BUSH vs. GORE - Some Interesting Statistics

e-mail ^ | 2/14/04 | Professor Joseph Olson

[ppaul]

Professor Joseph Olson of HamlineUniversitySchool of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent Presidential election:

Population of counties won by:

Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million

Square miles of land won by:

Gore=580,000
Bush=22,427,000

States won by:

Gore=19
Bush=29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

Gore=13.2
Bush=2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."

Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and "complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

[ppaul]

"In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."

That's the winning democRAT campaign strategery: get everyone on the government dole.

[csmusaret]

I read on here somewhere that due to population growth, the states Bush won in 2000 would now provide 7 additional electoral votes.

[TheGeezer]

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

Gore=13.2
Bush=2.1

Hmmmmmmm...

Liberofascists while raising the children that they do not abort teach the children that abortion right up to moment of birth is OK when the mother may have a headache or something that might be alleviated by abortion.

Liberofascists teach their children that homosexuality is OK (and for all I know, that it is even desirable to reduce the birthrate - "More deviation means less population").

The murder rate in liberofascist strongholds is six times the rate in Republican/conservative/moderate areas.

Seems to me that liberofascist DemocRats may relieve us of the burden of defending liberty against them, themselves, if we wait long enough...

[znix]

The county-by-county murder-rate comparison presented in this piece is wrong.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ), in the year 2000 the national murder rate was about 5.5 per 100,000 residents. Homicide data by county for 1999 and 2000 can be downloaded from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NAJCD), and the counties won by Gore and Bush can be identified using the county-by-county election results made available by CNN. (The NACJD provides not only the number of reported murders for each county, but also the population for each.) The average murder rate in the counties won by Gore vs. the rate in the counties won by Bush can be determined from this data.

By calculating the murder rate for each county and then taking the averages, we find a murder rate (defined as number of murders per 100,000 residents) of about 5.2 for the "average" Gore county and 3.3 for the average Bush county. But since people, rather than counties, commit murders, a more appropriate approach is to calculate the total number of murders in the counties won by each candidate and divide that figure by the total number of residents in those counties. This more appropriate method yields the following average murder rates in counties won by each candidate:

Gore: 6.5

Bush: 4.1

There is a distinct difference between these two numbers, but it is nowhere near as large as the quoted e-mail message states (i.e., 13.2 for Gore vs. 2.1 for Bush). Note that the average of these two figures is 5.3, which, as expected, is very close to the reported national murder rate of 5.5.

ALWAYS CHECK SNOPES!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[CyberAnt]

The dems wish list of voters: Uneducated, no jobs, no skills, ignorant of how govt works except to GET FOR THEMSELVES. Sheep!!

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

A statistic I frequently apply to my arguments with the other side is home ownership.

Nearing 70% and growing, this is at an all-time high.

The low interest rates, low inflation and considerable tax cuts have aided millions of people to move up or buy first homes.

Home owners are concerned most about high taxes, good neighborhoods, and good schools.

Generally, they are socially conservative.

All this bodes well for Bush in the general election.

[Aetius]

That's probably good news as it relates to states like Texas, North Carolina and Georgia, which will likely continue to lean Republican for some time. But with states like Arizona (?) and Nevada, where the margin is smaller, then the cause of the population growth becomes much more troublesome for near and medium-term GOP prospects. By that I mean the rapidly growing Hispainc population. Despite what Karl Rove hopes will happen, the fact is they are naturally inclined to vote Democratic by significant margins. And in ten yrs or so who knows what will happen; we may even see Texas go from reliably Republican to a slight lean to the GOP, or to even a toss-up.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

The dems wish list of voters: Uneducated, no jobs, no skills, ignorant of how govt works except to GET FOR THEMSELVES. Sheep!!

The last thing Democrats want is a strong economy.

For three years they have talked-down the tax cuts and the entire economy, especially jobs, in the hope of retarding recovery.

