Yes I know it's pre inauguration and I thinking about the P.U.M.A.s again. I have to admit in a warped kinda way I am intrigued by them.
You maybe not remember my first post election P.U.M.A. diary here. Where the P.U.M.A.s laid out the argument that they (3.6 million dems strong) were the difference between Barack Obama failing to beat John McCain by more that 7.2 million votes and that his vote totals should have been in the 65-70 million vote range vs the 63 million at the time they posted their diary. The huge problem with that argument was that their argument was made on Nov 5th long before the final tallies from all districts were in, giving Obama a landslide of 9.5 million vote margin and a total 69.5 million votes. You have to at least give them credit for getting the final vote total correct close to 70 million.
Now, I am sure having realized the idiocy of their initial argument, they manufactured a more durable one. One that is unconstrained by facts that can be proven or dis-proven. I'm sure is makes them feel a lot better. There new argument was, and just only 1 week later Nov 12th that...
if it weren't for the P.U.M.A.s McCain should have lost the following 8 states Missouri, Montana, Georgia, South Dakota, Arizona, West Virginia, Kentucky and Louisiana.
Ok so after picking yourself off the ground and catching your breath from laughter (C.P.R. anyone), you have to wonder how do they come up this this sh#t. I know their desire continues to be one of wanting to be noticed/the desire of a sense of relevance/importance. Nonetheless I find it amusing and can't help myself to return to their website for more. They even mention Reagan, just proves my point they are mostly repugs trying to mess with dems (mostly= 100%). http://www.puma08.com/...
There are eight states which John McCain would not have won if the Democrats voting for him had instead voted for Barack Obama.
These states are:
Missouri
Montana
Georgia
South Dakota
Arizona
West Virginia
Kentucky
Louisiana
This represents a total of 64 Electoral votes.
As it stands, the Electoral count is 364/174, Obama.
Had it not been for Democrats voting for McCain, this count would have been 428/110.
The PUMA voting block may not have prevented an Obama presidency, but it did prevent Obama from having a Reaganesque win… and thus, with it, his attempt to garner the mantle of being the Democrat’s Ronald Reagan.
And — lest anyone think that these are states which could not have been won by a Democrat anyways — all of these states (with the exception of South Dakota) were won by Bill Clinton in either 1992 or 1996… or both.
I will just put out the obvious rebuttal to southern states via southern democrats not voting for Obama, hey P.U.M.A.s their 'southern' democrats. They even have the final electoral vote tally right 364/174 so they lose that point I gave them earlier.
Nov 5 2008 logic
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.
Ultimately, this election was lost by the GOP base, who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by simply rnot voting. Why they refused is beyond the scope of this posting, but fact remains that they didn’t, and now Obama is the President-Elect.
So PUMAs, congratulations, we can hold your heads up high. We did exactly what we promised to do. We might not have stopped Obama, but both Al Gore and John Kerry were able to attract a higher percentage of new voters in the last cycle than Obama did in this one because we denied him our votes.
Posted by PUMA Pundit