All fifty states plus Washington, DC have a total of 538 electoral votes. 270 electoral votes are needed to win the presidency (~50.2%). Every ten years the US government has a very detailed census that is used, amongst other things, to apportion these electoral votes. Thus politicians argue about what statistical methods are used. Despite this, the Census department does a remarkable job performing a difficult task. The last major census was performed in 2000 and these current population figures will be used in determining the electoral votes for each state in November's elections.
I've created a table showing how many electoral votes each state has as well as how this has changed since the last election. The green highlights are for states that now have more influence than they did in the 2000 election. Likewise, the red highlights are for states that now have less influence than they did in the 2000 election.
But what's this? Two Palestinian gunmen have spotted you. Perhaps they will help you against those Jewish children in Israel that deserve to die. What! They want your bombs?
You were prepared to die anyway, so you push the button and eliminate these two thugs and injure your guide as the bombs on your chest explode. As you die, you belatedly wonder if there is any reward for killing presumably Islamic thugs instead of your enemy...
Believe it or not, this story is essentially true. I expect we'll see more stories like this once Israel finishes its wall.
| Voters Supporting: | Gore |
Bush |
Nader |
| Black | 89 |
8 |
3 |
| White | 42 |
54 |
3 |
| Hispanic | 67 |
31 |
2 |
| Asian | 55 |
41 |
3 |
| Unmarried Women | 63 |
32 |
4 |
| All Married | 44 |
53 |
2 |
| All Not Married | 57 |
38 |
4 |
| Union Member | 59 |
37 |
3 |
| Gay | 70 |
25 |
4 |
| Gun Owner | 36 |
61 |
2 |
| Protestant | 34 |
63 |
2 |
| Jewish | 79 |
19 |
2 |
| Catholic | 52 |
45 |
2 |
| White Protestants | 32 |
62 |
3 |
| Black Protestants | 95 |
4 |
1 |
| Mormons | 12 |
88 |
0 |
| Republicans | 7 |
91 |
1 |
| Democrats | 85 |
10 |
3 |
| Men | 42 |
51 |
4 |
| Women | 49 |
43 |
3 |
| 18-29 | 48 |
46 |
5 |
| 30-44 | 48 |
49 |
2 |
| 45-59 | 48 |
49 |
2 |
| 60 + | 51 |
47 |
2 |
| High School Grad | 49 |
48 |
1 |
| College Grad | 45 |
51 |
3 |
| Post-Graduate Degree | 52 |
44 |
3 |
These demographics may help you understand some of the political games candidates play as they try to influence those voters where they think they have a realistic chance of swaying opinion.
Source: Someone emailed me a list of voter patterns from the 2000 election, but did not give their source. I have looked at previous information from the US government before, and these look fairly accurate (different polling methods will give you slightly different results, but if you see any that are more than 2% different from other polls, let me know). I suspect these figures originally came from the US government, but it is possible someone did their own survey.
Since this site seems to have entries on all of the above (religion, economics and international affairs) I thought this article would be of interest:
Basically the UK clergyman's union is in a dither about people choosing to "offshore prayer" (I am not making this up).
The key sentence is:
"Religious services and prayers for the dead are being offshored from the United Kingdom to India because of a lack of priests," Amicus, whose one-million-plus membership includes several thousand clergymen, said in a statement Wednesday."
Will the priests and ministers of the UK all go on strike? Isn't a clergy industrial action like putting the country under the Interdict?. That is sort of nostalgic. I don't think England has been under the Interdict for 500 years.
I wonder if the acquis communautaire (The EU's regulation of private life) will now make it a human rights violation to pray while there is a strike (industrial action) in place? In general the right to strike trumps all other rights in the EU :-)
If you agree this is a worthy cause and can spare some dollars, click here. If you think this is a good cause, but don't have any spare cash, you can still help. Just forward this message to some of your friends.
Compare this with his predecessor. President Clinton was a stereotypical politician, albeit more popular than most, and he frequently lied to people. Yet, he was charismatic, especially in person. I once had the opportunity to hear him speak as part of a relatively small audience (about 200 or so). It was amazing. I had to fight to keep myself from nodding affirmation when he spoke about things with which I strongly disagreed. Despite (or because of) the fact he misled them, Europeans loved Clinton. President Clinton had a much higher approval rating amongst Europeans than he did amongst Americans.
The contrast between a blunt, honest man who has trouble with long speeches and a sophisticated, charismatic politician who could captivate an audience for hours has intrigued me since President Bush was elected. Peggy Noonan recently gave her opinion about President Bush's popularity.
| Windmill Tilts: 4
| TrackBack: 1
Category: Domestic Politics , Category: International
Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.This is obviously a biased article, but I thought it did clearly made the point that many who point fingers at Bush are doing so because he is Republican, not because of his actions. What is even more indicting is that President Bush is one of the few Presidents who used our troops as set forth in the Constitution. He made his case before the people and our elected Representatives (including Senator Kerry) gave Bush authorization to act.FDR (Democrat) led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman (Democrat) finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy (Democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson (Democrat) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton (Democrat) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush (Republican) has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year and our allies lost a similar number. Bush did all this abroad while preventing another terrorist attack on US soil.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
"Thus politicians argue about what statistical methods are used."
NO Statistical method is used. The Democratic Party keeps arguing we should use a statistical method, ie take a sample and then extrapolate what the entire population is from that sample. The constitution says the census shall be "an actual enumeration" ie you count them. (No sampling involved. You do your best to count every one and in any case, the number that you count is the number you use, not some mathematical function that uses that count (among other inputs) to arrive at an answer.
There is a big difference between those two. A statistical method (take a sample and calculate the whole population from the sample) is open to all sorts of shenannigans. Counting is harder to manipulate.
So far we have managed to hold the line on that revision of the Constitution.