Slashdot Mirror
3D Election Results Map by County
FlopEJoe writes "There are many web-based electoral maps available on the regular news sites (Electorial-vote, CNN) but this image 3d county results seemed more profound to me. Wish I had more to say about it but I don't want to cloud the discussion. I think it speaks for itself and the spin-masters should enjoy it."
Coastal city dwellers are vote liberal. No shock there. Those cities have lots of people. No shock there. The rest of the country is largely conservative. Again, no shock there.
Hawaii, that is one of the members of our coal^H^H^Hstates. :) /Poland
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
Don't know if this is true or not (it looks pretty, so I'm inclined to say yeah, its true), but this map is pretty interesting.
-Vic
And you'll probably continue to see that happen, too, with a Democratic party platform of 'you're a fucktard if you don't agree with us'. Great way to try to bring the opposition to your side, too. 'You're a fucking idiot. Vote for us!' If I hadn't voted for Badnarik I would have voted for Bush partly out of spite.
::GASP!:: don't agree with you! OMFG!
Believe it or not, there *are* some people in the country that *are* intelligent, that
There were a lot of people who voted for all the wrong reasons. But there are also a large number of people who thought about the decision at hand before making it. Insulting them only distances them further from you.
Yes, IHBT, and IHL, but it bothers me when people do this shit (which isn't to say the Right doesn't do it also... another reason I voted for Badnarik). HAND.
In other words, a county shows all red even if it is 51% Bush / 49% Kerry. Just so we remember that there is a lot of red in the blue counties, and vice-versa.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
That is to say, a high population area may have 48% Republican votes and 49% Democratic votes but the entire tall bar is colored blue.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
In a democracy, the vote of the people counts.
In the Electoral College, the vote of the majority (people living in cities) is diluted to give people living in the suburbs, and Southern Slave Owners, an increased vote. Since we no longer have slave owners, it's kind of moot to continue having the Electoral College. If you read the Federalist Papers, you'll discover that the founding fathers weren't real keen on giving Joe Schmoe a vote, and if you read History, you'll find that slave owners wanted their slaves to count as three-fifths of a person for voting purposes, but had no intention of giving them the right to vote.
The point of a Democracy is that the majority of the people get to determine things. If you do anything to dilute the power of the majority (Electoral College, Aparthied, for example), then you're not living in a Democracy.
You can argue all you want about increasing the power of rural voters, but that still doesn't mean it's right -- or that it's a democracy.
Senators weren't directly elected by the people until the 1920's. Things can, do, and should change.
"People who agreed with me are smarter than people who don't." Perhaps we should rephrase this a bit: Since I am human, and have any sort of an ego (that, in itself, is not bad - it's quite healthy), I think that I am smart. Therefore, anyone who agrees with me must also be smart.
I'm still waiting for the first objective post in favour of Kerry in politics.slashdot.org. Of course, the same could be said for Bush, so anyone taking this as a jab should consider how meaningless of a jab it is.
Same could be said of your religious comment - since you're likely non-religious, you assume that people who disagree with you must be less smart. That must place you at an IQ of at least 180 - since Einstein was still Jewish.
The exit polls reveal that there is not much of a correlation between political affiliation and education.
True, but the exit polls also show that Kerry won...
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Actually, I've found that the most educated group tends to be libertarians and atheists/agnostics.
Democrats have their own brain-numbed dogma. Democrat families beget democrat children and so on. Just like republicans. Being a democrat doesn't make you more thoughtful or intelligent. You're sucked into just as much pointless and foundless rhetoric as the next guy.
I'll go out on a limb and say that Kerry got the more educated vote, but that it's correlative instead of causative.
Basically, city dwellers tend to be more liberal than rural residents, who are famously conservative. This probably has more to do with the facts of life in the respective locations than anything else. That is, densely populated environments tend to foster an atmosphere of mutual dependence (because if they didn't, the 10,000,000 people packed into a small area would probably melt down), whereas farmers pretty much have to be self-reliant. In harvest season, you'll help your neighbor if you can, but your first priority is getting your own work done first because that's what's going to feed your family for the next year.
I don't think that either of these ways of living is inherently better; each is well-suited for its own niche. So, I think it's perfectly rational for rural populations to be more conservative than city populations.
