Vote breakdown: Why it IS a majority

[AggieDave 6]

I posted the 2000 results in a different thread, but here is the voter breakdown county by county for the entire country.

This shows in a simple graphic how Bush won and why he had, according to elections in the past 25 years, an astounding majority.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[AggieDave 6]

Feel free to click on the 2000 tab as well to view that election's results, since I'm sure a lot of folks didn't see it posted previously. It was buried in a different thread.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[rehmwa 2]

Virtually identical to 2000. So what does that mean?

Likely people who tend to just not vote tend to the right and not the left. So getting out the vote helps republicans more than democrats.

Today's less positive definition of Liberalism is a result of unhealthy overcrowding

what else?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Virtually identical to 2000. So what does that mean?

Not quite, there was less of a majority in 2000.

What does it mean? Its in reponse to the hard-core liberals that are upset that their boy didn't win. Its showing the breakdown beyond the extra 3.5 milllion people who didn't vote for Kerry and voted for Bush. Its showing that as far as the country goes, the large majority of it is fairly conservative and that the widely outspoken liberals are mostly in the north east and in a handful of large urban areas, but across the country more counties are for conservatives.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[rehmwa 2]

I wasn't clear. What I meant was the maps are virtually identical between 2000 and 2004

- the difference this time is more people voted in likely most all the counties. But the difference is this time GWB did get a big majority. So more people voting resulted in a goodly swing to the right. So what - lots of different issues this time. But I'm betting non-voters lean to the right, so getting more to vote will do more harm to dems than good.

The only thing that tanked me is the post election commentaries (Katie Couric just plain looked angry all morning Wednesday- I had to watch NBC at the airport so I couldn't change the channel) a lot of interviews put out the point that GWB pulled in uneducated and religious zealots. Just shows that even with this election, there are still a select few who continue to put out the position that liberals are the elite smart guys - and then they wonder why others get upset at them...... This is a sympton of the highly visible members of the Dems that needs to be rooted out before they can regain any steam. Now that people have voted who normally don't, they'll likely do it again.

(I really think that the only demographic that is significant between members of the two parties is the population density effect on party affiliation. Look at the youth vote this time - fairly well split even though the Dems were taking it for granted they belonged to them. Speaks highly for young adults that they, in general, research and pick positions rather than just follow the indoctrination put in front of them. Speaks poorly for those who stereotype them into one set of political leaning only.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Just shows that even with this election, there are still a select few who continue to put out the position that liberals are the elite smart guys - and then they wonder why others get upset at them...... This is a sympton of the highly visible members of the Dems that needs to be rooted out before they can regain any steam.

I'm willing to bet Howard Dean will be one of the most vocal and active democrates during the next couple of years, trying to force the democrates to shed that image, actually take a few key issues to bear and try to reconnect with the American public.

Strangely enough, a large majority of the staunch liberals I've known in my short life have been extremely elitist. Being that I'm what some would consider to be a country boy, they assumed I was uneducated and more often then not were very rude. I guess since I don't have a PHD from a private school from the north east and I'm a gun tot'n republican, to them I'm an uneducated idiot.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kelpdiver 2]

No matter how you break the data down, he won 51-48. That's a win, but no astounding one.

Measuring the million plus square miles of uninhabited land that were within counties (districts would have made more sense for this) voting for Bush is a poor attempt to enlarge it.

People vote, not cows or corn rows or tumbleweeds.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

No matter how you break the data down, he won 51-48. That's a win, but no astounding one.

Actually, looking at the history of presidential races, specifically within this generation (the past 25 years) it is an astounding win. Especially when you look at the congressional races, since if America was against Bush they would have voted against the same party member running for congress, that's historical fact.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[airdvr 200]

No President has won a majority of the popular vote since 1988 so, sorry liberals, it is an astounding win, it is a mandate from the people. Now you can go huddle in a corner with Springsteen, The Dixie Chicks, George Clooney, Michael Moore, and all the other Hollywood types for the next 4 years. Watch and learn about what a leader with character and principles can and will accomplish.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Gawain 0]

Quote

No matter how you break the data down, he won 51-48. That's a win, but no astounding one.

Measuring the million plus square miles of uninhabited land that were within counties (districts would have made more sense for this) voting for Bush is a poor attempt to enlarge it.

People vote, not cows or corn rows or tumbleweeds.

When you factor in the fact that the Republicans gained 4 seats in the Senate and at least 4 seats in the house, it is astounding overall. GWB's majority wasn't wide, but his coattails were broad. That is a hefty statement.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[peregrinerose 0]

I agree it was a hefty statement. I voted for Kerry and am truly frightened about Bush filling so many Supreme Court seats. But it is always possible that my judgement was wrong.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[airdvr 200]

Why would Bush appointing judges to the SC scare you? Becasue they aren't liberal enough? Do you think they'l reverse Rowe v. Wade? (won't happen) When was the last time any SC decision affected you personally?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Actually, looking at the history of presidential races, specifically within this generation (the past 25 years) it is an astounding win. Especially when you look at the congressional races, since if America was against Bush they would have voted against the same party member running for congress, that's historical fact.

You should look up the terms incumbency advantage and gerrymandering (hello, Texas!) before making yet another reach on this.

Clinton beat Dole by 8pts, over 8Mil votes, and 379 Electoral Votes.
He beat Bush Sr by over 5pts, 5Mil votes, and took 370.
Bush beat Dukakis by nearly 8pts, 7mil votes, took 426 in the EC.
Reagan beat Mondale by 18pts, 17mil votes, took 525, every state by Minnesota. Without a doubt this is the most substantial win of the last 24 years.
Ron also beat Carter by nearly 10pts, 8.5Mil votes, and got 489 in the EC.

So looking at this generation, Tuesday's win for Bush trails only his win over Gore for least impressive or astounding. The gained Senate seats protects them against another defection, but gains them no addition ability to legislate over a fillibuster.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why would Bush appointing judges to the SC scare you? Becasue they aren't liberal enough? Do you think they'l reverse Rowe v. Wade? (won't happen) When was the last time any SC decision affected you personally?

The SC affirmation of the McCain-Feingold travesty definitely affects us, whether we're members of the NRA or the trade unions.

They won't ban abortion, though. Or if they did, Congress would immediately make it right again. The GOP can't afford to actually let that happen, even if it's on their platform.

[dreamsville 0]

The courts are there to interpret the constitution. They are not there to legislate moral issues, although some peoples' view on what they expect the courts to do has them looking to judges.
|

I don't drink during the day, so I don't know what it is about this airline. I keep falling out the door of the plane.

Harry, FB #4143

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The courts are there to interpret the constitution. They are not there to legislate moral issues, although some peoples' view on what they expect the courts to do has them looking to judges.
|

Yeah, so how did the Court misinterpret the words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Saying that non media groups can't speak about a candidate within 60 days of an election is a pretty clear abridgement. Sure sounds like legislating moral issues to me.

[jumpinfarmer 0]

[
.

Strangely enough, a large majority of the staunch liberals I've known in my short life have been extremely elitist. Being that I'm what some would consider to be a country boy, they assumed I was uneducated and more often then not were very rude. I guess since I don't have a PHD from a private school from the north east and I'm a gun tot'n republican, to them I'm an uneducated idiot.