Sunday, October 1, 2006
i like maps
I like the maps - I always like maps. They're nice to look at and they provide information visually, sometimes showing things we might not see otherwise. On the other hand, fallacies can result from overly simplistic presentation. In Friday's post at Dadvocate, yet another interesting piece of his, 'dad' muses about several maps describing the 2004 election. It's the third map, "Outside the Beltway", 
that made me want to say something. Its presenters label blue (Kerry) parts as "larger metropolitan areas". But look at them. See how hugely blue Maine and New Hampshire are? Okay, but tell me how where Maine and NH have any large metropolitan areas. Or southern New Mexico and Texas. Or....
What it comes down to, of course, is that somehow many people still feel irked by the 2004 election. I'm not sure why it's so hard for them to accept that the simple fact is that most voters simply preferred Bush's ideas and plans. People who didn't like Clinton or Reagan dealt with those elections without becoming psychotic, after all. Our country is founded on the idea that most people have a fundamental intelligence and good will, isn't it? Thomas Jefferson believed that if you give people the opportunity to make choices about their lives, they will do so well. Isn't that what democracy is all about? Let's face it, there's no box-like explanation for why people vote the way they do. In 2004 we listened and made choices. For some (still inexplicable) reason, this caused more frustration than usual for those who did not vote for the person who won the election.
that made me want to say something. Its presenters label blue (Kerry) parts as "larger metropolitan areas". But look at them. See how hugely blue Maine and New Hampshire are? Okay, but tell me how where Maine and NH have any large metropolitan areas. Or southern New Mexico and Texas. Or....What it comes down to, of course, is that somehow many people still feel irked by the 2004 election. I'm not sure why it's so hard for them to accept that the simple fact is that most voters simply preferred Bush's ideas and plans. People who didn't like Clinton or Reagan dealt with those elections without becoming psychotic, after all. Our country is founded on the idea that most people have a fundamental intelligence and good will, isn't it? Thomas Jefferson believed that if you give people the opportunity to make choices about their lives, they will do so well. Isn't that what democracy is all about? Let's face it, there's no box-like explanation for why people vote the way they do. In 2004 we listened and made choices. For some (still inexplicable) reason, this caused more frustration than usual for those who did not vote for the person who won the election.
Labels: blogs (others'), places
Permalink | 
| posted by jau at 9:11 AM
mkfreeberg — at 2:43 PM, October 02, 2006:
DADvocate — at 5:08 PM, October 02, 2006:
| posted by jau at 9:11 AM
4 more:
mkfreeberg — at 2:43 PM, October 02, 2006:
I'm not sure why it's so hard for them to accept [but] the simple fact is that most voters simply preferred Bush's ideas and plans.
That is so well said.
As is the case with most things, the straightest path with the least extravagant presumptions in place will lead you to the most solid and certain conclusion, which is yours. But there seem to be millions and millions of people walking around who would prefer using Occam's toilet brush instead. Attack dogs, Diebold, skulduggery in Ohio, stupid NASCAR-watching rednecks.
Democrats have really become the anti-humility party. They want to be all cocky and confident they'll win that 218th seat in the house -- they're so sure of it -- but if you were to ask them "why don't you try to get 290 seats?" they'd just give you a blank stare. No, the goal is 218 because they, themselves, know they can't realistically hope for much more than that. They want their 50.01%, but somehow when it turns out to be 49.99% instead they're oh-so-sure it's a conspiracy at work. To suppose that perhaps they have some work to do and some things to fix, and say it out loud, is to ask to be kicked out of the Democrat club.
So easy to admit "Republicans are leaving us an opening and we're failing to take advantage of it" -- but nobody will admit to a MISTAKE or identify a leader who made a mistake. Nor will a reporter ask anyone such a question, of course. Simply amazing.
That is so well said.
As is the case with most things, the straightest path with the least extravagant presumptions in place will lead you to the most solid and certain conclusion, which is yours. But there seem to be millions and millions of people walking around who would prefer using Occam's toilet brush instead. Attack dogs, Diebold, skulduggery in Ohio, stupid NASCAR-watching rednecks.
Democrats have really become the anti-humility party. They want to be all cocky and confident they'll win that 218th seat in the house -- they're so sure of it -- but if you were to ask them "why don't you try to get 290 seats?" they'd just give you a blank stare. No, the goal is 218 because they, themselves, know they can't realistically hope for much more than that. They want their 50.01%, but somehow when it turns out to be 49.99% instead they're oh-so-sure it's a conspiracy at work. To suppose that perhaps they have some work to do and some things to fix, and say it out loud, is to ask to be kicked out of the Democrat club.
So easy to admit "Republicans are leaving us an opening and we're failing to take advantage of it" -- but nobody will admit to a MISTAKE or identify a leader who made a mistake. Nor will a reporter ask anyone such a question, of course. Simply amazing.
< home >
DADvocate — at 5:08 PM, October 02, 2006:
I'm not sure if you're referring to myself but I didn't intend to imply that only larger metropolitan areas went to Kerry, or that Bush didn't carry any metropolitan areas.
My words: "the division seems to be more along the lines of rural areas and smaller cities supporting Bush vs. larger metropolitan areas." (Emphasis added)
I was pointing towards a trend. I live in rural area myself. City slickers often have gross misconceptions about rural/Southern/MidWestern folks, a la Michael Totten and Knoxville, "Since Knoxville is in the South I would have expected, oh I don’t know, a statue of a Confederate something-or-other in the middle of the city. Instead of a monument to anything old, dead, slave-holding, and male I found a memorial to women’s suffrage. "
My words: "the division seems to be more along the lines of rural areas and smaller cities supporting Bush vs. larger metropolitan areas." (Emphasis added)
I was pointing towards a trend. I live in rural area myself. City slickers often have gross misconceptions about rural/Southern/MidWestern folks, a la Michael Totten and Knoxville, "Since Knoxville is in the South I would have expected, oh I don’t know, a statue of a Confederate something-or-other in the middle of the city. Instead of a monument to anything old, dead, slave-holding, and male I found a memorial to women’s suffrage. "
< home >
< home >