The Novak column today, had a corker,
Illinois also appears to be getting eliminated from serious consideration in the battle between George W. Bush and John Kerry for the presidency because of a change in the way the state is perceived. No longer a classic swing state that could go either way and produce famous standoffs in 1960 and 1976, Illinois is now considered the most reliably Democratic state in the Midwest.
The 2000 election had a lot to do with that revised image. Al Gore won 55 percent of the vote to Bush’s 43 percent, with a 570,000 vote margin. If Illinois were subtracted from the national totals, Bush actually enjoyed a popular vote plurality in the rest of the country.
Josh Marshall tees off on it and another similar argument regarding African-Americans.
Both are based on the rather odd idea that if you eliminate a legitimate part of the electorate, things would be different. It is certainly true, but utterly pointless. Now, if one wants to complain about African-American, American Indian, or, as I’m guessing with the amendment to ban gay marriages, homosexual voters, voting in big blocks then one should address the concerns they have. Not only is the assumption that a group isn’t just as valid as any other, but it assumes they don’t know what is best for them. I’m not willing to be that paternalistic.
I find myself to be much happier if I ignore what Bob Novak says or writes. I really shouldn’t, but it does wonders for my blood pressure. Pat Buchanan used to have the same effect on me, but he actually amuses me nowadays – in a sort of pathetic way.
I’ve heard the same shit from Cokie Roberts on NPR. “The last Democrat to get a majority of white votes was….blah blah blah”. Apparently the 14th admendment doesn’t count with the talking heads.
As for Novak: “Kerry is not considered close to Mayor Daley, who has a good personal relationship with President Bush.”
A few nuggets from Sun Tzu:
“Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”
“Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.”
Rich Daley isn’t the only one playing Bush for a fool. See Vladimir Putin.
I disagree.
Sometimes thinking in terms of a plurality and where it is produced is useful. For example, Blago’s numbers in Madison and St. Clair delivered for him. Sure, the BULK of his plurality was rolled up in Cook, but it shows he can’t afford to ignore downstate.
Unfortunately, it also reinforces the stupid idea in politicians’ heads that you are wasting your time where you can’t win. Sometimes, decreasing the other candidate’s plurality helps you more than fighting in areas you are already going to win.
Novak has become a charicature, but I think pointing out the pluralities Illinois has rolled up for Clinton and Gore is very significant. Proving that even a blind pig digs up a nut now and then. (paraphrasing my good friend (c) the late Terry Deering.)
I’d agree with Ralph, talking about where votes come from is important, but the underlying suggestion of many in relation to African-Americans is that they aren’t like real voters–there is a perfect example in the Josh Marshall piece. The Novak suggestion is dumb, not because he is showing where the numbers are, but because it is this inane argument suggesting Bush really did better.
If you don’t count the east and west coasts and large chunks of the midwest, Bush won in a landslide.