Bloomie's Gun-Grabbing 3rd Party Will Put Whoop-Ass on the Dems!!

The sheeple will vote for whoever the corporate mass media tells them
too. But before the election, they will spin the campaigns to keep the
polls as close as possible to motivate the partisans to buy as much
advertising as possible. Which is how to maximize corporate media
profits.
 
"SilentOtto" <silentotto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:21d6c691-823c-4550-9ec9-d06ca10a2d0b@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 23, 10:49 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> "Day Brown" <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote in message
>> news:3d161c86-e2c5-4a9f-afd0-1d46fa3f5352@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> > Be that as it may, the GOP has shot itself in the foot over gun rights
>> > and other emotional issues because it could not prevent outsourcing
>> > and downsizing from destroying the incomes of its Christian fundy
>> > followers. Bankruptcy has a nasty habit of waking people up to
>> > reality.
>> The GOP hasn't shot itself in the foot over gun rights.
>> Outsourcing and downsizing was first sanctioned by Clinton.
> Clinton started it.
> But the Bush administration went hog wild and gutted anything that
> could have acted as a break.

Bullshit. Feel free to prove it.

>> Its true the Dems are running against Bush. I have no idea why. Its a
>> stupid strategy.
> Because the Republican candidates, almost to a man, support Bush's
> failed policies.

Try to see the bigger picture. YOU are a Liberal, so OF COURSE you think
they are failed policies. The Liberal candidates can COUNT on your vote.

The Liberal candidates are running AGAINST things that MIGHT turn around and
AGAINST an opposite opinion. They are running AGAINST a MOVING TARGET.

If the Liberals ran against the GOP candidates they would be going after a
STATIONARY target.

Everybody knows its EASIER to hit something that ain't moving!

> When the Republican nominee becomes apparent, who ever the Democrat
> candidate is will be sure to point that out.
> Rest assured.

Yep, I'm sure of it.

>> > If the Hillary/Obama ticket is to be beaten, it'll need a new
>> > candidate from a new centrist party.
> It doesn't seem like that is in the offing.
> I don't think Bloomberg is going to run.

Who knows...

>> Maybe.
>> But consider this. We normally (past few decades) run around 50% turnout
>> for the Presidential election. But the last two were considerably
>> larger.
>> Not because so many extra people wanted to vote for Bush but because they
>> felt compelled (for whatever specific reasons compel them) to vote
>> against
>> Gore and against Kerry.
> Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and barely squeaked by in 2004.
> I would suggest that voting for Bush or against Kerry wasn't the only
> thing motivating voters.
> Kerry got more votes than any Democrat in history.

But NOT where it counted....

However, IF as you claim he WAS MORE POPULAR then the anti-vote was MORE
SCARED because of that...

>> In 2006 we saw it drop to a near-record low 40% turnout. That's tens of
>> millions of people who should have been compelled to respond to the GOP
>> shooting itself "itself in the foot over gun rights", or should have
>> responded to "outsourcing and downsizing," etc. But they didn't respond.
>> 60% of registered voters are not bothered by what you think they're
>> bothered
>> by.
> The turnout in 2006 would have been low for a presidential election,
> but for an off year congressional election it was a high turnout.

Wrong. Feel free to prove it.

> We know the results.
>> And in 2000 and 2004 we had a couple of mostly ordinary white guys
>> running.
>> Sure, George was a bit extreme right, Gore was a bit more than a bit
>> extreme
>> left, and Kerry was a bit more than normal scary.
> Rubbish.
> While Bush isn't bright enough to have any real ideology of his own,
> the people he surrounded himself with are far more extreme to the
> right than Gore or Kerry were extreme to the left.
> You listen to too much Limbaugh and are confused about what a moderate
> is.
>> This time it ain't no semi-normal white guys like we're used to.
>> How can you NOT predict a massive turnout? And in BOTH directions. I
>> think
>> you have to assume there will be some people who normally don't bother to
>> vote who will vote because they have a woman to vote for, or a black guy
>> to
>> vote for.
> I can see a massive turnout on the left.
> I'm not so certain about the right.

Hahahahhahahahaa!!!

>> The question becomes: Will the enhanced turnout be more for woman/black
>> or
>> will it be more against woman/black. Which takes us back to two
>> plain-as-day facts. First, Hitlary has been running consistently 46%-50%
>> negative. These people will never vote for her no matter what, persiod.
>> With America pretty close to 50-50 male-female I think this is a wash.
>> Second, America is ONLY 13% Black. If every eligible black voter voted
>> for
>> Hitlary/Buckwheat, AND took along an eligible white voter that is STILL
>> not
>> HALF enough to counter a potential anti-black vote.
> I will support which ever Democratic candidate who wins the primary
> process.
> None of them have any position which I can't stomach.
> On the other hand, each and every Republican candidate has a segment
> of the Republican base that loathes them.
> McCain? Hard core conservatives, both fiscal and social, hate his
> guts.
> Romney? The Religious right have been taught their entire lives that
> Mormons are cultists. That belief has been pounded into their skull
> and it's not easily tossed aside.
> Huckabee? Fiscal conservatives can't stand him and he's not very
> popular with social moderates either.
> Further, disaffected independents are very likely to side with the
> left this time around.
> I know rightards, like you, like to pretend that Bush's economy is
> fine, but the vast majority of Americans don't think it is.

