posted November 15, 2004 07:43 PM            

Okay....now we must look at the REAL statistics....

In this example - the 2004 Election is being compared to those the PRE - CIVIL war map....basically saying that all those states that went for Bush were either PRO Slavery or tolerant of Slavery right?
http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/2004/11/free_states_vs_.html

So me being me....(the Bearer of Truth and Justice ---hee hee..okay I am just playing here). I decided to check things out...

Here is the 1992 Electoral College Map.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/past-elections/1992.html

Somehow the states: KY, TN, GA, AR, MO..etc.... are not only for Clinton..but STRONGLY for Clinton...Hmmmm....maybe..just maybe they had a brief moment of anti-slavery...and voted Democrat... What then they all of a sudden go Republican - for Bush and NOW they are considered.....Slave Owners....

That BLOWS that stupid Propaganda myth about free states out of the water RIGHT THERE..DOESN'T IT (yes, a part of me is gloating)

1996 Election:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/past-elections/1996.html

Once again...NV, NM, LA, AR, AZ, OH, KY, WV....and more... are all BLUE....OMG...But how can this be? They are supposed to be either racist (according to the pre-civil war map or accepting of racism..that is why they went for Bush in 2004 right?)

Not enough...Okay...Okay..let's look at the 2000 election:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/past-elections/2000.html

In this map we START to observe a shift..a change- yet NM is still marked at Democrat as are several other states..

What bothers me the most, is that someone's sour grapes perpetuated this horrible myth. People believe this as truth and that couldn't be more wrong. This is what I meant about taking one data point and applying it to the whole and thereby passing off a myth as "fact"

Please....someone prove me wrong...

~Pidaua

posted November 16, 2004 12:56 AM            

To compare it to Clinton is unfair. He was so popular in the south because he was from the south and was pretty good at straddling the middle in his delivery to the public. Southerners are known to cross partisan lines and vote for the candidate that seems most 'southern'... or so I've heard.

posted November 16, 2004 01:37 PM            

While I agree that the map and the map theory is seriously flawed and ridiculous -I do not buy your response as an adequate argument is also flawed.

Clinton and Bush are both from the South. the Pre-Civil war Southern States include Texas and 99% of all Texans would fight to the death if anyone considered them NOT from the South or a Southern State. Jimmy Carter was from the South and that did NOT help him against Reagan. John Edwards is from the South - North Carolina and that didn't insure the Southern Votes.

Trying to tie a racist map to a theory based on the 2004 election is propaganda. If one reads the website that promoted this hogwash in the first place, one would know that is has a very anti-Bush, anti-Republican agenda.