Heretics' almanac

Kansas and Sex and the City

It may take another two years before the whole Red vs. Blue state issue gets mainstream media attention again, but in the meantime I've read Thomas Franks's book "What's the Matter with Kansas," which is an attempt to explain why so many people (e.g., a majority of Kansans) seem to vote against their own self-interest when they lean to the right.

The question is pretty interesting, after all.  Franks points out that Kansas has long been a hotbed of populism, even as it exemplifies mainstream America.  He differentiates between the "mods," devoted Republicans with which one can honest disagreements (think Bob Dole, a Kansan); and "cons," right-wing activists with whom no useful debate is possible.  The cons belong to lower socio-economic strata, are inconsistently religious, and above all deeply suspicious of the "liberal elite," the "latte-drinking, Volvo-driving," well-educated crowd that seems to make a home in (as Bush pointed out) Massachusetts.

Dick fails elementary deductive reasoning

I was going to write about the folly of the EU's policy toward Iran today, but instead I am caught up in an article by Dick Morris, who seems determined to transform himself from a Democratic "operative" into a Republican hack for purposes of job security.  He writes:

Exit polls are almost never wrong. They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters  from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state.

So why was there such a discrepancy between the exit polls and the election returns?  Dick writes:

This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play.

This is logical if exit polls are usually reliable within a small margin of error.  And if exit polls can be assumed to be accurate, there can only be one of two explanations: Either there was election fraud or polling fraud.  Or a combination.  But if you're going to be honest about it, you have to consider either possibility of "foul play."

What to do about election fraud

Although it's not hitting the airwaves much, there is quite a bit of debate in certain corners about the legitimacy of the 2004 presidential election.  A thorough primer on one side of the controversy is in several installments here, here, here, here, and here.  A thorough primer on the other side of the controversy consists of the following words: Get over it.  He won.

So far it's been assumed that the exit pollsters screwed up: they simply got it wrong when they found that Kerry was headed for a victory in several battleground states.  But now statisticians are saying that the exit pollsters in fact may have been right - it's extremely unlikely that they'd be that far off in all those places. 

I'm not sure what to make of it, but I think the issue deserves more study.  In the meantime, a number of people are filing suit to reëxamine the vote results.  It's doubtful that these will be resolved in time.

I have three points to make:

More vote distribution statistics

I've compiled presidential election results by county to see if I could make any more sense of what it all means.  A lot of pundits, bloggers, etc., have pointed out that Kerry won in the urban areas, giving rise to the notion of an urban, or perhaps blue, archipelago that leans Democratic.

On the other hand, there were plenty of people who voted for Bush in strong blue counties, and Kerry voters in red counties.  The archipelago argument states that Kerry's votes were highly concentrated - that a small number of counties contributed to the overall return.  Of the 4602 counties reporting returns, 50% of Kerry's votes came from the 128 largest counties, and 80% from the 686 largest.  50% of Bush's votes came from the 234 largest counties, and 80% from the 943 largest.

The blue archipelago

TOH to Andrew Sullivan for a map that even Edward Tufte would like: the urban archipelago and interesting commentary.  But as interesting as this is, it doesn't tell the real story.  In virtually every county in the union, there were votes for both candidates.  It's just that in the cities - or islands if you will - there was consistently a majority for Kerry.  Someone apparently said that it was Starbuck's vs. Walmart (or maybe Costco vs. Walmart).  I have from reliable sources that Costco tries to sell only the things Nordstrom would sell, and I'm going to guess that Nordstrom is pretty prevalent in the island cities.

I am getting a lot of secessionist e-mail these days from people who want blue states to become part of Canada, stop transfers from blue states to red states, or simply assert more states' rights.  Another possibility may be a population exchange. 

Adding up to 59,742,442

Who voted for Bush this election?  Inquiring minds want to know, and different opinions prevail.  In an early piece after the election, Jane Smiley wrote that it was the "unteachable ignorance of the red states."  Others said the same-sex marriage issue brought out the vote, and once it was out, it went to Bush.  My cybercrush Laura Kipnis doesn't pull any punches:

What it [corporate America] requires is a passive work force narrowly trained to perform specific occupations for decreasing wages, who will then overconsume lavishly in their leisure hours. It all works out rather well: Job dissatisfaction is placated by an endless succession of consumer crap (creating new jobs—though probably overseas—making more crap); intellectual boredom is assuaged by a steady diet of media crap (thanks to media deregulation); and any remaining critical stirrings are mollified by supersize portions of tasteless crappy food (thanks to an unregulated food industry). The result: a stupefied, overstuffed citizenry glued to pricey entertainment centers, whose national hobby is ridiculing Europeans for wanting shorter work weeks, resisting American imports, and denouncing the disastrous American policy in Iraq.

I have to admit, Laura connects the dots rather well, though I'm not sure "corporate America" is quite as monolithic or conspiratorial as she might assume.  (I'll probably write more on this later.)

These explanations are all based on the premise that close to 60 million Americans succumbed to gross misjudgment, going against their collective and individual self-interest.  To understand why Bush won, we have to understand what went wrong among so many people.

Stunning for Israel

In today's New York Sun, Daniel Pipes warns that the Bush administration is likely to put pressure on Israel to make concessions if Arafat's successors put on a good show for peace.  This - Pipes says - in spite of Bush's "stunning new mandate."

"Stunning?" In what universe is a 51-48 popular margin "stunning?"  I suppose it's stunning compared to a defeat in the popular vote and a dubious and narrow win in the electoral college, but "stunning" would be Reagan's defeat of Mondale in 1984. 

Days after I was embroiled in a furious debate about Bush's steadfast and principled support for Israel, one of Bush's supporters warns that this support is pretty tenuous after all.  You would think that a stunning mandate would make Israel safe for the entire term.

Oh, well.

Sent from my Blackberry

The cruel parisology of Yassir Arafat

Arafat's life has been a study in nefarious ambiguity.  He may have been born in Cairo, Gaza, or Jerusalem.  He may or may not be a relative of the Mufti of Jerusalem.  He may or may not accept the State of Israel.  He may or may not be able (or willing) to stop terrorist attacks.  And now, he may or may not be dead.

Debka.com tells of the most incredible palace intrigues, and allegations of burying Arafat alive would lend support to these things.

Arafat has been an unmitigated disaster for world peace, and most poignantly the Palestinians.  We can only hope that his successors know this and why, and are determined to put his legacy where it belongs.  Among those of Stalin, Pol Pot, Ivan the Terrible, Caligula, and Hitler.

Sent from my Blackberry

Bill Maher spews contempt

Andrew Sullivan said he'd be on Bill Maher's show, and since I wanted to see what Andrew looked like, and whether he was as articulate speaking as writing (not everyone is), I watched it.

Maher (who I can't stand) invited Alan Simpson (the former Republican senator from Wyoming), Susan Sarandon, and Noam Chomsky to talk via satellite, and Andrew, Pat Schroder (the former Democratic senator US representative from Colorado), and D.L. Hughley.  It got ugly, and most of the anger was directed at Maher.  And I couldn't help agreeing with Simpson and Sullivan.  There was something offensive about Maher's attitude.  (Susan Sarandon was sincere and simplistic, though undeniably gorgeous, Noam Chomsky is, well despicable in a reasonable sort of way, and Schroder and Hughley did their best to make this a civilized discussion).

This got me thinking.

What does Bush mean by "unify?"

Optimists see Bush's call for greater unity as notice that he'll really try to take into account the views and sensibilities of the 48% that voted for Kerry.  Pessimists see it as the same kind of blah blah blah we heard in 2000. 

I actually think Bush was sincere both times, but in 2000 his idea of being a "unifier" meant "getting evrybody to agree with me."  Being surrounded by ideologues and gatekeepers the last four years, he probably is also sincere in believing that the divisiveness comes from those who disagree with him.

He may have learned a lesson during the campaign, that it is possible to be a reasonable, patriotic, and principled person without arriving at the same conclusions as he does. 

But, as Bill O'Reilly pointed out, Bush is a "true believer," one that puts a wholw lot of faith in faith.  If you live in a world of absolute truths, those who disagree with you "don't get it." Why would you compromise on what is right and good to appease someone who doesn't get it? 

Sent from my Blackberry