Asymmetrical Information

This was all Karl Rove, and one of his most brilliant tactical victories ever. Lull the Dems into a false sense of security, then put all your weight on the gas pedal. The GOP's GOTV machine got all the voters to the polls for a convincing victory.

I do not think we can give this man enough credit!

In a tight Presidential election such as this any shred of information or rumour is going to be played to the hilt, and nobody has to be in the tank to have it happen. Of course, without being able to repeat the experiment except with early exit polls with opposite numbers, there isn't any way to know for sure.

Any (repeat ANY) scientist knows that when what you're measuring produces results that are dramatically different than your expectations the very first thing you do it check your calculations. The second thing you do is re-calibrate your measuring device.

So why didn't they do either one of these things? My guess is that they liked the results they were seeing enough to assume they were correct.

And as for the evening surge that's a perfectly reasonable explanation other than that it's completely bollocks. I sat in a polling place all day. There was no evening surge. Kerry, Bush, or otherwise. In fact, it look to me as though the electorate was sufficiently energized that most got in a little earlier than usual.

Conclusion: more tragic victims of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Or perhaps others like me, who voted for President Bush, when asked by the exit pollers, replied that we voted for Kerry simply because we have a keen sense of the peverse.

I don't think it mattered... Early polling numbers have a psychological effect, but it can't do that much. Most voters were already determined to vote.

I initially wanted to blame the reporting of exit polling, but Kerry lost nationally by about 3 million votes. Rove had a plan to turn out evangelicals that began the first day of Bushs first term. Bush talked god alot, but acted in no way that would alienate middle America, he stayed out of "Roys rock", didnt say much if anything when the federal appeals court upheld removing god from the pledge of alliegence, and only spoke broadly on the protection of marriage ammendment when America knew it had no chance of passing. Its very similar to Clintons strategy with the black vote.

I think the dems have to realize that while their "ground" effort works with larger numbers of supporters then the reps ground game, the reps voters are far more likely to tough out three hour waits to vote then the dem voters. The dems should get off easy voter registration, and direct their get out the vote efforts to minimize the amount of time spent in line. They have a much better argument here then they do with voter registration and ID issues, and ultimately it well serve them better in getting actual votes, rather then registration numbers.

The youth certainly have the time but not the determination to wait in lines. Also the Dem base is in cities where the lines are tougher.

I have also wondered if the exit polls were coincidentally wrong or wrong by sheer choice (Dick Morris’ theory, as well). I am not a mathematician and cannot compute what the odds are that maybe a preponderance of Kerry voters showed up early, as I heard discussed at one blog. I enjoyed the point you made that if the exit polls were deliberately wrong they, perhaps, had the opposite effect, instead of the intended effect, by driving support for Bush up even farther.

I know that this was a bitter defeat for the Democratic party and I sympathize. I do not want to see the Democratic party in tatters. I don’t agree with the political reality that we are a two party system and would like to see other parties able to wage nationally winning campaigns. I certainly don’t want us to be reduced to a one party system. But, frankly, all the vitriol against middle America on the blogosphere over the last two days, doesn’t leave me with much hope for a resurgence of the Democrats. Middle Americans have been called Neanderthals, crackers, slow learners, and the willfully ignorant, to name just a few.

This leaves me amused and befuddled. Are these the people whose votes you hope to gain in two years? Would you actually like to win when you run your next candidate? Who, here, are the slow learners?

I know many people who voted for Bush and they include staunch Republicans, independents, libertarians, and socially conservative Democrats. To a person, they had resigned themselves to the strong possibility of a Kerry win and pledged to give him their full support and blessings. Not so, many of the Kerry supporters I know. How do they hope to gain future support among people for whom they have nothing but contempt?

I was flipping channels on the television last night and I came to MSNBC. They were breaking away to a commercial and the tag line for the upcoming story was “How do the democrats reinvent themselves” or some such. The voiceover was saying “Do they move more toward the liberal elements of their party such as Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton?” Predictably, the background graphic was a shot of Senator Clinton. Then the voiceover continued “Or do they try to go after the red state voters?” And the background graphic switched to…… drum roll, please….. a Nascar race. I kid you not. My jaw dropped.

