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.
Not in terms of the popular vote. But the thrust of the cartoon is not the truth (or lack thereof) of whether or not Bush divided and united the country. The thrust is the media's protrayal.
Bush won about 51% of the popular vote four years ago, and the media's focus was about how divided we are as a nation.
Obama won about 52% of the popular vote earlier this month, but the media's focus is about how Obama has united the country.
Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly no fan of Bush. His Presidency has been a colossal train wreck for our nation. But I have to say I find the whole cult of personality around Obama more than a little disturbing.
So, you're agreeing that the cartoon saying 1% is misleading, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
A difference? Yes. The difference between "DIVIDED!" and "UNITED!" ??? Not according to my dictionary.
Again, that's the cartoon. The reality is that we are more united now than after the 2004 election, and certainly more united than after the 2000 election. Are we UNITED? No. I don't think we've been UNITED in my lifetime, other than the brief period of time immediately after 9/11, and that sure didn't last long.
Cartoons are a cute type of media, but often cartoons start with a kernel of truth and exaggerate it. Has the media gone overboard with Obama and the concept of the country being united? Yes, probably so. But when hasn't the media gone overboard?
However, the math used the cartoon is dead wrong. It's showing only the popular vote for Obama and Bush (and doing so incorrectly - if they're gonna round up Bush's number (50.73), Obama's number (52.63) should also be rounded up, and the difference is 2%, not 1%) without putting those numbers in context; i.e., without showing the the popular vote for the other candidate.
So, you're agreeing that the cartoon saying 1% is misleading, right?
If you want to strain a gnat to swallow a camel, then yes. You're obsessing over a detail to miss completely the larger point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene
However, the math used the cartoon is dead wrong. It's showing only the popular vote for Obama and Bush (and doing so incorrectly - if they're gonna round up Bush's number (50.73), Obama's number (52.63) should also be rounded up, and the difference is 2%, not 1%) without putting those numbers in context; i.e., without showing the the popular vote for the other candidate.
Cute, but misleading.
You're right! It was off 1%! That makes all the difference!
Again, you're analyzing one tree and completely missing the forest. The point of the cartoon is not the election statistics.
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.
