| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JoneDark
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
 |
|
On Nov 13, 11:14 pm, Chris Darwin <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
| Quote: | KalElFan wrote:
Courtesy of another thread...
McCain's most efficient path to winning the election involved
convincing less than 450,000 Obama voters in TOTAL, in
seven key states, to switch from Obama to McCain. In
effect, less than one-half of one percent of those voting in
the election, and less than one-sixth of one percent of the
U.S. population, all of them in 7 key states, elected Obama.
Something to consider for those who seem to think Obama
won in a "landslide".
Here are the states and the number of voters (rounded up
to the nearest 1,000 required to swing the result) who would
have had to be swayed from Obama to McCain:
North Carolina (7,000)
Indiana (13,000)
New Hampshire (34,000)
Iowa (71,000)
Florida (103,000)
Ohio (104,000)
Virginia (117,000)
All numbers based on the latest reported vote tallies from
the CNN web site (place the cursor over the state to see
the latest numbers).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
I think when you add in the house and senate gains it's a firm mandate.
zero incumbent dem losses in either house or senate,
20+ dems in the house
6+ dems in the senate
|
Yes I would definitely agree with that assessment. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Tartarus
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
On Nov 13, 6:48 pm, "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Courtesy of another thread...
McCain's
|
And yet Obama got over twice the electoral votes that McCain did.
That's a natural enough cutoff to call it a landslide.
Tartarus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
KalElFan
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:21 pm Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:m5hqh4lgfmfo3ei0piorhud3ea7fcso6c8@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:48:15 -0500, "KalElFan"
kalelfan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
Courtesy of another thread...
McCain's most efficient path to winning the election involved
convincing less than 450,000 Obama voters in TOTAL, in
seven key states, to switch from Obama to McCain. In
effect, less than one-half of one percent of those voting in
the election, and less than one-sixth of one percent of the
U.S. population, all of them in 7 key states, elected Obama.
Really. So, if he'd only have had those 450,000 voters he
would have won the election?
|
Yes. There would have been howling as I said in the OP or
the original thread, about Obama winning the popular vote by
5 to 6 points. But McCain would have had a narrow electoral
college win, 271-267. All of Obama's popular vote margin
would have been from his overkill wins in a handful of states:
California, New York, his home state of Illinois, Michigan,
and Massachusetts. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
KalElFan
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:21 pm Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
<pkj0891@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ga4qh4pbj614i3arrhv13om1bn38kgkpaf@4ax.com...
| Quote: | Not to mention, the popular vote. I really hate the Electoral
College, so I always look at the popular vote total. Obama
is winning by a huge margin, in terms of recent elections.
|
A margin of 6.7% is not fairly described as a huge margin in
ANY comparison, even to the virtual tie of 2000. More than
half of U.S. elections have been won by greater popular vote
margins, so it's actually a below median victory in terms of
the popular vote. Also in terms of the average, because 13
elections were won by more than double the 6.7% Obama
won by. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
KalElFan
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:21 pm Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
"FDR" <FDR@fkfkdkfd> wrote in message
news:0LSdnTBXi9UbmIDUnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | KalElFan wrote:
"Georgiana Gates" <ramrod@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:491cded0$0$7345$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
KalElFan wrote:
Courtesy of another thread...
McCain's most efficient path to winning the election involved
convincing less than 450,000 Obama voters in TOTAL, in
seven key states, to switch from Obama to McCain. In
effect, less than one-half of one percent of those voting in
the election, and less than one-sixth of one percent of the
U.S. population, all of them in 7 key states, elected Obama.
Something to consider for those who seem to think Obama
won in a "landslide".
Here are the states and the number of voters (rounded up
to the nearest 1,000 required to swing the result) who would
have had to be swayed from Obama to McCain:
North Carolina (7,000)
Indiana (13,000)
New Hampshire (34,000)
Iowa (71,000)
Florida (103,000)
Ohio (104,000)
Virginia (117,000)
All numbers based on the latest reported vote tallies from
the CNN web site (place the cursor over the state to see
the latest numbers).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
It only needed a swing of 500+ votes to change the 2000
election
Actually only 269 votes in Florida, from Bush to Gore
and a swing of 100,000 for Kerry to win in 2004.