Because, of course, people from Idaho and New Mexico and Indiana and Tennessee and Florida are all exactly the same, with exactly the same lives and concerns. (Hah!) The sheer scope of this stupidity takes my breath away. I think to myself, “Well, of course, that’s us red-staters, just a bunch of uneducated, beer swillin’, Nascar lovin’, fundamentalist Christian, moronic sheep.”

I watch pundit after pundit talk about how Karl Rove got out the Republican base and the evangelical Christians, I find myself certain that is true and, yet, I think it’s too simplistic. The fact is, that unless you really disliked George Bush from the beginning or believed that anything would be better than the status quo, John Kerry did not prove to be an acceptable alternative for a variety of reasons.

I am a woman and a political junkie who has been all over chat rooms and web logs from Atrios to Blogs For Bush during this political season. Among the Bush supporters, I saw people whose lives and reasons for voting for Bush were as diverse as the regions in which they live.

They include:
An African-American, single mother from South Carolina who saw billionaire John Kerry windsurfing - “This man knows nothing about my life or my problems.” (Failure to connect with the very people he hoped to represent)
A staunch Catholic, Democrat, empty-nester from Ohio who responded poorly to John Kerry’s debate answer on abortion - “I believe he (John Kerry) will be bleeding Catholic votes in Ohio.” (Social values)
A socially progressive, libertarian mother of three from Iowa - “I am against George Bush on almost every social issue. But I’m not afraid that fundamentalist Christians are trying to take over the world and the fact is I feel safer when my children and I go to sleep with George Bush at the wheel.” (War on terror)
A Republican woman from Kansas City – “Although I have been dissatisfied with many of the economic factors during the last four years, I don’t think you should cut an administration off at the knees during the middle of a war.” (War in Iraq)
A married woman from South Louisiana - “Ah, me, what a stiff!” (Likeability)
A single, politically independent, agnostic, software engineer from Colorado – “I’m tired of the double standard and media bias afforded the democrats during this political season.” (Turned off by negativity. Failed to see a positive message to really get behind.)

And that’s us red-staters, just one big, happy family.

Apologies for the long post.

I'll give the pollsters a little hint: When you're waiting outside at anytime from 7:00 AM to about 3 PM, there will be a lot of people that won't stop and tell you how they voted. In fact, they'll leave footprints up your chest if you don't get out of the way. This group is known as "people with jobs to get to". It appears that they voted Republican more often than the ones who had time to hang around and talk to you...

Cathy, evangelicals are not middle America. Bush won this election because of evangelicals, they dont believe in evolution, they think the earth is 6000 years old, and believe the literal word of the bible. The typical evangelical shares alot more common ground with David Koresh then they do with middle America. And a scary number of them vote religiously...

And please save the anecdotal "evidence" that completely disagrees with the polling results. The most popular reps are Arnold and Rudy G, are they more palatable to evangelicals or middle America?

I have also wondered if the exit polls were coincidentally wrong or wrong by sheer choice (Dick Morris’ theory, as well). I am not a mathematician and cannot compute what the odds are that maybe a preponderance of Kerry voters showed up early, as I heard discussed at one blog.

They weren't wrong, their margin of error was around +/-4% so they did their job. The Central Limit Theorem in stats doesn't know that there's a *huge* nominal difference between 51% and 48%. It's just 3% to the equation.

Even worse, the margin of error at the time the polls were leaked (before adjustments could be made for things like non-responders and such) was over +/-7%. The polls were accurate, people just asked too much of them.

For discussion: Why can we not adopt a uniform voting system that could generate real time running totals? Even if these totals are kept secret until 1 minute after the polls close in a state?

Wally Shawn--perfect!

/f

It wasn't just evangelicals that voted for Bush. I don't go to church and know of a lot of friends that voted for Bush that don't go to church either. Cathy is closer to the truth than most people (democrats) will admit.

Begbee says- ...evangelicals, they dont believe in evolution, they think the earth is 6000 years old, and believe the literal word of the bible. The typical evangelical shares alot more common ground with David Koresh then they do with middle America. And a scary number of them vote religiously...