If you buy that so far, then consider where educated people tend to go after they graduate. You just got a PhD in particle physics. Are you likely to move to a Midwestern town of 15,000? No. You're going to go where there are jobs for people with your qualifications, and that pretty much exclusively means a largish city. And when you get there, you'll probably find your politics sliding to the left to match those of your colleagues and neighbors that were already there.
I don't think intelligence directly maps to political leanings at all. I've personally known plenty of smart (and dumb) people on either end of the spectrum (or corner of the graph if you're a 2d-map fan). I do think, though, that your intelligence has an effect on where you'll live, and you're place of residence has a large effect on your political beliefs.
So, I'll stick with my original statement that educated people tend to vote for Kerry.
PS. My wife and I are both educated (her: DPM, me: BS) conservatives. If you interpret my message to say that Kerry supporters are smarter, then you missed the entire point.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Wages are earned, not given. They are earned by doing work for the value of the wage. Things really get messed up if someone outside sets the value of the wage without regard to the value of the work. Forcing companies to overpay workers at some government-set wage that has nothing to do with the work also demeans real work and turns the whole affair into a welfare program: a forced handout.
Every time the government arbitrarily sets the mininum wage to be higher, thousands of people end up losing their jobs, as it forces companies to try to get by without low-end jobs. When I point it out to people who favor the "minimum wage", the typical response is that these jobs are worthless: a poor person is better off getting nothing, as compared to getting $17,000 a year.
As long as you are arbitrarily setting wages without regard to value, why not set the minimum wage to $1,000 an hour? It will make everyone a millionaire. Why stop at a low value?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Slow down a little there. What you're talking about is trashing systems which weigh districts differently, not trashing the Electoral College. The Electoral College is simply one, maniacly absurd method of doing that.
You can accomplish what you're talking about in any number of ways. Why stick with a bad one?
For instance, you know when the Electoral College was set up, you were voting for people to go to the College. When you cast your vote a couple of days ago, you were not (traditionally) voting for Bush or Kerry, you were voting for Fred Something to go to the College and vote for Bush or Kerry for you. Electors names used to be on the ballots in Illinois (my state) -- they're not anymore.
Think about this: Why break into 50 states for elections? If it's winner take all in the states, why not break the country into 3 zones. Make it winner take all in those. Or just 1 zone. Whoops, wait, that would just be a popular election. Wouldn't it make sense to break into smaller zones, not larger? In what way does having all of California in one zone make sense? This would allow more resolution to aid rural areas, not less.
The College needs an overhaul. Rural and urban centers need a balance method. These are not mutually exclusive.
How to understand the presidential election results.
If you haven't read any books about U.S. politics, then you probably don't know much about the activities of the U.S. government.
You cannot rely for information on TV or newspapers, or any advertising-supported media. Advertising-supported media exists to make money, not to inform. Advertisers are understandably careful not to alienate anyone. It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion of government activities only by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one candidate over another.
It's a fact that Bush supporters often have a poor understanding of his actions rather than what he wants people to believe. One example of support for this is the following article: Bush Supporters Misread Many of His Foreign Policy Positions.
The U.S. government is corrupted by extreme conflict of interest. Please don't moderate this down just because you disagree. I can support my position with links to 3 movies and 35 books: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
For a quicker overview, see this article: 100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration.
The county-by-county results showing not only who won, but the number, are extremely interesting. So is the USA Today result map. They show what might be expected. Those who live in rural counties vote for Bush. In the past century, the more intelligent, educated, and ambitious people have migrated away from the farms to places with more opportunities. The less educated have stayed behind. Those who live in rural counties are less likely to read, and therefore are not well-informed.
Those who don't read are fooled by Karl Rove's lies. Here are books about Karl Rove's methods:
Boy Genius: Karl Rove, The brains behind the remarkable political triumph of George W. Bush by Lou Dubose, Jan Reid, and Carl M. Cannon, 2003, PublicAffairs. Reviews: Powell's Barnes & Noble Amazon
Part of the secret of Karl Rove's success is that U.S. voters don't want to believe there is widespread corruption in their government. Lies that are extreme and unrelenting enough are accepted.
President George W. Bush has a habit of giving disrespectful nicknames to those with whom he works. "Boy Genius" is one of Mr. Bush's nicknames for Karl Rove. Mr. Bush also calls Karl Rove, "Turd Blossom". The term refers to a flower that grows in the feces of a cow.
Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove made George W. Bush presidential by James Moore and Wayne Slater, 2003, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA. Reviews: Powell's Barnes & Noble Amazon
One of the Amazon reviews quotes the book: "Karl Rove matters to all Americans, many who have never even heard his name. While the president chafes at the description of Rove as 'Bush's Brain,' he can hardly deny that every policy
That's assuming that education is a measure of intelligence. IMHO it's a measure of how well you can do what you are told. I have found that I get the best grades when I assume the instructors ideals. Writing papers or answering questions from that point of view is the surest way to an A.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
"There were a lot of people who voted for all the wrong reasons. But there are also a large number of people who thought about the decision at hand before making it. Insulting them only distances them further from you.
Yes, IHBT, and IHL, but it bothers me when people do this shit (which isn't to say the Right doesn't do it also... another reason I voted for Badnarik). HAND."
Speaking of iritating things.
"(Conservative columnist in the liberal-leaning Boston Globe gives advice
to Democrats: hatred doesn't win)
HATRED LOST.
For four years, Americans watched and listened as President Bush was
demonized with a savagery unprecedented in modern American politics. For
four years they saw him likened to Hitler and Goebbels, heard his
supporters called brownshirts and racists, his administration dubbed "the
43d Reich." For four years they took it all in: "Bush" spelled with a
swastika instead of an `s,' the depictions of the president as a drooling
moron or a homicidal liar, the poisonous insults aimed at anyone who might
consider voting for him. And then on Tuesday they turned out to vote and
handed the haters a crushing repudiation.
Bush was reelected with the highest vote total in American history. He is
the first president since 1988 to win a majority of the popular vote. He
increased his 2000 tally by 8 million votes and saw his party not only
keep its majorities in the House and Senate but enlarge them. And he did
it all in the face of an orgy of hatred.
The smears and rancor were bottomless and venomous. Michael Moore accused
Bush of being in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. George Soros said the
president's policies reminded him of the Nazis. Cameron Diaz warned that
if Bush was reelected, rape would become legal. Randi Rhodes told her
radio audience that Bush, like Fredo in "The Godfather," should be taken
out and shot. Whoopi Goldberg headlined a New York fund-raiser in which
Bush was called a "thug" and a "killer." Howard Dean speculated publicly
about the "interesting theory" that Bush knew what was going to happen on
Sept. 11 but kept silent.
The novelist Nicholson Baker went so far as to publish a novel that
revolves around Bush's possible assassination.
John Kerry never sank to that level of slime, but he never repudiated it,
either. Instead of condemning the foul things said about Bush at that New
York fund-raiser, for example, Kerry told the audience that "every
performer tonight . . . conveyed to you the heart and soul of our
country."
If Kerry had urged his supporters to speak about Bush with the same
courtesy they would want Bush's supporters to speak about him, voters
would have been impressed. If he had made it clear that he is disgusted
when Bush is compared to Hitler or Mussolini and ashamed that such
comparisons could be made by people backing him, he would have won the
public's admiration. If he had insisted that Michael Moore leave the
Democratic convention instead of being given a place of honor next to
Jimmy Carter, he would have been rewarded with a surge in the polls.
Instead he said nothing -- and the voters noticed.
Bush-bashers reveled in their animosity -- many openly and proudly
embraced the word "hatred" -- but I wondered all along whether they
weren't driving away far more voters than they were attracting. "Their
unabashed loathing may energize and excite them, but they are doing their
candidate and their country no favors," I wrote in this space in July.
"For most Americans, hatred is a political turn-off." Now that the object
of their malevolence has won more votes than any previous president, will
they consider giving up the politics of hatred in favor of something
healthier and more constructive?
And now that the electorate has once again chosen to keep control of the
White House and both houses of Congress in Republican hands, will the
Democratic Party take a long hard look
Not really--the map is still quite red! It would be neat to see this done in a cartogram style, where the size of each county/state is scaled to the population.
As a conservative, let me tell you that I'm not racist. By-and-large, conservatives are not racist.
That we're percieved as such, however, says a *lot* about the prejudices held by those who would call us racist. To which I can only respond with, "Dumbasses, heal thyself."
