Shocking... or is it?

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

I got this in an email from a very conservative friend of mine. I want to know what you members think. Mr. 03SHOOTER is going to love this:

Unreported statistics about the 2008 election
COUNTY BY COUNTY RESULTS
RED FOR McCAIN, BLUE FOR OBAMA

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll38/zomgzAJ/image001.jpg

Prof Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out interesting facts concerning the 2008 Election:
The original posting with this information is below a Newsweek article at this link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/163337

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

So, although I'm a High School student, I just have one large question. How did Obama win, if this is true?

[armysc_25b]

While I can't speak for other states, I did monitor Florida's vote very closely (that being where I maintain my voter registration, residency, etc.). The margin for Democrat to Republican in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties was outrageous. 1,321,360 votes for Obama; 797,315 for McCain. (Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#FLP00map) The vote margin there was more than double the entire state's results (524,045 in these counties to 204,577 statewide).

That being said, look at the population in the counties McCain won. 2 counties right next to my home county have 10,000 votes each, while my home county (which almost went Obama (scarily I might add)) had over 200,000 votes. In the counties Obama won, he won by a sizable margin for the most part, and it was in metro areas (Tallahassee, Tampa/St. Petersburg, Orlando, Daytona, and Miami).

That's how he won my home state, and it's upsetting. He won in the counties he needed to, which were the populated areas of the state.

Oh, and your source... I couldn't find any comments, or didn't see any noticable links to this info. Could you please direct link?

[CAPSmith]

New York Times has a similar map that they posted just after the election. It's interactive and gives a few different views; state winners, county bubbles, county leaders and voting shift.

It will also allow you to change the election year from '92-'08 to see the change over the years.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

Enjoy.

[HairyEyeball]

Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million

So much for the myth of 'one man, one vote'.

The key is in the demographics, which electoral districts are primarily composed of 'producers' and which of 'parasites'; and since EDs are determined by population, and 'parasites' tend to a much higher population density, ergo wielding a disproportionate influence, candidates promising more 'bread and circuses' at 'government' expense have a built-in constituency. Outright fraud is also more rampant in such areas, but that merits a separate thread.

[reddog]

Interesting map. You will find that the two blue spots in the center of the state of Pennsylvania are college towns. On the east, Philadelphia on the west, Pittsburgh. The vast majority of us rural Folks are those 'God fearing, gun loving, hard working people' that our Presidential Nominee seems to have had trouble with. It's like the vote never counts for us rural Folks.
Easy Brother,
Reddog...

[Machine]

Interesting map. You will find that the two blue spots in the center of the state of Pennsylvania are college towns. On the east, Philadelphia on the west, Pittsburgh. The vast majority of us rural Folks are those 'God fearing, gun loving, hard working people' that our Presidential Nominee seems to have had trouble with. It's like the vote never counts for us rural Folks.
Easy Brother,
Reddog...


Yep. The blue spot in the middle of VA is UVA, and of course the metro DC area and Tidewater region are always blue.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

So, basically, the only reason why Obama won was because of these reasons:

1. By promising "the gifts of the treasury", he secured the votes of those who were already on welfare.
2. Those who were on welfare are densely populated, and so, he only had to win the most populous locations in each state to carry said state
3. The states that he did not win were full of "Christian, tax-paying, land owners", however, those states had the population density of two people per square mile (exaggeration, yes, I know).
4. Those states that did have people on welfare had the most votes in the Electoral College.

Correct?

[03_SHOOTER]

So, basically, the only reason why Obama won was because of these reasons:

1. By promising "the gifts of the treasury", he secured the votes of those who were already on welfare.
2. Those who were on welfare are densely populated, and so, he only had to win the most populous locations in each state to carry said state
3. The states that he did not win were full of "Christian, tax-paying, land owners", however, those states had the population density of two people per square mile (exaggeration, yes, I know).
4. Those states that did have people on welfare had the most votes in the Electoral College.

Correct?

Not just welfare Buffa1o, but those who have been taught since they were zygotes that the welfare state (the bread and circus mentality) is somehow a "good" thing, and that self reliance is a "bad" thing. Unfortunately, those are the people who live in the highest density population centers, and they continually vote for their "bread and circuses", which is why I oppose unrestricted universal suffrage, but that's a rant for another thread.

[TruBlu]

So, basically, the only reason why Obama won was because of these reasons:

1. By promising "the gifts of the treasury", he secured the votes of those who were already on welfare.
2. Those who were on welfare are densely populated, and so, he only had to win the most populous locations in each state to carry said state
3. The states that he did not win were full of "Christian, tax-paying, land owners", however, those states had the population density of two people per square mile (exaggeration, yes, I know).
4. Those states that did have people on welfare had the most votes in the Electoral College.

