Dubya passes 60Million vote mark

[dude1394]

Go dubya.... More americans approve of dubya than any president in history.... Can his enshrinement on Mount Rushmore be far behind??

[Drbio]

An absolutely mind boggling number of voters. Wow.

[u2sarajevo]

Do you have a link to that information?

[Drbio]

go here

[dude1394]

And Michael Medved really puts the arse-whooping in perspective.

Among the 80% of the voting population that's neither black, Jewish, Muslim nor gay, Bush carried an overwhelming 63% of the vote

[sturm und drang]

So let met get this straight, Dude. To get a "real perspective" on this 3% "arse whooping," we should just disregrard those pesky black, gay, Muslim and Jewish voters and look at the votes of white protestants? Because, as your post clearly insinuates, those are the people who really count?

You've just confirmed everything negative I've ever assumed about Republicans. Thanks.

[sturm und drang]

Did you know it's also true that John Kerryreceived more votes (57,122,374) than any elected American president ever has? The next closest was Ronald Reagan's re-election in 1984, when he received 54,455,075 votes – 2,667,290 less than Kerry!

I think Doc summed it up nicely earlier in the thread: it's incredible how many people voted this year.

[dude1394]

No sturm...The point medved was making was that black, gay, muslim and jewish voters voted for kerry overwhelmingly, in far,far greater porportions...Out of the mainstream type numbers. I apologise for not providing the link medved

His numbers, I haven't checked them.

Moreover, Kerry's support came disproportionately from four instinctively, unshakably Democratic groups — blacks, Jews, gays, and Muslims — who portrayed themselves as menaced victims and voted for Kerry nearly 9 to 1, despite disagreements on most issues.

What he is saying is that if you throw out those outliers (you could make a bush case in the other direction but I haven't seen one) then the voting public favored bush by 63%.

[dude1394]

[quote]
Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Did you know it's also true that John Kerryreceived more votes (57,122,374) than any elected American president ever has? [quote]


Except dubya.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
No sturm...The point medved was making was that black, gay, muslim and jewish voters voted for kerry overwhelmingly, in far,far greater porportions...Out of the mainstream type numbers. I apologise for not providing the link medved

His numbers, I haven't checked them.

What he is saying is that if you throw out those outliers (you could make a bush case in the other direction but I haven't seen one) then the voting public favored bush by 63%.

First, it is impossible to quantify the percentages of voters who are gay, therefore impossible to accurately tabulate the percentage for any candidate. There is no census data to rely upon that details sexual orientation, and demographic analysis is all ultimately based upon that data.

Second, the breakdown on jewish voting percentages were closer to 75% for Kerry and 25% for Bush. Even the black American vote, the heaviest that I've seen in favor of Kerry, was closer to 85% Kerry and 15% Bush. How he arrives at "9 to 1" is baffling.

Third, the idea that these voters "portrayed themselves as menaced victims" is nothing more than a belicose assessment meant to marginalize those who expressed disenchantment with the policies of the Bush administration. The opposition to its fiscal mismanagement, the attacks upon our environmental regulations, the coziness with business interests and objections to its foreign policy direction have nothing to do with individual victimzation.

[sturm und drang]

I wasn't referring to Medved's numbers or the accuracy therein. I was referring to the way you set up the observation: That the election was an "arse whooping" not because of the final 51 v 48 tally, but because 63% of white protestants voted for Bush. The implication being, of course, that those are the people who matters.

Are some votes "more equal" than others?

[dude1394]

Well with respect to what's going on politically in the country yes. Mainstream voters (those not polarized to be 90% pro their candidate) are more "important" than the others. Not for some sort of racist bent that you seemed to try and infer, but that they are the middle class mainstream of this country and they voted 63% for bush, an "arse-whooping" as it were from the middle-class.

[sturm und drang]

Middle class? The white middle class? We're talking about the ENTIRETY of white PROTESTANT voters here. Not the "middle class," as you say. Those groups are not in any way one and the same.

Read your initial post again. It smacks of the notion that some votes are more equal than others... troubling.

[dude1394]

Again the "middle class" is NOT the segment of the vote that votes at a 90% rate. By definition... You are the one trying to make this a racist issue.

[dude1394]

And it seems that dubya had quite a few converts in NYC as well.
--------------------------
dubyafor ny
New Yorkers are depressed right now. You've read in the newspapers how they are upset about President Bush's re-election. I've seen the looks on people's faces as they trudge around the City with a collective frown. Wednesday morning was a surreal one for John Kerry's voters. Upper West Side liberals spat out their coffee when they saw the New York Times banner headline announcing Bush's big night - it wasn't a nightmare, after all. Downtown, the professional protesters, embittered artists, satirists, art gallery owners, and cartoonists didn't know what to do with their collections of Bush photos laced with Hitler mustaches. Saddam Hussein can not be set free for at least another four years, you know. That's the New York we've been hearing about the last week. I've seen it for myself, it's definitely there.

However, New York City possesses a sinister, deep and dark secret. There is something else lurking in shadows scattered throughout the 5 boroughs. If you listen closely, you can hear the whispers and sometimes it even sounds like restrained glee. Tourists do not know anything about this secret because the locals have done a good job of shielding the bad and seedy side of this crystal-blue city. I am going to let you in on the secret because New York has to face its demons whether or not it is wallowing in a collective Gotham funk.

There are Republicans in New York. Shhh, not so loud! Okay, not close to a majority, but the GOP is not an endangered species like the do-do bird is in Central Park. The fact is that 544,359 votes were cast for President Bush in New York City. That is more than votes cast for Bush in the entire states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming. Those 10 states accounted for 39 electoral votes.

