Thursday, November 04, 2004

2000/04 County by County Election Results

What changed between 2000 and 2004?

Have a look:

click for larger chart

click for larger chart

Via USA Today

Posted at 02:53 PM in Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 2000/04 County by County Election Results:

» 2000/04 County by County Election Results from BOPnews
What changed between 2000 and 2004? Have a look: click for larger chart click for larger chart Via USA Today... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 3:12:33 PM


As a native New yorker and a proud Liberal, I don't understand why we, the 'blue states' should have to bow to the will of the Ultra Conservative Religious Right 'red states'.
We create the wealth in this country.
We lost the South in the late '60's when LBJ herocially fought for Civil Rights for African Americans.
We should stop trying to figure out how to appeal to intolerant people waiting for The Rapture, bent on imposing their religious and social restrictions on us, and instead seriously consider the issue of secession. There is no fence to mend. We should be separate nations.

Posted by: jade | Nov 8, 2004 10:49:07 PM

Well, Goodbye....:)
Get going, Don't let the doorknob hit you on the ass as your leaving. Eat your art,newspapers, and music. Be careful though, a high number of you so-called stars and talent came from the red states.

Posted by: Rick Rose | Nov 10, 2004 12:58:16 PM

oh no - you can keep Toby Keith honey we won't argue with that

Posted by: jill | Nov 10, 2004 11:56:53 PM

The Democratic Party is not only in denial but is
led by ideologues who simply cannot bring themselves to look objectively at the election
results. There is no way for any Democrat to win
a national election when over 200 electoral votes
are conceded without any contest. The fact of the
matter is that on issue after issue the DNC and
the DLC is captive to Political Correctness
elements that have the net effect of losing votes
for the party even if, in appeasing these small
groups there are marginal pickups. But (A) the
National Organization for Women does not represent
women at large, with most women alienated from
NOW's agenda, and (B) for the sake of the 3% or
so of the population that is homosexual, the
Democratic Party is more than happy to tell
the Christian majority in this country that
they are wrong about nearly everything and should
go to Hell. This is a formula for political
disaster. Then Party needs to divest itself of
its fringe elements and seek to re-connect with
the majority. Isn't it interesting that the
Left heaps peans of praise on the "average man"
except when the average man votes against the
Left ? Then the average man is demonized. Much of
this has to do with antipathy towards religion
on the Left, which many leaders in the Democratic
Party seem to think is an obsolete phenomenon
destind to perish. However, this view, itself
is doomed to perish. We have entered a new
religious age. To paraphrase Trotsky, who once
observed, "you may not be interested in war,
but war is interested in you," we can now say,
with assurance, "you may not be interested in
religion, but religion is interested in you."

Posted by: Billy Rojas | Nov 13, 2004 1:15:54 PM

I appreciate Billy's comments, but I have to say no one is denying that religion is a big part of the life of all Americans, but the question we must continually ask ourselves is, "Should religion be a part of our government?" This country was founded on religious freedom and the notion that we should be a secular society keeping everyone's right to worship a private matter. Religion has been entering the public arena ever since a few very smart and manipulative politicians realized they could divide and conquer this country if they brought a Christian morality into the arguement. Christianity doesn't have the corner on the market of appropriate moral codes of behavior. In fact some of the statistics that I have been reading seem to indicate that divorce rates are higher in those moral majority areas. I guess what I want to say and what needs to be dealt with is the very dangerous notion that if you aren't religious or you aren't Republican then you are illmoral, bad and wrong. The church needs to stay out of politics and our political leaders need to stay of our personal lives. The founders of our country were well aware of the dangers of creating a country based on the values of one faith. We need to re-embrace the notion that we are a secular society that respects the rights of all of our citizens. I wish peace to all of you on both sides of the fence. This message is brought to you by a Democrat who hasn't lost hope yet (but almost) that we can understand that we have differences of opinion, but they don't have to divide us. I challenge everyone in this great country to stop calling our society an "us and them" society. Remember the words of Barack Obama in his speech to the Democratic Party at the national convention.

Posted by: Katherine | Nov 16, 2004 12:47:50 PM

Do you sell your soul, for the sake of winning an national election?

Take the gay marraige issue for example. Despite the fact that most Americans are against it, I think most Democrat politicians realize that as a civil rights issue, gay couples ought to be afforded the same rights to marraige as straight couples. If you believe this country truly stands for equality then you have to understand that gay marraige should be legal. That said, most Americans for whatever reason are against gay marraige. Republicans have no problem exploiting that for every political gain it gets then. Democrats for the most part know it's potical suicide to support gay marraige, but don't want to offend their gay supporters, in addition to feeling the desire to do the right thing.

Jade is right. In the 60's LBJ did the right thing, and it cost the Democrats the south. However, being that the Democrats have very little to lose at this point, maybe it's time to shed that moderate Clinton DLC Democratic persona, and fall back to the liberal leftist side of the party. Every Democrat is always linked to Michael Moore anyway and at least they won't be able to label them as flip-floppers or wishy-washy anymore. If Democrats are going to be labeled liberals anyway, you might as well show them how liberal a real liberal can be. The Republicans weren't having any success until they fell to the far right of the party themselves.

