or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Regrouping after the election....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Regrouping after the election.... - Page 3

post #81 of 166
SDW2001.

1) The electorate grows with population.

2) Bush won Florida, and 29 other states. Nixon won 49 states. The democratic party didn't die when Nixon won...

But yes we have problems; they are organizational and message problems, not ideas...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #82 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You're as bad as trumptman. Do me a favor and adjust these for the record deficit levels Bush is creating. When you factor in the excess government subsidies into the growth, how negative of a situation are we really talking about?

Jesus, you're as bad as jimmac. A deficit is undesirable, but that doesn't mean it hurts the economy.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #83 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
SDW2001.

1) The electorate grows with population.

2) Bush won Florida, and 29 other states. Nixon won 49 states. The democratic party didn't die when Nixon won...

But yes we have problems; they are organizational and message problems, not ideas...

1) No shit

2) I didn't argue that. Jimmac was being his usual self and pointing out that I once inquired as to the possiblity of of Bush winning all 50. The thread was created in a much different political climate than we have now. Even so, bush won a clear majority of states, popular and electoral vote, coupled with gains in the House and Senate. the Republicans haven't been in this position since the 1800's.

3) Not a problem with ideas? LOL!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #84 of 166
Anyone see this ? Ouch!
post #85 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jesus, you're as bad as jimmac. A deficit is undesirable, but that doesn't mean it hurts the economy.

Some deficit is OK, but the levels we're reaching are not healthy. You can ignore it, and blame it on Clinton in 4 years though.

"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #86 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
First of all, I'd like to see the backing for the 90% of Democrats claim. I'm not sure that's true.

The country is 80% Christians with another 10% saying they don't have a preference. 1% state they are athiest, 1% agnostic, and small percentages for other religions. The statistics should split down the middle within a percentage or 2 between both parties. Republicans will comprise of 90% Christians as well. I bet even the Athiests split down the middle between Democrats and Republicans. I'm sure a majority percentage of evangelicals are are Republican, but Democrats obviously need to change it.

For some population statistics, you can look at this site: Largest Religious Groups in the United States of America. The only solace I have in those statistics is that there is a slight downward trend for those who call themselves Christian, but that appears to be in trade for other sorts of religions, if it wasn't a margin error shift in the first place.

Quote:
Even if it is, the point is that the leadership of the party is not representing the ideals of the mainstream Dems in the nation. That's the real reason they are losing everything they can lose. The party is now controlled by the extreme left wing, and the nation is simply not going to vote for that.

The Democratic party is controlled by conservative Democrats with no message and no strategy. They rejected the liberal Democratic presedential candidate they had. Not only that, many of the extreme left wing have left the party for the Greens.

On your point about the leadership of the party not representing the ideals of the mainstream Dems, your right. But it's because mainstream Dems want their candidates to fight and represent them, not to triangulate to the middle.

Quote:
But that's not what you're saying at all. You keep coming back to "gettin into the churches" to "educate" the masses about liberal beliefs. That's been your position.

Yes, that's my position. It's vital for Democrats to counterbalance the conservative machine in the area of Churches and evangelicals. They need to influence, to educate, to redefine, to participate, to get into their Churches again. How's that different from my comments that you quoted? Not only do they have to improve their message-making, educating, at the level of Churches, they also have to do it at all levels of politics and media.

Quote:
We're not "negotiating" at all. It's more like we threatended him, which is exactly what we should have done. The only thing we're negotiating with NK is the format of the talks. I doubt we'll be making anymore nukes for peace deasl with the. As far as Fidel goes, I disagree.

We're are negotiating with Gaddafi. We didn't even have to invade Libya, yet he opened up the table. And don't be surprised if NK comes out of the negotiations with the exact same deal they had with Clinton.

Quote:
I still don't think you hear what you are saying. You are saying that Christians should change. In other words, the people that are electing the government need to change. No matter how many ways you state it, it's just wrong.

Not wrong. It's the way things are done in life. The Republicans do it wonderfully. Democrats need to be just as good at it.

