NationStates Jolt Archive

Folks, these two maps should give you a good idea of how Dubya's 51-48 victory on November 2nd developed.

First, a look at the BLUE states (http://www.freedominion.ca/~grig/images/bluestate.jpg)(i.e., those that Kerry carried.)

Now, a look at the RED states (http://www.freedominion.ca/~grig/images/redstate.jpg) (the ones carried by Bush.)

See the difference? Even the "Blue" states are (mostly) characterized by a sea of red, with blue islands. Kinda reminds me of the map of 2000...

Yeah, now let's see population densities in those "red" areas. ;)

A number is worth a thousand pictures.

George Bush: 59,459,765. 51%
John Kerry: 55,949,407. 48%

This is a nearly 50/50 split. The pictures are misleading in the way of popular opinion and therefore, not relevant.

Folks, these two maps should give you a good idea of how Dubya's 51-48 victory on November 2nd developed.

First, a look at the BLUE states (http://www.freedominion.ca/~grig/images/bluestate.jpg)(i.e., those that Kerry carried.)

Now, a look at the RED states (http://www.freedominion.ca/~grig/images/redstate.jpg) (the ones carried by Bush.)

See the difference? Even the "Blue" states are (mostly) characterized by a sea of red, with blue islands. Kinda reminds me of the map of 2000...

So remember kids, numbers don't matter. Its total land mass that does. Gerrymandering issues aside, I really don't understand you point.

Oh wait, stoking the ego are we? You won remember? Geeze, low self-esteem or something?

Folks, these two maps should give you a good idea of how Dubya's 51-48 victory on November 2nd developed.

First, a look at the BLUE states (http://www.freedominion.ca/~grig/images/bluestate.jpg)(i.e., those that Kerry carried.)

Now, a look at the RED states (http://www.freedominion.ca/~grig/images/redstate.jpg) (the ones carried by Bush.)

See the difference? Even the "Blue" states are (mostly) characterized by a sea of red, with blue islands. Kinda reminds me of the map of 2000...

So you're arguing that total land area is more important in an election than actual people?

So you're arguing that total land area is more important in an election than actual people?
That's what I get out of it. Perhaps the crops and livestock on that "sea" of land will soon be granted the right to vote? That's the only way I can see it as being important. At least Panhandlia's done one good thing with this thread and his sea analogy: I will now and forever refer to the South as "The Red Sea."

Is it just me or is Nebraska the only state that didn't have a single county go to Kerry? Man I knew my vote wouldn't have much effect but, DAMN!!! this is a Republican state.

Is it just me or is Nebraska the only state that didn't have a single county go to Kerry? Man I knew my vote wouldn't have much effect but, DAMN!!! this is a Republican state.

Looks like Nebraska and Utah.

Is it just me or is Nebraska the only state that didn't have a single county go to Kerry? Man I knew my vote wouldn't have much effect but, DAMN!!! this is a Republican state.
Utah didn't have a county go for Kerry. Massachusettes and Rhode Island didn't have a county that went for Bush.

Its because poor people vote democratic. God forbid they carry their own weight in this country.

Its because poor people vote democratic. God forbid they carry their own weight in this country.

Ah, intelligent comment there.

So you're arguing that total land area is more important in an election than actual people?
What I am saying is, a lot more counties nationwide went for Bush than went for Kerry. Other than big cities (NYC, L.A., S.F., Detroit, Chicago, Boston,) support for Kerry looks pretty thin and concentrated, as opposed to the widespread support for Bush.

What I am saying is, a lot more counties nationwide went for Bush than went for Kerry. Other than big cities (NYC, L.A., S.F., Detroit, Chicago, Boston,) support for Kerry looks pretty thin and concentrated, as opposed to the widespread support for Bush.

Actually, it looks more like 51% of the country went for Bush and 48% went for Kerry. You aren't going to convince anyone that support for Bush was more "widespread" simply because he controlled a larger area of land, so kindly stop insulting our individual intelligences.

Is it just me or is Nebraska the only state that didn't have a single county go to Kerry? Man I knew my vote wouldn't have much effect but, DAMN!!! this is a Republican state.
Oklahoma didn't either. Not one. Doesn't it suck to feel like your vote is worthless?

What I am saying is, a lot more counties nationwide went for Bush than went for Kerry. Other than big cities (NYC, L.A., S.F., Detroit, Chicago, Boston,) support for Kerry looks pretty thin and concentrated, as opposed to the widespread support for Bush.
I hope you realize the cities grow at the expense of the countryside every year. Soon the country will be a huge metropolis, kind like (mostly left-leaning) Europe.

And has it never struck you, how highly ironic it is that NYC, the one place people should be most scared of foreign terrorism, votes overwhelimingly against Bush, Mr. I'll-Keep-America-Safe?

Has it never crossed your mind how ironic it is that the cities grow at the expense of the countryside every year? Soon the country will be a huge metropolis, kind like (mostly left-leaning) Europe.

And has it never struck you, how highly ironic it is that NYC, the one place people should be most scared of foreign terrorism, votes overwhelimingly against Bush, Mr. I'll-Keep-America-Safe?

I've always found it interesting how afraid of terrorism the people of Wyoming and Nebraska are.

I've always found it interesting how afraid of terrorism the people of Wyoming and Nebraska are.

Hehe. It is quite funny.

I'm quite embarrased that San Diego is red at the moment. We are turning blue year after year though.

Remember kids: only about 60% of REGISTERED VOTERS cast a ballot in this one and a very dismal number of ELEGABLE VOTERS bothered to register. All in all a little over 115,000,000 Americans voted. There are about 300,000,000 people living in the US at the moment. When you account for under-age citizens and non-citizens you will still find that most Americans rightly don't think enough of the electoral system to participate. If there is a fifty-fifty split it is between those who vote and those who do not, not the much ballyhooed 'red' and 'blue' factions.

I've always found it interesting how afraid of terrorism the people of Wyoming and Nebraska are.
Exactly. Now here in Oklahoma City we have a right to be scared... of domestic terrorism, the likes of which never, ever came up in this campaign. It's all about 9/11 and Al Qaeda. No one even remembers McVeigh.

Remember kids: only about 60% of REGISTERED VOTERS cast a ballot in this one and a very dismal number of ELEGABLE VOTERS bothered to register. All in all a little over 115,000,000 Americans voted. There are about 300,000,000 people living in the US at the moment. When you account for under-age citizens and non-citizens you will still find that most Americans rightly don't think enough of the electoral system to participate. If there is a fifty-fifty split it is between those who vote and those who do not, not the much ballyhooed 'red' and 'blue' factions.

Yeah, most young people I know are very vocal about thier support for Kerry, but sadly, they can't vote yet. It is well known that if you take into account ALL registered voters, Kerry would have won. I guess mandatory voting won't become a law under GOP-controlled Congress.

Exactly. Now here in Oklahoma City we have a right to be scared... of domestic terrorism, the likes of which never, ever came up in this campaign. It's all about 9/11 and Al Qaeda. No one even remembers McVeigh.

And the kind that there are still very few recourses against.

And the kind that there are still very few recourses against.
Not like Bush has been all that effective in combating foreign terrorism, unless you count the fact that most of the deaths have been of our soldiers and Iraqi citizens instead of civilians in office buildings in the US.