PDA

View Full Version : The Final RED / BLUE MAP ( BUSH COUNTRY )



carbonmarine
11-04-2004, 02:24 PM
Gotta Love it ! .... Even OC and the IE went Bush ! :rollside: :rollside:
http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/BushCountry04Map.jpg

nodigg
11-04-2004, 02:29 PM
Well, I was embarrassed about loosing in Cali but thank GAWD! we did it rght in the OC!

Ducatista
11-04-2004, 03:02 PM
County-by-County results for the 2004 election, nuff said! Good info, thanks.

Dave C
11-04-2004, 03:13 PM
here is Kaleefornia:
california election map (http://vote2004.ss.ca.gov/Returns/pres/mapAN.htm)

Ducatista
11-04-2004, 03:32 PM
here is Kaleefornia:
california election map (http://vote2004.ss.ca.gov/Returns/pres/mapAN.htm)
You know, based on that map, if the central & northern coast were to fall off in an earth quake, becoming their own little strip state, Cali would be a red state!

Mandelon
11-04-2004, 04:06 PM
Damn. Look at how the blue is grouped so tightly. I am glad to see most (geographically speaking) of california went red!

XtrmWakeborder
11-04-2004, 05:19 PM
Wow thats impressive! glad the oc went to Bush, damn the bay area

Cas
11-04-2004, 08:52 PM
Wow thats impressive! glad the oc went to Bush, damn the bay area
no shit! and I call this f*cking place home. The past 2 months, more than ever, made me realize I'm in the wrong place. Everywhere I turn, I see this liberal bullshit drastically changing people's lives and they have no clue.....sheep

XtrmWakeborder
11-04-2004, 11:35 PM
no shit! and I call this f*cking place home. The past 2 months, more than ever, made me realize I'm in the wrong place. Everywhere I turn, I see this liberal bullshit drastically changing people's lives and they have no clue.....sheep
Well from being in a college environment i really thought the oc was going to go the way of the bay with all the young people registering, but i guess it was all talk and no turnout. I don't know about you but im saving up for property in Havi, i'm sick of this state.

spectratoad
11-05-2004, 07:28 AM
Well from being in a college environment i really thought the oc was going to go the way of the bay with all the young people registering, but i guess it was all talk and no turnout. I don't know about you but im saving up for property in Havi, i'm sick of this state.
I have a feeling the college vote didn't happen because when the dem's had their rallys they probably had free food. So you know college kids can pretend to be interested for free food. Kind of like the timeshare deal. Come watch our presentation and get____________.

Cas
11-05-2004, 08:29 AM
tha CA map looks a lot like the US map. West and East borders blue with sporatic blue in the south and north. The rest is red

flat broke
11-05-2004, 09:46 AM
Something to think about for this election and back in Bush Sr.s last run, if the Republicans had expended an effort in California they may have actually turned the state. Although when I think about the counties that went to Kerry this last time around, I know the bay area is a lost cause, but would LA have been enough with some other sparsely populated areas have been enough? I think it was a difference of about 300k votes. Its a big number, but we're a high populous state. All the more reason I think we need to look towards a prorated distribution of Electoral votes in California. Such a program would still maintain the overal benefits of the Electoral College in terms of state population/representation at the national level, but let the more localized demographics have a say in how their votes are handled. Even if Bush had picked up half of CA's Electoral votes, the election results would be much more consistent with the popular vote.
Chris

XtrmWakeborder
11-05-2004, 07:13 PM
I have a feeling the college vote didn't happen because when the dem's had their rallys they probably had free food. So you know college kids can pretend to be interested for free food. Kind of like the timeshare deal. Come watch our presentation and get____________.
Haha so true

angry dad
11-05-2004, 07:22 PM
Hey.. Glendora voted bush!!! :D

kahanamoko
11-06-2004, 01:09 AM
Look. Bush won. Period. That is all that needs to be said. He now has the obligation to fulfill his duties as President. Period. What is the point in showing a map of lowly populated counties throughout the country compared to densely populated counties and comparing their choice for President? The most accurate comparison would be a comparison of the popular vote. Bush won that as well, barely. Certainly no "mandate" of the people as he claims. But who cares? He won. Good Lord people. Get a life.

