2008 Election results

[MonsterMark]

This link will certainly tell you why thus Country is in trouble...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/163337

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

-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.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/163337

 

[Marcus]

My God man, do you even READ these things before you post them?

-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30

Um, if the Republicans won 30 states to 20, McCain would be the president-elect, not Obama. Obama won 28 states to McCain's 22.

This is nothing but a regurgitated repost of a chain letter distributed after the 2000 election! And even THAT letter was full of false information! A few excerpts from Snopes:

• Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University was not the source of any of the statistics or the text attributed to him above. When contacted via e-mail, Professor Olson confirmed that he had no authorship or involvement in this matter, and as Fayette Citizen editor Dave Hamrick wrote in January 2001:
  
  
  I really enjoyed one recent message that was circulated extremely widely, at least among conservatives. It gave several interesting "facts" supposedly compiled by statisticians and political scientists about the counties across the nation that voted for George Bush and the ones that voted for Al Gore in the recent election.
  
  Supposedly, the people in the counties for Bush had more education, more income, ad infinitum, than the counties for Gore.
  
  I didn't have time to check them all out, but I was curious about one item in particular... the contention that the murder rate in the Gore counties was about a billion times higher than in the Bush counties.
  
  This was attributed to a Professor Joseph Olson at the Hamline University School of Law. I never heard of such a university, but went online and found it. And Prof. Olson does exist.
  
  "Now I'm getting somewhere," I thought.
  
  But in response to my e-mail, Olson said the "research" was attributed to him erroneously. He said it came from a Sheriff Jay Printz in Montana. I e-mailed Sheriff Printz, and guess what? He didn't do the research either, and didn't remember who had e-mailed it to him.
  
  In other words, he got the same legend e-mailed to him and passed it on to Olson without checking it out, and when Olson passed it on, someone thought it sounded better if a law professor had done the research, and so it grew.
  
  Who knows where it originally came from, but it's just not true.​
• The county-by-county murder-rate comparison presented in this piece appears to be flawed. According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ), in the year 2000 the national murder rate was about 5.5 per 100,000 residents. Homicide data by county for 1999 and 2000 was downloaded from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NAJCD), and the counties won by Gore and Bush were identified using the county-by-county election results made available by CNN. (The NACJD provided not only the number of reported murders for each county, but also the population for each.) The average murder rate in the counties won by Gore versus the rate in the counties won by Bush was determined from this data.
  
  By calculating the murder rate for each county and then taking the averages, we found a murder rate (defined as number of murders per 100,000 residents) of about 5.2 for the average Gore county and 3.3 for the average Bush county. But since people, rather than counties, commit murders, a more appropriate approach was to calculate the total number of murders in the counties won by each candidate and divide that figure by the total number of residents in those counties. This more appropriate method yielded the following average murder rates in counties won by each candidate:
  
  Gore: 6.5
  Bush: 4.1
  
  There is a distinct difference between these two numbers, but it is nowhere near as large as the quoted e-mail message states (i.e., 13.2 for Gore vs. 2.1 for Bush).
  
  
• The tagline to the piece maintains that "The map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare." However, according to an analysis of federal spending and electoral votes in the 2000 election prepared by Dean Lacy of Ohio State University:
  
  In the 2000 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush won most of the states that are net beneficiaries of federal spending programs, while Al Gore won most of the states that are net contributors to federal spending.
  
  The information in that study corresponds to a chart prepared by the Tax Foundation for fiscal year 2005 that ranks states according to federal spending per dollar of taxes paid.

You'd think that someone would have at least updated the information to somewhat correspond to the 2008 election (MAYBE THE NUMBER STATES WON? Even the square miles and the populations are from 2000!), but this is typical of the kind of ignorant garbage you post, so I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[foxpaws]

Don't forget Marcus, you are suppose to call Bryan despicable, disloyal, disgusting, devious, untruthful, oh, I am sure I am leaving a couple out....

Now, since I am afraid if I don't draw this to everyone's attention... that was sarcasm - Bryan knows I'll pole dance for him any day... And he isn't any of those things...

But, Bryan, the link goes to an old Newsweek poll - do you have the right Newsweek link? I would like to see the story, they might have the updated numbers - thanks!!!!

