Main > Everything Else
IQ vs Election Results
spocktwin:
;D Just another note on Mr C's last post......tough run country huH? do you know the publisher of the Daily Mirror is the owner of Fox News? The evil conservative media outlet????? Seems he is living within the American ideal of publishing news even if distasteful to his own views. Purely a capitalist cover who got the liberals to buy his magazine so he can contribute to the Republican party......oooh scandal in the making or are the liberals IQ just too low?
fredster:
NipsMg,
Ok, I concede the "vast Majority" comment. How about "most areas of the US". Or "most of the country save the costal areas"
How about "most geographical regions prefered the President.."
Or "59 million of 117 million", or " 3 1/2 million more people", or simply "more people in much broader areas"
We could say "51% and 90% of the country's vast landscape.."
Or more people voted for the president than any since the 80's. He held more of the popular vote than the last 2 democratic presidents. Or one could say the President carried more popular support than any democrat in the last 40 years.
How about he won with a larger mandate than any president since his father? These are all facts too.
What is interesting I haven't heard mention of is the fact that Bush could have lost in Ohio. His 3.5 million votes would have been useless if he had lost 100,000 in Ohio.
For some reason, I don't think the fact he would have won the popular vote and lost because of the electorial college would have been a big issue with the left this year.
Also, it really wasn't necessary to requote the whole post, most people can scroll up.
shmokes:
--- Quote from: fredster on November 05, 2004, 09:48:37 pm ---... the country's vast landscape.."
--- End quote ---
Once again, good job on adhearing to your oath for a good few hours.
Anyway....I love this line. It's so ironic. Who would have thought that trees and lakes and moutains and wilderness would be pro-Bush. Maybe environmentalists have it wrong...
According to the map it would indeed appear that the country's vast landscape favored Bush.
nipsmg:
--- Quote from: fredster on November 05, 2004, 09:48:37 pm ---NipsMg,
Ok, I concede the "vast Majority" comment. How about "most areas of the US". Or "most of the country save the costal areas"
How about "most geographical regions prefered the President.."
Or "59 million of 117 million", or " 3 1/2 million more people", or simply "more people in much broader areas"
We could say "51% and 90% of the country's vast landscape.."
Or more people voted for the president than any since the 80's. He held more of the popular vote than the last 2 democratic presidents. Or one could say the President carried more popular support than any democrat in the last 40 years.
How about he won with a larger mandate than any president since his father? These are all facts too.
What is interesting I haven't heard mention of is the fact that Bush could have lost in Ohio. His 3.5 million votes would have been useless if he had lost 100,000 in Ohio.
For some reason, I don't think the fact he would have won the popular vote and lost because of the electorial college would have been a big issue with the left this year.
Also, it really wasn't necessary to requote the whole post, most people can scroll up.
--- End quote ---
I wasn't trying to put down the rest of your comment. Nor was I trying to paint some illusion that the president didn't win. I keep seeing that map however and hearing "look at how big of a margin the president won by", and it gets annoying.
Bush could have lost w/ Ohio. The fact that Bush won the popular and lost the Electoral votes would have been just as big an issue with the "left" as it was with the "right" last time.
The other issue I have is classifying all Kerry voters as "left" and all Bush voters as "right". I'm an independent. I don't lean heavily towards either side. I'm a catholic, I have strong beliefs that disagree with some Democratic views. I also have some strong beliefs that disagree with some Republican views. That's why I refuse to affiliate myself with either party. Bi-partisanship is the one major problem with this political system. I'd be all for "parties" being abolished, and having presidents be elected on issues, not party.
--NipsMG
TA Pilot:
What is interesting I haven't heard mention of is the fact that Bush could have lost in Ohio. His 3.5 million votes would have been useless if he had lost 100,000 in Ohio.
This would bring great supprt for the electoral college from the liberals, including those here who are not from the US. All talk of its reformation and/or elimination would cease, instantly.