Report to Dems: Don't Tilt Too Far Left - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-08-2005, 12:01 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:44 PM
I think the Democratic Party should stop seeking a platform through focus groups and telephone surveys and start standing up for what they believe to be right. I think that's their biggest problem.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-08-2005, 03:25 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
blah fucking blah.

who here was in a coma the last two Presidential elections?

One was an absolute majority Democractic victory (popular vote) and another the most ballots ever cast for a losing candidate, Kerry was thousands, not millions of votes from victory. The boneheads might have you think this was a 77-0 victory ala the New England Patriots playign Temple University in football. Give us all a fucking break.

You'd think this was fucking MOndale and Dukakis.

84, Mondale and 88 Dukakis asskickings were followed by two consecutive Democrat wins in the Pres. elections.

Doesn't mean anything. Teh voice against the right wing is loud, it's just not united and may not ever be, as narrow minded to be so united to be against the "fags", or some other bullshit issue.

Maybe they should take up an issue against those who eat the carcasses of hooved footed animals. The honor of Leviticus should be upheld!!!!!

Fuck all the noise.
The Democrats have not had a President receive the majority of the popular vote since 1976.

In the 2004 election, Bush won by 3,012,171 votes in the popular vote.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-08-2005, 04:28 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The Democrats have not had a President receive the majority of the popular vote since 1976.

In the 2004 election, Bush won by 3,012,171 votes in the popular vote.
I think he was referring to Gore winning the popular vote over Bush and worded it wrong.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 10-09-2005, 07:31 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The Democrats have not had a President receive the majority of the popular vote since 1976.

In the 2004 election, Bush won by 3,012,171 votes in the popular vote.

all the latter is, is a talking point for those who love to recite talking points. Never mind for 3 consecutive elections the Dems had the most votes, period. That's what it takes to win most state elections, a simple majority.

In the United States we use the Electoral College.
The difference between that election was any one state with the adequate number of electoral votes that made the difference. Ohio, Forida, Missouri, whichever one, choose one.

So look at the margin of victory in any one of those states, and it is thousands, not millions.

So as I said, thousands, not millions from victory.

The whole point was, you'd think the Dems were getting flogged liek never before, the truth is they are two narrow state elections from 4 consecutive Presidentail wins. That is the truth. That the country is fairly evenly divided overall. And the Dems have every bit as much of a chance in 2008 as the Reps if not better.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 10-09-2005, 07:57 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:44 AM
The problem is that Democrats try to sell Clinton's political ideas but don't have his political skills. Kerry and Gore certainly didn't. Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000 but he lost the electoral vote.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-09-2005, 10:00 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan



all the latter is, is a talking point for those who love to recite talking points. Never mind for 3 consecutive elections the Dems had the most votes, period. That's what it takes to win most state elections, a simple majority.

In the United States we use the Electoral College.
The difference between that election was any one state with the adequate number of electoral votes that made the difference. Ohio, Forida, Missouri, whichever one, choose one.

So look at the margin of victory in any one of those states, and it is thousands, not millions.

So as I said, thousands, not millions from victory.

The whole point was, you'd think the Dems were getting flogged liek never before, the truth is they are two narrow state elections from 4 consecutive Presidentail wins. That is the truth. That the country is fairly evenly divided overall. And the Dems have every bit as much of a chance in 2008 as the Reps if not better.
The margin of victory in any state in any election is rarely in the millions. Bush won Florida by half a million votes. Bush won Ohio by 118,000 votes. Bush won Missouri by 200,000 votes. These states were not close. States like Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Iowa, and New Mexico were close states where victory was decided by less than 10,000 votes.

The "Red States" are gaining in Electoral Votes and will continue to in the coming in elections which makes Republican victory more likely. The Blue States are losing people and electoral votes. The Republicans have gained considerable ground in "Blue States" like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania.

The 2004 election was the clearest and strongest victory for any candidate since 1988. It is the first time a president received more than 50% of the popular vote since 1988. Since World War II, the Democrats have only received 50% or more of the popular vote in just two elections, 1964 and 1976.

In addition, the Republicans gained seats in the house in Senate in the 2004 election, something neither party has been able to do in an incumbent presidential election for decades.

If John McCain is the Republican candidate in 2008, the democrats might as well concede the election.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 12:42 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
For Honor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 5,278
Local Time: 11:44 PM
I'd like to see the democratic party open up a can of whoopass....

but it doesn't seem to be happening, I agree.......
__________________
For Honor is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 05:41 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 02:44 PM
Anyway fuck Clinton's ideas, he wasn't much of a Democrat in my view. He had the gift of the gab but there's no future in trying to copy his agenda.

(all of this quite independent of the lewinsky thing, which I truly could care less about).
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 12:36 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2



The 2004 election was the clearest and strongest victory for any candidate since 1988.
Just because a candidate does not receive more than 50% of the popular vote does not mean he didn't have a clear and strong victory. Clinton's re-election in 1996 was certainly a clear and strong victory, with a landslide win in the Electoral College and a far greater margin of victory over his closest opponent (Dole) than Bush had over Kerry in 2004.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 01:08 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


Just because a candidate does not receive more than 50% of the popular vote does not mean he didn't have a clear and strong victory. Clinton's re-election in 1996 was certainly a clear and strong victory, with a landslide win in the Electoral College and a far greater margin of victory over his closest opponent (Dole) than Bush had over Kerry in 2004.
Take out Perot and you have a different picture. There was no strong third party candidate the last two elections.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 01:10 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Anyone think Clinton wants Dean out, so his wife has a chance?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 01:19 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Anyone think Clinton wants Dean out, so his wife has a chance?
Perhaps. But others must want Dean in there or he wouldn't have gotten the top spot in the first place.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 01:22 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76


Perhaps. But others must want Dean in there or he wouldn't have gotten the top spot in the first place.
Me thinks you are forgetting the fact that the part was trying to get Dean to support Kerry. A deal was cut, I am sure.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 01:29 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 11:44 PM
I'm not sure that Hillary ever really stood a reasonable chance anyway.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 10-10-2005, 01:36 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:44 AM
As far as I'm concerned the Democratic Party has never been particularly leftist. The most left-wing they've ever been was probably the New Deal era. Much of the New Deal was a total rip-off of the philosophy of Socialist leader Eugene Debs.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com