Actually less than 60,000 votes in Ohio, from Bush to Kerry.
Your point is?
Unaltered by you underestimating how extraordinarily close
2000 and 2004 were. No one called those two victories
landslides. As I'd written in the other thread this one was
inspired by, 9 of the last 15 elections were won by greater
Electoral Vote margins than Obama won by here. So even
without looking at the closeness of the race in the seven key
states that made the difference, the Electoral Vote margin
was nothing special.
In 2004 Bush claimed he had a mandate. Are you disputing
that?
|
No, I don't particularly dispute that because the definition of the
word mandate is fuzzy enough to simply include legal authority to
govern. In most cases the definition seems to have a context that
goes beyond that, but checking dictionary.com just now I found
one that reads "permit to act on behalf of a group". With the
Supreme Court ruling in 2000, Bush had that and so he could be
said to have a mandate even in 2000. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
KalElFan
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
"Chris Darwin" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ZaKdnc12s6bVlIDUnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com...
| Quote: | KalElFan wrote:
Courtesy of another thread...
McCain's most efficient path to winning the election involved
convincing less than 450,000 Obama voters in TOTAL, in
seven key states, to switch from Obama to McCain. In
effect, less than one-half of one percent of those voting in
the election, and less than one-sixth of one percent of the
U.S. population, all of them in 7 key states, elected Obama.
Something to consider for those who seem to think Obama
won in a "landslide".
Here are the states and the number of voters (rounded up
to the nearest 1,000 required to swing the result) who would
have had to be swayed from Obama to McCain:
North Carolina (7,000)
Indiana (13,000)
New Hampshire (34,000)
Iowa (71,000)
Florida (103,000)
Ohio (104,000)
Virginia (117,000)
All numbers based on the latest reported vote tallies from
the CNN web site (place the cursor over the state to see
the latest numbers).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
I think when you add in the house and senate gains it's a firm
mandate.
|
To the extent that mandate is an inherently soft word requiring
only legal authority to govern in this context, I'm not sure that
modifiers like "Firm Mandate!" or "Strong Mandate!" or "An
Historically Powerful Mandate!" are much more than an
amusement, a Left Wing Loon Virtual Fun House where the
indigenous partisans trumpet and urge on their candidate and
now president-elect to all manner of lunacy. He either will
or he won't get on that ride. We shall see. I hope for the
country's sake he doesn't.
For example most would agree the economic crisis is by far
the biggest issue. If Obama were to squander the goodwill
and honeymoon period on any of nuking talk radio with the
fairness doctrine, anything goes on abortion with the freedom
of choice act, eliminating secret ballot votes for workers with
card check, ramming Massachusetts activist judge rulings
on the rest of the country with the repeal of the Defense of
Marriage Act, and so on, that would act as a diversion to
way understate it. Obama's strong approval versus strong
disapproval rating was 40 to 32 in his favor the day after the
election. Yesterday it was 40 to 22, and even most of the
22 would probably concede they at least hope Obama will
prove their skepticism unfounded. Do the stuff I cited to
start the paragraph and the numbers will flip. Do all 4 and
they'd worse than flip. Obama will be on his way to being
as unpopular as Bush, right out of the gate.
So he should tell Rahmbo to tell the loons to get off his back
because the country is in crisis and he needs to spend the
first half of his administration fixing that. The "bone" that
he throws the left will be to solve the crisis. He'll have to
do some things there that will draw fire from the misguided
right AND the left depending on what it is. For example
if he raises ANY income taxes, capital gains taxes, or
dividend taxes in this environment, or engages in anti-trade
policy, he'll turn what's poised to be the worst recession
since the great depression into the second great depression.
He ought to announce none of those kinds of tax increases
and no anti-trade measures for his first two years. That
may annoy the left, but tough because doing it would be
lunacy.
