November 3: The day after: The Future of The Democratic Party.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

It seems that the once hyped democratic war machine has floundered once again. Now that Kerry has ''lost'' the elections what is the future of the Democratic / Socialst Party?

I for one feel that there will be a great rift in the party now that the dems have lost 2 senate seats and apparently the top seat. Their get out the youth vote has failed to get them The White House, Voting numbers from age range of 18-24 has been the same as in years past. It seems that there will be a great rift between the Deaniacs, Moorans, Conservative Dems and et ala. and finger pointing / backstabbing everywhere.

That's just my 2 cents.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"The Future of The Democratic Party"

There isn't one.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm not sure the "get-out-the-youth" movement failed, btw. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not true that the percentage of young people compared to the total number of voters is what stayed the same as in 2000? If that is true, then with the higher-than-normal overall voter turnout, I'd say that they did a decent job. The 30 and ups would have shown up to the polls in greater numbers regardless of any specific effort. Those younger than that would have been a significantly lower percentage of those voting this year if not for this effort, imho.

[rkmsuf]

Hillary 2008. She has to be beaming at a Kerry defeat.

[Buccaneer]

As the call by many for the Reps to become more moderate, the Dems need to do the same - for real and not just faking it for election/re-election purposes. Just like the right-wing of the Rep party scares people, the left wing scares people (like me) in the same way.

But I do hope that they will remain strong in the Senate to provide some gridlock.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Hillary 2008. She has to be beaming at a Kerry defeat.

*shudders*

That there is the stuff of nightmares...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Hillary 2008. She has to be beaming at a Kerry defeat.

Happiest Democrat in America this morning.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

It seems that the once hyped democratic war machine has floundered once again. Now that Kerry has ''lost'' the elections what is the future of the Democratic / Socialst Party?

I'm sure you will get a lot of well-thought out, constructive responses when you word your question that way.

[tategter]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Hillary 2008. She has to be beaming at a Kerry defeat.

I was thinking the same thing. You think there is a great divide in this country now, just wait until she ends-up on the 2008 Dem ticket.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Hillary 2008. She has to be beaming at a Kerry defeat.

Didnt we just find out that an extreme liberal is gonna have a really hard time winning a national election?
Evan Bayh(s-ind) or Marc Warner(g-vir) would be better


My quicklist of Republican canidates for 2008.

George Allen-Senator Virginia
Jeb Bush-Gov Fla


I dont know about baggage issues, but Allen is extremely well spoken.

[Fonzie]

The Democratic Party is going to have to take a long, hard look in the mirror, as the Republicans did in the 50's and 60's, if they have any chance to expand their base or, at the very least, seem appealing to middle-of-the-road-conservatives. I heard this bit of analysis on CNN last night and I think it's correct: Democrats have completely lost small-town America. They're viewed by the rural areas as arrogant, ill-informed about their concerns, and morally/spiritually adrift (which seems to be an increasingly important topic for them). The Democrats will need to find ways to remedy some of those concerns and reach out to the fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicans/Independents if they are to turn their ship around.

In other words, I think they need to recalibrate their marketing to appear as a somewhat more conservative party in the South and rural areas. They can't abandon key Democratic platforms (like pro-choice), but they need to do a better job of selling their rationales for their more liberal positions, and put those rationales in terms that small-town USA can relate to.

Or not. I don't really know what the Dems need to do. I just know that I need to drink more coffee.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

The Democratic Party is going to have to take a long, hard look in the mirror, as the Republicans did in the 50's and 60's, if they have any chance to expand their base or, at the very least, seem appealing to middle-of-the-road-conservatives. I heard this bit of analysis on CNN last night and I think it's correct: Democrats have completely lost small-town America. They're viewed by the rural areas as arrogant, ill-informed about their concerns, and morally/spiritually adrift (which seems to be an increasingly important topic for them). The Democrats will need to find ways to remedy some of those concerns and reach out to the fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicans/Independents if they are to turn their ship around.

In other words, I think they need to recalibrate their marketing to appear as a somewhat more conservative party in the South and rural areas. They can't abandon key Democratic platforms (like pro-choice), but they need to do a better job of selling their rationales for their more liberal positions, and put those rationales in terms that small-town USA can relate to.

Or not. I don't really know what the Dems need to do. I just know that I need to drink more coffee.

Remember what someone back in 2000 say about the mid western states: Fly over country. I agree with you on this one.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

I heard this bit of analysis on CNN last night and I think it's correct: Democrats have completely lost small-town America. They're viewed by the rural areas as arrogant, ill-informed about their concerns, and morally/spiritually adrift (which seems to be an increasingly important topic for them).

To back up this sentiment...





If I recall, this is how the county-by-county map looked across the nation in 2000 as well.

[Bomber]

How about Barack Obama in 2008?

[Ksyrup]

Ironically, if the Repubs see this election as a "mandate" and stay the course toward a right-wing/religious agenda-first platform, the Democratic Party will have a significant opportunity to reinvent itself to appeal to voters like me. The first thing to do is bring the Joseph Liebermans of the party back in the fold and embrace them for what they bring to the party - a fiscally conservative element that is, and ironic given that he would be a Democrat, the type of person those of us who are less concerned with social/religious issues might embrace. Or, reach out to shunned Republicans (like William Weld) who would offer fiscally conservative economic policies while retaining the more moderate/liberal social agenda of the party.

Either Bush or Kerry in this election, it didn't matter - the deficit is only going to go up. So this is a chance for the Dems to actually make some progress with voters. But that would require a serious party house-cleaning before I could trust that the people brought in to run such an administration wouldn't simply pay lip-service to the reasons I voted for that person in the first place, and I'm highly skeptical that that would occur.

[Bomber]

Bush acted like 2000 was a "mandate", how do you think he's going to act now that he actually won this time?

[gi]

There should be major upheaval in the party right now. I'd say that the Dem's have no soul and refuse to stand on issues. An interesting comment on CNN last night was made by (I suck at names) the guy sitting next to bow tie republican. He said that as of result of this election, there is proof that this America is more conservative. On socially issues like gay marriage, FCC freedom of speech, and America becoming a Christian theocracy: I shudder. 50's all over again? McCarthyism?

We live in a democratic republic, so what the majority of people want, they will get. We do live in cycles, so if we do go down that conservative road again, the pendulum will swing back and we will have something like the liberal 60's/70's again too. I only wish we could self regulate.

I am an independent, so parts of both party’s platforms appeal to me. Right now though I am meant to feel like a 2nd class citizen because I do not share the same belief in God that the President does.

I hope the democrats use this to regroup and come out strong in 4 years. Or maybe have three parties. Wouldn't that be a novel idea?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Bomber

Bush acted like 2000 was a "mandate", how do you think he's going to act now that he actually won this time?

And if the Democratic Party responds by putting up another absolute liberal, don't come whining on this board in 4 years about how all of "those stupid people" voted for another Republican.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

The Democratic Party is going to have to take a long, hard look in the mirror, as the Republicans did in the 50's and 60's, if they have any chance to expand their base or, at the very least, seem appealing to middle-of-the-road-conservatives. I heard this bit of analysis on CNN last night and I think it's correct: Democrats have completely lost small-town America. They're viewed by the rural areas as arrogant, ill-informed about their concerns, and morally/spiritually adrift (which seems to be an increasingly important topic for them). The Democrats will need to find ways to remedy some of those concerns and reach out to the fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicans/Independents if they are to turn their ship around.

In other words, I think they need to recalibrate their marketing to appear as a somewhat more conservative party in the South and rural areas. They can't abandon key Democratic platforms (like pro-choice), but they need to do a better job of selling their rationales for their more liberal positions, and put those rationales in terms that small-town USA can relate to.

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The first thing to do is bring the Joseph Liebermans of the party back in the fold and embrace them for what they bring to the party - a fiscally conservative element that is, and ironic given that he would be a Democrat, the type of person those of us who are less concerned with social/religious issues might embrace. Or, reach out to shunned Republicans (like William Weld) who would offer fiscally conservative economic policies while retaining the more moderate/liberal social agenda of the party.

I agree with both of these. But my problem with that is that "moral issues" were named as a top issue for 1/4 of all voters, and Bush soundly won those voters. So, how can the Dems. hope to succeed with an electorate that so readily identifies them as the party of immorality and gay/abortion rights?

I guess we'll see in 2006 if the Dems. have found a solid basis for reconstruction.

And, unlike the typically hyperbolic JoninmiddleGA, I believe the Democratic Party's future is likely brighter for having been beaten so soundly this time around, because it will push them in a sorely needed different direction, instead of relying on old style New England liberals to pull the party into the future.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

t will push them in a sorely needed different direction, instead of relying on old style New England liberals to pull the party into the future.

