What happened? Election analysis

lizschup · November 4, 2004, 3:12pm

I hope the powers that be will let me post this in its entirety because I don't think a link will work. It's a fun little opinion piece from the Star Tribune in Minneapolis:Nick Coleman: Kerry carries Edina -- and pigs fly, right?

Nick Coleman, Star Tribune

*

A Republican has won the White House again, but there were no signs of apocalypse here on the prairie.

*

Except one.

*

Hell didn't freeze over, the sun didn't rise in the West and the Vikings remain unlikely to win a Super Bowl in our lifetimes. Still, the reelection of George W. Bush was accompanied by something equally as astonishing:

*

Edina turned blue.

*

Edina voted for a Democrat, giving John Kerry the nod over Bush. If the city that was incorporated in 1888 and started by Irish and Scottish farmers still had pigs, they would have been spotted in the skies over Southdale.

*

A city of cake-eaters, hockey golden boys, fashionistas, brokers and the first enclosed mall in the nation did something it hasn't done since it had more sheep than salesmen: Gave thumbs down to a Republican candidate for president -- 16,090 for Kerry to 15,277 for Bush.

*

Records that go back to the Eisenhower era show no Democrats winning in the leafy precincts. None.

*

Not Kennedy (who lost by a 4-1 margin to Nixon); not favorite son Hubert Humphrey (who lost by 9,000 votes to Nixon), not Fritz Mondale (Edina gave Ronald Reagan a giant margin of 11,000 votes in 1984).

*

And Barry Goldwater, who I think said, "Extremism in the defense of shopping is no vice," held off the Democratic landslide in 1964, beating Lyndon Johnson by 7,000 votes in Edina.

*

Edina going for a Democratic presidential candidate is like hearing that your Lutheran pastor left his wife and ran off with a Catholic catechism teacher. You knew it could happen in theory, but it didn't seem likely. Edina was never seduced by Bill Clinton, and went for Bush over Gore by 2,400 votes just four years ago.

*

Still, Bush should have seen this coming. What can you expect from a town whose main drag is an avenue called France?

*

It was just last April that Edina impresario David Frauenshuh played host to George Bush and 110 invited guests with big wallets to a soire at his home in Edina's Indian Hills neighborhood (no, there are not many Indians in Indian Hills). That little deal collected a million dollars for the Bush campaign. The swag might have helped the president nationally, but it didn't put him over the top in Edina, where half of the city's 20 precincts went to Kerry.

*

The big difference came in four precincts (4, 13, 14 and 17) on the east side of the city -- along the France Avenue corridor adjacent to the cities of Minneapolis and Richfield. They went heavily for Kerry, rolling up a 1,500-vote Democratic surplus that was enough to hold off the Republicans elsewhere in the city of almost 48,000.

*

The outcome was no surprise in Morningside, a cozy Edina neighborhood of oaks and comfortable homes (small by Indian Hills standards). Near the Precinct 4 polling place on Grimes Avenue -- a warming house next to the ice rink in Weber Park -- many yards still had Kerry-Edwards signs.

*

The Democrats finally have "achieved" Edina.

*

"I'm not terribly shocked," said Clement Volpe, a retired trumpet player for the Minnesota Orchestra who was bagging leaves in front of his home on Grimes, where he and his wife, Ephie, have lived since 1957. Volpe, 75, and his wife, a retired special-education teacher, voted for Kerry, along with almost 63 percent of their Precinct 4 neighbors.

*

"We have a lot of younger people here and they're pretty well-educated and they probably felt it was time for a change," Volpe said. "We have esprit de corps in Morningside."

*

There they go again, talking French.

*

Joni Kelly Bennett, the DFL precinct chair, was walking Morgan, her golden retriever, past Volpe's house. "Yes!" she exulted when I delivered the Edina vote count to her. "At least we won something!" But Bennett said the Edina shift to blue was no fluke.

*

"It's not just Edina that has changed," said the stay-at-home mom with a law degree from Columbia who is involved in many volunteer efforts. "The Republican Party has changed, too -- it has shifted to the right. The Republican Party has been paramount in Edina, but it's not as monolithic as it used to be. There are a number of Republicans in Edina who couldn't stomach what Bush was doing."

