Looking at the red/blue map it is interesting to note that the blue (Kerry, or "Hate Bush") states are on the geographical periphery of the US. More telling is the
county by county map showing the winner by county in each state -- it's like looking at the map wearing "BlueBlocker" sunglasses. In California and New York, county by county, the states look red without their high-density population centers. Los Angeles, a blue county, is surrounded by red counties. (The Northwest coast of California is an exception to this density observation.)
What is it about highly dense population centers that push them to the Democrats? What is it about the rest of the country that draws them to Bush?
BTW, the reason I put Bush vs Democrats is that Kerry was "anybody but Bush" to the Democrats. This election was about Bush, not Kerry. Dean had the democrats soul but was unelectable; Kerry hoodwinked the Democrats into thinking he could leverage his war record against a Wartime President (the fact that it was 30 years ago and the activities of Kerry after returning were evidently not considered before making him the Dems' "Yellow Dog").
Bush is a real person -- WYSIWYG. Kerry is "complex" and "nuanced." Look, Kerry's 19 years in the Senate is void of any decisive impact or resonant agenda. (Today I heard the first insider post mortem (such an accurate phrase, really) on the Kerry campaign that tells of a terminally indecisive Kerry -- who's surprised?) But is that the reason for the Density Divide? I don't think that's enough.
Rural areas have liberal-minded folk, but you couldn't tell that from this election. Do dense areas have conservative thinkers? Dallas/Fort Worth is rather dense but are red. Travis County (home of Austin), TX, was a blue island in a sea of red.
What we do know is that 51% of voters in a heavy turnout election chose Bush. Did 48% choose Kerry or vote against Bush? As far as Congress is concerned, the American voters want more Republican representation. Overwhelming majorities of voters want Marriage defined as between a man and a woman (shocking!). South Dakota was willing to give up its pork barrel to rid itself of The Obstructionist, Tom Daschle; apparently realizing that his benefit to the state outweighed his harm to the nation in which they also live. Conservative -- not Gulianni-styled moderate Republicans -- replaced Democratic senators in two states. Bush's victory is not only significant for his own election but his coat-tails are long -- for the first time since Reagan's 1980 election.
There's been a dramatic shift in America. It's not all about 9/11/01, either. It's about character, conviction, steadfastness, morality, unimposed but evidenced faith. It's about a strong America willing to do what's right in the face of its enemies and vociferous critics. (I bet there are many Democrats that are now wanting to "retake" their party from the far left.)
Here's to the hope that a non-politicized dialog emerges about Iraq and its future. There needs to be a re-evaluation, but the attempt to win political advantage over the issue of Iraq was potentially damaging to the entire effort. Now with that pressure off, perhaps headway can be made in Iraq in time to secure that country's first democratic elections in its history and join the ranks of free nations as Afghanistan already has.
Three cheers for the Coalition of the Willing. Australian Prime Minister Howard's re-election (defeating a campaign of anti-war sentiment aided by Kerry's family) was welcome, so now is the decisive Bush victory. We now await the British to re-elect Blair. //heading into 2008... this is still relevant
