Why Bush got re-elected

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
If this chart is right... well, what can I say? [!--emo&:blink:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/blink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'blink.gif\' /][!--endemo--]

Apparently, it was pretty similar during the [a href=\'http://americanassembler.com/features/iq_state_averages.htm\' target=\'_blank\']previous elections[/a]...


Source: [a href=\'http://www.chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm\' target=\'_blank\']http://www.chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm[/a]

[attachment deleted by admin]
 
oh this is going to piss some of our USA friends alot [!--emo&:blink:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/blink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'blink.gif\' /][!--endemo--] [!--emo&:blush:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/blush.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'blush.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
[!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
Notice how the top-ranked states are all concentrated in the North-East? One would almost think there were more universities and white-collar jobs in those states.....
 
The reason bush got re-elected is fear, he successfully scared america into voting for him AGAIN. Democrats rely too heavily on california and the north eastern states, the rest of the country was freakin' red. Not to mention they lost more than a couple of states from last elections ( I think Nevada, New Mexico and New Jersey are among those). They ignored middle (red-neck) America and it came back and bit them in the ass. Now Bible-thumping republicans own the presidency, congress and soon the Supreme court...
 
[!--emo&:lol:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/lol[1].gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'lol[1].gif\' /][!--endemo--]
Yeah and apparently if Kerry had pushed for the "lost" votes to be counted he would have won
 
Uh, Onhell? Only one state switched sides from the last election. And that's New Hampshire, it voted Kerry. The redistricting of the congressional districts in 2002 is what gave Bush the win.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Nov 17 2004, 08:39 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Nov 17 2004, 08:39 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Uh, Onhell?  Only one state switched sides from the last election.  And that's New Hampshire, it voted Kerry.  The redistricting of the congressional districts in 2002 is what gave Bush the win.
[snapback]91793[/snapback]​
[/quote]


I was going to attribute Bush's win largely to the number of votes cast in his favour.

Face it guys, Bush won both the popular vote and the electoral vote. Americans want him as president. Get over it.
 
Many thanks for posting this Mav. I've been looking for something like this to show everyone who doesn't believe the south is dumb and that these dumb people got Bush to serve another term. Mississippi's average IQ = 85?!?! [!--emo&:lol:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/lol[1].gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'lol[1].gif\' /][!--endemo--] That's a good thing to know (that is, if this is accurate). But I must say, I'm kind of glad to see Minnesota as the apparently the 11th smartest state. w00t.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Nov 17 2004, 05:39 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Nov 17 2004, 05:39 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Uh, Onhell?  Only one state switched sides from the last election.  And that's New Hampshire, it voted Kerry.  The redistricting of the congressional districts in 2002 is what gave Bush the win.
[snapback]91793[/snapback]​
[/quote]
Redistricting has nothing at all to do with presidential elections. It only affects the House of Representatives (where it did indeed help Republicans to gain several seats, particularly in southern states).

Presidential elections count the votes from an entire state, so districts within the state don't matter. There may be an exception for Maine and Nebraska - states which can split their electoral vote - but since neither state did split their vote, it's again a moot point.

There is no single reason why Bush won. But there are several major contributing factors:
1. The population of the US, as a whole, is generally becoming more conservative. Bush is more conservative than Kerry, so he got more votes.
2. The Republicans have a stronger political organization and more effective political strategists running their campaign. If politics were a game, then they simply have a better team.
3. Bush and Kerry actually agreed on most issues. Their differences were so slight as to be negligible. For example, both were in favor of the war in Iraq; they only differed in the area of how it should be fought. So it really came down to, who do you trust more? Kerry seemed cold, distant and too intellectual for most people while Bush seemed like a more normal and likeable guy. People generally vote for the person they like more, regardless of qualifications.

The Duke is right: the election is over. Like it or not, Bush won. Americans like me just have to deal with it for the next 4 years and try to get someone smarter in the White House in 2008.
 