With that nuanced an understanding of Christian subgroups it's little wonder the Democrats miss them again and again.... Show 'em a little respect, learn to understand the difference between varieties of Christianity, and maybe there'd be some votes there. Dismiss "typical" evangelicals as "having more in common" with a man who seems to have thought he was the personal messenger of the Apocalypse (a role that seems more in line with the Black Bloq folks than the Baptists of my acquaintance) and you'll lose their support every time.

Cathy has nailed the truth square on the head. This nation isn't made up of 59 million NASCAR fans. Those that voted for Bush are all over the cultural map.

I don't swill beer, live in a trailer park, or watch stock car races. Two of my work buddies are athiests. One of them is a 40-year old who just got married last year, loves to play video games, and is into European motorcycle racing. The other loves alternative music, goes to movies at least once a week, is married to a Pepperdine graduate student, and has a daughter. All three of us voted Bush.

Begbee: The Democratic Party is in total decline. How can you ignore the facts right before your eyes? They are gradually losing votes in the upper Midwest, and have finally lost New Mexico (Santa Fe voters are no longer enough to overcome the gradual increase of conservatism). The states that were in play this year were Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan. What does that tell you about the future of your party?

You don't just need to "get out your base". You need to WIN VOTERS BACK. And you're not going to do that by accusing every Bush voter of being an imbecile.

If the Democrats don't get serious and perform some self-examination of their platform, they are going to be on the wrong side of the ballot box for the next 20 years.

One other thing: Slamming evangelical Christians is going to also alienate a core Democratic voter bloc: Black Christians.

The Democrats are already losing Latinos and Jews. If they lose Blacks, they are toast.

Begbee, let me be sure I understand your argument. Bush won middle America. That's evident from the wash of red on any electoral map. Are you arguing that middle America is dominated by evangelical Christians? Where do Catholics and Jews stand in your lexicon? Have you heard that Bush took a fair number of those votes from the Democratic party?

And what, exactly, frightens you about evangelical Christians? I don't believe I've read anything lately about Christians mass-murdering their followers, planning kidnappings or suicide bombings or anything equally repulsive? Don't Christians believe you should love your neighbor as yourself? If this same unreasonable invective were directed against gays it would be called - homophobia. Do you have evangeliphobia? The fact is every person in this country has a right to live their lives with the values they choose.

I am sorry you were offended by the comments I posted. I was not trying to present "anecdotal evidence" but merely passing along comments that I found interesting as I struggled to make a personal decision in this election year.

And to what polls do you refer? Were they conducted with the same razor sharp accuracy as the initial exit polls?

Lastly, I believe that Schwarzeneggar, Giuliani and even Obama (Man, I like him.) would be supported by middle America. Because, unlike you, I don't believe those sneaky evangelical Christians are out there waiting to sabotage anyone who breathes the words "civil unions". Clinton got elected, didn't he? They just want a centrist candidate who doesn't despise and dismiss their values.

This is the third "Princess Bride" reference I've seen in 2 days. All by those celebrating the election results.

Wallace Shawn and Rob Reiner must be livid.

Speaking of ROUS's...

Your post reminded me of the "Iocane powder" scene in _Princess Bride_. "Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool--you would have counted on it--so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!"

"et cetera, et cetera, et cetera"(for another movie quote).

And, just like the movie, which mirror relflection of a mirror reflection was "correct" s irrelevant. The citizens who really cared about ho was going to be President voted, and the majority chose GWB.

anyone pro-bush enough to let exit polls affect them like that most likely was going to vote for w with or without hearing the early exit polls

The real problem is the completely serious, previously-admirable people I know, who are genuinely bone-deep sure that the reason the polls said Kerry but the votes didn't is that the polls were right and THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN. They are gathering info on states that had a big disparity, trying to prove it was sabotage of electronic voting machines or whatever.

They have truly gone off the deep end.

Early exit polls will always skew Democrat - they overrepresent single mothers, the unemployed, teachers with the day off, etc. The Republican voters don't get out of work until 5:00.

Reading conspiracy theories like the one Jane highlighted, I am reminded, as so often this year, of George Orwell's quote that "... on the left, political thought is just a kind of masturbation fantasy into which the real world of facts rarely enters" or something like that. It's the sort of paranoid ravings you would expect from people who are shattered by their loss and have no idea why it happened or how to recover.

