On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:04:21 -0800 (PST), riverman
wrote:

On Nov 6, 9:56*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:42:04 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:



"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
.. .
Yoo hoo, calling rdean, where arrrrrrrrrrre you ?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!

it's not like someone didn't tell him that it might turn into a landslide by
Nov.4....g
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Tom

Um, you might want to really review the numbers - it was hardly "a
landslide."

TC,
R

Define a 'landslide'.
http://tinyurl.com/55x7a8

Well, look at like this - looking at it from the "mandate" side (which
isn't the actual election via Electors) there were roughly 120 million
votes cast and two states, New York and California, accounted for a
little over 4 million, or roughly half the difference, and 6 populous
"Dem" states (states that were almost certainly going Dem regardless)
CA, NY, PA, NJ, Mass., and Ill., account for most of the difference. The
outcome would have been the same whether 3 people in each had voted, 2
Obama, 1 McCain or 30,000,000, 20 mil to 10 mil. I guess one might say
Obama has a "mandate" from the people who were going to vote Dem
regardless, but...

On the Electoral side, 7 states with a combined total of about 600,000
votes difference that would have put the election the other way. All
had extremely high minority turnout, such that it appears to have either
swung the election or contributed significantly to it. Is this "bad?"
That's in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, but I must say and I would
say all rational people would agree that _IF_ the primary reason for
those votes were FOR mere skin color, that's not "good," just as I would
say and all rational people would agree that votes AGAINST mere skin
color are "bad" - either way, it's racist. Obama essentially used the
"vote for a brother" strategy in several states - what would you think
if McCain had used a "don't vote for the darkie" strategy? It's the
same thing - do or don't do based on skin color.

IAC, given that a relative few voters in a relative few states "made the
election," I'd say it isn't "a landslide" and further, given that in
popular vote, the numbers are very concentrated, I'd say it isn't "a
mandate by the people."

Nothing in the above should be construed to take away from the fact that
Obama won and clearly so, but it simply isn't, objectively, "a
landslide" or "a mandate."

HTH,
R
--riverman