So at least he's doing better than Mondale did...
May 19, 2006 12:32 AM Subscribe
updated red state/blue state map of America with recent poll results in place. Bush still (alarmingly) holding down Utah, Idaho & Wyoming, otherwise, not so great...
I have a friend from texas who swears up and down upon the existance of pockets of sanity.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 12:52 AM on May 19, 2006
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 12:52 AM on May 19, 2006
When I lived in Texas the governor was Ann Richards, so it's not as far fetched as you think. The election of shithead was one of the factors that disgusted me about living there and helped motivate me to move away.
posted by 2sheets at 12:55 AM on May 19, 2006
posted by 2sheets at 12:55 AM on May 19, 2006
As long as Mormonism dominates Utah, it will be a one-party state, even though the church goes out of its way to encourage its members not to all be of the same party. When it goes blue, it will be the bluest state in the union, just like it's the reddest now. I predict that someday Utah Mormons will start thinking that you can't be a good Mormon if you're not a Democrat, and that's when the state will flip.
posted by JekPorkins at 12:59 AM on May 19, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 12:59 AM on May 19, 2006
I live in texas. People get shot over tater tots and stabbed over tortillas here. I shit you not.
posted by IronLizard at 1:04 AM on May 19, 2006
posted by IronLizard at 1:04 AM on May 19, 2006
I think this qualifies as a dupe since the SurveyUSA poll the linked map is based on was FPPed the day out it came out (Tuesday).
posted by pruner at 1:08 AM on May 19, 2006
posted by pruner at 1:08 AM on May 19, 2006
The issues with Utah, Idaho and Wyoming have as much to do with access to federal land for grazing and water as they do with Mormon abhorrence of scary gay people. Ranchers are still smarting over the BLMs policies under Clinton. It looks to me as if Salt Lake County and Summit county in Utah are both blue, which bears this out.
posted by Crotalus at 1:23 AM on May 19, 2006
posted by Crotalus at 1:23 AM on May 19, 2006
Approval rating shmaproval rating
It's a little late in the game to start having doubts about W now. The damage is done.
posted by beno at 1:23 AM on May 19, 2006
It's a little late in the game to start having doubts about W now. The damage is done.
posted by beno at 1:23 AM on May 19, 2006
I wonder if the purple map looks any different?
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 1:25 AM on May 19, 2006
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 1:25 AM on May 19, 2006
Mormon abhorrence of scary gay people.
Actually, the Mormons' affiliation with the Republican party has its roots in the 1960s, when a very prominent church authority was also a high ranking Republican cabinet member and advocate of the republican party. While the current trend of people pretending that the Dems are the pro-gay party and the republicans are the anti-gay party certainly gives people a dumbass excuse to maintain their party affiliation, it's not the origin.
Besides, scary people are scary whether they're gay or not.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:29 AM on May 19, 2006
Actually, the Mormons' affiliation with the Republican party has its roots in the 1960s, when a very prominent church authority was also a high ranking Republican cabinet member and advocate of the republican party. While the current trend of people pretending that the Dems are the pro-gay party and the republicans are the anti-gay party certainly gives people a dumbass excuse to maintain their party affiliation, it's not the origin.
Besides, scary people are scary whether they're gay or not.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:29 AM on May 19, 2006
Actually, the Mormons' affiliation with the Republican party has its roots in the 1960s, when a very prominent church authority was also a high ranking Republican cabinet member and advocate of the republican party.
Right, except it was the 50s. Ezra Taft Benson was Secretary of Agriculture, and his influence ushered in the long period of antipathy between Mormons and the BLM that persists to this day. Its about the land and federal land management policy.
posted by Crotalus at 1:34 AM on May 19, 2006
Right, except it was the 50s. Ezra Taft Benson was Secretary of Agriculture, and his influence ushered in the long period of antipathy between Mormons and the BLM that persists to this day. Its about the land and federal land management policy.
posted by Crotalus at 1:34 AM on May 19, 2006
Considering that Bush isn't up for reelection, this map isn't especially useful, except for pointing your finger and laughing (or maybe sighing and holding your head in your hands). Republicans can repudiate Bush in increasing numbers without necessarily repudiating their party.
