Post-analysis of the red-blue political divide hasn't exactly turned up anything new. From ABCNews.com:
Some of Wheaton's [IL] residents are quick to draw an unflattering portrait of their "blue" neighbors one hour away. The "blue staters" are pushy, they said, with a social agenda that includes gay marriage. "I think they want to push us in that direction, and some of us don't want to be pushed in that direction," said Leonard Sanchez.
I hate to tell you this, Sanchez, but that was the right-wing response to civil rights, too.
And now -- just like then -- we'll pull you into the 21st century whether you like it or not. It's not a matter of "if," it's a matter of "when."
Later in the same article:
"President Bush won. He is our president. He has that word 'mandate' because he won decisively," Mitroff said.
What fucking moon do you live on? If by "decisively," you mean that he won, sure. Then there really isn't a need for the word "mandate" or "decisive" if you only mean "won," is there?
Bush 50.2%, Kerry 48.5%. That isn't much of a threshold, is it? That's a difference of 1.7%. Decisive? Using any yardstick that's called "by a pubic hair."
I don't know, you tell me: if a football game ended with a score of 24 to 23 (a whopping 4% difference!), would you call that victory "decisive?" Yeah, me neither.
Bush doesn't have a mandate. Forty eight percent (read; half the country) think he's a mistake and an embarrassment.