2004 Florida Hurricane paths plotted on the 2000 election results map by county--God must be pissed off.  (funny, but rather ironic)

Declan McCollough's images of the Inauguration protest

• Atheist Republican protester.
• Street scene 1
• US Marshall who ordered him not to photograph the federal courthouse two days before the parade.
• Black police officer with a telling expression
• Security checkpoint purse inspection.
• Protesters in stylish rain gear
• Wall o' police.

Washington Post Images

• A more ominous image of protesters and wall o' police
• A police scuffle
• An arrest with bindings
• Spilled blood
• Naked anti-fur/anti-Bush protester.  Actually, when you think about it, it's a pretty funny idea. 
• A cluster of obviously Suburban Gore voters

George Dubyah Bush Links

With the 2004 election just around the corner, Jeb Bush is testing out his trick ballot machines for Democratic neighborhoods, and the Federal Elections Commission is designing a plan for election "reform" that will even more strongly favor Republican candidates.  If we're lucky, we'll get to see Florida explode in a riot. 

Written before and during the election recount.  Links checked Sept 28th 2003

And the recount…bizarre. Just plain bizarre. The states’ rights Republicans got enormous mileage out of comparing the process to reading tea leaves.  George Bush is even being protected from having to explain how three years ago he passed a law preferring manual recounts in elections like this in Texas, while he simultaneously claims that manual recounts are unfair--that there is something different about a manual recount in the state that his brother governs.  

We learned a few important things from this election: 

• The media definitely takes sides now more than ever in political conflicts, and that side is the one that most directly benefits corporate interests.
• The media should not be able to call election outcomes before they have been legally certified, and Americans are just going to have to learn to wait to find out.  Since it is now evident that balloting is less reliable than statistical sampling, exit polls should be used as an external assessment of the accuracy of the actual voting process, rather than as a way for various media corporations to try to call the election first.
• Lastly, there is a profound cultural divide in America. 

The borders of this division are complex.  They are geographical in that support for Bush seems to be strongest south of the Mason-Dixon Line, and in the more landlocked states.  The border also shows in terms of urban areas in opposition to rural areas.  Race and class represent another interesting border.  For example, Washington DC's residents, largely African American poor, minor government employees and college students, opted for Gore by a margin of almost ten to one.  Guns and abortions set up more borders between us.  Perhaps the most important distinction between the two parties is one of attitude.  Notice which party has the most nasty, aggressive, threats, rioting, unpleasant supporters and rhetoric.  In this case, it's probably because Gore actually won, and they're on the defensive--refusing to admit that their candidate lost.  There are no corresponding death threats or angry mobs among the supporters of Gore. 

We have been rather interested in the demographics of this election.  The following tables should illustrate the important details of this election.  Note: I decided to focus on the number of people who voted for Bush, and the point spread between him and Gore.  The reason for this focus will probably become clear as you read.

KEY: Population, Number of votes cast in 2000 election, Percentage of total population who voted for Bush, Number of Bush voters, Percentage of total population that voted for Bush.  Ranked by point spread.  

I continue with the process of showing the number of Bush votes rather than Gore votes because the purpose of the charts is to show how much influence Bush has throughout the USA.  Gore's support is indicated by the point spread, and the following states are ranked by that support.  

Any way you look at this election, it is very difficult to understand how Bush deserves to win, except for the archaic technicality of the winner-take-all Electoral College. For instance, if we take the raw populations of the Bushy States and compare it to the raw population of the Gorey States, we see that Bush has 581,965 less people constituting his electoral victory.  In terms of the popular vote, he has 222,880 fewer votes than Gore.  

Naturally, the states most identified with the Confederate flag demonstrated the strongest support for Bush.  In the states known for "wide open spaces" we also find very strong support for Bush.  It is no small coincidence that these are also the states most known for racial violence, gay bashing and resistance to Hate Crimes legislation.   

New England, the Great Lakes states, the Mississippi River and the West Coast showed the strongest support for Gore.  In New York, Gore won even more strongly than Hillary Clinton, which I think is rather interesting.  States where Bush won against a strong showing by Gore include: Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee, Florida, and even Louisiana.   I hope that we will soon find more informative analyses of this election in terms of geography, demographics, and local corporate interests. 

Besides proving to us that Bush lost in Florida, exit polls indicated that college educated voters favored Bush by 49% to 47%.  Sandy and I found that amazing.  It broke down into a vastly stronger support for Gore among those without a High School diploma and an 8 pt lead for those with graduate degrees.  I guess that means that a BA degree doesn't teach students how to recognize a viable president.  Race was the most dramatic factor--only 9% of African American voters chose Bush, while 35% of Hispanics decided that they liked this elitist loser enough to vote for him. Protestants preferred Bush.  Only 25% of gays and lesbians supported Bush.  The heady aroma of tax cuts covers the stench of Christian intolerance for those wealthier gays.  Catholics and Jews preferred Gore.  However, when you divide the religions by race too, white Catholics and Protestants were dramatically more supportive of Bush. 

Support for Bush was also clearly connected to income.  Oddly, the classes appear to alternate--working class supported Gore, middle class was nearly even, upper middle class supported Bush, and the upper class supported Gore. (interesting, eh?)  Unmarried voters preferred Gore, married voters preferred Bush.  Bush also did better among those with children under 18, while Gore did better with people who have no offspring. 

One of the oddest statistics I saw was that Bush got the most support (54% to 40%) among those who thought that foreign affairs was the most important issue in the election.  They must be assuming that Cheney won't flat line on his next trip to the ER.  Obviously, Bush did best among those who thought taxes were the number one issue.  One really odd statistic:  among those who think that George Bush's position is too liberal, Al Gore had a dramatically stronger support (81% to 15%).   

