True, and its the margins that matter in the end. This map shows the margins which a flat map does not do. It thus gives a much clearer idea of which counties played and important role.

[shouldn't]

he's going through one of the standard stages of left-wing denial.

Various stages include: (a) blaming the nominee, (b) blaming the electorate, (c) blaming the oppostion, ad naseum.

Kerry did slightly better than I expected he would because he was largely sucessful in running away from his record.

Example: How many of the voters know how Kerry voted on the Laci Peterson law?  Of those who did know how he voted, how did they vote?

Many saw that as a subtle step towards banning abortions under the guise of an emotional ploy.

Thats because it was. Would Republicans give a sh*t about pregnant women if it didn't help them on abortion? We all know why this law was passed.

I'm sorry, but where to get the idea of terminating a pregency without the pregent woman's consent (or by consent of guardian/next of kin) shouldn't be a criminal offense.  This doesn't exactly sound like a pro-choice position.

The point is that the law would never have been passed if it wasn't for the political gains involved.

It is unlikely that Kerry would win a large city and not win the county that it was in.

Note that not all cities exist solely in one county.  Bush for example won Richmond County, NY.  This is one of the 5 counties of New York City.

Ah, correct. My question is, what difference does showing the big Kerry votes in the cities really have to do with anything?

Nothing, except showing Kerry votes. Yes, he did get votes. Maybe you find that offensive.

I just thought it might be interesting, it certainly struck me when I first saw it, to have a graphical representation of reality. That is what the whole site is about right? Apparently some people are offended by the fact that Kerry got votes and any map that shows it must be bitched about.

I don't find it "offensive" but I do question if it gives any real and new information.  I kinda figured out that Democrats tend to do well in cities.  I expected Kerry to win large totals in large cities.  I take it you realized that as well.

I also realize that Republicans tend to do well in rural areas and win a large majority of the counties. Does that mean all the maps on Dave's site are useless to me?

It turns out that this is due to the state's slow reporting probably caused by heavy use of absentee ballots. I also noticed during the campaign that the media reported Oregon also heavily used absentee ballots. Does anyone from the Pacific NW know why these two states use absentee ballots on such a wide scale?

Here are the updated results from the Washington Sec. of State as of 6pm on 11/5:

Kerry/Edwards 1,305,868
Bush/Cheney   1,130,537
Still to be counted: 362,246 (http://vote.wa.gov/general/status.aspx)

I guess theoretically, Bush could still win it.

he's going through one of the standard stages of left-wing denial.

Various stages include: (a) blaming the nominee, (b) blaming the electorate, (c) blaming the oppostion, ad naseum.

Kerry did slightly better than I expected he would because he was largely sucessful in running away from his record.

Example: How many of the voters know how Kerry voted on the Laci Peterson law?  Of those who did know how he voted, how did they vote?

Many saw that as a subtle step towards banning abortions under the guise of an emotional ploy.

Thats because it was. Would Republicans give a sh*t about pregnant women if it didn't help them on abortion? We all know why this law was passed.

It is unlikely that Kerry would win a large city and not win the county that it was in.

Note that not all cities exist solely in one county.  Bush for example won Richmond County, NY.  This is one of the 5 counties of New York City.

Ah, correct. My question is, what difference does showing the big Kerry votes in the cities really have to do with anything?

Nothing, except showing Kerry votes. Yes, he did get votes. Maybe you find that offensive.

I just thought it might be interesting, it certainly struck me when I first saw it, to have a graphical representation of reality. That is what the whole site is about right? Apparently some people are offended by the fact that Kerry got votes and any map that shows it must be bitched about.

Sure, but I think that's pretty well known

That's true. Though its very well hidden in Dave's maps through no fault of his own, I doubt he can develop 3-D imaging by himself.

Why? The point is that the vast majority of the country is GOP, not the majority of people in it.

It speaks it for itself:

"President Bush's votes were widely dispered across the country and included many sparsely populated rural counties."

"Sen. John F Kerry's votes were concentrated largely in urban centers, which traditionally are Democratic strongholds."

http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002306.html#2306

I thought this was quite insightful.

There might still be absentee or provisional ballots yet to be counted. But yeah, otherwise it is unusual.

That could be a good point. The results there certainly unusual given that turnout did not behave this way in other western states. From the governor's race, about 600,000 ballots were yet to be counted as of a few days ago. Perhaps they just have a lot of absentee balloting for some reason.

Anyone want to explain how turnout in Washington state fell off a cliff even though it surged everywhere else?

National Turnout
2000:
51,003,926 -Gore
50,460,110 -Bush
2,883,105 -Nader

2004:
59,209,925 -Bush
55,638,551 -Kerry
403,746 -Nader

Washington State Turnout:
2000:
1,247,652 -Gore
1,108,864 -Bush
103,002 -Nader

2004:
1,068,762 -Democrat
921,543 -Republican
14,704 -Nader

This is like saying "People cannot be trusted to voluntarily obey the speed limit" with the added caveat that the speed limit is for their own good while pollution controls are for the public's good.

