Something made me go look up P.U.M.A.. Throughout the election cycle I've heard the term, but couldn't careless if they were threatening to vote against their so claimed interests and vote for McCain. I even made a comment somewhere akin to f@#k PUMAs. Almost immediately attempts were made to silence me as not to provoke the PUMAs. I wasn't concerned about them, and even more so I didn't care. From what I heard, I deduced them to be attention seekers and repugs trying to cause trouble, although I do concede all of them are not former repugs but I have no way of knowing this, no one does. But more so I refused to afford them any anything that would be misinterpreted as acknowledgment. I was tempted on many occasions to taunt them when I saw what I thought might be their attention seeking posts, but I didn't in deference to my fellow readers and their angst about keeping the noise level low and being united "we don't want to anger the PUMAs they are our friends" (that should be read with sarcasm). I still to today don't think my potential taunts would have had any negative impact. As I said I think PUMAs are repugs who were mostly supporting Hillary because she was a woman and by default voting for McCain would be easy or that their threat to vote for McCain was a fakeout.
That brings me to today. I was looking at some political videos on youtube and came across a some convention PUMA interviews and answered some of my questions about them, but I still not sure about why they came into existence. Was it also because of MI and FL?? Their arguments against Obama was not about his policies but about the perceived injustice of the system that gave Obama the Dem nomination. I guess some felt snubbed by the process, they may have point there, but to me snob has more to do with hurt feelings than putting their country first. Does anyone know when any exactly why was PUMA created?? Was it all about MI ad FL.
This one has a PUMA with repug madras talking point...
This PUMA wants to be personally courted by Obama. I wonder if a burger and fries would do?? Get this she doesn't vote on the first date.
Having said all this back to the Headline of this diary 'The PUMA effect', so naturally having been reintroduced to the term PUMA, and it being post election, I was curious to hear what the PUMA had to say about the result. So I googled term and visited the PUMA website for the first time after checking out some cool sneakers.
One post caught my attention. I found it's logic the be reminiscent of repugs buts more so of someone who just lost a battle and was looking for a silver lining. I could not help but laugh at the logic or lack there of that followed within the posting. We see it in the same amusing announcements today by repugs eg that America is still a center right country (which I usually rebut with, yeah you say she's center right but she loves her some personal socialism). I guess after so many months crying for attention, you have to find some justification for your existence after being vanquished to a footnote in history.
So read and enjoy this is the "the PUMA Effect"
http://www.puma08.com/...
As promised, PUMAs delivered yesterday…
November 5, 2008 by PUMA Pundit
Some of you may be wondering what the heck I am writting about above, but truth is, as PUMAs we delivered. Let’s look at the numbers from a historic perspective, going back to 1992 when the Democrats regained the White House:
In 1992:
Bill Clinton: 44,909,806
George Bush 1: 39,104,500
In 1996:
Bill Clinton: 47,402,357 (an increase of 5.5% over 1992 for the Democrats)
Bob Dole: 39,198,755 (an increase of .24% over 1992 for the GOP)
In 2000:
Al Gore: 50,999,897 (an increase of 7.59% over 1996 for the Democrats)
George Bush: 50,456,002 (an increase of 28.72% for the GOP)
In 2004
George Bush: 62,040,610 (an increase of 22.96% fpr the GOP)
John Kerrey: 59,028,444 (an increas of 16.99% for the Democrats)
and then we finally come to the Presidential election of 2008
Barack Obama: 63,249,576 (an increase of 7.15% over 2004)
John McCain: 55,900,534 (a DECREASE of -9.90% over 2004)
So what can we learn from these numbers?
If PUMAs are conservatively numbered at 3.6 million, or 20% of Hillary’s 18million votes, their vote would have given Barack Obama an increase of 13.25% over 2004, if it is closer to 40%, which we believe it to be, those extra 7.2 million voters would have given Obama growth of 19.35% over 2004, and have put him in the range of 65 to 70 million votes. 7.15% growth and 63 million popular votes clearly shows that this did not happen.
On his part, if John McCain had simply maintained the same number of voters as Bush did in 2004, he would have ended up with 6,140,076 more votes than he did, and while he would still have lost the election, it would have been by a much narrower margin. This is without the PUMA factor.
However, if the same number of voters supported McCain in 2008 as did Bush in 2004, and McCain got 3.6 million PUMA votes added to his numbers, he would have won the White House by about 3 million votes.