Election not as close as people think.

[DanMacMan]

When you look at the county by county break-down of electoral votes for the Presidency, you will see that Red covers 3,280,000 square miles of territory, while Blue only comprises 741,000 square miles. The winner take all electoral system, which I agree with, just happens to be a bit deceptive.
http://images.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/elections2004/_images/2004countymap3.gif
By the way, the Gray states and counties do not yet have 100% of the precincts reporting.

[BRussell]

Since when does land vote?

[MarcUK]

It would be nice to see a population density map along side, or superimposed on it,

For all the red on the map, there was still only 4 million in it. So its just as close as it ever was.

Is that Fellowships little democratic county on its lonesome in the middle right of Texas?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by BRussell
Since when does land vote?

Every grain of sand shall cast into the ballot their choice for the Creator.

[THT]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
When you look at the county by county break-down of electoral votes for the Presidency, you will see that Red covers 3,280,000 square miles of territory, while Blue only comprises 741,000 square miles.

What does acreage have anything to do with the election? Absolutely nothing. It's one person, one vote. Not one square mile equals one vote. The only thing the map illuminates is that urban areas tilt Democrat and the suburban/rural areas tilt Republican.

I am however happy to see that my hometown is once again blue. :)

[edit: a mere 5 minutes late :(]

[DaveGee]

- Any guess as to what color area most of the tax cut went to?
- Any guess as to what color area a terrorists would choose to attack?

Dave

[shetline]

I'm having a hard time believing those the two bottom right counties shown in NH (Hillsborough, my county, and Rockingham) supposedly went red. Southern NH is becoming, politically speaking, more like Massachusetts than the more traditionally Republican northern parts of the state.

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by MarcUK
For all the red on the map, there was still only 4 million in it. So its just as close as it ever was.

Huh?

If by 4 million you really mean 59,250,496 then okay I understand... :lol:

Dave

[DanMacMan]

Originally posted by DaveGee
- Any guess as to what color area most of the tax cut went to?
- Any guess as to what color area a terrorists would choose to attack?

Dave

First, in response to those who said land doesn't vote, true. The data does not provide populations for each individual county, however the total populations for the Red and Blue states and counties was 150.9 million Red, 103.6 million Blue.

In response to DaveGee, you aren't telling me that you based your vote on what Bin Laden said in his tape are you?

[DanMacMan]

Originally posted by shetline
I'm having a hard time believing those the two bottom right counties shown in NH (Hillsborough, my county, and Rockingham) supposedly went red. Southern NH is becoming, politically speaking, more like Massachusetts than the more traditionally Republican northern parts of the state.

Directly from the SOS (http://www.sos.nh.gov/general%202004/sumpres04.htm) site on NH.gov;

Hillsborough County: Bush 99,724 - Kerry 94,121
Rockingham County: Bush 82,069 - Kerry 75,437

[hardeeharhar]

Is someone here claiming that there are only 250 Million people in the us?

[DanMacMan]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Is someone here claiming that there are only 250 Million people in the us?

No, I am only citing the numbers listed by the source, and they appear to be based on population data from 2003. You must also note that not all counties are calculated in the figures, because as I noted in my first post, not all precincts have reported.

Article link. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm)

[THT]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
First, in response to those who said land doesn't vote, true. The data does not provide populations for each individual county, however the total populations for the Red and Blue states and counties was 150.9 million Red, 103.6 million Blue.

And?

[edit: I'm still not understanding what your point is...]

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
In response to DaveGee, you aren't telling me that you based your vote on what Bin Laden said in his tape are you?

Huh?

No no silly man... Libs have made my skin crawl for as long as I could remember... You could almost say I voted the way I did DESPITE what OBL said on that tape... :p

[BRussell]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
First, in response to those who said land doesn't vote, true. The data does not provide populations for each individual county, however the total populations for the Red and Blue states and counties was 150.9 million Red, 103.6 million Blue. You're trying to suggest that the election was "not as close" as it seems, because there's a whole lot of red on that map. All it shows is that Republicans live in rural, low-population density areas, whereas Democrats live in urban, high-population dense areas.

I think that's interesting, and I wonder why - is it because living together in large numbers makes people have a more communitarian political philosophy whereas living apart from others makes people more individualistic? Or maybe there's a religious/ethnic diversity issue? I don't know. But I know it doesn't mean the election wasn't as close as we think.