Christians will also change. They have been changing ever since the time Christians came to be known as Christians.

Quote:
Any statements you make on how churches should change are invalid, because your motivation is clearly to obtain that vote.

How ironic.
post #87 of 166
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #88 of 166
(SDW...whatever)

Quote:
More people voted for him than for any other President in history

You do understand that, there are MORE people in 2004 than there were people in 1904 don't you?

So, saying more people voted for him than for any other President in history, is like saying more people own computers in his time then they did when, say, Kennedy was President.

Hell of an argument
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #89 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jesus, you're as bad as jimmac. A deficit is undesirable, but that doesn't mean it hurts the economy.

But a national debt the size of Jupiter hurts the fucking economy and we have to do something about it now.
post #90 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
1) No shit

2) I didn't argue that. Jimmac was being his usual self and pointing out that I once inquired as to the possiblity of of Bush winning all 50. The thread was created in a much different political climate than we have now. Even so, bush won a clear majority of states, popular and electoral vote, coupled with gains in the House and Senate. the Republicans haven't been in this position since the 1800's.

3) Not a problem with ideas? LOL!

I'll ask again : Don't you stand behind what you've said? Or are you like Bush where the reasons are constantly changing to fit the situation?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #91 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I posed a question. A question! I said it was possible based on his approval ratings at the time and the fact that Nixon had once won 49 states. I also listed some other reasons it could happen. I never claimed it "would" happen. Never. In fact, once things became more divided again, I quickly stated that it most certainly wouldn't happen. You only bring it up to try and discredit me as some kind of loon, when in reality it is you who saw your predictions of Bush and the Republicans losing go up in a puff of smoke. Moveon.org, ACT, Sorros, Hollywood, vitrolic Democratic leaders screaming that Bush betrayed the country...none of it mattered. Bush won just as I said he would. Stop trying to change the subject. You were wrong.

And now, I can see that even though Bush won, you're STILL claiming that the economy is not good. It is good, and it doesn't matter how mnay CNN money links you post to the contrary. You've been doing this for years. You present one statisitic or interpretation of a statistic, and then claim that it represents the state of entire US economy. You follow it up with a snide comment liek "uh-oh", like you hope that the economy actually does go downhill for your own personal ego and political gain.

GDP=Good Growth
Unemployment=Low
2,000,000 jobs created in just over a year
Markets=stable and on the rise
Homeownership=record levels

Tell me how that's bad. We ARE in recovery. Recovery DOES take years. If you had any understanding of economic policy you would know that. BTW, CNN is not exactly a non-partisan media source.

Oh, and as far as Iraq goes: I didn't see ANYONE bill it as a quick operation, except for the anti-war left who used it as a strawman.

The title was a statement! " Bush wins all 50 states "! There was no question mark even in your delivery.

As to the economy you only look at what statistics support you idea. Sure there's good reports. The economy's improved. But if we had really recovered all states would have reasonable unemployment and we wouldn't be getting these reports of stumbling. We should have recovered by now. That's it quite simply. It's been more than 4 years since your idea of when the recession started and 2 since you said we started to recover. Also you have stated that this was a mild recession in the past so what gives?

Yes many were under the impression that this would be a quick operation in Iraq. Even groverat when we talked about it. Only the left knew it wouldn't be.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #92 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
But a national debt the size of Jupiter hurts the fucking economy and we have to do something about it now.

It's no use tonton. He's in denial....still.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #93 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
I'll ask again : Don't you stand behind what you've said? Or are you like Bush where the reasons are constantly changing to fit the situation?

Do I stand behind the fact that him winning all 50 was a possiblity, especially given the political climate at the time? Yes I do.

THT: I'm not ignoring you...I'll be back to post a response but things are crazy right now.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #94 of 166
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #95 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Do I stand behind the fact that him winning all 50 was a possiblity, especially given the political climate at the time? Yes I do.

THT: I'm not ignoring you...I'll be back to post a response but things are crazy right now.


