different then canada. The whole country gets dictated to by a minorty that lives 1000s of miles and 3 languages away from me. In BC we have no say in the federal goverment. All they do is take our money and give it to quebecers and laugh at us and call us un patriotic if we complain about it.
At least in the US they get entertaining propoganda to reasure them they are not getting screwed. Our pollutitions wouldnt waste thier breaths.
-
Originally posted by Nash
But once there, the so-called "best and brightest" voted for Kerry.
Though really, I don't want this to be a tit for tat. If you do want to engage in it, I'd rather hear the "tat" (for illumination's sake) and not just an attack on the "tit". (did I just say that?)
sorry Nash, but how do you know the higher IQ people in the blue areas voted for Kerry? How do you know it was not all the lower IQ types that voted for him in those areas?
-
The whole IQ thing was total bogus nonsense. The guy made the **** up using numbers from 4th grade IQ tests.
-
Nash is playing the angle that Repubicans are stupid and uniformed. He is perplexed that his views are not shared my the majority of Americans and is trying to rationalise it.
I don't mind.
My IQ is 138 so I'm above the average in the US. I was sure all along about the election results just based on Kerry's character.....didn't have to look much further.
-
Nuke, if ya want it, I'm gonna have to look for it. Not tonight though. I did see it in a number of places, and will do my best to get it for you.
But again... On the one hand, I tried to draw a distinction which I hoped would be kind of obvious. The distinction, that is. We know it's there, whatever its make-up.
On the otherhand, I guess it's innevitable that we'd head down the path that tries to prove eachother wrong about the details of something that is far less ambigous. The split. Whatever its reason.
-
Nash, the split has always been there, and the spread has never been far apart. You are just talking out of your ass. There is a reason why debate requires facts, otherwise what's he point?
I could just say that Kerry was a Zombie sent from China, and 51% of the US knew it, the others didn't.
-
I'm not trying to prove you wrong Nash. I was just questioning your reasoning that the blue states had a higher IQ average.
The Blue states may very well have a higher IQ average. I was just wondering how that translates into votes for Kerry in the higher IQ crowd in the blue states.
The Blue states have higher populations and probably have more lower IQ types as well. Did the study you viewed break down votes by IQ or just IQ density in the US?
-
My home state of Arkansas ranks near the bottom in IQ, a reflection of the large population of poor living in our rural areas.
The state legislature has been solidly under the thumb of the Democratic Party since 1874, with nary a year of Republican control.
Yet, our voters delivered the state for Bush in the last two elections, albeit by slender margins.
Nash, if you want a better breakdown of red v. blue, there is a national map which breaks the election results down by county. The dominance of the red areas is even more obvious on it.
Can't tell you where to find it. Does anyone else know the map I'm talking about?
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Originally posted by Pongo
But really nash. no different then canada. The whole country gets dictated to by a minorty that lives 1000s of miles and 3 languages away from me. In BC we have no say in the federal goverment. All they do is take our money and give it to quebecers and laugh at us and call us un patriotic if we complain about it.
Totally agree. Totally.
We are practically bankrolling the rest of Canada and we might as well be on mars as far as they're concerned.
-
Once drove through BC. Lovely country, just LOVELY! What types of immigration laws ya'll got?
Spent the night in a park at Whitehorse. In June. Early morning temperature nearly killed us. Felt like it was 20 degrees F. Drove through snow the next day.
Sheesh. Daytime temperatures in Arkansas are in the high 80's, low 90's in June.
-
Fantasic idea nash!
In the 2008 the democrats will have a new campaign slogan!
"Hey you middle americans, you dumb ignorant idiots, vote for us!!!"
:rofl
-
Crap Nash I thought a new cartoon had come out :D Shoulda guess it would be another US election baised thread ;)
-
Look...
You can argue with the choices I've used to illustrate a distinction between the two. You can most likely come up with your own illustrations that paint the blue in just as bad a light. I already said that my choices were one sided.
It was the division that I think has become obvious, no matter what the reasons there are for it. Go ahead and seek your own reasons for the split. Paint the blue in the worst light possible in doing it.
