Were you surprised by the results of the US elections? (NO spam)

[fable]

I wasn't. I didn't expect any showing from any of the third party candidates. My wife, who strongly prefers several of these, didn't vote for them, because she says they can't win. I expected the country to move even further into neo-con hands, because their campaign focused on hate and fear, while Kerry had no vision to offer: only a moderately conservative rehash. And finally, because the Democrats have been rudderless for more than a quarter of a century, while the Republicans have a plan that has never worked...but at least, it's a plan.

I figure, it's best for the US the way it happened, and this is what I've been saying around our house for weeks. (Though not for long at any time. We both are very disgusted with American politics.) The enormous deficit Bush has racked up would have been blame on Kerry if he'd gotten into office; as it is, the blame for the next four years of dead troops, dead Iraqis, mismanaged funds, lost jobs, and lost liberties will be blamed on the neo-cons. I don't see how they can massage this one into the opposite, except for the most fanatical and diehard of their footling troops.

Over to you. Please stay on topic.

[dragon wench]

No, I'm not surprised...
I admit however, even though I am disgusted by the US electoral system (I mean, for one, it is not even controlled by a central, Federal body! ) and the lack of any real choice in terms of candidates... I was hoping Kerry would get in. IMO, the world is a far more dangerous place than it was prior to Bush Junior's 'reign of terror'... Another four years? This makes me very worried.

I think you are right though Fable, in that now only Bush can be blamed for the deficit, the deaths in Iraq, lost liberties etc. Perhaps this is the proverbial silver lining...

Nonetheless, this is one instance where I think it a positive thing that US presidents cannot run for office more than twice... Though God only knows what batch of morons there will be to choose from next time around....

[Nippy]

Not surprised at all actually, I think that a lot of America is still angered at 11/09 and the main problem is that the people who are angry at Bush and show that they are are the politically active - there are a lot who just haven't shown that they care and have voted Republican, I mean, lets face it, the Democrats by nature are hardly like to reduce taxation and return money to the people.

I liked this map the BBC created to show the distribution of results - it shows the breakdown well I thought.

[Coot]

I wasn't exactly surprised... Kerry was always slightly behind in most polls.
I'm worried about a number of possible ramifications. This election seems to have divided the American people more than ever before (well, maybe except that time when you guys had that civil war ), what will the effects be? How are the Democrats going to recover? How will it affect the next elections, will they be even more nasty and rough?

[fable]

@Coot, the neo-con movement is such that it automatically divides people, and inspires strong emotion. It is as close as the US has come since the 19th century to a fullscale cult, at least by its traditional definition:

1) Its claims are not backed by any facts,

2) Its world view is black-and-white,

3) It believes in preemptive attacks on its perceived enemies,

4) It regards deception as a weapon in the pursuit of its objectives,

5) Its goals are based on some mythical, unattainable ideal,

6) Its members are fanatics who are impervious to logic.

If someone were to walk up to you and say that since your views differ from theirs, you're a wifebeater, and that they're going to write your boss to get you fired, you'd probably get angry in response. The political polarization caused by neo-cons follows a similar experience, but on a national level. They don't simply change policies, as other groups have upon achieving political power in the past. They proclaim it with fervor beforehand, they do it and boast about it, and they chortle openly with delight over all their foes who have lost out. They bait those of other political persuasions, who in the US, because of the winner-take-all system, remain powerless. The neo-cons are, in this respect, the final, most extroverted result of such a system.

I don't know that the US can ever back away from its current path of polarization. The detente of Democrats and Republicans which existed in general cordiality when they worked together for three-quarters of a century is irreperably broken. Even when the neo-con dreams are revealed as nightmares, that will still leave the Republicans with no better alternative to get elected. They will have to keep pushing that button, unless they want to search for new constituencies and new solutions. And they are, in the final analysis, as intellectually bankrupt as their Democratic opponents.

[Galuf the Dwarf]

I wasn't surprised either, but it's not like the world is DEFINTELY DOOMED, either. Come on, what good is worrying if the future can just as well go the other way? Who's to say that the richer will DEFINITELY begetting richer and the poorer are getting poorer, or that the world will DEFINITELY burn up and be ruined eternally by pollution? There is the possibility, but like a certain saying went,

The only thing known about the future is uncertainty.

Call me optimistic, but there's no good worrying about what you don't see forecoming, since you may just as well get bolstered as get damaged by it.

BTW, DW, would you mind checking your PM again?

[C Elegans]

I was surprised last time, and I am even more surprised this time. My poor wits cannot fathom how Americans can support Bush now when there is visible, concrete evidence of what his actions have led to in terms of creating conflicts, manipulating the American people to support his invasions of foreign states, etc, etc...not that I believe Kerry would have changed a lot, but the kind of religious fanatism combined with aggressive imperialistis the Bush administration has demonstrated, is far more dangerous for the rest of the world as well as for America itself I think.

[Rob-hin]

I predicted it.
Re-election is most probably in most cases.

