babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » USA   » An interesting comparison...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: An interesting comparison...
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 04 November 2004 04:08 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 04 November 2004 04:12 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for posting that. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 04 November 2004 05:52 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow, Gir good compare thanks for that, it seems the south won, eh?
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 06 November 2004 09:50 AM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's also interesting to consider the breakdown by income.

On foreign policy, Bush favors an aggressive war against terrorism, while Kerry was less pro-war. On domestic policy, Bush was obviously more oriented to commercial interests, while Kerry was more oriented to the lower/lower-middle classes.

The map of per capita income on a state by state basis tracks the presidential balloting almost perfectly: the higher the per capita income, the higher the Kerry vote; the lower the per capita income, the higher the Bush vote.

The most likely targets of terrorist attacks are all located in either New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, Massachusetts or the District of Columbia. Not a Bush state on the list. Bush convinced thousands of voters in Arkansas and Louisiana and New Mexico that the overriding issue is terrorism, even though they are probably at greater risk of dying in a blizzard. On the other hand, people who saw the World Trade Center go down were more likely to vote for Kerry. In contrast, Bush territory is chock-full of people in the Armed forces or Reserves.

It seems that the group that is generally well-off, helped by lower taxes on dividends, capital gains and estates, and more exposed to terrorism, is pro-Kerry, while the group that benefits less from cuts on the taxation of capital, are less exposed to risk of terrorist attack, and have a much higher rate of participation in the army, is pro-Bush.

[ 06 November 2004: Message edited by: abnormal ]


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 06 November 2004 10:04 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
...some of the media discussion in the United States of North America (my term for the country to the south of us) noted that Dubya got more support from (weekly or more frequent) church-goers, including, I think, a lot of Catholics that were deliberately targetted as possible anti-Kerry votes; this is worth noting because the religious right now will want their pound of flesh and will, no doubt, try to silence church-goers who don't share their xenophobic views....
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 06 November 2004 10:43 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Here's another interesting comparison—

quote:
Stupid people love Bush:
New study shows correlation between decline of IQ and rise of GOP

"Stupid people love Bush" new study proves According to the prestigious Southern California think tank, The Gluton Group, stupid people prefer President George W Bush over Senator John Kerry by a 4-to-1 margin. As Chief Resident Dr. Louis Friend characterized the results of the research, "the less intelligent you are, the more you like Bush." This landmark study, conducted over a 5 month period, involved 2400 likely voters bridging all economic stratas in the 17 states generally considered up for grabs on November 2nd. Participants were tested for intelligence, then asked to fill out a 12 page series of questions involving the Presidential candidates with results released earlier this week.


It's supposed to be satire, but is it?

Especially when you consider evidence such as this—

quote:
In further unhappy evidence of how ill-informed the American people are (blame the media), the Program on International Policy Attitudes found Bush supporters consistently ill-informed about Bush's stands on the issues (Kerry-ans, by contrast, are overwhelmingly right about his positions). Eighty-seven percent of Bush supporters think he favors putting labor and environmental standards into international trade agreements. Eighty percent of Bush supporters believe Bush wants to participate in the treaty banning landmines. Seventy-six percent of Bush supporters believe Bush wants to participate in the treaty banning nuclear weapons testing. Sixty-two percent believe Bush would participate in the International Criminal Court. Sixty-one percent believe Bush wants to participate in the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. Fifty-three percent does not believe Bush is building a missile defense system, a.k.a. "Star Wars.

[ 06 November 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 06 November 2004 11:16 AM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yea, that's the problem with democracy. Sometimes the peasants don't vote way you want them to. Somehow you've just got to figure out a way to restrict votes to intelligent people, you know, the ones that agree with you.
From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 06 November 2004 12:49 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Well, abnormal, what would you call these people *but* stupid?
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 06 November 2004 01:23 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is my personal favorite:


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 06 November 2004 01:41 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not sure what I'd call them but stupid isn't it.

Besides, I'm sure that lots of them think anyone that would support Kerry is stupid.

That's the whole point about a democracy - people vote the way they want to for a variety of reasons. Means that sometimes they won't agree with you. Doesn't mean they're stupid, it just means they have a different idea of what's good for them than you do.

Actually, the maps above by state don't give an accurate picture of who voted for who. If you break it down by county you get a much better picture of what part of America voted Republican and what part voted Democrat.


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 06 November 2004 02:00 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All this tells us is that (as Al Frankin puts it) desert salamaners voted heavely for Bush.

A map colour coded by area is next to meaningless . . . we need to overlay it with maps of other demographics like population, wealth, age, education, etc. to give any meanngfull.understanding


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 06 November 2004 02:07 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I posted a map of average income by state above. If you want it by county:

or by zip code:


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 06 November 2004 02:23 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Not sure what I'd call them but stupid isn't it. Besides, I'm sure that lots of them think anyone that would support Kerry is stupid.