Disagree- as long as it's a mutual transaction.

Frankly, all of these choices suck. Especially compared to Giuliani.

Wouldn't Giuliani have to harden his views substantially on social issues to have a chance at winning the nomination?

Only asian women would stay in america though if they knew what was good for them. The mens' dicks are too small to survive in a free society.

[huge]

Once again a fantastic post from Nym90. I really feel like you should enter politics someday.

One thing, the fact that Kerry was able to get 55+ million votes and held onto his entire base throughout the entire campaign except for September, despite being a wishy-washy candidate who kept talking about a "plan" but never revealed what it was, agreed with Bush on the war, and whose biggest asset was that he "wasn't Bush", is just a huge testament to the number of people out there who feel that something has gone awry, but have no way to express what that is. This also explains the initially huge response to Howard Dean's reactionary candidacy. Yes, so the so-called "Progressive" ran as a downright reactionary, on everything from taxes to Iraq. His ENTIRE appeal was anger, yet he got more support than any other candidate until people realized he wasn't "electable". To me that says there is a SERIOUS deficit of leadership in the party. The fact that Dean is now being discussed by some for the chair of the DNC would be a joke if it wasn't so frightening.

Dazzleman's point about people like Michael Moore, and Jesse Jackson and what they represent, being part of the problem is a great point.

On the other hand, this is a vast country of 290 million people. One of the conservative favorite strategies in trying to paint us liberals falsely is to single in on the one most egregious possible act committed by a "liberal" in the nation, an act that at least 95% of the American people would not agree with. Then they play that example over and over again, suggesting "look, this is your typical liberal. This is what liberals want to do." There are gazillions of examples of this.

For example, conservatives love to make fun of the school district in Washington that cancelled Halloween celebrations because it would "offend real witches." I'm not sure how many of you heard this story, but it was on Fox, it was on Dennis Miller, it was on the blogs. Not to mention that the real reason for cancelling the Halloween celebration was that it would get in the way of classes, that some students would feel left out, etc. etc. Only after the decision had been made was the statement about offending witches added in as an afterthought. However, That was just a minor little detail. And not to mention that there are 1,000's, if not tens of thousands, of elementary schools in the nation, this was just one school. And not to mention that schools in Georgia now ban any debate over abortion, even when political debates are sponsored by the school, because it is considered "sex education." No... let's focus in one this one school in Washington state, and try to paint this as some giant trend in the nation, that Halloween is now a holiday under siege, that might just disappear if liberals won power. That, and the bible being banned.

Conservatives do this over and over... in a country of 290 million people, some pretty strange things will inevitably happen frequently enough for the news. Cons love to seize on the most extreme, unrepresentative examples, then distort those stories, then try and paint it as an example of the "typical" liberal folly. Then they win elections and pass real legislation that is much farther to the right than most public opinion.

44% for Bush with 100% Precients Reporting...Do you think any 9/11 families live in Conneticutt or was it just luck? He only got 35% or so the last time.

I think it was between the obvious and the subtle.

The obvious:
9/11 and the GOP convention in New York.

The subtle:
Clinton/Gore's unique brand of centrism appealed better to suburbs in general than Kerry. Of course, this doesn't explain why he picked up Fairfax VA.

My county went 66% Democratic. It is also majority white, a suburb, wealthy, and relatively fast-growing. I guess this makes me completely out of touch with the national reality. But that doesnt prevent me from wishing more suburbs could be more like it

John- I think Clark might have been better, but in his few public appearances, he was really quite a weak speaker. Having politics as a new career can be something risky as well, as DeMint learned this year. I'm not sure he would have been able to connect with voters any better than Kerry and he probably would not have been as good a debater, and more prone to gaffes. Overall yes though, he might have been better. It's really impossible to say. But I don't think he had a much better chance at winning. Perhaps none of them did, and Dean was the real choice.

I was still a moderate liberal during the initial Democratic primaries. It rather pissed me off that Iowa pretty much decided who the nominee was for the rest of the nation - if the results hadn't been released New Hampshire and other primaries would have gone much differently.

Me too, I guess it was better than the AFSCME/SEIU endorsement deciding the nominee, as looked possible in late December, but definitely I would have liked to see Edwards & Clark survive longer. After Iowa the primary process as basically finished... btw, why did you go from moderate liberal to libertarian?

That's a good point. I heard somewhere that Reid is pro-life. If that becomes widely known, it might disappoint some pro-choicers, but on the whole I think it would be good. We need more pro-life Democrats.

