statistical outlier
November 03, 2004
District of Columbia race for President

142 of 142 precincts - 100 percent

John F. Kerry - 183,876 - 90 percent
George W. Bush - 19,007 - 9 percent

Ralph Nader - 1,318 - 1 percent
David Cobb - 645 - 0 percent
Michael Badnarik - 442 - 0 percent
James Harris - 112 - 0 percent

Yahoo! News - Election Results

What does it say about the President that his closest neighbors want him gone much, much, much more badly than anyone else in the country?


Comments

Maybe that they live in an unrealistic bubble.

Posted by: Cassandra at November 4, 2004 12:14 AM

I'd say his truly "closest" neighbors, the people he grew up around, are in Texas.

Any idea what the numbers in Texas were? I do.

Posted by: Abby at November 4, 2004 01:56 AM

FU all. This was a sad, sad day for America. He's a monster and an idiot and a hatemonger. DC got it right.

Posted by: John at November 4, 2004 04:24 AM

Considering the fact that Marion Barry was once Mayor (and re-elected despite a drug conviction) does not do much to inspire confidence in DC voters.

Posted by: Larry at November 4, 2004 03:04 PM

Aparently the idea of re-electing Bush is much scarier than the idea of re-electing a crackhead.

Posted by: Pat at November 4, 2004 04:11 PM

As an American living abroad, please share this website with your Malian friends.
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

Posted by: Sarah at November 9, 2004 11:03 PM

I live in a red state, but the promise of it developing into a blue state is there. It was a close race this year in Arizona for the first time in a very, very long time.
What I'm even more scared about than the continuing administration are the new senators elected from Oklahoma and Kentucky. Both campaigned on "homosexuality is the devil" tickets and one adamantly says homosexuals and unwed women should not be allowed to teach in public schools. The other says all abortions should be banned, including those done to save the mother's life.
Suddenly my country has become disgustingly conservative.

Posted by: Kelli at November 12, 2004 03:25 PM

Suddenly?

Posted by: k at November 12, 2004 03:59 PM

I'm conservative and I certainly don't agree with the politicians discussed above.

Why is "conservative" such a negative label? The root of the problem is the hostility and negativity. Yes, far-right isn't good, but neither is far-left.

Posted by: Abby at November 13, 2004 10:54 PM

"Conservative" is such a negative label because for years, they have been tarring opponents with the "liberal" label in a smug, supercilious fashion. For conservatives, the word "liberal" is some shorthand for everything they are against, nevermind that true 19th-century liberalism represents everything conservatives claim to hold dear. Happily for the rest of us, the term "conservative" is becoming as divorced of its true meaning as "liberal" has become, as evidenced by Shrub's Big Government behavior.

Posted by: Peter at November 15, 2004 09:24 AM

"Conservative" has become a negative label because the conservative leaders cling on to old, broken ways of thought - primarily from the days of the cold war. Unfortunately they do not look further into the past to realize that this country was founded by some very intelligent and liberal-minded people. Conservatives continually refuse to understand the rationale behind the seperation of church and state and the equality of all citizens. And now, after squandering our national wealth and pride, their great leader G.W. has stolen his 2nd election. It makes me sick.

Posted by: Luke at December 2, 2004 01:54 PM