This is not an attack on "dumb republicans". This is an acceptance of a solidifying split. A split that Liz doesn't seem to acknowledge despite two consecutive elections that do not compare to anything in recent history. One Nixon/Kennedy election is one thing. Two Nixon/Kennedy elections in a row represents the emergence of a pattern. When was the last time the winner was unknown on election day?
It is no longer, "He took this, he took that". It is now "He managed to pick up two red states, and he succeeded in only picking up one."
There's a gawdamned innevitableness about it! And it's only getting more innevitable.
Why is that? Well, argue the reasons as much as you want. Or pretend there are none. I don't see it that way.
-
Originally posted by newguy
Crap Nash I thought a new cartoon had come out :D Shoulda guess it would be another US election baised thread ;)
This is it for me. I'm done with it.
I just needed a wrap-up post. A sort of "what's the meaning of it?" closer.
Then, I move on.
-
I saw interviews the other day on CNN with "the man on the street" in NY.
One guy said "It's scary (the red states).... one doesn't want to drive through those states.....we don't even know who these people are"
That made my day and summed up the democrats nicely. They don't know who Americans are and think that NY is the only lifestyle that matters to mankind.
Out of touch doesn't even scratch the surface.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Look...
You can argue with the choices I've used to illustrate a distinction between the two. You can most likely come up with your own illustrations that paint the blue in just as bad a light. I already said that my choices were one sided.
It was the division that I think has become obvious, no matter what the reasons there are for it. Go ahead and seek your own reasons for the split. Paint the blue in the worst light possible in doing it.
I would never try to paint blue and red states under one umbrella. The factor in the election was not the states, it was Kerry himself. Pretty plain to see.
I don't see any division that is unusual other than the fact that Republicans won big across the board.
What division?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I saw interviews the other day on CNN with "the man on the street" in NY.
One guy said "It's scary (the red states).... one doesn't want to drive through those states.....we don't even know who these people are"
That made my day and summed up the democrats nicely. They don't know who Americans are and think that NY is the only lifestyle that matters to mankind.
Out of touch doesn't even scratch the surface.
I can just imagine it:
Oh dear Buddha, farms, christian churches, high school footbal and no men's fashion salons!! What is this terrible place!
-
Okay Nuke.... That picture describes the deal better than my 1,000 word diatribe (I saw it too).
Right or wrong, that's how he feels.
And that's what I'm getting at.
Some Americans suddenly feel like they don't understand the country that they live in.
Had Kerry won, others would feel the same.
It's different than Carter vs Reagan. It's different than Bush vs Clinton.
It's something else, I think. Something is gelling here. Something different is happening.
-
studmuffins. Shut yer yaps, and just look here instead: http://www.redvsblue.com
-
lol SOB, that's what I thought this thread was about before clicking the link.
That some funny crap.
-
the inspiration for the title of the post. :D
-
Originally posted by Nash
Totally agree. Totally.
We are practically bankrolling the rest of Canada and we might as well be on mars as far as they're concerned.
Shudup, you urban hillbilly.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Some Americans suddenly feel like they don't understand the country that they live in.
Had Kerry won, others would feel the same.
I can only comment on what I've seen and I haven't had the chance to travel out of state, or area, really, since before the election.
That said, I have run into many people who seem to feel exactly as you put it there. It's like a feeling of disillusionment has spread through a sizeable portion of the local population.
Basically, the Daily Show has how such people feel down pat.
Not saying that comedy is a good thing to go by, but if you can approach it with an open mind, they really do have a funny point.
Yet, I wonder, how many people who are deathly afraid of the "Red Tide" phenom, have ever spent any time in a "Red" State? (I'll bet quite a few haven't).
The only "Red" state I've spent a good amount of time in is North Carolina (Charlotte region). But you know what? At least compared to Connecticut, people are so much more friendly and helpful. More respectful, I'd almost say.
Hell, when I drove down to Florida I stopped there for the night. A friend's friend's parents let me crash at their house, gave me dinner, a bed, and breakfast, and had never even met me or heard of me before. You'd be very hard pressed to find that sort of hospitality up here in Connecticut, well, at least the parts of CT I'm familiar with.