As to your idea : NO!

The idea was totally unreasonable. Also quit trying to alter the past ( another Bush tactic ) it was a statement not a question that you made. You were listing it as if was going to happen even after many here told you it wouldn't.


" things are crazy " ?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #96 of 166

And the Democrats are tax and spend.

This really pisses me off. The Hong Kong dollar is pegged to the US dollar, so I'm paying 36% more for European goods than I did 4 years ago. Thanks, George.
post #97 of 166
This president was the first in 175 years that didn't veto one spending bill.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #98 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Even so, bush won a clear majority of states, popular and electoral vote, coupled with gains in the House and Senate. the Republicans haven't been in this position since the 1800's.

He also got the largest number of people who have ever voted AGAINST a president.

He also got the lowest percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Wilson.

He also won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (who ran in a 4-way race that included Strom Thurmond).

He also won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any _incumbent running for reelection since Truman (2.1M, and back then only 50M voted).

He also won the three states that put him over 270 (OH, NM and IA) by only around 160,000 (not counting the provisional ballots, absentee, etc.).

For a "war President", and after 9/11....it's absolutely nothing to brag about.
post #99 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
He also got the largest number of people who have ever voted AGAINST a president.

He also got the lowest percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Wilson.

He also won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (who ran in a 4-way race that included Strom Thurmond).

He also won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any _incumbent running for reelection since Truman (2.1M, and back then only 50M voted).

He also won the three states that put him over 270 (OH, NM and IA) by only around 160,000 (not counting the provisional ballots, absentee, etc.).

For a "war President", and after 9/11....it's absolutely nothing to brag about.

NOOO!!! It can't be. What about this?



post #100 of 166
What about this?


post #101 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
He also got the largest number of people who have ever voted AGAINST a president.

He also got the lowest percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Wilson.

He also won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (who ran in a 4-way race that included Strom Thurmond).

He also won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any _incumbent running for reelection since Truman (2.1M, and back then only 50M voted).

He also won the three states that put him over 270 (OH, NM and IA) by only around 160,000 (not counting the provisional ballots, absentee, etc.).

For a "war President", and after 9/11....it's absolutely nothing to brag about.

oh no, you see, sdw and the republicans are plugging their ears and going "nah, nah, nah" to anyone who even implies that, you know, 48% of americans wanted him out. immaterial. they may as well not even have existed. just a figment of the liberal media, really.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #102 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
NOOO!!! It can't be. What about this?




Here's a map that distorts the image based on population:



as in: " states are drawn with a size proportional not to their sheer topographic acreage -- which has little to do with politics -- but to the number of their inhabitants, states with more people appearing larger than states with fewer, regardless of their actual area on the ground. Thus, on such a map, the state of Rhode Island, with its 1.1 million inhabitants, would appear about twice the size of Wyoming, which has half a million, even though Wyoming has 60 times the acreage of Rhode Island."

And here is one with counties:



All I can assume is that living in higher density and with generally better education levels tends to make you realize what makes civilization 'civilized' and run smoothly, and, just generally smarter.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #103 of 166
oops, forgot the dbest of the buch:

distorted to take into consideration populatin and turned purple to take into consideration the blend of BLUE in the red areas:


"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #104 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Here's a map that distorts the image based on population:



as in: " states are drawn with a size proportional not to their sheer topographic acreage -- which has little to do with politics -- but to the number of their inhabitants, states with more people appearing larger than states with fewer, regardless of their actual area on the ground. Thus, on such a map, the state of Rhode Island, with its 1.1 million inhabitants, would appear about twice the size of Wyoming, which has half a million, even though Wyoming has 60 times the acreage of Rhode Island."

And here is one with counties:



All I can assume is that living in higher density and with generally better education levels tends to make you realize what makes civilization 'civilized' and run smoothly, and, just generally smarter.


Good one! I can't believe how many simpletons look at the original voting map and say : " Well look how much red there is ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #105 of 166
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #106 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
As to your idea : NO!

