Red states, blue states

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
Can't divide it because I am sure all those red counties don't want to go...

And I guess this can just help dilute your argument even more McKrebs, since a majority of all those blue states are red. Don't try to turn the welfare argument back on me, because you know as well as I do that huge entitlement spending is in those urban blue areas. :peace:
 

Attachments

  • election-counties-2.JPG
    election-counties-2.JPG
    31.1 KB · Views: 135

MGKrebs

endangered species
You have to spell it out for me.

FromTexas said:
Can't divide it because I am sure all those red counties don't want to go...

And I guess this can just help dilute your argument even more McKrebs, since a majority of all those blue states are red. Don't try to turn the welfare argument back on me, because you know as well as I do that huge entitlement spending is in those urban blue areas. :peace:

I'm just a stupid librul, and I'm not wired in to the conservative collective subconscious. I don't get what you are saying. it's the LAND AREA that matters, not the population? Some undefined "entitlement spending" counts differently than other spending? Pretend I am in 6th grade please.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
MGKrebs said:
I'm just a stupid librul, and I'm not wired in to the conservative collective subconscious. I don't get what you are saying. it's the LAND AREA that matters, not the population? Some undefined "entitlement spending" counts differently than other spending? Pretend I am in 6th grade please.
One of the things I would suggest to consider is that the beliefs, needs and desires of the rural areas are far different from the urban areas. I do not want Baltimore or P.G. County dominating the state but, sadly, they do. Kerry only won 6 to the 24 areas of Maryland. The highly populated areas "dictated" to the rural areas. Thank you founders for the electoral college. Wish we had one in Maryland.
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
MGKrebs said:
I'm just a stupid librul, and I'm not wired in to the conservative collective subconscious. I don't get what you are saying. it's the LAND AREA that matters, not the population? Some undefined "entitlement spending" counts differently than other spending? Pretend I am in 6th grade please.

Its not land area, but the dems have been crying about things as drastic as those nasty red states, let us get away from those red states, etc...

Yet, when you look, it just happens that almost all states are mostly red. Its just to make a point on that. It really didn't tie well to the other discussion other than to say, "Look! Those states are mostly red, too!"

As far as entitlement spending counting different in the mind of a republican, you already know that. Its not lost on you. Showing that the entitlement spending is mostly going to blue strongholds and minimally in comparison to red strongholds negates your hipocracy argument on the republicans in the other thread. The other states get their funding from things republicans do believe in and have never argued against... like national defense! :yay:
 

rraley

New Member
I do not see the argument here. So, President Bush has a mandate because he won alotta counties that have low populations? Faulty logic if you ask me. And, 2nd Amendment, believes that Maryland's vote should be dictated by county vote, not the vote of most Marylanders (Kerry won the state 56-44...damn substantial; how could you suggest that we should have an electoral college to circumvent the will of 56% of Marylanders). Don't really see the argument.
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
rraley said:
I do not see the argument here. So, President Bush has a mandate because he won alotta counties that have low populations? Faulty logic if you ask me. And, 2nd Amendment, believes that Maryland's vote should be dictated by county vote, not the vote of most Marylanders (Kerry won the state 56-44...damn substantial; how could you suggest that we should have an electoral college to circumvent the will of 56% of Marylanders). Don't really see the argument.

2A was being facitious.

The other argument was just to laughingly point out that the blue states aren't all that blue for the most part. It should really be called blue cities.
 

Steve

Enjoying life!
FromTexas said:
2A was being facitious.

The other argument was just to laughingly point out that the blue states aren't all that blue for the most part. It should really be called blue cities.

I think the point here is that "blue states" are won primarily based upon the fact that concentrations of the populace in urban centers outweighs the more conservative views of the populace in outlying counties.

Yes, Maryland went to Kerry at 56% to 44%. And everyone knows that the largest concentration of the populace of Maryland lies in PG County, Baltimore County, and Montgomery County. The "Zone Metropolis", let's say. Those in the majority that live in the "Zone" tend to vote Democratic because they cherish the social programs that assist their lives, rather than depending on the success of their own merits and hard work.

Pennsylvania, another traditionally Democratic state, was very closely divided: 51% Kerry, 49% Bush. Here we have two counties that predominate, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Yet the rest of that state is behind Bush.

I much more prefer this map, as it shows regional political differences in purple...find the full map here .
 

Attachments

  • purple_america_2004_small1.GIF
    purple_america_2004_small1.GIF
    51.8 KB · Views: 115
Last edited:

Steve

Enjoying life!
Now if someone were savvy enough, they would align this map with a map of the 30 largest cities in America to see how the blues, reds, and purples line up. Me, I don't have the skills. :lol:
 

UrbanPancake

Right=Wrong/Left=Right
It's funny that you posted that here. In Montana (a red state) a Democrat won the Governors seat (first time in 20 years) and the state government has a democratic majority. So yes the red states did vote for Bush, but they also voted for Democrats. :patriot:
 
Last edited:

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Steve said:
Those in the majority that live in the "Zone" tend to vote Democratic because they cherish the social programs that assist their lives, rather than depending on the success of their own merits and hard work.

Steve, I don't think you're being racist. But that statement is likely to be interpreted that way. Not just by racial ambulance-chasers like Al Sharpton, but by true racists like my parents, who believe to their core that all blacks are lazy.

