Friday, November 05, 2004
I've noticed at least two trends following this past Tuesday night, or, well, erm, actually Wednesday afternoon.
The first is an attempt to unfairly blame a lack of "youth vote" for Kerry's loss. Usually this is in the form of chalking up Kerry's loss to a just-didn't-turn-out throwing up of hands. Sometimes this is based on a cursory look at the unchanged voter-percentage statistics: in 2000, 17% of voters were in this 18-29 demo; in 2004, again, it's 17%. However, there were 15 million more voters in 2004 than in 2000, meaning that there were 2.5 million more of these young voters this election year. That's no small number. And when you consider that a significant number of these voters registered in the very first election of their lives (if it's their first election, these voters were not "returning voters" and were not on rolls before, as most older voters likely are, and had to registered from scratch), this is even less reason for the old trope that young people are hopelessly apathetic and nihilistic. In fact, I believe that this young generation is just the opposite. It is full of vigor and ready to tackle the issues that face our country: they voted Kerry. The nihilists are all of the old people who abandoned the Democratic party and voted Bush because they're convinced that he makes us safe. That's bullshit, straight up, and we young people know it.
Other times, as with this Wolf Blitzer Reports piece, it comes in the form of simple misreading and horribly unprofessional jumbling of facts. The reporter Brian Todd says, in a throwaway line from a piece about the admittedly inept celebrity endorsement game, "Even the credit celebrities get for attracting new voters may be negligible. For all of P. Diddy's 'Vote or Die' rhetoric targeting the youth vote, only 17 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 29 actually went to the polls this year, the same percentage as in 2000."
What he means is that only 17% of all voters were between 18 and 29, same as in 2000. But whatever. This was a chance to take a potshot at both celebrity and young people who likely don't watch CNN anyway, and they took it truth be damned.
The other trend I've noticed is a rather hostile attitude from Republicans or at least Bush supporters toward those who advocated against the president. The essence of this is that of "Bush won, you suck."
Eric Alterman's "Altercation" blog on MSNBC broke down their angry emails into three categories: "the CAPS LOCK crew," " bible thumpers/value voters who were overjoyed that biblical values were finally coming back into vogue," and " the simply indignant."
Richard Roeper, who expressed himself not in the thumbs-up-thumbs-down dualist format that is his customary to his television job, but rather in the big-city-tabloid column format that is his primary employment, gave 50 reasons to vote against Bush. On Wednesday, his inbox, too, felt the brunt of the victorious in their gloating. "Your party lost, bitch. Get used to it," was, frankly, the most coherent of his letters.
Now, I have a question. Republicans have again sent a president to the White House, and control both house of congress. What on Earth are they still so angry about?
My Psych 101 analysis is that, for the most part, Republicans believe most strongly in not being Democrats. They obviously don't care about fiscal conservativism or empiricism, which at some point, seemed to be important to them. So what are Republicans all about then? What does their mandate mean (besides, of course, hating Democrats, fags, Michael Moore, abortions and Massachusetts)? I have no clue. But I'm sure it ain't gonna be pretty.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
What Would Jesus Do?
How much you wanna bet this guy voted for Bush absentee in Ohio?
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
We shall overcome.