On the other hand, the reason the market has tanked as
badly as it has is a combination of Obama uncertainty AND
fear of the massive contraction that's going on. The Obama
uncertainty can be addressed by him letting it be known that
the left wing lunacy stuff like that previously alluded to is
completely off the table for at least two years and that he's
going to govern from the center like even Pelosi and Reid
say he has to. The massive contraction problem is ironic,
because all they have to do there is be themselves. Where's
a bunch of free spending Democrats when you need them?
This b.s. about $100 billion or $200 billion bailouts is what's
killing the market, not because guys who don't get it like
Cavuto are wailing that it's too much but because it's WAY
too little. The cost to the U.S. economy and U.S. taxpayers
will literally be on the order of 10+ TRILLION over the term
of Obama's presidency if these idiots keep sitting around and
letting the economy massively contract.
This is a crisis that calls not for dropping money from helicopters.
There aren't enough helicopters and they couldn't fit enough
money or drop it quickly enough. They need C-130s and any
other airlift they can beg borrow or steal, to drop bags and
crates of money 24/7 before Christmas. They should have done
it long before now, including direct to consumers like the first
stimulus did early this year. The contraction in consumer spending
on the big ticket items especially will have a domino effect not
just on retailers but suppliers of retailers and that means virtually
everything. More job losses and the spiral will continue. They
are literally fiddling while everything burns and it will take a
decade before we recover just like it did Japan.
There is no inflation danger. There is no deficit danger.
There is no economic collapse danger, because it's already
happening. The danger has become reality. There is an
economic collapse fact unfolding before our eyes, because
the idiots haven't learned their Economics 101 from the first
great depression.
Not that throwing money at anything is a good idea. The
concerns that $25 billion or $50 billion to the auto industry
just gets sunk down a platinum union benefits rathole, with
none of the reorganization necessary for the big three to
survive, are well founded. There of course should be
strings attached to any bailout or even bridge financing
components of the plan. But one of the most important
strings IS to reduce layoffs to as close to zero as possible,
while the stimulus part of the plan gets consumers to do
most of the heavy lifting to turn the contraction around.
China just did a close to $600 billion stimulus and their
economy is half the size. The $700 billion the U.S. did
so far doesn't count because that was just to save the
financial system from collapse. It was the equivalent of
keeping the power on so everything wouldn't shut down.
This stimulus has to counter the damage and contraction
that's in progress. On the order of $1.2 trillion is about
right. The auto sector, the states and municipalities,
homeowners, the extension of unemployment benefits
should all be part of it. But direct to consumers as the
first tax rebate type of stimulus did should also be done,
to address retail and by extension the suppliers of retail.
Split it up by asking for another $700 billion now, but
include that significant direct to taxpayers component.
Do it on an emergency basis using the same data base
from early this year. Some checks may go out to the
wrong address or people who have died if that data base
hasn't been updated, but most checks will get returned
in those cases and time is critical. Popular support will
almost certainly be greater than if it's perceived as just
the fat UAW contracts being serviced. Bush and the
Senate will get tagged with all the blame if they refuse
to pass it or in Bush's case he vetoes it. But they need
this package last month and every day they don't pass it
makes the situation worse. Again, where are the fraking
Democrats when we most need them? Sitting on their
hands and not doing what they do best, at the very time
they need to be doing it.
If Obama and the Dems were to do the right thing and
advocate the massive stimulus (dare the Senate to filibuster
it or Bush to veto it), and shout from the rooftops that they
won't be doing the wrong things set out earlier, and further
showed some genuine bipartisanship (Obama offering
Palin the Energy Secretary post would be a great way
to do it), the Dow would probably rally 2,000 points
within a week from where it's at now. Instead, the
ongoing Obama uncertainty and the lack of any action
to halt the collapse will probably result in new lows .
Once the contraction problem is addressed, the deficit
will require an all of the above approach. A growth
strategy alone, which is the favorite rhetoric of the right,
will not do it. A Goods and Services Tax of about 5%,
akin to a National Sales Tax on everything, would go
a long way towards fiscal responsibility. Income tax
increases, when they come in a couple of years after
the economic situation has turned around, should be
framed as specific to health care for example. Instead
of increasing the marginal rate, implement a new health
care surtax used to fund health care access for all who
don't have it. It makes it much more palatable and more
difficult to argue against, provided the plan isn't a pure
government-run boondoggle.
