| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dano
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:54 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.
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.
|
I dare say you have never been accused of that. You say you are new here,
yet you leap right in and start being insulting. What type of reaction do
you expect? BTW...the next time you find a point too trivial to argue?
Don't. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
KalElFan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:18 am Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
"Tartarus" <tartarus@rome.com> wrote in message
news:b979adb5-6d29-4556-9988-5e349dd4579c@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | And yet Obama got over twice the electoral votes that McCain did.
That's a natural enough cutoff to call it a landslide.
|
By that illogic, one voter in each of the seven states could have swung
it to Obama and you'd still call it a landslide because you're looking
at only the Electoral College vote in isolation. The issue is whether
it can be fairly called a landslide or blowout or rout or similar words,
when all the facts are looked at. It can't fairly be called that. Even
in isolation, Obama's Electoral College win skirts the bottom third
in the last 15 elections, and I've demonstrated how a swing of less
than 450,000 votes in TOTAL from Obama to McCain, in the 7
key swing states, would have given it to McCain.
It was a lot closer than almost anyone realized including me when
I was arguing McCain would have lost no matter what, because of
the Market meltdown and the Media in the tank for Obama. The
combination of those two were, I thought, impossible to overcome
and lesser factors like Money (Obama lying and not limiting himself
to public campaign financing) and Mistakes made by the campaign
wouldn't have been enough to swing it. In fact lesser factors may
well have swung it. Even the various bogus polls showing Obama
up 13% and the like and saying it was over kept some Republicans
away from the polls, which was the intent. It worked. The exit
polls showed a lower than expected Republican turnout and it's
part of the reason the myth of record turnout never happened.
If McCain had had the same money as Obama AND hadn't wasted
a lot of it on Pennsylvania, putting it into the 7 key states instead, it
also could have helped sway the votes needed. He needed less
than 5 in 100 voters and in the case of three of the states only 1
(or less) in 100. A better get out the vote effort on the ground
could also have contributed. I'd assumed the smaller factors
could not have made enough difference, but they could have.
Many people identified the possibility of an upset being a very
narrow win in key states but a loss in the popular vote of several
points.
The response that the 2000 and 2004 elections were closer (hi
cd!) doesn't alter the point. The fact that the election is over
(duh, cd!) likewise doesn't alter the post mortems. Those who
participate in post-mortems and admonish others for not
getting over it (hi cd and others!) are a study in hypocrisy.
The amazing fact is the election was actually closer than the
6.7% popular vote and significant Electoral College margin
made it look. It had no right to be that close, and if anything
it's a tribute to McCain-Palin that despite pretty much every
factor being stacked against them it was still within reach. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
KalElFan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:24 am Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.238765f9ec9ea876989b2c@news.midco.net...
| Quote: | In article <6o49k1F1q9c5U1@mid.individual.net>,
kalelfan@yanospamhoo.com KalElFan says...
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.
|
Right, but this is largely caused by REPUBLICANS being
disenchanted with Bush and the mishandling of the war and
fiscal irresponsibility and so on. When Bush has a 76%
disapproval rating, news flash -- it`s NOT the left wing loons
causing that. The exit polls had 20% describing themselves
as liberal. It's why none of the liberals want to call themselves
that, and not all of the 20% are left wing loons. So the left
wing loons are a small minority inside a minority, many of
them delusional enough to think the country has made a
massive move to left wing loonydom. It hasn't, but yeah
their guy One won,  , and enough people in the middle
have been taking it out on Senate and House Republicans
as well.
There could be a massive shift back in 2010, depending how
it goes these next two years. Obama and the Democrats
have it within their power to govern from the center, turn
the economy around and maybe even create a long-term
shift. But ironically they need to virtually ignore the left
wing loon agenda to do that. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Iva Biggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:00 am Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
Actually, I well remember Limbaugh and the other Republican stooges
insisting
that GW had some massive mandate..
"KalElFan" <kalelfan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote in message
news:6o90i7F2fcbrU2@mid.individual.net...
| Quote: | "Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.238765f9ec9ea876989b2c@news.midco.net...
In article <6o49k1F1q9c5U1@mid.individual.net>,
kalelfan@yanospamhoo.com KalElFan says...
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.
Right, but this is largely caused by REPUBLICANS being
disenchanted with Bush and the mishandling of the war and
fiscal irresponsibility and so on. When Bush has a 76%
disapproval rating, news flash -- it`s NOT the left wing loons
causing that. The exit polls had 20% describing themselves
as liberal. It's why none of the liberals want to call themselves
that, and not all of the 20% are left wing loons. So the left
wing loons are a small minority inside a minority, many of
them delusional enough to think the country has made a
massive move to left wing loonydom. It hasn't, but yeah
their guy One won, , and enough people in the middle
have been taking it out on Senate and House Republicans
as well.
There could be a massive shift back in 2010, depending how
it goes these next two years. Obama and the Democrats
have it within their power to govern from the center, turn
the economy around and maybe even create a long-term
shift. But ironically they need to virtually ignore the left
wing loon agenda to do that. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Gary DeWaay
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:08 am Post subject: Re: AMAZING Election Fact -- How Close It Really Was |
|
|
In article <6o90i7F2fcbrU2@mid.individual.net>,
kalelfan@yanospamhoo.com KalElFan says...
| Quote: | There could be a massive shift back in 2010, depending how
it goes these next two years.
|
I doubt it. Even if things get worse, that's already
predicted. Maybe by 2014... but no way in HELL anyone
before then is going to be willing to let the morons that
got us into this mess have another crack at it any time
soon.
It would be like giving the Hoover adm. another chance after
just a few years of FDR.
Obama and the Democrats
| Quote: | have it within their power to govern from the center, turn
the economy around and maybe even create a long-term
shift. But ironically they need to virtually ignore the left
wing loon agenda to do that.
|
What do you consider "left-wing loon agenda," dare I ask?
(Knowing full well it means "anything righties disagree
with") |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