 

[JWerner2]

There is a distinct difference between these two numbers, but it is nowhere near as large as the quoted e-mail message states (i.e., 13.2 for Gore vs. 2.1 for Bush).

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

-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

 

[cammerfe]

It certainly is a reason for rejoicing, now that we've found out that the murder rate is only 1 1/2 times as much in the secular progressive areas as in those that went conservative.
KS

 

[Calabrio]

Don't forget Marcus, you are suppose to call Bryan despicable, disloyal, disgusting, devious, untruthful, oh, I am sure I am leaving a couple out....

Only if he were repeating something KNOWING it were false or misleading.

 

[MonsterMark]

My God man, do you even READ these things before you post them?

Yikes.

Got the wrong newsweek link and I don't even what email I got the paragraph from. Sorry, Cut and Paste and didn't even check it out. Said Dec 2008 at first glance. Now I see it says October.

And this was the map I thought I posted. I need to enlarge my thumbnails.

Thanks for paying attention.

 

[foxpaws]

Only if he were repeating something KNOWING it were false or misleading.

But, the state election results - Don't you think Bryan would know that was wrong? I could understand the rest - but the state results?

 

[JWerner2]

I just dont understand the numbers I quoted above .

If he made a mistake he is excused but even at a glance I noticed that myself. That would mean that from then till now the crime rate stayed level?

 

[Calabrio]

But, the state election results - Don't you think Bryan would know that was wrong? I could understand the rest - but the state results?

Looks like a hasty, or a bit lazy, cut and pasting posting.

While he made a mistake, the point I think he's making is valid:
Let's take a look at a 3D county by county map of the 2008 election.
This one is from the Washington Post-

 

[foxpaws]

Weird - Bryan had the right map -

I wonder why Colorado has that big grey area - that is Saguache county - people do live there. Not a lot, but some. It is beautiful...

Well, since land ownership hasn't been a requirement of voting for a long time I doubt if we will go back to it.

I wonder if you could look at the value of the land in the counties, how that would look - for the cost of a square foot in Manhattan you could probably buy quite a few acres outside of Lusk, Wyoming.

 

[Calabrio]

I wonder why Colorado has that big grey area - that is Saguache county - people do live there. Not a lot, but some. It is beautiful...

It might have been late in reporting the results...

Well, since land ownership hasn't been a requirement of voting for a long time I doubt if we will go back to it.

I don't think anyone is making the argument that only land owners should vote.

The broader point is that Democrat support is increasingly coming from people who are trying to vote themselves an income. And that the areas of strongest support for Democrats, urban areas, also have very high crime and economic trouble. This is also why people and industry flee from these cities, only to spread their toxic ideology into other cities... like a utopian virus.

 

[foxpaws]

Cal, Rural areas have large problems with unemployment - at least out west. I know the rural counties in Colorado's eastern half have a greater unemployment rate, and depend a lot on government dollars for many things. Also the farmers depend a lot on government subsidies.

The western counties are a bit different - more ranchers - less government money in ranching.

Some crime rates are certainly less in rural counties - but drug use is very high. And bar fights....

 

[Calabrio]

Cal, Rural areas have large problems with unemployment - at least out west. I know the rural counties in Colorado's eastern half have a greater unemployment rate, and depend a lot on government dollars for many things. Also the farmers depend a lot on government subsidies.

The western counties are a bit different - more ranchers - less government money in ranching.

Some crime rates are certainly less in rural counties - but drug use is very high. And bar fights....

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what specific point you're trying to make.
You're made some anecdotal observations of questionable accuracy, but I don't know why.

There's some unemployment in rural areas in Colorado...o.k.
And farming is a heavily subsidized by tax payers... o.k.
There are ranchers in the west... yeah.
And crime is lower in rural areas than in the urban areas... gotcha.

Still don't know what your point is.

 

[foxpaws]

The broader point is that Democrat support is increasingly coming from people who are trying to vote themselves an income. And that the areas of strongest support for Democrats, urban areas, also have very high crime and economic trouble. This is also why people and industry flee from these cities, only to spread their toxic ideology into other cities... like a utopian virus.