Wrong, again:

Gallup Poll. Dec. 6-9, 2007. "In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied
with the way things are
going in your personal life at this time?"
Satisfied: 84%
Dissatisfied: 14%
Retarded: 2%

"Generally speaking, how happy would you say you are: very happy, fairly
happy, or not too
happy?"
Very Happy: 52%
Fairly Happy: 40%
Not Too Happy: 6%
Retarded: 1%
http://www.pollingreport.com/life.htm

> They also know the party responsible for the policies that got us into
> this mess.
> None of the Republican candidates are offering any substantial change
> from what Bush is doing.
> That's not going to fly come November.

You're an uninformed and ignorant, which makes your opinions worth little.

> The flaw in your reasoning is that you're pretending that the
> Democratic candidates are far left extremists.
> They're not.
> The same center who voted for Bill Clinton won't have any difficulty
> in voting for any of the Democratic candidates.

Yes they will. Bubba said "no new gun laws." He LIED. That's just ONE
example. The FAILINGS and LIES of the Bubba Administration caused a SPLIT
in the Dems. Also the advancement of the socialists forced a split.

Actual Moderates SPLIT from the Farther Left.

Sure, some of them will STAY Democrat. But SOME won't.

Given that you AGREE that the last two elections were very close, if the
Dems lose ANY votes they MUST be made up somewhere. Where?

And since its a Far Left BLACK Guy and a Far Left WOMAN you have to assume a
LARGE FEAR VOTE which means they have even MORE votes to counter.

So, AGAIN, you two types of votes: Fear voters and Happy voters.

A large than usual number of Happy Voters will come out FOR either a woman
or a black.

A large than usual number of Fear Voters will come out AGAINST either a
woman or a black.

Since ONLY 13% of the US population is black one MUST assume there will be
MORE Fear voters than Happy voters if a black guy is on the ticket?

Duh.

> Further, among the center, there is a strong feeling that Republicans
> have been in charge for long enough and it's time to give another
> party a try.
> A viable independent candidate could possibly win were one to run.
> But, so far, none have taken a stab at it.

Its probably too late anyway.
 
"SilentOtto" <silentotto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46522177-2d2e-4784-a7c9-d00608869265@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 21, 11:24 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> "SilentOtto" <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:d581752f-8130-41f5-8ae9-984cbce77b15@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jan 19, 3:42 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> >> "Lickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> messagenews:47ceefb8-90f1-46c8-a8b2-18b2bf684a18@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Jan 19, 9:58 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> >> >>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/bloomberg_perot_president/2008/01/...
>> >> >> Bloomberg Meets With Perot Manager, Ballot Expert
>> >> >> Friday, January 18, 2008
>> >> >Let's remember the last time there was a serious third party
>> >> >challenge
>> >> >-- 1992 -- Bush, Clinton, and Perot. Perot pulled about 20 percent of
>> >> >the vote and he pulled it ALL from Bush, leading to Bush's defeat by
>> >> >Clinton.
>> >> >If Bloomberg puts together a serious third party, he likely will pull
>> >> >a lot more votes than Perot for several reasons:
>> >> >1. Perot was a nutcase, Bloomberg is serious.
>> >> >2. Moderate and liberal Republicans are thoroughly disgusted with
>> >> >the
>> >> >right wing of their party and they especially are sick of the control
>> >> >by the "religious right" -- they'll flock to Bloomberg because he
>> >> >will
>> >> >represent true moderate Republican values.
>> >> >3. Ditto for a lot of Democrats who will see in Bloomberg --
>> >> >especially if he pulls a moderate Democrat as his VP -- an
>> >> >opportunity
>> >> >to pull away from the fringe of the Democratic Party.
>> >> >Bloomberg's coalition is likely to be:
>> >> >1. MOST independents;
>> >> >2. A LOT of disaffected Republicans;
>> >> >3. A few disaffected Democrats.
>> >> >Thus, a Bloomberg candidacy will be another nail in the coffin of the
>> >> >Republican Party -- no matter what PG tells us.
>> >> >Heh, heh.
>> >> Do yourself a favor and stop licking the crunchy bits off your cat's
>> >> puckered butthole.
>> >> WHATEVER Bloomie MIGHT attract as voters he WILL NOT GET even ONE of
>> >> the
>> >> EIGHTY MILLION GUN OWNERS in America.
>> > I own more than half a dozen guns.
>> > A .300 Savage for deer.
>> > A 12 gauge Remington for pheasant.
>> > A 20 gauge Beretta for grouse.
>> > A 28 gauge Browning for rabbit.
>> > A .410 bore Harrington & Richardson for squirrel.
>> > A .22 Winchester for plinking.
>> > A .45 ACP and a .22 Colt modeled after a Peacemaker because I like
>> > them.
>> I don't believe it.
> Why?

If I told you it would help you make a more credible list. Why would I do
that?

> Just because I don't think the first best solution to any problem is
> to shoot someone like gun nut rightards do?

See?

>> > I could be persuaded to vote for Bloomberg.
>> I don't believe it. You're a Hitlary crotch servicer.
> Better that than being Bush's bend-over boy, like you are.

News Flash: Bush isn't running.
 
This is usenet. You cant prove anything here. Nobody is under oath,
and can lie with impunity.

A lot depends on the nature of the economy as the election nears. If a
lotta middle class voters see their real investments decline, or loose
them entirely, they'll be far more willing to listen to someone like
Huckabee, who said he's more like the guy you work with, rather than
the one who fired you. Both Bloomberg and Romney fit the latter
description.