Either that will happen, or they'll splinter.

[gi]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Either that will happen, or they'll splinter.

I am still deciding on if that would be better...splinter...

Remember that orginally the democrates and republicans were one party.

[scooper]

Or maybe have three parties. Wouldn't that be a novel idea?

I don't think that could ever develop over the course of only four years, but I'd agree that a third strong party might be good for the country. I know there are more parties now, but only two that matter. That system has served our country well by proving a nice little system of checks and balances, but I think it begins to erode the free thinking across the country. It is also polarizing the the polical spectrum in this country to the point where we get hateful rhetoric such as the frantically depressed thread. If his supporters really feel that way, would a Kerry win really have united the country? Not that I think Bush will either.

Under the current system, you are either or. Democrats seem to think one way on all issues, Republicans another. And no candidate, no matter how quailified, intelligent or sincere has a chance if they don't tow the party line. Seriously, do individuals really think this way? I tend to vote republican due to strong feelings on certain moral and fiscal issues. However, I don't like being strong-armed into war nor do I appreciate the arrogance and old-boy network of our local GOP. The problem is, due to my strong moral and fiscal feelings, the Democrats failed to offer up to me an alternative to a Republican ticket that I really am not 100% behind. I felt the same way in 00.

[Ben E Lou]

Three parties would be wonderful, if states would mandate that candidates win a majority of votes before getting their electoral votes. There'd be run-offs galore, but I think that would be better than the current setup.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I agree with both of these. But my problem with that is that "moral issues" were named as a top issue for 1/4 of all voters, and Bush soundly won those voters. So, how can the Dems. hope to succeed with an electorate that so readily identifies them as the party of immorality and gay/abortion rights?

Certainly, it wouldn't be easy, but 1/4 is not 50%. The real fight, for many Republicans, would be the idea of voting for a Democrat. You'd have to have an Independent or "lost" Republican run, or too many people would likely just vote along party lines.

[GrantDawg]

I agree with Ksyrup's and Fonzie's posts. The Dems need to pull back some of the conservative Dems they have lost, and play to the Mods in the Republican party who are quickly being shut-out.

Of course, that is not what is going to happen. They'll go further left (like getting behind Hillary) and not learn a single thing. Sad, really.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Quit putting Yankees out there and the Democrats would win.

More importantly, get some real leadership with an actual campaign plan that doesn't just involve the Great Lakes.

They have to quit relying on Old Faithful because Old Faithful doesn't spit out enough votes and historically never has.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

They're viewed by the rural areas as arrogant, ill-informed about their concerns, and morally/spiritually adrift (which seems to be an increasingly important topic for them).

I think this is a good point (the morally/sprititually adrift thing), and a lot of people are badly misinterpreting what the last three elections (2000, '02, '04) mean for the Democrats. This talk that they have to be more moderate makes me ill. Gore ran hard to the middle, and was difficult to distinguish from Bush to the point that loads of liberals voted for Nader. The whole theme in 2002 WASs the Dems are just like the Republicans, except we care about health care too! And Kerry, for all the "4th most liberal" bullshit ran an extremely moderate campaign. The lesson is not to be more moderate or more conservative. The message is that doing just that is resulting in disaster!

GWB has been the most radically divisive president in many a year, but people aren't complaining that he needs to move to the center. The voters don't give a crap about that ideological bullshit. Voters didn't pass on Kerry because he was too liberal, they were worried about Kerry because he didn't know what he stood for. And that happened because the party has moderated itself to the point that the entire Democratic party doesn't know what it stands for. Until they figure that out, the Democrats are destined to be also rans.

And on a tactical level, they need to divorce Republicans from the evangelicals, cuz it's just killing them. The Dems need to find wedge issues that force Republicans to choose between moderate conservatives and evangelicals and then shove those issues down their throats again and again and again and again. Because the source of Republican power is having moderates and evangelicals living happily together under the same tent. It's a difficult position for them to pull off, and one vulnerable to attack if the Dems have their wits about them (which, admittedly, would be a first).

[gi]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I agree with Ksyrup's and Fonzie's posts. The Dems need to pull back some of the conservative Dems they have lost, and play to the Mods in the Republican party who are quickly being shut-out.

Of course, that is not what is going to happen. They'll go further left (like getting behind Hillary) and not learn a single thing. Sad, really.