From the first comment on the linked age:
Bush disapproval does not mean a Blue Nation (none / 0)
Keep in mind that some people disapprove of Bush because he isn't conservative enough.
A district-by-district map of Congressional race polls would be interesting.
posted by Makoto at 1:56 AM on May 19, 2006
From the first comment on the linked age:
Bush disapproval does not mean a Blue Nation (none / 0)
Keep in mind that some people disapprove of Bush because he isn't conservative enough.
A district-by-district map of Congressional race polls would be interesting.
posted by Makoto at 1:56 AM on May 19, 2006
Texas is not nearly as conservative a state as people seem to think. Austin is downright liberal.
It's not like Arkansas miraculously became an enclave of progressive thought when Clinton was sworn in.
posted by Simon! at 1:59 AM on May 19, 2006
It's not like Arkansas miraculously became an enclave of progressive thought when Clinton was sworn in.
posted by Simon! at 1:59 AM on May 19, 2006
What you should remember about Mormons is that they also believe that God has chosen the US to spread democracy. So to an extent the president is ordained by God. At least they and W agree on something.
What
posted by nadawi at 2:22 AM on May 19, 2006
What
posted by nadawi at 2:22 AM on May 19, 2006
What you should remember about Mormons is that they also believe that God has chosen the US to spread democracy. So to an extent the president is ordained by God.
Mormons believe no such thing.
posted by Crotalus at 2:26 AM on May 19, 2006
Mormons believe no such thing.
posted by Crotalus at 2:26 AM on May 19, 2006
Mormons believe no such thing.
It may not be docterine, but many mormoms believe that as a number of my former primary, seminary, and sunday school teacher can attest to.
posted by nadawi at 2:50 AM on May 19, 2006
It may not be docterine, but many mormoms believe that as a number of my former primary, seminary, and sunday school teacher can attest to.
posted by nadawi at 2:50 AM on May 19, 2006
The county-by-county map is crap. Since only a few thousand people are polled nationally, it's impossible to get a valid sample from each geographic unit. If you read the comments below the post you'll see that there are significant flaws in whatever methodology was used.
I hate when people make good points and then illustrate them with manufactured data. Are you trying to shoot yourself in the foot, or what?
posted by Saucy Intruder at 4:34 AM on May 19, 2006 [1 favorite]
I hate when people make good points and then illustrate them with manufactured data. Are you trying to shoot yourself in the foot, or what?
posted by Saucy Intruder at 4:34 AM on May 19, 2006 [1 favorite]
It didn't take Nostradamus to realize what kind of President Bush was going to be to anyone who was paying attention. All the time it was happening, many felt like the kid in "The Emperor's New Clothes" whenever they pointed out shortcomings of the administration to their seemingly blind countrymen.
Now, when it is too late and the damage is done, people dissaprove of Bush?
A day late and a $TRILLION$ short.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 4:41 AM on May 19, 2006
Now, when it is too late and the damage is done, people dissaprove of Bush?
A day late and a $TRILLION$ short.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 4:41 AM on May 19, 2006
Hating Bush still doesn't make you a Democrat.
No, really. I swear. They do have more in common than that. I promise.
Seriously, though, the question was whether you like Bush, not whether you'll vote Republican. In many of those blue counties, the prevailing mood is "We should have nominated someone better in that last Republican primary," not "Fuck it, I guess I'll vote for Hillary."
posted by nebulawindphone at 5:37 AM on May 19, 2006
No, really. I swear. They do have more in common than that. I promise.