But if things stabilize, and its an issue of building the economy back
up to compete in an expanding global economy, then the classic CEO
types will have a much better shot at beating Hillary. But either way,
its not upta us here.
 
On Jan 25, 3:02 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> "SilentOtto" <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:46522177-2d2e-4784-a7c9-d00608869265@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 11:24 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> >> "SilentOtto" <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:d581752f-8130-41f5-8ae9-984cbce77b15@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Jan 19, 3:42 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Lickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> messagenews:47ceefb8-90f1-46c8-a8b2-18b2bf684a18@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> On Jan 19, 9:58 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/bloomberg_perot_president/2008/01/...
> >> >> >> Bloomberg Meets With Perot Manager, Ballot Expert
> >> >> >> Friday, January 18, 2008
> >> >> >Let's remember the last time there was a serious third party
> >> >> >challenge
> >> >> >-- 1992 -- Bush, Clinton, and Perot. Perot pulled about 20 percent of
> >> >> >the vote and he pulled it ALL from Bush, leading to Bush's defeat by
> >> >> >Clinton.
> >> >> >If Bloomberg puts together a serious third party, he likely will pull
> >> >> >a lot more votes than Perot for several reasons:
> >> >> >1. Perot was a nutcase, Bloomberg is serious.
> >> >> >2. Moderate and liberal Republicans are thoroughly disgusted with
> >> >> >the
> >> >> >right wing of their party and they especially are sick of the control
> >> >> >by the "religious right" -- they'll flock to Bloomberg because he
> >> >> >will
> >> >> >represent true moderate Republican values.
> >> >> >3. Ditto for a lot of Democrats who will see in Bloomberg --
> >> >> >especially if he pulls a moderate Democrat as his VP -- an
> >> >> >opportunity
> >> >> >to pull away from the fringe of the Democratic Party.
> >> >> >Bloomberg's coalition is likely to be:
> >> >> >1. MOST independents;
> >> >> >2. A LOT of disaffected Republicans;
> >> >> >3. A few disaffected Democrats.
> >> >> >Thus, a Bloomberg candidacy will be another nail in the coffin of the
> >> >> >Republican Party -- no matter what PG tells us.
> >> >> >Heh, heh.
> >> >> Do yourself a favor and stop licking the crunchy bits off your cat's
> >> >> puckered butthole.
> >> >> WHATEVER Bloomie MIGHT attract as voters he WILL NOT GET even ONE of
> >> >> the
> >> >> EIGHTY MILLION GUN OWNERS in America.
> >> > I own more than half a dozen guns.
> >> > A .300 Savage for deer.
> >> > A 12 gauge Remington for pheasant.
> >> > A 20 gauge Beretta for grouse.
> >> > A 28 gauge Browning for rabbit.
> >> > A .410 bore Harrington & Richardson for squirrel.
> >> > A .22 Winchester for plinking.
> >> > A .45 ACP and a .22 Colt modeled after a Peacemaker because I like
> >> > them.
> >> I don't believe it.
> > Why?
>
> If I told you it would help you make a more credible list. Why would I do
> that?

You mean you just can't believe that a liberal owns guns because it
flies in the face of your rightardedness.

> > Just because I don't think the first best solution to any problem is
> > to shoot someone like gun nut rightards do?
>
> See?

You were the one ranting about shooting people for vandalizing a
nativity scene, remember?

Then you went on to describe the fantasy scenario that you erroneously
believed would get you off the hook for committing murder.

If that's not an example of a full blown rightard nut case elevating
the use of deadly force to the first option to stop what is, in
reality, a relatively trivial offense, then I don't know what is.

Assholes like you stroke your ****s with one and and your guns with
the other.

> >> > I could be persuaded to vote for Bloomberg.
> >> I don't believe it. You're a Hitlary crotch servicer.
> > Better that than being Bush's bend-over boy, like you are.
>
> News Flash: Bush isn't running.

Nope.

But all his policies are.

Who ever wins the Democratic nomination will be sure to point that out
come election time.

A vote for any of the Republican candidates will be like voting for
another four years of Bush.

It's gonna be a Republican blood bath in November.
 
On Jan 25, 3:00 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> "SilentOtto" <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:21d6c691-823c-4550-9ec9-d06ca10a2d0b@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 23, 10:49 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> >> "Day Brown" <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote in message
> >>news:3d161c86-e2c5-4a9f-afd0-1d46fa3f5352@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Be that as it may, the GOP has shot itself in the foot over gun rights
> >> > and other emotional issues because it could not prevent outsourcing
> >> > and downsizing from destroying the incomes of its Christian fundy
> >> > followers. Bankruptcy has a nasty habit of waking people up to
> >> > reality.
> >> The GOP hasn't shot itself in the foot over gun rights.
> >> Outsourcing and downsizing was first sanctioned by Clinton.
> > Clinton started it.
> > But the Bush administration went hog wild and gutted anything that
> > could have acted as a break.
>
> Bullshit. Feel free to prove it.

Take a look at CAFTA for starters.

Then look at what the Bush administration did to the Consumer
Protection Agency.

> >> Its true the Dems are running against Bush. I have no idea why. Its a
> >> stupid strategy.
> > Because the Republican candidates, almost to a man, support Bush's
> > failed policies.
>
> Try to see the bigger picture. YOU are a Liberal, so OF COURSE you think
> they are failed policies. The Liberal candidates can COUNT on your vote.

