My God, I just got a chill. And Bush won by 100,000 or better, I thought..
He did. But if you take one-half-plus-one of that margin and give it to sKerry, sKerry would have won by one vote (120,000 / 2 = 50,000; 50,000 + 1 vote = 50,001). A 60,000-vote switch would have given sKerry a 10,000-vote margin of victory.
That 60,000 number is bogus. Bush, of course, won Ohio by about 120,000 votes. What the reality-challenged Dems are saying is that if 60,000 of that 120,000 had voted for Kerry instead of Bush, Kerry would have won Ohio. Of course, if far fewer numbers in Minnesota or New Hampshire or Oregon or many other states had switched from Kerry to Bush, the race would have been a runaway.
Oh, he meant 60,000 live Democrats would have had to have voted. They would have needed either 60,000 more dead Democrats to vote - or perhaps he meant the initial extra 60,000 would have had to have voted TWICE.
"If just 60,000 more people in Ohio had voted Democratic, McAuliffe ruefully notes, he'd be picking up orders from President Kerry and heading for a new job as ambassador to Great Britain. A tweak here, a TV ad there, and the Democrats are back in business."
Gee Terri. When the fraud in Wisconsin is uncovered and when those 105% voting records in Dem districts are corrected, we have a, a, oh my, we have a LANDSLIDE!!!
"If just 60,000 more people in Ohio had voted Democratic, McAuliffe ruefully notes, he'd be picking up orders from President Kerry and heading for a new job as ambassador to Great Britain. A tweak here, a TV ad there, and the Democrats are back in business."
this is great spin. How many people do you know who voted for Bush who just as easily could have voted for Kerry. Anywhere close to 60,000? In Ohio?
Didn't think so. This is such a pipe dream.