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 10-09-2005, 09:00 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:49 PM
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 10-09-2005, 11:42 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
For Honor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 5,278
Local Time: 09:49 AM
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, 04:41 AM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kony Island Baby
Posts: 10,244
Local Time: 12:49 AM
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, 11:36 AM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,836
Local Time: 10:49 AM
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, 12:08 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:49 AM
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, 12:10 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:49 AM
Anyone think Clinton wants Dean out, so his wife has a chance?
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 12:19 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:49 PM
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, 12:22 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:49 AM
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, 12:29 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:49 AM
I'm not sure that Hillary ever really stood a reasonable chance anyway.
anitram is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 12:36 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:49 PM
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  
Old 10-10-2005, 12:41 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,836
Local Time: 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Take out Perot and you have a different picture. There was no strong third party candidate the last two elections.
Are you saying that the election wouldn't have been a clear victory for Clinton if Perot hadn't run, or that it would have been a more decisive one?
phanan is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 01:10 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


Are you saying that the election wouldn't have been a clear victory for Clinton if Perot hadn't run, or that it would have been a more decisive one?
Perot took more Republicans with him than Democrats....Bush and Dole would have been closer....

Personally....Bush may have won had Perot not run against him.

Dole, I am not sure...but it would have been closer.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 01:10 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I'm not sure that Hillary ever really stood a reasonable chance anyway.
Your new avatar makes me feel funny....
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 01:30 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I'm not sure that Hillary ever really stood a reasonable chance anyway.
Me either. She's too divisive. She still has to win enough primaries to get the nomination no matter who's head of the DNC. There are *plenty* of people out there who'd take a ride on a UFO before they'd vote for Hillary. I cannot imagine her winning a single primary in the South. Hell, even Kerry won primaries in the South.
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 01:34 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,836
Local Time: 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Perot took more Republicans with him than Democrats....Bush and Dole would have been closer....

Personally....Bush may have won had Perot not run against him.

Dole, I am not sure...but it would have been closer.
It would have been closer without Perot in 1996, but the margin of victory in the popular vote most likely would have been about the same as Bush over Kerry in 2004, and the electoral vote still would have been a landslide.

However, in 1992, Bush the Elder would have certainly won without Perot, as there was only a little under 6 million votes separating Clinton from Bush and Perot received almost 20 million.
phanan is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 01:41 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Your new avatar makes me feel funny....
Ah, so it's working.
anitram is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 02:23 PM   #37
The Fly
 
japes4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Big Lemon (New York)
Posts: 78
Local Time: 02:49 PM
I see the Democrats as being in a no-win situation. The DNC says that the party needs to stand up for what it really believes to energize the liberal base. The problem is that the liberal base is not that big.

Outside of New York, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco, no Democrat can win with a liberal agenda. They have to pretend to be moderates, and in places like Virginia, even lean to the right.

This is not to say that the United States is overwhelmingly right-wing. But I think Americans generally lean to the right as evidenced by the Democratic victories of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Neither president came out as left-wing ideologues. They presented themselves as moderate alternatives to failed Republican administrations (i.e. Ford and Bush), whether they actually believed in what they stood for or not. Dukakis and Mondale are examples of Democrats who stood for what they really believed in and made no pretenses otherwise.

As far as Gore and Kerry are concerned, I think their defeat demonstrates the weakness of the Democratic agenda rather than any strong popular support for Bush. With everything that these two had going for them ( i.e. a robust economy for Gore, and an unpopular war in Iraq and economic recession for Kerry) they should have mopped the floor with Bush. It shouldn't of even been close.

This goes to show how the Democratic Party is simply out of touch with mainstream America.
__________________

japes4 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 09:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×