2008 Election Stats

[festeringZit]

Some unreported stats about the 2008 election:

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul , MN , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:

- Number of States won by Parties: Democrats - 20; Republicans - 30
- Square miles of land won by Parties: Democrats - 580,000; Republicans - 2,427,000
- Population of the counties won by Parties: Democrats - 127 million; Republicans - 143 million
- Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Parties: Democrats - 13.2; Republicans - 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

From the attachment, notice that only in the states of Alaska and Oklahoma were all counties won by McCain/Palin.

​

<hr>

 

[gtc08]

trying too hard zit.

 

[rolltide]

it's a fact gtc whether or not you think he's "trying too hard" (by the way thanks for properly spelling 'too' for the first time EVER)

The largest cities pull the democrats lever while the rest of the usa pull gop. It's been like that my entire life and will continue the same until I die. Only difference this time around is that Bush got lifelong GOPers to pull the looney left lever with his super-liberal policies (though you probably think it was them voting for Obama vs NOT voting for Bush Jr) of over-spending, big government, and globalization

 

[kingbill]

Alaska is pretty huge...

 

[festeringZit]

trying too hard zit.

Trying too hard? To what, teach you how to read?

hno:

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Trying too hard? To what, teach you how to read?

hno:

I don’t think reading is GTCs problem, comprehension is.

:monsters-

 

[kingbill]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp

 

[kingbill]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121008/content/01125113.guest.html

 

[barman]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp

Thanks KB.

The "Professor Olson" fictional reports have circulated the internet following each of the past three general election cycles, with only the names of the major candidates switched.

They get their greatest burst of circulation from dupes willing to forward or Paste almost anything that hits their emailbox

 

[festeringZit]

Thanks KB.

The "Professor Olson" fictional reports have circulated the internet following each of the past three general election cycles, with only the names of the major candidates switched.

They get their greatest burst of circulation from dupes willing to forward or Paste almost anything that hits their emailbox

What Barman the spin doctor fails to mention is that much of that
post is true and not fictional at all according to snopes.

Nice try at bullshit spin Barman.

That's why you don't like me, is because I will always call you on
all your bullshit.

 

[barman]

ZIT, now that I'm a Mod, I have a vested interest in you posting as many sillyass threads as you can dream up.

Keep 'em coming.

 

[barman]

The bogus 'facts and figures' were first imagined in late 2000 and they've been reprinted every two years since in some format that simply changes the names of the principals.

Start at the top where Obama carried 28 states rather than "20" and work your way down. Fun stuff.

Now argue that it's all good for at least six more posts and be sure to check back tomorrow too.

 

[festeringZit]

The bogus 'facts and figures' were first imagined in late 2000 and they've been reprinted every two years since in some format that simply changes the names of the principals.

Start at the top where Obama carried 28 states rather than "20" and work your way down. Fun stuff.

Now argue that it's all good for at least six more posts and be sure to check back tomorrow too.

Um, again nice try at a spin job, big man "moderator" whoo hoo. You
are big stuff in the world now aren't you?

If you read the snopes article it clearly articulated what was true
and what was not - you can call the whole thing fiction if you like,
lying is fun!!!

But, oh wait - according to your Unity Cult group, there is no such thing
as lying, and evil, right?

hno:

 

[kingbill]

What Barman the spin doctor fails to mention is that much of that
post is true and not fictional at all according to snopes.

Nice try at bullshit spin Barman.

That's why you don't like me, is because I will always call you on
all your bullshit.

Who's spinning who cupcake

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121008/content/01125113.guest.html

 

[barman]

The only significant advantage to being A WhooHoo Moderator is that increased forum traffic is now in my best interest. So where I may have previously felt annoyance when posters hung up dorky or kooky messages, I now applaud and encourage them.

Meanwhile, I'm sorry to see you've pretty much trashed our big two week truce and I'm back to being a Liar

all cool...totally my bad for thinking you had it in you

 

[barman]

Who's spinning who cupcake

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121008/content/01125113.guest.html

Correct. The Snopes page confirms that of the many numbers presented, only the population of counties and sq miles of area appear to be accurate when applied to the Bush/Gore election results.

However, when the exact same numbers are then recycled eight years later with only the names changing to McCain/Obama - as in the lead post of this here Thread - the fictional document is now replete with false data.

I'm sure that following the Nov 2010 election cycle, we'll see it pop up again in eager anti-Democratic emailboxes with McCain/Obama changed to read: Republican congressional voters/Democratic congressional voters.

 

[Preussen]

.

 

[Willie99]

Snopes had a distortion in it's rebuttal, why would they do that :think2:

When one argues that Bush won the "taxpaying territories", a response that Gore won the net tax paying states while Bush won the states that receive the most federal money is a distortion of the argument.

You see, the taxpaying communities within those states that pay more taxes more than likely voted for Bush, while the large entitlement and poorer cities voted for Gore, carrying such states for Gore.

So why do fact checkers intentionally lie? or are they just fucking stupid?

 

[festeringZit]

The only significant advantage to being A WhooHoo Moderator is that increased forum traffic is now in my best interest. So where I may have previously felt annoyance when posters hung up dorky or kooky messages, I now applaud and encourage them.

Meanwhile, I'm sorry to see you've pretty much trashed our big two week truce and I'm back to being a Liar

all cool...totally my bad for thinking you had it in you

Ahh... more spin from Barman. Nice try, just remember, I will always
call you on your bullshit.

Fact is, you broke the truce when you called me a dupe about 5
posts earlier.

Spin is fun!!!


:grandmais

It's ok, I didn't think you had it in you anyway.

 

[kingbill]

Snopes had a distortion in it's rebuttal, why would they do that :think2:

When one argues that Bush won the "taxpaying territories", a response that Gore won the net tax paying states while Bush won the states that receive the most federal money is a distortion of the argument.

You see, the taxpaying communities within those states that pay more taxes more than likely voted for Bush, while the large entitlement and poorer cities voted for Gore, carrying such states for Gore.

So why do fact checkers intentionally lie? or are they just fucking stupid?

Sure but Zit is stating those are the numbers for the 2008 election...