[THT]

I also am curious why the Mississippi river counties all trend blue? Is it age?

One of my pet theories is that the suburbanization of America is increasing conservatism in America. Original, not. :)

Suburbs - planned communities younger than most of my clothing popping up out of nowhere - seem to be the perfect environment for conservatism. People are isolated from the unpleasantries of seeing poor people in the city, they are all upwardly mobile but desperately need cash to pay off the mortgage, car and other household items, they go to super-rich churches within the community, they have long commutes and make talk radio profitable, they have the richer planned communities next door to envy, and their kids go to the most well financed schools in the city. It's a very regimented lifestyle with very little diversity. Very self-absorbed. I know, I lived in it for years.

Contrast this to my old hometime which was in stasis for 100 years and the people there had both a European demeanor and what I thought was a very sincere and outreaching Christian culture. In Texas, it's a "let the good times roll" and "God has saved me, so, I don't need to be curious anymore" type attitude.

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
Blue only comprises 741,000 square miles.

Yea, but when those 741K are in mostly places where liberals have historically bought votes with our tax dollars... you see a big map of the welfare state... then ya throw in the unions midwest and some old Southern blue-collar democrats and some Rocky Mountain enviros and there you are...

[Towel]

Originally posted by Jubelum
Yea, but when those 741K are in mostly places where liberals have historically bought votes with our tax dollars... you see a big map of the welfare state... then ya throw in the unions midwest and some old Southern blue-collar democrats and some Rocky Mountain enviros and there you are... This is a map of the welfare state, but you do realize that it works the other way, right? Large cities in every state subsidize the rural areas with their tax dollars. NYC, for example, sends far more in taxes to Albany than it gets back. Same for my new home, Seattle. Education, transportation, services, welfare, farm subsidies...these are all massively subsidized in rural areas by the large cities.

It works the same way on a national level. The more urbanized, richer, "blue states" pay much more in federal taxes than they get back. The blue states subsidize the red. I think the numbers are that the 2000 Gore states get $0.85 back for every dollar of federal taxes, while the 2000 Bush states get $1.15.

On top of that, I crunched the IRS's own numbers and found that although the Bush and Gore states had very similar total populations in 2003 (150M each), the Gore states paid 54% of 2002 IRS revenue (all forms of taxation). Not only do the Blue states get less for their dollar, they pay more to begin with.

[Randycat99]

I'm not sure I agree that population is responsible for where blue areas occur (loosely correlated, at the least). That would seem to imply that the US is largely uninhabited, which would be a tough case to sell. This is not to say there aren't areas that are very rural. However, there are a helluva lot more people in the US than that reflected by blue areas. Nor is it credible to believe that the "heartland" extends all the way from the CA coast to the NY coast. There's red all over the map, even where there are densely populated metropolises. The bottom line is simply that Kerry failed to convince the public at large of his "big plan". The blue areas exist in those areas where strong partisan solidarity was capitalized on to ensure the vote outcome. The "ordinary people" would seem to have a different train of thought than the "Bush is the incarnation of Christian fascist evil" line.

[Jubelum]

Hold per capita the same, and you might have something.

[hardeeharhar]

Heh,

This map fails to show how divided the counties that swung one way or another were...

[jimmac]

Yeah I heard someone else say the same thing. No matter how much red or blue is on the map the only to things to look at are popular vote and electoral vote. They were the only things that mattered and they were very close.

[the cool gut]

Originally posted by BRussell
Since when does land vote?

Priceless.

That map means nothing at all, not in the least ... not even a smidgen.

What that map DOES display, is where abouts there are scattered intolerant, homophobic religious red necks, and where there are high densities of educated, civilized, tolerant progressive thinking workers who contribute the lions share of the economy.

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by the cool gut
Priceless.

That map means nothing at all, not in the least ... not even a smidgen.

What that map DOES display, is where abouts there are scattered intolerant, homophobic religious red necks, and where there are high densities of educated, civilized, tolerant progressive thinking workers who contribute the lions share of the economy.

Keep talking like that. Because of it, you're losing and we love it.

What an ass... :no:

[tmp]

http://images.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/elections2004/_images/2004countymap3.gif

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/images/2k_night.jpg

[bunge]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
When you look at the county by county break-down of electoral votes for the Presidency, you will see that Red covers 3,280,000 square miles of territory, while Blue only comprises 741,000 square miles.

Are you really this ignorant, or was this thread a joke? Just curious.