spectratoad
11-06-2004, 06:13 AM
Look. Bush won. Period. That is all that needs to be said. He now has the obligation to fulfill his duties as President. Period. OK????
[/QUOTE]What is the point in showing a map of lowly populated counties throughout the country compared to densely populated counties and comparing their choice for President?[/QUOTE]
Are their votes not as important as those in the populated areas?
[/QUOTE] The most accurate comparison would be a comparison of the popular vote. Bush won that as well, barely. Certainly no "mandate" of the people as he claims. But who cares? He won. Good Lord people. Get a life.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't it something around 4 million votes that he won by??? Face it he won the popular vote, electoral vote, Republicans wons all over the board. The dem's are out of touch with America and the people not only spoke, they yelled loud and clear.

CrazyHippy
11-06-2004, 10:21 AM
Something to think about for this election and back in Bush Sr.s last run, if the Republicans had expended an effort in California they may have actually turned the state. Although when I think about the counties that went to Kerry this last time around, I know the bay area is a lost cause, but would LA have been enough with some other sparsely populated areas have been enough? I think it was a difference of about 300k votes. Its a big number, but we're a high populous state. All the more reason I think we need to look towards a prorated distribution of Electoral votes in California. Such a program would still maintain the overal benefits of the Electoral College in terms of state population/representation at the national level, but let the more localized demographics have a say in how their votes are handled. Even if Bush had picked up half of CA's Electoral votes, the election results would be much more consistent with the popular vote.
Chris
300K votes is really only 150K people... which makes it ALOT easier.
BJH

ssanddemon
11-06-2004, 10:28 AM
Kakahead, you're killin' me, ROTFLMAO!!!! The prez. won by the biggest margin in like twenty years, right? You know you would be partying if your man won like that!

Back Forty
11-06-2004, 12:03 PM
Hey Kaknhandy, do yourself a favor and leave Canada on your gas pumper budget once. You'll find that most of those red areas are actually well populated dumass. I guess your gas pumper budget doesn't allow you the chance to get out and see whats really going on to often does it? :jawdrop:
You can't get it through your fragile skull that America (you call them idiots) SPOKE. Please strangle yourself ASSHOLE; or move to Spain. I hear they need more defective leg humpers like yourself... You can build birdfeeders too. I hear they even have a popsicle stick factory near Madrid. Focking tard.
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:

Boy Named Sue
11-06-2004, 12:23 PM
Look. Bush won. Period. That is all that needs to be said. He now has the obligation to fulfill his duties as President. Period. What is the point in showing a map of lowly populated counties throughout the country compared to densely populated counties and comparing their choice for President? The most accurate comparison would be a comparison of the popular vote. Bush won that as well, barely. Certainly no "mandate" of the people as he claims. But who cares? He won. Good Lord people. Get a life.
Oh Kahanamoko. Win some lose some. Its ok. The map tells me a handful of well placed nukes could straighten this country out. (I mean the U.S. you Canadian boaters) :rollside:

steelcomp
11-06-2004, 12:50 PM
Look. Bush won. Period. That is all that needs to be said. He now has the obligation to fulfill his duties as President. Period. What is the point in showing a map of lowly populated counties throughout the country compared to densely populated counties and comparing their choice for President? The most accurate comparison would be a comparison of the popular vote. Bush won that as well, barely. Certainly no "mandate" of the people as he claims. But who cares? He won. Good Lord people. Get a life.
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
Whaaaaa Whaaaaa!!! (snif) WWWHHHAAAAAAAAAAA!!
Here's some interesting facts from the 2000 election that might show you why the demographics is more than important. It says a lot about the type of people who support libs vs. conservatives. I would imagin this year's stats are much the same, if not even more so.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St.
>Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most
>recent Presidential election: (2000)
Population of counties won by:
> Gore=127 million
> Bush=143 million
> Square miles of land won by:
> Gore= 580,000
> Bush=22,427,000
> States won by:
> Gore=19
> Bush=29
> Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
> Gore=13.2
> Bush= 2.1
> Professor Olson adds: In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush
> won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this
>great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living
>in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare...">

