Regrouping after the election.... - Page 3

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...

Jesus, you're as bad as jimmac. A deficit is undesirable, but that doesn't mean it hurts the economy.

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!

Anyone see this ? Ouch!

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.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


How ironic.

(SDW...whatever)


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

But a national debt the size of Jupiter hurts the fucking economy and we have to do something about it now.

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?

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.

It's no use tonton. He's in denial....still.

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 " ?

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.

This president was the first in 175 years that didn't veto one spending bill.

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?

What about this?

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.

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.

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:

Good one! I can't believe how many simpletons look at the original voting map and say : " Well look how much red there is ".

Now THIS IS THE PROPER ATTITUDE

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?

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?

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.

Uh, no. We're just trying to point out how wrong some of the fallacies you are trying to spread.

SDW... they just don't get it.

These guys aren't democrats, they are libertarians.

Democrats and libertarians are polar opposites on most issues.

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.

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:



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.

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?

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.

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------
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.