The idea was totally unreasonable. Also quit trying to alter the past ( another Bush tactic ) it was a statement not a question that you made. You were listing it as if was going to happen even after many here told you it wouldn't.


" things are crazy " ?

The topic was called "Discuss: Bush Wins all 50 States in 2004"

It was not unreasonable. If it was so unreasonable, explain how Nixon won 49 states. Gee...what a leap, especially since Bush had sky high polling when I posted the thread.

Thingsa re crazy means that I am busy. Shit, you don't stop, do you?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #107 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
He also got the largest number of people who have ever voted AGAINST a president.

He also got the lowest percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Wilson.

He also won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (who ran in a 4-way race that included Strom Thurmond).

He also won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any _incumbent running for reelection since Truman (2.1M, and back then only 50M voted).

He also won the three states that put him over 270 (OH, NM and IA) by only around 160,000 (not counting the provisional ballots, absentee, etc.).

For a "war President", and after 9/11....it's absolutely nothing to brag about.

Perhaps Democrats screaming that he betrayed the country, went to war for personal financial and political gain, was stupid, a new Hitler, would reinstate the draft and end social security...oh and, that he knew about 9/11 in advance but did nothing to stop it? Hmmm..perhaps that would explain it?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #108 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Good one! I can't believe how many simpletons look at the original voting map and say : " Well look how much red there is ".

And I can't believe how you guys are still looking for an excuse for your loss.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #109 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
And I can't believe how you guys are still looking for an excuse for your loss.

Bush's reelection is all of our loss.
post #110 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
And I can't believe how you guys are still looking for an excuse for your loss.


Uh, no. We're just trying to point out how wrong some of the fallacies you are trying to spread.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #111 of 166
SDW... they just don't get it.

These guys aren't democrats, they are libertarians.
_ _____________________ _
1ghz Powerbook SuperDrive yippeeee!!!!
Reply
_ _____________________ _
1ghz Powerbook SuperDrive yippeeee!!!!
Reply
post #112 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by kraig911
SDW... they just don't get it.

These guys aren't democrats, they are libertarians.

Democrats and libertarians are polar opposites on most issues.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #113 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam

I have a friend who's a big fan of anime. He was showing my some anime movie I can't remember very well, but I think I remember seeing the above thing burst out of the ground or shoot out of a forty-meter long demon penis, after which the above-depicted pulsating blob proceded to digest half of Tokyo and produce and army of screaming zombies.

I never would have realized until now that this had been a sly commentary on the American political system.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #114 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
The topic was called "Discuss: Bush Wins all 50 States in 2004"

It was not unreasonable. If it was so unreasonable, explain how Nixon won 49 states. Gee...what a leap, especially since Bush had sky high polling when I posted the thread.

Thingsa re crazy means that I am busy. Shit, you don't stop, do you?

Even when you put it that way it sounds like a prediction. Also I remember in the discussions you sounded so sure.


No I don't stop. There was no way even back then it was even remotely possible. Has any president ever won all 50 states? If you were so confident may be you should have waited until we were closer to the election before leting yourself get carryed a way by your favorite pres.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #115 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Even when you put it that way it sounds like a prediction. Also I remember in the discussions you sounded so sure.


No I don't stop. There was no way even back then it was even remotely possible. Has any president ever won all 50 states? If you were so confident may be you should have waited until we were closer to the election before leting yourself get carryed a way by your favorite pres.

A typical post of yours. 'It sounds like"? Well then! The topic was called that because at the time I thought there was at least a....wait for it...."possibility" it could happen based on the Presidents popularity.

Here is the first post of that thread:


Quote:
As insane I am about to be called, I still think this could happen. No, it's not just wishful thinking. With the electoral college and it's winner-take-all system, it could happen. Reagan won 49 in 1984. It's not impossible.

Here is the question: IF the economy is strong by election day, could Bush win all 50 states (but lose the District of Columbia)?

Tell me how that's a solid prediction.

