|
|
|
|
#1
08-07-2005, 12:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Hey, Democrats! Want to win an election? Try this :
|
|
#2
08-07-2005, 01:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hey, Democrats! Want to win an election? Try this :
Such a strange post...
John KERRY 57,288,974 (252) George BUSH 60,608,582 (286) Here are the final tallies from the 2004 Presidential Election. True, a clear win for George Bush...but not a landslide, for God's sake. 57M Americans thought John Kerry would be a better man for the job. George Bush garnered only 51% of the popular vote. Almost half the voters who showed up voted for someone else. In the Senate, the Republicans did gain four seats. How many do they now have? 55. Not 70 or 80...55. A bit over half. The rest of the country has either Democrats or that Independent guy from Vermont. And yet, gaining ground to have 55% of the Senate was probably the biggest win for the Republicans in terms of electoral coups. Also...in the House, the Democrats lost four seats, the Reps. gained two. The Republicans now have a 53% majority in the House...significant, yes, but not enough to run roughshod over the opposition party. Given that Pres. Bush's approval ratings are anywhere from the high 30s to the low 40s, is it so farfetched that the Democrats may not have to resort to bribery to win the White House in 2008?
|
|
#3
08-10-2005, 12:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hey, Democrats! Want to win an election? Try this :
[ QUOTE ]
57M Americans thought John Kerry would be a better man for the job. [/ QUOTE ] I think 57M Americans knew and cared more about Bush's mistakes than Kerry's. Exageration for effect, btw. I hate Bush, but I dislked Kerry more.
|
|
#4
08-11-2005, 12:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hey, Democrats! Want to win an election? Try this :
I wasn't exaggerating...those are the actual voting numbers...or were you exaggerating? I'm confused...but, at any rate, it's six of one, half a dozen of another...when it came time to vote, 57M registered voters selected John Kerry rather than any other candidate.
I'm not saying I support Kerry or Bush(in fact, I supported Badnarik [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]), but I disagreed with the OP's implication that the Democrats were hapless and could not win an election without resorting to bribery and other forms of trickery. Maybe it's just me, but I seem to recall that the Democrats held the White House for the majority of the 90's, so it's not like ancient history when the Democrats were successful...these things go in cycles...that's all I'm saying.
|
|
#5
08-11-2005, 01:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hey, Democrats! Want to win an election? Try this :
Since JFK the dems have only had one reelected president. I do think the dems revert to trickery in a way, but not entirely. The canidates do switch their platforms all the time, not for trickery necessarly but to appeal to the democratic base. The republican base is very similar, you can look on this forum most conservatives agree on most issues. However there are more extreme sides of the democratic party and the canidates are trying to appeal to mainstream while trying to get the funding from the extreme parts of the party like Moore, Soros, etc. Also democrats just hate being called liberals, sometimes I think they are even ashamed.
|
|
#6
08-11-2005, 02:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hey, Democrats! Want to win an election? Try this :
Well...reelected, yes, but not elected, period. Again, I was refuting the OP's implication. I agree with you that the Democrats appeal to the more marginal parts of their demographic, but I believe the Republicans do this, as well(you don't honestly believe the entire Republican party is composed of evangelical Christians, right?)
As to hating being called liberals, I'd say that some Democrats hate it, not all. For instance, I would be fairly confident that Joe Lieberman would not like being called a liberal, because it is a fairly inaccurate label to describe him, a rigid, orthodox Jew(not an insult...that's what he is). But...labeling all things non-Republican as liberal does a disservice not only to the Democrats(as well as other party members), but also to the liberal members of the Republican Party(and yes, they exist...for instance, all the log cabin Republicans). Some posters on this forum have a tendency to rush to using that word to describe anything they find unappealing, and I believe that it is foolhardy and ignorant to do so. Label things what they are, I say, and not what fits into an extremely broad definition. Sorry for the thread hijack.
|
|
#7
08-11-2005, 02:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hey, Democrats! Want to win an election? Try this :
[ QUOTE ]
Since FDR the dems have only had one reelected president. [/ QUOTE ] FYP
|
|
#8
08-10-2005, 01:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hey, Democrats! Want to win an election? Try this :
Maybe they should just rig it like Bush did in 2000...
Heil!
|
|
#10
08-10-2005, 01:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hey, Democrats! Want to win an election? Try this :
[ QUOTE ]
Being bitter wasn't part of the equasion. [/ QUOTE ] I realize it's often petty to critique someone over spelling/grammar/verbiage; goodness knows I've had my fair share of spelling mistakes/awkwardly phrased sentences, etc. Yet I see you, FishHooks, complaining that you get 'flamed' a lot; If you're looking to be taken more seriously, I sincerely suggest that you consider double-checking your spelling before you post. Even though I concede spelling shouldn't matter, I really do think some simple edits would go a long way in achieving the respectability you feel you aren’t getting. Aesthetics matter, whether they ought to or not. My 2 cents, take it or leave it.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
