They will use one of several (interesting) points, one of which is how each swing state voted.
| State | Obama | Romney | Difference | Percentage of Winning Candidate |
| Ohio: | 2,672,302 | 2,571,539 | 100,757 | 3.77 |
| Virginia: | 1,852,123 | 1,745,397 | 107,726 | 5.82 |
| New Hampshire: | 335,004 | 300,241 | 34,763 | 10.37 |
| Iowa: | 816,174 | 727,545 | 88,629 | 10.86 |
| Colorado: | 1,204,230 | 1,102,623 | 101,607 | 8.44 |
| Nevada: | 528,801 | 462,422 | 66,379 | 12.55 |
| Florida(pending): | 4,129,502 | 4,083,441 | 46,061 | 1.12 |
| Total | 11,538,136 | 10,993,208 | 544,928 | 4.72 |
| Average | 1,648,305.1 | 1,570,458.3 | 77,846.8 | 4.72 |
At this time, Florida is also trending towards Obama (they have not yet finalized their count), although it appears that every county in Florida has finalized their votes. Florida is included in the following numbers.
President Obama got 50% of the votes (59,721,271) to Romney's 48% (57,095,396). The difference was 2% or 2,625,875 votes. That means that 20.75% of the difference between Romney's and President Obama's votes was in the swing states.
Notice anything?
All of them went to Obama, most of which with a relatively large relative difference. Now, if you had asked (most) people before the elections, most would have predicted that at least one swing state would give its electoral votes to Romney.
Also, why was 20.75% of the difference between Romney and Obama in those states? I would have expected them to be at most 5% of the nation wide difference. Those were, after all, "swing" states. States that were supposedly really close.
20.75% of 2% (or .415%) of the nation were what mattered in this election.
Mark my words, there will be calls of election shenanigans before the end of the week. In fact, they may have already started.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main?hpt=elec_flippertkr
Even if your allegations are correct, the media will completely ignore it.
ReplyDeleteWhat allegations?
DeleteThe only thing that is interesting is the numbers.
Although if all the states that President Obama won are summed up in this way, you will get over 100%.
---
Of course the media will ignore it. Unless they have a lot of evidence pushed in their faces.
http://www.slcelections.com/Pdf%20Docs/2012%20General/GEMS%20SOVC%20REPORT.pdf
ReplyDeleteCheck this out - St. Lucie County in Florida, one of the critical counties as far as Congress and the Presidential election in Florida is concerned had a 141.10% turnout. And its not the only one with ridiculously high voter turnout this year.
http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/in-florida-obama-got-over-99-in-broward.html
http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/what-luck-obama-won-dozens-of-cleveland.html
Apparently those precincts are in a city (specifically, part of a city where the median income is $17,000 -- see comments in your first link) where there are high percentages of "black" people.
DeleteI think I'll write something on the cultural meaning of black as compared to white at some time.
Example: A higher percentage of "black" people do not go to college -- despite being able to get most scholarships more easily than "white" people and having lower entrance requirements.
My feeling is that private companies cannot discriminate based off of skin color but can off of culture -- companies don't want to have a (cruel/mean/lazy) person working for them. Apparent culture can indicate what type of person it is.
Unfortunately, many "black" people share a culture that is frowned upon in many companies. Also young people in general. But "blacks" are (for some reason) more famous.
If I were hiring (which I am not), my criteria would be:
a) Can he/she do the job?
b) Is there someone who should have a higher priority (single income family due to both parents being laid off)?
c) Does he consider himself an American?
i) -American does not count. Sorry.
ii) For more info, see here: http://www.1212vorpalblade.com/2012/10/hyphenated-americans.html
d) Extraneous considerations (e.g., laws on hiring -- for example, 10% of the workforce when company is over 500 people)
I should probably write a blog post on what my personal hiring methods would be.