Sorry, Jane=Mindles of course.

Cathy, you write "Don't Christians believe you should love your neighbor as yourself?". Ummm, no. Why? Because all Christians don't believe one thing. Many Christians in this country say that's what they believe but only apply it to people just like them. See 8 of the 11 anti-gay marriage amendments. They didn't stop at defining marriage. They went further to ban civil unions and several of them even banned anything that would give any of the rights that are derived from marriage, even telling companies that they can't provide benefits for same-sex couples.

As far as Guiliani and Republicans like him are concerned they will never become President. Why? Because while they'd win in a heartbeat in the general election if they aren't pro-life and anti-gay they won't make it through the nomination process of the Republican Party. While they are put up front to speak to show a moderate side of the party during the convention no one with their views has any power in the party. Consider the case of Arlen Specter. In the normal course of things he should be up for chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But he doesn't want nominees for the Supreme Court as right wing as some Republicans are pushing for and has said so. The response? Republicans are already talking about how they can bypass him for the chairmanship. The leadership of the party wants the party to be monolithic in practice while presenting a face of diversity to lull people like you. It works.

I live in the middle of the Bible Belt, I don't go to church, and the only evangelical christians I personally know are the parents of the husband of my wifes niece.

And I voted for Bush, for lack of a better choice.

Cathy, While it is true that many Christians believe that you should love your neighbor as yourself" many do not, and sadly, a very large number of these people are Evangelicals. Many believe that Catholics are doing the work of the devil and that the Pope is the anti Christ. Bob Jones believes this, for example. As a Catholic, I have no desire to reach out to these people, and if fact, think the term Neadnerthal is too good to apply to them. Historically, Neanderthals have gotten a bad rap about being violten cretins. Jimmy Swaggert and Pat Robertson have made similar anti Catholic remarks. Just about ALL evangelicals believe that you will go to hell if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, a position which clearly doesn't show much love for your Jewish neighbors.

Dave- You are quite wrong about exit polling. Historically, it had tended to favor Republicans early in the day. That's why so much was made of the early polling which seemed to favor Kerry. The logic being that if the early polling was favoring Kerry when it shouldn't have, the later polling was going to be even better for him. Why it was off is open for interpretation, but historically, you claim is inaccurate.

JimS,let me clarify my position. I would argue that the ability to love and respect others and acting to protect your values can be mutually exclusive. Most Christians do not believe in drinking or adultery, behaviors that are practically accepted societal norms in our culture. I don't believe that most evangelical Christians would like to burn everyone who doesn't agree with them at the stake. Although I do not agree with the bans on civil unions, this would lead one to conclude that perhaps more of "mainstream" America is against government endorsed gay partnerships than just the evangelical Christians. So, let's not hang this all on them.

As for your comments regarding the Republican party, again, let me clarify. I am not a Republican, or a Republican apologist. I am a moderate independent who would like to see the growth of alternative parties. If you want me to argue that there are not fringe radical Republicans who hold a fair amount of power within their party, you are doomed to disappointment, just as there are fringe liberal Democrats who, likewise, are powerful within their party. I am not lulled. Fielding a successful candidate requires more than adopting a "face of diversity". Certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but does Bush not have the most racially diverse cabinet of any sitting President?

Political realities require finding a candidate who can reach to the middle where hordes of Americans actually exist and find a way to speak to the subtle and diverse concerns that impact their daily lives.

I remain unconvinced that Giuliani could not win the nomination, but only time will tell. If that theory bore fruit it would almost certainly drive me closer toward the Democratic ticket. This was my original argument. The Democrats must find a centrist candidate and it is entirely too simplistic to believe that the apparently previously unrecognized massive block of evangelical Christians gave the election to Bush by themselves. Where were they when Clinton ran for his second term? Surely, he had personal values which they must have found appalling.

I have an article coming out on TechCentralStation.com either today or Monday that I believe will explain what was going on with exit polls.

Here's a simple way to look at it. Imagine that you polled one person in every precinct in a state, and then reported the results without any weighting. The guy you polled from the precinct with 10,000 voters should have a bigger weight than the woman from the precinct with 800 voters, but you only do the weighting after the polls close, because that's when you know how many people voted in each precinct.

