Movie Trailers CanMag Title Bar
CanMag RSS Feeds
CanMag's Index of Films How Are Films Selected?

An End to the Claim that Bush Voters are DUMB

Published November 9, 2004 in ELECTION 2004
By Ryan Parsons | Main Source for image and statistics: CNN Election Results, visit the Drudge Report for links to other statistics
Bush and Kerry after a televised debate.
All right, I know we are done with the election process and the debates should be over. So, with the introduction of this new issue, I thought I'd include something that has been bothering me about the after election blues....

A Majority is Dumb?


I first started having reports sent to me quoting the Daily Mirror, a British TABLOID, that asks how can the majority of Americans [the majority that favored Bush on election] be so dumb. I thought next they were going to say Bush was an alien from another planet, but they havent... yet.

Back to the point-- I understand it is upsetting when your choice for president loses [especially during a period such as this], and loses to the point of no doubt on the election. With 31 of the states, and 3.7 million more popular votes than Kerry, there is no doubting that Bush won the election of 2004. Now, does it mean you should switch over and just start supporting what he is doing? Of course not. Can you go on bashing him [a popular thing to do] for how he stands or what he stands for, sure. Some times it is damn funny too.

But now it seems that the major question is how can 59,729,952 people be so dumb. That question is dumb. Just because the majority of people didn't go YOUR way, does not make them dumb. I thought this was a democracy where each person was entitled to his/her choice. So many excuses have come up [some slightly true, but then sent to an unimaginable extreme], that it is hard to tell what hurt Kerry or what helped Bush. But the major one is that there are the dumb and those with blind faith that caused Bush to have 3.7 million more votes than Kerry. It is unfair that Bush has the Southern belt while Kerry gets his guaranteed 55 votes from California [even though the race was closer than expected].

So, this proves that only the states, like California and New York, that show income [usually corresponding with intelligence] vote for Kerry. Well, this is just another way to say Bush voters are dumb. Now, lets consider this: the county of Orange in California, is rated as the 36th largest economy in the world, and is also considered an area of support for Bush. The Los Angeles 5-County Area, which includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties, if it ever were to become a country, would be ranked 10th largest economy in the world. Damn, there must be some smart people here. Well, lets look at the map on which of these counties supported each candidate.

Red is for Bush, Blue is for Kerry. The Los Angeles-5 is all red except for the county of Los Angeles.

Pretty interesting, a majority of the 10th largest economy in the world supported Bush. I am impressed that a bunch of dumb people were able to build such an economy. Is it the dumb people in California that voted for Kerry though? No, not at all. The people that voted for Kerry are the people that supported Kerry. They saw something in him that they preferred over re-electing Bush, that is all that is to it. They are not dumb, what they represent are those that disagree with the people who voted Bush; and that's it. But, lets continue the statements that the mainstream group is DUMB. Pretty good way to handle the election.

To continue [and to get away from voting statistics], I have received a lot of funny things about the misery of having Bush remain in office. Most made me laugh and launched easy debate. However, I was sent an email a little while back that is just disturbing. I am not going to post the whole thing but snippets here and there.

A Letter of Woe After Election 2004


First Snippet:
Kerry has conceded defeat, as I have. Even if someone finds that crate full of votes for Kerry bobbing down the Cuyahoga River, the American people have spoken, and they have sent the world a message: "We're barely bright enough to chew our own food."

So, first off, somehow Kerry lost because there are probably votes lost somewhere? Great start to any message: "my man lost... must be a conspiracy or in error." Second, as you can see, we have the common line: "people who voted Bush are stupid." I thought it was the Republicans polarizing the nation?

Let me respond to some of this by saying some messages actually heard by other nations. On news of Bush's victory, Putin [not part of coalition] states:
If Bush wins, then I can only feel joy that the American people did not allow itself to be intimidated, and made the most sensible decision

I am convinced that international terrorism gave itself the goal of not allowing the re-election of Bush. The statement by bin Laden in the final stages of the pre-election campaign is the best confirmation of this...

Bush has proved to be a firm man, with a strong character, and a coherent policy...

Bush will continue with the policy that assigns the United States the role of defender and promoter of freedom and democracy

The continuation on Bush's part of American policy represents an advantage for us...


He never said, lucky for America that the DUMB turned out and voted. I do not know, but these statements do not sound bad necessarily. But, I do know this does not represent other groups. Such as the "eighty percent of the French that would have voted Kerry". I like these statistics too. It is like a conservative saying, "100% of terrorists are voting for Kerry". Interesting, but has no part in an American election.

Second Snippet:
Incompetence, incoherence, inarticulateness, pettiness and random savagery apparently do not deter the majority of Americans. The thing that really, REALLY matters to Americans? Homos. And foreigners. Both must be stopped at any cost. Americans voted overwhelmingly in favor of bigotry, amending state constitutions around the country to prevent same-sex couples from having any rights beyond the right to live on the margins of society. We clearly have far more to fear from The International Homosexual Conspiracy(tm)...

First, I would like to say that I am not against homosexuality in one bit. I also have no problem being called a metrosexual. If the same-sex couples want some type of license that symbolizes their union, sure. Does it have to occur, or hurt, the sanctity of a church? I do not think so. There are other ways to get a liscense then going directly through religion. Anyway, on to taking a look at this snippet...

