From the “I just couldn’t pass this up” file comes this little gem via the Huffington Post and Tom Tomorrow:
Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.
Read the whole original article, entitled Bush Nuts 
So, he’s trying to get mentally ill people to vote, and he calls Republicans crazy?
Posted by Jack | Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 4:19 pmROFL….It takes a person who is out of touch with the real world to follow someone like Bush….who lives in his own bushworld….
reality is only for mature grown ups it seems.
I would bet money that this study could be duplicated over and over again with the same results….
buzz…buzz…
Posted by mosquito | Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 5:56 pmC’mon Vivian….
You’re better than this…..
Just look at the choices you guys put up…..
Posted by republitarian | Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 6:02 pmAs flawed as Gore or Kerry might have been, they were leagues ahead of Bush, in every way. That said, I do understand how someone could have voted for Bush in 2000. A bad choice, in my judgment, but one I can understand.
In 2004? A vote for Bush was a sign of a fundamental character flaw.
Posted by MB | Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 6:07 pmThat is absolutely halarious. When you stop and think about it, there are scholars who say that a good way for those with psychiatric problems to function is by having a routine that stays relatively the same everyday. I guess that means that in the case of those suffering from a mental illness, Bush’s “stay the course” policy would actually save lives.
Posted by Bryan J. Scrafford | Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 6:08 pmJack – the guy is a “Reagan revolution fanatic” himself. Doesn’t that make him a Republican?
Mosquito & Republitarian – I just thought it was funny
Posted by vjp | Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 6:11 pmHe’s majoring in Social Work — I think that makes him a Democrat.
Posted by Jack | Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 7:01 pmNope. Not too many self-described “Reagan revoluntion” fanatics in the Democratic party.
Posted by vjp | Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 7:06 pmHAHAHA, I saw this tonight. Reminded me of the study done that shows FNC viewers are not as intelligent as viewers of other networks.
Posted by Terry | Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 7:15 pmAlrighty Viv,
I’ll give you a pass on that one….
Posted by republitarian | Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 7:29 pmNow, how’s this for psychotic:
We have a crime problem, so we try to solve it via Gun Control. But where Gun Control is applied, the crime problem gets worse. Where Concealed Carry is implemented, the problem gets better. So the answer is… More Gun Control! THAT’S insanity, folks.
Posted by Jack | Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 7:45 pmSo, Jack, how do you explain the 75% drop in violent crime in gun-controlled New York City over the last 12 years?
Posted by Randy Klear | Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 11:33 pmYour math doesn’t help. It’s gone down 58% (1073/100,000 in 1993 to 445/100,000 in 2005), not 75%. The credit goes to the Republican Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, and his crackdown on crime.
One data point does not have statistical significance.
Posted by Jack | Thursday, November 30, 2006, 8:14 amWow Vivian… When did you start letting Eileen writing here under your name? That is about the level this post is.
I get the humor of it (I have always said that Liberals should get special parking since it is a disability) but this I agree with others… Not your usual class style.
Maybe I am rubbing off on you! Are you coming down rto my childish level? There is room for everyone!
Posted by thesqueakywheel | Thursday, November 30, 2006, 8:59 amThere you have it, ladies and gentlemen – a 58% drop in violent crime in New York City is statistically insignificant. I’d actually expected Jack to cite Bernie Goetz as the reason . . .
Posted by MB | Thursday, November 30, 2006, 9:46 am