I'm not the only one who think Bush's policies are a failure.

Those who agree with me cut WAY into the center.

About the only people who think the country is on the right course are
thirty percenters, and I suspect their counting on rapture to take
their sorry asses off the hook.

> The Liberal candidates are running AGAINST things that MIGHT turn around and
> AGAINST an opposite opinion. They are running AGAINST a MOVING TARGET.

You think that Iraq is going to turn around?

Hahahahahaha...

When have you EVER seen a country with the divisions that Iraq has
that didn't end up in a civil war?

Name one.

Just one ****ing country.

You can't do it because they don't exist.

Or, perhaps you were referring to the economy?

You think that there's going to be a major turn around in the next ten
months?

Right now, it's a scramble to prevent a complete melt down.

Are you really deluded enough to think that there's a possibility of a
major turn around before the elections?


> If the Liberals ran against the GOP candidates they would be going after a
> STATIONARY target.

They will...

There are three major republican candidates. At this point it's not
clear who the nominee is, so running against the Republican candidates
would be a 66% waste of effort at this point.

When the time comes, the target will shift.

> Everybody knows its EASIER to hit something that ain't moving!

In time... In time...

> > When the Republican nominee becomes apparent, who ever the Democrat
> > candidate is will be sure to point that out.
> > Rest assured.
>
> Yep, I'm sure of it.

Good.

> >> > If the Hillary/Obama ticket is to be beaten, it'll need a new
> >> > candidate from a new centrist party.
> > It doesn't seem like that is in the offing.
> > I don't think Bloomberg is going to run.
>
> Who knows...

Well, if he waits much longer he's not going to stand a hope in hell
of winning.

Look what waiting to get seriously involved in the race did to Rudy
and Fred.

> >> Maybe.
> >> But consider this. We normally (past few decades) run around 50% turnout
> >> for the Presidential election. But the last two were considerably
> >> larger.
> >> Not because so many extra people wanted to vote for Bush but because they
> >> felt compelled (for whatever specific reasons compel them) to vote
> >> against
> >> Gore and against Kerry.
> > Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and barely squeaked by in 2004.
> > I would suggest that voting for Bush or against Kerry wasn't the only
> > thing motivating voters.
> > Kerry got more votes than any Democrat in history.
>
> But NOT where it counted....

That's beside the point.

Democratic turnout in favor of Kerry was extremely heavy.

That shows that you were wrong when you suggested that the only thing
motivating voters was to prevent Kerry from winning.

> However, IF as you claim he WAS MORE POPULAR then the anti-vote was MORE
> SCARED because of that...

Bush's '04 victory was largely attributed to "security moms".

There's not going to be many of those voting Republican this time
around.

Now they're more worried about jobs, health care and keeping their
houses.


> >> In 2006 we saw it drop to a near-record low 40% turnout. That's tens of
> >> millions of people who should have been compelled to respond to the GOP
> >> shooting itself "itself in the foot over gun rights", or should have
> >> responded to "outsourcing and downsizing," etc. But they didn't respond.
> >> 60% of registered voters are not bothered by what you think they're
> >> bothered
> >> by.
> > The turnout in 2006 would have been low for a presidential election,
> > but for an off year congressional election it was a high turnout.
>
> Wrong. Feel free to prove it.

That's easy.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

2006 - 43.6

2002 - 37.0

1998 - 36.4

Notice anything, rightard?


> > We know the results.
> >> And in 2000 and 2004 we had a couple of mostly ordinary white guys
> >> running.
> >> Sure, George was a bit extreme right, Gore was a bit more than a bit
> >> extreme
> >> left, and Kerry was a bit more than normal scary.
> > Rubbish.
> > While Bush isn't bright enough to have any real ideology of his own,
> > the people he surrounded himself with are far more extreme to the
> > right than Gore or Kerry were extreme to the left.
> > You listen to too much Limbaugh and are confused about what a moderate
> > is.
> >> This time it ain't no semi-normal white guys like we're used to.
> >> How can you NOT predict a massive turnout? And in BOTH directions. I
> >> think
> >> you have to assume there will be some people who normally don't bother to
> >> vote who will vote because they have a woman to vote for, or a black guy
> >> to
> >> vote for.
> > I can see a massive turnout on the left.
> > I'm not so certain about the right.
>
> Hahahahhahahahaa!!!

Rightards...

> >> The question becomes: Will the enhanced turnout be more for woman/black
> >> or
> >> will it be more against woman/black. Which takes us back to two
> >> plain-as-day facts. First, Hitlary has been running consistently 46%-50%
> >> negative. These people will never vote for her no matter what, persiod.
> >> With America pretty close to 50-50 male-female I think this is a wash.
> >> Second, America is ONLY 13% Black. If every eligible black voter voted
> >> for
> >> Hitlary/Buckwheat, AND took along an eligible white voter that is STILL
> >> not
> >> HALF enough to counter a potential anti-black vote.
> > I will support which ever Democratic candidate who wins the primary
> > process.
> > None of them have any position which I can't stomach.
> > On the other hand, each and every Republican candidate has a segment
> > of the Republican base that loathes them.
> > McCain? Hard core conservatives, both fiscal and social, hate his
> > guts.
> > Romney? The Religious right have been taught their entire lives that
> > Mormons are cultists. That belief has been pounded into their skull
> > and it's not easily tossed aside.
> > Huckabee? Fiscal conservatives can't stand him and he's not very
> > popular with social moderates either.
> > Further, disaffected independents are very likely to side with the
> > left this time around.
> > I know rightards, like you, like to pretend that Bush's economy is
> > fine, but the vast majority of Americans don't think it is.
>
> Wrong, again:
>
> Gallup Poll. Dec. 6-9, 2007. "In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied
> with the way things are
> going in your personal life at this time?"
> Satisfied: 84%
> Dissatisfied: 14%
> Retarded: 2%
>
> "Generally speaking, how happy would you say you are: very happy, fairly
> happy, or not too
> happy?"
> Very Happy: 52%
> Fairly Happy: 40%
> Not Too Happy: 6%
> Retarded: 1%http://www.pollingreport.com/life.htm

Hahahahaha...

