Pres. Bush now @ 60.725 Million Votes!! (10 million more than 2000!)

Yahoo,AP,state websites ^ | 11/12/04 | calreaganfan

[calreaganfan]

Pres. Bush has now garnered a truly astounding 60,724,666 votes in the 2004 election, and there are still hundreds of thousands of votes remaining to be counted. Not only has Pres. Bush exceeded his 2000 total by more than 10 million votes, he has also broken Pres. Reagan's 1984 vote record by more than 6 million votes!! The AP election results which are linked to this post are way behind because they do not include an add'l 517,000 votes that Pres. Bush has received in CA plus hundreds of thousands of add'l votes that Pres. Bush has received in AZ, MD, NC, OR, RI, SC, and VA. See below for vote totals by state that was compiled from the secretaries of state websites.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

They can look at them all they want. I don't think that's going to make them disappear.

Unless these pinkos have developed some sort of creepy new set of superpowers.

Now that would be truly frightening.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"Diana - Have you seen any articles or discussions on possible vote fraud in Milwaukee? Before the election there was some controversy over the number of ballots requested by the city vs. the number of residents. I haven't seen anything since the election."

I keep looking, too. If there was going to be fraud, it would be in Milwaukee or Dane Counties. That's where the highest concentrations of socialist vipers live.

I found this at Townhall.com, but it's just a bunch of sour grapes:
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200411/POL20041111b.shtml

"Angry Kerry supporters are meeting around the country to plot how to expose what they see as a stolen election by the Bush administration and the GOP.

"I think we need to protest this election no matter what Kerry does," said Illinois resident Sue West at a meeting in Madison, Wis., on Nov. 6, according to the journalistic website, Madison.com. The meeting, titled "No Stolen Elections," was sponsored by the Madison Area Peace Coalition.

"I think it's fraud, pure and simple," West added.

Austin King, another activist attending the meeting, alleged that erroneous information on college campuses was "was clearly a coordinated national effort by Republicans to suppress the college vote," adding that he would "very much like to see someone put in jail for this, and I'm not a tough-on-crime guy," according to Madison.com.

Madison.com also quoted John Peck, a recent University of Wisconsin graduate who expressed a disdain for electronic voting machines.

"The Luddites had an answer to machines," Peck said, referring to the anti-technology movement in 19th century England that advocated the destruction of automation technology thought to be taking over manufacturing jobs."

And there were some hints at voter fraud in Racine, WI back at the end of October:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/262004g.asp

And that's about it for now. 12,000 votes! That's all we'd need. I say we keep digging!

Kerry did say he wanted EVERY VOTE COUNTED, right? ;)

[shield]

BMP

[rightwingreligiousfanatic]