If a law were passed tomorrow saying everyone has
access to health care, for example by giving everyone a
Medicare/Medicaid type card, the system would collapse.
Waiting lines and lists would quadruple. It'd be worse than
it is here in Canada, overnight. You can't legislate against
the basic laws of economics including supply and demand.
The best health care plan has to be two-tier. Those with
means don't have to rely on the publicly funded system,
they can use the private system and pay for it. The reason
for this is not so much philosophical -- that people should
have a choice and not be limited to a government-run
or controlled monopoly. It's that the system capacity has
to at least double over the next decade or more as the
population ages and those without coverage are covered.
The government can't pay for it all. It needs the private
sector component to bring the additional doctors, nurses.
hospitals, clinics, home care, prevention programs and
so on gradually online.
It's akin to what's needed in Energy where massive new
investment is required in alternative energy for example.
Government's job is partly funding that, but mostly setting
the rules (tax policy, legislation, etc.) so as much private
investment as possible is unleashed. The end result is
actually advantageous to the economy because new jobs
and growth are created. Some focus on the alarming
increase in older people requiring health care, but the
flip side is a burgeoning health care sector that employs
legions in well paying jobs that don't get shipped overseas,
and the resulting multiplier effect on everything else from
retail to auto, and communities to state to federal coffers,
and GDP. Same with Energy.
Obama and the Democrats could do quite well over the
next 2 to 4 years, if they play their cards right and focus
on the big picture economic, health care and energy issues
that their policies are perfectly suited for right now. The
Republican party could well be wiped out as a force for
decades, because the ideologues seem to be gathering
and suggesting government just sit on the sidelines and
expect the private sector to fix it all. Pragmatism does
not seem to be a concept these people understand. One
can have a philosophy but recognize there are sometimes
exceptional circumstances like this one where extraordinary
actions are necessary. Pelosi should get that $500 billion
to $700 billion or more stimulus package out there and let
the dumb Republicans play Herbert Hoover to their FDR
by opposing it. Then blame the Republicans for the
additional damage, layoffs, contraction and so on that
it'll cause. Come back in January and save the country
with an even bigger emergency stimulus package and ram
it through and blame the Republicans for the additional cost.
There's political gold here for the Democrats in 2010 and
2012, but it's in doing the FDR shtick not the annoying
chicken shit shtick that plays only to the far left. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
trotsky
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:53 pm Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
clouddreamer wrote:
| Quote: | JoneDark wrote:
On Nov 13, 9:31 pm, clouddreamer <Reduce.Re...@Recycle.today> wrote:
KalElFan wrote:
"Georgiana Gates" <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:491cded0$0$7345$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
KalElFan wrote:
Courtesy of another thread...
McCain's most efficient path to winning the election involved
convincing less than 450,000 Obama voters in TOTAL, in
seven key states, to switch from Obama to McCain. In
effect, less than one-half of one percent of those voting in
the election, and less than one-sixth of one percent of the
U.S. population, all of them in 7 key states, elected Obama.
Something to consider for those who seem to think Obama
won in a "landslide".
Here are the states and the number of voters (rounded up
to the nearest 1,000 required to swing the result) who would
have had to be swayed from Obama to McCain:
North Carolina (7,000)
Indiana (13,000)
New Hampshire (34,000)
Iowa (71,000)
Florida (103,000)
Ohio (104,000)
Virginia (117,000)
All numbers based on the latest reported vote tallies from
the CNN web site (place the cursor over the state to see
the latest numbers).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
It only needed a swing of 500+ votes to change the 2000
election
Actually only 269 votes in Florida, from Bush to Gore
and a swing of 100,000 for Kerry to win in 2004.
Actually less than 60,000 votes in Ohio, from Bush to Kerry.
Your point is?
Unaltered by you underestimating how extraordinarily close
2000 and 2004 were. No one called those two victories
landslides.
