Hmm, is this representative of the Democratic Party? For the Party's sake, I hope not, otherwise the bitterness will consume them in more defeats in the future. In politics, bitterness will get you nowhere, having positive directions for the future will.
I know the piece is written primarily to piss people off, but it does expose some well-used stereotypes that don't seem to have much empirical support. Why are divorce rates lower in less conservative states?
This whole red/blue state thing is silly. The parties are evenly split in just about every state; even wingnut outliers like Idaho and Massachusetts never break 70-30 in either direction.
And that aside, immigration and a huge and constant interstate flow of people and capital is making the individuality of each state less important than ever. Mountain towns in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia are being colonized by Yankee financiers. Raleigh, Atlanta, Huntsville, Dallas, and Austin, among many other cities, have been transformed by drains of engineering and technical talent from around the country and the world. I call it "Floridafication." Take a conservative state, let it get migrants for a long time, and watch its ideology get muddled up. The Carolinas and Virginia are well on their way; there are also huge blue pockets that continue to develop in Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, and other "red states."
Bottom line, the US is a purple country, Democrats equal Republicans even though Republicans win more often, and the future of the country is not to be found in either party's line.
This whole red/blue state thing is silly. The parties are evenly split in just about every state; even wingnut outliers like Idaho and Massachusetts never break 70-30 in either direction.
This masks real divisions. In South Dakota, our "Democrat" Congresswoman is endorsed by the NRA, supports the flag burning amendment, and criticized her Republican opponent for not supporting President Bush enough. I imagine other states have similar experiences.
More importantly: what the heck happened to the gravatars?
Dan: Perhaps I wasn't clear. Certainly, if a state has a red majority, the blue candidate is going to have to make their platform redder in certain places in order to win, and vice versa. But in the South, there are millions of Democrats there who voted for John Kerry; 40% of the electorate. They didn't get counted in the electoral vote; that doesn't mean they don't exist. Bush-voting Republicans are in roughly the same proportion in the Northeast and on the West Coast. That's the real problem with treating states as though they have some sort of inherent ideology; can you really say that 60-40 makes a state red or blue?
If 2 in 5 would vote for a jackass like John Kerry, it should indicate that ideological generalizations about these states are probably misguided. Convert 1 in 5, and you've flipped the state from solid red to solid blue; convert 1 in 10, and the state goes borderline. Again, purple country; if a truly decent candidate would show up, the current paradigm would fly out the window.
If 2 in 5 would vote for a jackass like John Kerry
The primary motivation for selected Kerry as nominee was "electability." Certainly he would have been a better president than Gephardt, or Dean, or almost all of the rest of the field...
The U.S. is not really purple, nor is the divide so much between red and blue states. It's more a divide between urban/rural areas--see this "map":http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm showing county-by-county results of the 2004 election.
McCain has decided that he can gain the Republican nomination without winning any Southern primaries. He has never forgiven South Carolina for rejecting him.
Once he has the nomination, the South will have nowhere else to go. Assuming that the Demos nominate the likes of Kerry. Hilary, I dunno, we'll see ... to me she has the same liability Kerry had: not genuine, not likable ... plus baggage.
If McCain gains the Republican nomination, the Chris Matthews types will suddenly begin singing a new song: Manchurian Candidate - damaged, not trustworthy, temper tantrums, unstable and so on. It won't be pretty. After all, where these folks when McCain actually needed them - when he was a prisoner in Hanoi? That wasn't pretty either.
If McCain fails to win the Republican nomination, he can still go 3rd party ... this may be the future of American politics. Someone has to go first. Eventually some candidate may go 3rd party and win. Perot put Clinton in the White House but didn't get paid. McCain has learned from that, if he thinks he can win, he'd run 3rd party in a heartbeat.
McCain has always won. He must have said to himself: "why not me?" If McCain runs as a 3rd party candidate, against the usual Republican compromise and the Democrat extremist, he could win outright. He could run as a unifier.
McCain has decided that he can gain the Republican nomination without winning any Southern primaries
I think it's quite different to try to win the primary without Southern votes than to try to win the Presidency without it. McCain abandoning the South -- throwing away Nixon's achievement -- would be insane.
After all, where these folks when McCain actually needed them "“ when he was a prisoner in Hanoi? That wasn't pretty either.
