Not a nation divided — a nation dissatisfied

Not a nation divided — a nation dissatisfied

: The NY Times ran red-v-blue electoral college maps from 1940 today and what screams out from that is that we are not a nation divided, we are a nation dissatisfied with our choice. Given a candidate to be enthusiastic about, most of the states go one way or another. The exception since 1964: Carter v. Ford. We liked Reagan, as a nation. We liked Clinton, as a nation. We didn’t like this choice, these last two elections. Give us somebody to get behind and watch the red-vs-blue civil war — and all the media blather about it — melt away.

  • http://www.themediadrop.com Tom

    Which, in turn, says that each voter cast an “anti-vote” for the lesser of two evils? I’m not sure it’s that cynical, but I will say that I know quite a few Democrats that voted for Bush because they were displeased with Kerry. I would assume that this is the case for a lot of the population.

  • Stephen

    WAKE UP PEOPLE…the US is getting older and richer. Old, rich people are more conservative than not. If the Democratic party continues to appease the left wing moonbats who are hiding out here…we will NEVER win a Presidential election. If you can’t buy into a more centrist party….grab your sneakers….fix your Kool-aid….Hale Bopp is coming. S.

  • david

    Will it really matter when he governs like he won a mandate?

  • david

    Will it really matter when he governs like he won a mandate?

  • http://www.varifrank.com Frank Martin

    Is it Bushs problem that you can’t get behind him, or is it your problem that you can’t get behind Bush?
    When you get done with that, ask yourself about the Senate and the House.
    When you get done with that, ask yourself about the State legislatures.
    The first step to a cure is admitting that you’ve got a problem.

  • Mike

    Will it really matter when he governs like he won a mandate?
    Like he won a mandate? What would you call it, if not a decisive victory? He won a clear majority, first time that has happened since 88 and he received the most votes ever cast in an election. Granted there was no landslide EC victory, but I would say he has a mandate.

  • Jimbo

    1964 with Carter and Ford?!?!

  • xxx

    I’m not sure if we can say that we liked Clinton as a nation, since he never cracked 50% of the popular vote in 1992 or 1996, but I see your point. Reagan carried New York, for example.

  • http://www.theglitteringeye.com Dave Schuler

    Jeff, there’s a problem with your analysis. Get down below the state level and look at the counties that went for Gore and the counties that went for Bush in 2000. We don’t have a Red State/Blue State division at all. We have a rather small number of extremely populous counties whose interests are very different than the rest of the country’s. Blue dots in a sea of Red.

  • paul a’barge

    Dave Schuler is right. Vodkapundit has both the US county red/blue maps linked. Go take a look.
    It is absolutely wrong to say we didn’t like our choice.
    Most of us in America liked GWB just fine. I’ve met the man, and he’s an intelligent, sensitive, courageous, righteous loving family man who loves his country and his G-d.
    Now that’s a choice, to like.

  • paul a’barge

    Dave Schuler is right. Vodkapundit has both the US county red/blue maps linked. Go take a look.
    It is absolutely wrong to say we didn’t like our choice.
    Most of us in America liked GWB just fine. I’ve met the man, and he’s an intelligent, sensitive, courageous, righteous loving family man who loves his country and his G-d.
    Now that’s a choice, to like.

  • keith

    - How is it that more people voted for this man than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT EVER and yet he isn’t liked?
    None of those people liked him?

  • Jeff

    Jeff – Clinton won with 34% of the vote the first time, 49 the second.

  • http://www.themediadrop.com Tom

    Kerry, btw, also got more votes than the previous “record.”
    Frank – your statements are pretty clear – but to say that if someone doesn’t believe what you believe needs a “cure” is just wrong and is the problem with political discourse. Sure, everyone believes that what they think is “right,” but that doesn’t mean it is in an absolute world. It’s not a “disease” to be one party’s follower or another – it’s a difference in ideology, which is human.

  • John

    Well, it’s a good thing you’re a media potentate, not a pundit, Jeff. You’ve got a real job to fall back on. This political stuff is too much heavy lifting for your brain. The dumbest thing? We liked Clinton better than Bush…please, 43 percent? Never got 50 percent. Not even close. The Bush demonization by Soros, moveonorg, Michael Moore et al never meant that Bush was actually Satan incarnarnate.
    The smarter states, the less nuanced states, you know, the red states, never had a problem discerning which was the better candidate. The lamestream ‘media rich’ states, as Kennedy School’s Tom Patterson calls them, voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. It’s a media echo chamber between Boston and DC and between Seattle and LA–over 75 percent of Kerry’s of votes from this slender, overpopulated slice of the US where it’s oh so sophisticated to take one’s marching orders from a fat guy from Flint.

  • Karl

    “I promise to… Support the President, even if I didn’t vote for him….. Criticize the President, even if I did vote for him….. Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs and in media while pushing both to be better…. Unite as a nation, putting country over party, as we work together to make America better.”
    Nice pledge, Jeff. This is at least the second time you’ve broken it already. The Electoral College is not a measurement of how well a President is liked. I’m old enough to remember what the Left said about Reagan and what the Right said about Clinton, even after they were reelected.
    Since your premise is so clearly false, the inference to be drawn is that it was merely an excuse to say the country is dissatisfied with its choice. And who elected you as Voice of America?
    Bush won more votes than any Presidential candidate ever. More than Reagan in 1984. Way more than Clinton in 1996.
    He is the first man since 1988 to be elected President with a majority of the popular vote.
    He is the first President since 1936 to be reelected and increase the numbers of his party in the House and Senate. And he did so after increasing them in the off-year election, breaking another long streak of history.
    Even at the end of a bitter campaign, more people have a favorable impression of him than not. He had considerably higher favorability ratings throughout his first term.
    In short, Jeff, you are dissatisfied with the choice that was offered in the last two elections.
    But if you think whining about it now is going to make me feel like I should seek unity with someone like you — who professes to want a clean slate while taking cheap shots — you are sadly mistaken.
    Civility and bipartisanship are two-way streets. Practice what you preach and maybe folks will reciprocate.

  • http://badhairblog.blogspot.com Fausta

    We didn’t like this choice, these last two elections”
    Is that the imperial we?

  • http://suburbed.blogspot.com turbulent priest

    Hey Jeff,
    I’m not as bitter as some of the other commenters, but the record turnout of voters for both candidates would seem like an indication of intense support for one or the other.
    In other words, if the nation was dissatisfied with their choices, why did so many show up to vote?

  • Karl

    Well, to be fair to Jeff, the adjusted exit polling data suggests that about 70% of Kerry voters were motivated by their opposition to Bush.
    George Will used to say (and maybe he still does) that low voter turnout is a sign that people are generally happy with the way things are going.
    Maybe we need to get Jeff a bow-tie.