In other words, you could have an unbiased sample with a low sampling error, so that you get every precinct right. But because you don't know the number of votes per precinct until the polls close, you can't use your samples to predict the election.

So someone can leak your numbers at noon, when they are junk, even though at 7 PM they become an excellent way to predict the final tally.

Yeah, AK, no one expected the GOP turnout to surge to parity with the Democrats, which explains why those early exit polls were so wrong.

To which I add, most of the rants I have seen in the past two days have been against "middle America". I actually saw a sign at a California rally that said F*** Middle America. I am a proud part of middle America, I have never seen a single Nascar race (when did that become the emblem of middle America?) and we are not a single voter who can be reached in a single way.

"The most paranoid possibility is that the exit polls were somehow intentionally skewed to falsely show a pro-Kerry result"

Is Kaus unaware of all of the lefties claiming that the disparity is evidence of Diebold election fraud or does he not consider that a paranoid possibility?

Look folks. I live in the west and in memory it is always a done deal before the polls close here, yet I always go vote. My state is a done deal for Dems, yet I always go vote.
Don't psycoanalyze yourselves, just accept the result. Polls don't decide the election, early returns don't decide the election. The election decides the election!

The real problem is the completely serious, previously-admirable people I know, who are genuinely bone-deep sure that the reason the polls said Kerry but the votes didn't is that the polls were right and THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN. They are gathering info on states that had a big disparity, trying to prove it was sabotage of electronic voting machines or whatever.

I don't think this is the 'real problem'. There were people who were hopeful that uncounted votes Tuesday night or Wednesday might have turned the election. What's wrong with that? Considering the expected outcome switched from Bush to Kerry and back to Bush in less than 24-hours there's nothing wrong with some Kerry supporters hoping it might have made one last surprise turn.

I'm sure there are people claiming the election was stolen but I'm not aware of any serious effort afoot to claim Kerry really won the election. More importantly, people whose voices matter have all accepted the outcome.

Here is my TCS piece:
http://techcentralstation.com/110504I.html

My explanation is this: when asked who they voted for, a lot of people lied. They said they voted for Kerry, but had actually voted for Bush.

Why? Because of all the "brown shirt" pressure.

Cathy,

I think you are spot on. And I think that the reps are closer to being able to nominate a Rudy than many dems think possible. I don't know how the rep platform voting went down this year, but in 2000 it came a hair's width away from avoiding endorsing the pro-life position. So if close to half of the reps voting on their party's platform were willing to avoid the abortion issue, at least to the extent of making it a non-issue, then I think that bodes extremely well for the republican party in the future.

Meanwhile, I am conflicted. Would I rather see a Hilary-Condi contest or a Hilary-Rudy contest in 2008?

How about a Hillary-Rudy contest in 2006 - for US Senate?

Rex,

Meanwhile, I am conflicted. Would I rather see a Hillary-Condi contest or a Hillary-Rudy contest in 2008?

Oooh, tough call. I say Rudy, though watching the Democratic Party attempt to tackle an extremely smart, conservative Black woman would be amusing.

But I don't think it's at all likely that Hillary will be nominated anyway. Edwards and Obama are each more likely, don't you think?

“Cathy, evangelicals are not middle America. Bush won this election because of evangelicals, they dont believe in evolution, they think the earth is 6000 years old, and believe the literal word of the bible. The typical evangelical shares alot more common ground with David Koresh then they do with middle America. And a scary number of them vote religiously...”

What another truly moronic statement from the left. San Fran Nan said that “we haven’t gotten our message out”, also moronic, when the “message” is just received and rejected.

Oddly Silly Willy did get it….

“Nov 5, 2004 5:31 pm US/Eastern
(1010 WINS) (NEW YORK) Former President Bill Clinton, in his first public remarks since the election, said Friday that Democrats "shouldn't be all that discouraged" by Sen. John Kerry's defeat and warned the party not to "sit around and whine."

“"I think it is, by and large, a mistake for our party to sit around and ... whine about this and that or the other thing," he said.

Clinton attributed Kerry's loss to the Democrats' failure to combat how they were portrayed by Republicans to rural and small-town America.