Finally, among those who had reservations about the vote they had cast, 51% had voted for Bush, 46% for Gore.  Among those who did not have reservations about their vote, 50% voted for Gore and 47% for Bush.  The percentages were almost a perfect reversal.   

All statistics based on data provided at CNN.com and the U.S. Census Bureau estimates for population in July 1999.   

One thing is for certain: whoever "wins" election 2000 will be sucked into a wretched vortex of scandals.  The Bush family will be haunted by Dubyah's youth of partying, insider trading and social promotion, not to mention charges of election fraud.  Gore will probably be haunted by similar charges of election fraud as well as the continuing saga of his fund raising, which is quite simply hypocritical coming from the man who basically bought this election and used his money to smear his Republican competitors into the dirt. (And he used Texas taxpayer money he got when they bought his Rangers a new stadium, which he sold!)  Whatever is the case, it looks likely that we will follow up a 60 million dollar witch-hunt against the Clintons, and a 3 billion dollar election with another four years of outrageously expensive hearings that will give the legislature an excuse for not doing anything meaningful.  All this will happen at the taxpayers' expense and in the name of "bipartisanship."  Meanwhile the alleged fraud may just be a red herring.  The Hatfields and the McCoys will continue their internecine warfare.  Lucky for us Dubyah will be spending more time on the Ranch with his Sony Playstation 2 than he will working.  It will be very difficult for Americans to adjust to the difference between the hardworking and every-present Clintons, and the smirky non-chalance of the absentee dictator/executioner.  

Whether or not there was intentional election fraud to an extent that the outcome of the election was changed will probably never be known.  It makes sense to me that for future elections we should admit that we are a “Banana Republic”, and invite election observers from Cuba, El Salvador, Serbia, and much of Africa to make sure that our democratic process is fair and untainted.  It also makes sense that electoral votes should not be awarded until all the ballots are actually counted in that state, and the winner should not be announced until ALL the electoral votes have been cast.  Our information society impatience runs contrary to the realities of getting a total and accurate picture of public opinion on one day of the year.  

And About Ralph Nader

Sandy and I are "liberal-to-left" with tendencies toward socialist ideas in some areas, and libertarian ideas in others.  We like the positions of parties like the Green Party, the Socialist Party and the Natural Law Party.  We have been extremely disillusioned by the Democratic party's move toward the Republican platform.  We were also unimpressed by Nader's inconsistent remarks and actions.  Ralph is a Wall Street millionaire who bases his political agenda on attacking corporations without any apparent awareness of his own portfolio.  This duplicity is something of a warning sign to us. Also, the extremely minor role that Winona LaDuke played, as well as Nader's comparative lack of interest in women's issues in the campaign led us to conclude that Ralph did not make a compelling case to America and to women that LaDuke was a full partner and capable of taking over the presidency if Ralph died.

Instead, we got the distinct impression that the election was really an ego show for Ralph at the expense of Winona, who was almost hidden from the public eye.  In other words, his running mate looked like a politically correct act of tokenism.  Winona LaDuke might be a splendid person, and might indeed have great promise as a politician.  She is a valuable activist with worthy opinions.  

Ralph failed miserably to convince us that she was fit to be second in line for the presidency.  (We ended up with the opposite scenario--a more capable, but unhealthy vice president who must have gotten himself into office by dragging along the dyslexic party boy.)  It is our opinion that this implicit, unspoken sexism, combined with the fear of Bush actually winning explain the low scores for Nader. 

We're waiting for a better candidate for the Green Party--like a woman.  While Nader brought up wonderful issues in the election, it was never clear to us that he could get anything done in that regard.  Nor was it clear that he had an understanding of how to implement effective changes to correct the corporate abuses he decried.  In short, Ralph came across to Sandy and me as an anti-capitalist capitalist with a tendency toward misogyny and no clear plan for making the world better other than being a loudmouth antagonist.  We don't need that.  I'd rather vote Socialist.  Nader is better off where he is--a consumer advocate and political trouble-maker.  However, it certainly would have been nice to see him in the debates.  Perhaps some meaningful issues would have been discussed by the lame candidates.  

It is really shocking that the voices of the extreme left and extreme right are kept out of the debate.  These true extremes would demonstrate the sinister nature of dominant political and economic assumptions that are hidden from us by having the pseudodebates between uninspired centrists.   America stands to learn a great deal if these voices were fully heard face-to-face with the chicken shit centrist candidates.  

George Dubyah Bush is undoubtedly the least capable man to win the presidency of this country.  Perhaps he is the dumbest man to lead any country in the world.  Perhaps this would be a worthy endeavor for the next four years--trying to find a less intelligent, less literate, less cultured leader of any country.  That would be a good idea for a web site:  World Leaders Who Are Dumber than George.  It might just be an empty page.  

Whatever we say about his academics and explicit anti-intellectualism, he has shown ability to learn from his mistakes--especially the ones he made between January 1, 2000 and November 3, 2001.  We'll give him high marks for being the most cognitively improved candidate from beginning of the race to the end.  Compare his bumbling performances from the summer to the carefully controlled recitations that characterized his third debate.  It was an inspiring example of the power of high teacher-to-student ratios.  A score of handlers and tutors helped one student who was a victim of the soft discrimination of social promotion in Harvard and Yale to learn more in these last four months than he learned during his entire Ivy League college education.  You have to give him credit for that, even if he still can't think on his own feet.  

• We finally have a president!  All hail President Cheney!