phoenix bhai, my comment to OG was a joke in line with the thread's discussion. I think he took it that way too.
5Abi,
Your analysis leaves us in a bit of a quandry.
Take the example below:
College, no
Overweight, no
Walmart,no
White, yes
(and he looks like a lot of the Pakistani men in the "image gallery")
So, stupid Democrat? probably. Stupid Republican? doubtful.
[thumb=H]zoolander27573_8688561.JPG[/thumb]
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
(and he looks like a lot of the Pakistani men in the "image gallery")
[/QUOTE]
lol..y u..checking out paki men in img gallery...
i was gonna post my pic..but im scared now..
lussi,
Pluck your eyebrows and have at it, yer not my type.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
That may be true with respect to those you spoke to. However, the consistent 9 to 1 voting support given by black Americans to DEM party candidates hardly supports your theory. It is not long and hard thought on the issues that causes this level of support among the black population. It is the label DEM or REP. Similarly, non-minority poor vote DEM because the DEM's rich vs. poor class warfare pitch panders to them.
[/quote]
The people I am basing my findings on are white, non-partisan, educated people. I'm not talking blacks, poor, evangelicals, partisans or anyone else that falls into the pre-determined categories - I am talking about the same 20% swing vote. Yes, Bush did get more of their votes (especially around here where he carrried the white vote 75%-25%). And yes, they did vote on issues and favored Bush based on issues. But their issues were such things as "Don't upset the apple cart", "Don't change horses in midstream", "He favors us whites, the other dude will empower the blacks", "He doesn't put up with crap and will kick ass", "Whites vote Repbulican" etc. Hardly well thought out positions.
Re: Re: why Bush won red states and why Kerry won Blue states - Interesting Analysis
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
Too bad it's BS.
[/QUOTE]
Is it? The article you posted Storch is about some stats on Bush and Gore not Bush and Kerry. Your article is 4 years old.
Guys, you can present statistics in such a way that they make your point. For example, here is a map of Colorado.
[thumb=H]co-vote-20045263_8306265.JPG[/thumb]
The red is for Kerry and it is a fact that the top two counties that voted for him 69% have the most post graduate Universities in the state.
The blood red that you see on the middle top is Boulder Country, and according to the state wide statistics, it has highest number of graduate professional degree holders [21.2%] in the state, it has an bellow average number of Hispanics (around 10% with Colorado being 17+%). And according to this Denver Post Report from Dec. 2003, Boulder-Longmont metro area has the highest number of college degree holders in USA with 55.2% of adults, 25 years or older having gone to a 4 year college. The only other metro area that has more than 50% of college graduates is Stamford-Norwalk, CT with 50.5%. And guess what? Boulder country hasn’t voted for a Republican President since Regan in 1980. It has voted in a Democrat for senate & congress till the records show. All state representatives are Democrats, including county commissioners and all.
Does that make a case that educated ones vote for Kerry? Not really, for many reasons; 1) the above stats do not prove that the 29.5% people in Boulder County who voted for Bush didn’t have a post graduate degree, 2) Mathematically it is possible that the all post graduate degree holders voted for Bush 3) Actually Douglas County, is the most densely populated county in Colorado, and has the least number of high school drop outs and the most number of people with at least a college degree and guess what? That county voted for Bush 66.5%!! (It also has only 5.1% of Hispanic population; significantly bellow the state average).
The bottom line is the United States is huge country, with many subcultures and regional political preferences. South is different from south west or mid-west. Illinois has a political culture of it’s own and so does California. New England is not like Washington or Oregon. It is very complex and herd to make a simple argument why people vote with one party or other; at best they are all guesses.
Ahmadjee, defining all the constituencies is very difficult without tons of data. For example, The District of Columbia is, for the most part horribly poor, and uneducated (with the exception of the NW district), yet DC was more than 90% for Kerry.
http://www.dclibrary.org/sdc/city-summary.html
There were only 19k votes for Bush in the entire city!
If anything, the Democratic support looks like a dumbell, heavily weighted on either end, but thin in the middle.
The real point is that since 1980 we have 8 Reagan years, 4 BushI years, 8 Bush II years. Thats 20 years of Republican rule under three separate presidents, compared to 8 years of Clinton. Even if you discount the first Bush election as too close to call, you still have to look at strong and growing Republican majorities in the House and Senate.
The Democrats have been essentially depowered for decades. Time for some soul searching. But to understand the demographics, you need tons of data and some neural network time to explore all the possible parameters and linkages. The “Bush followers are measurably stupid” sounds enormously like sour grapes, not rational analysis.
I agree that the core democrats seem to be on borders of education spectrum.
Though, I am not sure about your argument that Republican majority is slowly growing. It might have been in the past & this election seems to be their best triumph but if political affiliations stay the same four years from now, just on basis of demographics Republicans will lose their majority. Only if they can start courting more black & Hispanic votes then they might hold on to their majority. For example, running a Cuban-American in a critical state as FL was a great choice.