Here's the thread link so you can go back and get a grip.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...h&pagenumber=1
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #116 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
A typical post of yours. 'It sounds like"? Well then! The topic was called that because at the time I thought there was at least a....wait for it...."possibility" it could happen based on the Presidents popularity.

Here is the first post of that thread:




Tell me how that's a solid prediction.

Here's the thread link so you can go back and get a grip.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...h&pagenumber=1


Sorry but your quote sounds like you believe it. That makes it a prediction. Further more you're trying to get us to believe it as well. No back peddling here.


As a matter of fact going over the thread it's just like I remember : People telling you it was nuts and you trying to convince them so much you were calling it " absurdity ".


Don't blame me if you don't like what you've already said.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #117 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Sorry but your quote sounds like you believe it. That makes it a prediction. Further more you're trying to get us to believe it as well. No back peddling here.


As a matter of fact going over the thread it's just like I remember : People telling you it was nuts and you trying to convince them so much you were calling it " absurdity ".


Don't blame me if you don't like what you've already said.

Well, fortuantely the world does not turn on what you think something sounds like. I clearly asked a question. Yes, I thought it was possible. I certainly did not come out and say it would definitely happen.

But there is a larger issue here: Even if it WAS a prediction, your bringing it up is nothing other than gratuitous. It is an effort on your part to dodge any real discussion of the issues, one of which is that nightmare that is the current Democratic Party. You know, I posted another thread awhile back as well. The thread was called "The Democratic Leadership is Still in denial". Here is part of the first post:

SDW2001....

Quote:
Here's the point: So they lost two major elections.... It's time for the party to come out with a real agenda. The personal attacks on the President and pathetic reponses to Republican initiatives are simply not working. The Republican party came back after a devastating loss of the Presidency in 1992 to take Congress in 1994. This has not happened for the Dems. Shockingly, there is still no real agenda and total lack of coherency on national security. Yet, the infighting and devisive rhetoric continue, and people like Daschle and McCauliffe keep their jobs? If I was a rank and file Democrat, I'd be asking: Why? What amazes me is that just haven't learned: The venom doesn't work. It failed last time and it will fail again. They can blame their current situation (and some won't even admit that they are in a fix) on 9/11 and Iraq and just about anything else, but the fact is it EXISTS and they have no plan to fix it.

Now, even you must realize that I was correct after the results of the 2004 election. Oh, and here was part of your first response in the thread in regards to Bush:

jimmac:


Quote:
Make no mistake he'll lose the next time around. I'm as sure of this as I was when Clinton was apologizing on TV and I turned to my friend and said " We're going to have a republican president next time. ". And no I'm not psychic it's just common sense.

Hmmm. WHO was laughably wrong?

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #118 of 166
THT:

Quote:
The country is 80% Christians with another 10% saying they don't have a preference. 1% state they are athiest, 1% agnostic, and small percentages for other religions. The statistics should split down the middle within a percentage or 2 between both parties. Republicans will comprise of 90% Christians as well. I bet even the Athiests split down the middle between Democrats and Republicans. I'm sure a majority percentage of evangelicals are are Republican, but Democrats obviously need to change it.

For some population statistics, you can look at this site: Largest Religious Groups in the United States of America. The only solace I have in those statistics is that there is a slight downward trend for those who call themselves Christian, but that appears to be in trade for other sorts of religions, if it wasn't a margin error shift in the first place.

There are some problems with your analysis. First, we're talking about a specific group of people: Practicing Christians who are also active voters, or at least voted in this election. They supported Bush, and it's important to look at why. It's not that they and their churches need to change. That seems to be your position and it's one I find to literally be laughable. I'm not sure if you are advocating some sort of campaign of gettting Dems to influenetial positions within the churches, but it sounds like it. It would seem to me that this plan is pretty result-oriented. Democrats have every right to get invloved in their churches, but to advocate change for the sake of election demographics seems a bit disingenuous to say the least. It would be much easier and more productive to simply adopt a representative and winning agenda, would it not?