"If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and family, doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault," he said....

Clinton gave Bush and the Republicans full credit for the election victory.”

Couldn’t have said it much better. If “all men are created equal”, then the vote Tuesday wasn’t won by “religious extremist”. But by Americans of all life styles. 4 million votes out of 59 million is hardly a statistical majority.

The problem with our America today is that about 20% of us don’t believe that “all men are created equal”.

Even though 60 to 70 percent of our neighbors have some belief in a spiritual concept, they are painted with the same broad brush, when they use the word God. They are as capable of cognative thought and individual perogitive as any sci-fi lock step worshiper at the alter of science. This is to be sure not but a small minority of socially sophisticated, high toned morons, who tend to be genuinely ignorant of life.

Source Link
http://www.1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_310153448.html

All the odd excuses are coming out now that the losers have lost. What about the secret space ray that Halliburton designed to alter the votes on the electronic voting machines? Or the secret Bush - Big Oil conspiracy that drove up gas prices prior to the election that prevented good liberals from being able to afford to drive to the polls. Or worse yet, Clear Channel playing non-stop Barbara Streisand music on election day that kept the liberal home listening instead of heading to the polls. Yes....and Rumsfeld on the grassy knoll?

Michelle:

"[T]hough watching the Democratic Party attempt to tackle an extremely smart, conservative Black woman would be amusing."

First you're going to have to find an "extremely smart, conservative Black woman." Precisely how has Condi been anything other than a complete joke? Dems were right on Iraq - it wasn't a threat, and it is an ongoing pain in the ass - not Condi. In the 9/11 hearings, she sounded like she was going to start crying. I think she's been carefully kept of the national stage recently. What metrics do you people use?

Anyway, it'll be fun to see what happens if she stays. I suspect that people were kinder b/c (a) of the initial 9/11 halo effect, and (b) she was an African-American woman newly in a high position, and people were inclined to be circumspect. But the halo's gone, she's not new anymore, and we just banked something like 85% of the African American vote. It's going to get interesting. Since it's hard to believe that Bush would replace her with someone who was significantly less disastrous on national security, I hope she stays.

Tim - Climb down off your high horse. People in the blue states make more money than those in the red states, that does not mean that they are more "productive". My older brother and I have similar IQ's and similar educations. (The IQ's are 140+ and both of us have graduate degrees.) He choose to teach high school. I'm a tax accountant. I make roughly 4 times what he does. He teaches inner-city kids math. I help my clients run-up the deficit by showing them how to legally reduce their tax bill. Which of us is the more "productive"? Both of us voted for Bush, he in Ohio and I in Arizona. We grew up in California. Would we suddenly become smarter and more productive if we were to move back? Sheesh.

It's clear you have no idea what motivates the vast majority of your political opponents. You only think you do. Until you understand us, you will have no chance of convincing us of our errors. If you and your peers keep up with your rhetoric instead of framing the issues in terms we understand, we'll just tune you out -- like many of us have with Dan Rather.

And, yes, I know that the term "productive" is typically defined in dollar terms for economic analysis purposes. By that definition, Brittany Spears is more productive in her sleep than many of us are in a year's worth of work. This definition just doesn't seem of much use when comparing the "productivity" of rural and urban occupations. Many of us chose an occupation that did not maximize our earning capacity. I choose to live in Arizona rather than San Francisco because I thought this would be a better place to raise a family. Many farmers are very intelligent--they operate equipment costing hundreds of thousands of dollars--and could make much more money doing something else. My point is that many of us in red states could be making more money if that had been our primary object. That blue staters make more on average does not make you our intellectual, social, or moral betters.

Indeed, you've written here that your "idiot light" goes off whenever someone disagrees with you. You've suggested that's just how you are. Nothing you can do about it. You are just wired that way. Your attitude is it's God's fault for making you that way. (Or Gaia's fault, or the fault of the big bang, etc.) In these backwards parts, this is thought of as close minded. We tend to think of it as a moral "failing" that prevents self-improvement. Once aware of the failing, most of us would try to remove it's stain from our "souls" by changing our attitude. When confronted with something we don't understand, most red staters are humble enough to question whether we might be wrong. Not you blue staters. No. So sure are you of the correctness of your views, you are certain that any disagreement must be because we red staters are just too dumb to understand your arguments. The flashing idiot light just confirms our stupidity. Next time you see that light flashing, do yourself a favor and ask whether you might have set it off.