In your post it made it sound like the red counties were all good and wonderful and what is best in America - the crime rate statistics, etc. And on the opposite side of the coin, the blue counties are lazy, bad, and all what is wrong with America, that the left is a murdering bunch of welfare recipients.

I am sort of tired of all that is red is good - all that is blue is bad stuff.

This was rather telling from the last two elections - i don't know what the breakdown was in this election however I imagine it wouldn't be that different...

In the 2000 and 2004 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush won most of the states that are net beneficiaries of federal spending programs, while Democrats won most of the states that are net contributors to federal spending. A state’s ratio of federal spending to tax dollars, particularly non-defense spending, is a statistically and substantively significant predictor of Republican margin of victory across the states.

So, if a state is a recipient of a lot of tax dollars it is more likely to vote Republican...

 

[hrmwrm]

"I begin by disentangling the effects of federal spending on the 2000 election, showing that social spending—not defense spending—is related to Republican vote share."


from pg4. aren't those telling words.

 

[cammerfe]

Is that a question?

You need to learn to express yourself.

Any point you have to make is lost if your meaning is fuzzy.

KS

 

[hrmwrm]

see a question mark? i'll be more clear. c/p from foxs link.


In the wake of the 2000 U. S. presidential election, pundits and journalists began writing much about the “Two Americas:” The red states on the Electoral College map that voted for Republican George W. Bush, and the blue states that voted for Democrats Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. The shading of the states on Electoral College scoreboards on election nights in 2000 and 2004 showed an unmistakable pattern: Bush won a swath of states through the South, Great Plains, and Rocky Mountains while his Democratic opponents won the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Pacific Coast. Boston Globe reporter Mike Barnicle, appearing on MSNBC after the 2000 election, dubbed the Bush states the “family values” states and the Gore states “the sense of entitlement” states. Former Clinton adviser Paul Begala responded that the Bush states were home to hate crimes, setting off a frenzy of op-ed pieces about the differences between Bush’s America and Gore’s America. Since then, innumerable books and op-ed pieces have taken up the claim of whether the United States is shaking on a political fault line (e.g., Fiorina 2004, Frank 2004).

Journalistic claims of differences between the red and blue states are often exaggerated for dramatic effect, and inferring the characteristics of individual voters in each state from its color on the electoral map is a classic case of the ecological fallacy: Knowing how a group of individuals voted does not tell us much about how different individuals within the group voted. But the institution of the Electoral College makes comparisons of states salient. In presidential elections, Americans cast their votes as states, not as individuals. Presidential campaigns focus on Electoral College votes, and it is clear that some states are fundamentally different from others, not least in their propensity to cast votes for Democrats or Republicans


Mike Barnicle’s characterization of the red and blue states provides an interesting and, depending on one’s perspective, intuitive starting point for explaining Bush’s margin of victory (or loss) across states in 2000 and 2004. It would seem to make sense that the states that lose money to the federal government would be more likely to vote for the candidate who promised to cut taxes and reduce the scope of government, and that the states that gain from the federal government would support the candidate who would protect or increase federal spending. If Barnicle is correct that Democratic states are “entitlement” states, then we should expect that the states won by Al Gore and John Kerry receive the most in federal spending compared to the tax revenues they send to Washington. In short, Democratic states may be net beneficiaries of federal government spending while Republican states may be net contributors to the federal government.

The evidence shows that such a story is exactly backwards. In a paradox of the Electoral College, Republican presidential candidates since 1984--when data are first available---have won most of the states that benefit from federal spending, while Democrats have won most of the states that bankroll the federal government. In every year during this 20-year period, between 25 and 32 states have gained more in federal spending programs than they have paid in taxes to the federal government, while the remaining minority of states has footed the bill.

This political economy of redistribution plays out in the Electoral College as increasingly Republican states are increasingly dependent on federal spending. These curious empirical patterns hold under several different perspectives on the data, including controlling for state and individual-level conservatism on social issues, military spending per state, and the partisan balance of a state’s governorship and representation in Congress.