Good point.
If McCain fails to win the Republican nomination, he can still go 3rd party "¦ this may be the future of American politics. Someone has to go first.
Someone already has won as 3rd Party.
(But the Southern states weren't fans of Mr. Lincoln either... hmmm.... :) )
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
snow
July 18, 2005
7:35 am
Gabriel Mihalache
July 18, 2005
9:27 am
scott
July 18, 2005
10:20 am
scott
July 18, 2005
10:25 am
I know the piece is written primarily to piss people off, but it does expose some well-used stereotypes that don't seem to have much empirical support. Why are divorce rates lower in less conservative states?
Dan
July 18, 2005
11:53 am
Probably because the marriage rate is higher. More marginal marriages == more less strong marriages.
Joe
July 18, 2005
1:54 pm
And that aside, immigration and a huge and constant interstate flow of people and capital is making the individuality of each state less important than ever. Mountain towns in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia are being colonized by Yankee financiers. Raleigh, Atlanta, Huntsville, Dallas, and Austin, among many other cities, have been transformed by drains of engineering and technical talent from around the country and the world. I call it "Floridafication." Take a conservative state, let it get migrants for a long time, and watch its ideology get muddled up. The Carolinas and Virginia are well on their way; there are also huge blue pockets that continue to develop in Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, and other "red states."
Bottom line, the US is a purple country, Democrats equal Republicans even though Republicans win more often, and the future of the country is not to be found in either party's line.
Dan
July 18, 2005
2:11 pm
This masks real divisions. In South Dakota, our "Democrat" Congresswoman is endorsed by the NRA, supports the flag burning amendment, and criticized her Republican opponent for not supporting President Bush enough. I imagine other states have similar experiences.
More importantly: what the heck happened to the gravatars?
Nathan
July 18, 2005
4:00 pm
I read somewhere that the domain expired.
Cullen Masterson
July 18, 2005
4:01 pm
Dan
July 18, 2005
4:17 pm
Joe
July 18, 2005
6:10 pm
If 2 in 5 would vote for a jackass like John Kerry, it should indicate that ideological generalizations about these states are probably misguided. Convert 1 in 5, and you've flipped the state from solid red to solid blue; convert 1 in 10, and the state goes borderline. Again, purple country; if a truly decent candidate would show up, the current paradigm would fly out the window.
Dan
July 18, 2005
8:46 pm
The primary motivation for selected Kerry as nominee was "electability." Certainly he would have been a better president than Gephardt, or Dean, or almost all of the rest of the field...
mdr
July 19, 2005
12:49 am
Cullen Masterson
July 19, 2005
7:17 am
Once he has the nomination, the South will have nowhere else to go. Assuming that the Demos nominate the likes of Kerry. Hilary, I dunno, we'll see ... to me she has the same liability Kerry had: not genuine, not likable ... plus baggage.
If McCain gains the Republican nomination, the Chris Matthews types will suddenly begin singing a new song: Manchurian Candidate - damaged, not trustworthy, temper tantrums, unstable and so on. It won't be pretty. After all, where these folks when McCain actually needed them - when he was a prisoner in Hanoi? That wasn't pretty either.
If McCain fails to win the Republican nomination, he can still go 3rd party ... this may be the future of American politics. Someone has to go first. Eventually some candidate may go 3rd party and win. Perot put Clinton in the White House but didn't get paid. McCain has learned from that, if he thinks he can win, he'd run 3rd party in a heartbeat.
McCain has always won. He must have said to himself: "why not me?" If McCain runs as a 3rd party candidate, against the usual Republican compromise and the Democrat extremist, he could win outright. He could run as a unifier.
Dan
July 19, 2005
12:44 pm
I think it's quite different to try to win the primary without Southern votes than to try to win the Presidency without it. McCain abandoning the South -- throwing away Nixon's achievement -- would be insane.
After all, where these folks when McCain actually needed them "“ when he was a prisoner in Hanoi? That wasn't pretty either.
Good point.
If McCain fails to win the Republican nomination, he can still go 3rd party "¦ this may be the future of American politics. Someone has to go first.
Someone already has won as 3rd Party.
(But the Southern states weren't fans of Mr. Lincoln either... hmmm.... :) )
burt
July 20, 2005
2:31 am