Why are some blaming just red states?Bush did better in blue states too.

[fujiyama]

I really think this blaming of red states is somewhat pointless. Let's take a look at this year's winning margins by Kerry vs. '00's winning margins by Gore in his strongest states:


NEW YORK Bush: 2,403,374 (35.2%) 40
Gore: 4,107,697 (60.2%) 58

RHODE ISLAND Bush: 130,555 (31.9%) 30
Gore: 249,508 (61.0%) 60

NEW JERSEY Bush: 1,284,173 (40.3%) 46
Gore: 1,788,850 (56.1%) 53

MASSACHUSETTS Bush: 878,502 (32.5%) 37
Gore: 1,616,487 (59.9%) 62

MICHIGAN B: 1,953,139 (46.1%) 48
G: 2,170,418 (51.3%) 51

PENNSYLVANIA 2,281,127 (46.4%) 49
2,485,967 (50.6%) 51

CALIFORNIA 4,567,429 (41.7%) 44
5,861,203 (53.4%) 55

So Kerry improved his % of the vote in three states (PA, CA and MA) but Bush improved his margin in EVERY single one of these states. This is something that must concern us all. Sure Nader was a factor in some states in '00, but we could have then assumed that we should win CA, NJ, NY, and a few others by even bigger margins.

That's why blaming the red states won't do. I'm not blaming Kerry necessarily either, because democrats couldn't win seats in all but one competetive race.

I think it was 9/11. It did change everything. It has made people more conservative. There is no doubt about it. Why else would the affiliations be tied at 37? Many of the models for polls had dems at a higher turnout. Since the midterm elections they are pretty much on parity. Only 21% consider themselves liberal, while 34% consider themself conservative.

There must be a raging tide of fundamentalist conservatism that we were not seeing. It is not just in a few southern states. It's all over the US. Not only are the people more seemingly conservative on foreign policy, but they are more religious. I fear we are fulfilling the "war of civilizations".

[fujiyama]

1. .

[JI7]

2. Bush is an incumbant so he has an advantage