Why don't you cite a poll that actually asks them about the economy?

http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer.htm

ABC News CONSUMER COMFORT INDEX

The Consumer Comfort Index uses a scale of +100 to -100 and is based
on a rolling four-week sample of approximately 1,000 adults
nationwide. (methodology)

Interviewing
End Date Consumer Comfort Index

1/20/08 -23
1/13/08 -24
1/6/08 -20
12/30/07 -20
12/23/07 -23
12/16/07 -17
12/9/07 -23


http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

This one is too cumbersome to paste, but it shows that the economy is
the biggest concern of voters.

http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer2.htm

"Do you think the economy is now in a recession, or not?"

1/9-10/08 Yes % No % Unsure %
61 37 3

12/6-9/07 57 42 1

10/12-14/07 46 51 3

Did you really think you were going to be able to lie your way through
this?

Heh heh...

Rightards...

> > They also know the party responsible for the policies that got us into
> > this mess.
> > None of the Republican candidates are offering any substantial change
> > from what Bush is doing.
> > That's not going to fly come November.
>
> You're an uninformed and ignorant, which makes your opinions worth little.

AaaaHahahahahahaha....

Rightards...

> > The flaw in your reasoning is that you're pretending that the
> > Democratic candidates are far left extremists.
> > They're not.
> > The same center who voted for Bill Clinton won't have any difficulty
> > in voting for any of the Democratic candidates.
>
> Yes they will. Bubba said "no new gun laws." He LIED. That's just ONE
> example. The FAILINGS and LIES of the Bubba Administration caused a SPLIT
> in the Dems. Also the advancement of the socialists forced a split.

Heh heh...

Here's a clue for you.

There aren't many full blown gun nuts in the center, and none of the
Democrats are pushing for strong gun control.

> Actual Moderates SPLIT from the Farther Left.
>
> Sure, some of them will STAY Democrat. But SOME won't.
>
> Given that you AGREE that the last two elections were very close, if the
> Dems lose ANY votes they MUST be made up somewhere. Where?

You don't seem to understand.

It's not the Dems who are going to be losing votes.

It's the Republicans who will be losing votes.

The 2006 congressional elections were just a preview.

Not a single Democrat incumbent was ousted and Republicans fell like
dominoes.


> And since its a Far Left BLACK Guy and a Far Left WOMAN you have to assume a
> LARGE FEAR VOTE which means they have even MORE votes to counter.

Hahahahaha...

You think your racism and misogyny is the majority view, and it isn't.

Women are hungry for a woman president, so you can count on a lot of
center women voting for Clinton.

Especially, when all the Republicans are threatening to take away
their right to choose.

As for Obama, it doesn't appear that the center is too concerned about
a black man being president either.

Probably you and your fellow rednecks in your trailer park won't vote
for him, but that won't matter.

Hardcore Republicans can't carry a general election on their own.

They need the center to win and the center is leaning strongly toward
the Democrats in this election cycle.

> So, AGAIN, you two types of votes: Fear voters and Happy voters.

The center will be happily voting for Democrats.

Game, set, match.

> A large than usual number of Happy Voters will come out FOR either a woman
> or a black.
>
> A large than usual number of Fear Voters will come out AGAINST either a
> woman or a black.
>
> Since ONLY 13% of the US population is black one MUST assume there will be
> MORE Fear voters than Happy voters if a black guy is on the ticket?
>
> Duh.

This election will be won or lost in the center, which is large enough
to swamp any possible Republican "fear" vote, especially when about a
third of Republican voters will have to hold their nose and swallow
their gorge no matter which Republican contender gets the nomination.

What do you think the Republicans chances of getting the center are?

Because, from where I sit, I think Saddam has a better chance of
coming back from hell.

> > Further, among the center, there is a strong feeling that Republicans
> > have been in charge for long enough and it's time to give another
> > party a try.
> > A viable independent candidate could possibly win were one to run.
> > But, so far, none have taken a stab at it.
>
> Its probably too late anyway.

I agree.

If Bloomburg really wanted to be president, he should have gotten into
the race a year ago.
 
"SilentOtto" <silentotto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2a9c0091-0070-4ba0-abc7-5080cd143bf8@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 25, 3:00 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> > But the Bush administration went hog wild and gutted anything that
>> > could have acted as a break.
>> Bullshit. Feel free to prove it.
> Take a look at CAFTA for starters.
> Then look at what the Bush administration did to the Consumer
> Protection Agency.

Still WAITING for you to PROVE it. Try using some CITES.

> When have you EVER seen a country with the divisions that Iraq has
> that didn't end up in a civil war?
> Name one.
> Just one ****ing country.
> You can't do it because they don't exist.

Germany didn't end up in a civil war after WWII. South Africa, still no
civil war.

