jed turtle
a brother in the Lord
found this on FR:
DEAR GOD. Look what I just figured out! (It took me over an hour to figure this out - feel free to check out my work, I certainly could've made a mistake, but I don't think so!)
Comparing Bush's percentage of the vote, 2000 to 2004, the red states got redder - and the blue states got redder! Only ONE exception, and it's NOT New Hampshire!
AL: 2000 - 56% 2004 - 63% +7%
AK: 2000 - 59% 2004 - 62% +3%
AZ: 2000 - 51% 2004 - 55% +4%
AR: 2000 - 51% 2004 - 54% +3%
CA: 2000 - 41% 2004 - 44% +3%
CO: 2000 - 51% 2004 - 53% +2%
CT: 2000 - 39% 2004 - 44% +5%
DE: 2000 - 42% 2004 - 46% +4%
FL: 2000 - 49% 2004 - 52% +3%
GA: 2000 - 55% 2004 - 59% +4%
HI: 2000 - 38% 2004 - 45% +7%
ID: 2000 - 67% 2004 - 68% +1%
IL: 2000 - 43% 2004 - 44% +1%
IN: 2000 - 57% 2004 - 60% +3%
IA: 2000 - 48% 2004 - 50% +2%
KS: 2000 - 58% 2004 - 62% +4%
KY: 2000 - 57% 2004 - 60% +3%
LA: 2000 - 53% 2004 - 57% +4%
ME: 2000 - 44% 2004 - 45% +1%
MD: 2000 - 40% 2004 - 43% +3%
MA: 2000 - 33% 2004 - 37% +4%
MI: 2000 - 46% 2004 - 48% +2%
MS: 2000 - 58% 2004 - 59% +1%
MO: 2000 - 50% 2004 - 53% +3%
MT: 2000 - 58% 2004 - 59% +1%
NE: 2000 - 62% 2004 - 67% +5%
NV: 2000 - 50% 2004 - 51% +1%
NH: 2000 - 48% 2004 - 49% +1%
NJ: 2000 - 40% 2004 - 46% +6%
NM: 2000 - 48% 2004 - 50% +2%
NC: 2000 - 56% 2004 - 56% +0%
ND: 2000 - 61% 2004 - 63% +2%
OH: 2000 - 50% 2004 - 51% +1%
OK: 2000 - 60% 2004 - 66% +6%
OR: 2000 - 47% 2004 - 47% +0%
PA: 2000 - 46% 2004 - 49% +3%
RI: 2000 - 32% 2004 - 39% +7%
SC: 2000 - 57% 2004 - 58% +1%
SD: 2000 - 60% 2004 - 60% +0%
TN: 2000 - 51% 2004 - 57% +6%
TX: 2000 - 59% 2004 - 61% +2%
UT: 2000 - 67% 2004 - 71% +4%
VA: 2000 - 53% 2004 - 54% +1%
VT: 2000 - 41% 2004 - 39% -2%
WA: 2000 - 45% 2004 - 46% +1%
WV: 2000 - 52% 2004 - 56% +4%
WI: 2000 - 48% 2004 - 49% +1%
WY: 2000 - 68% 2004 - 69% +1%
Bush lost a percentage of the vote in only ONE state in the Union - Vermont. In three states, he stayed the same - North Carolina, Oregon and South Dakota. In -every- other state, his percentage of the vote -grew-. Although New Hampshire swung from red to blue, Kerry achieved this not by pulling votes from Bush, but by pulling votes from NADER!!!
This is -amazing- if true. And what it goes to show is NOT that Bush has "polarized" this country - far from it. To polarize it, he would've turned the blue states bluer, and the red states redder. But that's not what happened. He has in fact moved the -entire- country in the -same- direction. That's not "polarizing", that's leadership! The entire "polarizing president" claim has been demonstrated as the utter and complete myth it always was. Just -damn-! I'm never going to believe ANYTHING the mainstream media says again, -ever-.
