Here are a few more interesting interpretations of the election map, which do a bit better at representing the popular vote totals:
http://www.esri.com/industries/elections/graphics/results2004_lg.jpg
BB:
Thanks for the links. I found a few of them to be quite interesting and actually more representational of the election than the typical map.
Hmm, well then, obviously there is no difference between people in rural areas vs populated areas. I guess that is why they voted exactly the same, right?
Just an interesting concept, don’t go all partisan on me, but don’t people move to the big city from the country to get a real job with real wages? Don’t people move from the city to the country to get away from the rat race and retire?
Anyway, apparently I’m an elitist ultra-liberal (Zeb said so), so I get to use big words and shit now. Look out!
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hmm, well then, obviously there is no difference between people in rural areas vs populated areas. I guess that is why they voted exactly the same, right?
Just an interesting concept, don’t go all partisan on me, but don’t people move to the big city from the country to get a real job with real wages? Don’t people move from the city to the country to get away from the rat race and retire?
Anyway, apparently I’m an elitist ultra-liberal (Zeb said so), so I get to use big words and shit now. Look out![/quote]
You always used “shit,” the big words will be an new addition!
This whole “educated people voted for Kerry” thing is bullshit. The majority of people that make more than 50k a year,a real job, and that have a college degree, a real education, voted for Bush.(CNN exit polls)
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hmm, well then, obviously there is no difference between people in rural areas vs populated areas. I guess that is why they voted exactly the same, right?
Just an interesting concept, don’t go all partisan on me, but don’t people move to the big city from the country to get a real job with real wages? Don’t people move from the city to the country to get away from the rat race and retire?
Anyway, apparently I’m an elitist ultra-liberal (Zeb said so), so I get to use big words and shit now. Look out![/quote]
A bit too simplistic. If everyone tried to get a “real” job in the area that was best for their economic interest, everyone would move to Dallas or Houston. Cost of living has to be factored in to a rational economic decsision. Of course, if everyone did it at once it would cease to be true, but you know what I mean… THat’s just one extra factor, but obviously there’s a bit more to people’s decisions that that.
BTW, what’s wrong with big words?
Hmmmmm…
Sorry about that last post, my attachment didn’t show up!
click on picture to enlarge.
Zeb, down boy, maybe when you see a post of mine that isn’t partisan or critical you should consider not attacking it. It would make sense considering all the recent whining you’ve been doing.
BB, it was just an anecdotal thing. If you grew up outside of the big city, odds are if you wanted a real career you’d had to have moved to a big city. That is where the big business is. I found it interesting given the polarization of densely populated areas vs rural areas.
[quote]chadman wrote:
click on picture to enlarge.[/quote]
Already discredited in other threads. Try again, hippy.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You always used “shit,” the big words will be an new addition!
Zeb, down boy, maybe when you see a post of mine that isn’t partisan or critical you should consider not attacking it. It would make sense considering all the recent whining you’ve been doing.
BB, it was just an anecdotal thing. If you grew up outside of the big city, odds are if you wanted a real career you’d had to have moved to a big city. That is where the big business is. I found it interesting given the polarization of densely populated areas vs rural areas.[/quote]
vroom:
Whining? That would be your bailiwick. I was merely pointing out a fact. You spread a great deal of crap on this forum already (hey we all do on occasion don’t get rattled). The big words would be something new. Now let’s see some “big words”…I’m waiting.
[quote]doogie wrote:
chadman wrote:
click on picture to enlarge.
Already discredited in other threads. Try again, hippy.[/quote]
Doogie,
Listen hillbilly, I posted that to show how irrelevant ALL of these maps, charts, etc. are. Having a predominantly red map is just as misleading as the IQ chart, since nearly one half of the country voted for Kerry and the map is almost entirely red.
Time to go hug a tree!
What’s the matter Zeb, do you miss RSU? Am I your new whipping boy now?
[quote]chadman wrote:
Listen hillbilly, I posted that to show how irrelevant ALL of these maps, charts, etc. are. Having a predominantly red map is just as misleading as the IQ chart, since nearly one half of the country voted for Kerry and the map is almost entirely red.
Time to go hug a tree![/quote]
I agree that it is misleading to show the country in terms of red and blue, but at least that map has a basis in fact. What you posted has been completely discredited.
What I do think we could get from that listing and how it was actually created is that it is the rich who vote for democrats. And here I thought everyone said the republicans was the party of the fat cats. Not surprising it’s the democrats who come across as snobby elitists.
The reality is all of us normal folks lose. It just depends on what you are willing to lose as to how you vote.
Almost all politicians are rich, elitest snobs. They are almost all attorneys. It doesn’t really matter if you vote blue or red, they don’t give much of a crap about you if you don’t have 7 figures plus in the bank.
I vote democrat mainly on issues of the environment and abortion. However, on most ballot initiatives, I tend to vote what would be considered Republican.
I think this map needs to be thrown in the mix. We’ve seen talk of Blue States and Red States, average IQ, purple maps, blah, blah, blah…
This is something that actually matters…
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004