> Or, perhaps you were referring to the economy?
> You think that there's going to be a major turn around in the next ten
> months?
> Right now, it's a scramble to prevent a complete melt down.
> Are you really deluded enough to think that there's a possibility of a
> major turn around before the elections?

A major turnaround isn't required. As the Market resettles it will, as it
always does, build again.

If you actually understood large scale investment you'd know that the Market
going down meant large selling of stock, which meant a LOT of CASH went into
some people's pockets. Nobody holds cash in their pocket, because you have
to pay taxes on it eventually, so that CASH will eventually find its way
back into the ecomony.

Additionally, that large selling of stock brings DOWN the stock prices.
Perhaps you've heard "Buy Low - Sell High?"

>> If the Liberals ran against the GOP candidates they would be going after
>> a
>> STATIONARY target.
> They will...

Flip-floping must be part of the DNA of Democrats.

> Bush's '04 victory was largely attributed to "security moms".

"Security moms" who were AFRAID of Kerry..... That's the FEAR vote.

>> > The turnout in 2006 would have been low for a presidential election,
>> > but for an off year congressional election it was a high turnout.
>> Wrong. Feel free to prove it.
> That's easy.
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
> 2006 - 43.6
> 2002 - 37.0
> 1998 - 36.4
> Notice anything, rightard?

It was right in front of your face and you missed it!

You're comparing a percentage of REGISTERED WHO VOTED.

The people eligible to Register dropped by 656,931, but the people WHO
ACTUALLY REGISTERED dropped by 38,910,400!

>> Wrong, again:
>> Gallup Poll. Dec. 6-9, 2007. "In general, are you satisfied or
>> dissatisfied
>> with the way things are
>> going in your personal life at this time?"
>> Satisfied: 84%
>> Dissatisfied: 14%
>> Retarded: 2%
>> "Generally speaking, how happy would you say you are: very happy, fairly
>> happy, or not too
>> happy?"
>> Very Happy: 52%
>> Fairly Happy: 40%
>> Not Too Happy: 6%
>> Retarded: 1%http://www.pollingreport.com/life.htm
> Hahahahaha...
> Why don't you cite a poll that actually asks them about the economy?
> http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer.htm
> ABC News CONSUMER COMFORT INDEX
> The Consumer Comfort Index uses a scale of +100 to -100 and is based
> on a rolling four-week sample of approximately 1,000 adults
> nationwide. (methodology)
> Interviewing
> End Date Consumer Comfort Index
> 1/20/08 -23
> 1/13/08 -24
> 1/6/08 -20
> 12/30/07 -20
> 12/23/07 -23
> 12/16/07 -17
> 12/9/07 -23
> http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
> This one is too cumbersome to paste, but it shows that the economy is
> the biggest concern of voters.
> http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer2.htm
> "Do you think the economy is now in a recession, or not?"
> 1/9-10/08 Yes % No % Unsure %
> 61 37 3
> 12/6-9/07 57 42 1
> 10/12-14/07 46 51 3
> Did you really think you were going to be able to lie your way through
> this?

Every has a complaint about something. What matter is how they feel
OVERALL.

OVERALL people feel Satisfied: 84%, and Happy 92%.

>> > The flaw in your reasoning is that you're pretending that the
>> > Democratic candidates are far left extremists.
>> > They're not.
>> > The same center who voted for Bill Clinton won't have any difficulty
>> > in voting for any of the Democratic candidates.
>> Yes they will. Bubba said "no new gun laws." He LIED. That's just ONE
>> example. The FAILINGS and LIES of the Bubba Administration caused a
>> SPLIT
>> in the Dems. Also the advancement of the socialists forced a split.
> Heh heh...
> Here's a clue for you.
> There aren't many full blown gun nuts in the center, and none of the
> Democrats are pushing for strong gun control.

No, they are both supporting the NEW Assault Weapon Ban which is ten times
more restrictive than the old Assault Weapon Ban.

If you compare gun ownership in the population its IMPOSSIBLE for MOST of
them be anywhere except in the Center.

>> Actual Moderates SPLIT from the Farther Left.
>> Sure, some of them will STAY Democrat. But SOME won't.
>> Given that you AGREE that the last two elections were very close, if the
>> Dems lose ANY votes they MUST be made up somewhere. Where?
> You don't seem to understand.
> It's not the Dems who are going to be losing votes.
> It's the Republicans who will be losing votes.
> The 2006 congressional elections were just a preview.
> Not a single Democrat incumbent was ousted and Republicans fell like
> dominoes.

But 38 million didn't REGISTER. And by not registering (and not voting)
they saw Dems win and GOP lose. These are the SAME people who, when they
registered and voted in 2000 and 2004 were enough for the GOP to win.

>> And since its a Far Left BLACK Guy and a Far Left WOMAN you have to
>> assume a
>> LARGE FEAR VOTE which means they have even MORE votes to counter.
> Hahahahaha...
> You think your racism and misogyny is the majority view, and it isn't.

Who said "majority?" You did. It doesn't HAVE to be majority to be
significant since the numbers are already close.

> Women are hungry for a woman president, so you can count on a lot of
> center women voting for Clinton.

Maybe even 50%, but that makes an EVEN split.