Seriously, though, the question was whether you like Bush, not whether you'll vote Republican. In many of those blue counties, the prevailing mood is "We should have nominated someone better in that last Republican primary," not "Fuck it, I guess I'll vote for Hillary."
posted by nebulawindphone at 5:37 AM on May 19, 2006
This is disingenuous. Just because they don't approve of Bush doesn't mean that they're suddenly liberals. These stupid graphics are incredibly dangerous because it lets the liberal voter think that they've got an easy time of it, that 80% of the seats will go to the democrats or something.
If anything when it comes time for campaigning it needs to be pounded into peoples skulls that there is no such thing as a sure thing, that the conservatives will be using God, guns and good old fashioned bigotry to ensure a high voter turn out and that our only hope of preserving the constitution and our values is to make sure that everybody gets out to vote.
posted by substrate at 5:39 AM on May 19, 2006
If anything when it comes time for campaigning it needs to be pounded into peoples skulls that there is no such thing as a sure thing, that the conservatives will be using God, guns and good old fashioned bigotry to ensure a high voter turn out and that our only hope of preserving the constitution and our values is to make sure that everybody gets out to vote.
posted by substrate at 5:39 AM on May 19, 2006
The White House is a PR machine. If they fire on all cylindars all the time, it is not nearly as effective. To make their PR more effective, they need to allow for drops in these ratings. That is not to say that they would not prefer Bush to score high all the time, it is just to say that they are not going to go all out to manufacture ratings all the time. It would wear on people. When they need the numbers to be up, the numbers will be up. They did it for the last presidential election. They will do what they need to do.
Also, I imagine that a higher percentage of those who approve of Bush would be likely to vote than those who do not approve of Bush. Lastly, I imagine that many of the people who give Bush an unfavorable rating would actually vote for him if given an opponent to measure him against.
posted by flarbuse at 5:52 AM on May 19, 2006
Also, I imagine that a higher percentage of those who approve of Bush would be likely to vote than those who do not approve of Bush. Lastly, I imagine that many of the people who give Bush an unfavorable rating would actually vote for him if given an opponent to measure him against.
posted by flarbuse at 5:52 AM on May 19, 2006
Yikes. Red counties In Illinois!
It's interesting that most of Idaho is blue, but red (presumably) in population centers. What's up with that?
posted by washburn at 7:27 AM on May 19, 2006
It's interesting that most of Idaho is blue, but red (presumably) in population centers. What's up with that?
posted by washburn at 7:27 AM on May 19, 2006
Everyone I know who voted fot Bush in 2004 already hated Bush.
posted by I Foody at 7:28 AM on May 19, 2006
posted by I Foody at 7:28 AM on May 19, 2006
Really, though, isn't this mapping more of a reflection on Bush, and not so much a reflection of some liberal/conservative dichotomy? I mean, there are strong right-wing sectors that actually dislike BushCo because they haven't been conservative enough. (Thus the sudden resurrection of the gay-marriage constitutional ban in the Senate)
I have this bad gut feeling that the mid-terms are not going to be the sweeping referendum that many pray for. In my blackest, most cynical heart, I can easily see the mid-term going even more conservative. Yes, sweeping out many BushBots...but replacing them with favorite sons from the, for instance, ultra-evangelical end of the spectrum.
Remember, the dynamics of the mid-terms are that even fewer people turn-out to vote. This makes it easier for the extremes to influence the vote.
I'll continue to look at reports like this one with Fort-Knox-quality guarded optimism...tempered with a nice acid-ochre shade of jaundice.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:29 AM on May 19, 2006
I have this bad gut feeling that the mid-terms are not going to be the sweeping referendum that many pray for. In my blackest, most cynical heart, I can easily see the mid-term going even more conservative. Yes, sweeping out many BushBots...but replacing them with favorite sons from the, for instance, ultra-evangelical end of the spectrum.
Remember, the dynamics of the mid-terms are that even fewer people turn-out to vote. This makes it easier for the extremes to influence the vote.
