use Perl

• So? (Score:2)

  by petdance (2468)

  That means 76% of eligible voters did not support Bush.

  So what's the conclusion that you're drawing from these assertions?

  --
  

  --
  xoa
  • Re:So? (Score:2)

    by ziggy (25) on 2002.10.14 21:12 (#13884) Journal

    So what's the conclusion that you're drawing from these assertions?

    First, that jwz believes that the vast majority of the US Population disapproves of Bush's policies. This conclusion may be correct, but the shell game that leads to damned lie (er, statistic) that 76% do not support Bush today is quite bogus. (Realistically, 53% is a more believable upper bound; disapproval of Bush was likely comparable among both voters and non-voters.)

    Second, erroneous statistics notwithstanding, the 2000 Presidential Elections are still a source for conversation and debate. The issue has not died two years later, and will probably continue for another two years (and cast a sinister light on any anti-establishment policy, especially the contentious ones).

    Reply to This

    Parent

    • Re:So? (Score:2)

      by pudge (1)

      Well, let's start with the fact that there is no such thing as a popular vote for President of the United States of America. We vote for electors within only the particular state. This fact means several things, but all of them essentially mean that it is not possible to use the votes of the individual states as a reliable guage of support for one candidate or another.
      
      For example, many voters in Massachusetts -- both Republican and Democrat -- might not vote simply because it is a foregone conclusion tha