Election Results

November 3, 2005
I voted against Wal-Mart and NASCAR. I pulled the lever for Kerry. At six-thirty this morning, it looked like Wal-Mart and NASCAR won in taking Ohio by 130,000-odd votes. But given the complications of the 2000 election, none of the networks will call it yet.

John Kerry hasn't conceded and it looks like the Democratic lawyer squads may be heading into Ohio (with Republican lawyers flocking into Pennsylvania).

What strikes me in the tally is how overwhelming the victories are in many states for either side. In California and New York, Kerry murdered Bush by a million vote margin. The margin for Bush in smaller "heartland" states was even greater: 68 to 30 percent in Idaho, 62 to 36 percent in Kansas, 60 to 40 percent in Kentucky, 55 to 44 in Arizona. Obviously this denotes a deeply divided nation. But do the divisions make any sense?

We know that Bush Republicans stand for aggressive corporatism, blood-for-oil, and the suburban dream-at-all-costs.

Kerry's positions remained murky to the end. He seemed to support blood-for-oil, saying only that he could do it better -- though many of the Democratic rank-and-file were vocally anti-war. He certainly took plenty of cash handouts from big corporations. And he urged crowds to go out and buy SUVs because it would be good for the economy. In the end, he made himself out to be little more than a pale carbon copy of Bush.

Neither candidate had a credible position on the energy predicament the country faces, and its dire economic implications. Neither dared say a word about out-of-control illegal immigration.

Only on a couple social issues did the candidates really differ: abortion and stem cell medical research. Kerry never actually supported gay marriage, but Bush was decisively against it.

Bush will enter his second term with a flimsy mandate. He will preside over the global oil production peak and the widespread instabilities it will initiate, including ever-widening jihad. There is every indication that the US economy -- based on continual suburban development -- will crater under the circumstances of the next four years. Bush II is likely to become Herbert Hoover II.

A Bush victory will have two salutary political results. It will leave Republican conservatism discredited when the administration is overwhelmed by the problems described above. And it will force the Democratic party to either transform itself into a vehicle for meaningful ideas-and-action, or die.

Kerry was the perfect media creation for his time: tall, handsome, with great hair and a deep voice and beyond that an absolutely empty vessel. He was quite remarkably unable to articulate a coherent political point of view on the great problems of the day. I voted for him with the deepest displeasure. George W. Bush, for all his fumbling, made his position quite clear: keep on shoveling coal with him on a runaway train.

The senate will be an interesting place with two freshman mad-dog conservatives elected: Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, both of them practically Nazis. Democratic senate minority leader Tom Daschle is out, whupped by a telegenic John Thune. The Republicans have a more solid majority now. The GOP also increased their margin in the House of Representatives. That sets them up nicely to be blamed when the shit hits the fan over the next several years.

It is hard to not view John Kerry as representing some essential failure of the educated minority of the baby boom generation. We didn't have the starch to stand up to the NASCAR boobs and the morons who want to sell their country to Wal-Mart. We couldn't form a plausible opposition to the those who act as if the future doesn't exist.

Comments

[Jeffy3000]

Now that it is apparent the Democratic opposition and their candidate were not up to the task of defeating Bush. We are all much worse off because of the failure of the electorate to recognize the Democratic Party is worthless, as is their 2004 candidate John Kerry. The party of milk toast has failed us again, but that did not stop them from wasting our resources, and especially our integrity for compromising and voting for a loser like Kerry. Kerry smeared Dean and took the party back to its limp wristed Daschle acquiescence to military industrial power and proved it could not compete with the Republicans. Although I blame the American fat faced public for voting for scum like Bush, it is ultimately the fault of the Democrats and Kerry for losing to such an unworthy opponent like Bush. In order to make through the rest of my life I am going to transfer my hate of Bush to Democrats and Kerry; after all, they fooled me into voting for Kerry, against my better judgement since I knew Kerry really represented the same corporate constituency. It was a compromise much like Kerry's vote to give Bush war powers to invade Iraq. The only other time I did not vote my conscience Gore lost. From now on I promise to vote my heart's desire, not for a fake hollow man who cannot substantively oppose petty selfish men like Bush.
WE need a real opposition party and so must turn our backs on the Democratic Party and give all of our energy and support to some other more radical party. Fuck Kerry and fuck Bush. Move On, George Soros, Michael Moore, Eminem and others need to abandon Democrats and join up with Socialists or Greens or somebody who is not afraid to call Republicans fascists and call them out for every dead body they produce. Democrats must go the way of the Whigs. May they rot in Hell.