I do not think going left hurt them. Bill Clinton was left. He just had personality.

[Butter]

I don't think there's a chance in hell that Hillary is not the nominee in '08.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by gi

I do not think going left hurt them. Bill Clinton was left. He just had personality.

Bill Clinton was way to the right of Kerry. He was a conservative Democrat from a rural Southern state.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I think this is a good point (the morally/sprititually adrift thing), and a lot of people are badly misinterpreting what the last three elections (2000, '02, '04) mean for the Democrats. This talk that they have to be more moderate makes me ill. Gore ran hard to the middle, and was difficult to distinguish from Bush to the point that loads of liberals voted for Nader. The whole theme in 2002 WASs the Dems are just like the Republicans, except we care about health care too! And Kerry, for all the "4th most liberal" bullshit ran an extremely moderate campaign. The lesson is not to be more moderate or more conservative. The message is that doing just that is resulting in disaster!

GWB has been the most radically divisive president in many a year, but people aren't complaining that he needs to move to the center. The voters don't give a crap about that ideological bullshit. Voters didn't pass on Kerry because he was too liberal, they were worried about Kerry because he didn't know what he stood for. And that happened because the party has moderated itself to the point that the entire Democratic party doesn't know what it stands for. Until they figure that out, the Democrats are destined to be also rans.

And on a tactical level, they need to divorce Republicans from the evangelicals, cuz it's just killing them. The Dems need to find wedge issues that force Republicans to choose between moderate conservatives and evangelicals and then shove those issues down their throats again and again and again and again. Because the source of Republican power is having moderates and evangelicals living happily together under the same tent. It's a difficult position for them to pull off, and one vulnerable to attack if the Dems have their wits about them (which, admittedly, would be a first).

Again, like I said, the Dems will never get it. They think if they keep moving further left they will suddenly win the hearts and minds of America again. It is never going to happen.

Dems lost the Presidency (quite handily in the actual vote count), lost more seats in the House and Senate, and are only still winning in the very center of Urban areas. The majority of the Americans are showing themselves to be conservatives in one way or another, so what is the best solution? Move further to the left.

Good plan.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I think this is a good point (the morally/sprititually adrift thing), and a lot of people are badly misinterpreting what the last three elections (2000, '02, '04) mean for the Democrats.

It may come as a surprise to some people, but I think you've got yourself a pretty good post here. I think (if I'm reading you right) that we may reach some different conclusions, but your basic premise seems sound.

As it stands now, the GOP owns the right and an adequate amount of the middle.

And on a tactical level, they need to divorce Republicans from the evangelicals, cuz it's just killing them. The Dems need to find wedge issues that force Republicans to choose between moderate conservatives and evangelicals and then shove those issues down their throats again and again and again and again. Because the source of Republican power is having moderates and evangelicals living happily together under the same tent.

For amateur analysis (which is all 99.9% of us here do, me included), I think you've summed it up beautifully. But this might be where we reach different conclusions.

IF that wedge can be created, I don't believe the current makeup of the Dems can take advantage of it. There's too much unswallowable far left. What it could open is a door for an as-yet non-existent 3rd party to gather up those voters.

As it stands now, I'm still an odd political bird in Georgia -- a devout GOP voter that's also staunchly pro-choice. It isn't my bellweather issue but it's still important, still the single reason that they're getting my votes but not any "official" party membership. I can be moved away from the GOP, hell I'd be happier if I had a party to call my own but I don't really see any likelihood of it happening any time soon.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Bill Clinton was way to the right of Kerry. He was a conservative Democrat from a rural Southern state.

Yep.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by scooper

If his supporters really feel that way, would a Kerry win really have united the country?

I knew somebody had mentioned the word "united" somewhere along the way here. Scooper, I'm gonna borrow your quote for a minute.

Last night, as the outcome became apparent, we started hearing words like "unite" from the losers. And what I don't believe they quite understand is that, more than we've been in a while, we are united. Or at least, we're more united than we've been in nearly 2 decades.

Consider this simple fact -- President Bush just received the highest percentage of the popular vote of any candidate since his father beat Dukakis. Is it as high a number as I'd like to see? Of course not.

But for the first time in 16 years, more than half of American voters agreed
on a choice for President. Neither Clinton term, nor Gore, nor "W1" got a majority, only a plurality. But that's what "W2" just got.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Consider this simple fact -- President Bush just received the highest percentage of the popular vote of any candidate since his father beat Dukakis.