Considering what Bush was dealt in 2001 with a stock market meltdown, Sept 11 and two wars, the current performance of the economy is astonishing!

Bush's success in war and the economy signals just how weak and ineffective the Democrats' war against America has become.

I hope that failure conrtinues till November 2 and beyond.

[Free_at_last_-2001]

Considering what Bush was dealt in 2001 with a stock market meltdown, Sept 11 and two wars, the current performance of the economy is astonishing! - Agreed!

[Fudd]

Only one statistic counts. Electoral votes.

[gogipper]

I believe that since in your analysis (which seems quite laborous) you are using total populations your sigma (standard deviation) should be very very small. Thus the discrepancy from the mean in both directions is probably statistically significant. It is clearly politically signfificant as well.

[Political Junkie Too]

The Bush Country map clearly shows the Democrat strategy that was revealed in 2000. They figured out the Electoral College balance that should have tipped in their favor. The Democrats gave up the South in favor of the Northeast, the West Coast, and the Mississippi River (Great Lakes, St. Louis, and Louisiana). If you look at it more closely, the Northeast and the West Coast are very liberal, while the Mississippi region is all Labor. Their flaw was that the "character issues" cost them Arkansas and Tennessee, either of which would have given them the White House.

Their plan is to run with the same Electoral College strategy, except that they will correct (meaning more fraud) the Tennessee and Arkansas problem from 2000 -- Arkansas went Democrat for Senate in 2002. They may make another run at Florida (I think it would be ill-advised), but 2002 showed them that Florida was a fluke (and it was personal for McAuliffe, a mistake he won't repeat); Florida would not have been a player if either Clinton's or Gore's home states had voted Democrat.

-PJ

[Consort]

The Democrats are exporting themselves from the Liberal Blue coastal enclaves, e/g., Los Angeles area, to places like Arizona and New Mexico.

[ThirstyMan]

Thanks, scholarship always appreciated....unless you're a "rat" strategist that is...and then? well, the facts? they are quite irrelevant.

Take for example, Michael Moore. Imagine him in charge of the Republican responses, say to John Kerry's affair allegations.
CAnb't you just see him on stage name-calling Kerry as "The Adulterer" before the national audience? His campaign strategy has always been attack by inuendo. That is the name of their game.
Kerry likes to decry the Bush campaign and Bush's "attack dogs." We have the likes of Michael "the pig", Moore? of James "the Cueball" Carville? and Terry "the Snake" McAuliffe?
Ha! I don't think so.

[CyberAnt]

"how weak and ineffective the Democrats' war against America has become"

However, those who only listen to mainstream press are getting the opinion that everything is a mess .. while it's just the opposite.

If you haven't seen it yet, look for a thread about the primary election stats on Kerry (or dems). They are stunning. Rush kept saying only 10% of the voters were showing up in some states to vote for the dem candidates. When compared against the Clinton primary numbers, the lack of interest on the part of dem voters is quite revealing. And .. I can't help but wonder if the rank and file dems are going to sit this one out .. which would be one way to get rid of the ultra left-wing group now running things.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

If you haven't seen it yet, look for a thread about the primary election stats on Kerry (or dems).

Yes, I saw it and I did some of my own homework also.

The Dems know that they are weak so they are trying to attack Bush's strongest suit, his connection with the American people.

It will all backfire.

[Polycarp IV]

Largest recipient of pro-abortion groups' campaign donations? Regretfully, its not who you might think...this story is in the works.

[ppaul]

Please don't speak and then keep us hangin'.

[znix]

My earlier post was copied from snopes.com, always a great resource for filtering popular email myths. At the end of my post, I gave it credit and provided a link for the complete debunking of this email. It includes the original context of this email, the alledged author, and other false assertions.

Hardly a statistician gogipper, and certainly no "rat" strategist. Just hate that people mindlessly accept whatever appears in thier inbox. Inaccuracy and deception hurts the cause.