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by the cool gut
Priceless.

That map means nothing at all, not in the least ... not even a smidgen.

What that map DOES display, is where abouts there are scattered intolerant, homophobic religious red necks, and where there are high densities of educated, civilized, tolerant progressive thinking workers who contribute the lions share of the economy.


Am I the only one who hears the ranting of a stereotyping biggot? :no:

Oh and if it wasn't for those 'religious red necks' you'd freaking starve to death (or go broke paying for imported food!

Dave

[bunge]

http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg

There you go.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Jubelum
Keep talking like that. Because of it, you're losing and we love it.

What an ass... :no:

As far as margin of victory it's meaningless. It only shows who won what state. Popular vote and electoral. Get it?:rolleyes:

[Towel]

Originally posted by DaveGee
Oh and if it wasn't for those 'religious red necks' you'd freaking starve to death (or go broke paying for imported food!Actually, we'd save several tens of billions of dollars annually that we currently spend on farm subsidies.

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by Towel
Actually, we'd save several tens of billions of dollars annually that we currently spend on farm subsidies.

About 17 billion (as of 2000) and for your info in 2000 the WORLD spent a total of 311 BILLION in farm subsidies 50 billion in Europe alone - while the US was spending only 17 billion.

Anyway what's your point other than quoting random facts that you know little about? By the way, aren't you like the rest of the Libs who think we should be following Europes lead in everything we do? Well then we gotta tax you libs even more to up the subsidies to those homosexual hating red-neck farmers! :lol:

Dave

[Towel]

Originally posted by DaveGee
Anyway what's your point other than quoting random facts that you know little about? We were talking about rural vs. urban America. I'm just pointing out that, for all the Republican talk of free trade and free markets, US farmers operate under neither. The resulting market distortions are paid for out of "blue area" pockets. As you said, the rest of the developed world is no better, and often worse. But if we wanted, we could make farm subsidies a priority in WTO talks - the entire developing world would love us for it. US farmers would survive if they could compete efficiently, and if they didn't, their production would be outsourced, just like every other industry. There's nothing sacred about the farming lifestyle, especially since it doesn't even exist any more - most farming is done by huge corporations (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1542.cfm), and most subsidies go to those same corporations (http://www.forbes.com/business/2004/07/21/cz_ic_0721beltway.html).

$17B/year, by the way, is only the estimated direct cost. The Heritage Foundation* thinks (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1538.cfm) the CBO used wrong assumptions, and that the actual direct cost could be twice that. Then there are periodic "emergency" bills than can increase that number substantially - to almost $30 billion in 2000! Finally, there are the higher prices consumers actually pay for food as a result of market distortions - that's estimated at almost another $30 billion/year.

We don't choose to make ending subsidies a priority, because the Constitution gives disproportionate representation to rural America, and because it's a relatively non-controversial form of overt corporate welfare. Given all that, a snide remark like "if it wasn't for those 'religious red necks' you'd freaking starve to death (or go broke paying for imported food!" just doesn't make any sense. Of course we wouldn't. In fact, removing all those market distortions would free up capital for more efficient use, making us all even richer. I strongly suspect that American agribusiness could compete the heck out of anyone else in the world, and give us lower prices at the supermarket to boot - that's money in our pockets. And, since we just cut a whole bunch of spending, we could cut taxes proportionally and stimulate the economy even more!

*I cite the Heritage Foundation because any think tank that has an approving quote from Rush Limbaugh on their "about us" page can't be wrong, right?

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by the cool gut
Priceless.

That map means nothing at all, not in the least ... not even a smidgen.

What that map DOES display, is where abouts there are scattered intolerant, homophobic religious red necks, and where there are high densities of educated, civilized, tolerant progressive thinking workers who contribute the lions share of the economy.


Originally posted by Jubelum
Keep talking like that. Because of it, you're losing and we love it.

What an ass... :no:

I would rather lose every election from now to infinity, than compromise standards to be accepted by the stereotypical people The Cool Gut describes.

Education and Tolerance are far better values than Ignorance and Bigotry.

America was founded on Education and Tolerance, and was once a great nation. Now it is Catholic Europe of the 1500's

[DanMacMan]

Originally posted by MarcUK
I would rather lose every election from now to infinity, than compromise standards to be accepted by the stereotypical people The Cool Gut describes.

Education and Tolerance are far better values than Ignorance and Bigotry.

