Thursday, 4 November 2004
|0827 - Why was I worried?|
I was worried, for the past few months, that Kerry would win big. I just realized why. I spent the past four months in Minnesota, California, and New York...three of the places that went for Kerry the most. I discounted what I saw and heard in Texas, because I knew in advance what they'd say.
I didn't realize just how little California and NYC represent the country as a whole, politically. Now I do. No, this is not a slam on those places, just a reminder to myself that I need to take their political leanings into account when hearing what they say as a population.
current mood: content
Argh. In a re-write I managed to drop the link mentioned in the first paragraph. Here it is: This is it.
It's Eric Steven Raymond. Nyah. :-P :-)
For those who don't know what he's talking about, here
's ESR's essay on the subject.
I blame that Orson fellow. And the use of ESR rather than a name.
[Insert Powerhouse Theme B here]
I figured maybe you were thinking of Raymond Scott. :}
Libertarians are nutjobs.
Some would say it's time for the actual Republicans to step away from the neo-cons and get back to their core values. Bush is not a Republican.
Actually, if you look, aside from some positions (foreign policy, mainly) that are arguably logical extensions of their other positions, the Libertarians can make a strong case for being much closer to Republican's core values than the so-called "neo-cons".
Oh, their values are fine, but as broad a statement as I made, I really haven't met any Libertarian who's shown me any real sanity.
I wouldn't expect the Republicans as they seem to be now to change. They'll point at this election, claim they're doing well, and not change. This may be self-limiting (I know, not soon enough for you) as should actually go as extreme as others say, they will lose those who are not extreme. Extreme positions can win primaries, but at the cost of the general election later.
The Libertarians certainly do have some loud nutty extreme elements. These elements are always the loudest and show up most when a group is small. However, because the Libertarians are small group, it would be far easier for newcomers to moderate them than to influence either the Republicans or the Democrats.
If the Democrats continue to not address, genuinely address, "red county" concerns, then those counties will stay red. While some are calling for a lurch to the far(ther) left, that will more likely cost the Democrats even more territory.
"I wouldn't expect the Republicans as they seem to be now to change."
I heard on the news this morning that Bush's thinking of being able to pass what they want because of their majority in the House and Senate is making some moderate Republicans think that they'll be siding with the Democrats on some of the issues.
Two days after re-election, I'd say that's a pretty quick reform.
"If the Democrats continue to not address, genuinely address, "red county" concerns"
You mean making sure homos don't have rights, shoving religion and morality down people's throats, and tax cuts that will cost the country in the end with an administration that says outsourcing is good for the economy, then you can have the red states.
No I most certainly do not mean such silly things. If that's what the Democrats and their vocal supporters claim, they aren't likely to get "red county" support. Few people are willing to vote for anyone calling them names or saying silly things about them.
I do mean that the nation is composed of more than urban areas and any party will have a better chance of success if it understands that. While the exit polls claimed there was big moral issue vote, those same polls also claimed a higher Kerry vote. That it even came shows a failure by both major parties that real issues weren't being taken as seriously or as believably as they should have been. If the Democrats had a clear, believable message and believable candidates to deliver it about how to address the rural economy, there would a LOT more blue on the map. As someone at work put it, "Country folks didn't vote Kerry because they know what BS smells like."
Yeah... I remember the segment on Kimmel when they had you derez Sark with Michael Moore's face superimposed. There was a Dirac delta of applause, and then the people applauding realized that nobody else was applauding and stopped. To the majority of the audience, Michael Moore, Leni Riefenstahl without the talent or ethics, is a hero.
And you get the same feeling from being online as well. Especially in places like here in LJ and other blogs. You would've never thought that Bush would win if you based what you thought most of America thought (hmmm. lots of thoughts) on online commentary.
Yup. If it isn't called the Pauline Kael effect, it should be. Aside from being famous for film reviews, she was also famous for a truly amazing display of insularity and "coccooning": hearing of Nixon's election in 1972, she is supposed to have said "How can that be? No one I knew voted for Nixon."
That Would be a good name for it.
California represents, and is, one of the worlds largest ecconomies and it's politics reflect this.
When looking at the Red/Blue map, you tend to see the Blue where the money/people are and red where the money/people arnt.
Most of the time, but not all...Texas, which has an economy on the same scale as California, has it just the other way around. The blue counties in Texas are the poorest.