The 2012 Electoral Map revisted

Raees wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: The rest of your argument seems to follow the line that Obama wasn't the stronger of the two candidates, but he was the candidate from the stronger of the two major parties. Is that what you are trying to say?

No, it's not. It's the MESSAGE, PS, not the candidate or the party, IMO. Whichever one resonates with the larger electorate wins. Of course you're free to not accept my premise. Since the election, I've seen many conservatives discount what happened on Election Day for all sorts of reasons. The excuses are fascinating to read.

Voters were less supportive of the message the Democrats had out there this time than last Raees, while they were more supportive of the Republican message this time than last. Incumbency is a difficult advantage to overcome. Look at Colorado. All 7 Representatives are headed back to Washington, a few of them, like Obama, with less support than they had in their last elections. Is it message or incumbency which is most responsible for last Tuesday's results? A fair question to ask, don't you think?

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results
Take a look at the county maps within each State Raees. Take a good hard look at them. What you see is the same all across the country. The more rural an area is the more likely it is to support the message of the Republican Party. The more urban an area is the more likely it is to support the message of the Democratic one. What does that tell you Raees?

It tells me that more voters voted for President Obama than voted for Willard.

PrintSmith wrote: Take a look at the county maps within each State Raees. Take a good hard look at them. What you see is the same all across the country. The more rural an area is the more likely it is to support the message of the Republican Party. The more urban an area is the more likely it is to support the message of the Democratic one. What does that tell you?

It tells me something that everyone has known for years and years PrintSmith....Did you just wake up from a 50 year nap or something?



"Duh huh, my name is PrintSmith and I just discovered something!"

Something the Dog Said wrote: It tells me that more voters voted for President Obama than voted for Willard.

Congratulations Captain Obvious, but that fails to address the query before you. Would you like to try to answer the question that was asked instead of the one you asked of yourself?

PS, the urban areas a more likely to vote for Republicans than the city areas, you say? It tells me the Democrats have more voters since there are move people living in the cities than in the country. But this isn't school and you're not a teacher. If you have a point, why not just make it?

Obama is the first incumbent to be elected with a smaller win percentage than his first race. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

You guys coming up with ways to rationalize how you had your nuts handed to you is so entertaining.

Raees wrote: PS, the urban areas a more likely to vote for Republicans than the city areas, you say? It tells me the Democrats have more voters since there are move people living in the cities than in the country. But this isn't school and you're not a teacher. If you have a point, why not just make it?

I believe the point made is evident all by itself with no need to elaborate on it Raees. I was simply curious as to what its existence might mean to you.

Something I've known all my life: people who live in rural areas are more conservative. The problem for conservatives is more people live in urban areas.