This map is set after the admission to the Union of California in 1850 and before the admission of Minnesota in 1858.
This map shows the irony that the Republican Party, once the party of the North, has become the party of the South. Equally, the Democratic Party, once the party of the South, has become the party of the North.
What about the map from the 2008 election? The vote went considerably differently, didn't it?
ReplyDeleteYes, but Lincoln didn't get to run against McCain and that schickse.
ReplyDeletehttp://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/
ReplyDeletetake a look here... really good map of 2008, by population of states
Anonymous, actually no, it did not go terribly differently. The website Lolita has graciously provided show that only eight states changed their votes between 2004 and 2008. Forty two states voted for the same party in 2008 as they had in 2004.
ReplyDeleteOf the eight switchers, three were in the west and five in the east. The three western switchers were all relatively small - Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado - and even taken together they didn't make any difference.
The eastern switchers included three medium states - Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana - and two large ones Ohio and Florida.
The startling result of the winner-take-all system is that four of the five eastern switchers didn't make any difference either. Only Florida mattered.
Obama could have lost seven of the eight switchers and still have won the election. He only needed Florida to switch to win.
Florida was as pivotal in 2004 and 2008 as it had been in 2000. All three elections came down to Florida.
Which is an interesting result because the swing vote in Florida can be the Jews of Miami Beach and retirement towns up and down the state. If they are pissed off because of Obama dissing Israel, he may yet be a one term president.
And it gives me an idea of where I will be and what I will be doing in October 2012.
You're living in dreamland again. Obama isn't 'dissing' Israel, hes treating that state like any western politician would, if special interests and warped political debate allowed them to do so. People like you are the problem, making any criticism of that state into a national, moral issues, ruining any possibility of a reasoned foreign policy that doesn't make most of the world hate you.
ReplyDeleteWhat really annoys me is that Obama has to do some intolerably dishonourable things in order to placate fundamentalists like you. And the biggest tragedy is that even the smallest infraction will lead to idealogues like you to vote for the Republican candidate.
You'd honestly vote for Mitt Romney ahead of Obama?
Actually no. It has apparently never occurred to you to doubt the absolute veracity of the groundless Arab claims. If it were true that their mindless hostility were because of the settlements on the Jordanian side of the 1949 ceasefire line, what was the problem before there were settlements there? And what was the problem when the West Bank was under Jordanian occupation? And what was the problem before that what? The notion that the sole Arab objection to Israel is the east-of-the-ceasefire line settlements is such an obvious lie that only antisemites could believe it.
ReplyDeleteCorrespondingly, the claim that peace with the Palestinians can be had by concessions to them is rather belied by the consequences of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, isn't it?
If the Palestmight were actually interested in peace with Israel one might expect them to stop teaching their children that Israel is illegitimate and has no right to exist nor to defend itself. But they haven't stopped, have they?
If the Palestinians were actually interested in peace with Israel one might expect them to stop praising suicide bombers and naming city squares such as the one in Nablus after them. But they haven't stopped, have they?
The administration is aware of these things, yet has parroted the Palestinian lie that the conflict is about the settlements, knowing as full well as the Palestinians themselves that it is a lie.
The tired and also demonstrably false argument that "criticism of Israel isn't antisemitism" belies the fact that the lying scum who repeat it somehow have failed to come out in the streets or even into print in support of the Thai opposition daily risking their lives for freedom. The "not antisemitism" crowd were silent during the destruction of a million Tutsis and their Hutu friends in Rwanda. The "not antisemeitism" crowd have been silent during the massacres in Darfur. The "not antisemitism" crowd were missing in action when the Sunnis bombed the Karbala Mosque a few years ago, an act of bigotry and violence equivalent to bombing the Vatican. Where were your tender consciences then?
When you object to Israel and only to Israel your criticism IS real live antisemitism. And it is compounded by smokescreen of falsehood and hypocrisy you shroud it in.
The mot juste for you and other people who claim your solely-directed-at-Israel criticism isn't antisemitism is LIAR.
An administration that aligns itself with you is one that I want to see out of office as soon as it can be shepherded to the garbage dump of history.
In any case Mitt Romney won't get the nomination. It will be Jeb Bush.