Pretty neat map

#6
#6
BigPapaVol said:
do what? tells you exactly where Obama's support comes from. big cities and urban areas. Rest of the nation dosn't give a rat's arse for Dems.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

i take it a step further BPV...BHO's support came from the largest concentration areas for welfare...lets call it like it is

the Dems have always relied on that vote
 
#8
#8
The two huge towers that are Chicago and LA and then a huge glob near NYC

then detriot and cleveland and miami
 
#10
#10
speaking of maps, did you see that sham of an electoral map (county by county) Chris Matthews was holding in his grubby little hands?
 
Last edited:
#12
#12
I think the map is fairly self-explanatory. Rust belt voters followed their perceived economic interest. Further analysis will only get you branded as a racist.
 
#13
#13
MG1968 said:
speaking of maps, did you see that sham of an electoral map (county by county) Chris Matthews was holding in his grubby little hands?
Click to expand...

who the hell would want to watch Chris Matthews? he's officially bisexual due to his huge crush on obama
 
#18
#18
BigPapaVol said:
do what? tells you exactly where Obama's support comes from. big cities and urban areas. Rest of the nation dosn't give a rat's arse for Dems.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Not exactly.

Big cities and urban areas always go democratic, I'll give you that. The difference is that in this election more of the nation did in fact give a rat's arse about the dem's. This map looks almost exactly the way it did in 2000 and 2004. But it doesn't show the county by county differences. Where Obama really won this election is in all the red counties that he still lost. Bush won many of these parts of the country 70/30 or 80/20....this election McCain only won them 60/40 or 55/45. Combine that with the regular huge margins in the cities, and you have a formula for domination in the electoral college and turning a few states from red to blue.

Maybe they don't care, but they cared more this election than they have in the past.
 
#19
#19
rjd970 said:
Not exactly.

Big cities and urban areas always go democratic, I'll give you that. The difference is that in this election more of the nation did in fact give a rat's arse about the dem's. This map looks almost exactly the way it did in 2000 and 2004. But it doesn't show the county by county differences. Where Obama really won this election is in all the red counties that he still lost. Bush won many of these parts of the country 70/30 or 80/20....this election McCain only won them 60/40 or 55/45. Combine that with the regular huge margins in the cities, and you have a formula for domination in the electoral college and turning a few states from red to blue.

Maybe they don't care, but they cared more this election than they have in the past.
Click to expand...
so it supports his assertion that it makes McCain look stupid?
 
#20
#20
BigPapaVol said:
so it supports his assertion that it makes McCain look stupid?
Click to expand...

No. I think it does make his campaign's strategy look bad. Following the mantra of "everybody except the big cities don't care about dems" obviously didn't work, especially considering there is very little difference in this graphic from 2000 and 2004. Obama's strategy of going into places in the country knowing he was going to lose, but simply trying to close the gap of the loss is what worked. Partitioning the country by political affiliation doesn't work anymore, all that matters is the overall tally at the end of the day. The small gains and narrow losses will eventually add up to a win.

Republican's that don't understand that deserve the same results they saw Tuesday night.
 
#21
#21
rjd970 said:
No. I think it does make his campaign's strategy look bad. Following the mantra of "everybody except the big cities don't care about dems" obviously didn't work, especially considering there is very little difference in this graphic from 2000 and 2004. Obama's strategy of going into places in the country knowing he was going to lose, but simply trying to close the gap of the loss is what worked. Partitioning the country by political affiliation doesn't work anymore, all that matters is the overall tally at the end of the day. The small gains and narrow losses will eventually add up to a win.

Republican's that don't understand that deserve the same results they saw Tuesday night.
Click to expand...
don't be silly. Geography had nothing to do with Tuesday's results. My guess is that his massively paid consultants could slice and dice every county in the US by every available demographic permutation or combination.

His problem was overcoming Bush, bad economic situation and popularity of Obama's hollow promises.
 
#23
#23
BigPapaVol said:
don't be silly. Geography had nothing to do with Tuesday's results. My guess is that his massively paid consultants could slice and dice every county in the US by every available demographic permutation or combination.
Click to expand...


Who's really being silly here? I'm sure Gore and Kerry had similar high paid consultants too. Of course this was a bad year for republicans. But saying geography had nothing to do with the results is complete and utter nonsense. The atmosphere of this election may have helped him, sure, but Obama won this election by keeping his losses close and running up the score with his wins. Indiana, Ohio, PA, and Virginia should be case studies on how this strategy works. Any future candidate that ignores this does so at his own peril.
 
#24
#24
rjd970 said:
Who's really being silly here? I'm sure Gore and Kerry had similar high paid consultants too. Of course this was a bad year for republicans. But saying geography had nothing to do with the results is complete and utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
Pretending that Obama's focus on those areas was the difference is pure fantasy. Those people don't vote that way if Bush wasn't almost universally perceived as a disaster and the latest economic happens in December.

I don't care if he personally visited every household in all of those counties where he narrowed the margins, that focus didn't change those minds. Obama's qualifications and Robin Hood message didn't change those minds.

A dem victory was predictable long, long ago. Obama beating Hillary, you might have some argument. I don't know on that front and don't care. Dems beating Bush was essentially a foregone conclusion as far back as two years ago. Giuliani's demise pretty much ended the hopes of winning that election.

If Obama is a disaster for the next 4 years, he can follow every strategy on earth to a T and he will still have his hat handed to him by his opponent. That's just how it works. Pundit drivel about expenditures and marketing is just drivel. It's them making sure that their own continue to get paid handsomely in future elections.
 
#25
#25
BigPapaVol said:
Pretending that Obama's focus on those areas was the difference is pure fantasy. Those people don't vote that way if Bush wasn't almost universally perceived as a disaster and the latest economic happens in December.

I don't care if he personally visited every household in all of those counties where he narrowed the margins, that focus didn't change those minds. Obama's qualifications and Robin Hood message didn't change those minds.

A dem victory was predictable long, long ago. Obama beating Hillary, you might have some argument. I don't know on that front and don't care. Dems beating Bush was essentially a foregone conclusion as far back as two years ago. Giuliani's demise pretty much ended the hopes of winning that election.

If Obama is a disaster for the next 4 years, he can follow every strategy on earth to a T and he will still have his hat handed to him by his opponent. That's just how it works. Pundit drivel about expenditures and marketing is just drivel. It's them making sure that their own continue to get paid handsomely in future elections.
Click to expand...

Well hell, why did he even campaign in the first place if it was a forgone conclusion? You can't honestly sit there and say PA would have gone his way if he only limited his campaigning to Pittsburgh and Philly. We can agree to disagree, but discounting strategy and saying Obama won entirely because of Bush and shallow promises is disengenuous.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top