It baffles me when I see states like West Virginia, Mississippi, and Louisiana support Bush. What do those people honestly believe Bush will do for them?

Posted by: Seth | Nov 16, 2004 7:58:02 PM

In reply to Katherine let me note a few
facts that might further the discussion.
I am a former colege teacher in the areas
of hisory, future studies, and Comparative
Religion. The case that was made about
religion in US politics , while it certainly
includes Christianity, CANNOT, as I see
things, be limited to Christianity.

There are as many as 3 million Buddhists
in America, about 5 million Jews, and so
forth, with Christian sub-groups like the
Mormons (another 7 or 8 million) not
accepted by Christian majorities as
belonging to the Faith. Plus, the number
of Free Thinkers and Agnostics, etc, must
also be well in excess of 10 million.

This said, we ought to be interested in
the views of the Christian majority. Not
(necessarily) because Biblical revelation
is true and good, although it may be,
but because relgious people of many
persuasions are often in moral agreement
despite theological differences. That is,
religion seems to act as a depository of
ages old moral principles that serve
communities well, principles that, to say
the very least, have passed the test of time.

You might say that Evangleicals, on many
issues, are right for the wrong reasons,
but about some matters of political
importance they are right, nonetheless.
Why shouldn't they feel strongly about
safe social environments for their kids,
for example, especially when the Left
seems to suggest that we ought to
tolerate lawlessness (or at a minimum,
cultural breakdown) as a "virtue" in a
"multi-cultural" society ?

As for the place of religion IN public life,
you can do no better than to read Garry
Wills' 1990 book, Under God, Religion and
American Politics. Jefferson, to use only
one example, FAVORED at least some
forms of public involvement in government
by relgion. As well, he differentiated
between "false" and "true" religions. That
is, no way in heck was Jefferson equivalant
to today's multi-culturalists who seek to
tolerate all relgions as equals despite the
obvious fact that some faiths are severely
damaging to those who belong, with Islam
in most forms a case in point, but also
including such deviations as Satanism
and various disfunctional cults.

What the Right utterly misses is that, since
the 18th century beginnings of our country
there has been a legitimate place in
public for certain religions, including
what we now call "Religious Humanism,"but
no legitiamate place for religions that cause
psychological or other harm to people.

But the Left, despite the fact that the
original Civil Rights movement was
essentially church led, now taks the
view that religion is necessarily an evil;
this outlook is ludicrous on the face of it.

Posted by: Billy Rojas | Mar 22, 2005 5:26:08 PM

I want to remind people who are commenting to please be respectful of differing viewpoints.

(Except trolls . . you can smoke them)

Thank you

Posted by: Barry Ritholtz | Mar 22, 2005 10:18:00 PM

LBJ did the right thing? Holy cow have you ever read anything concerning that man? He was the reason that the Vietnam war escalated to its full height. He supported Civil Rights? Then please tell me why he couldn't get his own party to fully support it? Please tell me why on average only 64% of Democrats supported Civil Rights and just under 81% of Republicians support it? I am sure you will say the South, which would be correct, but they are, or were, Democrats and now they moved to the Republican Party, that overwhelming supported Civil Rights? I am so confused by your logic.

Posted by: Fred | Nov 3, 2005 10:05:44 AM

To every one who see the two maps as either "religious-right Red".....or "bleeding-heart Blue" I'd like to make this comment....
I voted Red Not for Bush....Not to support the War....Not to drill in ANWR. I haven't even been to church in some 15 years. I'm against abortion not because of Fire and Brimstone, but because, in my opinion, it's selfish and murderous.
I vote for the "worst of two evils"....
If everyone can agree on one thing I think we can all agree that the choises an American voter is given these days is sad.
Bush or Kerry......Oh yeah, Ralph "Unsafe at any speed" Nader.
Like I said NO CHOISE!
The fundamental difference from Red and Blue is this: "It is easy to say what you're is hard to say what you're for!!"

Why I voted Red:
The Blues are against everything and, in my opinioin, for nothing....
Blues are against the war and the way the The U.S. policy on terriorism is being what Do we Do Blue?
Blue still feels that there is oppression and civil rights violations all over the country and that the Reds are turning a blind eye to the plyth of the common man...O.K....Solutions? What would Blue Do?
Blue is against Red's approach on Education, Finance, Military, the Enviroment.....blah, blah, blah....
Blue what would you Do!!!!!
If I wanted to live in a society where everyone complains about everyone else, wants to take my hard earned money and give it to someone else, make me smoke and cigarette 3 miles from a school zone, fund "Midnight Basketball" and make the military have a bake sale, call a gay couple married so I don't go to jail for violating a hate crime, and get abortions for $19.99... this week only...I'd move to New York.
...Well, New York City....I don't want to offend the people of the entire state.
I voted Red because Blue never told me what Blue would Do!!!

P.S. We live in a Demacratic Republic, not a Democracy. This saves us from Mob Rule!!! One needs to understand that before one can change this country. God bless America and the Electoral College

Posted by: mike from Montana | Apr 23, 2006 12:49:24 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.