For example, The District of Columbia is, for the most part horribly poor, and uneducated
And from 2000 census 60+% blacks.
Depowered for decades? They owned the 1990’s OG.
After Hoover there was 20 straight years of Democrat control of the White House. Counting Hoovers time the Repub’s controlled it for 12 straight years. The Religious right played an incredibly important role in this election and got Bush elected there is no denying that.
Oh and BTW Stamford-Norwalk also voted for Kerry.
UTD, The Dems did not “own” the 90’s. The web site for these facts is obviously biased, but these facts are indeed true:
POLITICAL FALL-OUT
- According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of November 2000 that lead had shrunk to 288. That’s a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats controlled only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.
Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November, the Republicans control one more than the Democrats. Not only was this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).
Here’s what happened to the Democrats under Clinton:
- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998 - State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998 - Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/wwstats.htm
The changes to the complexion of the country has been quite steady, but largely unnoticed. There are some Democrats here in deep denial.
OG your stats defunct your previosu statement that the Dems have been depowered for decades, in order to lose those seats that means they had to have those seats. The Dems until very recently control the House of Representatives for decades.
The Dems need to shift focus to the Southwest which is very winable and lose the label that they are immoral. Go Jesus.
[QUOTE]
The Dems need to shift focus to the Southwest which is very winable and lose the label that they are immoral. Go Jesus.
[/QUOTE]
Just because of Go Jesus....I hereby announce that I will vote Democrat next election (not).
If Dems think that they can win the south by phony Go Jesus ro Go Moses or Go Muhammad signs they are sadly mistaken. They will have to drop the agendas like same sex marriage from their platform. I dont see them doing that any time soon ...do you?
UTD,
That means that they owned the 70's and 80's. Losing an incumbant seat is a difficult thing to do, and by the time you start doing it en masse, you are screwing up big time. They have been depowered for a long time. Going from dominating state legislatures by thousands of seats, to actually being a minority last term is a huge sea change. Clinton did not have control of both the house and senate, so his legislative history is almost by definition compromised.
This election is a wake up call that has been evident all through the 90's. Four more years of minority status in both houses? Horrible. Heads should roll. Pelosi would be a good start. And oh please, plan on throwing Hilary out there in '08! She needs to go get bapized in a river a couple of times before then, and move back to Arkansas. She is unelectable.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *
They will have to drop the agendas like same sex marriage from their platform. I dont see them doing that any time soon ...do you?
[/QUOTE]
^ Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), yesterday said that the gay marriages (in SF) were "too much, too fast, too soon".
Seems like Democratic leadership is also realizing that their blind embrace of all crazy social causes has hurt them much more than they had originally thought. Most Americans hold certain values dear to them, and the overwhelming response of evangelical christians in this election for Bush is a clear indication on whats wrong with Democratic party.
This election its clear Bush got a lot of Can't-Change-a-War-President-Even-If-He-is-a-Moron vote. But my estimate is that Kerry got even more ABB (Anybody But Bush) vote. This won't happen in 2008. So Dems should not think that 49% people support Dem values. My estimate is that a lot of Kerry voters didn't really care much about Kerry either.
:stupid: Agreed. (but don’t get used to it)
Umm Bush had 59,459,351 votes Kerry had 55,950,097 (most current numbers CNN is posting). If 133,000 people in Ohio had voted for Kerry he would now be President. The sky is falling the sky is falling that I'm reading here is laughable.
Fasiel what’s the crazy social issues that are being embraced? Against constitutional amendments that ban gay marriages? The gay marriage ban in Ohio that passed was opposed strongly by Republicans and Democrats alike and the state will suffer due to it.
Do Dems need to do certain things? Absolutely and I've already stated some.
utd... thats what I mentioned in my last post. I have a feeling some Dems are going to fall into the trap that only 133k votes kept them from Presidency and so all is good and dandy. Its not. I may be wrong, ofcourse, but the constant slide of Democratic seats in Congress should be a clear indication that Reps are making great strides in strengthening their stronghold over legislature and Executive branch ... and by default over judiciary in this term.
The harm done by the Democratic mayor of San Francisco (or the MA judges) to the Democratic party is not limited to SF or California. I have a strong feeling that Dems lost many votes all across the nation due to this issue. If you checked the polls after the election.. moral issues rated higher than security and terrorism in the minds of voters. There is a growing disconnect between Democratic party and the values of Americans.
Actually, the left leaning democrats are already pissed at their party for acting too much like the Republicans. I am not sure how much more social conservatism these democrat supporters take before ditching the party all together. This time ABB kept them together, next time it wouldn’t. Just imagine the Republican Party without the religious right.
You can't argue on one hand the Democrats are very much like the Republicans so why not vote Rep. (the argument used by many Desis in favor of Bush) and then on the other hand say that the reason Democrats don't get enough votes is because they are not like the Republicans. At least pick one side of the suggestion.