> As for Obama, it doesn't appear that the center is too concerned about
> a black man being president either.
> Probably you and your fellow rednecks in your trailer park won't vote
> for him, but that won't matter.
> Hardcore Republicans can't carry a general election on their own.
> They need the center to win and the center is leaning strongly toward
> the Democrats in this election cycle.
>> So, AGAIN, you two types of votes: Fear voters and Happy voters.
> The center will be happily voting for Democrats.
> Game, set, match.
>> A large than usual number of Happy Voters will come out FOR either a
>> woman
>> or a black.
>> A large than usual number of Fear Voters will come out AGAINST either a
>> woman or a black.
>> Since ONLY 13% of the US population is black one MUST assume there will
>> be
>> MORE Fear voters than Happy voters if a black guy is on the ticket?
>> Duh.
> This election will be won or lost in the center, which is large enough
> to swamp any possible Republican "fear" vote, especially when about a
> third of Republican voters will have to hold their nose and swallow
> their gorge no matter which Republican contender gets the nomination.
> What do you think the Republicans chances of getting the center are?

That's the whole point.... If you start with a near 50-50 split, which is
what we saw in 2000 and 2004, then compare Happy versus Fear you end up with
MORE Fear than Happy which swings the numbers FOR Republicans.....

Remember, there are SIX TIMES as many white people as there are black people
in America. For every ONE Happy black vote there are potentially SIX Fear
white votes....

Duh...
 
"Day Brown" <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:34880531-f6b4-4658-8401-353274326a26@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> This is usenet. You cant prove anything here. Nobody is under oath,
> and can lie with impunity.

Hahahahahahah!!!

> A lot depends on the nature of the economy as the election nears. If a
> lotta middle class voters see their real investments decline, or loose
> them entirely, they'll be far more willing to listen to someone like
> Huckabee, who said he's more like the guy you work with, rather than
> the one who fired you. Both Bloomberg and Romney fit the latter
> description.

Middle class voters don't really have investments. They have a mortgaged
home and 401K. BOTH lost value. NEITHER will regain that lost value by
November.

Sorry, but that's how it is. And that's how it is for EVERYBODY.

> But if things stabilize, and its an issue of building the economy back
> up to compete in an expanding global economy, then the classic CEO
> types will have a much better shot at beating Hillary. But either way,
> its not upta us here.

There are only two really significant differences.

Amnesty for illegals will be extremely expensive. Dems are for amnesty and
only Mitt (of the frontrunners) is against amnesty.

Healthcare insurance. Dems will tax the middle class to pay for free
healthcare insurance for the 20-47 million people who don't have healthcare
insurance, the GOP won't do that.

Unless the economy is SPECTACULAR the basic middle class will vote against
anything that could potentially cost them MORE money.
 
On Jan 26, 5:54 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> "SilentOtto" <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2a9c0091-0070-4ba0-abc7-5080cd143bf8@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 25, 3:00 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> >> > But the Bush administration went hog wild and gutted anything that
> >> > could have acted as a break.
> >> Bullshit. Feel free to prove it.
> > Take a look at CAFTA for starters.
> > Then look at what the Bush administration did to the Consumer
> > Protection Agency.
>
> Still WAITING for you to PROVE it. Try using some CITES.

Google CAFTA, rightard.

And then explain to me what we're going to export to Central America
besides jobs.


> > When have you EVER seen a country with the divisions that Iraq has
> > that didn't end up in a civil war?
> > Name one.
> > Just one ****ing country.
> > You can't do it because they don't exist.
>
> Germany didn't end up in a civil war after WWII. South Africa, still no
> civil war.

Germany didn't have a population with the ethnic divisions that Iraq
has, rightard.

As to South Africa, they already had one civil war and lest they tread
very carefully, they'll have another.


> > Or, perhaps you were referring to the economy?
> > You think that there's going to be a major turn around in the next ten
> > months?
> > Right now, it's a scramble to prevent a complete melt down.
> > Are you really deluded enough to think that there's a possibility of a
> > major turn around before the elections?
>
> A major turnaround isn't required. As the Market resettles it will, as it
> always does, build again.

The market settling down isn't going to significantly alleviate
peoples fears about losing their jobs and their homes.

> If you actually understood large scale investment you'd know that the Market
> going down meant large selling of stock, which meant a LOT of CASH went into
> some people's pockets. Nobody holds cash in their pocket, because you have
> to pay taxes on it eventually, so that CASH will eventually find its way
> back into the ecomony.
>
> Additionally, that large selling of stock brings DOWN the stock prices.
> Perhaps you've heard "Buy Low - Sell High?"

Most Americans aren't living off the stock market, rightard.

They're living by their jobs, and those jobs are increasingly in
jeopardy.

The stock market is important, but it's not what's weighing on peoples
minds when they say that their worried about the economy.

Their worried about their jobs.


> >> If the Liberals ran against the GOP candidates they would be going after
> >> a
> >> STATIONARY target.
> > They will...
>
> Flip-floping must be part of the DNA of Democrats.
>
> > Bush's '04 victory was largely attributed to "security moms".
>
> "Security moms" who were AFRAID of Kerry..... That's the FEAR vote.

They're more worried about their jobs now.

The "fear factor" is driving them to the democrats.

I just heard that there was record turn out for the Democratic South
Carolina primary.

The Republican primary certainly didn't set any records.


> >> > The turnout in 2006 would have been low for a presidential election,
> >> > but for an off year congressional election it was a high turnout.
> >> Wrong. Feel free to prove it.
> > That's easy.
> >http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
> > 2006 - 43.6
> > 2002 - 37.0
> > 1998 - 36.4
> > Notice anything, rightard?
>
> It was right in front of your face and you missed it!
>
> You're comparing a percentage of REGISTERED WHO VOTED.