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Moderators should be required to pass a multiple-choice test that shows they understand the moderation system. Moderation is not meant to suppress someone else's opinion, but it is being used that way.
A "Troll" is someone who intentionally posts misleading information. The Troller does not believe what he is saying.
"Flamebait" is a comment posted with an intent to start a pointless argument.
The parent comment is, "It just shows what everyone has known... that ignorant hick-country rednecks vote for Shrub."
I don't agree with the comment, but it is not a Troll or Flamebait.
I intensely disagree with the opinion in the link provided in the parent comment. However, should it have been suppressed by modding as Flamebait? If you have been reading about international affairs, you know this is the opinion of literally hundreds of millions of people:
Four more years of garbage.
Four more years of bullshit, lies, mass deception.
Four more years where the world, hopefully, will tell the damn stupid yankees to go fuck themselves in their warped country.
Four more years of those same damn stupid yankees making fools of themselves by being the terminally stupid assholes they are.
Oussama Bin Laden! the world needs you more than ever. Get your marbles together, and with a bit of imagination, you can cut the whole oil supply to the United States of America, and either bring those stupid yankees down on their knees, or make them adopt a much less ruinous way of life that is more respectful of the planet.
Go, Oussama! Go sink those oil tankers plying the sea!
Go sever that thin lifeline that keeps those stupid yankees alive!
The planet will be eternally grateful once you bring those fuckers down.
So "geographically" is meaningless in this case.
Again, land does not vote. Only people vote.
So comparing the 2-dimensional areas is meaningless.
For the third time, land does not vote. So the population of NYC is out-voting the population of the rest of the state. In other words, "democracy".
Are you familiar with the term "gerrymandering"?
How about if we break it down further so that each person gets his/her "representative vote the way that" person voted? I can support that, but I cannot support a system that would be so open to gerrymandering abuses.
1. It's not a GW thing. Neither his father, nor reagan actually shrank government. They both talked a great game and then continued to grow the fed to monstrous proportions. In fact, the slowest growth of government has occurred under Clinton in recent memory.
2. Abortion is still legal because of the supreme court. And GW wants real bad to change it. Your little comment about "primary birth control" shows that you too have been buying the RR's propaganda. Well done. There is no prohibition of moments of silence, only group prayer by state run institutions.
3. The RR inflates the anti-gay numbers dramatically. I think you understimate how many religious people are out there. If any significant proportion of non-religious people agreed with them on the issue, the numbers would be and are large.
4. They havent' succeeded at too much in the way of moral leglislation, except pushing abstinence only teaching programs and funding religious groups under the "faith based initiatives". However GW wants a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BASED ON MORAL ISSUES, you noticed that? Stem cells, ring a bell? You don't think these things point to a mindset of leglislating morality? Head, meet sand.
5. Intolerance is intolerance. Gays, blacks, what have you, it's all rooted in the same shit. Republicans orchestrated, among other things, tougher sentances on crack cocaine than powder cocaine (guess which demographics use which) even though crack is a LESS POTENT variety of pure cocaine. Just the first example that pops to mind.
6. The RNC has some moderates in their fold. I would vote for McCain in a heartbeat. However their policy under GW is heavily swinging to the RR's agendas, and if you can't see that by now, you are actively avoiding the obvious.
7. I did not say all republicans were racist. I said their agendas are being influenced by people who make them look racist. I guess you don't see it. It's there. I also did not say all conservatives were religious, but it is an undeniable... well, if you have any sanity or reason whatsoever... to note that the party platform has been heavily influenced to appeal to the RR. The constituency does not make the entire party, but it certainly does influence the party platform, and that is almost as bad in this case.
Not only does land not vote, but people within cities are going to be far more impacted by social policies than people out in the sticks.
Cities are the melting pot for our society. We must accomodate the needs of high-density populations at higher priority than of low-density populations.
When you live out in the middle of nowhere, you aren't as likely to encounter people of different faiths, different lifestyles, different levels of education, different beliefs. Yes, yes, there is a level of variety, but it's nowhere near as extreme or as concentrated as within a city.
Now note that most of the population centres voted overwhelmingly Democratic: a political party that is better-adjusted to the realistic needs of city-dwellers.
