promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
Rick W
Lv 4
Rick W asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

I just got this, do you believe it?

INTERESTING FACTS --- NOTICE MAP AT BOTTOM

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota ,points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30

Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens.

Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

Notice that only in the states of Alaska and Oklahoma : All counties were won by McCain/Palin.

Arnie Handschke

25 Answers

Relevance
  • tommie
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Interesting. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the primaries, yet the Democrats "SELECTED" obama. There was a lot of documented cheating going on in the caucases, so It probably continued into the actual elections, don't you think? If a lot of $$$$ changes hands, it changes a LOT of minds. Yet the news media says now that the very rich are the ones who voted for obmaa. do you think they will be so happy when he takes their $$$ and passes it down to those government housing people???

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Interesting? Perhaps.

    Facts? No.

    FoxNews.com tells us that Barack Obama won 29 states plus DC and one district in Nebraska, and that John McCain won 20 states outright and the other four districts of Nebraska. Your 30 red-20 blue claim?

    Straight up lie, Arnie

    US Census Bureau lists the land area of the US not at 3 million, but at more than 3.5 million square miles. Your 580.000 plus 2,427,000 figuring??

    Bad math, Arnie.

    Add the land areas of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakotas (land won by McCain) and get a bit over a million square miles, or about 29.4 percent of the country's land area, which accounts for a total of-----

    about 5 million people, or 1.67 percent of the population. It's not hard to explain why McCain might have won more land area and lost both popular vote and electoral college. Bad logic, Arnie.

    Limbaugh's alleged ten million listeners made up less than 8 percent of the 131.26 million votes cast in the '08 presidential elections--hardly representative of what Americans want or believe.

    Misrepresentation, Arnie.

    90 percent of all the email delivered worldwide is spam.

    That's where this one belongs.

    Bad judgment, Arnie.

    Since you neglected a map, Arnie, here are some interesting things done with red and blue maps at the University of Michigan:

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Considering it doesn't even get the number of states close to right - I wouldn't place too much faith in it.

    Obama won 28 states plus DC.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/election_2...

    "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens.

    Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

    Another way of putting that would be - Republicans won agricultural states that rely on agricultural subsidies whereas Democrats won the urban and suburban areas where US wealth is created.

    Trying to summarize who votes for who by the geo-political nature of counties that voted that way is flawed and pointless. Unemployment is higher in many Red states but to determine that means the unemployed routinely vote Republican would be truly asinine.

    Such arguing is so fundamentally lacking in intellectual and academic integrity I doubt very much than any law professor had anything to do with this, rather somebody put it together for purely partisan reasons and then falsely attributed it to someone else to give it some desperately needed credibility.

    Think about it- when was the last time you got a chain email that was accurate?

    Source(s): In actual fact some rudimentary google searches indicate that 1. His name is Professor Joseph Olson 2. It is Hamline School of Law 3. Olson vehemently denies being behind a similar (and indeed grossly inaccurate) summary of the 2000 election. http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Sad as he!!, isn't it? The thing is, all those other states don't have the populations the coasts and college towns do, and they mostly work for an honest living! Tell you, Kansas went mostly Red, and the only blue counties were those where the Universities reside. Which points the finger at the liberalist educational system, which is less teaching our children than brainwashing them.

    But it's a damn shame when so few states can dictate to so many. And so suicidally.

    Perhaps we ought to hope for those big quakes Richter predicted. Huh?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    That statistic on the murder rate cant be right :Democrat counties 13.2 homicides per 100,000 and Republican counties only 2.1 homicides per 100,000.That sounds like someone has been smoking the funny stuff to come up with those 'facts'.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Makes perfect sense to me one way or the other. But, it's really something that we already knew deep down inside. The country is in decline & the people calling the shots are the ignorant uneducated masses.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    No - I don't believe it mainly because when you go to the Snopes link the discussion is about the 2000 election between Bush and Gore, and it's Hamline University of Law - not Hemline.

    What a weak attempt at propagating the propaganda ...

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • justa
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Poll tax and the idea that only landowners have a right to vote is unamerican in its very nature.

    The University is called Hamline, not Hemline.

    This is from a fake spam from the 2000 election, I looked up the faculty at Hamline and in his full profile he requests that we reference Snopes, where I found this.

    Next time check more fully please. I'm sure Dr Olson is not happy to have this again attached to his name.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • oliver
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    the land owners are more practic. they do not wish the collective. but the cities are too ideological, and they promise the poor people everything but it is always a failure. also it is problemal when the intellectuals are not working, then they have much time for the politics.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • here's some other fascinating facts

    cumulative IQ of every citizen in states won by McCain - 36

    average number of relatives inter-marrying per family - 6

    average number of presidential elections won by their candidate in 2008 - 0

    percentage of citizens who spend everyday complaining on yahoo answers - 90%

    blue states that are better than red states - all of them

    enjoy the obama term

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.