"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article jWHCb.382382$ao4.1274100@attbi_s51, "Gary L. Drescher"
writes:

Jay has apparently managed to convince himself that the extent of a
candidate's mandate is better measured by the number of *acres* that
voted
for the candidate than by the number of *people* that voted for the
candidate. When he says the "country" overwhelmingly supported Bush,
he's
referring to the country's landmass rather than its population.

Actually, Jay's map does tell us a great deal about the vote.

Yes, but not what he claims it tells us.

Those areas that produce more than they consume and pay more in taxes than
they
receive in federal funds voted for Bush and those that suck at the Federal
teat
voted for Gore.

Yeah right. Seattle, New York, Boston, most of New England, and the coast
of California are notoriously unproductive areas. Why, the national economy
would scarcely notice if those places just disappeared.