*

Down the street, Lisa Borgia was just getting out of her car. The executive director of the National Wildlife Rehabilitator Association, Borgia almost opened her door when she woke up Wednesday to go out and yell, "What's the matter with you people?"

*

But she didn't mean her neighbors: She and her husband, a construction company executive, voted for Kerry.

*

"People in this neighborhood, including the Republicans, are intelligent enough to know when they've been lied to and manipulated, if I can be so blunt," Borgia said. "I'm really proud of Minnesota for voting for Kerry, and I think Paul Wellstone would be smiling today."

*

Who woulda thunk it?

*

Minnesota stayed blue in the election of 2004, and Edina voted for the Democratic candidate for president. If I were planning the Republican strategy for 2008, I would try very hard to understand what is going on in Edina.

*

Edina is always ahead of the curve.

xiggi · November 4, 2004, 3:17pm

[quote]
Look at what we are evolving into. I for one truly am thinking of taking my education, my money, and my beliefs to a more tolerant country. Even though Scandinavia is freezing and I hate cold weather....

[/quote]

Patient, your burning desire to emigrate from California to Scandinavia might be tempered by checking a few facts about Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. For starters you may want to google a few terms such as :

+Racism + Norway + Denmark
+Antisemitism + Sweden
+Teen suicide + Sweden
+Tax rates +Scandinavia

You will indeed find tolerance for alternative lifestyles. However, when considering the reasons why people started looking for alternatives, you may discover that the quality of real life is not that great.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence -expect when looking south of California. :)

interesteddad · November 4, 2004, 3:29pm

For national political issues and defense/terrorism, I try to read the Washington Post and the NY Times. As for TV, the networks are worthless. I prefer Fox News over CNN and I also enjoy the PBS New Hour.

I agree about Britt Hume. He's a bit too transparent for my taste, but no worse than Judy Woodruff noticeably flinching as CNN called Florida for Bush the other night. On the other hand, Shepard Smith is the most entertaining news anchor in the business -- tremendous sense of humor and irreverance. To be fair, though -- Britt Hume's panel has a nice cross-section of views from rabid right wing to Mara Liason of NPR.

Bill O'Reilly's show is sometimes very intelligent. For example, he did a recent interview with Al Sharpton that was just tremendously entertaining. I really enjoyed the fact that two guys could spar while clearly liking and respecting each other. Our political system would benefit from more of that. I also enjoy the segments with Dick Morris. For all his faults, he has his pulse on the American electorate like nobody else.

I thought that O'Reilly's interview of the President was excellent. On several occasions, he pressed to the meat of the issue. For example, by asking directly whether the President would allow the Iranian nuclear program to continue and whether he would use military action. I think Kerry was a fool to not accept an interview on this show.

Can't stand Sean Hannity. The Limbaugh, Gingrich, Bill Bennett holier-than-thou dogmatic right-wingers are not my cup of tea.

The best single source for background information on terrorism is probably the transcripts of the 9/11 Commission hearings. They covered a lot of topics that never made headlines.

I don't know that there is good source for Iraq information. The actual war reporting was probably the best news coverage in the history of television, thanks to the embedded reporters. But, I think the complexity of the situation in Iraq since the war is beyond the capability of the media to sort out. Descriptions such as "going well" or "going poorly" are so overly-simplistic as to be worse than useless. It's a situation where results will be measured in years, not months -- which doesn't really fit with the media's devotion to instant analysis. To date, the post-war reporting in Iraq has been too much "blind men describing an elephant". For example, clues that Shiite clerics are willing to participate in a (quasi-)democratic process are subtle and almost impossible to judge. The fact that we don't hear much about instability in southern Iraq is probably good news, but who really knows?

driver · November 4, 2004, 3:35pm

Lizschup,
Wow, this should almost be a new thread. So much to say. Your opinion is that FoxNews is "systematically biased." Well. That is what so many from my side of the equation have been saying for years about CBS/NBC/ABC/NYT/LAT/, etc. You don't see their bias, because you buy into it. However, the reason for the rise of alternative media sources, and by this I mean talk radio, FoxNews, and the Blogosphere (althought there is no dearth of leftist blogs, believe me), is that they finally at least provided some balance to the spectrum of news. Imagine if all you had to use for news was Fox, Washington Times, New York Post, The Weekly Standard, etc. For decades, that was what people on my side faced, in reverse. Is Fox "fair and balanced?" Actually, I think they present the news fairly. But when they get into opinion shows, they certainly tack to the right, just as all the so-called MSM tack to the left. You don't like it? Well boo-hoo. Watch CNN, which was my primary TV news source for over 10 years, until Fox became available in my area. Even on the Fox opinion shows, there is a full stable of reliable lefties who are Fox commentators, including Eleanor Rodham Clift, Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, and others.