Tim, one last thing: This entire post has been purposely condescending in tone. How persuasive do you think the mountains of condescension being heaped on the red states will be?

Here is my alternate Princess Bride explanation of the exit polls:

Rove (election night, 7PM EST): I admit it, Kerry is leading us in the exit polls
McAuliff: Then why are you smiling?
Rove:  Because I know something you don't know.
McAuliff: And what is that?
Rove: I... am not left-handed.

From Here

I have no idea how my post above ended up in these comments. I had open an entirely different set of comments, honest.

David:

[Delete, delete, delete….] I was wondering about that (at greater length). The comment I made that I assume you were referencing was pure snide. In fairness, though, he started it. And I wasn't doing any of the real lifting for my side (GT was, I think). And I absolutely don't (nor does anyone, really) want actual secession. And I don't think the economic analysis (or analysis by any of the other social statistics on which blue states do well) is useful at this juncture - we did just settle the national questions (in some ways) for at least two years.

But it got me to thinking . We on the Dem side are making a fair number of anti-southern and anti-heartland type of comments. Some are just spite; it was a close election, and we're pissed. (Hey, it happens). Some are meant, and some subset of those are justified - I think there really are fairly dramatic differences in the underlying assumptions between many blue staters and at least a substantial portion of red staters.

But whence came this sense that we look down on Southerners (can someone tell me the capitalization rule on this? Please?)? It's a bit weird, given that our present personal political Jeebus is a southerner from Arkansas, and the heir apparent is from North Carolina (and an NC State grad at that). I defy anyone to claim that anywhere in Arkansas is more cosmopolitan than anywhere in Texas. I mean, our guy really is from Dogpatch, and he moved right back there as soon as he got out of school. Our boy in the last fight (Gore), who I would have preferred for this one, is southern. Ann Richards was the closest thing I've ever seen to a female Bill Clinton - she was a minor deity after going after GHWB at the '92 convention. Molly Ivins, an obvious favorite of many liberals, is also a Texan. The best rising politician in our party (better than Obama, wait and see) is Harold Ford, Jr., from Tennessee. So why do southern Republicans assume we look down on the South? I cop to disliking the southern Republicans - I think there is a strand down there that is fairly virulent - but looking down on the South in general? How did this become a general assumption about the Dem party?

Cathy:

"I remain unconvinced that Giuliani could not win the nomination…"

Let me see if I can convince you with a few data points, so you can prepare to vote Democrat in '06.

First, the present Republican motivating myth is that the party was transformed by Goldwater in '64 and came to fruition in the Reagan era. (By way of comparison, the Dem myth (still in progress) is that Clinton and the DLC was transformative). These myths matter to the base and to the party's intellectual framework, and Giuliani is way to the left of the Goldwaterites (though, IIRC, Goldwater was good on gay rights). Second, one of the "lessons" of the GHWB '92 election was that you needed to be "of the base" to get appropriate support. GHWB lost, in part, b/c his party didn't like him that much and thought he was not a "real conservative." Third, the base has actual power. The real reason that McCain didn't have a shot at the nomination in '00 was that he was/is considered too independent (and possibly slightly liberal - IIRC, he was having public thoughts about abortion being a right). It is notable both that (a) he got stopped in the primary despite a compelling biography and lots of press (and center-lib.) love, (b) where he got stopped, and (c) how he got stopped. Fourth, if you look at the real power leaders in the party, they are all from the south and the heartland, and their values are not that centrist. Fifth, there isn't a lot of policy difference (normally) between the center-Dems and the center-Reps, and (essentially out of necessity) Dems moved to occupy that niche at a national level first. We've got that market space and product in the pipeline.

And finally, Pataki will be waiting in the grass and will never, ever let it happen. You can't endorse a Democrat for governor (as Giuliani did) and not pay the price down the road. Giuliani is golden at the moment b/c of 9/11, but that'll fade.

We welcome your vote in '06.

