The Map
More on the elections later, but for now, it is instructive to observe this county-by-county voting map from USA Today.
They old conventional wisdom is that the Democrats are the party of the little guy and the working man, and the Republicans are the party of the fat cats.
The objective fact of the Map puts that to rest decisively.
Kerry only won in the metropolises; Bush swept rural and small-town America.
The counties won by Bush represent 80% of the landmass of the country, containing 60% of the population.
As an aside, if I were some ancient person attempting to devise a more representative system of governance than heredity, would give an electoral weight to the favorite candidate of each province proportional to its landmass, rather than to its population (as the our current system partly does)! Because, after all, the King and the Land are One.
Under its current leadership, the Democrats have clearly become the party of urbanites and the new-money rich. They raised and spent more money than the Republicans, with larger support from elites such as Trial Lawyers, Wall Streeters, and celebrities. George Soros, for example, threw away at least $25 million on the Kerry campaign, that we know of.
Therefore, it was just absurd that Kerry, a billionaire (unearned!) and euroweenie, would at all resonate as some pseudo-populist champion of the Common Man, which used to be the archetypical role of the Democrats.
One good thing we've learned from this decisive, historic election (and it shattered a great deal of myths to be discussed later) is that the system works -- you can't just buy an election, even with a scandalously partisan media shilling your position.
In other words, you can't fool all the people all of the time! Who knew?
You can't just fabricate issues, you have to have a coherent vision that goes beyond reflexive contrariness.
Tactics alone won't work.
You need strategery.
They old conventional wisdom is that the Democrats are the party of the little guy and the working man, and the Republicans are the party of the fat cats.
The objective fact of the Map puts that to rest decisively.
Kerry only won in the metropolises; Bush swept rural and small-town America.
The counties won by Bush represent 80% of the landmass of the country, containing 60% of the population.
As an aside, if I were some ancient person attempting to devise a more representative system of governance than heredity, would give an electoral weight to the favorite candidate of each province proportional to its landmass, rather than to its population (as the our current system partly does)! Because, after all, the King and the Land are One.
Under its current leadership, the Democrats have clearly become the party of urbanites and the new-money rich. They raised and spent more money than the Republicans, with larger support from elites such as Trial Lawyers, Wall Streeters, and celebrities. George Soros, for example, threw away at least $25 million on the Kerry campaign, that we know of.
Therefore, it was just absurd that Kerry, a billionaire (unearned!) and euroweenie, would at all resonate as some pseudo-populist champion of the Common Man, which used to be the archetypical role of the Democrats.
One good thing we've learned from this decisive, historic election (and it shattered a great deal of myths to be discussed later) is that the system works -- you can't just buy an election, even with a scandalously partisan media shilling your position.
In other words, you can't fool all the people all of the time! Who knew?
You can't just fabricate issues, you have to have a coherent vision that goes beyond reflexive contrariness.
Tactics alone won't work.
You need strategery.
posted by RDS at 2:09 AM
5 Comments:
I like the map.
2$$G
The voting map was indeed fascinating. 80% red. Very disturbing. It's amazing the reps and dems ever meet at all. This divide is certainly full of concrete and poetic significance. However, your urban fatcat imagery, harkening back to some delightful depression era cinema, doesn't really pan out. Do you think George Bush collected $360,651,752 from Jeffersonian yeoman farmers?
(By the way, anecdotaly, in your opinion, would you characterize your $200 contribution to W on July 29th, 2004, as having come from a "salt of the earth common man" or from the "urbanite new-money rich"?)
Finally, though, the Dem's would be wise to heed your closing advice. They do need a coherent vision that goes beyond reflexive contrariness. I think their strategy was to play it safe, do nothing, make no errors, and watch George W make such a catastrophe of the country that they would effortlessly win the next two elections. George W lived up to his part of the deal, to be sure, but the Dems still couldn't win. No alternate vision. Hopefully they will develop that over the next few years.
Ken
I thought the Democrats had become the party of most of the Old-Money Rich, e.g., John Kerry.
As for the professional classes, I suspect that lawyers were on one side and accountants on the other.
Ken,
(since you seem to know enough about me to look up the donation, I presume you are not "a" Ken, but rather "THE" Ken? If so, hi! I would have recognized you sooner had you signed in as Pudding Paraguay or something...)
>some delightful depression era cinema,
> Jeffersonian yeoman farmers?
One amusing image deserves another!
>"salt of the earth common man" or from the
>"urbanite new-money rich"?
I would characterize it as neither, it is between those extremes. I am surely not the salt of the earth, but comfortable though I may be, I don't qualify as rich either.
Yet!
Approaching upper middle class maybe. ha!
I haven't seen a detailed analysis of the donation distributions, but the anecdotes seem to be more small donations for the Republicans. That does not imply they don't have big backers too. But the traditional script isn't being followed. I imagine many people were like me, not in the millionaire class but giving money for the first time ever to a political campaign.
I NEVER gave money directly to any political party or candidate before this election (just the NRA).
And the Kerry campaign that raised even more money, I believe, surely didn't raise it all from coal miners and auto workers either! Their millionaire backers were surely more visible in the Democrat campaign than the big donors of the Republican campaign -- taking center stage, and, one presumes, by extension, taking greater influence.
>strategy was to play it safe,
Probably. Playing defense is always a mistake. That seemed to also be Kerry's preferred approach to the GWOT.
> No alternate vision. Hopefully they will develop
>that over the next few years.
Make no mistake, I wish they would. I really do. Although I think things could have turned out worse, in the best of all possible worlds there would be an effective, "loyal opposition" party that helps correct inevitable errors of planning and judgment, in a constructive way. We need that.
I am no fan in general of one-party rule, no matter who it is.
RDS
Hey O' (let's go),
I'm so glad you recognized me! I've had news from others and sounds like you are well. I'm thrilled.
As for the above, it's clear that big money is way too influential in both parties. No doubt. ossible theory: For celebrities, donating is a form of conspicuous consumption. For the more discrete rich, donations are a risky investment for which they expect a financial return over a 4 years time horizon.
Having checked out the number on donations, it's down right scary. Bush raised 52% of the money and Kerry 48%. Do those numbers sound familiar? You are right that the dems raised more money overall, but that's only if you count the primaries for which a whole field of dems were raising money and spending it against each other. If you take Kerry alone, however, he raised slightly less money overall (primary and main race together) than Bush raised for the main race. That's all according to the FEC, of course, though I know there are ways to contribute that don't get registered by the FEC. I just don't know how to track that or who is getting more of it.
Anyhow, good luck on your rise to the top!
Your friend,
Puddin' Paraguay
Post a Comment
<< Home