I'm not sure how relevant this is. This was essentially a two candidate race. 1992 and 1996 certainly weren't two candidate races in the popular vote. 2000 was more of one, but Nader was on more ballots than he was this year--largely because of Democratic efforts to keep him off most of them. So, somebody had to hit the magical 50% to win--they don't count undecideds or abstentions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'm not sure how relevant this is. This was essentially a two candidate race. 1992 and 1996 certainly weren't two candidate races in the popular vote. 2000 was more of one, but Nader was on more ballots than he was this year--largely because of Democratic efforts to keep him off most of them. So, somebody had to hit the magical 50% to win--they don't count undecideds or abstentions.

But Nader existed on numerous ballots. As did other fringe candidates.
And yet there's still a majority.

Any way you slice it, there's still more unity behind W2 than any President
since his father.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But Nader existed on numerous ballots. As did other fringe candidates.
And yet there's still a majority.

Any way you slice it, there's still more unity behind W2 than any President
since his father.

And more people voted for John Kerry for president than any other candidate other than W in our history.

There are more numbers behind W than anyone in history (but there are more people in the U.S. than at any time in our history), but I'd hesitate to call that unity.

Your logic here is also faulty because it ignores the electoral college. In 2000, Gore received the second most popular votes ever (to Reagan in 84) and the largest percentage of the popular vote since GHWB (until yesterday). I doubt you were making the argument that the country was united behind Gore then.

Slicing it by the electoral college, Clinton was certainly more of a uniting force, in both 1992 and 1996.

Yesterday was a tremendous day for Republicans and GWB, and I realize that there is a lot of pride and chest thumping from the victors today. There should be. But to state that the results show a united electorate (though the margin was certainly a bit greater than most would have predicted) seems a bit naive.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Hail to The Victors....
Next up Fallujah!!!!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

But to state that the results show a united electorate (though the margin was certainly a bit greater than most would have predicted) seems a bit naive.

Mmm ... if you look at the way I phrased it Or at least, we're more united than we've been in nearly 2 decades., I'll stand by it.

Also, as I said originally Is it as high a number as I'd like to see? Of course not..

But the bottom line is that there's still [u]more[/i] unity now than there was then.

It's probably worth noting somewhere along here that I don't know that I particularly give a shit how "united" the voters are, unless they're backing the same horse as me. {remember, I'm the guy who has argued for at least the past year that our "divisive politics" are nothing more than a reflection of other, deeper, divisions.}

That said though, my observation was more in response to what has clearly become a Dem talking point since last night. And one that sort of makes their cries ring a bit tinny to my ear.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by digamma

And more people voted for John Kerry for president than any other candidate other than W in our history.

There are more numbers behind W than anyone in history (but there are more people in the U.S. than at any time in our history), but I'd hesitate to call that unity.

Your logic here is also faulty because it ignores the electoral college. In 2000, Gore received the second most popular votes ever (to Reagan in 84) and the largest percentage of the popular vote since GHWB (until yesterday). I doubt you were making the argument that the country was united behind Gore then.

The difference is not only did Bush get over 51% of the vote, but he also beat his opponent by 3.5 million (3%). Had Gore beaten Bush by 3.5 mil, your point would be more valid.

Slicing it by the electoral college, Clinton was certainly more of a uniting force, in both 1992 and 1996.

The problem is that 58% of the people did not support Bill Clinton as president in 1992. The only difference is that the 58% was split between two candidates, but both candidates ran on a significantly different agenda than Clinton.

Again, when over 51% of the people support you, that means that not only did you get your base, but you also got a lot of people from the middle to join in as well. And that's as close to "uniting" as you are going to see in this system.

[John Galt]

I'm not sure why a majority is even related to being "united." Two problems I see with saying a majority election is indicative of being united:

1) It does not measure the gap between the 51% and the 49%. A 42% to 20% to 28% election wouldn't tell you anymore about the degree to which people are united.

2) Elections are almost always "close" because of the primary process. Candidates that are at the extremes are weeded out and campaigning ensures both candidates gravitate toward the middle.

I think if you want to measure unitedness, you should look at approval/disapproval ratings. So, I would say the last time America was really "united" was under George H Bush when his numbers were through the roof (unless I'm forgetting a time under Clinton). 51% approving Bush doesn't say anything about the ongoing animosity felt between various factions in our society.