I'll continue to look at reports like this one with Fort-Knox-quality guarded optimism...tempered with a nice acid-ochre shade of jaundice.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:29 AM on May 19, 2006
Living in Utah, it seems that a lot of people here "approve" of the President because there are no alternatives for them. Saying that you disapprove implies that you approve of someone else, and realistically there isn't anyone they can honestly support. It's also an interesting fact that for a long time (turn of the century) Utah was 100% democrat.
I'm a fairly conservative libertarian in my views, meaning that I'd probably vote republican (if I were american), but the way I see it, Bush is at best incompetant or at worst, evil. I'm hoping for the former, because if it's the latter, we're all in trouble.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:37 AM on May 19, 2006
I'm a fairly conservative libertarian in my views, meaning that I'd probably vote republican (if I were american), but the way I see it, Bush is at best incompetant or at worst, evil. I'm hoping for the former, because if it's the latter, we're all in trouble.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:37 AM on May 19, 2006
So when Republicans retain all their seats and majority rule in November, what then? Will the farce that the Fundies came out in force to save the Republican hide be repeated by the sycophantic media or will the cowardly Democrats then get serious about election reform. I find it unconscionable that such a high percentage of the American public distrusts our paperless computer voting system yet nothing is being done about it. Republicans in Congress violently oppose any proposed reform yet their constituency remains silent. We live in a dictatorial banana republic. Maybe the shock of losing the mid-terms will wake up the Democrats but I highly doubt it. Much easier to explain it away than to do anything about it.
posted by any major dude at 8:05 AM on May 19, 2006
posted by any major dude at 8:05 AM on May 19, 2006
Everyone I know who voted fot Bush in 2004 already hated Bush.
No offense, but these people sound pathetic.
posted by beno at 8:14 AM on May 19, 2006
No offense, but these people sound pathetic.
posted by beno at 8:14 AM on May 19, 2006
The election of shithead was one of the factors that disgusted me about living there and helped motivate me to move away.
That's what makes americans so great. When faced with a problem, we move.
I live in texas. People get shot over tater tots and stabbed over tortillas here. I shit you not.
posted by IronLizard
Yeah, that type thing is much more senseless than a gang killing in L.A. (you were on our turf!) or a new york man who kills his baby for crying (read it yesterday).
You better stay in texas. Killing makes much more sense elsewhere. You'd have trouble comprehending it.
posted by justgary at 10:36 AM on May 19, 2006
That's what makes americans so great. When faced with a problem, we move.
I live in texas. People get shot over tater tots and stabbed over tortillas here. I shit you not.
posted by IronLizard
Yeah, that type thing is much more senseless than a gang killing in L.A. (you were on our turf!) or a new york man who kills his baby for crying (read it yesterday).
You better stay in texas. Killing makes much more sense elsewhere. You'd have trouble comprehending it.
posted by justgary at 10:36 AM on May 19, 2006
As for Texas, my hometown of Longview, the seat of a county that voted 80% for Bush, and which also has its very own Hummer Club, actually elected an openly gay mayor a couple of years ago, and he turned out to be very popular. When a city councilwoman found her agenda being obstructed by the mayor, she went on local TV and accused him of flirting with her teenage son. Then she was laughed out of town.
Don't get me wrong, Texas is a nightmare. But the red state / blue state dichotomy is much, much more complicated than that. I should add that in Kilgore, a decrepit small town near Longview that aches for its oil-boom heydays, the local college put on "Angels in America," a play about Aids that had two men kissing. The uproar was just what you would expect - bat shit insane. Right-wing Christians bought up all the tickets to the show so that nobody would go, but the college just sold more tickets thirty minutes before and doubled their intake. The show was enormously popular.
So, despite the prevailing paradigm in Texas, there is a great deal of underground liberalism, a lot of counter-culture spewing out of the metropolitan areas, and the influence of mass media produced in coastal, liberal areas is actually much greater than that of Fox News. That explains, I think, the revolutionary vehemence of the Right, why they're so apopleptic with righteous fury -- they know that, culturally at least, they're losing, and have been for years.
posted by bukharin at 11:10 AM on May 19, 2006 [1 favorite]
"Bush sucks" couldn't win the election in 2004 when he was on the ballot -- how in the world can it win the election in 2006?
