In reply to:

---

I'm not as depressed anymore.

---

I'm glad your feeling better.I will say this Peter I do respect you and your opinons,and I do believe you are a good person as I do most who have debated their issuses here.

In reply to:

---

That makes me so, so, sad. Thanks for twisting the knife guys!

---

OK thats just funny

I deleted the post above because Riffman had already linked to the nicer, more gradiated map.

OK. Here's a juxtaposition for ya:

2004 Electoral Results, by State:




The Antebellum United States of America, circa 1860:

More wound-licking:

The Wall Street Journal points out, Bush's victory was "the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916."

HAHA... nice map comparisions there peter.. pretty interesting stuff..

bigjohn

How was this win more narrow than the win over Gore in 2000?

The 1860 map is supposed to show that today's Bush voters in the south are bigots? The actual reason for that juxtaposition is the southerners' perception that the Democratic Party represents urban residents, gays and minority interests more than those of rural and traditional America. And they're right.

By watching CNN and reading the NY Times articles that are reprinted in my local paper, it is clear to me that the Democrats have learned nothing from this election yet. Most are questioning what the Kerry campaign did "wrong", mainly in terms of election strategy and the attacks on the President, rather than looking to rein in the radical leftists in their party that dominate the headlines and provide easy targets for conservatives and moderates alike. Marxism, radical environmentalism, radical racial politics, atheism, increased taxation, etc... You expect normal people to vote for that?

The easiest way for democrats to win the Presidency would be to nominate a moderate southerner, like Clinton (Bill, not Hillary ).

In reply to:

---

How was this win more narrow than the win over Gore in 2000?

---

the comment was "the narrowest win for a sitting president".. bush obviously didnt have the presidency in 2000. just a mis-read on your part, no biggie.

In reply to:

---

The 1860 map is supposed to show that today's Bush voters in the south are bigots?

---

no, but i think it points out the fact that the majority of republican voting states, still use the 'slave driving, good 'ole boy network' that was prevalent 140 years ago. its the backwords attitude that to keep one's self up, you gotta keep someone else down, and make sure to hook up all your buddies in the process. its just old, wrong thinking. but obviously, the republican party has embraced that section of the vote, and has made their directive clear. we will stay rich, and keep the poor, poor. and give all the billion dollar contract to all our old business partners. *pat on the back here*pat on the back there* everyones happy..

bigjohn

Thanks for the clarification, bigjohn. I know very well how you love to correct me.

1) Those county by county maps are very misleading. The election is not decided by land mass, it's decided by population.

2) in reponse to:

"rather than looking to rein in the radical leftists in their party that dominate the headlines and provide easy targets for conservatives and moderates alike. Marxism, radical environmentalism, radical racial politics, atheism, increased taxation, etc... You expect normal people to vote for that?"

Umm...yeah, 48% of America did, nearly 56 million people. More people voted for Lefty Kerry than voted for Reagan in 1980.