OT DIsappearing act

"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

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

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

--riverman

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

On Nov 6, 9:18*am, wrote:

Oh, you mean they did not use the "Don't let the darkie vote
strategy," and the "don't vote for the darkie" strategies? (Fibb meter
overload)
And what was all that stuff that was being made of the Obama's knckle
wrap etc.?
Richard, Richard, Richard
When has the dominant party not run the "fear the darkie" strategy,
primarily in the South, and Southern midwest.?
Dave

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

I think I said 6% or so popular vote edge, EV would be a landslide, which is
defined as a plus-125 or better margin.
Damned close, actually......
Tom

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:27:15 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


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

I think I said 6% or so popular vote edge, EV would be a landslide, which is
defined as a plus-125 or better margin.
Damned close, actually......
Tom


Hey, anyone can define "landslide" as they choose because there is no
real definition, but the numbers simply aren't in the range and
distribution to indicate what most objective observers would call "a
landslide" or even "a mandate." By all means, it was a clear victory,
which is a very good thing, but I'd not get carried away.

TC,
R

On Nov 7, 9:41*am, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:27:15 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:



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

I think I said 6% or so popular vote edge, EV would be a landslide, which is
defined as a plus-125 or better margin.
Damned close, actually......
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Tom

Hey, anyone can define "landslide" as they choose because there is no
real definition, but the numbers simply aren't in the range and
distribution to indicate what most objective observers would call "a
landslide" or even "a mandate." *By all means, it was a clear victory,
which is a very good thing, but I'd not get carried away.

TC,
R

Oh I don't know that any of us are in a position to determine what
"most observers" would call it. But I do know that, in the lack of a
legal or even popular definition of what a 'landslide' is, your claim
that it is not one is as valid as anyone elses. Which is just how you
like it. :-)

--riverman
(By the way, I call it a 'landslide' AND a 'mandate'. Prove me wrong.
bseg)