Don't get me wrong--I know you mean that it's easy for anyone, no matter what their skin color, to live off welfare rather than work. My wife used to work for DSS, and she saw all kinds of people put tons of effort into gaming the system so they wouldn't have to work. That's one reason she left. Too bad the DSS clients couldn't put that kind of industriousness into finding and keeping jobs.
 

MGKrebs

endangered species
Tonio said:
Steve, I don't think you're being racist. But that statement is likely to be interpreted that way. Not just by racial ambulance-chasers like Al Sharpton, but by true racists like my parents, who believe to their core that all blacks are lazy.

Don't get me wrong--I know you mean that it's easy for anyone, no matter what their skin color, to live off welfare rather than work. My wife used to work for DSS, and she saw all kinds of people put tons of effort into gaming the system so they wouldn't have to work. That's one reason she left. Too bad the DSS clients couldn't put that kind of industriousness into finding and keeping jobs.

I'm not going to say it's racist, but I do think it is a crude stereotype with no basis in fact.

I mean, it sounds like you are saying that basically all of Kerry's votes come from people on welfare.

First of all, I don't think people on welfare are a demographic that votes in high percentages.
Secondly, what is welfare anyway? There are dozens of programs that may or may not be included in that term.

Fulton County Georgia (Atlanta):
pop. 820,000
Voted 334,000
voted for Kerry 199,000
voted for Bush 134,000

So your contention is that there are at least 30,000 people on "welfare" in Atlanta who voted for Kerry because they want to keep their welfare and not work. If they were working, and welfare wasn't available, they would have voted for Bush.

And that is the minimum. I hope you don't think that all 199,000 Kerry votes were people on welfare, because I'm pretty sure that's not true. But if they are not on welfare, why would they have voted for Kerry?


If that is your perception, you are entitled to it. If you want to crush the poor and disabled and elderly, me and people like me will oppose you.
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
MGKrebs said:
I mean, it sounds like you are saying that basically all of Kerry's votes come from people on welfare.

First of all, I don't think people on welfare are a demographic that votes in high percentages.
Were you responding to me or to Steve? He and many other Republicans here have written that Democrats use government assistance programs to buy votes. I don't believe that's true. Again citing my wife's experiences, people on assistance aren't involved in the political process at all. They don't pay attention to anything but continuing their assistance. Many don't even know when the elections are. Ask them who Bush is, and they think you're talking about Busch beer.

If you want to crush the poor and disabled and elderly, me and people like me will oppose you.
Again, I hope you're not responding to me. If you are, you're being rude. You know next to nothing about me, so don't accuse me of being callous and heartless toward anyone, poor or otherwise.
 

MGKrebs

endangered species
Tonio said:
Were you responding to me or to Steve? He and many other Republicans here have written that Democrats use government assistance programs to buy votes. I don't believe that's true. Again citing my wife's experiences, people on assistance aren't involved in the political process at all. They don't pay attention to anything but continuing their assistance. Many don't even know when the elections are. Ask them who Bush is, and they think you're talking about Busch beer.

Again, I hope you're not responding to me. If you are, you're being rude. You know next to nothing about me, so don't accuse me of being callous and heartless toward anyone, poor or otherwise.

My apologies. My intention was to respond to Steve. I agree with your comments. I've been trying to register voters all year in the city, and the porrest, roughest neighborhoods had very little activity. They have very little connection to politics. They don't vote so the politicians (even local) don't go there, so the folks feel left out and get cynical, so they don't vote.

And my intention is not to insult Steve either. It's just that if someone is going to speak in crude generalizations, I feel like I can respond in kind.

What the heck is the matter with Ralph Friedgen and U of Md?
 

Steve

Enjoying life!
You interpreted my comment, MGKrebs, as a "crude generalization". I never said anything about welfare in that post. YOU brought that up.

FYI, my family grew up on welfare. My mother received it until I was 13. I lived in the harshest parts of Philadelphia. But you know what? My mother taught us to rely on ourselves; she volunteered as much as possible, at schools, at polls, whereever and for whoever needed help, she was there. And she's always been a Republican, albeit one who voted for who she thought was the best candidate, and the issues she thought most important.

There are many more socialized programs than just welfare, sir. Metropolis areas also have a huge Union influence, again employing the concept of "power in numbers" to push through agendas, when what you really have in reality is just another layer of beauracracy for working people to deal with. Unions go so far as to tell their members who they should vote for! You aware of that? I am, because I was in a Union for three years. Firefighters, police departments, public transportation, all additional tax funded programs that support the "Zone Metropolis". Do we have those here? I think not.

The Democrats are notoriously effective at whipping up otherwise inconsequential hurdles in life into do-or-die issues. They play on people's fears and coerce them into believing in the "us against them" mentality, the them being rich, white men. They convince people that the rich, white men can be forced to give up their money to help the [misguided and misled] disenfranchised. Meanwhile, they themselves are just as rich. Kerry was the richest candidate running this go around.

And your comment that the poor have very little connection to politics makes you look like an ass. You criticize me for calling attention to social programs, yet the poor need your help so desparately. That mentality is what pisses me off! "Whatever would these poor folk do if it weren't for me and my Party? Alas..."

And it was your intention to insult me. Yet another Democratic tactic: put people down, then declare your innocence. Sorry, I am not that gullible, my friend.
 

MGKrebs

endangered species
Steve said:
Still waiting for a response... :shrug:

No possibility of constructive conversation for us here at this time.
Your words speak for themselves.
Perhaps we can engage some other day, some other subject.
 
Top