Point I'm trying to make is that the Blue States shouldn't worry so much. Red State values might be a bit different then ours, but they have plenty of decent people. They won't screw us over too bad.
Then again, every darn blue state better keep two democratic senators on the roster, if they want to have a say.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Shudup, you urban hillbilly.
:)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I saw interviews the other day on CNN with "the man on the street" in NY.
One guy said "It's scary (the red states).... one doesn't want to drive through those states.....we don't even know who these people are"
That made my day and summed up the democrats nicely. They don't know who Americans are and think that NY is the only lifestyle that matters to mankind.
Out of touch doesn't even scratch the surface.
Oh please, NYC inhabitants think the world ends on the
western bank of the Hudson river ;)
-
Where do more federal tax revenues come from, red or blue?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Where do more federal tax revenues come from, red or blue?
where did more votes come from?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
where did more votes come from?
An I don't know would work, sheesh
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
An I don't know would work, sheesh
heh?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
heh?
Well, show me(yeah, i'm too lazy to do it, that's why I asked)
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, show me(yeah, i'm too lazy to do it, that's why I asked)
well, based on the outcome... more votes came from Red states.
-
And most tax revenue comes from blue states, as Six rhetorically said.
So then, what is your point Nuke?
-
Originally posted by Nash
And most tax revenue comes from blue states, as Six rhetorically said.
So then, what is your point Nuke?
my point? I was hoping to inquire his point.
Most tax revenues come from blue states? What is your point?
What is a blue state?
-
It's kind of endearing, but nevermind...
Six said "Where do more federal tax revenues come from, red or blue?"
(blue)
As an answer to that, you said "Where did more votes come from?"
(red)
As if the answer to your question would be an answer to Six's.
But it's the complete opposite of any point I should think you would want to make.
(Blue states are carrying the red state's sorry arses, yet the red states get to pick the prez).
So what was your point?
-
Originally posted by Nash
It's kind of endearing, but nevermind...
Six said "Where do more federal tax revenues come from, red or blue?"
(blue)
As an answer to that, you said "Where did more votes come from?"
(red)
As if the answer to your question would be an answer to Six's.
But it's the complete opposite of any point I should think you would want to make.
(Blue states are carrying the red state's sorry arses, yet the red states get to pick the prez).
So what was your point?
so you agree that he had no point.
-
Originally posted by Nash
(Blue states are carrying the red state's sorry arses, yet the red states get to pick the prez).
Yeah, red states "get" to pick the prez.... as if no other Americans had a chance to "pick" the Prez.
Sorry Nash, but you be a dumb arse.
-
No, he merely repeated something I said in the very first post in this thread.
You seemed to want to rebutt that by saying "Well, who cares how much more the blue states pay, because the red states won the election".
Which doesn't add up to a single thing, other than demonstrating that the notion of the divide I'm talking about is sinking in with you. You're only saying "I get it, and here's how."
I'm kind of tired, though, of talking about the ingredients (disputable though they may be) that make up the divide. Only what the divide portends. But, christ I do know, that it's silly of me.
-
Nash , you said "Blue states are carrying the red state's sorry arses, yet the red states get to pick the prez"
That makes no sense.
America decides the Presidency and America decided. Live with it.
-
My IQ is 138 and I live in a red state.
-
My point is quite clear Nuke, but it seems you refuse or don't want to see it. If red outnumbers blue by so much, then blue must be producing a hell of alot of tax revenue if it indeed does produce more. Even if it is close to even, it still must produce alot of tax revenue.
But my point goes a little deeper. It goes into this "liberal" media farce. The truth is conservative media is everywhere. The Limbaughs and O'reillys are raking in millions. And through them, the republican or "red" party has gained total control of the "blue" tax base. Not bad huh?
I hear Bush say he has earned poitical capital and he intends to spend it(he likes spending). I hope that spending does not turn into another trillion dollars worth of debt.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
My point is quite clear Nuke, but it seems you refuse or don't want to see it.
Make a point and let's go from there.