Oh fer god's sake. Obama's win was convincing. A few more EVs and it
would have been a convincing landslide (375).
Hmm, you've been calling it a landslide all over Usenet.
I don't recall calling it a landslide.
His poll numbers up the election were flirting with "landslide numbers"
and that is exactly what he did...flirted with that 375.
|
Alright, cd, into the penalty box for misuse of the word "landslide".
What these dickheads seem to not be comprehending is that Obama took
states that have been traditionally red for many many years. I don't
care if you call it a "landslide" or a mandate or a very convincing win,
Obama won handily and the only talk of voter fraud this time were the
losers complaining that ACORN was in cahoots with the Devil. All this
whining is too predictable--do these guys want to go through life
looking like Pavlov's dogs? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
trotsky
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
KalElFan wrote:
| Quote: | "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:m5hqh4lgfmfo3ei0piorhud3ea7fcso6c8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:48:15 -0500, "KalElFan"
kalelfan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
Courtesy of another thread...
McCain's most efficient path to winning the election involved
convincing less than 450,000 Obama voters in TOTAL, in
seven key states, to switch from Obama to McCain. In
effect, less than one-half of one percent of those voting in
the election, and less than one-sixth of one percent of the
U.S. population, all of them in 7 key states, elected Obama.
Really. So, if he'd only have had those 450,000 voters he
would have won the election?
Yes. There would have been howling as I said in the OP or
the original thread, about Obama winning the popular vote by
5 to 6 points. But McCain would have had a narrow electoral
college win, 271-267.
|
I agree that if we lived in a world where "Joe the Plumber" was an
actual plumber this would've been possible. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
clouddreamer
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
KalElFan wrote:
| Quote: | "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
news:m5hqh4lgfmfo3ei0piorhud3ea7fcso6c8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:48:15 -0500, "KalElFan"
kalelfan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
Courtesy of another thread...
McCain's most efficient path to winning the election involved
convincing less than 450,000 Obama voters in TOTAL, in
seven key states, to switch from Obama to McCain. In
effect, less than one-half of one percent of those voting in
the election, and less than one-sixth of one percent of the
U.S. population, all of them in 7 key states, elected Obama.
Really. So, if he'd only have had those 450,000 voters he
would have won the election?
Yes. There would have been howling as I said in the OP or
the original thread, about Obama winning the popular vote by
5 to 6 points. But McCain would have had a narrow electoral
college win, 271-267. All of Obama's popular vote margin
would have been from his overkill wins in a handful of states:
California, New York, his home state of Illinois, Michigan,
and Massachusetts.
|
Sigh. And Gore would have won with a few hundred votes in ONE state and
Kerry with 60 grand or so in ONE state.
Are you trying to lessen Obama's wide margin of victory????
He won. Get over it.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
clouddreamer
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
trotsky wrote:
| Quote: | clouddreamer wrote:
JoneDark wrote:
On Nov 13, 9:31 pm, clouddreamer <Reduce.Re...@Recycle.today> wrote:
KalElFan wrote:
"Georgiana Gates" <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:491cded0$0$7345$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
KalElFan wrote:
Courtesy of another thread...
McCain's most efficient path to winning the election involved
convincing less than 450,000 Obama voters in TOTAL, in
seven key states, to switch from Obama to McCain. In
effect, less than one-half of one percent of those voting in
the election, and less than one-sixth of one percent of the
U.S. population, all of them in 7 key states, elected Obama.
Something to consider for those who seem to think Obama
won in a "landslide".
Here are the states and the number of voters (rounded up
to the nearest 1,000 required to swing the result) who would
have had to be swayed from Obama to McCain:
North Carolina (7,000)
Indiana (13,000)
New Hampshire (34,000)
Iowa (71,000)
Florida (103,000)
Ohio (104,000)
Virginia (117,000)
All numbers based on the latest reported vote tallies from
the CNN web site (place the cursor over the state to see
the latest numbers).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
It only needed a swing of 500+ votes to change the 2000
election
Actually only 269 votes in Florida, from Bush to Gore
and a swing of 100,000 for Kerry to win in 2004.