[Abe Sargent]

For twenty years the democrat party has been built on a house of cards. One source of Democrat strength, the Unions, are often diametrecially opposed to another source of Democrat strength, the enviromentalists. In areas like Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, and West Virginia, where natural resource agterhing is a major politcal football, these two elements are warring despite being two pillars of the same party.

Urban African-Amercians and Unionists are often frequently socially conservative. Yet the Democratic party relies on them in a liberal party. These recent losses might be enough to force these people back together, or it may continue to draive a wedge in the party.

Honestly, I think in ten years we'll be seeing a shift of unionists to the Republicans and libertarians to the demcrats. Especially if Bush continues his very un-conservative fiscal policies, which is the main reason the libertarian-wing of the Republicans even exists.

-Anxiety

[Ben E Lou]

In many/most cases, there's a HUGE dividing line between the Bush voters and the Kerry voters, no matter how many of each there were. This couldn't have been made clearer to me than by the varied reactions to the "global test" stuff. In another thread, someone (Flasch, maybe?) mentioned that it was a good thing to listen to other nations' opinions. There are many who would think that he is absolutely stark-raving mad for making that statement, and they voted Bush. Some of the issues in this election were issues of two *clearly* different visions for America--visions that are, in many places, simply incompatible with one another.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

To back up this sentiment...





If I recall, this is how the county-by-county map looked across the nation in 2000 as well.

Thats fricken Georgia...PLEASE stop using Georgia as an example...its not a normal state, you could have used Ohio, I would have been fine with that but using Georgia is ridiculous..its one of the most conservative states in the union.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Mmm ... if you look at the way I phrased it Or at least, we're more united than we've been in nearly 2 decades., I'll stand by it.

Also, as I said originally Is it as high a number as I'd like to see? Of course not..

But the bottom line is that there's still [u]more[/i] unity now than there was then.

Fair enough. I'm still not sure I buy that.

It's probably worth noting somewhere along here that I don't know that I particularly give a shit how "united" the voters are, unless they're backing the same horse as me. {remember, I'm the guy who has argued for at least the past year that our "divisive politics" are nothing more than a reflection of other, deeper, divisions.}

What's interesting is that I'm one of the guys who's argued that we're not nearly divided as the pundits would have us believe.

I still believe that.

I think a sentence I took out of my first post (and that John Galt picked up on) is that I don't think the results of one election necessarily speak to unity.

That said though, my observation was more in response to what has clearly become a Dem talking point since last night. And one that sort of makes their cries ring a bit tinny to my ear.

I actually haven't watched much television since early last night. I followed the elections mostly on the net, so I'm not simply trying to quote the pundits, just pointing out things that I think might indicate a different conclusion.

[Sharpieman]

One question, if America is united, why did Bush say that he wanted to unite the country?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Arles

The difference is not only did Bush get over 51% of the vote, but he also beat his opponent by 3.5 million (3%). Had Gore beaten Bush by 3.5 mil, your point would be more valid.

More valid? Does that mean it was partially valid this time around?

The problem is that 58% of the people did not support Bill Clinton as president in 1992. The only difference is that the 58% was split between two candidates, but both candidates ran on a significantly different agenda than Clinton.

And Perot and Clinton ran on significantly different agendas than Bush and Dole, and that's neither here nor there. Jon's statement was that any way you slice it the country is more united today. According to the electoral college, that's just not true. You may think that popular vote is a better measure, but that's not the point I was trying to make.

Again, when over 51% of the people support you, that means that not only did you get your base, but you also got a lot of people from the middle to join in as well. And that's as close to "uniting" as you are going to see in this system.

Again, this was, for all intents and purposes, a two candidate race. Nader was not on enough ballots to be a real factor (and all national polls prior to the election with him in them need to be discounted). The winner was going to have a majority, however slight (or slightly larger than slight, as we saw yesterday).

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Thats fricken Georgia...PLEASE stop using Georgia as an example...its not a normal state, you could have used Ohio, I would have been fine with that but using Georgia is ridiculous..its one of the most conservative states in the union.

You are gravely mistaken if you think that map would look different in the rest of the country, my friend.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

In many/most cases, there's a HUGE dividing line between the Bush voters and the Kerry voters, no matter how many of each there were.

I buy this for many, I'm not sure I buy it for most. If it's true for most, then I think the electorate is much more informed than we give them credit for.

[digamma]

Dola.

Or much less informed, maybe.