-
lol, I give up
-
Nuke, with the "IQ of 138".... I bow to your overwhelming intelligence. I am out.
I was sincere about this thread. Just looking for some perspective. Something I haven't heard before. I came to the wrong place, or said the wrong things, obviously. Because seemingly nothing can be said without it being bitten at from the angles.
Like bees. One sting is insignificant. You can continue. Hundreds, and you are done for. Dead due to hundreds of insignificant single bee stings.
That's how it works here on a micro level. And it's working out there on a macro level.
The Marabar Caves. The echoes. You continue to win.
-
Originally posted by Nash
(Blue states are carrying the red state's sorry arses, yet the red states get to pick the prez).
Red states feeds Blue states. reality,the red states are supporting the blue states "sorry arses".
money is nothing more than a note of debt, that does not have to be paid. meaning; I don't have to trade anything for that note, if I choose not to.
real value is in land, goods, and products.
if ya want to eat paper, go ahead. ;)
I be a Rednecked Farmer who would rather let yall yankee city slicker types starve than tell me what I can and can't do. :D
-
Blue states pay more in welfare. Vote buying at its best.
-
I wonder if the blue states have a lower divorce rate is because less people in blue states get married?(most can't :p )
-
sheesh nash I explained it all to you a dozen times. It is very simple... women and womenly men vote for liberal candidates... people who live in hippie communities and ocean side property and big city are women and womebly men who have no idea of self suffieciency.
It really is life style. it is the difference of living in a big city or living around nature. It is the difference between riding buses and taxis and having two cars in the driveway. It is the difference of waving at people when they drive by you and trying not to make eye contact while pushing and shoving your way down the crowded sidewalk.
It is about charity being giving a bum a buck as you walk by or getting involved in communityu charity drives with the kids... the former feels that they the government needs to solve the problem and the latter feels they are solving it.
It is the difference tho mostly of the people in cities being acclimated to having their lives regulated in every way and the people in the contry being a little more fond of self suffieciency...
don't know about the IQ thing... most every smart person I know around here voted for Bush. The ones we laugh at voted for kerrie.
lazs
-
Why make guesses when you read the exit polling data?
Here it is from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
The majority of voting Americans who made over $50,000 or more voted for Bush (55%)
Starting from 50-75,000 at 53% Bush to 63% Bush at highest income level ($200,000 or more)
Between $30-50,000 (22%) it was 49 / 50 Kerry.
Under $15,000 (8%) 63% Kerry
DO YOU WORK FULL-TIME?
No (40%) - 50 / 49 Bush (Kerry closes gap on unemployed voters!!!)
Yes (60%) - 53 / 45 Bush
VOTE BY EDUCATION
No High School (4%) 49 / 50 Kerry
High School and up Bush wins (52% for high school grad and 52% college grad)
Post Grad Kerry wins 55% (professional students)
Blue States may or may not have a higher then average IQ then the red states but not every one in a blue state voted Kerry. A majority of the uneducated, poor, single and non-church goers in all states did.
We all know they are geniuses...
-
I still think that the democrats should use the "vote for us because we are smarter than you pissants" slogan in 08...
I think they ought to have michelle moore deliver his "the dumbest euro is smarter than the smartest American" speech across the nation to gather democrat votes.
I think anyone who believes our lives should be run by the higthest IQ should have to spend a lot of time with a professional student or professor (same thing I guess)...
How bout this nash... 4 million NRA members and maybe another 10 million gun owners got off their butts to vote to safeguard their rights.
The democrats either need to ban guns and the second amendment entirely so that guns are a non issue or they need to stop trying to take em away from us if they ever want to get any meaningful gun owner votes... gun owners vote.
lazs
-
Yeah Wotan, we all know how accurate the exit polling data was... I'd rather look at the actual results, then compare them with the stats of the states.
But I'd rather do neither... Again, I'm quite certain you could demonstrate the difference in hundreds of ways that vilifies the blue. That would be fine, but in the end only serves to illustrate further the existence of a division - which is what I'm geting at here.
Lazs, it does sound nice...
I guess people make their choices...