MagicMtnDan
11-06-2004, 01:23 PM
Good Lord people. Get a life.
Too effen funny - he posts "get a life" on a thread that he puts down. Betcha he drinks from the toilet and then complains about it tasting like shit!"
He's the same troll that insulted a board member's mother. Hey fuktard...
http://www.oneposter.co.uk/UserData/Poster/Poster_5902.jpg

Boy Named Sue
11-06-2004, 01:44 PM
Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this
great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living
in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare.
That was my first impression but this is the first time I heard someone else say it. Radio talk shows discussed this topic but no one had the balls to say the truth. City dwellers rely on the federal government the most for services and rurals think in terms of the county or township and aren't looking for handouts. "We don't accept charity 'round here lest its from our'n own folks. Then we'll return in kind when the time comes." "Oh yeah, freeloading trash git to the city." I'm quoting no one but an attitude.

steelcomp
11-06-2004, 02:53 PM
Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this
great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living
in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare.
That was my first impression but this is the first time I heard someone else say it. Radio talk shows discussed this topic but no one had the balls to say the truth. City dwellers rely on the federal government the most for services and rurals think in terms of the county or township and aren't looking for handouts. "We don't accept charity 'round here lest its from our'n own folks. Then we'll return in kind when the time comes." "Oh yeah, freeloading trash git to the city." I'm quoting no one but an attitude. :confused: :confused: :confused:
That no makes sense...obviously an Atascadero thing. You got schools there?
Stupid chicken focker!

kahanamoko
11-08-2004, 12:57 AM
America and the people not only spoke, they yelled loud and clear.
Did it sound something like this: "SEWEEEEEEEEEEEEE! HERE PIG, PIG, PIG, PIG, PIG. SEWEEEEEEEEEEEE! OINK, OINK OINK, PIG, PIG, PIG?"

TheLurker
11-08-2004, 01:24 AM
All the more reason I think we need to look towards a prorated distribution of Electoral votes in California. Such a program would still maintain the overal benefits of the Electoral College in terms of state population/representation at the national level, but let the more localized demographics have a say in how their votes are handled. Even if Bush had picked up half of CA's Electoral votes, the election results would be much more consistent with the popular vote.
Chris
I couldn’t agree more. I do not like the all or nothing Electoral College vote.
In California Bush had 4,403,495 votes which is more votes than Kerry had in any other individual state yet those votes did nothing to help bush win. In effect those bush votes almost helped Kerry win because all of the people in the state were lumped together and given to Kerry. :hammer2:

kahanamoko
11-08-2004, 01:39 AM
I couldn’t agree more. I do not like the all or nothing Electoral College vote.
In California Bush had 4,403,495 votes which is more votes than Kerry had in any other individual state yet those votes did nothing to help bush win. In effect those bush votes almost helped Kerry win because all of the people in the state were lumped together and given to Kerry. :hammer2:
Of course, if we got rid of the Electoral College, Bush would have lost in 2000.

Steve 1
11-08-2004, 03:07 AM
Nothing here just a Troll let's move on.

TheLurker
11-08-2004, 03:08 AM
Of course, if we got rid of the Electoral College, Bush would have lost in 2000.
Yes, but that is past history and if there were ever any changes to the election process in this country it could not be retroactive so the fact that, Bush would have lost that election in 2000 is irrelevant.
The importance of that 2000 election was it showed the need for change to the election process in this great country. A change that should put more emphases on the popular vote like a true democracy.
I also truly believe that most of the votes that Kerry received were more of a vote against Bush. What a sad state that is when you vote for a candidate (Kerry) not because you like his policies and principals but because you hate his opponent more. Sad, sad, sad

kahanamoko
11-08-2004, 10:48 AM
Yes, but that is past history and if there were ever any changes to the election process in this country it could not be retroactive so the fact that, Bush would have lost that election in 2000 is irrelevant.
The importance of that 2000 election was it showed the need for change to the election process in this great country. A change that should put more emphases on the popular vote like a true democracy.
I also truly believe that most of the votes that Kerry received were more of a vote against Bush. What a sad state that is when you vote for a candidate (Kerry) not because you like his policies and principals but because you hate his opponent more. Sad, sad, sad
Well, if one is against the Electoral College as indicated in Lurker's post, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election since he failed to carry the popular vote. It's a fact. I wonder how many republicans voted for Bush simply because they didn't like Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I know several that indicated they really didn't like Bush at all but felt Gore and Kerry left a bad taste in their mouth. How is that any different than what you insult others for doing? It's not. Just because there are some rabid republicans that allow theirselves to be brainwashed to follow their Fuhrer in lock-step without questioning a thing doesn't mean that is how all republicans or independents (or Democrats) that voted for Bush in either of the two elections feel.