Actually less than 60,000 votes in Ohio, from Bush to Kerry.
Your point is?
Unaltered by you underestimating how extraordinarily close
2000 and 2004 were. No one called those two victories
landslides.
Oh fer god's sake. Obama's win was convincing. A few more EVs and it
would have been a convincing landslide (375).
Hmm, you've been calling it a landslide all over Usenet.
I don't recall calling it a landslide.
His poll numbers up the election were flirting with "landslide
numbers" and that is exactly what he did...flirted with that 375.
Alright, cd, into the penalty box for misuse of the word "landslide".
What these dickheads seem to not be comprehending is that Obama took
states that have been traditionally red for many many years. I don't
care if you call it a "landslide" or a mandate or a very convincing win,
Obama won handily and the only talk of voter fraud this time were the
losers complaining that ACORN was in cahoots with the Devil. All this
whining is too predictable--do these guys want to go through life
looking like Pavlov's dogs?
|
<slaps wrist> And now the Catholic Church is removing its funding from
ACORN...talk about hypocritical assholes.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gary DeWaay
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
In article <6o49k1F1q9c5U1@mid.individual.net>,
kalelfan@yanospamhoo.com KalElFan says...
| Quote: | Unaltered by you underestimating how extraordinarily close
2000 and 2004 were. No one called those two victories
landslides. As I'd written in the other thread this one was
inspired by, 9 of the last 15 elections were won by greater
Electoral Vote margins than Obama won by here. So even
without looking at the closeness of the race in the seven key
states that made the difference, the Electoral Vote margin
was nothing special.
|
Has there been anything besides LOSSES for Pubs since 2004?
Maybe a few new governors here and there, but besides
that... nearly every single rightie in America has either
lost, or scratched out a narrow victory. Pubs that used to
win by hundreds of thousands of votes suddenly found
themselves in horse-races... and still righties all over the
USA are convinced there isn't a problem anywhere.
Check that... they are convinced the problem is they simply
weren't wingnut enough.
Kinda pathetic to see a group of people repeatedly shooting
themselves in the foot without a clue why that damn gun
keeps going off.
Kinda fun to watch though, in a demented sort of way. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Audie Murphy's Ghost
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
In article
<b979adb5-6d29-4556-9988-5e349dd4579c@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com>,
Tartarus <tartarus@rome.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 13, 6:48 pm, "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
Courtesy of another thread...
McCain's
And yet Obama got over twice the electoral votes that McCain did.
That's a natural enough cutoff to call it a landslide.
|
I voted for Obama -- and I think it was the best of the ten
presidential votes I've cast in my lifetime -- but I don't think it was
a landslide. Obama's victory was decisive, but "landslide" suggests
LBJ, Reagan or Nixon/72 margins.
As for mandates, I sense there's one here, given the size of the
victory and the enthusiasm of Obama's supporters. I still remember
Rush Limbaugh complaining in 2000 that Gore's ongoing court challenge
in Florida was eroding Bush's mandate. Bush lost the popular vote and
beat Gore in the Electoral College by only a whisker-thin 271-266. If
*that* mess can bestow a mandate, then Obama certainly has one. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jonedark79@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 12:55 am Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
On Nov 14, 1:16 pm, clouddreamer <Reuse.Recy...@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
| Quote: | JoneDark wrote:
On Nov 13, 9:37 pm, clouddreamer <Reduce.Re...@Recycle.today> wrote:
JoneDark wrote:
On Nov 13, 9:31 pm, clouddreamer <Reduce.Re...@Recycle.today> wrote:
KalElFan wrote:
"Georgiana Gates" <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:491cded0$0$7345$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
KalElFan wrote:
Courtesy of another thread...
McCain's most efficient path to winning the election involved
convincing less than 450,000 Obama voters in TOTAL, in
seven key states, to switch from Obama to McCain. In
effect, less than one-half of one percent of those voting in
the election, and less than one-sixth of one percent of the
U.S. population, all of them in 7 key states, elected Obama.
Something to consider for those who seem to think Obama
won in a "landslide".