Democrats have said that since New York City was hit hardest by 9/11 that Americans should notice how New York voted for President. Indeed, by looking at the election results from 2000 and 2004 you will notice that Bush INCREASED his vote percentage in New York City and the New York suburbs that are in immediate proximity to the city.

Dubya's popular vote improvement in the New York City area must not be ignored. Trying as hard as they can, New Yorkers can no longer hide their shameful secret.

NEW YORK CITY
Bronx
Gore 86.3% 265,801
Bush 11.8% 36,245

Kerry 82.3% 260,438
Bush 16.7% 52,752

Brooklyn
Gore 80.6% 497,468
Bush 15.7% 96,605

Kerry 74.1% 468,403
Bush 24.8% 156,612

Manhattan
Gore 79.8% 449,300
Bush 14.2% 79,921

Kerry 81.7% 468,841
Bush 16.6% 95,362

Queens
Gore 75.0% 416,967
Bush 22.0% 122,052

Kerry 70.8% 393,482
Bush 28.0% 155,363

Staten Island
Gore 51.9% 73,828
Bush 45.0% 63,903

Kerry 42.1% 62,603
Bush 56.7% 84,270


SUBURBS
Nassau
Gore 57.9% 341,610
Bush 38.5% 226,954

Kerry 52.2% 312,388
Bush 46.6% 278,727

Suffolk
Gore 53.4% 306,306
Bush 42.0% 240,992

Kerry 49.0% 303,375
Bush 48.7% 301,710

Westchester
Gore 58.6% 218,010
Bush 37.5% 139,278

Kerry 57.8% 199,649
Bush 40.6% 140,282

BUSH
New York City 2000: 398,726
New York City 2004: 544,359
Difference: +145,633

NY Suburbs 2000: 607,224
NY Suburbs 2004: 720,719
Difference: +113,495

GORE/KERRY
New York City 2000: 1,703,364
New York City 2004: 1,653,767
Difference: -49,597

NY Suburbs 2000: 865,926
NY Suburbs 2004: 815,412
Difference: -50,514

Bush dramatically increased his vote total in the New York metropolitan area. John Kerry did not even garner as many votes that Al Gore did despite the diminished presence of Ralph Nader. Bush increased his vote total in all 8 counties. Kerry suffered a net loss from 2000 in all 8 counties except for Manhattan (Ralph Nader got 5.5% of the Manhattan vote in 2000 but about 1% in 2004, helping Kerry get a slight bump).

Conventional wisdom was that Bush would lose the New York vote by an even wider margin than he did in 2000 because New Yorkers feel that they are less safe due to the president's foreign policy. The perception is that Bush alienated our allies and emboldened terrorists. Thus, liberals claim Bush made New York City an even richer target for a devastating attack.

But, the numbers don't lie. Bush increased his support in New York City and its suburbs. These are the voters who live, work and raise their families in New York. The fact is that Bush is more popular in the area that was hardest hit by the September 11 attacks.

Liberal New Yorkers like to blame the red states, evangelical Christians, and "dumb hicks" for helping Bush retain the White House. But, it was Americans of all stripes, from Alaska to Kansas to Brooklyn, who supported President Bush in larger numbers than they did 4 years ago. The truth is that the chattering class liberals are not only out of touch with America's heartland but they are just as clueless about their own neighbors in New York City and its suburbs.

[sturm und drang]

Red herrings abound...

I'm the one trying to make this a "racist issue?" When have I ever used that word?

I'm simply trying to point out that in your original post, you say that the real "perspective" on Bush's "arse whupping" of Kerry can be seen in the voting patterns of white protestants. I'm not debating the numbers or statistics on that. I've said this before, but what I find troubling is the way you framed the discussion; that is, that the votes that really count are those of white protestants. That the real magnitude of the election can be seen in the voter breakdown of that demographic, and the implication that others' votes (Jews, African-Americans, gays...) don't count.

[chumdawg]

Here's something that might help you understand the magnitude of this arse whoopin', as it were.

I think it was Tommy Lasorda who used to say that in baseball every team is going to win 60 games and lose 60 games. It's the other 40 that make you or break you.

Well, in today's hotly divided political climate, I suggest that any of about 100 people from each party could have run in this election...and won 45% of the vote, and lost 45% of the vote. That's just how strong the divisions between the two parties are.

Kerry would have had to wipe his ass with the American flag to get less than 45% of the vote. Same with Bush.

So of the remaining votes, the ones that were really in play, Bush won by a 2-to-1 margin.

Two-to-one is, indeed, a good ol' fashioned ass whippin'.

[Drbio]

I hate to see so many of my buds arguing so passionately over a semantical difference. The victory was an arse whuppin to many of you (for some good reason imho that have been discussed). Alternately, S&D brings up her opinion which is equally understandable (esp. that part about kerry receiving so many votes himself) and she (and others) feel that it wasn't an "arse whuppin" but rather a closer contest than some wish to admit. I think the fact that this election hinged on Ohio and Florida gives a little insight into the closeness or landslideness (is that a word [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img] ) of this contest.

Either way, I am jus tthankful that President Bush won and that kerry will not be in charge of a military that I love and respect with all my heart. To be honest, my dislike of the dims for many years has been rooted in their propensity to weaken our military. Economy. taxes, etc are all lateral to me. Important, but lateral. When you weaken my country by not providing my fellow Americans with the best technology, equipment etc you piss me off and you certainly do not get my vote. I think that theme ran true with MILLIONS of Americans this November.

MY President is George W. Bush and I lvoe that he will keep our military forces strong and inspired.