 

[shagdrum]

In the 2000 and 2004 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush won most of the states that are net beneficiaries of federal spending programs, while Democrats won most of the states that are net contributors to federal spending. A state’s ratio of federal spending to tax dollars, particularly non-defense spending, is a statistically and substantively significant predictor of Republican margin of victory across the states.

That is an oversimplified and thus misleading summary of the statistics. It could be a simple meaningless correlation or have some relevance. But as summarized, there is no evidence to suggest it is anything more then a correlation. Any claim given here on the meaning of that stat is nothing more then speculation to spin that fact toward a specific agenda. It can be done either way. Here are a couple examples...

• The people in the areas voting Republican ( recieving a "net benefit" from federal social spending programs) have seen the failures of these programs and are voting against them. The people voting democrat ( and being "net contributors" to federal social programs) are so far rmoved from society (due to being insulated by their money, and more suseptible to idealism and groupthink) don't see the failure of the federal social programs and vote for them because it makes them feel better about themselves (like giving to charity)
• The ratio of contributing vs. recieving on social programs is irrelevant to the way a given community votes and is simply and statistical coincidence.

It is also very possible that agricultural subsides are skewing the results here. Those subsides go to areas that primarily vote Republican (it is the bases for that elitist book; "What's the Matter With Kansas?") and obvously have no influence on the way they vote. Take away ag subsides and how do those stats come down?

Also, many of those states that go Republican are dirt poor (mostly in the South) and so in any analysis of states (net) recieving federal aid vs. states (net) contributing to federal aid is going to be more heavily Republican. So, again, the correlation of Republican states being net recievers of federal social spending may be purely coincidence. It may very well be a side effect of the Southern State/ Bible Belt voting block swinging toward Republicans. There have been countless books speculating on any number of reasons for that swing, and the idea of benefiting from federal spending is only one, and it would go against intuition, as hrmwrm points out. So, what evidence is there to suggest that this is more then a meaningless coincidence.

 

[foxpaws]

Yes, numbers can be deceiving – but, since the whole number idea came up through Bryan’s post I thought it was interesting to carry it through.

The murder rate looked horrendous – and then it was knocked down to a more reasonable number, about 1.4 to 1 (from like 6 to 1). I am sure there are lots of reasons for that number, in addition to the fact that the areas had more Democrat voters in them. Could it be that more repeat offenders live in densely populated areas, because often half-way houses are located in those areas? Could it be that the victims of murder fall into a profile where they live in big cities? Could it be that anonymity is easier to obtain in large urban areas? I am sure there could be lots of reasons, other than the knee jerk reaction of ‘it must be those darn liberals’.

So, the red state/blue state spending is interesting to look at as far as numbers (and the synopsis comes from the site, not from me shag). And this is a trend that is pretty consistent going back to 1984 (if you look at the report I posted earlier) - when they started to keep stats for this. So the idea where the red states are figuring out this whole spending thing isn't working doesn't quite fly. Here it is 25 years later and they are still voting red, and still spending taxpayer dollars.

One of the really telling numbers is if you look at New Jersey, blue since 1988. New Jersey seems like a state were the government would spend quite a bit of money – I like the Garden State – but it looks a little sad, or at least the last time I drove through Trenton it did. However for each dollar that the people of New Jersey send to the federal government they get only .55 back. And then how about one of those states that Sarah Palin claimed “the real America, being here with all of you hard working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation” – a real ‘red’ state to the very core – Oklahoma. I don’t think there is a blue county in Oklahoma… however all those red counties do like to spend federal funds. For every $1 they send to the feds they get a whopping $1.48 in return…

It is a little hard to explain. Not a poor southern state. Not a state with large blighted urban areas that, according to the idea stated in the above posts, ‘sucks the federal coffers dry’. Not a state with large Social Security roles. Could it be our perception of how money gets spent in the federal government is a bit off. Large rural areas have a lot of federal money pumped into them. Whether it be subsidies for farmers, federal aid for the poor, Medicaid, etc. And those areas traditionally vote Republican. Are they voting to keep things 'status quo'?

Could it be that socialism isn’t an entirely ‘blue’ state of mind? (Ok Cal, you have permission to bash me, please – I obviously need a good bashing according to Foss )