Voting Groups

[GWB]

I am interested in your analysis of this post from the Tradesports forum:

Our country is divided into 5 politicial groups and here is how they voted in 2000 and how they will vote in 2004:

1. The super liberals (AKA Howard Dean) 25% Nader 75% Gore
2. The traditional democrat (AKA John Kerry) 5% Nader 90% Gore 5% Bush
3. The swing voters (AKA middle class) 55% Bush 40% Gore 4% Nader 1% Buchanan
4. The traditional republican (AKA George Bush) 93% Bush 5% Gore 2% Buchanan
5. The ultra conservative republicans (AKA Liberterian Party) 10% Buchanan 90% Bush

I am not claiming these percentages to be totally accurate but I assume you get the point I am trying to make.

First off, Nader running can NOT help Kerry or the democrats as it gives the most liberal democrats another place to vote as Ross Perot did in 1992/1996. The reason why Nader consistently gets more votes than Buchanan is because a higher percentage of ultra liberal democrats vote for Nader compared to ultra conservative republicans voting for Buchanan.

To Group #1, Kerry is just as bad as Bush is and they WILL vote for Nader no matter what the liberal spin is.

You have a group of voters who will vote democratic in every election no matter who the candidates are. There is a 2nd group (smaller than the 1st) who will vote republican no matter who the candidates are.

Assuming those groups havent changed materially since the 2000 election their votes are IRRELEVANT as those that voted for Gore will vote for Kerry and those that voted for Bush will do so again. That takes care of groups 1,2,4 and 5.

Where are the extra Bush voters going to come from? IT WILL NOT BE FROM THE GORE/NADER CROWD but from group #3 the middle class.

The middle class is extremely resistant to change which makes it that much more amazing that Bush won in 2000.

Clinton was an EXTREMELY popular president who the public supported through all of his personal problems.

There were many middle class voters who voted for Gore because they were satisfied with the Clinton/Gore team and saw no reason to rock the boat so to speak.

Liberal democrats will NEVER praise any republican no matter what they do in office. However, there were many republicans who thought Clinton did a good job especially during the last 6 years of his 8 year term.

Kerry will not have the luxury that Gore had and that is being part of a winning, established team. If Clinton was not termed out, he would have beaten Bush in a landslide (not because he would make a better president but because of his immense popularity).

For these reasons, Bush will gain a huge percentage of these middle class voters who are also satisfied with the job Bush is doing which will turn this election into a landslide.

Over the last few months, all of the attention has been on the democrats and everything negative has been pointed at Bush and yet he is still an overwhelming 2-1 favorite to win re-election. The price will only go up from here as the democratic nominee has been established.

[ChristinaB]

Get over it already. Even I know Bush is more likely to win than not. That doesn't make him the better candidate. I certainly won't vote for him. There are plenty of unthinking morons who will. Read the threads here and learn why Bush deserves to lose.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of unthinking morons who will.

[/ QUOTE ]

In another thread I'm called a 'wackjob'.

In this one an innuendo that I am an …. 'unthinking moron'.


Although, I now wonder what a thinking moron is. Anyway, I hope to collect enough specimens that I can build a quality written list that I plan to eventually fame and hang on my living room wall. Please keep them coming.

[ QUOTE ]
Read the threads here and learn why Bush deserves to lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Non sequitur, us 'unthinking morons' can't read. Try another tack.

Le Misanthrope

[jdl22]

A few things:

Group 1 guys are much more likely to vote for Kerry. These people have now seen Bush's policies in action with respect to the environment and what he has done to help major corporations at the cost of everyone else. They now recognize that there is a difference between the candidates. Also Nader isn't going to run as big a campaign as he's no longer running as the Green party candidate. I think he is trying to run but have the least effect on the election.

2. Same reasoning as above with group 2. Nader will get approximately 0% of the vote. Traditional democrats have that hatred for the guy you're lamely impersonating that the guys on Fox news bitch about all the time.

3. Swing voters will be similar as last time. More Nader voters will vote democratic. It's also likely that some Gore voters will now vote for Bush.

4. Traditional republicans will go for Bush as they did last time. This election however, all those "traditional republican" jews that voted for Buchanan last time will actually vote their preference.

5. Bush will probably lose a few of these but not enough to have any effect. Many libertarians are angry that he constantly steps on peoples rights. For evidence of this see Patriot Act, The, the fight between Ashcroft (who claims to be a great supporter of states' rights) and the State of Oregon over medically assisted suicide, something the Oregon voters have voted in twice, and the fight between Ashcroft again and the states of California, Oregon and others over medicinal Marijuana. Many fiscally conservatives are angry over the ballooning deficit, much of it due to rising expenditures having nothing to do with national security.

Another point is that if the will of the voters had decided the outcome we would be talking about Gore running against (hopefully) John McCain. No, I'm not talking about popular vote, not even the Supreme Court stopping the recounts. It's as simple as the butterfly ballot. If you count even half of those people that either "voted" for Buchanan or for both Buchanan and Gore, Gore would take Florida by a couple thousand votes. The exit polls were wrong because they reflected the will of the voter and the punch cards did not.

I think this election will be close and will come down to an odd state. I personally think that Bush will lose in Ohio and maybe pick up one of the south west states he lost but not enough to overcome the number of electoral votes that he loses in Ohio. We shall see. There are really too many variables to accurately predict anything now so I'm really only making a guess.

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of unthinking morons who will.

[/ QUOTE ]

In another thread I'm called a 'wackjob'.

In this one an innuendo that I am an …. 'unthinking moron'.




[/ QUOTE ]

Saying "There are plenty of unthinking morons who will." is not the same as saying "All who do so are unthinking morons."

You might be a:
unthinking moron
thinking moron
unthinking non-moron
thinking non-moron

I do not know you well enough to say which. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Zeno]

Yes, I understand the 'all who do so...yadda yadda part but that would have detracted from the intent and humor of my post so I chose to ignore it. Then you have to dredge it up in a number of ghostly forms.

I guess time will tell as to which of the four categories I belong, if any.

I prefer:

Le Misanthrope