You want a happy country? Best to pay attention to what's happening in the cities, because that's where the tensions build up and break through. You don't get rioting in Podunk; you get rioting in LA, New York, Seattle: the places where decisions are made and people have to deal with one another.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Why should less densely populated areas be favored even more than they already are?
New York State population distribution works like this:
19 M total
NYC: just over 8 Mil
LI: just over 3 Mil
Westchester just under 1 Mil
That's just about 12 Mil, or well over half the state. We can deduct about 1/2 Mil from that, since Staten Island went to Bush, (1/2 Mil is more than the population of Wyoming, notably) but the remaining NY counties that went to Kerry probably cover that 1/2 Mil.
The rest of the state went mostly for Bush, but that accounts for 7 Mil. Why should those 7 Million people be able to outvote the other 12? Because they take up more space?
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
These are, of course, displaying different information.
The picture you've linked to is displaying county-by-county presidential preference percentages, which is totally fascinating.
The picture in the story displays county-by-county presidential victors by population, which is also totally fascinating.
Can these guys collaborate or something? I kindof want to see the nighttime lights superimposed on the purple map.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
In the old days, cities were where the factories were located. In order to find work, most people came to cities like Philadelphia to find jobs, whether in manufacturing, shipping, ports, etc. When the socialist movement swept through a century ago to improve the working conditions of those workers, they were the strongest supporters, and that was handed down the generations to today's citizens.
Fast foward to today, where most of the nation's industrial work has fled the higher taxes (and tigher environmental laws) of the cities to the rural areas. The cities are now home to many social programs, such as welfare, that are harder to manage in the urban areas (economy of scale, not as efficient if population is distributed).
Modern conservatives hold the belief of independence from the state, that they want to control their own destinies and not be told what to do by the government. Over time, many conservatives have left the establishments to start their own communities farther away from those that would oppress them (with things like high taxes, underrepresentation, etc)
Education levels would be roughly equal. It is a myth that liberals are higher educated, given that they are much more socially divided than conservatives are.. you have the rich highly-educated liberals along side the poor under-educated liberals who live off of social programs. Conservatives have a more equal average education level without this social divide.
Church percentages is again harder to estimate, though I would say slightly higher in the rural areas. Massachusetts has a very strong Christian Democrat estabishment, esp around Boston & the east (see Kennedys). Also, many of the urban minority democrats in the cities also happen to be strong Baptists, they are just more willing to put aside their religious convictions for (perceived) political gain.
Let's say that many Black families have their roots in the South. White folk in the South are typically perceived by Black folk as being potentially bigoted. Awareness of the possibility is always there. In some cases, it could literally be considered a survival instinct.
White people with money are trusted even less. Many southern Whites tend towards the Republican party. Many people with money also tend to be Republican.
So it all comes down to these guys not trusting anything that those guys support. How do you break a reflex created by hundreds of years of training? Should you? And if so, why?
Spelling, grammar, punctuation? We need something that checks logic.
As a conservative, let me tell you that I'm not racist. By-and-large, conservatives are not racist.
That we're percieved as such, however, says a *lot* about the prejudices held by those who would call us racist.
If I see you, as a conservative individual, and say "oh, you must be a racist!", that is prejudice.
It is not prejudiced to note overall trends. You are correct in noting that most self-described conservatives are not racists. In fact, on the contrary- as a group conservatives in America seem to have an idealized vision of their nation that views racism as a thing of the past, a former problem that has largely been fixed by now, and as individuals they fancy themselves to be racially color-blind.
But extremely few racists actually describe themselves as racists. They overwhelmingly prefer the word conservative.
Reagan cut things that were needed too, like alternative energy tax credits. Course it didn't bite us during his administration, but we are starting to now and it's going to get much worse very shortly. He also dramatically inflated our prison systems with his "zero tolerance" drug policies, to the point where our incarceration rates are through the roof. You may see diverting funds from social programs to guns, jails, and voodoo economic policies as a good thing. It does not, however, shrink our government. It does grow huge deficits. Deficit spending is fine during a recession. However it does need to be balanced out as well. Republicans have not demonstrated that they realize this. So you prefer to hand off massive debt to our children rather than behave responsibly, good for you.
