Wow, how depressing

I received this via email today and it seemed a little disconcerting to me. Can anyone determine if this is real?

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:
· Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
· Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
· Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
· Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.
If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom

www.barackobamaisnotmypresident.com...

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 1/1/2009 by Mirthful Me]

A little late now I guess.

Lets just hope those predictions arent true.

reply to post by interested-one


The numbers are probably those for the 2004 election. Bush won about 30 states that year, while McCain carried only 22 this time around. I'd guess that its fairly close otherwise, though. Dems usually don't fare all that well outside of cities, but in those cities, they dominate. I have no doubt that the murder rate stats are true for that very reason.

Here is the county-by-county map of the 2008 US election. I'd guess that McCain won about three times as many counties as Obama, but of course, that doesn't really matter.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by vor78]

reply to post by interested-one


It is probably photoshopped.

It appears to be a political satire, but, we at ATS know:

"ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE"

Well, the American people were only given a choice between
a pretty Socialist, and an incompetent part-time Liberal.

That's no choice.

reply to post by vor78


Wow.. Makes you wonder how Obama won doesn't it.

reply to post by dooper


Which one was which?

~~~~~~~~~~

Back to the OP, the website exists and the stuff you have in external tags is on it. So as far as that goes it's real. As for whether or not anything in it is true, I have no clue. Aside from attributing the information to a professor at a law school, there is nothing that shows where they got their figures from. The tombstone picture isn't on the website as far as I can see, so if you got that in an email then someone added it for effect.

This FALSE viral email was written in 2000 about Gore...

Snopes

· Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29

Wrong. In 2008, Obama won 29, McCain won 21. 19 and 29 is 48...

Source

· Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

Land doesn't vote. People do.

· Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million

I don't know if this is true or not but the population who doesn't vote doesn't count in an election.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

This did all start when we were turned from a republic into a democracy. So we allowed our country to be in the hands of a few people that only carries the heading "for the people by the people."
America has been dead a while now that tombstone IS wrong, and no matter how many people are going to blame Obama and the democrats, republicans, or the liberals, or the socialists, you may want to blame all of us because we let this happen.

reply to post by interested-one


Let me preface this with the fact that I am a registered Libertarian and I voted as such. But these figures are very disturbing when I think of the huge percentage of American citizens who will vote not with their hand on thier heart but with it held out. So many are expecting something personal from the Obama administration.

Maybe it wasn't such a bad idea in the past when you had to be a land owner to vote. The people with no vested interest in the nation are making selfish decisions. So much for JFK's speech - I'm sure he rolls over in his grave when he sees the turns the current Democratic party has taken.

reply to post by Jenna


He won because the urban areas can overwhelm the much larger geographic remainder of the country. Only about a third of the US population lives in cities of less than 50,000 people or in rural areas.

By contrast, more than half (58%) live in the 153 urban areas with over 200,000 people. Relatively few of these vote Republican and many of the largest ones vote overwhelmingly Democrat.



[edit on 1-1-2009 by vor78]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thanks, BH, for debunking this one.

Funny to see posters still acting as if this is real...

What's odd to me is that most tree huggers seem to be Democrats...yet Democrats dominate in urban areas? They want to save the environment yet they live in huge cities?

What's the deal with that?

It's all a big freakin joke. ALL OF IT. Both parties. I really don't know how anyone can stand up for either one of them anymore.

reply to post by David9176


It makes total sense actually. If you are in the middle of rural america you probably think the environment is fine, because you see natural beauty all day long.

If you live in the city, you are much closer to the concentrations of trash that amass in the industrial areas.


Of course those in the city have a higher concentration of democrats. But it's more than just that. If you live in the City you are also mingling with many different varieties of people, where as if you live in the rural areas you see perhaps one type of person.

Either way, it's always dangerous to generalize like you are attempting to do.