This letter to the Seattle Times, written, I would guess, by a Democrat, makes an unusual claim:
In November, Washingtonians voted 53 percent for John Kerry vs. 49 percent for George Bush.
(For what it's worth, some of the other election statistics given in the letter are slightly off, too.)
One way to explain those numbers is to assume that 2 percent of Washington's voters voted for both Bush and Kerry. Can we solve some of other the puzzles in the election returns with that assumption? I don't see how offhand, but I must admit that I have never done that kind of analysis.
(Want to see the actual results for Washington? Here's the appropriate link to Dave Leip's site.)
Posted by Jim Miller at February 15, 2005 05:44 AM | Email ThisCheers from Whidbey Island
Posted by: Jim Goodall on February 15, 2005 08:13 AMMaybe the Democrats could put a different spin on this: "Better Election Than We Thought!"
Posted by: JG on February 15, 2005 08:17 AMBack east, the rabid mad libs are claiming the same thing with proposed Amtrak cuts.
Glad to see liberals haven't found their minds yet.
Posted by: Shaun on February 15, 2005 08:18 AMBefore, we had Jackson and Magnusson to make it a futile exercise by the power people. And Gorton didn't do too bad either, except it was a little more nip and tuck.
So, now who do we rely on- McDermott? Murray? or Cantwell? I thought after the last effort we should have just outright just bought the dams and stop the argument.
I don't know why we didn't but we are still paying for it. But the key here is, we are still buying the dams.
This isn't a payback for Washington electing the lousers we have, though I kind of think so. But it seems to me to be more of an attempt to regulate the power business. And who do we have to speak up? Dunn? No, she is gone. Gorton? No, we booted him unfairly. We just don't have clout.
And the funny thing is, if the Federal government turns Democrat, we still wouldn't have clout with the lousers we have.
Posted by: swatter on February 15, 2005 08:56 AM"I applaud our current president for calling upon former Presidents Bush and Clinton to lead a fund-raising campaign in support of Asian tsunami victims. I cannot think of two people working together who would be more appropriate.
Former President Bush can call upon several "thousand points of light" who benefited most from the unprecedented economic expansion seen during former President Clinton's tenure; and subsequently from this president's unprecedented income-tax relief."
And from an April 2004 letter:
"Tami Silicio's photo of flag-draped coffins is worthy of a Pulitzer Prize. Its clear emotional and intellectual immediacy places it among the best of wartime photography. It serves to honor our war dead, and to re-open active discussion of the Pentagon's long-shadowed policy of withholding such images from the public. Your paper deserves our thanks for the courage and discernment to publish it."
If he can't do simple arithmetic, perhaps his other views are similarly flawed... :-)
Posted by: Regret on February 15, 2005 10:48 AMCan someone re-post the original link please?
Posted by: Jason on February 15, 2005 11:17 AMNo. The writer must have been an R. The actual margin was much bigger 53 to 46 percent or 7.2 percent, much more than the 4 percent claimed by the writer.
You are even more obtuse than I previously thought.
The writer implies that President Bush is declaring war on the Pacific Northwest via energy prices in payback for the PN voting for Kerry....and you think the writer is Republican.
You drink so much of the liberal Kool-Aid, don't be surprised when that big red jug with a smiley-face comes crashing into your pad.
Posted by: Larry on February 15, 2005 01:20 PM