Qwinn
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1268412/posts
DEAR GOD. Look what I just figured out! (It took me over an hour to figure this out - feel free to check out my work, I certainly could've made a mistake, but I don't think so!)
Comparing Bush's percentage of the vote, 2000 to 2004, the red states got redder - and the blue states got redder! Only ONE exception, and it's NOT New Hampshire!
AL: 2000 - 56% 2004 - 63% +7%
AK: 2000 - 59% 2004 - 62% +3%
AZ: 2000 - 51% 2004 - 55% +4%
AR: 2000 - 51% 2004 - 54% +3%
CA: 2000 - 41% 2004 - 44% +3%
CO: 2000 - 51% 2004 - 53% +2%
CT: 2000 - 39% 2004 - 44% +5%
DE: 2000 - 42% 2004 - 46% +4%
FL: 2000 - 49% 2004 - 52% +3%
GA: 2000 - 55% 2004 - 59% +4%
HI: 2000 - 38% 2004 - 45% +7%
ID: 2000 - 67% 2004 - 68% +1%
IL: 2000 - 43% 2004 - 44% +1%
IN: 2000 - 57% 2004 - 60% +3%
IA: 2000 - 48% 2004 - 50% +2%
KS: 2000 - 58% 2004 - 62% +4%
KY: 2000 - 57% 2004 - 60% +3%
LA: 2000 - 53% 2004 - 57% +4%
ME: 2000 - 44% 2004 - 45% +1%
MD: 2000 - 40% 2004 - 43% +3%
MA: 2000 - 33% 2004 - 37% +4%
MI: 2000 - 46% 2004 - 48% +2%
MS: 2000 - 58% 2004 - 59% +1%
MO: 2000 - 50% 2004 - 53% +3%
MT: 2000 - 58% 2004 - 59% +1%
NE: 2000 - 62% 2004 - 67% +5%
NV: 2000 - 50% 2004 - 51% +1%
NH: 2000 - 48% 2004 - 49% +1%
NJ: 2000 - 40% 2004 - 46% +6%
NM: 2000 - 48% 2004 - 50% +2%
NC: 2000 - 56% 2004 - 56% +0%
ND: 2000 - 61% 2004 - 63% +2%
OH: 2000 - 50% 2004 - 51% +1%
OK: 2000 - 60% 2004 - 66% +6%
OR: 2000 - 47% 2004 - 47% +0%
PA: 2000 - 46% 2004 - 49% +3%
RI: 2000 - 32% 2004 - 39% +7%
SC: 2000 - 57% 2004 - 58% +1%
SD: 2000 - 60% 2004 - 60% +0%
TN: 2000 - 51% 2004 - 57% +6%
TX: 2000 - 59% 2004 - 61% +2%
UT: 2000 - 67% 2004 - 71% +4%
VA: 2000 - 53% 2004 - 54% +1%
VT: 2000 - 41% 2004 - 39% -2%
WA: 2000 - 45% 2004 - 46% +1%
WV: 2000 - 52% 2004 - 56% +4%
WI: 2000 - 48% 2004 - 49% +1%
WY: 2000 - 68% 2004 - 69% +1%
Bush lost a percentage of the vote in only ONE state in the Union - Vermont. In three states, he stayed the same - North Carolina, Oregon and South Dakota. In -every- other state, his percentage of the vote -grew-. Although New Hampshire swung from red to blue, Kerry achieved this not by pulling votes from Bush, but by pulling votes from NADER!!!
This is -amazing- if true. And what it goes to show is NOT that Bush has "polarized" this country - far from it. To polarize it, he would've turned the blue states bluer, and the red states redder. But that's not what happened. He has in fact moved the -entire- country in the -same- direction. That's not "polarizing", that's leadership! The entire "polarizing president" claim has been demonstrated as the utter and complete myth it always was. Just -damn-! I'm never going to believe ANYTHING the mainstream media says again, -ever-.
Qwinn
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1268412/posts