The good thing is that Bush has to fix his own mess now, not that he's capable of doing so though.

It's true that non-americans can't imagine why he is re-elected, I'm even at a blurr about that. Someone (American, perferably who has voted for Bush) has to tell me why Most Americans (and him or her) did so. I'm not trying to be funny or anything, I really want to know.

[VonDondu]

Yes, I was surprised that the alternatives to Bush (Democrat, third-party, write-ins, etc.) did not receive more total votes than Bush. I expected more people to vote against Bush. It appears that many if not most Americans believe that: 1) only the people who got us into the mess we're in can get us out of it, or 2) Bush has never made any mistakes, or 3) nothing is ever Bush's fault. It's hard for me to imagine why so many people believe that Bush was the best candidate for President.

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VonDondu It's hard for me to imagine why so many people believe that Bush was the best candidate for President.

It's even more hard for us European's to imagine But I'm trying to look at it like Fable describes in his opening post.

@Fable: In discussions of contemporary history of ideas and philosophy, it is often pointed out that one of the greatest differences between the US and Europe, is the polarisation v. pluralism of ideas. Many different explanatory factors have been presented, like the two-party system v.parliamentarism (but the UK also have a similar winner-takes-it all system).

Of course those who gain (in this case the Neo-cons) from a polarised system will maintain it - but where and how did it origin, do you know?

[VonDondu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by C Elegans My poor wits cannot fathom how Americans can support Bush now when there is visible, concrete evidence of what his actions have led to... not that I believe Kerry would have changed a lot...

There's also a lot of evidence that the Bush administration is very deceptive, or even if you give them the benefit of the doubt, self-deluded. Now that Bush has won the popular vote, his rationalizations and self-justification can only get worse. I don't know what he's capable of doing with a head that big. I'm surprised that so many people trust him to be our President.

Frankly, I don't think that Kerry could get us out of the mess we're in. I don't know if anyone can at this point. Furthermore, if Kerry were President, he would be under constant attack from the "disloyal opposition". We saw what the opposition is capable of when Clinton was President, and it would be just as ugly, if not worse, if Kerry were President. Just as people think that Bush can do no wrong because he's a Republican, people think that Kerry can't do anything right just because he's a Democrat. That is the simple truth about modern politics in America.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by C Elegans Of course those who gain (in this case the Neo-cons) from a polarised system will maintain it - but where and how did it origin, do you know?

Polarization, the "either you're with me, or against me" mentality, is alas ingrained in the US mentality--just as it is in Russia. (I've often suspected one reason for the violent antagonism between the Soviet and the US was the fact that the two cultures are in many ways very similar.) It started with some of the most powerful and persuasive of American colonies, the Pilgrims in Massachusetts, and the proto-French planter society of the Southeast. Both were fueled by zealots: the Pilgrims, by religious bigotry they held for all differing views, and the planters, by an equally zealous (if seemingly self-contradictory) ideology derived from the French Revolution. Each saw the rest of the world in terms of complete acceptance for their way of life and beliefs, or complete opposition.

The federal government that eventually evolved only furthered this perception of deep division and mutually antagonistic viewpoints, with a tendency to great bitterness because the loser in any election or floor vote received nothing in compensation. Winning became all that mattered. Whereas the modern European represenative model (it must be remembered, this was not present back in the 18th or 19th centuries) emphasized compromise because of the power it gave to small interests, the powerlessness of small interests in the US led naturally to coalescing into major, antagonistic parties.

[Winter]

Surprised? Definitely not. Read why. A lot of people will most likely turn a blind eye towards this article, which is sad of course, but no surprise. Hopefully, some SYMians will remember Greg Palast (author of the article linked to) from the last election and his many articles. If not, do visit his website at www.gregpalast.com. IMO one of the most trustworthy and should-be respected reporters of our time.

[Gwalchmai]

I was very surprised. But then again, I sometimes have a bio-modal personality that seems to swing toward extremes of optimism. Today, I am currently swinging the other way, and fear that I will remain there for quite some time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C Elegans My poor wits cannot fathom how Americans can support Bush now when there is visible, concrete evidence of what his actions have led to in terms of creating conflicts, manipulating the American people to support his invasions of foreign states, etc, etc...

I agree whole heartedly with this sentiment, except that I would point out that 56 million Americans didn't support him, and didn't vote for him. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough to trump the 59 million that did vote for him.

I would like to apologize to everyone right now, for I am feeling very thin-skinned these days. I am sure that I will take offence at anyone who lumps all Americans together as supporters of Bush and Bush's policies. I, my wife, and most of our friends do not deserve such an insult.

[Paranitis]

I also am not surprised at the results of the election. When you look at it though, the line between 'libs' and 'neo-cons' is disappearing. They are both extremist morons.

On politicalcompass it showed Kerry and Bush REALLY close to eachother on the chart, and that to didn't seem to surprise me either.

I think we need a good old fashioned civil war with muskets and cannons and stuff now..and knowing how awesome I am with strategy, I would get a +1 bonus to attack from having higher ground!