Let's ban all states where the Kerry vote wasn't 100%, even the blue ones.

Hey, we know that any state that had a lot of Bush voters must have a ton of idiots, so let's just boycott every state where a lot of people voted for Bush.

That would be all of them. Boycott all of 'em.

Silly? Of course it is. But, the whole "boycott red states" argument is nearly as ridiculous.

Example:

Boycott Iowa because it's red. Bush won 50/49.

But, Wisconsin is just fine 'cause it's true blue. Kerry won 50/49.

Screw the former; glorify the latter. That 1% makes all the difference in the world, right?

Makes a lot of sense. :eyes:

It's going to cost me an extra 700 miles each way, but no chance I'm ever setting foot or wheel in the reddest state in the country.

And from now on I'm ordering and cooking any meat well done.

Even in Texas. For instance, OH has plenty of people who voted for Kerry. Florida has plenty of people who voted for Kerry.

doesn't mean that they should suffer the same fate as the morons that voted for the Idiot-in-Chief.

If you want to call that "Boycott Red STATES", be my guest.

All I'm saying is, I'm going to be a hell of a lot more careful about where my money goes. Not everyone in South Africa supported Apartheid-- so, was it wrong to boycott that place?

Like it or not, the deep divisions in this country fall, roughly, along some geographical lines. There seem to be an awful LOT of people in the "heartland" who think they can give the big faith-based finger to "coastal elites" and "urban liberals" and impose their backwards-ass Theocratic morality on us, with no consequences. Well, George Bush is the "consequences" president, and I damn well intend to make sure my money is going towards people, economies, and regions that TEND to support the things I believe in.

Then, when your neighbors ask you why the local economy has tanked and no one visits from California anymore, you can explain it to them.

San Diego County went red.

Orange Country went red.

Dozens of others.

Going to boycott them?

That is the folly of your argument. Boycotting on the state level is ludicrous.

against what I'm saying, maybe you would hear some of it.

I'm going to be a helluva lot more careful with where -and to whom- my money goes.

Not much of it heads down to San Diego County, as it is.

Companies that supported Bush are also at the top of my list.

But if you've got some brilliant rationale as to why I should send any business or cash to Nebraska or Oklahoma- when every single county in those states voted for Bush- I'm all ears. We have an electoral system that is state based.

And boycotts WORK. Just ask the folks in South Carolina. Did some of them pitch a bitch because they were ALL tarred due to the confederate flag flap? Yes. Was it unfair to the ones who were fighting the good fight from inside South Carolina? Perhaps. But did it have a positive effect, in the end?

...Yes.

Edit: I'm putting together a web page devoted to this as we speak. Again, I'm totally willing to take lists of progressive and dem-supporting businesses in Red Areas, as well as Bush-supporting ones in Blue areas. I feel the more intelligent and targeted the boycott, the better. But I'll be damned if I'm just going to go "oh well", and do nothing.

"Knee-jerk spasms?" Oh, you mean like claiming we should boycott entire states based on illogical conclusions?

You see red on a map and instantly jump to the conclusion that the state is 100% Republican. You assume that if there's some blue, that state is somehow less Republican than the red states.

So, Nebraska and Oklahoma are worse than everyone else because all counties are red, huh?

Look again. Utah - 71/27 Bush. Wyoming - 69/29 Bush. Both voted for Bush in higher percentages than either Nebraska or Oklahoma.

Oh, but there's a blue county or two. That somehow makes them better.

You want knee-jerk? Look in the mirror. Your "boycott the red states" crusade is the very definition.

Next, you say that our system is electoral based to justify your ban on Nebraska and Oklahoma as states, but your explanation itself is county-based - all voted for Bush.

Pick one: county or state. County makes a hell of a lot more sense, but then you'd have to ban 2/3 of California. That doesn't seem to fit your agenda.

I have no problem with boycotting companies owned by Republicans and donors to the Republican party, but to continue to insist that just because of a color on a map, EVERYONE should be boycotted makes no sense, particularly when huge donors to the Democratic Party live in many of the states you want to wholesale boycott.

South Carolina? Do you have any proof that the Confederate Flag flap "boycott" hurt them in any way whatsoever? It sure as hell didn't help us politically.

And, how about the 41% of SC that voted for Kerry and the roughly half that didn't support the flag in the first place?

Screw them, right? They must be guilty of something because they live in a red state.

If you want a sure-fire way to make sure we never again win the South, keep up the "boycott entire states" talk.

How many times do I have to say "Boycott Red AMERICA" as opposed to "Boycott Red STATES", before you're gonna hear me?

Shit, you'll hear what you want to hear.

Here is a map that is more along the lines of what I have in mind. As a general guide for where, geographically, I personally feel like sending my money.




For more information, & a bigger map:

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

And the boycott in South Carolina DID Have an impact. The tourism industry had to scramble and it forced a serious re-evaluation, not just in SC but all over the south, of just what kind of image the Confederate Flag thing was sending out.

For a party that likes to claim a "big tent", we sure are being rather selective all of a sudden.

but I do see your point.

and winner-take-all races.

Except for Maine and Nebraska, of course.

That doesn't mean that we should condemn 35-49% of Nebraskas, South Dakotans, North Dakotans, et al, who worked their asses off to get local and state politicians elected.

Or who donated to national and other state races.

Or who manned phone banks or sent out e-mails or joined the campaign in getting out the message in other ways.

please?

I have no qualms with condemning ANYONE who voted for Bush, including the 44% of California that voted for him, 48% of Minnesota, 48% of Michigan, etc.

My point is that boycotting Iowa because 50% voted for Bush, while glorifying Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, etc., where Bush got 48%-49% of the vote, is ludicrous.

nice.