I remember a friend of mine in in NYC went to visit her folks in upstate New York for a week. Ended up coming back a couple days early. Weirdest thing. Said she couldn't sleep... the utter lack of any sound at night, the dead silence, whigged her out.
So yeah... there is indeed a difference between the two. Strikingly polar... and it seems increasingly polar.
I guess what I'm getting at is that the red picks one type of person to lead them, and the blue picks a very different type of person to lead them. The result is that a huge percent of the population ends up with a leader who doesn't look anything like them; doesn't have their interests at heart.
The same passion you feel about not having your life regulated in terms of, say, having your guns taken away is the same passion others feel about not having their lives regulated when it comes to abortion or prayer. It is the same thing, just two sides of the coin.
The answer should probably reside with the leader's ability to mesh the two side's concerns and compromise. But it looks to be getting away from that. The #1 liberal vs the god fearing Texan. And Bush, rather than signaling reconciliation between the two, says instead that he's going on a man date and spending capital that basically only half the people in the country gave him.
It could be an abberation, but it just dosn't look anything like the past to me. The split is hardening. It's interesting to think about where it goes from here...
-
someone from the sKerry Scampaign complained BYTTERLY that teh red states were SLAVE states and that a big old cyvil warr was a commin.....look out JEEBUS!
-
nash.. you are either overthinking it or have no idea what people here are like... the issues like abortion are moot.... most people don't want abortion for birth control or in the latter stages. The very religious care about prayer and most of the rest of us think that saying "godbless" or "god" period in school is harmless and may even be benifiecial.
The second amendment is something that we have that the democrats want to take away from us... more government in our lives. We fear government here in this country... we realize that government can get out of our control... we want our government to fear us... you just said how you realize this too by saying that your countrey is run by a few population centers and BC is treated like peasants at the royal ball. How can't you see how we feel in the country where we feel we don;t need their "help".
Whenever I go to any big city I am facinated for a little while and then depressed... smile at people and they give you dirty looks... everything is dirty and grubby and rushed.... useless noise everywhere and people calling each other names that would get em into a fight in the country... no wonder people in the city are afraid of guns.... they all seem to distrust and hate each other.
The only smiles you see are either smug or condencending... the country has it's problems too but I want nothing to do with the population centers.
lazs
-
And what would happen if, tomorrow, everyone in the city decided to hell with it all, we're heading for the hills?
Oooh the country is so nice. So clean. Screw Wall Street, screw the ports, screw manufacturing. We're gonna go work at a dimestore somewhere in Montana instead.
I don't think that'd fly.
City folk and country folk can call eachother every name in the book. You can tell me how bad the cities are over and over again, but the fact is that both need eachother. Simply saying "cities suck" doesn't change or help anything.
And the people in the cities clearly have different agendas for their lives than the people in the country. But instead, it's like trying to force one way on the other.
Gotta head to work.... so I can't wrap this up very well.... maybe from work.
-
I'd rather look at the actual results
You aren't looking at actual results. You are looking at colors and making assumptions.
Not every one in a blue state voted for Kerry. Show me a state with 100% of the votes going to either candidate. If there’s a divide along IQ lines then you should be able to demonstrate it. The exit polls are the only indication we have of how any one / group voted. You can either believe the exit polls or not I could careless. But they are the only indication we have based on ‘actual results’. I would bet they are far more accurate then your "I think smarter people voted for Kerry, just because...." theory.
I don't care anything about "vilifying the blue". You can talk about how divided America is all you like. Not one thing that you posted proves or is evidence of anything.
The facts are that GWB was the 1st president in 16 years to get more the 50% of the eligible votes. He got more votes then any other president in history. This election almost reached record turn out. Close to 60% of eligible votes bothered to vote.
The problem with your red/blue argument is that you don't account for the other 40% of eligible voters who didn't vote or the 150 million or so Americans who can't vote.
The big split along red/blue is really only a split between the 110 million or so who voted in the last election.
Americans have never 'all agreed' on anything and they never will. Whether the difference is 5 million or 20 it doesn’t really mean anything. If you think America is divided after this election what do you think about the 2000 election? Or the 92 election? Or '60 election...?