Quote:
The Democratic party is controlled by conservative Democrats with no message and no strategy. They rejected the liberal Democratic presedential candidate they had. Not only that, many of the extreme left wing have left the party for the Greens.

On your point about the leadership of the party not representing the ideals of the mainstream Dems, your right. But it's because mainstream Dems want their candidates to fight and represent them, not to triangulate to the middle.

I don't agree. Leaders like Pelosi and Daschle are not conservative Democrats. Joe Lieberman is a conservative Democrat. Zell Miller is a conservative Democrat. I also think that this time, unlike in 2002, there WAS a message (though there was not with regards to Iraq). The message was that we needed to raise taxes to pay off the debt and deficit, invest more in education and healthcare, allow gay marrriages in contradiction to state law, pull out of Iraq in fairly short order, raise small business taxes, reregulate, and that Bush was a lying sack of shit. Don't forget that last one. People just rejected that message, and that's really all there is to say about it. Perhaps leftist Dems wanted a Dean, but Dean was not electable. The leadership knew enough to sink him, but not enough to find someone better than Kerry.



Quote:
Yes, that's my position. It's vital for Democrats to counterbalance the conservative machine in the area of Churches and evangelicals. They need to influence, to educate, to redefine, to participate, to get into their Churches again. How's that different from my comments that you quoted? Not only do they have to improve their message-making, educating, at the level of Churches, they also have to do it at all levels of politics and media.

The "conservative machine" in churches was not created by Republicans. The Democratic party has strayed from the values of its constituients. The reason, again, that church goers went for Bush is that they believe Bush represents their values better. Getting into the churches to change people's core beliefs is not the answer. Now, if you mean that church goers should be educated about Democrats, that might be different. However, the people choose the leaders with the message they identify with. The leaders don't change the will of the electorate so it suits their agenda that has been previously rejected.


Quote:
We're are negotiating with Gaddafi. We didn't even have to invade Libya, yet he opened up the table. And don't be surprised if NK comes out of the negotiations with the exact same deal they had with Clinton.

We didn't invade Libya because we had attacked him, then cut him off from the world, then showed him the video of American cruise missles reigning down on Bagdhad. Oh, and then he saw Saddam crawl out of a spider hole. Gaddafi said in a public statement that this weighed on his mind. Negotiating is not the same as accepting a non-military settlement. As for Nort Korea, I would highly doubt that you'll see a similar and disastrous deal.



Quote:
Not wrong. It's the way things are done in life. The Republicans do it wonderfully. Democrats need to be just as good at it.

Christians will also change. They have been changing ever since the time Christians came to be known as Christians.

That doesn't even make sense. Republicans did not form some sort of "infliltration team" over the last 40 years to instruct Christians what to believe. They did a good job of getting out their message as to why they represented the group well. They crafted their agenda so it fit the beleifs OF the religous right. Sure, they have used it to their political advantage. No argument there...but if Democrats want to claim that voting block, the PARTY must change.

I keep coming back to the central point you are making. I hope that others here see this debate and enter it because I think it is very important. A political party has lost an election pretty soundly. They have been on a downard path for about 10 years. Yet, your argument is that this party must convince people they are right, instead of changing to fit the will of the electorate. This is not only fundamentally wrong, it is also a recipe for continued Republican control for quite some time.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #119 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, fortuantely the world does not turn on what you think something sounds like. I clearly asked a question. Yes, I thought it was possible. I certainly did not come out and say it would definitely happen.

But there is a larger issue here: Even if it WAS a prediction, your bringing it up is nothing other than gratuitous. It is an effort on your part to dodge any real discussion of the issues, one of which is that nightmare that is the current Democratic Party. You know, I posted another thread awhile back as well. The thread was called "The Democratic Leadership is Still in denial". Here is part of the first post:

SDW2001....



Now, even you must realize that I was correct after the results of the 2004 election. Oh, and here was part of your first response in the thread in regards to Bush:

jimmac:




Hmmm. WHO was laughably wrong?