As to where I get my news: I usually start early each morning with Drudge, not for his particular opinions or scoops (which are rare), but because it is the most convenient collection of links to all the mainstream media all over the world. After checking out leads and opeds in most of the nation's major dailies, I check out a few important bloggers: Instapundit.com, Powerlineblog.com, rogerlsimon.com, and a few others. Most any of these major bloggers provide links to a host of others, from all areas of the political spectrum. This provides a sort of instantaneous "letters to the editor" effect, or a point/counterpoint approach to the MSM, which I love. Particular favorites are Donald Luskin's Krugman Truth Squad (challenging the NYT, and available through NRO.com) and Patterico's Pontifications (patterico.com), which challenges and debunks the LAT on a regular basis.

What I truly deplore is so many of my successful, well-educated friends who think they are getting adequate news through the NYT, NPR, Time or Newsweek, and the major networks. These are the Kerry voters of the Main Line suburbs. And they have blinders on, because that's all they ever get, and they simply live in an echo chamber.

emeraldkity4 · November 4, 2004, 3:53pm

so if there actually is a dearth of centrist or right viewed news sources, why is this?

What in your viewpoint makes the media controlled by liberals?
Are the more conservative viewpoints ( not talking about rabble rousers) being supressed in some way??

driver · November 4, 2004, 4:03pm

EK4, another great question. I think it was best answered by, ironically, Britt Humes, in his pre-Fox incarnation as ABC's anchor (or White House correspondent, whatever he was back then.) He was on a media talk show with, I think, Rita Braverman and Nina Totenberg, discussing the "myth" of liberal media bias. This was at least ten years ago. After the others had denied liberal bias, he stated that while it wasn't a "conspiracy," it was simply natural that people who are interested in government are attracted to journalism, and that the fact that they want to report on something interesting means that they are going to be attracted to activist government, and that this is going to "redound to the benefit" of activist, liberal politicians.

over30 · November 4, 2004, 4:06pm

We got election night coverage from the BBC. I also watch the BBC News on PBS and BBC America. I'm just a sucker for that accent. In addition to watching the 3 major news networks and CNN, I also watch the "International News" and occasionally the "Chinese News Channel" on digital tv, and John Stewart and Dennis Miller. Some I like, some I don't, but I figure that should about cover the spectrum.

driver · November 4, 2004, 4:13pm

I saw some very amusing articles today recounting European TV broadcasters who had been crowing about the Bush defeat predicted by the phony exit polls....and then were-- literally--speechless when they found out what had actually happened.

emeraldkity4 · November 4, 2004, 4:13pm

For my point of view
I get news from World News network- Mother Jones ( where I read about the Taliban 3 years before 2001), Eat the State,Pacifica Radio
so from where I sit, the "popular news" is not liberal its more centrist
well except for the Weekly World news, they have a pretty defined viewpoint I just haven't figured it out yet @@!

patient · November 4, 2004, 4:22pm

Xiggi, frankly I find your tone condescending, often have. You probably feel the same about me but I'll try to watch my tone. I actually have a good friend living in Sweden and have had the opportunity to spend significant amounts of time with her and her friends and all I can tell you is that in many ways I feel their quality of life is superior. But I'm a warm weather freak so it's unlikely. And you think the US is racially tolerant? You think the south is not big time anti-semitic? You think our teen suicide rate is not high? And the high tax rates provide the social programs we do not have in this country. What about homelessness, poverty, and lack of universal health care? Give me a break.

Lizschup, I am not avoiding your question but since you and I are on the same side of most of these issues, haven't bothered responding. I depend on my husband's health insurance and am extremely fortunate in that he is a partner in one of the best multi-specialty medical clinics in California--probably the US, for that matter. Still, my own luck with such things does not prevent me from being willing to be taxed or whatever is needed to provide universal health care.

