Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Stupidest Op-Ed EVER (or, BAD PUNDIT!)

So, the New York Post tends to publish a lot of, shall we say, crap. I read it every day (hell, it's only a quarter, and I've got a long train ride to sit through) and let me tell you, I've seen a lot of shit spew out of that paper's figurative piehole.

Yesterday's champion piece of turd had to be this little ditty in the Op-Eds, The Myth of the Undecideds.

Okay, okay, let's be fair. It was a bit partisan, sure, but that's not my problem. It was well researched, filled to the brim with numbers and statistics that no Post reader would ever think to fact check. It even acknowledged that the two candidates are neck and neck, albeit giving a slight edge to G.W. Which is to be expected from a Murdoch-driven cesspool of Republican hatemongering like the Post.

MY problem is that it was all WRONG.

No, no, not factually. Just wrong in that the electoral race is being approached from a national perspective (with such speculations as [I'm paraphrasing here] "...since Bush has 49% in the polls and Kerry has 47%, and we give 1% to the Libertarians and the Greens and Lyndon LaRouche and 1% just to Nader, Bush will clearly win! And even if one of these doesn't hold, if Bush gets just 4 million more votes... which is one half a percent...") That's not a direct quote. But the general idea is the same.

Listen up, dumbass! Because of the Electoral College, your percentage horse race don't mean diddly. So, you want to speculate on exactly how many popular votes Bush will receive? May I remind you that millions and millions of those votes won't matter in the end?

Hell, if we'd listened to this guy's logic, Al Gore would be POTUS and Bush would still be some failed businessman on a ranch in Crawford, Texas.

I was thinking - what if we had the same debacle as 2000, only the other way around? We don't even have to do Florida - let's do Ohio or somewhere, just to change it up a little bit. Let's say Bush wins the popular vote. That votes are disputed in some battle ground state or another. And that, ultimately, Kerry wins that state and thus the election. Poetic justice, baby.

How many Republicans would protest the Electoral College, call the election stolen, flip the fuck out for the next four years? How good would it feel for Democrats to think of their own little slogan - better than "Sore / Loserman ", of course (we're the creative types, right?) Maybe something along the lines of "Georgie, Peorgie..." I don't know. I'll have to put my people to work on it.

Anyway, you always hear the same defense - "Without the Electoral College, politicians would ignore the small states. If we went solely on the popular vote, they'd concentrate all efforts on, say, the nine most populous states and ignore the rest of us." SO WHAT? Right now, the most populous states are shit on. Right now, New York state contributes enough taxes to support half the mid-Atlantic coastal region, but we don't get diddly. Hell, we don't even get pandered to. Nebraska gets more per capita Homeland Security funding than we do. 'Cause, you know, the terrorists are really concentrated out there. Big target, Nebraska.

Awww, fuck it all. Just go vote. Unless you're in a big state. No, no, just kidding. Voting is important. Especially when you don't know a damn thing about the issues, but you think Kerry's just a little snooty. Argh. I hate people. That's why I walk dogs for a living.


At 10:04 PM, Blogger Me said...

Actually, if I were a terrorist, I'd attack some place like Nebraska or Oklahoma or Ohio or Kansas or some midwest state that doesn't seem important. It won't get magnitude (read: numbers) but it will get the sense that it can happen anywhere - not just a NYC (financial capital) or DC (political capital) or huge city on the coast in Calif. It can happen in the towns that still have a "safe" feeling to them.

At 3:38 PM, Blogger Katie said...

Yes, that's a really good point, and I agree with you in principal. Still, how extensive do you think the preparations have been, or SHOULD be, in such sleepy midwestern burgs? When there are more lives at stake and more feasible, meaningful targets in major metropolitan areas, don't you think they should get at least equal per capita coverage from the federal gov't as, say, Des Moines? (Why do I always pick on Des Moines? I'm sorry, Des Moines. Besides, I guess Des Moines would be considered urban, too...)

At 4:16 PM, Blogger Ontario Emperor said...

The problem you cited with the Post is nearly universal. Almost EVERYONE is talking about the national poll numbers, which have little impact on the election result. Occasionally someone will talk about ONE state, but I haven't seen any coverage of an estimated electoral count for the candidates. I know I can find this if I dig, but gosh dang it, I shouldn't have to dig.

Since I live in a Kerry state (California), I have the freedom to vote for the Libertarian or whoever and not worry about running the country down the toilet...

At 4:19 PM, Blogger Ontario Emperor said...

I stand corrected. After posting the above, I looked at your AdSense ads and found Granted its assumptions are rather simplistic, but at least we can see that a Goldwater or McGovern blowout isn't anticipated.

At 6:41 PM, Blogger Katie said...

You might be interested in the Election Day primer section the New York Times published on... Monday? I'm not sure - I had to use my copy to mop spilled beer off of my child on the train from a deranged woman who claimed it was her birthday (whoa! THAT's a whole other post!) However, I'm sure it's available on the site -
My point was that they included a large, graphic electoral count breakdown based on a late October poll.

At 1:29 PM, Blogger Gladys Cortez said...

Late to the party, sorry, but Blogger's been giving me fits...

Funny thing about your "if Kerry won, would the Bushies throw a hissyfit?" conundrum:

I don't remember which blog it was, since I found it on BlogExplosion and didn't blogmark it--it was clearly Republican in nature and no, thanks, you know?--Anyway. This blogger said something to the effect of "If Bush loses, he'll concede like a gentleman. If the other side loses, they'll kick and scream like scalded babies. There'll be lawsuits, all sorts of media spin..." blah blah blah.

Of course, the main problem is, I think you're BOTH equally wrong, and equally right. No matter who wins, I think it'll be Thanksgiving at least before we know who we're stuck with for the next four.

At 12:56 AM, Blogger Katie said...

Yes, Gladys, they both suck. They'll bothb throw hissy fits. Having seen the previous hissyfit, however, I'd like to see it the other way around. Fun for everyone, I always say!

At 3:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have been to your site and I too am working very hard at adsense web site to increase my revenue. I am also looking into many NEW ways to utilize the design to further direct people to follow my ads.
adsense web site

At 10:09 PM, Blogger blaze said...

Great info about does adsense work I have a lage interest also and have a site about does adsense work please feel free to check it out.

At 4:43 AM, Blogger doer said...

Hello, just visited your blog, it's informative. I also have a website related togoogle adsense software. So make sure you visit and hope it's useful.

At 6:43 AM, Blogger Goodman441 said...

Hello and thank you for welcoming me to this adsense google making money never told blog. As a fellow webmaster i am always in need of good traffic. Please visit my site at: when you have a chance.

At 2:17 PM, Blogger fast cash advance0e said...

Fruitful blog. I favor your site and I shall
return to it! I go to sites like this when I get the
chance, and find blog just like this.
My military cash advance blog, is something you need to peep out!


Post a Comment

<< Home