Americans don't need to skip through life holding hands. We don't need to 'go along just to get along'. We can disagree and everything will still be fine (War of Northern Aggression not with standing).
-
Originally posted by Yeager
someone from the sKerry Scampaign complained BYTTERLY that teh red states were SLAVE states and that a big old cyvil warr was a commin.....look out JEEBUS!
I guess this makes it more of a blue vs gray instead of blue vs red...
-
I think everyone is trying to look too deep into this…
Perhaps it all came down to whom do you trust more?
Kerry was fake and his campaign made it difficult to draw a distinction in his true beliefs. If the democrats would have had a stronger candidate with more conviction and didn’t pander to the current crowd and make contradictions day after day there are several “republicans” that would have voted democrat.
I would have been one of them.
You are choosing to discount the exit polls although “moral values” was used as a talking point. Of the number of Kerry voters on the exit polls most voted against Bush rather than for Kerry. To me that says regardless of who the other candidate was they were getting the vote. That’s ignorant to me.
I said it through out and most others around me did as well. Give me a reason to vote for Kerry not just that I should vote against Bush.
The country may be divided but I don’t think it’s as stark a contrast as described here by the impending civil war that’s been implied by “north and south”. It’s rural and urban. The county map shows that urban counties voted for Kerry in most all of the states.
Why is it not possible to see that the weakness of the democratic candidate was such that it reinforced others to vote for the stronger candidate for fear that the blind would end up selecting our leader.
Question: How is it that the approval rating and direction polls can be against Bush but the same population end up voting him back in?
Answer: For lack of a better alternative.
-
a good example of city vs country was yesterday here... a track of 500k houses has been built here... landscaping and extras probly push em up to 600k... the people who bought em came here from the bay area to escape the madness and spend some of the windfall from their million dollar 2 bedroom homes in crime and traffic central..
talked to one yesterday... he was complaining bitterly that his home was full of dust.... dust everywhere... the farmer next that owned the adjacent land was going around in one of those big tractor things pulling equipment that did nothing but raise a bunch of dust that drifted over to his home!
That is the fundamental difference.
What will happen is that when he gets enough bay area people moved in they will go to the city and try to get that tractor stuff banned.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
a good example of city vs country was yesterday here... a track of 500k houses has been built here... landscaping and extras probly push em up to 600k... the people who bought em came here from the bay area to escape the madness and spend some of the windfall from their million dollar 2 bedroom homes in crime and traffic central..
talked to one yesterday... he was complaining bitterly that his home was full of dust.... dust everywhere... the farmer next that owned the adjacent land was going around in one of those big tractor things pulling equipment that did nothing but raise a bunch of dust that drifted over to his home!
That is the fundamental difference.
What will happen is that when he gets enough bay area people moved in they will go to the city and try to get that tractor stuff banned.
lazs
These are the same people who drive two hours in bad traffic to go to their jobs in the City...
-
I don't really see any BLUE STATES.
Certainly no North South divide.
I see blue cities, with high concentrations of minorities (most of whom are on gov.t assistance) Gay’s who have an agenda. And students, whom don’t know any better as of yet.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/407_1099925303_usa_election_map.jpg)
-
Originally posted by JBA
I don't really see any BLUE STATES.
Certainly no North South divide.
I see blue cities, with high concentrations of minorities (most of whom are on gov.t assistance) Gay’s who have an agenda. And students, whom don’t know any better as of yet.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/407_1099925303_usa_election_map.jpg)
Can I ask where you got that map? I'd like to see if I could zoom in on it a bit on the main site.
-
soda... it is worse than that.... the city folk are leaving the hell they created and then they are trying to turn the suburbs they move too into the same hell they left.
lazs
-
They're coming to get you Lazs.
-SW
-
wulfie.... I know that... well, not me personaly and they probly think they are "helping" people but.... they are coming.. when enough of em gets here I will leave and go to the next place that they find undesirable untill they discover it and so on and so on...
not that complex. I don't think urban and rural folk have the same needs or wants. I don't think that the federal government will ever be able to meet the demand of both and I don't think they should even try... I think the answer is less federal government and more power for the states and local government..... If you don't like the way a state is going.... move out.