SDW,

Do you even read anyone elses' posts? Come on use that dim light bulb you pretend to think with and look back the first posts. I've already stated that I own up to being wrong about the election. Or has your reading comprehension just dropped through the floor along with you're notions of reality?

Also it wasn't the only prediction I brought up. Probably the most embarsassing for you personally but not the only one. Which is why you choose to focus on it.


If you didn't believe it would happen why were you trying so hard to convince others it would?

This is just a dodge like all the others.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #120 of 166
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
THT:



There are some problems with your analysis. First, we're talking about a specific group of people: Practicing Christians who are also active voters, or at least voted in this election. They supported Bush, and it's important to look at why. It's not that they and their churches need to change. That seems to be your position and it's one I find to literally be laughable. I'm not sure if you are advocating some sort of campaign of gettting Dems to influenetial positions within the churches, but it sounds like it. It would seem to me that this plan is pretty result-oriented. Democrats have every right to get invloved in their churches, but to advocate change for the sake of election demographics seems a bit disingenuous to say the least. It would be much easier and more productive to simply adopt a representative and winning agenda, would it not?




I don't agree. Leaders like Pelosi and Daschle are not conservative Democrats. Joe Lieberman is a conservative Democrat. Zell Miller is a conservative Democrat. I also think that this time, unlike in 2002, there WAS a message (though there was not with regards to Iraq). The message was that we needed to raise taxes to pay off the debt and deficit, invest more in education and healthcare, allow gay marrriages in contradiction to state law, pull out of Iraq in fairly short order, raise small business taxes, reregulate, and that Bush was a lying sack of shit. Don't forget that last one. People just rejected that message, and that's really all there is to say about it. Perhaps leftist Dems wanted a Dean, but Dean was not electable. The leadership knew enough to sink him, but not enough to find someone better than Kerry.





The "conservative machine" in churches was not created by Republicans. The Democratic party has strayed from the values of its constituients. The reason, again, that church goers went for Bush is that they believe Bush represents their values better. Getting into the churches to change people's core beliefs is not the answer. Now, if you mean that church goers should be educated about Democrats, that might be different. However, the people choose the leaders with the message they identify with. The leaders don't change the will of the electorate so it suits their agenda that has been previously rejected.




We didn't invade Libya because we had attacked him, then cut him off from the world, then showed him the video of American cruise missles reigning down on Bagdhad. Oh, and then he saw Saddam crawl out of a spider hole. Gaddafi said in a public statement that this weighed on his mind. Negotiating is not the same as accepting a non-military settlement. As for Nort Korea, I would highly doubt that you'll see a similar and disastrous deal.





That doesn't even make sense. Republicans did not form some sort of "infliltration team" over the last 40 years to instruct Christians what to believe. They did a good job of getting out their message as to why they represented the group well. They crafted their agenda so it fit the beleifs OF the religous right. Sure, they have used it to their political advantage. No argument there...but if Democrats want to claim that voting block, the PARTY must change.

I keep coming back to the central point you are making. I hope that others here see this debate and enter it because I think it is very important. A political party has lost an election pretty soundly. They have been on a downard path for about 10 years. Yet, your argument is that this party must convince people they are right, instead of changing to fit the will of the electorate. This is not only fundamentally wrong, it is also a recipe for continued Republican control for quite some time.

-----------------------------------------------------------
A political party has lost an election pretty soundly. They have been on a downard path for about 10 years.

-----------------------------------------------------------


51% to 48% uh, huh.

Also they held the Whitehouse for 8 years previous. If it hadn't been for Clinton's questional judgement they might still be there. This is all just sophistry and your wishful thinking SDW.

I do think the democrats need to find some stronger leadership early on this time and work harder to get their message out.

However quit trying to paint this as a landslide win SDW it's stupid. Almost half the country doesn't like Bush and we are more divided than we have been in years.

Also I'm willing to bet Bush makes some real mistakes in the next 4 years and the left will be watching closer than ever.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Regrouping after the election....