Well considering these facts...


quote:
Eighty-seven percent of Bush supporters think he favors putting labor and environmental standards into international trade agreements. Eighty percent of Bush supporters believe Bush wants to participate in the treaty banning landmines. Seventy-six percent of Bush supporters believe Bush wants to participate in the treaty banning nuclear weapons testing. Sixty-two percent believe Bush would participate in the International Criminal Court. Sixty-one percent believe Bush wants to participate in the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. Fifty-three percent does not believe Bush is building a missile defense system, a.k.a. "Star Wars.

... if you're not going to call them stupid you'd have to call them the most willfully ignorant and purposefully misinformed dolts on the planet.

"Stupid" is just shorthand for the same thing.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
britchestoobig
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6762

posted 06 November 2004 02:26 PM      Profile for britchestoobig     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Be it incomes or red/blues, what I see here is an all too common mistake.

All these counties won in a first-past-the-post electoral system. Reds and blues mask underlying *proportionalities* of votes. How many "blue" districts had say 40% for Bush (and the reverse)?

To a certain extent, it is interesting to look at the country in terms of who won in each district, but isn't it a hell of a lot more complicated than that? Without an accurate understanding of the vote breakdown within each district, I would find it difficult to speak of 'national divisions' with any certainty whatsoever.

Now, that being said, I'm still scared shitless. Because no matter the proportions, Bush has his mandate. Something wicked this way comes...


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 06 November 2004 02:31 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What the united Provinces of Canda would gain;article by Howard Gensler
quote:
What Canada Gets: higher education. All eight Ivy League universities, Stanford, U. Chicago and Northwestern all just lowered their admissions standards for the kids from Saskatchewan...
...The entertainment industry: You already love our movies and TV shows more than those red-staters and now when that rare production shoots in California or New York instead of Vancouver or Toronto, you still get credit for the jobs and the tax revenue...
...The computer industry: That's right, we keep Microsoft, Apple, Hewlett-Packard and Silicon Valley. "America" gets Dell...

etc., etc., But

quote:
Arnold Schwarzenegger: He can't be president but he'd make a swell Canadian premier.

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 06 November 2004 02:35 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Well compared to Ralph Klein and Gordon Campbell, he really doesn't look that bad.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 06 November 2004 02:49 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From elsewhere:
quote:
In Wisconsin, Bush came within 11,000 votes, or 1 percent. He lost New Hampshire by 10,000 votes or so, also 1 percent. In Pennsylvania, Bush lost by 127,472, or 2 percentage points. In Michigan, Bush came within 165,674 votes, or three percentage points. In Minnesota, Bush lost by 98,396 votes, or 3 points.

Remember this the next time some Democrats point out that Bush only won Ohio by two percentage points, or 136,483 votes.

============================================
So Bush was within 500,000 votes of a 348-190 electoral blowout. A mandate, if you will.



From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 06 November 2004 02:57 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you want some interesting demographic maps you might want to check this out.
From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 06 November 2004 03:18 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting, Gir...

Pretty much backs up a post I entered here regarding how America...and Canada...have divided between rural and urban culture.

An interesting overlay I'd post...if I knew how ...would be one of those photos from space of the US taken at night.

If you overlaid a political map, I suspect one would find that the areas with highly concentrated light...e.g., New England states and California...would, for the most part, be Democrat.

And the areas much less...I can't resist this, considering this is "Rabble" ..."un-enlightened" would be Republican.

[ 06 November 2004: Message edited by: sir_springer ]


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 06 November 2004 03:26 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Want maps? Go see BOP.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
asterix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2419

posted 06 November 2004 05:46 PM      Profile for asterix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
America the purple

Doesn't look nearly so clearcut this way...even in most of the "red" states, the dominant colour is purple, not red.

And then there's this state-level map, in which almost every state, "blue" or "red", is actually sitting in the 40-60% purple range.

It's a divided country, all right. But the divisions don't match up with state boundaries nearly as well as one might think.

[ 06 November 2004: Message edited by: asterix ]


From: deep inside the caverns of my mind | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 07 November 2004 01:37 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

This one is pretty intresting.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 07 November 2004 05:42 AM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know whether to be uplifted or just depressed by that one Van....


For some interesting maps, check out the NYT Election 2004 Final Tally

One particualrly interesting one (should be the first one that loads up) shows graphically by how large a margin of victory each county went... clearly showcases the "wasted vote" effect of the Electoral Vote system. Just imagine an even more Republican happy system that had an electoral vote per county? Now that would be a right-wing coup to end all coups!


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 November 2004 09:07 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sir_springer:
If you overlaid a political map, I suspect one would find that the areas with highly concentrated light...e.g., New England states and California...would, for the most part, be Democrat.

And the areas much less...I can't resist this, considering this is "Rabble" ..."un-enlightened" would be Republican.


Another dumb correlation if you're trying to imply that Democrats are less environmentally-friendly. (Although, re-reading your post, I'm not sure whether you're trying to do that.)

The reason the strongly Democratic areas would be more highly lit isn't because they're using more energy, but because there are more people per square mile in cities than in the country. I use a hell of a lot less natural resources living in my one-bedroom apartment in the middle of a city than someone living the suburban sprawl dream in the 905 belt. But my location on your map would be much more lit up than Oakville.

Of course, if you were only trying to make the correlation between voting Democrat and living in cities, then my apologies.

[ 07 November 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca