Some telling statistics

[Apple a Day]

Just came across this. The last bit is the most interesting. Take it for what it's worth and Season's Greetings!


States won by Gore: 19
States won by Bush: 29

Counties won by Gore: 677
Counties won by Bush: 2,434

Pop. of counties won by Gore: 127 million
Pop. of counties won by Bush: 143 million

Sq miles of country won by Gore: 580,000
Sq miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000

Now Professor Joseph Olson of the Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul Minnesota has produced another interesting new statistic. Professor Olson looked up the crime statistics for all of these counties and came up with this:
Avg Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2
Avg Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Bush: 2.1
Now, what area of this country do you want electing the
President of the United States, Gore's or Bush's

 

[Bill Barrett]

Urban vs. Rural

But still very interesting.

 

[hammer4nc]

Apple,

The contrast between urban/rural election results in this past election was dramatic, even to the casual observer. The county-by-county red/blue map was widely circulated: look at California, Gore won only the LA/SF metros and a small sliver of coast, yet took the state.

Observation & conclusion: City dwellers rely on govt. services and systems for their survival on a daily basis, hence the liberal (democrat, green) philosophy of pervasive involvement in every aspect of life is no big stretch. Rural life is more self-reliant; typical contact with govt. may be limited to how well roads are maintained. Various social programs viewed as just a tax drain for someone else. The conservative view (republican?, libertarian) resonates.

I'm not smart enough to establish cause and effect, but let me put it this way: If power and control was your fetish, which group would be easier to control???

Call me paranoid, but I get concerned when I see a daily procession of laws and policies from the liberal sector, that discourage the rural lifestyle. Some examples:

***Executive orders locking up large tracts of land (there are private inholders here!)

***"Environmental" regulations making resource-based activities non-viable (i.e., grazing, logging, etc.)

***Land-use policies that outlaw residential development outside cities (are you listening, Oregon?)

Even a rookie intern in the democrat national committee can connect the dots..."if we could just get more people into the cities, victory would be ours".

Any liberals out there are cordially invited to disagree.

 

[jeepster]

The reason the conservatives stay out of the city is because they feel they will be surrounded by po trash. The liberals see themselves as saviors so thats where they concentrate the most. This is no mystery. The only reason to vote for Bush is for rights pertaining to our firearms.
I am no rich man and I know who is going to benefit from the tax cuts. Its not going to be the middle class!!!!

 

[Byron]

Jeepster, if you pay taxes, you will get a tax cut under Bush's plan. Not true under Gore's plan. Rich people will get larger dollar cuts (not percentage cuts, lower income people get those) because they pay the most dollars in. What's wrong with that? 96% of taxes are paid by 50% of the population.

Remember that when rich people get tax cuts, the money gets reinvested, spent, or otherwise recirculated into the economy, not buried in the back yard. A poor man never gave anyone a job.

The Dems, of course, will play the Politics of Envy to the maximum, so Bush's plan will not get passed in its original form.

 

[USP45]

Who benifits from lower taxes???

We all will benifit with a federal government with less money to spend.

 

[moa]

Hammer4nc, you would think those fella's in most of the "blue" regions should realize backs are to the sea.