Libs, Dems: What should we do about Miers?

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Polls have shown the majority of the country doesn't support gay marriage. I'm not saying I think that makes being anti gay marriage right but the more Democrats seem to support Gay Marriage than do Republicans is my take. Thus IMO this issue costs the Democrats votes.

[/ QUOTE ]Democrats do not "support" gay marriage either. You can't use different variables for the public and the Democratic party and make comparisons between the two.

The Democratic Party supports legal agreements that provide equal rights as married couples. So does the public by around 53-40 (as per the latest Pew poll).[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats support higher taxes, look at the 2004 platform for the Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]They support higher taxes for those making over 200,000.

Let's look at the public again: http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm

Oh, what's that? Only 39% of America supports Bush's tax cuts?[ QUOTE ]
On foreign relations how long did Kerry and Biden praddle about bringing in France and the U.N. to help in Iraq during the 2004 campaign?

[/ QUOTE ]Are you even trying to say something here?[ QUOTE ]
Which party has the most liberal stance on abortion rights?

[/ QUOTE ]The better question to fit your hypotheses is "which party best represents public opinion on abortion?" The answer is the Democratic Party. The reason abortion may even out or even possibly help Republicans more is that there are more fervent pro-life people than there are fervent pro-choice people. This could also be the case with gay marriage although I haven't seen any data on that explanation yet.

This is why I and many Democratic strategists want Roe v Wade overturned- because it would fire up the pro-choice crowd and force Republican leaders to actually take action on abortion instead of hiding behind Roe v Wade and yelling about it. Only a few states have a majority who want to ban abortion, and their electoral votes are few.

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats lose because of theur principles. If it weren't for Ross Perot, there would not have been a Democrat as Prez since Jimmy Carter.

The current Democratic Party's "principles" are issues like gay rights, higher taxes, doing what France wants, and making sure women maintain their legal right to kill babies. These things alienate much of the populous. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're first statement is really dumb. In 1996 Clinton won with 49.2% of the vote, Dole had 40.7%, and Perot had 8.4%. Let's assume that Dole got EVERY one of Perot's votes (a mighty assumption, indeed), which would give him 49.1%. Clinton still wins, dumbass.

Moving on to the 2000 election. Let's test your trivia. Who won the popular vote that year? If you said Bush you're still a dumbass. It was Gore. He got 48.4%, whereas Bush got 47.9%. Now, let's give Gore the same benefit of the doubt we gave Dole in 1996, and lets give him all of Ralph Nader's votes, which was 2.7%. That gives Gore 51.1% vs. Bush's 47.9%. Amazingly, he still wins the popular vote.

I'm not sure what the hell you're trying to prove with your [censored] analysis and ignorance of basic mathematics, but you're completely wrong. Do you see why?

Principles alienating much of the populACE (I won't call you a dumbass for misspelling 'their' and 'populace')? Have you SEEN any of the approval ratings lately? Is there even an argument who's principle's aren't in line with the population's? I think you're just another Hannitized partisan Dittohead Factor hack. Do you see why?

I swear I've never seen a dumber post.

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democrats lose because of theur principles. If it weren't for Ross Perot, there would not have been a Democrat as Prez since Jimmy Carter.

The current Democratic Party's "principles" are issues like gay rights, higher taxes, doing what France wants, and making sure women maintain their legal right to kill babies. These things alienate much of the populous. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're first statement is really dumb. In 1996 Clinton won with 49.2% of the vote, Dole had 40.7%, and Perot had 8.4%. Let's assume that Dole got EVERY one of Perot's votes (a mighty assumption, indeed), which would give him 49.1%. Clinton still wins, dumbass.


[/ QUOTE ]

WOW. I couldn't write a better scenario to win an argument than this! You are aware, that there was a year called "1992" and that in that year Ross Perot first ran for President of the United States, are you not? Care to quote me those numbers, or does the fact that they are actually releveant to my argument make their use inconvenient?

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
(I won't call you a dumbass for misspelling 'their' and 'populace')?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's wise, since I only misspelled the latter.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
The better question to fit your hypotheses is "which party best represents public opinion on abortion?" The answer is the Democratic Party. The reason abortion may even out or even possibly help Republicans more is that there are more fervent pro-life people than there are fervent pro-choice people. This could also be the case with gay marriage although I haven't seen any data on that explanation yet.

This is why I and many Democratic strategists want Roe v Wade overturned- because it would fire up the pro-choice crowd and force Republican leaders to actually take action on abortion instead of hiding behind Roe v Wade and yelling about it. Only a few states have a majority who want to ban abortion, and their electoral votes are few.

