At 01:32 PM 11/12/2004 -0800 d.brin wrote: > contends that this >shows ALL of urban America voting blue. Too passionately expressed, >since the exceptions of Dalla, Salt Lake, Phoenix, and Indianapolis >all stand out. And the "shades of purple" maps remind us that >democrats remain a disenfranchised 40% in much of rural America, >while republicans were a large minority in all but the largest urban >areas.
Dr. Brin, since when does "disenfranchised" mean "not winning an election"? Kerry voters were counted just the same as Bush voters, there were fewer of them. >(Though my earlier point is that GOP voters are a FAR smaller >minority in urban areas than they were during other elections. This doesn't seem to be true. DC, Bush up from 8.95 to 9.23% in 2004 Los Angeles County, Bush up from 32.4 to 36.1% in 2004 Cook County (Chicago), Bush up from 28.6 to 29.3% in 2004 New York, Bush up from 14.2% to 16.6% in 2004 Philadelphia, Bush up from 18.0% to 19.3% in 2004 Suffolk County (Boston), Bush up from 20.5% to 23.0% Wayne County (Detroit), Bush up from 29.0% to 30.2% In other words, despite high turnout, Bush did slightly better than in 2000 just about everywhere* - even in the urban centers where he fared the most poorly. Heck, Bush even did slightly better in: Dane County (Madison), Bush up from 32.6% to 33.0% At any rate, your above point appears to be most definitely not true. > And >from the "defections" it is clear that the GOP intelligencia AT BEST >held its nose, and in many cases simply deserted.) Out of curiosity, why do you keep harping on this point about the way those of higher education/intelligence voted? Do you believe that this should be at all meaningful? JDG * - I did come across a few exceptions, most notably San Francisco and Seattle.... not too surprising, especially in the case of the former I guess, and nobody bats 1.000. ;-) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
