It certainly isn't the U.S.A.:

http://alt.cimedia.com/ajc/pdf/elect_results_uscounty.pdf

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/Teh%20FunnAy/divided.bmp


Oh I get it... the Democrats mention a “divide” when they really feel outnumbered and insignificant. If anything, there was more of a divide during the 2000 election and the ~500,000 vote difference, not 2004.

That is a terribly telling map. Thank you.

Every spec of red or blue represents an area that is divided. Very few areas chose a candidate by an overwhelming majority. California as a state was only 55/45.
You can rest assured the country is divided.

If americans are united in anything that map would imply stupidity.

-Chris

It certainly isn't the U.S.A.:

http://alt.cimedia.com/ajc/pdf/elect_results_uscounty.pdf

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/Teh%20FunnAy/divided.bmp


Oh I get it... the Democrats mention a “divide” when they really feel outnumbered and insignificant. If anything, there was more of a divide during the 2000 election and the ~500,000 vote difference, not 2004.

Wow.... That's almost as telling as the IQ graph right?

Um, salty, that map doesn't mention population density does it? Because, man - nevada is big - and it takes up alot of space - and gosh darn if that aint a convincing visual, but there IS NOTHING IN NEVADA. More people live in the dumpster behind chuckee cheeze than live in 100 square mile regions of nevada and many of the great plain states. Without a nod to population density, this map aint worth a shizot and is just an excuse to you red bastards to gloat more than you already are.

Oh I get it... the Democrats mention a “divide” when they really feel outnumbered and insignificant.

Don't be a retard, I'd expect more out of you. :)

If americans are united in anything that map would imply stupidity.

LOL, it would appear so. :D

If anything, this is a more accurate map, thanks to GRADATION. Although its much more convincing when it looks like everyone in middle america agreed. You still have to take into account population density here....

If anything, this is a more accurate map, thanks to GRADATION. Although its much more convincing when it looks like everyone in middle america agreed. You still have to take into account population density here....

You mean the truth is somewhere in the middle

huh.... something to think about

You mean the truth is somewhere in the middle

huh.... something to think about

too bad the Democratic party can't wrap their brains around that idea. This polarization of the country is bad for the country.

too bad the Democratic party can't wrap their brains around that idea. This polarization of the country is bad for the country.

Yeah the polarization of this country is all the democratic parties fault...

Ok.........

Yeah the polarization of this country is all the democratic parties fault...

Ok.........
I don't think he was trying to say that... I think he was speaking as a democrat, wishing that his party could lose it's 'crazy liberal' image.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Its funny... it seems that the large metropolotan areas overwhelmingly voted for Kerry. Wouldn't they be the most 'at risk' of a terrorist attack? ...Shows you who people think would have been able to do a better job protecting America.

Maybe population density will rise enough in the next four years so that a democratic president can be elected.... This time around, the city-folk couldn't quite overcome the numbers in the bible belt and rural midwest.

Seriously now, do you think that, in general, people in less densely poulated areas are better informed than those in large cities? I realize there is an overall difference between the values held in these two different general areas, but I also believe that there is a greater wealth of knolwledge and differing viewpoints in more higly-populated areas. This, I believe allows people in areas of high pop. density to put more thought and consideration into their vote, in general.

Those people in the red areas must not discount the large number of people in the blue areas. People who live in large cities are confronted with worsening modern problems (such as pollution and poverty) and the need to push for progressive measures to comply and assist with the growth of cities. I'm not saying that the red areas have never heard of these things, I'm just saying people in rural areas are generally less aware, more isolated from the outside world, and problems like air pollution have not YET materialized- so what's the rush to change? Go ahead- drill for oil in the largest untouched refuge in the Americas, what do we care----> Cheeper gas fer my RIG!



Moving on, I still think If the Dems had a slightly more widely-appealing candidate, they would have won no problem.

Moving on, I still think If the Dems had a slightly more widely-appealing candidate, they would have won no problem.
^^^^
I could'nt agree more with the above statement. Although you may be in for another upset in 2008.

If anything, this is a more accurate map, thanks to GRADATION. Although its much more convincing when it looks like everyone in middle america agreed. You still have to take into account population density here....