GWB sKerry W% sK%
AL 1,176,007 693,124 62.90% 37.10%
AK 151,876 86,064 63.80% 36.20%
AZ 1,030,405 820,994 55.70% 44.30%
AR 566,992 464,890 54.90% 45.10%
CA 4,920,652 5,975,245 45.20% 54.80%
CO 1,068,233 960,666 52.70% 47.30%
CT 686,923 847,666 44.80% 55.20%
DE 171,660 200,152 46.20% 53.80%
FL 3,956,346 3,575,056 52.50% 47.50%
GA 1,914,254 1,366,149 58.40% 41.60%
HI 194,184 231,691 45.60% 54.40%
ID 408,462 180,896 69.30% 30.70%
IL 2,336,253 2,866,307 44.90% 55.10%
IN 1,477,863 967,937 60.40% 39.60%
IA 746,600 733,102 50.50% 49.50%
KS 717,507 420,846 63.00% 37.00%
KY 1,067,741 712,431 60.00% 40.00%
LA 1,102,169 820,299 57.30% 42.70%
ME 330,416 395,462 45.50% 54.50%
MD 1,018,508 1,315,869 43.60% 56.40%
MA 1,067,163 1,793,916 37.30% 62.70%
MI 2,310,803 2,475,046 48.30% 51.70%
MN 1,346,695 1,445,014 48.20% 51.80%
MS 671,084 445,608 60.10% 39.90%
MO 1,452,793 1,253,950 53.70% 46.30%
MT 265,473 173,363 60.50% 39.50%
NE 508,794 251,626 66.90% 33.10%
NV 418,691 397,186 51.30% 48.70%
NH 330,778 340,126 49.30% 50.70%
NJ 1,592,554 1,803,963 46.90% 53.10%
NM 373,075 364,822 50.60% 49.40%
NY 2,796,157 3,993,770 41.20% 58.80%
NC 1,959,867 1,523,373 56.30% 43.70%
ND 196,527 110,980 63.90% 36.10%
OH 2,796,147 2,659,664 51.30% 48.70%
OK 959,977 503,898 65.60% 34.40%
OR 845,170 920,084 47.90% 52.10%
PA 2,755,150 2,885,077 48.80% 51.20%
RI 169,045 259,753 39.40% 60.60%
SC 937,974 661,699 58.60% 41.40%
SD 232,544 149,225 60.90% 39.10%
TN 1,381,225 1,032,910 57.20% 42.80%
TX 4,518,491 2,825,723 61.50% 38.50%
UT 612,623 227,286 72.90% 27.10%
VT 121,180 184,067 39.70% 60.30%
VA 1,716,958 1,454,747 54.10% 45.90%
WA 1,262,601 1,452,319 46.50% 53.50%
DC 19,007 183,876 9.40% 90.60%
WV 418,318 322,742 56.40% 43.60%
WI 1,477,122 1,488,935 49.80% 50.20%
WY 167,629 70,776 70.30% 29.70%
Total 60,724,666 57,290,370 51.50% 48.50%

How do I get it into a nice table like you guys did?

[itsinthebag]

Bush - 60,739,725

Kerry - 57,322,464"

Yeesh. Bothers me that sKerry got more than 57 mil.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Relax, chico.

I was replying to the guy who posted this thread. Does Dubya post at FR, now?

[Diddle E. Squat]

Yes, just continue to ignore that 44% of Hispanics voted for the GOP(which continues to significantly trend higher each election.)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276156/posts

Continue to ignore that 59% of Hispanics in the 'overrun' state of Texas voted for Bush, since it totally shoots down your racist fatalistic bullcrap.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1269558/posts

[ezsmoke]

Interesting numbers here...
Quite a few Bush supporters in these blue states.
Top Bush Popular Votes; States (regardless of state winner)
CA 4,920,652 - Kerry
TX 4,518,491 - Bush
FL 3,956,346 - Bush
NY 2,796,157 - Kerry
OH 2,796,147 - Bush
PA 2,755,150 - Kerry
IL 2,336,253 - Kerry
MI 2,310,803 - Kerry

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks for that chart and comparison! Interesting data.

[Cousin Eddie]

"But why has it been shrinking."

Probably because California had a lot of absentee (not provisional, not overseas military, but ballots sent in via the mail by ordinary voters). I live here and am one of the absentee voters. L.A. County had well over 250,000. San Diego County had 250,000. I believe the entire state had well over 1 million. (Compare that to states like New Mexico and Iowa that may have had 10,000 - 30,000 absentee votes. Unlike balots dropped in the ballot box on election day, absentee ballots are sealed in an envelope and signed by the voter. Each envelope has to be opened and the signature compared to the voter registration rolls. This is a time consuming process.

As these Calif votes are gradually counted and due to the size of Calif, Kerry is bound to gain some ground. But it's interesting. Gore won California by 1.4 million votes or so. Kerry is only winning CA by a little over 1 million votes.

[cyncooper]

~chica~

:)

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

THANK YOU, DIEBOLD!!!!!!!!!!

[GraniteStateConservative]

duly noted, ma'am.

[sodpoodle]

Is there something, anything about Caucasions? Are we a lost tribe?

[Greek]

Josh In PA: Where can I get your software dude? You nailed it!

[Dashing Dasher]

I recall during Election Day some liberal bastard said, "people don't turn out in droves to re-elect the same President, they show up to make a change". I wish I could recall who said that I would love to Freep the sucker!

Sounds too rational to have come from Blather.

[Dashing Dasher]

All of this Reagan vs. Bush stuff is a waste.
Reagan brought me to the party (the GOP) and Bush is making me proud of my party again.

Without Ronald, there would be no George W.

