Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On the other hand, you also characterize this result as "a rout for Romney". That is an utterly ridiculous claim. If Romney had actually routed President Obama he'd be picking out the drapes and figuring out how to move into a smaller house right now.
It was a rout for Romny with regard to this particular metric. Nobody said that it meant that Romny won, or should have won, the election. The election is not decided on this metric, and rightly so. I'm at a loss as to how to get that across any more clearly.
As Hawkeye pointed out, this metric just evinces an incredible divide between regional interests. The Founders, especially Madison, were concerned about such gaps, and about 'tyranny of the majority.' That's one reason why Wyoming, with its half million population, gets two votes in the US Senate, same as California with its 37 million population.
Now resume the regularly scheduled lefty hallucinatory trollisms.
It shows quite clearly that the land mass of the US is against socialism.
Land masses can be for or against things? Do think Pategonia is against entitlement reform, or that the South Island of New Zealand believes You've Got Mail was Meg Ryan's best on-screen performance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
It was a rout for Romny with regard to this particular metric. Nobody said that it meant that Romny won, or should have won, the election. The election is not decided on this metric, and rightly so. I'm at a loss as to how to get that across any more clearly.
As Hawkeye pointed out, this metric just evinces an incredible divide between regional interests. The Founders, especially Madison, were concerned about such gaps, and about 'tyranny of the majority.' That's one reason why Wyoming, with its half million population, gets two votes in the US Senate, same as California with its 37 million population.
Now resume the regularly scheduled lefty hallucinatory trollisms.
This is a terrible metric as it is meaningless in it's effect on outcomes. Changing it one way or the other wouldn't make a bit of difference as acreage and political divisions doesn't vote.
It was a rout for Romny with regard to this particular metric. Nobody said that it meant that Romny won, or should have won, the election. The election is not decided on this metric, and rightly so. I'm at a loss as to how to get that across any more clearly.
As Hawkeye pointed out, this metric just evinces an incredible divide between regional interests. The Founders, especially Madison, were concerned about such gaps, and about 'tyranny of the majority.' That's one reason why Wyoming, with its half million population, gets two votes in the US Senate, same as California with its 37 million population.
Now resume the regularly scheduled lefty hallucinatory trollisms.
Calling it a rout when the person loses is ridiculous. Romney probably had a few routs when you crunch stats... What does this rout mean?
but it's like bragging about having more yards in a football game that you lost by 15 points.
Calling it a rout when the person loses is ridiculous. Romney probably had a few routs when you crunch stats... What does this rout mean?
but it's like bragging about having more yards in a football game that you lost by 15 points.
But you're mixing up references. When I called "it" a rout, I was clearly referring to the county-by-county count, which was 77.7-22.3. By any standard that's a rout. I wasn't referencing the election itself, which Romney lost.
The yardage analogy is a pretty good one, I think. If a team loses a game, but gets by far more running yards, are the announcers not supposed to mention it in post game analysis. No, that's the kind of thing they are paid to discuss. To think that they should shut up about the breakdown of stats, such as ground game yards, would just be bizarre.
In responding to the question about the electoral college, I threw in the factoid that W Bush won 2439 counties vs. 674 for Al Gore. Then it occurred to me that I never had seen anywhere what pct. of counties were won by Romney and Obama. I only find one source that bothered to do the calculation: Obama-Romney: The County Count « spreadsheetjournalism
(btw the blogger (I don't see his/her name listed) offers some interesting further analysis).
The blogger comes up with 2259 counties for Romney, 649 for Obama, a 77.7 rout for Romney. Note that there are apparently discrepancies in the way that counties are counted. If you add the totals from Bush-Gore, you get 3113, while Romney Obama comes to 2908. According to wikipedia there are certain cities that are not part of a county, so considered as 'county equivalents.' Also according to wikipedia, the US Census counts 3033 counties and county-equivalents in the US. Anyway close enough for government work.
If anyone has a different source for the number of counties won by Romney & Obama, please post it. Interesting that this particular number was pretty widely commented on in 2000, but ignored in 2012.
The problem is that most of those counties are rural and contain more cows than voting Americans.
It was a rout for Romny with regard to this particular metric. Nobody said that it meant that Romny won, or should have won, the election. The election is not decided on this metric, and rightly so. I'm at a loss as to how to get that across any more clearly.
As Hawkeye pointed out, this metric just evinces an incredible divide between regional interests. The Founders, especially Madison, were concerned about such gaps, and about 'tyranny of the majority.' That's one reason why Wyoming, with its half million population, gets two votes in the US Senate, same as California with its 37 million population.
Now resume the regularly scheduled lefty hallucinatory trollisms.
But why do you think it's right for the 600,000 people in Wyoming to have as much power in the Senate as the 37,000,000 in California? Personally I think it's the reason why this country is in such a mess. Surely the people of California should have more influence on the government because they have more influence on the nation and the economy. Barbara Boxer was elected with 5,200,000+ votes in 2010, while Mitch McConnell (the idiot most responsible for problems in the Senate and the moron who filibustered his own bill) was elected with 950,000 votes. Mike Enzi of Wyoming only received 189,046 votes in his last election. So why is his vote worth the same as Barbara Boxer's when it should really be worth 1/27th of her vote? I don't agree with Dianne Feinstein all that much on anything, but her mandate to lead comes from far more people than anyone else in the senate with 7,748,994, so shouldn't her vote actually count?
That's what I don't get. Rural states shouldn't have as much of a say in the government because they contribute much less to the country and are generally far behind the rest of the country in many respects. We'd still have slavery if we didn't listen to the opinions of city dwellers. We also wouldn't have anti-trust laws, child labor laws and environmental protection laws.
In responding to the question about the electoral college, I threw in the factoid that W Bush won 2439 counties vs. 674 for Al Gore. Then it occurred to me that I never had seen anywhere what pct. of counties were won by Romney and Obama. I only find one source that bothered to do the calculation: Obama-Romney: The County Count « spreadsheetjournalism
(btw the blogger (I don't see his/her name listed) offers some interesting further analysis).
The blogger comes up with 2259 counties for Romney, 649 for Obama, a 77.7 rout for Romney. Note that there are apparently discrepancies in the way that counties are counted. If you add the totals from Bush-Gore, you get 3113, while Romney Obama comes to 2908. According to wikipedia there are certain cities that are not part of a county, so considered as 'county equivalents.' Also according to wikipedia, the US Census counts 3033 counties and county-equivalents in the US. Anyway close enough for government work.
If anyone has a different source for the number of counties won by Romney & Obama, please post it. Interesting that this particular number was pretty widely commented on in 2000, but ignored in 2012.
But why do you think it's right for the 600,000 people in Wyoming to have as much power in the Senate as the 37,000,000 in California?..
Actually nowhere did I say that I thought it was right. I just brought it up as an example. It illustrates that 50 percent+1 is not the only metric to consider, not the only perspective to examine when it comes to elections.
I'm not a fan of Obama myself, but he won again, get over it people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