OoOOoOooo, pretty! :)

OoOOoOooo, pretty! :)

Are you trying to marginalize the info this map depicts?

It seems to me that whenever a good counterpoint is made toward you, you seem to always avoid acknowledging that point by throwing out some unrelated, tounge-in-cheek response like the one above. They may seem harmless to you, but to others It's the equivalent of laughing at them. If you were moderate, as you claim to be, you should be able to see the other side. I guess you may to yourself- you certainly don't appear to in many cases. Or is it an ego thing where you can't publicly admit errors- in that case, I understand.


...Just look at the popular vote... Bush won by a WHOPPING 3%. The vote was divided nearly 50-50. I don't see how you can be serious when you say that you don't see the division in the country.

More interesting maps. This one is 3d, and incorporates population density into height. Basically showing what we all know, the more densely populated areas voted Dem versus the low density Rep.

How about this map? Think about it. When all of these 18-29 people are older and the baby boomer generation is gone, look at how the election would have gone.

http://media.musicforamerica.org/images/young_ev_map.png

Are you trying to marginalize the info this map depicts?

It seems to me that whenever a good counterpoint is made toward you, you seem to always avoid acknowledging that point by throwing out some unrelated, tounge-in-cheek response like the one above. They may seem harmless to you, but to others It's the equivalent of laughing at them. If you were moderate, as you claim to be, you should be able to see the other side. I guess you may to yourself- you certainly don't appear to in many cases. Or is it an ego thing where you can't publicly admit errors- in that case, I understand.

OMG! It's a map with red and blue in it! Yes, I think the second map is a ton better so get over yourself! I posted the map because it sparks interest knowing damn well that the map wasn’t telling the entire story, scoobsport98. The bottom line is that both maps can be inaccurate because the map doesn't have a gradient on feeling toward issues, weather etc.

...Just look at the popular vote... Bush won by a WHOPPING 3%. The vote was divided nearly 50-50. I don't see how you can be serious when you say that you don't see the division in the country.

So if the vote was divided nearly 50-50 then how is it anymore divided than 2000 when the margin of votes was 3,000,000votes closer to 50-50? Seems like it's an excuse because the Dem's lost when they honestly expected to win... pure and simple. If anything, the results of this election make it seem that the Democrats are divided from the rest of the country and have a hard time accepting it. There’s a big difference here...

How about this map? Think about it. When all of these 18-29 people are older and the baby boomer generation is gone, look at how the election would have gone.

http://media.musicforamerica.org/images/young_ev_map.png

There's no doubt that the younger generation stuck to their part of the bargain for Kerry. Let's not forget that a vast majority of the baby boomer generation had the same views as the generation "X's" and Millenium voters when they wore flowers in their hair. Times were similar in the 60-70's and people mature and opinions change.

How about this map? Think about it. When all of these 18-29 people are older and the baby boomer generation is gone, look at how the election would have gone.

http://media.musicforamerica.org/images/young_ev_map.png


You forget people change with age and usually tend to lean more Republican with age. Shrug.

ok guys, i put together a map that should answer all our questions, and i think its far superior to every map that has been posted so far - so read it and weep, *****es.

Hahahaha WTF?

hehehe, i dont know - we just got in a pissing contest over who had the sweetest map :D

So if the vote was divided nearly 50-50 then how is it anymore divided than 2000 when the margin of votes was 3,000,000votes closer to 50-50? Seems like it's an excuse because the Dem's lost when they honestly expected to win... pure and simple. If anything, the results of this election make it seem that the Democrats are divided from the rest of the country and have a hard time accepting it. There’s a big difference here...


Let's face it... while there was a great voter turn-out, the have-nots did not come out as faithfully as predicted. But the Bush faithful (as misguided as they may be but love him nonetheless) came out in droves.

In posting the first map Salty, your intention was to show how tremendously huge the Bush faithful indeed are. But that is a sham. Half the people in this country did not vote for the man. And is it more divided? Hell yes!! Although Bush may have edged out his opponent by a few million more votes, the anti-Bush crowd loathes, yes loathes, their president. He stands for everything that is wrong with America:

Overly prideful, arrogant, jingoistic, incorrigible political hawk, merciless, and the list goes on and on. The fruits of his tree carry no hints of compassion, respect for fellow man, or anything else that should be evident in a follower of Christ.

