I honestly didn’t think that it could have happened this time without major fraud. If it truly is legitimate, I will just have to quote BoingBoing answering a response from a British individual:
Well, presuming that the elections were fairly conducted and accurately counted — which remains a matter of some debate — I’m going with yes, more than half of American voters are just fucking stupid.
The United States of America: A nation of intolerance, fundamentalist Christianity, and a fake “moral superiority” which people believe validates philosophies like intolerance, bigotry, racism, sexism, lack of concern for the needy, the “death penalty,” and lying to a nation about war and the state of the world. Is that really “moral?” If that is “superior,” I wonder wht could be considered “inferior.”
Feel free to disagree. As it is we are all so steadfast in our positions within our Divided Nation, we won’t listen to each other and will never change our minds.
This is where I say: I am getting involved. I don’t know how yet, I don’t know the plan, but I am energized.
UPDATE: As I get time today, I’ll add some links to interesting comments (not just from people who agree with me) on election night and the next four years if I find them:
BoingBoing (that’s the post I quoted, but I note they’ve changed their wording to be a little less hostile)
Greg Knauss is almost right, except for his call for dispassion. Passion is the only thing that can drive change.
CNN on the economic issues for the next four years
Canada 2.0 (hehe)
Lance Arthur – Do Not Move to Canada
Why they voted for Bush (interesting)
More Jeff Jarvis (about “moral values”)
Has it occurred to you (and to “boingboing”) that maybe the two options were just equally poor this year, and the American public at large just flipped the proverbial coin? Why does it HAVE to be fraud?
And why is it that because someone voted for the candidate you didn’t favor, they’re automatically intolorant racist sexist bigots with a superiority complex and bloodlust? I know people who voted for ‘the wrong guy’ (in your opinion, anyway) because it was the Devil You Know vs. the unknown quantity. Or because they felt the candidates were evenly matched except for certain platform issues, like taxation, or the role of the military.
Both candidates were pretty equally s**tty, and the results pretty much reflect that.
I was listening to someone this morning talking about the exit polls and how it was showed that in this election, people voted more based on their morals and character issues than on the “real” issues. Apparently this fact, the person said, was overlooked by the Democrats. That’s frightening. It’s frightening to me that people are more concerned about “values” than issues that are important. I’m not saying that values aren’t important, but to disregard the major facts that are staring you in the face just because you, say, have an issue with gay marriage? Yikes. I really thought this race would have gone the other way or at least been a lot closer than it was. It disturbs me to know that over half the country thinks that way…
To partially answer your question, M-D, I’ll point you to this article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=221404
Well the thing I tried to point out, is that to vote for Bush because of “morals” is to vote for “morals” which include:
keeping all power with rich white men
lying to a nation to support empire-building war
the death of innocent citizens of a foreign country
the death penalty is good while abortion is bad
good education is only for those who have money
Yeah, the “exit polls” say people voted on the basis of morals, which means they saw Bush has a “strong character” with “steadfast beliefs.” He is no more moral than Milosevic. His idealogy is not traditional Christian belief. He is a “born-again Christian” who believes God told him personally that he would be president.
M-D, I didn’t say it has to be fraud. Read again. I said I didn’t think it could happen without it being fraud, which implies that I believe it was not fraudulent after the fact.
Anyway, a little research can answer most of your questions. And if you really think that Bush and Kerry would appoint the same type of people, for life, to the Supreme Court, and you don’t really understand the effect that those appointments will have on the future of this country, then you really don’t have a grasp on the main issue. It doesn’t matter if Kerry and Bush are cut from a similar cloth (they’re 10th cousins, both Bones, both interested in the New World Order, etc.), it’s the fact that at some point, Bush chose to be part of one movement and Kerry chose to be part of another. In the case of the next four years, that would have pretty much bound them to making certain decisions, like SCOTUS appointments, in the direction they are expected to follow.Issues like the economy and the war are small potatoes when it comes to making (and repealing) the laws and philosophies that guide and define the nation and the world.Then you said: And why is it that because someone voted for the candidate you didn’t favor, they’re automatically intolorant racist sexist bigots with a superiority complex and bloodlust? First of all, people who voted to ban gay marriage are intolerant. (Those were votes for referenda, not for president, in fact it’s likely that many people who voted for Kerry also voted to ban gay marriage.) There’s just no reason to ban gay marriage other than the fact that people in ancient times (or God if you prefer) thought it was unnatural to be gay.These ideas (intolerance, bigotry, racism, sexism, etc.) are the philosophies people who voted for Bush voted for, whether they had different reasons for voting for him or not.I also said (through BoingBoing) that they’re fucking stupid, and that’s my personal opinion, and I’ll stand by it. And if that means I have a fake intellectual superiority complex, I’d rather have that than a fake moral superiority complex.
Way to get energized! Unfortunately, if you’re going to call more than half of America ignorant bigots, you’re not going to win many to your cause.
I don’t think winning anyone to the cause is a goal here. Like I said, we’re divided and steadfast. There are two completely separate perceptions of reality. It goes beyond politics. I don’t think people whose views are so firmly opposite can be unified on a permanent basis. The unification after 9/11/01 would have been the sort of thing that could do it, but I think it was shown that any unity after something like that is temporary.