A for instance would be.... the feds say we have the right to keep and bear arms... the local government says we don't want you to be armed in a bar or on the street.... fine... their choice but... the federal law would still say that you could have a firearm in your own home.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
a good example of city vs country was yesterday here... a track of 500k houses has been built here... landscaping and extras probly push em up to 600k... the people who bought em came here from the bay area to escape the madness and spend some of the windfall from their million dollar 2 bedroom homes in crime and traffic central..
talked to one yesterday... he was complaining bitterly that his home was full of dust.... dust everywhere... the farmer next that owned the adjacent land was going around in one of those big tractor things pulling equipment that did nothing but raise a bunch of dust that drifted over to his home!
That is the fundamental difference.
What will happen is that when he gets enough bay area people moved in they will go to the city and try to get that tractor stuff banned.
lazs
ROFL- This reminds of the "suburbinite" who moved out here, and called the EPA about a "oder" coming from the farm next door. Turned out they were smelling cow manure.
They sued to shut down the farm.
Or the one who called the SPCA about a guy who siced his dog on a groundhog, resulting in the death of said groundhog.
Judge threw That one out too.
I ve also noticed that the smartest people are more often then not lacking in commenscence.
-
flit.... I agree... but so what? we and the guys who don't live in big cities will allways agree and those who live in big cities will think we are crazy or not even understand the joke half the time....
and that is what nash is talking about. He just hasn't taken his reasoning the necessary next step and realized that a strong federal government (or threat of one) will allways polarize rather than unite.
lazs
-
Red will always win... blue is just to gay of a color.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Can I ask where you got that map? I'd like to see if I could zoom in on it a bit on the main site.
http://presidentelect.org/index.html
www.hannity.com (http://www.hannity.com)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Here's the gist of it, unsupported by any links, tangible data, or support of any kind. ...
:D My fav kind of thread.:p
-
nash never likes to be burdened by facts.... they only tie down and constrict his thinking process.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nash never likes to be burdened by facts.... they only tie down and constrict his thinking process.
lazs
lol, what's your excuse;)
-
I just hoped we could accept the fact that there's a difference, without being clubbed over the head with a whole ton of links, quotes, whatever else that would get picked apart and squabbled over at the expense of what I was really trying to talk about. Even that wasn't entirely successful.
Maybe I coulda just taken the lazs approach and said "Penny loafers and pig famers; discuss." Are those the 'facts' you are talking about?
Anyways, I did say I was being lazy. :)
-
Originally posted by JBA
http://presidentelect.org/index.html
www.hannity.com (http://www.hannity.com)
Oh man, didya listen to his Dr. Hannity show? LOL
-
Originally posted by JBA
I see blue cities, with high concentrations of minorities (most of whom are on gov.t assistance)
Any facts to back this up? Going by personal experience, I don't know a single non-white person receiving any gov't assistance. The 2 or 3 people that I can think of that live in gov't housing,receive food stamps, etc. just happen to be white. But hey don't let facts get in the way of your bigotry, it'll just slow your ignorance down.
-
I think minorities receive about 2/3 of the welfare money in the US. Seems it runs about a trillion dollars a year. Will have to look it up.
This is old but likely still representative:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/IncomePovertyWelfare/ruralwelfare/
-
Depends on what exactly constitutes gov't assistance/welfare. I wouldn't count vet. benefits but I would count pork projects and subsidies. I
-
Lazy is when you don't want to do somethig because it requires effort. In this thread, Nash, you are not being lazy, you are being ignorant.
-
Originally posted by Nash
but the fact is that both need eachother.
and that right there is where you are wrong.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the city folk are leaving the hell they created and then they are trying to turn the suburbs they move too into the same hell they left.
lazs
they been doing that since the war between the states. them carpetbagger yankee types ain't never gonna learn nothing.
[joking mode] I says we need to wall dem cities up and keepem locked up in there where they belong. J/K :D [/joking mode]