Election Results by County Redefine Red and Blue States
December 20, 2004

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

As part of my column in the Nov. 20 issue of Gun Week, which reported Nov. 2 election results, I incorporated a US map like those you saw on television and in many newspapers as the media began reporting election returns. That map was the customary red state-blue state map that was intended to show how the country was divided by party and by issues as the commentators spun the results.

But shortly after that issue of Gun Week went to press, another map appeared in USA Today and in some other publications and Internet websites that used the traditional red and blue—for dividing Democrat and Republican presidential candidates—to illustrate the results by county rather than by a whole state. Once again I have included a map in this column; it’s the county-by-county division of the red and blue indicators, but it creates an entirely different picture of political divisions in the US on Nov. 2.

It is interesting to note that even in all the states that went blue for John Kerry, such as California, Illinois, New York and Washington, the county-by-county vote suggests that geographically there was even less blue than indicated by the earlier map breakdowns. The votes for Kerry came mostly from the densely populated urban centers on the West Coast, the Northeast and Upper Midwest, while the votes for President Bush were spread all across the map.

In my own county of Erie in New York, which went blue for Kerry, his majority was overwhelming in the cities of Buffalo, Lackawanna and Tonawanda, but only a couple of the 30-some towns went for Kerry. The balance of this otherwise blue county really was red.

A look at this county-by-county map shows that an even bigger land area in this country is populated primarily by voters who voted for Bush or against Kerry to give Bush a decisive popular and Electoral College vote. This also helps explain the further congressional gains by Republicans in the House and Senate races.

To the Democrat strategists who are still trying to figure out how to get back into the game in 2008, it should provide some food for serious thought. And for the left-leaning media, which still can’t believe it lost the election it tried so hard to influence, a careful study of the map should tell them how out of touch they are with the real pulse of this nation. They may already think they will get back into the White House in 2008 with a candidate they like (Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton seems their first choice right now), but they should study the map more closely.

More importantly, they should start traveling, if not on foot, at least by bus, car or train. The media is used to flying and that has given rise to their term for the vast land mass between the two coasts that they like to refer to as “fly-over country.” They know it’s there, of course, but they dismiss it with their “fly-over” term, which suggests that it is unimportant, merely a vast space between the two areas of the country most important to them.

These media commentators still can’t understand how they could be so out of touch with the real America. They don’t understand that America, although that America does understand them. The media’s lack of understanding, coupled with a Democratic Party leadership that believes everything the East Coast-West Coast media tells them, is one reason why the Kerry crowd still thinks they lost because of some trick.

The trick is simple: its understanding. The chief Bush strategist, Karl Rove whom Bush refers to as “the architect” of victory, certainly understands what is important to “fly-over” America, although he doesn’t use that term. Rove also understands the coastal elite and its media and he doesn’t really care if they understand him. In fact, he’s probably happier that they don’t have a clue.

The media doesn’t understand the big picture or the small when it comes to most of the country, or at least the majority that decided the election.

For example, while they were concentrating on the same-sex marriage issue in the most simplistic terms, expecting everyone should support it as they did; the bulk of the American public took it apart and made more nuanced decisions. They voted against it in every state where the issue was on the ballot, but that does not make them homophobes, as the media and their Hollywood cronies like to claim.

The gun issue was another aspect of “fly-over” America they didn’t understand. Most of the elitist politicians and media were laughing up their sleeves when they saw their candidate dressed in hunting clothes, holding shotguns, and even going goose hunting on an Ohio farm.

They even snickered about his “killing some innocent creature” to confuse the rubes. But while they were making fun of the people, the people were making up their minds.

Another faction that still doesn’t understand the election is the chorus of Hollywood elitists who also believe what the media tells them and who espouse every trendy cause. These personalities that have to read the words that other people write for them, dress the way other people tell them to dress and walk and speak as still others direct, still can’t understand why they couldn’t convince the public to vote for Kerry.

Most of them devoted their time and money to the Kerry campaign, although a few did turn out for Bush. But the vast majority was cheering on George Soros and Michael Moore for trashing Bush, and helped to swell the Democratic Party’s campaign coffers.

Neither party was reticent about raising and spending money on this campaign. In fact, together the two major parties set a new record for fundraising in 2004. Total spending on the presidential campaign from all sources seeking to influence the outcome of the campaign exceeded $1.7 billion. According to records of FEC and IRS reports cited by The Washington Post, $925 million was spent on the Kerry campaign, $822 million on the Bush campaign.

But in the end, money was just a way of communicating with the voters. Soros tried to do it with his 527 campaign, but in the end, he shook his head sadly and left the country on business, still trying to figure out why the majority of the public preferred Bush to Kerry. Of course, Michael Moore is still wondering what he did wrong with his propaganda movie against Bush, which made Moore a lot of money, but didn’t help to elect Kerry. These days, Moore is seen clean-shaven and wearing a white shirt and tie. Maybe he’ll try and make a good impression on the Canadian immigration inspectors if he tries to join other unrepentant Kerry voters moving out of the country.

Regrettably, I must report that there is no word that Alec Baldwin has left the country after the 2004 election as he promised to do after the 2000 campaign.

But, hey, a lot of Canadians don’t want our Hollywood liberals either. As Arthur Weinreb wrote in the Canada Free Press, “Let’s keep those suffering from ‘Post-election selection trauma’ (PESTs) out of Canada.

The anti-gunners were crushed by the election returns, which suggested that gun control was the big loser in the election. The prospect of a renewal of the “assault weapons” ban is very remote, and there is even the possibility that the new Congress will create an opportunity for gun rights supporters to push for reform and take back some of their rights.

Like the anti-gunners, much of the anti-gun media, still believing in civilian disarmament, is totally confused. I have a suggestion for them and a story assignment.

They should do some traveling on the ground in “fly-over” America, meet the people and listen to what they have to say. They could also attend some gun shows, and then go to South Dakota and ask the voters there why the issue of prairie dog hunting even surfaced in the Senate campaign there on Nov. 2.
Return to Archive Index