So then how exactly do you propose to change things? There’s a middle ground that you’re completely overlooking as you ride past on your liberal high horse. But don’t feel bad; the rest of the Democratic party missed it too.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109128/fr/rss/
I don’t feel bad. Most of the Slate article reflects what I’m talking about. Some if it is exactly what I’m talking about. The Democrats have done a bad job of relating their positions to the public.
I agree with the article that the Democrats would have found more supporters if they found away to explain the morality of their position… but they didn’t, and Bush presented himself as more “moral,” and thus he won the vote of people who decide on the basis of perceived morality.
And you’re asking me to immediately propose a method for change? That’s not very fair. Even if I were to have all the answers someday — and I won’t — I certainly wouldn’t have them already.
Sure, lots of people have their suggestions that they think can’t fail. I’m sure many people think they can run the Democratic Party better than it has been run since 1968, and many of those people have widely-read forums like Slate to share their opinion. I’m not one of those people who has all the answers. I doubt I’ll ever be. I’m just getting started here.
It’s not just that they’ve done a bad job of relating their positions to the public; it’s that they’ve done a bad job of relating to the public, period. I refer to your original post as example one.
You’re quick to post, Julie. :>
Well, if I had been trying to relate to the public, I would have done that in my original post. But that wasn’t my intent, and it doesn’t have to be my intent. I wasn’t writing as a Democrat. I was writing as someone who’s frustrated with the world and the system. Maybe I was a little reactionary, but I think I have a good reason for getting fired up. I’m not campaigning for anything, just expressing frustration, so I’m not necessarily trying to win people over to my side at this point… therefore your comparison isn’t relevant. :>
I’d argue it’s completely relevant. People are watching what you do whether you intend them to or not. Bush’s DUI record, Kerry’s voting record, whatever… people pay attention. Spouting vitriol, whether reactionary frustration or not, doesn’t advance anyone’s cause. If you’re *not* trying to relate to the public, why post your comments so publicly? Or are you only trying to relate to the public that agrees with you?
Like I said, I’m not trying to relate to anyone, whether they agree or not. But you’re right, people are watching and listening, and I should direct my passion in some other way than calling people idiots, sure. My biggest concern at the moment is that people, like after 9/11, will be once again called “unpatriotic” for disagreeing with the president. My fear is still that people will feel obligated to “play along” for the “good of the country.” For exmaple, people may expect the Democrat minority in the house or senate to just lie down so Republicans can have their agendas pushed through without a fight. Or if the Democrats were in control, vice versa. I guess that’s just politics.It probably comes down to leadership… or a dramatic change in the party. I think it’s more than just the fact that they have to reach out and relate to more voters. There’s needs to be a level of passion and desire for anything to happen though.
With any luck, what you talked about earlier (a Bush win really unifying the Left and causing them to really become something) will come to pass and in 4 years, things will be very different.
If anyone’s still interested in this topic, here’s what I wrote about the election in July. The only thing that’s changed is that I’ve realized that the appointment of justices to the Supreme Court is a much bigger deal.
The British media coverage of the election has been basically very one-sided – essentially it is taken as read that no one in their right mind would want to vote for Bush, and that we all find it deeply mystifying that he has been re-elected. I was listening to the BBC whilst driving home from work the other day, and the anchor was asking the washington correspondant how Bush had won. The reply was simple: Bush is a deeply religious and patriotic man who uses these two things to inform everything he does or says, and that he has a gift for communicating simply with the American public. America is, we were reminded, a deeply religious and patriotic country, so these things go down well with lots of people. Kerry, on the other hand, was a much more European politician, with a greater grasp of nuance and subtlety and an understanding of the fact that some issues go below the surface.
Very interesting I thought, and then on reflection I realised that it was in fact insulting to Bush, insulting to all Americans and contained a rather self-satisfied pat on the back for all us sophisticated Europeans.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not a fan of Bush by any means, and I would rather have my organs pulled from my body with chopsticks than vote for him, but a majority of the US public clearly like him, and not only did he win the electoral college, but he also carried more of the popular vote than any other president in history.
We have a stupid electoral system ourselves of course…. first past the post…. I could run a party that lost every constituency by a single vote – so have 49.99% of the popular vote, and I wouldn’t get a single seat in parliament. Weird.
I just hope that we all come to our senses and realise that we are creating terrorists in the middle east faster than we are killing them. Either we should use bigger weapons, or we should start thinking about taking a different approach.
OK. Now I’m just rambling.
ST (via Blog Explosion, but I guess I spent longer than 30 seconds here. Damn!)
SwissToni – well said. Although I have to say, I remember watching the BBC’s coverage of the general election in the UK back in…I want to say ’97, and I was astounded at how quickly everything moved – Blair was in his new position as PM within 36 hours of the polls opening. I suppose that’s the benefit of a more regional electoral (for lack of a better word) system.
Also – your tag IS a reference to “The Fast Show”, isn’t it?