GW is anti Roe V Wade. Your own party believes this. here, check it out: http://bush2004.meetup.com/345/ maybe you weren't at that meeting. Bitching about abortion as "primary birth control" is a straw man. Some women exist who do this I'm sure. Ask any woman who admits to having had an abortion, however, and you would know it is not a decision that is pleasant or taken lightly. It is a gut wrenching issue for women. My own mother, in fact, had one, and attempted to give me up for adoption. Luckily for my mom and I, she had a mother willing to help when she couldn't go through with it. But she couldn't have raised two children, we struggled as it was, and rather than go on welfare my mom made the choice she needed to in order to be able to actually care for the child she had. I have never in my life met a woman who had the attitude that they didn't need birth control because they could just go off and get an abortion. I have met several, however, that are not sucking off of welfare or living lives of poverty because safe abortion was an option.
"Ethical" vs "Moral" is code for the same crap; promoting the fundamentalist christian agenda as somehow morally or ethically superior to making pragmatic decisions regarding the health of our nation. Drop the semantics.
Relying on abstinence only teaching is a joke; it doesn't work, and it prevents our teens from being educated as to how they can actually protect themselves when they have sex. And they will. They have been since the dawn of time, and they will continue to do so, whether or not our society is thinking that childhood lasts longer and longer or not, puberty begs to differ with our laws.
You keep trying to say that I am calling all republicans religious. I am not. The republican platform is heavily influenced by the christians. Please keep it straight. Yes, there are atheists that agree with christian ideals, but six in ten americans identify themselves as religious, and you're trying to tell me this isn't a very significant fraction of the RNC? please.
re racism; no, the RNC did not force blacks to use crack. They noticed that blacks were using crack, and upped the sentences on it, when in fact it is less potent then the cocaine GW was using at Yale. Please explain to me why this made sense, since obviously there wasn't a racial component involved. Your computer crime analogy is another straw man; if all blacks used macs and whites used PC's, and computer crime on macs were punished more severely, then the analogy would hold true. If cocaine had been upped like crack, it would have at least been fair.
The "american people" you refer to is a large select subset. The RNC base. The RNC has chosen to be the RR's mouthpiece in government. Hey, it helped elect them, and those people deserve representation even if I personally have no respect whatsoever for their politics, but do not pretend the RNC has not taken this role. You can pretty it up all you like, but you are rubbing shoulders with the Mormons and the Holy Rollers in your RNC voting block.
Telling people their unions don't matter as much as someone else's is bigoted. It really is that simple. You may think the bigotry is justified,
The rural areas represent many independent views, while the urban areas represent a few views that are spread easily through highly concentrated populations and are grossly magnified by the skewed population sizes.
Sounds like you're trying to rationalize your way out of the data. Had the education data leaned more your way, you most likely would have embraced it.
This is just my opinion, mind you.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
It is not prejudiced to note overall trends.
So it's not prejudiced to say black men are more likely to be violent, since more black men are in jail for violent offenses than white men? If you find my comment prejudicial (which, really, you should, because it is), then you should realize yours is, too.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I think what you meant to say (sans caps) is "GW wants a constitutional amendment based on religious interpretation." That to me seems like a more apt description of the position in question. There are moral arguments on both sides of the stem cell and gay marriage debates, but those have been lost in the debate.
Stem cell was a code word for abortion in this presidential race. And Americans have moved on from denying rights based on gender and skin color to denying rights based on sexual orientation.
Such is the way of national progress.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
Yes, he used to be a member of the KKK in his youth. What does it have to do with anything now?
I love it. Democrats get all squirrelly because Strom Thurmond used to be in favor of segregation, though he later changed his stance. But bring up Robert Byrd and his recruiting efforts for the Klan and they brush it off as a "youthful indiscretion", never mind that Byrd never once recanted those efforts. Also keep in mind that as recently as 2001 Byrd prattled on about "n*****s" on Fox News. This is just one example of the callous attitude many Democrats have to other races. Walk into any union hall in the country, and you're likely to overhear any number of racist epithets. I guarantee you the same is not likely to happen in any given church, the Republican corollary to a union hall.
All of this is to prove my point: Democrats are more likely to be racist than Republicans, as evidenced by the fact that they've welcomed a Klansman into their midst. Kick Byrd out of your party, then you can start lecturing others on racism.
And don't even get me started on Jesse "hymie-town" Jackson.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.