And it's not like the stars are particularly aligned for Democrats in 2006. 90% of the races the Republicans won in the sea-change election of 1994 were the culmination of a 30-year rural / southern conservative trend in the state / district which had somehow been resisted at the Congressional level. Democrats long since won back the abberational 10% that could be attributed to Clinton's unpopularity. The long term trend which is favorable to Democrats -- post-hippie boomers and older Gen-Xers succeeding their parents in upscale metro suburbs -- has already had its full fruition. (Compare the Congressional results in 1988 to those in 2004 -- a dozen Republican suburban districts in California, Illinois, New York, Maryland and Virginia are now Democratic.)
I predict Democrat net gain of 10 seats in the House and 1 seat in the Senate. And if I'm wrong, I'll be glad: if the Republicans can't win, they don't deserve it, and they'll be better for some time in the wilderness.
posted by MattD at 11:15 AM on May 19, 2006
And it's not like the stars are particularly aligned for Democrats in 2006. 90% of the races the Republicans won in the sea-change election of 1994 were the culmination of a 30-year rural / southern conservative trend in the state / district which had somehow been resisted at the Congressional level. Democrats long since won back the abberational 10% that could be attributed to Clinton's unpopularity. The long term trend which is favorable to Democrats -- post-hippie boomers and older Gen-Xers succeeding their parents in upscale metro suburbs -- has already had its full fruition. (Compare the Congressional results in 1988 to those in 2004 -- a dozen Republican suburban districts in California, Illinois, New York, Maryland and Virginia are now Democratic.)
I predict Democrat net gain of 10 seats in the House and 1 seat in the Senate. And if I'm wrong, I'll be glad: if the Republicans can't win, they don't deserve it, and they'll be better for some time in the wilderness.
posted by MattD at 11:15 AM on May 19, 2006
I live in one of those little red counties in Texas. I'm open to any ideas for bumper stickers to help bitch-slap some of my fellow residents.
posted by rolypolyman at 12:22 PM on May 19, 2006
posted by rolypolyman at 12:22 PM on May 19, 2006
I'm open to any ideas for bumper stickers to help bitch-slap some of my fellow residents.
Because that's really the best way to get people to switch parties.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:50 PM on May 19, 2006
Because that's really the best way to get people to switch parties.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:50 PM on May 19, 2006
The electorate's thinking is a fucking mess, and the elected accurately reflect this.
This problem will not be resolved anytime soon.
posted by dglynn at 3:02 PM on May 19, 2006
This problem will not be resolved anytime soon.
posted by dglynn at 3:02 PM on May 19, 2006
Please read SaucyIntruder's post about the county-by-county map being crap before posting about counties... :-)
posted by bugmuncher at 4:49 PM on May 19, 2006
posted by bugmuncher at 4:49 PM on May 19, 2006
What you should remember about Mormons is that they also believe that God has chosen the US to spread democracy. So to an extent the president is ordained by God. At least they and W agree on something.
What a weird thing to think, given their history...
posted by delmoi at 5:18 PM on May 19, 2006
What a weird thing to think, given their history...
posted by delmoi at 5:18 PM on May 19, 2006
Yeah, that type thing is much more senseless than a gang killing in L.A. (you were on our turf!) or a new york man who kills his baby for crying (read it yesterday).
You better stay in texas. Killing makes much more sense elsewhere. You'd have trouble comprehending it.
Oh, we have plenty of those too. No one else takes tortillas as seriously, however. The flour vs. corn debate is a real killer.
posted by IronLizard at 5:32 PM on May 19, 2006
"Bush sucks" couldn't win the election in 2004 when he was on the ballot -- how in the world can it win the election in 2006?
i'll tell you how -- all the increased sucking. it's not like his sucking has been static. no, he's been hard at work sucking all over the place. if i had to guess, i'd say he has a bet with somebody (william bennett, maybe?) about going down as "worst ever." and victory shall be his. at least in the realm of worst.
