http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Ola Laurin: Very interesting. I have to say, Canada seems beautiful, and the people seem nice, funny, and intelligent. Vancouver is especially beautiful.

One thing the Republicans should consider. Who the hell makes the f*cking money for our country? What if my fantasy were fulfilled and the coasts — with the banks, the computer and software industries, the research engineers, the biotech, the pharmaceuticals, Hollywood, the music industry, television, etc. — seceded? I would love to see how the red states would make out in the world with their f*cking ethanol, Corn Flakes, Garth Brooks, WWF, hog farm, Nascar economy. Those people need to show some respect. Who pays the bills around here?

Sorry to rant.

In our recent elections here in Australia, a crappy TV show ‘Rove Live’ (kind of like Letterman) wanted PM John Howard on the show, during the campaigning period. They did all sorts of stunts like writing an invite on a massive banner and getting a light aircraft to fly it around parliament house and stupid stuff like that. Howard refused.
I talked to people who specifically voted against him, for the sole reason “he didn’t go on Rove”.

Now personally, I didn’t vote for him either – but not because he didn’t go on a bloody light entertainment tv show.

The reasons people vote are often ridiculous. As far as those reasons go, I don’t think it’s that absurd that Southerners may be more likely to vote for someone from the same region as them, someone who speaks in the same dialect as them. Is that not what the hometown advantage is about? People identify with people like them; this holds true everywhere. Wouldn’t voters in Quebec prefer a candidate who is able to speak French over one who is monolingual in English? That’s an issue of identification, and I think it makes sense. If a son of New Mexico runs for President, it stands to reason, and would seem unsurprising that New Mexicans would vote for him. The same principle applies to the South and a Southern candidate.

In any event, because of the state of the things in the U.S. at this moment in history, the pool of “viable” candidates — the perceived boundaries of which are dictated by the biases and whims of the electorate — is amazingly small.

Although I do agree with the validity of this statement, in the end, isn’t this one of the things that shows how fucked up the US is right now? Southerners will vote for a Southerner. What a ridiculous reason to base a vote on.

This was one election. The margin in Ohio was not that great, and with a more appealing candidate, it’s my opinion that the Dems would have won in the Electoral College, by taking Ohio and/or Florida. Kerry ran a weak campaign — while the core Dem base came out, Kerry did not have the type of charisma or appeal that would pull in swing voters and Republicans.

I think Dems need to keep perspective and keep in mind that this is not the end. Reagan crushed Mondale. Bush crushed Dukakis. Bush did not crush Kerry. A few hundred thousand votes were the difference between victory and defeat. The tremendous fixation on blue and red states helps us to forget that many states are contested, and can be won over again.

Clinton won in 1992 (thanks to Perot), and convincingly in 1996. As I suggest above, the Dems need not write off the South — a charismatic Southerner (a la Clinton) could pull in one or two states, as Clinton did. Also, the American Southwest and Midwests will remain contested territories — the margins of victory in Iowa, Ohio, and New Mexico were not that great. An appealing candidate from those regions may also be the answer.

I think a large part of who wins in Amer. pres. elections comes down to a form of popularity contest. Reagan and Clinton were able to win in landslides b/c of their personal qualities and charisma. It’s hard for me and others to believe, but it appears Americans just like Bush a lot, personally. Karl Rove knows that Bush has something that appeals to a large segment of the nation. The Republicans and their base were gaga over W. They love him. It was hard to find a true Kerry supporter, or someone who loved the man. I think this goes a long way toward explaining an election that hinged on turnout. This is also why I suggested above that if the Dems had gone with their hearts and not their heads and picked Dean, we might have been in a better position.

Bush, in this sense, is the Republican’s Clinton — even though he is so different. He is their “natural”. Who will the Republicans field in 2008? McCain may be as popular or charismatic as Bush, but few other Republicans will have the same appeal.

Finally, a reason to stay and fight. I have no problem at all with leaving the country — I left for Japan for nine months. But I think it’s important to stay. How many non-Americans out there wish they could have influenced or had a say in this past election? (See, e.g., letters from the Guardian to Ohio voters.) America is the most powerful, and thus, potentially the most dangerous nation in the world today. Disheartened Dems and Greens and Independents should rally together and fight to take back the country, or resist the rightward swing. We must try to influence the direction of this country — and the best way to do that is from inside. The Republicans bided their time, organized, and took over after two terms of Clinton. The Dems and the left should prepare to do the same.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041122&s=editors