And now there is news that we might see a Hillary vs. Terminator election in 08... pardon me, but I think I need to yarf

There's no doubt that the younger generation stuck to their part of the bargain for Kerry. Let's not forget that a vast majority of the baby boomer generation had the same views as the generation "X's" and Millenium voters when they wore flowers in their hair. Times were similar in the 60-70's and people mature and opinions change.

You forget people change with age and usually tend to lean more Republican with age. Shrug.

I disagree. Its just that what was considered liberal in the 60's and 70's is pretty tame for today. The "middle" moves "left" with every generation. This should be common sense.

OMG! It's a map with red and blue in it! Yes, I think the second map is a ton better so get over yourself! I posted the map because it sparks interest knowing damn well that the map wasn’t telling the entire story, scoobsport98. The bottom line is that both maps can be inaccurate because the map doesn't have a gradient on feeling toward issues, weather etc.

The map you posted is flat-out misleading and incorrectly supports your blantantly false notion that only small fraction (which happens to be 48%, compared to 52% for Bush) of the country wanted to change the president. The gradiated map shows a better picture of who voted for who. (think of it like, each vote gets a dot. In less populated areas, the color won't be as bright) This map is a fair and accurate depiction of who voted for whom, and doesn't just satisfy what I want to see. And please explain to me how incorporating 'weather' or 'feelings on the issues' into the map would help us see who voted which way. It may give us insigt into WHY they voted as they did, but that's a completely different subject, and is not being argued here whatsoever.


So if the vote was divided nearly 50-50 then how is it anymore divided than 2000 when the margin of votes was 3,000,000votes closer to 50-50? Seems like it's an excuse because the Dem's lost when they honestly expected to win... pure and simple. If anything, the results of this election make it seem that the Democrats are divided from the rest of the country and have a hard time accepting it. There’s a big difference here...


Did I say that it was more divided than 2000? There you go again, avoiding (or simply not seeing) my point. I'm just trying to get it through your head that there IS a division among the country- it's not just a group of radicals outcast to the side. Say Kerry had gotten Bush's 59million, and Bush got Kerry's 55million (which could have easily happened, if it weren't for a few fatal flaws in Kerry's campaign). Would you still be saying that the country has one voice and that the 55million that voted for Bush were 'divided from the rest of the country'? Get real- try to value everyones opinion more equally. You seem to discount the 55million that disagreed with the President, just because of a different ideology. The high population centers are confronted with a greater number of modern problems that are tied to population density, about which the President has done little or nothing to reverse. The rural areas simply have not encountered these problems, and they are not face-to-face with them. So, they generally voted on 'moral values' :rolleyes: rather than some-may-say more important issues.

You got it- this is all just an excuse cause Kerry didn't win... :rolleyes:

Will you ever understand? Or, I guess, since Bush won, there is no need to understand the other side. Kerry would not have alienated Bush voters had he won, and Bush has not alienated those who voted against him, as you are trying to do. You seriously need to listen to that Jon Stewart Crossfire interview and see the silliness of your current stance.


You say you are moderate? That's the funniest thing I've heard all week- by any definition, a moderate would easily be able to see the clear division here.

If you ordered a pizza, and the liberal delivery guy ate 48% on the way to your house, you'd be perfectly fine with the remaing 52%? Since its over half, you can just forget about the other 48% and 'pretend' you have a whole pizza? -Does this analagy help at all?

I don't think he was trying to say that... I think he was speaking as a democrat, wishing that his party could lose it's 'crazy liberal' image.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You are correct. More of the blame for polarization lies with the President's "with us or against us" black & white attitude, but the Democrats are not without fault.

Good points Scoob. And to drill this point home, the country is more divided. Can you evere remember people hating the president as much as they do today? (Im thinking LBJ comes close, and maybe Clinton after Monica-gate)

I really don't think hating the president is the answer- Try to keep it limited to strong disagreement. It just plays into the right's argument that everyone on the left is a radical bush-hater who'd be happy with anyone else. Although that may be the truth, it does nothing to promote the argument, and it can only help to vindicate the opposing view that liberals are out of their mind.