Reasonabledad or interesteddad or whoever took offense, that comment was not directed personally at either of you. I respect your intelligence and your well-informed opinions. I am reflecting still my emotional reactions to the messages I am trying to decipher not only from the electoral vote but from all that is being written about it.

Sources of information: NPR, New York Times, SF Chronicle, this site :), lots of internet googling on various subjects, the Christian Science Monitor, Financial Times, the Economist sometimes. Never watch any of the major networks except CNN when there is a breaking story.

carolyn · November 4, 2004, 4:31pm

As anyone who has spent time on CC and read my college posts knows, I'm an information junky. I used to be a CNN fan...but recently I have found that Fox, much to my surprise, actually has much more balanced reporting, O'Reilly not withstanding. Honestly, check it out Liz - Fox tends to interview people from both sides, CNN from just one side. The flashiness can be a little annoying but the substance is there. I read about 10-12 magazines a month, everything from Utne Journal to the National Review. I also use various news research sites on the internet that give me access to reports from media around the world, not just US newspapers.

carolyn · November 4, 2004, 4:34pm

Not to change the subject, but what does everyone think about Yasser Arafat? Sounds like he's not long for the world. Any thoughts on what this will mean for the middle east?

driver · November 4, 2004, 4:37pm

Carolyn,
Well said. I was consistently annoyed at Fox throughout the campaign when the news portion of the programming was just as dutiful as the MSM about reporting the latest drek thrown up by the NYT in the closing days of the campaign, as if it were simply "news," instead of the transparent attempt to affect the election that it actually was. But, to their credit, they dutifully reported this "news," just like the other networks.

As to your second post, I too have read that Arafat is dead, although no one is confirming it yet. Could be a rumor. I can't see how his absence from this world would be anything but a blessing for the cause of peace in the Middle East.

achat · November 4, 2004, 4:51pm

"I can't see how his absence from this world would be anything but a blessing for the cause of peace in the Middle East."

yes! At least one thing we can agree on!

xiggi · November 4, 2004, 4:53pm

[quote]
Xiggi, frankly I find your tone condescending, often have.

[/quote]

I deeply regret that you find my tone condescending, and often to boot. I am a little surprised that a four lines post that contained no less than four might or may could be considered offensive.

Oh well, I am happy that tolerance was the subject of my post!

achat · November 4, 2004, 4:58pm

I would say if Arafat is dead, this is a historic opportunity for Bush and Powell to do something about Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Hope they rise to the challenge.

vancat · November 4, 2004, 5:17pm

I was royally pi$$ed at CNN today. On the website, they had a picture of President Bush and Laura with a related story about the victory. If you right clicked on the picture and saw its url, they labeled the picture of the President as "a%%hole" Quite mature of them, to say the least.

over30 · November 4, 2004, 5:23pm

vancat, just copied this from the CNN site:

Netscape responsible for Bush photo insult

A Web image and text disparaging President and Mrs. Bush currently circulating on the Internet was not created, disseminated or posted by CNN at any time, as is alleged. It was done by an employee of Netscape and posted on Netscape.com. CNN had no knowledge of it until it surfaced on other Websites. CNN has requested an immediate apology from Netscape.

vancat · November 4, 2004, 5:26pm

I know. On the Netscape site i also saw that they labeled a picture of the President as "moron". Such professionalism amazes me.

mini · November 4, 2004, 5:50pm

Enjoy!

<a href="http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php</a>

Now let's imagine what we would be saying on this forum if Bush lost the election.

"Social conservatism doesn't really appeal. Rove miscalculated. A sitting President has such huge advantages, especially in war time. He was a terrible candidate. The country repudiated his policies. He had the same problem as his daddy - won a war, economy went to pot, and he couldn't figure out what to say."

(Hey, don't pick on me - the guy I voted for lost in either case. And in our state, Democrats picked up control of both houses -- so much for "moral values" -- and likely the Governorship.)

Thread		Replies	Views
Impact of the Election on Applications Parents Forum	79	206	April 14, 2021
Presidential Election... College Confidential Community college-confidential-cafe	29	50	April 17, 2021
Dinesh D'Souza College list Parents Forum	96	241	April 14, 2021
Congressional Survey on Sexual Violence on Campus Parents Forum	76	215	April 14, 2021
Kerry or Bush College Confidential Community college-confidential-cafe	123	224	April 16, 2021

What happened? Election analysis

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

What happened? Election analysis

Related Topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US