On the NARAL scale of 0% being totally pro-life, and 100% being totally pro-choice, Reid gets a 29%.  About the same as Stupak and Obey.  Moderately pro-life, but by no means an extremist.

IF he can get past the abortion-wing of the party (that's a big if), the Democrats will have taken a major step towards winning back the pro-life vote.

I don't know if people understand the extent to which the abortion issue is killing them.  There are people who will not vote Democrat, simply because of abortion.

Heh, I already know 1.5 people who would vote Dem if not for abortion. One Christian friend outright said, "If it wasn't for the abortion issue, I would vote Kerry in a heartbeat." Another Catholic friend criticized the Republicans for being insensitive and uncompassionate, but will "support the pro-life candidate" and came in to work today feeling great.

I dunno...isn't most of the country Pro-Choice?? It seems like there are a lot more Pro-Choice Republicans then Pro-Life Democrats...just because Pro-Choice is more popular...I don't think it would neccessarily be wise to move towards less abortion rights.

Yeah but 70-80% of Americans support more gun control as well, but this issue just kills Dems. The real issue is how many people will actually choose their vote based on this issue. From this year's exit polls, apparently quite a lot in the case of "moral values".

That's a good point. I heard somewhere that Reid is pro-life. If that becomes widely known, it might disappoint some pro-choicers, but on the whole I think it would be good. We need more pro-life Democrats.

On the NARAL scale of 0% being totally pro-life, and 100% being totally pro-choice, Reid gets a 29%.  About the same as Stupak and Obey.  Moderately pro-life, but by no means an extremist.

IF he can get past the abortion-wing of the party (that's a big if), the Democrats will have taken a major step towards winning back the pro-life vote.

I don't know if people understand the extent to which the abortion issue is killing them.  There are people who will not vote Democrat, simply because of abortion.

Heh, I already know 1.5 people who would vote Dem if not for abortion. One Christian friend outright said, "If it wasn't for the abortion issue, I would vote Kerry in a heartbeat." Another Catholic friend criticized the Republicans for being insensitive and uncompassionate, but will "support the pro-life candidate" and came in to work today feeling great.

Carl- Yes. However it is obviously designed as a stepping stone to substantial erosions of abortion rights. I think that is the main fear.

zachman- you hit the nail onthe head with the last sentence. Reducing the amount of abortions is something that both sides can agree to. The only question is how. So far the only proposals put forth to reduce the number have been curtailing rights. But there have been few proposals to support poor mothers. For example, offering paid maternity leave, or free child care access. These would certainly attack the biggest reason by far that women get abortions, according to the studies that have been done.

John- I think Clark might have been better, but in his few public appearances, he was really quite a weak speaker. Having politics as a new career can be something risky as well, as DeMint learned this year. I'm not sure he would have been able to connect with voters any better than Kerry and he probably would not have been as good a debater, and more prone to gaffes. Overall yes though, he might have been better. It's really impossible to say. But I don't think he had a much better chance at winning. Perhaps none of them did, and Dean was the real choice.

I'm not sure that is quite as accurate as simply the fact that the GOP has, quite successfully, picked and chose the right "wedge issues."  Like I said on another thread.  They have three or four pet issues that resonate with many, many Americans.  But I don't think this means that there is a single-ideology control.  The Republicans are still predominantly the party of business, management, and capital.  The Democrats are still primarily the party of labor.

The Democrats' job, I am becoming more and more convinced, is to erode the GOP's stranglehold on these pet issues, while still staying true to their leftist roots.

Beef, I completely agree with you on wedge issues, but I see the GOP's positions on social and economic issues as (however unlikely) tied together rather effectively in a vision for the nation. It's hard to say Bush does not have a vision of what he wants America to look like. I'm not saying Democrats do not have a vision. But when their presidential campaigners speak, they generally tend to speak to self-interest (people getting more health care, people getting social security, etc) rather than to "values" (the "ownership society").  Economic self-interest was the most effective thing for the Democrats in the 1930s to 1970s, but the average middle class American today is pretty well off, and perhaps have more time to worry about what cultural values society is going to look like than their own poverty.

[great]

   By numbers alone, the Democrats had complete control of congress + the presidency from 1933-47, 49-53, 61-69, 77-81 and from 93-95, though from the 30s to the 60s, that number included many Wallace style sountren Democrats.

Yeah, not to sound like a broken record, but the Democrats even then, as soon as the New Deal euphoria passed in the late 30s, were a very diverse, split party based on interests. In many ways they still are. That's a huge point to understand. The Republican party today is a diverse party, but not nearly as diverse as the Democrats were and are much more united in their actions and goals. Actually, there is a recent book out called "Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized Electorate" that has some great insights onto how the political elites and leaders have become much more polarized in recent decades; especially compared to the electorate, and how they are slowly pulling the electorate apart. In parties today are driven by "ideologues" rather than "professional politicians"... a trend that has been going on for decades.