With clinton- It was hate... because many people thought he was sleaze. But with Bush, we must realize that under his value system, the decisions he makes are justified in his mind. It's more of a difference of values and principles, and this should definitely not equate to hate. By hating someone else's values, we have dipped to the level of fundamentalist muslims- Hate does not help to slove problems, it only strengthens and fortifies the opposite view. An example of this was the country's strengthening resolve after 9/11.

I really do think that if the dems (not just Kerry) had tried to level with the right and open constructive dialouge on the issues, rather than just pour the hate on the president- Kerry would have won the election. Not everyone disagrred with Bush- the Dems should have realized this and not disrespected the executive branch as they did. This took integrity from their campaign and helped the other side win.

I think the reason Salty is saying that the Dems are divided from the rest of the country is because they all hate the president. This is flat-out false, but many people say and do things to perpetuate this idea. Liberal exteremists, in my view, have just gone off the deep end. Many have tried to level with the other side and open dialogue, but when this doesn't work, they give up, abandon the other side, and begin rolling down the left side of the hill. I do see an urgent need for change in this country, but I'm not willing to start wearing a 'buck fush' t-shirt and start spewing negative sentiment toward our own president.

If you ordered a pizza, and the liberal delivery guy ate 48% on the way to your house, you'd be perfectly fine with the remaing 52%? Since its over half, you can just forget about the other 48% and 'pretend' you have a whole pizza? -Does this analagy help at all?

How about this spin on your analogy - I tip the pizza guy. My parents, who are staunch conservatives, do not. After all, if he wants a better job, why doesn't he just go to college and get one?

Good points Scoob. And to drill this point home, the country is more divided. Can you evere remember people hating the president as much as they do today? (Im thinking LBJ comes close, and maybe Clinton after Monica-gate)


If he's so hated then why is he in office for a 2nd term? Do you sorta see my point here? I certainly see yours.... It's my understanding that the Democrats are divided among the rest of the majority.

I see your point... yes, the Democrats are divided by the rest of the (voting) majority.

But the anti-Bush sentiment has grown considerably... whereas once Bush was looked upon as bumbling fool, now he is viewed as bumbling fool who is hell-bent on carrying out whack quasi-religious ideologies.

In the end, the country is more divided now that it was 4 years ago (and certainly waaaay more divided than after the pow-wow held after 9-11)

If he's so hated then why is he in office for a 2nd term? Do you sorta see my point here? I certainly see yours.... It's my understanding that the Democrats are divided among the rest of the majority.

read my post following his- I just added a bunch,

and more...

There ya go, Dub- I predicted he'd take advatage of your 'hate' statement and use it to prove his point.

If he's so hated then why is he in office for a 2nd term? Do you sorta see my point here? I certainly see yours.... It's my understanding that the Democrats are divided among the rest of the majority.

I can already see it happening. You are alienating 48% of America when you say things like that.

You have to understand how close this election was. Bush did get the majority of the vote on November 2. But that doesn't mean that Democrats are in the minority. Try not to draw party lines here and just recognize that almost as many people that voted for Bush voted for Kerry.

Only 1% of the total US population think that Bush would do a better job than Kerry, which is not even the point.

Put aside the party names and see that almost half of the population vehemently hate this president. Something has to be done by this administration to get these 48% of Americans back on board. When they aren't on board you have a divided America. Wasn't this the point of your original post?

How about this spin on your analogy - I tip the pizza guy. My parents, who are staunch conservatives, do not. After all, if he wants a better job, why doesn't he just go to college and get one?


It's kinda unrelated to my original, but I do see what you're trying to get at.

My parents are also republican, but having two kids and seeing what they face as they grow up, I believe, has made them more liberal. My dad, who has one of the most conservative personalities I know of, voted against Bush. Not only beacause he can't stand having someone who comes off as so ignorant (see 'Internets,' ' Nu-Q-ler'), but also on 'more improtant' issues like education, heathcare, and the environment.

True dat Scoob. The word hate is used too often... I have been on edge since the end of the election. I just cant believe that more than half of our country supports George W.

Put aside the party names and see that almost half of the population vehemently hate this president. Something has to be done by this administration to get these 48% of Americans back on board. When they aren't on board you have a divided America. Wasn't this the point of your original post?