Dog
11-08-2004, 11:42 AM
http://www.***boat.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7268&stc=1

kahanamoko
11-08-2004, 05:47 PM
http://www.***boat.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7268&stc=1
Wow! I guess he forgot the whole "Christian" thing he keeps talking about for a moment. Strange that someone that supports him would think that was a good thing. I thought he got elected because he supported "traditional values." Perhaps we were all a bit confused by the term. Perhaps it means being an idiot and a flaming asshole. If so, then there are quite a few of the right-wingers here on this site that should consider a career in politics.

Jeanyus
11-08-2004, 06:06 PM
I have seen the video where bush was flipping his staffer the bird as a joke, everyone was laughing. I'm pretty sure you don't go to hell for flipping the bird. Why is it that you expect people who have christian values, to be perfect all the time? Christians try not to be selfish hedonists, they don't claim to be without sin.

kahanamoko
11-08-2004, 06:16 PM
I have seen the video where bush was flipping his staffer the bird as a joke, everyone was laughing. I'm pretty sure you don't go to hell for flipping the bird. Why is it that you expect people who have christian values, to be perfect all the time? Christians try not to be selfish hedonists, they don't claim to be without sin.
But I don't know too many Christians that would sit on camera and "flip the bird" as a joke. Not very Christlike. And the comment was less about Bush being a hipocrite and more about the fact that a Bush supporter would think the video was funny and not something to ignore or overlook.

Jeanyus
11-08-2004, 06:48 PM
But I don't know too many Christians that would sit on camera and "flip the bird" as a joke. Not very Christlike. And the comment was less about Bush being a hipocrite and more about the fact that a Bush supporter would think the video was funny and not something to ignore or overlook.
Didn't realize that your morals and values were so high, and that you are so far above everyone else, that you would consider fliping the bird, in a joking manner, as anti christian. Sure couldent tell you have values at all, judging by what you post.

ssanddemon
11-08-2004, 06:56 PM
Gore and Kerry left a bad taste in their mouth. Youv'e got it wrong, Kahahamotomonoto. Clinton left a bad taste in Monica's mouth! I bet you LOVED him, he embodied everything liberal. -no morals, no values, no shame. Do you think the guy you loved ever flipped anyone off, even in jest?

steelcomp
11-08-2004, 07:19 PM
Man, Kakamouth, you're REALLY reaching, aren't you. Getting harder and harder to find your ground. Funny how that works.!!

Boy Named Sue
11-08-2004, 07:25 PM
Did it sound something like this: "SEWEEEEEEEEEEEEE! HERE PIG, PIG, PIG, PIG, PIG. SEWEEEEEEEEEEEE! OINK, OINK OINK, PIG, PIG, PIG?"
Kahanamoko, You've found the true meaning of my nickname!
You are smarter than I thought.
Suuuuueeeeey!!!!!!! :)

ssanddemon
11-08-2004, 07:43 PM
"traditional values" - Perhaps it means being an idiot and a flaming asshole.
Kaha-whatever, it's altogether too easy to rip you a new (see quote). The crap you throw out is not inspired by intelligent thought.

Steve 1
11-08-2004, 08:03 PM
ROFLMAO If ole Kook had a brain behind that sloping forehead he/she would not have so many red squares.

TheLurker
11-09-2004, 10:53 AM
We all may not all agree in here but I thought I would be able to have an intelligent discussion in here but was I wrong. I’m out of here.