[aj]

Jeffy3000, don't hold back -- tell us what you really think!

I think the trend towards a Republican-lite stance in the Democratic party is a symptom of a larger systematic problem, not the disease itself.

Most countries in the world have workable multiparty democracies, where legislation passes because of multiparty consensus, not rammed through thanks to Congressional majorities or stacked Supreme courts.

This is because their electoral systems are very different. The US Electoral College system forces candidates to focus their attention on certain key states, instead of the nation as a whole; the winner-take-all nature of Electoral College votes means that most people's votes, at least in Presidential races, don't really count for anything.

So to win entire states at once, candidates have to have the broadest appeal. In Clinton vs. Bush I, the incumbent president wasn't very likeable or popular. In this race, George W. was likeable and popular. The Democrats simply didn't have a Clinton to run against him (whatever you think of his presidency, he remains immensely popular).

A presidency based on likeability and popularity is not a recipe for a functioning democracy. And the current system makes electoral fraud or legal challenges more likely, not less.

The key is electoral reform, but it will be a bitter pill for the country to swallow, requiring a Constitutional amendment and probably a national referendum.

By contrast, look at Canada. We called an election, campaigned, voted and moved on in less than 2 weeks. We ended up with a minority government, but our democracy still functions. We used simple paper ballots to vote for our local MP only, and by 11:00 we were all in bed.

No butterfly ballots, punch cards or hanging chads. No ballot initiatives. No 'slate' of candidates to vote for. No voting machines. Simple, quick, efficient. All overseen by an independent, non-partisan government agency, Elections Canada. Something to think about, I think.

[Lefty]

>That sets them up nicely to be blamed when the shit hits the fan over the next several years.

Cuz it worked so well in this election?

Your statement grossly over estimates the avg intelligence of the voting public.

Advertising trumps all facts.

[SixFootPole]

I am sad and afraid. The only concession is that Kerry would have been buried (along with all Democrats) in the inevitable sinking this country will experience very soon. Oil isn't getting cheaper, the war can only expand. I am afraid that the bigots, morons and sychophants who constitute about half this country will find a way to blame homosexuals when the country falls into the financial dumper. The puritan ethic says that prosperity comes from God's blessing rather than from hard work and good sense. When it starts to fall apart the NASCAR demons will need to blame somebody. Homosexuals are a convenient scapegoat. Heck, homophobes already get airtime and space on the bestseller lists. This was clearly the deciding issue for the electorate. I'm getting the fuck out of this country.

[Dennis T Cheung]

"I'm getting the fuck out of this country."

I'm tired of hearing that. That's how you let the terrorists (conservatives) win.

It's time to fight back for what we believe in. Of course, that time would've been... oh... yesterday...

[RT]

>That sets them up nicely to be blamed when the shit hits the fan over the next several years.

Oh, trust me when the shit does hit the fan its going to be far worse than any of us can imagine. And, people WILL take notice and understand. I will have no pity for us and for the rest of America when we experience something that hasn't been seen since the Depression, we brought this on ourselves, the economy, despite what the talking heads say on TV is not going to get better, our kids are going to go die in endless resource wars no matter who is president, I hope that the Republican and Democratic Parties are dismantled and done away with for good some time soon, for the sake of our desperate country.

[james]

My God are you one gay lookin' mother fucker....
Sheesh!

[Stephen]

I hope that the Republican and Democratic Parties are dismantled and done away with for good some time soon, for the sake of our desperate country.

Amen!
So, stop voting for them. Both party's destructions are long since overdue. Look at the Demos, they nominate a New England liberal who actually said out loud that he could win without the South! He should have asked Clinton or Carter's views on that. Jackass! The Repubs. just insight their maniac "moral base" every time. There are viable 3rd parties out there, particularly the Libertarians.