Here are the states and the number of voters (rounded up
to the nearest 1,000 required to swing the result) who would
have had to be swayed from Obama to McCain:
North Carolina (7,000)
Indiana (13,000)
New Hampshire (34,000)
Iowa (71,000)
Florida (103,000)
Ohio (104,000)
Virginia (117,000)
All numbers based on the latest reported vote tallies from
the CNN web site (place the cursor over the state to see
the latest numbers).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
It only needed a swing of 500+ votes to change the 2000
election
Actually only 269 votes in Florida, from Bush to Gore
and a swing of 100,000 for Kerry to win in 2004.
Actually less than 60,000 votes in Ohio, from Bush to Kerry.
Your point is?
Unaltered by you underestimating how extraordinarily close
2000 and 2004 were. No one called those two victories
landslides.
Oh fer god's sake. Obama's win was convincing. A few more EVs and it
would have been a convincing landslide (375).
Hmm, you've been calling it a landslide all over Usenet.
I don't recall calling it a landslide.
His poll numbers up the election were flirting with "landslide numbers"
and that is exactly what he did...flirted with that 375.
Well I'm not going to do a search to argue such a small point. Suffice
it to say I'm new here and cruised through a few threads to get a feel
for the tone of the posters. Your posts are as giddy as a teen at a
David Cassidy concert! And you're pretty much an ostrich when it
comes to political discussion, aren't you? A bit PLONK-happy perhaps?
If you notice, the plonks are primarily for insulting, bigoted people.
Freedom of expression also means freedom from expression.
|
I noticed you tended to plonk people who disagreed with you; not all
of them were insulting and bigoted. Then again, you might see it that
way if you're very biased in one direction.
| Quote: |
And yes, I'd say a lot of people were giddy over this election. It
didn't get stolen this time around.
|
Anyone who still believes that is not worth debating with. It wasn't
stolen the last two times, either if you've read the NY Times,
Washington Post and USA Today.
| Quote: | The right man won. You have a
problem with that?
|
Um, no. Did I say I did? See? You sense I may disagree with you and
you become snide. Methinks you may be projecting when you say others
are insulting and bigoted toward you.
| Quote: |
And try knowing what you're talking about before YOU bring up a "small
point."
|
Well, there we have it then. You seem to have a huge self-esteem
problem. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
clouddreamer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:04 am Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
JoneDark wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 13, 9:37 pm, clouddreamer <Reduce.Re...@Recycle.today> wrote:
JoneDark wrote:
On Nov 13, 9:31 pm, clouddreamer <Reduce.Re...@Recycle.today> wrote:
KalElFan wrote:
"Georgiana Gates" <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:491cded0$0$7345$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
KalElFan wrote:
Courtesy of another thread...
McCain's most efficient path to winning the election involved
convincing less than 450,000 Obama voters in TOTAL, in
seven key states, to switch from Obama to McCain. In
effect, less than one-half of one percent of those voting in
the election, and less than one-sixth of one percent of the
U.S. population, all of them in 7 key states, elected Obama.
Something to consider for those who seem to think Obama
won in a "landslide".
Here are the states and the number of voters (rounded up
to the nearest 1,000 required to swing the result) who would
have had to be swayed from Obama to McCain:
North Carolina (7,000)
Indiana (13,000)
New Hampshire (34,000)
Iowa (71,000)
Florida (103,000)
Ohio (104,000)
Virginia (117,000)
All numbers based on the latest reported vote tallies from
the CNN web site (place the cursor over the state to see
the latest numbers).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
It only needed a swing of 500+ votes to change the 2000
election
Actually only 269 votes in Florida, from Bush to Gore
and a swing of 100,000 for Kerry to win in 2004.
Actually less than 60,000 votes in Ohio, from Bush to Kerry.
Your point is?
Unaltered by you underestimating how extraordinarily close
2000 and 2004 were. No one called those two victories
landslides.
Oh fer god's sake. Obama's win was convincing. A few more EVs and it
would have been a convincing landslide (375).
Hmm, you've been calling it a landslide all over Usenet.
I don't recall calling it a landslide.
