Presidential Divide

Couldn’t help but post these numbers when I ran across them the other day…..

Number of States won by:
Obama: 19 McCain: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

WOW, but I thought the Republicans were the ones that cling to their guns, Obama?

This no doubt shows that it was NOT the majority of taxpaying American citizens that suddenly decided to support far left politics, it was the overwhelming rally of low-income people who were ALREADY living off of some sort of government welfare.

7 comments

  1. Maybe I am missing something, but I can't wrap my head around the significance of these numbers. I don't doubt that the bottom like 50% that barely pay taxes voted for Obama, I just don't see how this proves anything. If the top 50% hadn't voted for him he wouldn't have won . . .correct? I mean I'm just sayin, not hatin . . .

    1. Sharp eye, Justin. The numbers presented here aren't significant. It's simply statistical parsing, in the same vein as sports commentators saying "Golly, Biff, no kicker has hit a field goal in the Rose Bowl with 23 seconds left on the clock from 35 yards away with a 5 mph southwest crosswind in this particular stadium on a Friday evening since 1945. Joe Smith's chances don't look good." It might be a decent illustration of Neil Postman's concept of "info glut," but there is nothing politically salient about the number of square miles of land won by McCain as opposed to those won by Obama. Maybe Matt has forgotten that miles of land don't vote: people do. Maybe he has also forgotten that all those rural areas won by McCain are strapped with some of the worst poverty, and the highest numbers of low-income voters, in the nation. Of the ten states with the highest poverty rates in America, nine of them went for McCain in 2008. Of the ten states with the lowest poverty rates in America, 8.2 of them went for Obama. Not exactly what I would call an uprising of the lumpen-proletariat for the socialist/affirmative-action recipient Barack Obama.

      Maybe Matt would like to go back to the days of restricted franchise, where you have to have a large property stake in society to even get the vote in the first place, much less run for office. Maybe he would like to cut all of those undesirable "low-income" welfare-recipients out of the political process. That's what his tone suggests.

      Democracy has its trade-offs and its drawbacks. Universal adult franchise, with all its implications, is not one of them, even when you think you're being "overwhelmed" by those "low-income people."

    2. (I sent this down the tube, but it didn't seem to come out the other end, so here it is again.)

      Sharp eye, Justin. The numbers presented here aren't significant. It's simply statistical parsing, in the same vein as sports commentators saying "Golly, Biff, no kicker has hit a field goal in the Rose Bowl with 23 seconds left on the clock from 35 yards away with a 5 mph southwest crosswind in this particular stadium on a Friday evening since 1945. Joe Smith's chances don't look good." It might be a decent illustration of Neil Postman's concept of "info glut," but there is nothing politically salient about the number of square miles of land won by McCain as opposed to those won by Obama. Maybe Matt has forgotten that miles of land don't vote: people do. Maybe he has also forgotten that all those rural areas won by McCain are strapped with some of the worst poverty, and the highest numbers of low-income voters, in the nation. Of the ten states with the highest poverty rates in America, nine of them went for McCain in 2008. Of the ten states with the lowest poverty rates in America, 8.2 of them went for Obama. Not exactly what I would call an uprising of the lumpen-proletariat for the socialist/affirmative-action recipient Barack Obama.

      Maybe Matt would like to go back to the days of restricted franchise, where you have to have a large property stake in society to even get the vote in the first place, much less run for office. Maybe he would like to cut all of those undesirable "low-income" welfare-recipients out of the political process. That's what his tone suggests.

      Democracy has its trade-offs and its drawbacks. Universal adult franchise, with all its implications, is not one of them, even when you think you're being "overwhelmed" by those "low-income people."

  2. Johnny, to a large extent I actually agree with you. Obviously, I cannot prove my case. That’s fine. My instincts, however, tell me that I am correct. Blacks are known for supporting the brothas and the sistas even when there’s no reasonable explanation other than pure ethnocentrism (O. J. ring a bell?). And you’re delusional if you really believe that most minorities (especially Latinos and blacks and with the possible exception of Asians) don’t feel that they have a bone to pick with white folks.

    “That is borderline racist — as is the tone of your response.”

    Oh, no! I’m not a racist! There goes the liberal calling names again…

    “Where are the highest rates of murder? Cities.”

    Okay, and which racial groups have the highest murder rates? Blacks have the highest, Latinos come next, and, with a few insignificant minority groups in between, whites come after Latinos (Asians have the lowest rate of murder and violent crime, but not dramatically lower than that of whites). Why do we have to look at cities? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to consider racial groups, considering that the constitution of cities is prior to the cities themselves? I suggest you look into a book called “Color of Crime.”

    “And little do you know, cities are actually quite segregated.”

    Actually, I’m quite aware of that fact—that was part of my original point. But you seem to be trying to deny (or at least are dancing around the reality) that blacks are typically highly more violent than any other racial group, and Latinos run an alarming second place, especially alarming considering that they are flooding across the border, and, at the current rate, will be a majority in the foreseeable future.

    So here are my final questions for you: Are you really willing to claim that blacks and Latinos are not highly ethnocentric as compared to whites? Are you willing to claim that there is ANY racial group that is LESS ethnocentric than whites?

  3. Thanks Matt for getting the pot stirred for some healthy debate coming off the holidays. Whether the reader agrees or disagrees with your post doesn't matter, It is the fact that it gives us cause for debate. Thanks for starting our engines!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s