I was thinking about adding to the thread on "What this election means for the country and the Democratic party" but thought it would be too off topic.
Firstly, look at Flash map which gives a breakdown by state, and a history, all in flash. I live in the UK, but my girlfriend is from NY, so I have so interest and knowledge here. What struck me is how 50/50 split the country is: in the UK, you will get "districts" which are really close to 100% labour (or tory: less often lib dem). Obviously these are *much* smaller than the US states, but I expected Bush to win, say 80-90% of the vote in Texas or anywhere in the South, but it's more like 60%. Same for Kerry in the North. Actaully, if anything, the Mid-West is more for Bush then the South is. This seems a little at odds with some analysis in the thread I mentioned above.
Also, look at the history. Reagan had *so* much support, and then passed much of that support to Bush, but then Clinton turned it all around. Now the senate and congress have gone to the GOP which is evidence that the GOP is beating the Dems, but just looking at the Presidential voting, things actually look better for the Dems now than they ever did in the 80s.
More thoughts from a UK perspective: despite what I said above, in the popular vote, the US is much better at making it's choice clear: e.g. Labour has much, much more power than their popular vote should have given them. Thus I would say that the Electoral College system, despite seeming really weird from my perspective, does seem to work okay, once everything evens itself out. Maybe the real complaint about it is that it absolutely means that you'll never get a 3rd party.
Final thought: could someone give me a properly argued reason as to why Kerry is a "socialist". I've read this complaint in so many places, and it just makes me laugh from a UK perspective. Kerry seems way to the right (he's certainly right of the conservatives here). Also, Bush might talk-the-talk, but he doesn't walk-the-walk in terms of keeping spending down, or promoting proper capitalism (e.g. stop those tax breaks etc. for business).
Finally, could we *please* try and keep this rational: I am really interested in serious points being made, especially about the 2nd paragraph above.
--Matt
Edit: Sorry, just heard on the BBC (and read in here as well) that "Bush has won by more votes in recent history" or words to that effect. This seems silly: using the figures the BBC is giving (provisional) then Kerry got more votes than the president in any recent election was well! Also, relatively speaking, it's a smaller % advantage than Bush Snr or Clinton, for example.
Firstly, look at Flash map which gives a breakdown by state, and a history, all in flash. I live in the UK, but my girlfriend is from NY, so I have so interest and knowledge here. What struck me is how 50/50 split the country is: in the UK, you will get "districts" which are really close to 100% labour (or tory: less often lib dem). Obviously these are *much* smaller than the US states, but I expected Bush to win, say 80-90% of the vote in Texas or anywhere in the South, but it's more like 60%. Same for Kerry in the North. Actaully, if anything, the Mid-West is more for Bush then the South is. This seems a little at odds with some analysis in the thread I mentioned above.
Also, look at the history. Reagan had *so* much support, and then passed much of that support to Bush, but then Clinton turned it all around. Now the senate and congress have gone to the GOP which is evidence that the GOP is beating the Dems, but just looking at the Presidential voting, things actually look better for the Dems now than they ever did in the 80s.
More thoughts from a UK perspective: despite what I said above, in the popular vote, the US is much better at making it's choice clear: e.g. Labour has much, much more power than their popular vote should have given them. Thus I would say that the Electoral College system, despite seeming really weird from my perspective, does seem to work okay, once everything evens itself out. Maybe the real complaint about it is that it absolutely means that you'll never get a 3rd party.
Final thought: could someone give me a properly argued reason as to why Kerry is a "socialist". I've read this complaint in so many places, and it just makes me laugh from a UK perspective. Kerry seems way to the right (he's certainly right of the conservatives here). Also, Bush might talk-the-talk, but he doesn't walk-the-walk in terms of keeping spending down, or promoting proper capitalism (e.g. stop those tax breaks etc. for business).
Finally, could we *please* try and keep this rational: I am really interested in serious points being made, especially about the 2nd paragraph above.
--Matt
Edit: Sorry, just heard on the BBC (and read in here as well) that "Bush has won by more votes in recent history" or words to that effect. This seems silly: using the figures the BBC is giving (provisional) then Kerry got more votes than the president in any recent election was well! Also, relatively speaking, it's a smaller % advantage than Bush Snr or Clinton, for example.
Facebook
Twitter