Correct?

Well the only reason why Obama won was that he brought in more votes than McCain. His appeal to the welfare loving metropolitan folk may or may not be related, what really matters is that Obama won with 365 electoral votes and approximately 66 million votes; McCain lost with 173 electoral votes and approximately 58 million votes. What Prof Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, fails to point out are the simple statistics that I have (source (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/)) pointed out.

Unfortunately, those are the people who live in the highest density population centers, and they continually vote for their "bread and circuses", which is why I oppose unrestricted universal suffrage, but that's a rant for another thread.

I'm surprised that rant hasn't arisen from your corner yet.

[Billyd]

I'm surprised that rant hasn't arisen from your corner yet.

Not to encourage 03 too much, but do you understand why he might be against universal suffrage? I do and I must agree with him. I will, however, permit him the honor of starting that discussion.

[HairyEyeball]

So, basically, the only reason why Obama won was because of these reasons:

1. By promising "the gifts of the treasury", he secured the votes of those who were already on welfare.
2. Those who were on welfare are densely populated, and so, he only had to win the most populous locations in each state to carry said state
3. The states that he did not win were full of "Christian, tax-paying, land owners", however, those states had the population density of two people per square mile (exaggeration, yes, I know).
4. Those states that did have people on welfare had the most votes in the Electoral College.

Correct?

Dumbed down to where a third grader can grasp it, that's primarily it, with one caveat: Not only those who only exist by sucking the teat of the state, but those whose worldview is that the government should own all means of production and disburse all 'incomes' and that perceived 'need' should supplant 'industry' in deciding 'who gets what'.

[03_SHOOTER]

Not to encourage 03 too much, but do you understand why he might be against universal suffrage? I do and I must agree with him. I will, however, permit him the honor of starting that discussion.

Thank you Billyd, and I shall.

Late Edit: New Thread HERE (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=1020)

[HairyEyeball]

For a broader explanation, the following is excerpted from today's (16JAN09) Patriot Post:


Some 136.6 million Americans voted -- a 64.1 percent turnout and the highest since 1908. Obama is the first Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote (53 percent) since Jimmy Carter. By sex, BHO's support was 49 percent male and 56 percent female. By ethnic group, his support comprised 41 percent of Whites, 61 percent of Asians, 75 percent of Latinos and 95 percent of Blacks. By age, BHO's largest support demographic was 66 percent of voters under the age of 30. By income, 52 percent of voters with more than $200,000 in annual income voted for Obama. By education, his support came from those without a college degree and those with a post-graduate degree.

So, his victory was largely due to support from non-whites, from those under 30, from those with the lowest income and education, and from a small number of voters at the other end of those spectrums, while those of middle age, income and education tended to support John McCain.

By religion, Obama received support from 46 percent of Protestant voters, 56 percent of Catholic voters and 62 percent of voters of other religions. BHO received 76 percent of atheist and agnostic voters.

The Barna Research Group looked at some other interesting characteristics of Obama voters: 57 percent of those who consider themselves "lonely or isolated," 59 percent of those affected by the economic decline in "a major way," and 61 percent of those who claim they are "stressed out" supported BHO.

So, considering the stats, the Democrats' strategy of fomenting dissent and disunity by promoting themes of disparity was vital to Obama's election. Indeed, the Left's political playbook has only one chapter defining their modus operandi -- "Divide-n-Conquer." No wonder their national leadership calls itself the DnC.

Obama's largest constituent groups fall under the general umbrella of "disenfranchised victims," those who feel they are ethnically or economically handicapped. Other significant constituent groups are those who identify with the disenfranchised; this includes two small but highly ideologically influential groups, the economic and academic elite.

The disenfranchised victim groups and those who identify with them have a number of common characteristics. They have a low civic IQ and virtually no understanding of our Constitutional Republic and its heritage and legacy of liberty. They have fully bought into the "Politics of Disparity" or "class warfare."

However, it is Obama's small economic and academic elite constituencies who pose the greatest danger to that heritage of liberty. They neither know nor care any more about liberty than the disenfranchised legions with which they seek to identify. They are the "king makers," those who have funded and charted Obama's course to the coronation.

Some have made a lot of "easy money," which explains why Obama received far more support from Wall Street than McCain. Others are inheritance-welfare liberals, those who value government welfare dependence because they were, themselves, dependent on inheritance throughout their formative years and never developed the character necessary to succeed on their own initiative.