[/ QUOTE ]Proof: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

"Regardless of how you usually vote, which party comes closer to sharing your view on abortion: the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?"

Democratic- 45
Republican- 35

Pew research did a good (as always) analysis on abortion and public opinion just a couple weeks ago: http://people-press.org/commentary/d...AnalysisID=119

[ QUOTE ]
You're first statement is really dumb. In 1996 Clinton won with 49.2% of the vote, Dole had 40.7%, and Perot had 8.4%. Let's assume that Dole got EVERY one of Perot's votes (a mighty assumption, indeed), which would give him 49.1%. Clinton still wins, dumbass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there's no doubt that shaun is a dumbass.
That having been said, your satement above is wrong. If every Perot vote in 1996 had gone to Dole, then 11 states would have switched their electoral votes: Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, New Hamphire, Ohio, Oregon, Penssylvania, Tennessee and Wisconsin. That would have been a 133-EV swing, giving Dole the presidency with 292 EVs vs. 246 for Clinton.

[ QUOTE ]
(I won't call you a dumbass for misspelling 'their' and 'populace')

[/ QUOTE ]

Spelling flames are TOTALLY LAME. Especially when one makes usage errors in the VERY SAME POST. You're free to reread your post (or even just what I quoted above) to see what I mean. Please, let's try to do better.

[ QUOTE ]
WOW. I couldn't write a better scenario to win an argument than this! You are aware, that there was a year called "1992" and that in that year Ross Perot first ran for President of the United States, are you not? Care to quote me those numbers, or does the fact that they are actually releveant to my argument make their use inconvenient?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you said the Democrats would have lost EVERY election since Carter without Perot. 1992 is one election. Now, by 'every' election, I'll assume you meant 'every' election and not just the 1992 election (which I'll concede, but once again, we're talking about every election). Since 1992, as I'm sure you're aware, there have been a few more elections that are tossed into this 'every' category. Take 1996, for instance. By 'every' you mean 1996 as well. I already showed the numbers on that one. The Democrats still would have won if we gave all of Perot's votes to Dole. So that one election shows that you're wrong. Then I showed the numbers on 2000, which Perot wasn't even a part of. Actually, the democrat (Gore) had a liberal taking votes from him, and he STILL won the popular vote. And since you're talking about positions being out of touch with the populace, the popular vote is really the only one that matters.

Way to not respond to me totally proving you wrong and somehow claiming you won an argument. Your statement is completely false.

I agree, I was just a little angry at his post. But anyways, he's talking about views being out of touch with the populace, and saying the Dems would've lost all the elections. The popular vote is the only one that matters, considering his statements. I don't see how someone can make that statement.

I also think if all of Nader's Florida votes went to Gore, Gore would've been president. I haven't looked at his votes in that state, but I'm willing to bet it was more than 500 and some change.

I also wrote that post really drunk, so I apologize if I came off as a dick. Partisan politics and alcohol don't mix.

[ QUOTE ]

WOW. I couldn't write a better scenario to win an argument than this!

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have an amazingly long losing streak when it comes to arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
You are aware, that there was a year called "1992" and that in that year Ross Perot first ran for President of the United States, are you not? Care to quote me those numbers, or does the fact that they are actually releveant to my argument make their use inconvenient?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, let's talk about 1992. So, what states do you think would have flipped in the absence of Perot? Let's start with a list of states that Clinton won by less than 5%:

Colorado
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Ohio
Tennessee
Wisconsin

Are you saying that all of these states would have switched? Note that, to switch, even if we assume that all Perot voters would have voted anyway, in many states those voters would have had to have broken overwhelmingly for Bush. E.g., Tennessee - Bush would need 73% of Perot voters; Louisiana 70%, Wisconsin 60%, New Jersey 58%. Note also that if even one of the states other than the three smallest (Nevada, New Hampshire, and Montana) does not switch, then Bush still loses.

I will eagerly await your no doubt detailed and well-supported response proving conclusively that Bush would have won.

[adios]

Ah the Democrats really did make gains in 2004. Your precious polls say it's so.

What I wrote about abortion:

[ QUOTE ]
Which party has the most liberal stance on abortion rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

You respond with a poll about Roe v. Wade. Another classis non sequiter. Shaun stated in his post that the Democrats more or less have a more liberal stance on abortion rights than do the Republicans. To which he was "flammed" by a response. All I pointed out to that responder is that what Shaun's point was. Do you actually deny that this is a fact? Even your precious poll validates this. Instead of hijacking this thread I would suggest starting yet another thread on abortion because I view the results of this poll as rather interesting FWIW.