About gays, it has been told that the amount of involvement by gays on the Republican side [conservative gays?] has been increasing. I do admit that George Bush may be giving the party a kick to the teeth by supporting a strict ban on gay marriages; something that has caused a lot of gay republicans to feel betrayed and disassociated by their party. Again, I feel it is wrong to have such strict policy on an issue such as this. The Republican party, even though it is starting to feel the increase in homosexual involvement, has to realize that they can be cutting out a growing group.

The part about foreigners is interesting too. I do not see this issue one sided with either candidate, but to say that this is why Bush got elected is kind of awkward too. Wasn't it Kerry claiming a better close down of incoming human traffic from the borders? Claiming his plan will do a better job than Bush? I remember him claiming this, but can honestly say that I do not know if Kerry made this point anywhere near a central issue in his campaign. But, what I do know, is that the Republican Party gained in votes from black and the spanish populations. Something that has the Democrats scratching their heads. Some blacks even went on to state that they are tired of the Democratic party expecting they have their vote with little appreciation. Probably a little extreme here, but there were some interesting switches going on for Election 2004. A higher turnout of voters was expected to clinch the victory for Kerry, but it backfired and sealed the deal for Bush.

I was watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart with the special guest being Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer. He also mentions the shifts of minorites leaving the Democratic Party to support Bush. Schumer continued to say that the Democratic party has a lot of thinking to do in order to see where they went wrong and to prevent further losses to the Republican Party. [*I would also like to note that Jon Stewart admits that a liberal majority controls the media] In conclusion, Schumer admits that the Democratic Party has to do some thinking and maybe some restructuring of its party and policies. A good look into the future, see where things went wrong and right and continue from there. He never once stopped and said that the Democrats must have lost due to stupid people. He is stating a realization-- Bush caught the mainstream. Even with a war and a down economy, people saw Bush as the better candidate. How can the Democratic party improve on this? Senator Chuck Schumer looks on with promise, not defeat, and that is something to have respect for.

Third Snippet:
...awed only by grotesque displays of wealth and violence, reverent only of the bossman and beholden not even to our children, since we seem content to mortgage their future in favor of a $300 tax refund that we have traded for decent jobs, healthcare, and a just society...

As has been noted on multiple occassions previous to the election, the tax cuts did favor the companies, the rich, and the corporations. So, here is that complaint again, but now it talks about 'jobs' within the same sentence as tax cuts. Corporations with more money are given more room to invest and grow; which is a perk as long as the investment remains within the nation and a fair portion stays out of saving tools such as accounts and bonds. What does this increase in money do? It can do a lot, including increasing/retaining the number of 'jobs.' But what if the company decides to grow and out-sources certain tasks and projects? Well, as long as it remains within the US, the out-sourced company gains and can use the money to keep or gain employment. There is a transaction occurring here, a transaction required for a successful economy and a successful job rate. So, complaining about a tax cut and jobs in the same sentence can be close to shouting out an oxymoron. Another point mentioned is healthcare, which I think everybody agrees needs work; so, touche.

A good portion of the next part of the message compares the US to an orangutan that the writer must apologize for. He then reaches out to apologize to the United Kingdom and France specifically. We should apologize to France but not in the sense mentioned in the message. As the country had investment interests in Iraq that risked being forfeited on a coalition effort against the country, it stood against the war. So, we could maybe say: "France, we apologize that you lost money by the invasion of Iraq due to investments you had in the country... tough break. We also apologized in your case to Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi, who you intentionally snubbed and, instead, were able to catch Arafat at his bedside." However, I wonder if the US would have been as anxious to go into Iraq if they had similar investments.

Fourth Snippet:
The best I can offer you is to remind you that Nixon also won a second term.

I would like to follow up and say that Reagan also won a second term. However unpopular during his time, Reagon was able to end the cold war, leave an administration with the Berlin Wall toppling, put a freeze on medium range nuclear missiles with Russia, and befriend [in the best sense] the Russian President, Gorbachev. So, there is hope to everybody who feels defeated. It is amazing how different a period looks when you are finally given the chance to look back on it.

In a final note, there are many complaints on why people did not vote on Kerry. These people weren't just dumb; they just saw Bush as the better choice. Maybe it was the fact that Kerry claimed he was all about increasing the CIA, eventhough he was in support for every downsizing of the organization during Clinton's administration. Maybe it was because the people could not trust his 'global test'; a test that did not pass his standards in 1992 when the UN asked the US to join a coalition against a country that invaded Kuwaitt [Kerry voted NO]. Maybe it was because Kerry was considered inpredictable, or too far to the left. Or, maybe it was cause Kerry only attended about 10% of the house intelligence meetings after the 9-11 attacks with his VP having a similar record. Maybe it was because Kerry was avidly against the war initially voted for, and later said he knew the US was in for the long haul. Who knows!!!

Or, maybe it is just cause the majority [ALL those who went Bush] of the voters are DUMB. As always, your pick.



WHEW!!! This article is to turn heads and raise some debate. What do you think?
You Like? (Bookmarks)
Add to Heffee!
Compiled By (Sources)
Ryan Parsons
Sources: Main Source for image and statistics: CNN Election Results, visit the Drudge Report for links to other statistics
Contact

Related Articles
© 2004 Minds Eye One, All Rights Reserved
The Can Magazine™ is a trademark of Minds Eye One
All movie titles, movie icons, movie stills/clips/trailers/other media... are registered trademarks and/or copyrights of stated holders
CanMag.Com banners contain movie/gaming icons that were created by individual holders
Home > Etcetera > An End to the Claim that Bush Voters are DUMB
Search

CanMag Web