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Face it guys, Bush won both the popular vote and the electoral vote. Americans want him as president. Get over it.
[/quote]

Hey, yes, bush won the popular and electoral votes, as astonishing as it was. But for the rest of the world (much more people than the freaking* gringos) this election results can only go in the direction of screwing us all up. Even worst now that condoleeza rice (a compleate psyco) was appointed secretary of state... This will just take the US further on its way of ignoring the UN and doing whatever the republicans think is good to be done, careless of the rest of the international community [!--emo&:cussing:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/cussing[1].gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'cussing[1].gif\' /][!--endemo--]

*By freaking I don't intend to offend anyone, it just seems freaky for me that a civilized contry, which, by the way, is the worlds most powerful, could vote for such a small-minded candidate as bush... [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Hey, yes, bush won the popular and electoral votes, as astonishing as it was. But for the rest of the world (much more people than the freaking* gringos) this election results can only go in the direction of screwing us all up. Even worst now that condoleeza rice (a compleate psyco) was appointed secretary of state... This will just take the us further on its way of ignoring the UN and doing whatever the republicans think is good to be done, careless of the rest of the international community [/quote]

Your point?
 
Bienvenido killer! que gusto ver otro Mexicano, ya que somos pocos en este foro! Anywho, Yes Bush won the election and suck it up, blah blah blah, I can still complain, and I can still moan, and I will still watch more Farenheit 9/11's and More Wag the Dogs etc. And like I said, Bush successfuly scared 52% of the country to give him BOTH the popular and electoral votes, more likable my ass, he's as likable as a turd sandwich.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-IronDuke+Nov 17 2004, 10:44 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Nov 17 2004, 10:44 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Your point?
[snapback]91847[/snapback]​
[/quote]
Can't you see it? We're fucked, that's his point.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-SinisterMinisterX+Nov 17 2004, 10:18 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SinisterMinisterX @ Nov 17 2004, 10:18 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Redistricting has nothing at all to do with presidential elections. It only affects the House of Representatives (where it did indeed help Republicans to gain several seats, particularly in southern states).
[snapback]91844[/snapback]​
[/quote]

No, SMX. The number of electoral votes in a state is equal to the amount of Representatives plus the number of Senators that the state fields. Although the amount of Representatives hasn't changed since Hawaii became a state, the districts they are in have. That's why Texas gained 2 electoral votes in 2002, because they gained 2 more congressional seats.
 
No they didn't!
The number of congressional seats stayed the same for each state, but the lines were redrawn in favour of right-wing candidates.

Basically, more liberal-mided areas (suburbs and predominatly minority areas) were split up and divided among more right-wing areas.

Example:

Counties X and Y comprised one congressional district in 2000. They both voted predominatly Democrat. Down the road, City Z and its surrounding countryside were predominatly Republican.

Counties X and Y were split up for 2004, and County X and City Z were then merged into one congressional district, cancelling out the Democrat advantage.
County Y was merged with City Z's countryside, again cancelling out the Democrat's lead.

There were the same number of electoral votes per state, they were just arranged differently. Is it immoral? Yes. llegal? Nope.


Funny story, when they tried to pass these changes through the Texas legislature last year, the Democrats not only filibustered, but enough of them actually left the state to ensure that a quorum was not present. They eventually sucked it up and came back.
 
Then explain this:

California:
2000: 54 electoral votes. 2004: 55 electoral votes.
Texas:
2000: 32 electoral votes. 2004: 34 electoral votes.
Florida:
2000: 25 electoral votes. 2004: 27 electoral votes.
New York:
2000: 33 electoral votes. 2004: 31 electoral votes.
Pennsylvania:
2000: 23 electoral votes. 2004: 21 electoral votes.

Other states that increased in electoral votes were Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia. The amount of electoral votes given out in 2000 are the same as was given in 2004.
 
I can explain that very easily. IT'S ADRIAN'S FAULT! The basic evidence to show he is a false prophet and a deciever! (i know i'm probably the only one still hung up on this stupid crap....but its fun!).
 
Bush's election is actually Dickinson's fault because he was 'Laughing In The Hiding Bush'! [!--emo&:P--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Nov 18 2004, 07:58 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Nov 18 2004, 07:58 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Then explain this:
[snipped: a bunch of stuff that proves SMX was wrong]
[snapback]91875[/snapback]​
[/quote]
Yes, you're right, I forgot about that. I screwed up. However, I don't think that the change in electoral vote distribution "gave Bush the win". There are enough red states that he would have won even with the 2000 distribution.

It's also worth pointing out that this type of redistricting is completely reasonable. The reason it happened is because of migration within the US. OTOH, the redistricting that the Duke was talking about is somewhat different in intent.

When a state's population increases or decreases sufficiently to cause a need for redistricting, the party in control of that state's legislature gets to decide what the new districts will be. Some states do this in a just manner, while states like Texas have a legislature who uses the excuse of redistricting to unfairly consolidate political power. Just because the Republicans were the guilty party this time doesn't excuse the Democrats, because they would have done the same if they'd had the chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top