suicide is painless

January 20, 2005 1:16 PM

Shot In Our Name. Seattle's arts weekly The Stranger graphically expresses popular sentiment this day in urban America.
posted by newton (18 comments total)

heh
posted by delmoi at 1:22 PM on January 20, 2005

Do you mean popular sentiment as in, the most popular?
What was voter turnout? Around 60%? So only 30% of the population voted against Bush. If the popular sentiment this day is one of depression or suicidal thoughts, then I imagine, based on around 70% of those eligible to vote being quite happy to see him get in, that there are other reasons than Bush being inaugurated.
posted by nylon at 1:34 PM on January 20, 2005

Ah, hang on, sorry, I see you specified urban America. I'll get my coat...
posted by nylon at 1:35 PM on January 20, 2005

Heh. Nice.
posted by ColdChef at 1:37 PM on January 20, 2005

Lets reword that ...

What was voter turnout? Around 60%? So only 30% of the population voted for Bush. If the popular sentiment this day is one of depression or suicidal thoughts, then I imagine, based on around 70% of those eligible to vote being not happy to see him get in, that the reason is than Bush is being inaugurated.
posted by Dillenger69 at 1:47 PM on January 20, 2005

They're crazy pinkos, but I do love the Stranger. I only wish that some magic force could put them in the place of the editorial board of the Village Voice, especially whoever was responsible for their godawful recent web redesign.

(My personal theory is that the V.V.'s recent web redesign was actually intended to be so bad that people would start picking up the print edition again and thus increase their audited circulation...)
posted by MattD at 1:51 PM on January 20, 2005

Do you mean popular sentiment as in, the most popular?
What was voter turnout? Around 60%? So only 30% of the population voted against Bush. If the popular sentiment this day is one of depression or suicidal thoughts, then I imagine, based on around 70% of those eligible to vote being quite happy to see him get in, that there are other reasons than Bush being inaugurated.

Only if you assume that everyone who didn't vote is a Bush fan, which uh, isn't in line with reality.

It's 50-50, guy.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:56 PM on January 20, 2005

Four more beers, in cynicism and in memorium, for the Iraqis who have been shot in our name.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:00 PM on January 20, 2005

Fun fact: Bush did not win in any city with a population over 500,000.
posted by newton at 2:03 PM on January 20, 2005

So only 30% of the population voted against Bush.

I would guess that a rather large fraction of those who didn't vote would agree that both presidential candidates were incompetent.

Watching a few minutes of the inaugural spectacle on the CBC was good for ten seconds of amusement, when as Bush talked about the righteousness of those who "march on the streets under the banner of 'freedom' ", the camera briefly cut to police taking away a banner from some protesters.
posted by sfenders at 2:12 PM on January 20, 2005

Son of Samiam, let's make that 19,000!

RACE YOU!
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 2:40 PM on January 20, 2005

MattD: I'm still upset about that Village Voice web redesign. You used to be able to get Savage Love a day early by changing the URL, and now you can't do that any more.
posted by Gimpson at 3:06 PM on January 20, 2005

I would guess that a rather large fraction of those who didn't vote would agree that both presidential candidates were incompetent.

Nobody gets points for not playing. There's a little line at the bottom of the ballot where you can vote for anybody you like. People who don't vote don't get to complain with any credibility.
posted by Hildago at 4:18 PM on January 20, 2005

Fun fact: Bush did not win in any city with a population over 500,000.

Man, that's a great stat. Is there a source somewhere so I can use this in the future?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:24 PM on January 20, 2005

Man, that's a great stat. Is there a source somewhere so I can use this in the future?

Just tell people you heard it on metafilter ;)

Nobody gets points for not playing. There's a little line at the bottom of the ballot where you can vote for anybody you like. People who don't vote don't get to complain with any credibility.

That's an interesting point but I'm not sure if it holds water. Obviously someone could vote for someone else--or put a write-in on the ballot--but since any of these alternate candidates winning is all but an impossibility, who cares? I'm sure there are a lot of people who didn't care and decided to work, or had other things to do.

Now, of course, I think anyone who doesn't see a difference between Kerry and Bush as sort of crazy, even if they're ideologically opposed to the two-party system. But I'm not sure if not voting should preclude you from having an opinion, especially if you object to the whole system.
posted by The God Complex at 5:21 PM on January 20, 2005

Well, if you're *not* a Bush fan, and you didn't vote : For Shame. That is all.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 5:36 PM on January 20, 2005

Man, that's a great stat. Is there a source somewhere so I can use this in the future?

One source is the Stranger article, The Urban Archipelago. Kerry also won half of all cities with populations between 50,000 and 500,000.
posted by lasm at 6:46 PM on January 20, 2005

Man, that's a great stat. Is there a source somewhere so I can use this in the future?

One source is the Stranger article, The Urban Archipelago. Kerry also won half of all cities with populations between 50,000 and 500,000.

Greater Atlanta/Houston/Phoenix all voted for Bush. The Economist (besides mentioning this) argued in its 18 November issue that a better dividing line would be high-growth vs. low-growth cities.

Not happy about this, just trying to set the record straight.
posted by A dead Quaker at 6:59 PM on January 20, 2005