Watch the hate-talk... As I explained in one of my previous posts, this only plays into Salty's argument that America is not divided. It's less divided by hate for the president, and more divided by a fundamental difference in values and policy.

Watch the hate-talk... As I explained in one of my previous posts, this only plays into Salty's argument that America is not divided. It's less divided by hate for the president, and more divided by a fundamental difference in values and policy.

You call it how you see it, I guess. I really don't understand though how it plays to his argument. I think it proves that it is divided.

True dat Scoob. ... I just cant believe that more than half of our country supports George W.

Now don't conclude that more that half our country are idiots, rather, take a step back and look at the bigger picture of why they may have voted that way. This also doesn't mean that more than half our country supports the president, it could also be a reflection that people didn't support or trust Kerry enough and didn't feel safe voting him in. Bush did get lots of the independent vote, and I have heard people on tv argue that this is one of the reasons he won.

We must also not make the same mistake as Salty by discounting the other side. When you have won, ther is not as much of a 'need to reach out to the other side' But after a loss like this, it's apparent that the left can no longer alienate those who think differently. We must understand that the difference in opinion is a result of where and how you live- avoid saying they're a buch of ignorant hicks who aren't in touch with the world... and we'll have a better chance of making those people 'come to their senses' and vote democrat next time around.

You call it how you see it, I guess. I really don't understand though how it plays to his argument. I think it proves that it is divided.


It plays into his argument in that if everyone who voted for Kerry actually hated Bush, then their opinion doesn't mean much and can be discounted. To a certain extent, I agree that the motivation behind the opinions of extreme liberals who say they hate our president is somewhat questionable, and their views should not be taken too seriously or have much value placed on them- ESPECIALLY from the opposite side of the spectrum.

Put yourself in their shoes, would you listen to a neo-nazi conservative? Could they sway your opinion and make you realize something you hadn't before? Taking the extreme stance, on either side, does nothing pull the two sides further apart... It does noting to bridge the gap. So, the question is: Is saying you hate Bush extereme? I think so... regardless of how popular that saying has become.

Don't fight fire with fire.

It plays into his argument in that if everyone who voted for Kerry actually hated Bush, then their opinion doesn't mean much and can be discounted. To a certain extent, I agree that the motivation behind the opinions of extreme liberals who say they hate our president is somewhat questionable, and their views should not be taken too seriously or have much value placed on them- ESPECIALLY from the opposite side of the spectrum.

Put yourself in their shoes, would you listen to a neo-nazi conservative? Could they sway your opinion and make you realize something you hadn't before? Taking the extreme stance, on either side, does nothing pull the two sides further apart... It does noting to bridge the gap. So, the question is: Is saying you hate Bush extereme? I think so... regardless of how popular that saying has become.

Don't fight fire with fire.

I see your point. I don't necessarily think its extreme though. Excluding the word "hate" from my post, you must agree with what I said.


I can already see it happening. You are alienating 48% of America when you say things like that.

You have to understand how close this election was. Bush did get the majority of the vote on November 2. But that doesn't mean that Democrats are in the minority. Try not to draw party lines here and just recognize that almost as many people that voted for Bush voted for Kerry.

Only 1% of the total US population think that Bush would do a better job than Kerry, which is not even the point.

Put aside the party names and see that almost half of the population do not want this man as president. Something has to be done by this administration to get these 48% of Americans back on board. When they aren't on board you have a divided America. Wasn't this the point of your original post?

Perfect... just always remember that the h-word does nothing to promote our point ot view.

The worst part about this whole election for anyone that wanted Bush out of office is that for all the work they did to "get out the vote" they got the wrong people. They same percentage of young, democratic voted. Instead of polarizing their supporters they polarized the opposition.

Great strategy!

The worst part about this whole election for anyone that wanted Bush out of office is that for all the work they did to "get out the vote" they got the wrong people. They same percentage of young, democratic voted. Instead of polarizing their supporters they polarized the opposition.

Great strategy!

Yeah-- very true... I'll admit as a young person, I did have hope for this and I seriously thought that there was going to be a huge turnout amoung other young voters. But after it was all said and done, it had backfired. I hadn't heard of anyone predicting this beforehand, even on FOX news.