A few statistics

[Lucille]

A few statistics (http://www.barackobamaisnotmypresident.com/2008/12/23/a-few-statistics/)


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

Number of States won by:
Democrats: 19
Republicans: 29

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 of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in 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.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and when they vote, we can say adios to the USA in fewer than five years

Sickening.

[libertarian4321]

FYI, its "Hamline" University, not Hemline- a tiny, third tier school that almost no one outside of MN has head of.

Its not surprising that Republicans won "more land area" and more states- nothing new here- Rural areas tend to vote Rep and Urban areas tend to vote Dem.


Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won
was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”

And this is why Professor Olson is toiling at an obscure third tier school. It is poorly written. There is something missing from the first sentence and the second sentence is unclear- is his intent to say that Dems won territory encompassing the majority of welfare recipients (possibly true- but a LOT of poor and mostly white rural people throughout the midwest receive government assistance- I doubt the Professor actually did any research on this- he probably just thought he'd toss out a rant because a lot of poor blacks on welfare live in large cities on the coasts) or did he mean to say that the territories won by Dems were mostly welfare areas (certainly not true- most of the richest and most educated counties in the USA voted Dem- whether that be Silicon Valley, New Haven, Manhattan, LA suburbs, or whatever).

BTW, Obama did better than McCain among those with a 4-year degree or better- so the implication that the Dems only won among the poor and uneducated is wrong. Obama also won the majority of high income earners (those with household income over $200,000).

If Republicans want to start winning, one of the things they need to do is stop the "anti-intellectual" bias - demonstrated by picking boobs like Bush, Palin, and McCain. There is nothing wrong with appealing to "the common man"- but you don't want to go so far as to turn off educated people at the same time. The best politicians can appeal to both groups.

It hurts them at the ballot box, and it hurts them in fundraising- a well educated, high earning Dem leaning scientist in San Jose gets the same number of votes as the uneducated Rep leaning farm equipment repair guy in East Bumscrew, OK, but he is far more likely to donate money to the campaign.

[Kludge]

Oh noes! Teh aliens!