M Tinkler, if you know of some evangelical church that doesn't think evolution is a lie, that the earth is only six thousand years old, and that the bible is literal truth, tell me the name of the church. Koresh was an evangelical, maybe its something in the water in Texas.

Pianoman, Kerry lost by 1%, the Senate seats were lost because stupid, irresponsible dem incumbants retired without a strong candidate to take their seat. The fact is the evangelicals will play a much smaller part in the next Presidential election, because Mccain and Rudy G are social liberals.

Cathy I dont fear or hate evangelicals. The fact is, getting Bush four million more evangelical votes was the centerpiece of Roves strategy, and Bush won by three million votes. Its not that I think the evangelicals will vote against a social liberal rep, its that they wont show up in near the numbers they did for Bush jr. BTW, the evangelicals have targetted abortion providers for assassination, and lets not forget Rudolph and the other evangelical abortion clinic bombers.

IF THE DEMS ARE "OUT OF TOUCH" WITH AMERICAS VALUES, WHY ARE THE MOST POPULAR REPS SOCIAL LIBERALS?

You have never heard any sour grapes from me. I have never in anyway suggested that Bush wasnt the clear winner. But its seems you rep SOBs consider anything other then agreement or surrender sour grapes. The election is over, the war began again when Kerry conceeded.

Truth be told, this is much ado about nothing. The FACT is that 54+ million people voted for John Kerry, windsurfing and all. That's the second highest vote for President in history.
The formula for defeating the Republicans in 2008 in right is right in front of our faces. Syphon off the 4 million or so votes that Bush won from the Christian right. How does one do that? Destroy whatever candidate the GOP throws up there with invasive stories of past moral failing,(easily done against Giuliani, Ahnold if applicable, McCain, and Frist) coupled with a clandestine sponsorship of a third party evangelical candidate. You'd get a Nader or Perot effect, and the Democratic nominee would coast in.
The scary part about evangelicals is that to the true believers, it doesn't matter what condition the world is in, because they don't consider themselves part of it. Unemployed? That's alright, because Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor, for they are the children of God." Tax cuts going to only the rich? That's fine. The Bible says Christians will get their reward in Heaven. 100,000 dead Iraqi civillians? So what? They worship a false god and we've just bumped up their flight towards eternal damnation. It's easy to demonize an opponent when you consider everything not based in your belief system to be a creation of Satan.

--Cobra

...if you know of some evangelical church that doesn't think evolution is a lie, that the earth is only six thousand years old, and that the bible is literal truth, tell me the name of the church.

"Churches" don't march in lockstep. People have lots of beliefs. For example, I am an evangelical, and I disagree with all three of your claims.

But, assuming that you mean "churches whose leadership doesn't think...": Mount Carmel Baptist Church in West Philadelphia would be a good start.

Cobra:

Your comments on Christianity are less than accurate. While Christians are supposed to be "in the world but not of it," they're definitely in the world. Their call is not to sit back and wait to die because that's when they'll get their reward - in fact, they're not supposed to consider their salvation a "reward" at all, but a gift. And to say that they're unconcerned about "100,000 dead Iraqi civilians" implies, first, that there are 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, which I gather you're getting from the Lancet report...

The 95% confidence interval in the statistics in the Lancet gives a number of Iraqi dead (and, incidentally, does not distinguish between civilians and "others" such as military/former military or insurgents) between 8,000 and 194,000, and picks 98,000 as the "number in the middle." The reason the range is so large is because the Lancet study is an extrapolation from a survey of less than 1,000 Iraqi households. It's lousy statistics, whether because gathering data was too hard or because somebody at the Lancet had an ax to grind.

Iraqbodycount.net provides a better-supported maximum number of excess Iraqi deaths (that is, deaths due to military activity) around 16,400, while noting that they believe this number is on the low side. However, their minimum number is about 14,300, so it appears inconceivable that they believe their maximum number is over 80,000 people too low. 16,400 dead is a tragedy. No right-thinking person could dismiss those deaths as trivial for any reason, "wrong God" or other. But the Document Center for Human Rights in Iraq documented 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, or about 25,000 per year on average, so is 16,400 in three years too high a price for Iraqis?

Comments are Closed.