Election-Result Maps Analysis

Evan Peterson election analysis makes many excellent points. But it does not cover election fraud which many articles in this website indicate did happen. See: U.S. Elections

I think election fraud colours the whole picture. It means Bush and the Republicans committed major crimes in order to steal the US Presidency - again. It also means that most people in the rest of the world have misjudged the American people, a majority of whom did not vote for Bush. They were not been fooled by Bush and the US media. Kerry did win and I think the rest of the world should recognise that and do what we can to help Americans reclaim their country.
Read some of these articles and tell me if you think I'm wrong.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of the presidency represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1958)

Let us hope the acerbic Mencken was wrong about that, while recognizing the distinct possibility that we might have just proved him right! In either case, we can all agree that the outcome of the 2004 election was disastrous for Democrats, who lost the White House, four seats in the House of Representatives, and four more in the Senate: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/elections2004/2004President.html

Of course, the psychology of political defeats roughly mirrors that of sports. Just as a series of resounding defeats will cause some baseball fans to become depressed, and others to hide by wearing paper bags over their heads at home games, and still others to defect from their teams by wearing New York Yankees caps to "identify with a winner," so too will some Democrats feel depressed, while others try to hide by assimilating into the discredited Democratic Leadership Council's "Republican-Lite" centrism, and still others convert to Mr. Bush's Unholy Church Of The War Party.

However, we really ought not to supinely surrender to Mr. Bush and his Republican majority regardless of whether we're a rank-and-file Democrat or the ranking House minority leader, because almost half -- 48% -- of the electorate voted for John Kerry!

Therefore, here's an animated "Guide To Recovery" for those among us who still need a cure for those Blue-State Blues: http://www.markfiore.com/animation/depressed.html

And for anyone who might be tempted to assimilate, surrender to nihilism, or outright defect, this might help to ease your pain. Maps have been circulating which interpret the 2004 US presidential election results in insightful, embittered, and hilarious ways. Therefore, you really ought to check out this cathartic collection of "Red vs. Blue" maps (scroll through them by clicking "Next Picture" under each map): http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-jesusland.htm

And we should look at the bigger picture before prematurely concluding that red-state extremists like Ann Coulter are correct, and that blue-state "liberals" should either join "those ungrateful cheese-eating surrender monkeys, the French," or be involuntarily expelled from the Union. Consider this scientific poll, conducted before the US election, in which people worldwide "voted" for Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry. It's encouraging to note that Mr. Bush would've been elected only in: (1) Israel; (2) Poland; (3) Saudi Arabia; (4) Uruguay; and (5) the Canadian province of Alberta! Outside of the USA, it's a blue-state world: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/11/red_blue_world.html

On a more cautionary note, consider this historical comparison between the "Pre-Civil War Free vs. Slave States" and the "2004 US Presidential Election Results," which disturbingly suggests that racism is still the driving force behind our red-state vs. blue-state split: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/11/voting_free_ves.html

Then further consider that the Republicans seem to be recrudescing a postmodern version of Confederate Dixie, according to the analysis in Georgian Heather Gray's 11-13-04 CP essay, "Whistling Dixie: Bush's Reelection -- A Perspective From The South": http://counterpunch.org/gray11132004.html

But wait! The post-election spin from the mainstream media has been telling us that Republican voters were driven to the polls by their strong desire to protect family values: "It's the culture war, stupid!" If true, those voters were badly mistaken, for a moral chasm exists concerning "family values," but it's not what they thought! How so? You see, American divorce rates are actually HIGHEST in red states (i.e., the South and the Inland West), and LOWEST in blue states (i.e., the Upper Midwest and the Northeast). By the way, this is illustrated in a 11-14-04 NYT map, entitled "Calling It Quits: Divorces Per 1,000 Adults In 2003": http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/11/14/weekinreview/20041114_BELLUCK_MAP.html

Also see the reviews of Thomas Frank's What's The Matter With Kansas?, which has to be this year's most prescient political book, at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805073396/002-4398206-2532003

Therefore, it cannot be credibly maintained that "family values" are more firmly established inside the Republican red states -- that is, unless their extremely high divorce rates somehow indicate the presence of "family values." To the contrary, "family values" are NOT established in the Republican red states because they have significantly MORE DIVORCES, whereas "family values" are established in the blue states because they have significantly LESS DIVORCES, as described in Pam Belluck's 11-04-04 NYT article, "To Avoid Divorce, Move To Massachusetts":

Moreover, the stable families inside the Democratic blue-states don't enjoy long-lasting marriages because they espouse "family values," but rather because they have HIGHER average personal incomes, which tends to creates stability. Contrastingly, the unstable families inside the union-busting WalMartized Republican red states aren't plagued by more divorces because they espouse "family values," but rather because they suffer from LOWER average personal incomes, which tends to creates instability: http://blog.evankai.com/red_v_blue_avg_personal_income.php

Furthermore, aren't red states ideologically opposed to "big government," and shouldn't they be the most financially independent? Not so! In fact, the Republican red states are not only the POOREST but also the MOST DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL MONEY, whereas the Democratic blue states are the most PROSPEROUS and the LEAST DEPENDENT on federal money! By the way, you'll find a map and some charts that clearly illustrate this fact in "Red States Feed At The Federal Trough, Blue States Supply The Feed": http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/11/red_states_feed.html

Finally, three University of Michigan professors have demonstrated why the geography-based "red state vs. blue state" map is deceptive in their Maps And Cartograms Of The 2004 US Presidential Election Result:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ Profs. Gastner, Newman, and Shalizi have done this by using easily-understood cartograms which adjust the size of each state in proportion to its actual population. For example, "red state" Wyoming looks geographically impressive because it's sixty times larger than tiny "blue state" Rhode Island, but Wyoming has only 500,000 people, whereas Rhode Island has 1.1 million people. Hence, big-but-empty Wyoming actually has 50% fewer votes in the Electoral College than tiny-but-crowded Rhode Island.

Conclusion: When population distribution is taken into account, the Republicans' seemingly-overwhelming nationwide victory was nowhere near as dominant as the media spinmeisters would have us believe, because: (1) their oversimplified "red state vs. blue state" analysis doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny; and (2) the most important electoral dividing-line was NOT geography but rather DEMOGRAPHY, insofar as (a) heavily-populated URBAN areas tended to be Democratic blue, whereas (b) sparsely-populated RURAL areas tended to be Republican red, and (c) medium-populated SUBURBAN areas tended toward a purple admixture of Dem blue and Rep red.

The Bottom Line: If the American people really want to stop "talking the talk" and actually "walk the walk" of authentic family values, we'd better turn our states Democratic blue; if American voters really want to live like Republican "haves" and "have-mores," we'd better vote for Democratic Congresspersons in 2006; and if Democrats really want to recapture the White House, we'd better stop letting "he who has the gold make the rules" by jettisoning the plutocratic DLC now, and then nominate a genuine progressive who is telegenic, likable, and principled, in 2008.