Election results by county
I know some of my readers will enjoy this.
posted by Dave Justus | 11/04/2004 07:54:00 AM
Justus for All
Current Events, Politics, Ethics, and Random Junk
Personal Friends
Blog Friends
- A&W
- Broken Quanta
- The Cassandra Page
- Crosblog
- Emily's Craziness
- Environmental Republican
- Faynights
- Fine? Why Fine?
- Generic Confusion
- Hear Oh Israel
- honestpartisan
- Les Jones
- Life in a Handbasket
- Lightbody on Politics
- MacBoar's World
- My Little Circle
- Nicolas Farley
- Of the Mind
- The Probligo
- Reasonably Ascertainable Reality
- Reclaim Your Brain
- Riding Sun
- The Roost
- Running for the Right
- Sandcastles and Cubicles
- Smack My Booty
Daily Visits
- Google News
- InstaPundit
- Healing Iraq
- The Bleat
- Screedblog
- Vodkapundit
- The Volokh Conspiracy
- Belmont Club
- Powerline
- Day by Day
- Dead Parrot Society
Archives
- 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
- 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
- 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
- 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
- 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
- 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
Trackback by 
3 Comments:
As was pointed out so well on last night's Daily Show:
It's funny that in an election supposedly about the threats of terrorism and gay marriage, the people who personally need to worry about terrorist attacks and gays are the ones who voted for the "wrong" guy. Clearly, you need to live in a quiet rural country without any of these "threats" to really get some perspective on how to deal with them.
Well, first of all--I wouldn't take it to seriously. But if you really want to talk about it, the idea is pretty straightforward.
To legitimately think of yourself as a worthy target for terrorism, you really need to have either landmarks or big groups of people. City people have both, by definition. Country people, in many cases, have neither. The idea that people in Kansas aren't really subject to terrorism is pretty well-accepted. If you disagree, then you don't even have to read anymore.
Secondly, most openly gay populations (and minority populations for that matter) find themselves in or near cities, or on the coasts. Notably, they do not find themselves in Oklahoma very often, and when they do, it tends not to be for all that long... And yes, again, you may disagree here, but most people would accept this as a given.
And then the joke is that this election was supposedly driven by concerns of terrorism and gay marriage. But looking at that map, you realize that the people in cities, and the people on the coasts, who are actually threatened by terrorism, or who actually have to deal with gays all voted for the Blue guy. And then you rationalize it via absurdity and say that they're "in too deep" to see what the real solution is, and that the people in the Red areas--who don't really have to deal with these things--are the only ones who can see what needs to be done.
Now, of course there were other concerns in this election. Hell, you may even agree with that thesis I just put forward (Red people know better about Blue issues). But ultimately, it's just a kinda funny way to look at things--whether you yourself voted Red or Blue.
Course this works both ways for to a certain extent. Environmentalists (who presumably vote blue) live in areas where their is little natural environment left.
On the other hand, the Red States tend to supply a disproportionate share of our military (especially the south) and they voted in a manner that can loosely be described as for the Iraq war.
I don't really want to quibble over details, but I don't think that terrorism is a urban only issue. Certainly the Islamist terrorist attacks in the United States have only taken place in urban areas but that isn't the case world wide. Beslan is a good example.
As for gay marriage, I agree that there are more gays in urban areas (especially openly gay people) although I don't know that the proportion is that much different. In truth though, the gay marriage debate, at it's heart, isn't much about gay marriage. It is more about whether or not homosexuality is percieved as an equally valid option. This is true for both the pro-gay marriage side and the anti-gay marriage side.
Many conservatives couldn't care less about whether two guys want to get married or not, but they don't want to have homosexuality taught as an equally valid lifestyle in schools etc. They see gay marriage as the last line preventing this (I expect that they are correct in this).
I disagree with this point of view but I certainly understand it.
Post a Comment
<< Home