90% of the races the Republicans won in the sea-change election of 1994
that's an impressive statistic. it's as if you're in possession of a documented fact that you didn't just pull out of your ass. where might i find corroboration of this? it's not that i don't trust you, but you'll forgive me for just assuming you're making that number up out of whole cloth. it's not you, it's your party.
they'll be better for some time in the wilderness.
wouldn't they be even better if they were in 'the wilderness' permanently? they'd do less damage that way. and hey, if we're talking non-metaphorically, they're there already -- in idaho, wyoming, and utah.
JekPorkins: Because that's really the best way to get people to switch parties.
i'm very sick of this refrain. if the fucktard bush supporters can't read the 1000-point writing on the wall, why in the hell would anyone want them in their party?
no thanks, republicans. you can keep the backwash. they're all yours.
posted by Hat Maui at 6:42 PM on May 19, 2006
i'll tell you how -- all the increased sucking. it's not like his sucking has been static. no, he's been hard at work sucking all over the place. if i had to guess, i'd say he has a bet with somebody (william bennett, maybe?) about going down as "worst ever." and victory shall be his. at least in the realm of worst.
90% of the races the Republicans won in the sea-change election of 1994
that's an impressive statistic. it's as if you're in possession of a documented fact that you didn't just pull out of your ass. where might i find corroboration of this? it's not that i don't trust you, but you'll forgive me for just assuming you're making that number up out of whole cloth. it's not you, it's your party.
they'll be better for some time in the wilderness.
wouldn't they be even better if they were in 'the wilderness' permanently? they'd do less damage that way. and hey, if we're talking non-metaphorically, they're there already -- in idaho, wyoming, and utah.
JekPorkins: Because that's really the best way to get people to switch parties.
i'm very sick of this refrain. if the fucktard bush supporters can't read the 1000-point writing on the wall, why in the hell would anyone want them in their party?
no thanks, republicans. you can keep the backwash. they're all yours.
posted by Hat Maui at 6:42 PM on May 19, 2006
if the fucktard bush supporters can't read the 1000-point writing on the wall, why in the hell would anyone want them in their party?
Because without votes, you don't win elections. If you want people not to vote for you because you don't think they're smart enough to be a member of your political party, then you deserve to lose.
Politics is a popularity contest. Didn't you know that?
posted by JekPorkins at 6:50 PM on May 19, 2006
Because without votes, you don't win elections. If you want people not to vote for you because you don't think they're smart enough to be a member of your political party, then you deserve to lose.
Politics is a popularity contest. Didn't you know that?
posted by JekPorkins at 6:50 PM on May 19, 2006
Given that less than half of Americans vote in elections, getting the right groups to stay at home on election day is a perfectly valid strategy (legally, of course--the Republicans like to play election-day shenanigans that are pretty distasteful, and they're finally getting arrested for it). Maybe not the best one, but I think it'll pay dividends for the Dems this November. In 2008, not so much maybe, but the Iraq occupation isn't going away anytime soon, if ever. When regular troops and guardsmen are on their fifth and sixth deployments? No, they won't vote Hillary, but they sure as hell won't for many Republicans either. Simple self-interest will outweigh the esthetics of elitist blue-staters eventually, and my hope is that the Republicans can play the "Oh noes teh gays!!!" card only so many times.
posted by bardic at 7:08 PM on May 19, 2006
posted by bardic at 7:08 PM on May 19, 2006
Jekhoyt, i was talking about the intransigent 25% or so whose minds will never change.
if anyone deserves to lose, it's the arrogant idiots who think that there is no line they cannot cross and get away with it.
they will, however, get their comeuppance. everyone does. you know that to be true, don'tcha?
p.s. -- you've done a pretty good job of toning it down so far. i'm impressed.
posted by Hat Maui at 7:38 PM on May 19, 2006
if anyone deserves to lose, it's the arrogant idiots who think that there is no line they cannot cross and get away with it.
they will, however, get their comeuppance. everyone does. you know that to be true, don'tcha?
p.s. -- you've done a pretty good job of toning it down so far. i'm impressed.
posted by Hat Maui at 7:38 PM on May 19, 2006
IT STILL CAN'T BE ABOUT 'RUNNING AGAINST THAT GUY', YOU HAVE TO BE RUNNING FOR SOMETHING!!!!