[ScholarWarrior]

And if we took those 5 million CA Bush voters and distributed them in the rest of the country where they could make a difference, the next election would not even be close. We're within 120,000 votes of winning PA.

[Aetius]

I haven't ignored anything. I was replying to a post that implied that Bush's margin was much less than Reagan's in part because of Reagan's amnesty of illegal aliens. I then pointed out that might have played a part (since most of the illegals-turned-citzens probably vote Dem) but that another, bigger, reason is that Bush didn't do nearly as well with whites as Reagan. That's pretty simple. Do you understand, or do I need to find an even more simple way to put it? How about 64 > 58, is that better? Or are we not supposed to speak of the white vote? Is that what you're saying?

See, whites still make up almost 80% of the electorate, so you should be able to see that it takes a boost among Hispanics many times greater than among whites in order to be equivalent in impact. Its simple math.

As to the GOP share of the latino vote this time: Well even if the exit polling is accurate (and I'll assume so if you want since I used the same polls to get Bush's 58% among whites) then Bush benefitted nationally more from his boost among whites than he did from Hispanics. But the fact is that these exit polls are in doubt. Just look around and you'll find out why these results with Hispanics are somewhat hard to believe.

As to the latino vote trending higher for the GOP from election to election: How many elections are you speaking of? Reagan got 37% of Hispanics in 1984, and it was downhill from there for at least the next twenty years until last Tuesday, and again that is if the exit polls were right. But again, if Bush did do so much better then I think we should at least wait until 2008 to see if there truly is a trend.

As to Texas: I didn't call it "overrun" for starters, but again if Bush got 59% of the latino vote then great. But its easier to believe that he got over 70% of the white vote because it would go along with his and other Republicans recent performance with white Texans. And that is the reason why the GOP dominates the state now. Of course as the latino share of the electorate grows, then it will become harder to win based on the white vote alone, but lets not confuse the matter as of now and attribute GOP victories there to something that is not so. See, this is one of the points I am making; that the GOP should not lose sight of the white vote as it reaches out to latinos, blacks, Asians, etc. The GOP collapse in Calif has occured because of several reasons, but one is the liberalism of the whites in the state. If the GOP carried whites in Calif as they do in Texas, then they wouldn't be in such dire straights there. And it will be the conservatism of whites in Texas that will prevent the state from going Dem like Calif. If Hispanics there continue supporting Dems, then Texas may very well become a tossup or battleground state, but if the GOP can keep its hold on 70+ % of the white vote then a Calif-style collapse is unlikely.

As to my "racist fatalistic bullcrap": Nothing I said could be interpreted as racist by a reasonable person, especially by a conservative person. That you did leads me to conclude that you are either; (a) an idiot incapable of understanding simple language, or (b) infected with the Leftwing affliction that causes one to reflexively cast racist aspersions on anyone who dares not follow the PC line on discussions of race/ethnicity. I think the latter would be worse, because then you would be guilty of something you can control. You'd be guilty of poisoning the whole idea of rationale debate with bogus charges of racism; just like liberals do when they would rather not rely on facts and reason.

So tell me, what did I say that is "racist"? I have said nothing negative about Hispanics, other than to point out that they generally prefer Democrats in most elecions, and that is undeniable. Is it racist fatalism to point out facts? Is the truth no longer a defense?

If the GOP nominee against Hillary in 2008 is also said to improve upon the historical performance of Republicans with Hispanics, then we can start talking about a genuine trend and realignment.

Finally, with regards to fatalism specifically: I don't think anyone can say with much confidence what the political and electoral situation will be 12, 16, or 20 yrs from now, but IF current demographic trends persist (i.e. unending mass immigration plus projected birth rates among the various groups) and IF Hispanics do in fact continue to support Democrats by significant margins and IF the GOP can't make up for with other groups, then yes I'll say it -- that bodes ill for the GOP. But I have not said that will happen. I do in fact think there is a good chance of it, but who knows really? I hope the exit polls are right and it portends a genuine and significant move of Hispanics towards the GOP, but I'm not going to suspend my disbelief because of one set of rather extraordinary exit polls.

[Southack]

Good program, good data/parameters, good output. Tough to get all 3 right very often!