[Mauricio Babilonia]

...or we could just get off our lazy asses and breathe some life back into the Democratic party. Jeeze, you people are so busy pointing the finger that you don't see the essential problem. We has seen the Democrats, and they is us. We as Democrats need to take a good, hard look at who we are, decide what we want to become and take action to get there.

The energy thing isn't a hard concept to get one's mind around. People know that oil and gas are increasing in price. We have to put the issue on the map and start making some hay.

[spk]

you mofos are a little hard on kerry ... old boy had the balls to run for president against all odds - with a bout of prostate cancer ... and a fucked up party backing him, with the likelyhood of being a president with both houses being held by the repuglicans, if he won, and most likely would be held responsible for most of the messes created by the boy king.

that said - kerry could have done a much better job ... when did they sit down and have the real, come to jesus ... why should people vote for me in ten sentences or less meeting?

i was talking to a young undecided voter from north dakota last weekend - and i found myself explaining kerry's seemingly shifting and altogether too close to bush's positions.

despite supporting kerry from the start (i thought he had the best chance to beat bush) i feel let down by those in positions to make a difference (ummm ... bill richardson, did you ever visit florida in support of kerry? ... jennifer granholm? did you ever travel to ohio to help get surburban moms to vote for kerry? ... ed rendell? why didn't we see you and your warm smile on tim russert more often) ... and by kerry himself for not making the decisive calls - when we needed them.

what about people like robert redford? either a. why wasn't he out campaigning with kerry? or b. doesn't he run for public office - i've given the nrdc plenty of loot... come on robert - we need you.

[Stephen]

Give me a fucking break! Robert Redford??? New England liberal best opportunity to beat Bush???
You're part of the entrenched problem pal. Step aside.

[orionoir]

cnn reports that clinton advised kerry to cave on the gay marriage issue, to come out for a "state by state" approach, eg, screw the constitution, lets pander to the middle. i have to believe clinton was right on the politics, but still, even if the ends justify the means, it's hard for me to stomach discrimination (against a clearly identified minority) as just another campaign tactic.

[steve]

Y'all are all (especially you Kunstler) arrogant motherfuckers that just don't get it. Read:

The Values-Vote Myth
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: November 6, 2004

very election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.

In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.

This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.

Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.

It's true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues.

Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.

The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.

He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror.

The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That's policy, not fundamentalism. The upsurge in voters was an upsurge of people with conservative policy views, whether they are religious or not.

The red and blue maps that have been popping up in the papers again this week are certainly striking, but they conceal as much as they reveal. I've spent the past four years traveling to 36 states and writing millions of words trying to understand this values divide, and I can tell you there is no one explanation. It's ridiculous to say, as some liberals have this week, that we are perpetually refighting the Scopes trial, with the metro forces of enlightenment and reason arrayed against the retro forces of dogma and reaction.

In the first place, there is an immense diversity of opinion within regions, towns and families. Second, the values divide is a complex layering of conflicting views about faith, leadership, individualism, American exceptionalism, suburbia, Wal-Mart, decorum, economic opportunity, natural law, manliness, bourgeois virtues and a zillion other issues.

But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social issues are important, but they don't come close to telling the whole story. Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man.

[John Muir]

It is hard to not view John Kerry as representing some essential failure of the educated minority of the baby boom generation. We didn't have the starch to stand up to the NASCAR boobs and the morons who want to sell their country to Wal-Mart. We couldn't form a plausible opposition to the those who act as if the future doesn't exist.

Education is no guarantee of wisdom. Polls during the Vietnam war showed that college-educated people were more likely to support the war than those without a college education. There's a class issue here, but with ragard to what Jim Kunstler thinks is the most pressing issue of American Life, that is, the unsustainability of the American Drive-in utopia, I think that all classes in this country are blind and have contributed to this mess. What's worse, the attraction of the drive-in utopia is spreading around the world, and before long, no country wil be immune.

The "convenience" of the privately owned automobiles is a foul narcotic that causes an addiction for which there is no cure. Some addictions are harmless, but not this one. I fear that the only way to eliminate the drive-in utopia is through the destruction of industial civilization.

[Test]

I bet you won't post this. You are most certainly filtering posts.