How about simple prosperity, or just economically sound policies? ... Total Real Portfolio Returns from January 22, 2001, to May 19, 2006
Dow Jones Industrial Average: —9.09%
Standard & Poor's 500: —18.58%
NASDAQ Composite: —31.36% ...
Securities markets do not make long-term assessments of the value of the American economy based upon political biases for one party or against another: billions of shares of stock trade each day, and the total value of these trades is an order of magnitude or more greater than this. Over the period of the past nearly five-and-a-half years, the absolute control of the government by the Bush Administration and its Republican allies in Congress has been subject to an on-going, objective assessment by the securities markets of the United States. The result to date of this real value assessment is that the American economy, as represented by the market values of stocks of large, medium, and small companies, has eroded. This is an undeniable, unavoidable fact, ...
posted by amberglow at 3:43 PM on May 20, 2006
How about simple prosperity, or just economically sound policies? ... Total Real Portfolio Returns from January 22, 2001, to May 19, 2006
Dow Jones Industrial Average: —9.09%
Standard & Poor's 500: —18.58%
NASDAQ Composite: —31.36% ...
Securities markets do not make long-term assessments of the value of the American economy based upon political biases for one party or against another: billions of shares of stock trade each day, and the total value of these trades is an order of magnitude or more greater than this. Over the period of the past nearly five-and-a-half years, the absolute control of the government by the Bush Administration and its Republican allies in Congress has been subject to an on-going, objective assessment by the securities markets of the United States. The result to date of this real value assessment is that the American economy, as represented by the market values of stocks of large, medium, and small companies, has eroded. This is an undeniable, unavoidable fact, ...
posted by amberglow at 3:43 PM on May 20, 2006
i'll tell you how -- all the increased sucking. it's not like his sucking has been static. no, he's been hard at work sucking all over the place. if i had to guess, i'd say he has a bet with somebody (william bennett, maybe?) about going down as "worst ever." and victory shall be his. at least in the realm of worst.
Yup--from Katrina to losing Iraq to not getting Osama to shredding the Constitution to the shitty economy to rising gas prices and on and on and on....
posted by amberglow at 3:45 PM on May 20, 2006
Yup--from Katrina to losing Iraq to not getting Osama to shredding the Constitution to the shitty economy to rising gas prices and on and on and on....
posted by amberglow at 3:45 PM on May 20, 2006
I'd move out of Texas if there were some place better to move to. There is not. There's assholes everywhere. Texans do not hold controlling stock in stupidity. The ones who are really stupid are the ones who think everything can be explained by saying conservatives are bad/good and liberals are good/bad. It's just not that simple.
Kerry spent most of his campaign on the defensive. Bush spent most of his on the offensive; in more ways than one can that word be defined. Being offensive showed more strength than his competition, so slightly more people felt Bush was slightly more presidential.
...Gore was just robbed, and living in Texas my vote hasn't counted both times. I really wish there were some place better in which to move.
posted by ZachsMind at 4:05 PM on May 20, 2006
Kerry spent most of his campaign on the defensive. Bush spent most of his on the offensive; in more ways than one can that word be defined. Being offensive showed more strength than his competition, so slightly more people felt Bush was slightly more presidential.
...Gore was just robbed, and living in Texas my vote hasn't counted both times. I really wish there were some place better in which to move.
posted by ZachsMind at 4:05 PM on May 20, 2006
« Older It's like they saw the future | Visual Cornucopia Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by IronLizard at 12:49 AM on May 19, 2006