Whether fast money or inheritance, neither group has direct contact with the unwashed masses other than those who keep their homes, offices and imported autos clean and in good repair. This utter dependence upon the low end of the "service sector" is perhaps the source of the insecurities that drive them to identify with the masses.

Obama's academic elite are just as insecure, but they are driven by ideology. They are Leftists, Western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas. Regular readers of this column will recognize them as "Useful Idiots" for their advocacy of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism. Like Obama, they reject constitutional authority and subscribe to the errant notion of a "Living Constitution".

Among Obama's Left elite are such Marxist radicals as Frank Marshall Davis and William Ayers and his religious mentor Jeremiah Wright.

There are some characteristics that are common to many BHO supporters among both the disenfranchised and the elite.

Obama's cult-like following among these constituencies is not the result of deception. In fact, it can be attributed to something much more subtle and, potentially, sinister, with far more ominous implications for the future of liberty.

Most of Obama's supporters identify with some part of his brokenness, his dysfunctional childhood and his search for salvation in the authority of the state. The implications of this distorted mass identity are grave, and its pathology is well defined.

Another common characteristic is that liberals tend to be very emotive. Ask them about some manifestation of their worldview -- for example, why they support candidates such as Obama or Hillary Clinton and they will likely predicate their response with, "Because I feel..."

On the other hand, ask conservatives about what they believe or support, and they invariably predicate their response with, "Because I think..."

So, the once great Democrat Party has now devolved into constituencies who view the inaugural as either a coronation or an ordination.

Of course, all the MSM print and tube outlets are fawning over BHO and calling next Tuesday's inaugural "historic." Well, it's not often that I agree with the paper media and 24-hour news cycle talkingheads, but this is truly a historic inauguration -- historic for several reasons.

First, never before has such an ill-prepared president-elect been sworn in as president. Second, never before has a more liberal president-elect been sworn into office. And third, never before has a candidate had so little regard for the constitutional oath he is taking.

Oh, and some suggest this election is historic because half of the president-elect's genetic heritage is African -- and here I thought Bill Clinton was our first "black president."

It is no small irony that the day before Obama's inauguration, the nation will pause to honor Martin Luther King. In 1963, King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and gave his most famous oration, the most well known line from which is, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

But Obama and his party have divided the nation into constituency groups judged by all manner of ethnicity and special interests rather than the individual character King envisioned.

Perhaps the most famous line from any Democrat presidential inaugural was uttered by John F. Kennedy in 1961. He closed his remarks with these words: "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Barack Obama and his party have turned that clarion call on end, suggesting that their constituents should "ask what your country can do for you."

[TruBlu]

Not to encourage 03 too much, but do you understand why he might be against universal suffrage? I do and I must agree with him. I will, however, permit him the honor of starting that discussion.

Oh I know why, and I'm about to check out his new thread. 03 and I have spoken briefly about this, but now I guess we will all dig into it a little deeper.

[03_SHOOTER]

One other thing that I need to mention, the original "story" posted is reported to be a HOAX!

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whats_the_deal_with_prof_joseph_olsons.html

President-elect Barack Obama actually carried 28 states (and the District of Columbia), not 20 as claimed in the message. Sen. John McCain carried only 22 states, not 30.

The total area of states won by Obama is actually 1,483,702 square miles, significantly more than the 580,000 stated by the e-mail. McCain's states have an area of 2,310,315 square miles, not the 2,427,000 claimed. (still significantly more square miles though)

The population of counties carried by Obama is just under 183 million, not the 127 million claimed. McCain carried counties with a total population of just under 119 million, far fewer than claimed in this message.

The murder rate for counties carried by Obama was 6.56 per 100,000 inhabitants, less than half the rate claimed in the message. The rate for counties carried by McCain was 3.60 per 100,000, much higher than claimed in the message. (still a significantly higher murder rate than Republican counties)

[HairyEyeball]

I suppose that's only fitting and proper - after all, just about everything else about Barack Hussein is a lie, a fraud or a hoax.

[03_SHOOTER]

In re-reading my Jefferson this evening, I came across a quote in a letter he wrote to Lafayette in 1823 that, at least to me, perfectly identifies the reason for the outcome of the recent election.

"The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature."

The Tory of Jeffersons day is the Liberal of today, and the Whig the Conservative. It seems that the old saying "there is nothing new under the sun" still applies in the 21st century.

[Buffa1oso1di3r]

Thanks for the new information, 03SHOOTER.

[03_SHOOTER]

Thanks for the new information, 03SHOOTER.

My pleasure. You simply got caught in the same thing that happens to too many of us in that we forget the wisdom of Reagan; "Trust but verify".