His poll numbers up the election were flirting with "landslide numbers"
and that is exactly what he did...flirted with that 375.
Well I'm not going to do a search to argue such a small point. Suffice
it to say I'm new here and cruised through a few threads to get a feel
for the tone of the posters. Your posts are as giddy as a teen at a
David Cassidy concert! And you're pretty much an ostrich when it
comes to political discussion, aren't you? A bit PLONK-happy perhaps?
|
If you notice, the plonks are primarily for insulting, bigoted people.
Freedom of expression also means freedom from expression.
And yes, I'd say a lot of people were giddy over this election. It
didn't get stolen this time around. The right man won. You have a
problem with that?
And try knowing what you're talking about before YOU bring up a "small
point."
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
clouddreamer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:46 am Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
jonedark79@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 14, 1:16 pm, clouddreamer <Reuse.Recy...@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
JoneDark wrote:
On Nov 13, 9:37 pm, clouddreamer <Reduce.Re...@Recycle.today> wrote:
JoneDark wrote:
On Nov 13, 9:31 pm, clouddreamer <Reduce.Re...@Recycle.today> wrote:
KalElFan wrote:
"Georgiana Gates" <ram...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:491cded0$0$7345$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
KalElFan wrote:
Courtesy of another thread...
McCain's most efficient path to winning the election involved
convincing less than 450,000 Obama voters in TOTAL, in
seven key states, to switch from Obama to McCain. In
effect, less than one-half of one percent of those voting in
the election, and less than one-sixth of one percent of the
U.S. population, all of them in 7 key states, elected Obama.
Something to consider for those who seem to think Obama
won in a "landslide".
Here are the states and the number of voters (rounded up
to the nearest 1,000 required to swing the result) who would
have had to be swayed from Obama to McCain:
North Carolina (7,000)
Indiana (13,000)
New Hampshire (34,000)
Iowa (71,000)
Florida (103,000)
Ohio (104,000)
Virginia (117,000)
All numbers based on the latest reported vote tallies from
the CNN web site (place the cursor over the state to see
the latest numbers).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
It only needed a swing of 500+ votes to change the 2000
election
Actually only 269 votes in Florida, from Bush to Gore
and a swing of 100,000 for Kerry to win in 2004.
Actually less than 60,000 votes in Ohio, from Bush to Kerry.
Your point is?
Unaltered by you underestimating how extraordinarily close
2000 and 2004 were. No one called those two victories
landslides.
Oh fer god's sake. Obama's win was convincing. A few more EVs and it
would have been a convincing landslide (375).
Hmm, you've been calling it a landslide all over Usenet.
I don't recall calling it a landslide.
His poll numbers up the election were flirting with "landslide numbers"
and that is exactly what he did...flirted with that 375.
Well I'm not going to do a search to argue such a small point. Suffice
it to say I'm new here and cruised through a few threads to get a feel
for the tone of the posters. Your posts are as giddy as a teen at a
David Cassidy concert! And you're pretty much an ostrich when it
comes to political discussion, aren't you? A bit PLONK-happy perhaps?
If you notice, the plonks are primarily for insulting, bigoted people.
Freedom of expression also means freedom from expression.
I noticed you tended to plonk people who disagreed with you; not all
of them were insulting and bigoted. Then again, you might see it that
way if you're very biased in one direction.
And yes, I'd say a lot of people were giddy over this election. It
didn't get stolen this time around.
Anyone who still believes that is not worth debating with. It wasn't
stolen the last two times, either if you've read the NY Times,
Washington Post and USA Today.
The right man won. You have a
problem with that?
Um, no. Did I say I did? See? You sense I may disagree with you and
you become snide. Methinks you may be projecting when you say others
are insulting and bigoted toward you.
|
You need to stop applying first year psychology to total strangers. Your
comments are saying more about you than they can ever say about me.
| Quote: |
And try knowing what you're talking about before YOU bring up a "small
point."
Well, there we have it then. You seem to have a huge self-esteem
problem.
|
Well, that last part went way over your head.
..
--
We must change the way we live,
or the climate will do it for us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oCYW4ScUnw |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