America was founded on Education and Tolerance, and was once a great nation. Now it is Catholic Europe of the 1500's

You are welcome to leave at any time. I am sure Canada or your beloved Europe would welcome you with open arms. Or you could stay here, fix your damned party, and earn back what was once yours. Democrats are so far out of touch with mainstream America, no wonder Bush received the most popular votes in American history.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
You are welcome to leave at any time. I am sure Canada or your beloved Europe would welcome you with open arms. Or you could stay here, fix your damned party, and earn back what was once yours. Did you notice the "UK" after his name?
Democrats are so far out of touch with mainstream America, no wonder Bush received the most popular votes in American history. Yes, Bush received the most popular votes in American history. But he also had more votes against him than anyone in history. :p

[the cool gut]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
Democrats are so far out of touch with mainstream America,

HAHAHAHAHA

Democrats take in 49% of the vote, and their not mainstream? Are you telling me that you consider bible thumping christians (20% of the vote) are mainstream?

no wonder Bush received the most popular votes in American history. [/B]

Any way you cut it, he got 51% of the popular vote. You can also argue that more people voted AGAINST him than any other president.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
You are welcome to leave at any time. I am sure Canada or your beloved Europe would welcome you with open arms. Or you could stay here, fix your damned party, and earn back what was once yours. Democrats are so far out of touch with mainstream America, no wonder Bush received the most popular votes in American history.

1) I'm already living in Europe
2) I used to have respect for Americans

The problem with the American populace is that they have taken a huge blind lunge to the extreme right. This is very clear to an outside observer and everyone else in the world.

I know 911 hit home and hit hard, and I know you are scared of terrorism, but stupidity and ignorance will not solve the problems you face in the world. Lurching to isolationism and rejecting the world will only make it more difficult and the pain last longer. This is what Bush has given you.

I know the Dems are not perfect, but they are a Centrist party. Liberalism is only a dirty word in America. Coming from a country/EU where there are real Communist/socialist/liberal parties, just highlight how much the false Labels of Republicanism talking-points are so deceitful.

America is not yet a fully right-wing faschist state, but you are on the road to it. Patriot acts, guantanamo, labels of "terrorist sympathiser", "unpatriotic Americans", "Liberal Communists", a party ruled by fundamentalist religious types. Everyone else in the world knows the horrors this brings, and the hurt and pain of the fallout in the aftermath.

[DanMacMan]

Originally posted by BRussell
Did you notice the "UK" after his name?

Indeed I did not see the UK in his name. In that case he has no reason to get involved with our election. Just like the Britons who sent unsolicited mailings to the people of Ohio in an attempt to sway their vote. Turns out the main county they targeted went for Bush.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
Indeed I did not see the UK in his name. In that case he has no reason to get involved with our election. Just like the Britons who sent unsolicited mailings to the people of Ohio in an attempt to sway their vote. Turns out the main county they targeted went for Bush.

Actually he has every right to get involved in our election since as a world power we affected the world as a result of our policy descisions. The Sauds did it, the brits do it, we do it in other contries...

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
Indeed I did not see the UK in his name. In that case he has no reason to get involved with our election. Just like the Britons who sent unsolicited mailings to the people of Ohio in an attempt to sway their vote. Turns out the main county they targeted went for Bush.

My country is pretty much the only country in the world that supplied a sizeable troop count to your perverted little war. Your presidents stupidity has killed people from my country. I can and will be involved in your Countries Election as much as I fucking like.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by DanMacMan
Indeed I did not see the UK in his name. In that case he has no reason to get involved with our election. Just like the Britons who sent unsolicited mailings to the people of Ohio in an attempt to sway their vote. Turns out the main county they targeted went for Bush.


But when Iraqis say the same fucking thing about the US in your (our) name and THEIR elections, they are "terrorists" and "insurgents" right????????

what a fucking way of thinking (or lack of it thereof!)

[badtz]

http://devnull.com/2004election_by_iq.png

[MarcUK]

NEVER underestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups.

[badtz]

http://clarkson.edu/~schillzp/us-canada.png


wal-mart presents ..... :lol:

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by badtz
http://clarkson.edu/~schillzp/us-canada.png


wal-mart presents ..... :lol:

nothing?

[badtz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
NEVER underestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups.

http://www.bringdown.com/issue4/egoboost/stupids.jpg

[MarcUK]

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/stickers.html

great selection of car stickers

[jimmac]

Interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html