572Daytona
11-09-2004, 04:17 PM
Of course, if we got rid of the Electoral College, Bush would have lost in 2000.
You have no proof of this. I know a lot of people here in Georgia that don't bother to vote since it is pretty much a foregone conclusion who the winner is going to be. I would expect the same to be true in a lot of the non-swing states including CA. It would have also changed how the campaign was run. I really wish the media would stop playing up the concept of a single popular vote so much as there really is no such thing. There are actually 51 individual popular votes for each state and DC and they are meaningless in an aggregate.

kahanamoko
11-11-2004, 12:10 AM
Youv'e got it wrong, Kahahamotomonoto. Clinton left a bad taste in Monica's mouth! I bet you LOVED him, he embodied everything liberal. -no morals, no values, no shame. Do you think the guy you loved ever flipped anyone off, even in jest?
Well, that's a difficult question to answer since, unlike you, there's never been a guy that I've "loved". Why don't you be specific about the "guy" that you think I have some sort of admiration for and tell me exactly why you think I express some sort of admiration for him. Then perhaps I can answer your question.

Steve 1
11-11-2004, 05:54 AM
Go away troll you have nothing to offer!

ssanddemon
11-11-2004, 08:37 AM
Well, that's a difficult question to answer since, unlike you, there's never been a guy that I've "loved". Why don't you be specific about the "guy" that you think I have some sort of admiration for and tell me exactly why you think I express some sort of admiration for him. Then perhaps I can answer your question.
Do you not understand I was speaking of Clinton? - Seems a bit dense of you not to recognize of whom I was speaking. I have no doubt you supported him. Maybe "love" is a bit strong. I feel you most likely associated strongly with the liberal ideals Clinton espoused -gun control, political correctness, and weakness in the face of terrorism. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
As a side note, I have no love for G.W. I could have voted for a moderate democrat just as easily.

Schiada76
11-11-2004, 09:01 AM
Back to the subject of red and blue.
Anyone notice on the county by county map that there actually NO blue "states"? Lots and lots of totally red states but nothing "blue". :D
liberals are scum

Dog
11-11-2004, 10:18 AM
http://www.***boat.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7268&stc=1
If you are going to give me grey rep at least sign it.
The Final RED / BLUE MA... 11-11-2004 02:11 AM

ssanddemon
11-11-2004, 07:48 PM
Those conservatives who think it is a good idea to get rid of the electoral college had better give it some more consideration. Think of it this way; the biggest groups are in the cities, ergo it only makes sense to play to them. The guy who campaigns in Des Moines or Fargo will almost literally be wasting his time. There is no way to capture ALL of the rural vote, so it would not be worthwhile. By the same token, the federal government will generally give less importance to ruralites or those in the smaller cities since their vote won't ever count for much. You will see an amazing increase in the power of the liberal agenda if the United States ever gets rid of the electoral college.

hondo sanger
11-12-2004, 12:31 PM
good guy are always cowboys, that is why they win !!!!!!! this election was so importent , your kids , grand kids, greatgrand kids. will thank us.
those who voted for kerry needed to studie little more, because they
didnt know what the **** they were doing.
god bless america & george w. bush
hondo sanger AL

RealDarthPoncho
11-12-2004, 04:09 PM
When you look at the reality by county even my liberal state of Washington is not really blue but purple! Hopefully Seattle will erode into the pacific!!!!

hondo sanger
11-13-2004, 01:35 PM
you are so wright on electoral college, we lose that . consereatives
will suffer, we need to be heard. god bless america
red neck AL

1978 Rogers
11-14-2004, 02:40 AM
When you look at the reality by county even my liberal state of Washington is not really blue but purple! Hopefully Seattle will erode into the pacific!!!!
I'ts so funny you said that. I've lived most of my life in the Puget Sound area. Kerry's PLAN (one of the many thag he never went into detail) was or/is to take away tax credits for businesses that subs work aboard. The two biggest employers in this area are Boeing and Microsoft. Both sub work to countries with cheaper labor (outside USA). For Kerry, to our right bring all that work back the the NW is very interesting.
How can Boeing compete with AeroBus, which is subsidized by the EU. What about MS, who wants to spend more for software? Give me a break. If Kerry was president and he did as he said, the pasific northwest would be f*cked.
I don't known what the hell the blues were thinking.
MY CANIDATE WON.

1978 Rogers
11-14-2004, 03:38 AM
When you look at the reality by county even my liberal state of Washington is not really blue but purple! Hopefully Seattle will erode into the pacific!!!!
I hope your talking JUST about the area that show up as blue. Fu*k an "A", I live in Pierce County that showed as BLUE. Not enough to show red. Oh well.
At least our govener is going to be Rossi, a Repeblican from the last pole I hear. It's a very close race.