What the hell is someone supposed to compare?

> The people eligible to Register dropped by 656,931, but the people WHO
> ACTUALLY REGISTERED dropped by 38,910,400!

Weasel some more, rightard.

Even the number of total voters was up.

> >> Wrong, again:
> >> Gallup Poll. Dec. 6-9, 2007. "In general, are you satisfied or
> >> dissatisfied
> >> with the way things are
> >> going in your personal life at this time?"
> >> Satisfied: 84%
> >> Dissatisfied: 14%
> >> Retarded: 2%
> >> "Generally speaking, how happy would you say you are: very happy, fairly
> >> happy, or not too
> >> happy?"
> >> Very Happy: 52%
> >> Fairly Happy: 40%
> >> Not Too Happy: 6%
> >> Retarded: 1%http://www.pollingreport.com/life.htm
> > Hahahahaha...
> > Why don't you cite a poll that actually asks them about the economy?
> >http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer.htm
> > ABC News CONSUMER COMFORT INDEX
> > The Consumer Comfort Index uses a scale of +100 to -100 and is based
> > on a rolling four-week sample of approximately 1,000 adults
> > nationwide. (methodology)
> > Interviewing
> > End Date Consumer Comfort Index
> > 1/20/08 -23
> > 1/13/08 -24
> > 1/6/08 -20
> > 12/30/07 -20
> > 12/23/07 -23
> > 12/16/07 -17
> > 12/9/07 -23
> >http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
> > This one is too cumbersome to paste, but it shows that the economy is
> > the biggest concern of voters.
> >http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer2.htm
> > "Do you think the economy is now in a recession, or not?"
> > 1/9-10/08 Yes % No % Unsure %
> > 61 37 3
> > 12/6-9/07 57 42 1
> > 10/12-14/07 46 51 3
> > Did you really think you were going to be able to lie your way through
> > this?
>
> Every has a complaint about something. What matter is how they feel
> OVERALL.
>
> OVERALL people feel Satisfied: 84%, and Happy 92%.

I provided three cites that all show that people are worried about the
economy.

That's the topic under discussion, remember rightard?

Now, you can pretend that people will ignore that worry, because
they're happy with their families or whatever, and vote Republican.

But, I don't think they will.

> >> > The flaw in your reasoning is that you're pretending that the
> >> > Democratic candidates are far left extremists.
> >> > They're not.
> >> > The same center who voted for Bill Clinton won't have any difficulty
> >> > in voting for any of the Democratic candidates.
> >> Yes they will. Bubba said "no new gun laws." He LIED. That's just ONE
> >> example. The FAILINGS and LIES of the Bubba Administration caused a
> >> SPLIT
> >> in the Dems. Also the advancement of the socialists forced a split.
> > Heh heh...
> > Here's a clue for you.
> > There aren't many full blown gun nuts in the center, and none of the
> > Democrats are pushing for strong gun control.
>
> No, they are both supporting the NEW Assault Weapon Ban which is ten times
> more restrictive than the old Assault Weapon Ban.

The last assault weapons ban was very popular among those who aren't
rightard gun nuts.

I know that rightards, like you, don't like such legislation, but it's
not going to hurt Democrats among those who might be inclined to vote
for them.

> If you compare gun ownership in the population its IMPOSSIBLE for MOST of
> them be anywhere except in the Center.

That's right.

And most gun owners aren't especially concerned about things like an
assault weapons ban.

Just rightard gun nuts, like you.

> >> Actual Moderates SPLIT from the Farther Left.
> >> Sure, some of them will STAY Democrat. But SOME won't.
> >> Given that you AGREE that the last two elections were very close, if the
> >> Dems lose ANY votes they MUST be made up somewhere. Where?
> > You don't seem to understand.
> > It's not the Dems who are going to be losing votes.
> > It's the Republicans who will be losing votes.
> > The 2006 congressional elections were just a preview.
> > Not a single Democrat incumbent was ousted and Republicans fell like
> > dominoes.
>
> But 38 million didn't REGISTER. And by not registering (and not voting)
> they saw Dems win and GOP lose. These are the SAME people who, when they
> registered and voted in 2000 and 2004 were enough for the GOP to win.

As I said before...

This election is going to be won or lost in the center, and the center
is leaning heavily towards the Democrats.

They're worried about the economy, their jobs, outsourcing, keeping
their homes.

If you think that's going to translate into Republican votes...

Well...

I already knew you were a rightard.

>
> >> And since its a Far Left BLACK Guy and a Far Left WOMAN you have to
> >> assume a
> >> LARGE FEAR VOTE which means they have even MORE votes to counter.
> > Hahahahaha...
> > You think your racism and misogyny is the majority view, and it isn't.
>
> Who said "majority?" You did. It doesn't HAVE to be majority to be
> significant since the numbers are already close.

The racists and misogynists already vote Republican.

You're part of the 30%.

If Republicans want to win this election, they need to win the center,
and that's just not in the cards this time around.

The center has had a belly full of Republicans and their policies, and
they want change.

> > Women are hungry for a woman president, so you can count on a lot of
> > center women voting for Clinton.
>
> Maybe even 50%, but that makes an EVEN split.

I suspect that the number of center women voting Democrat will be much
higher than 50%.

And that doesn't even count the men who are sweating their jobs.

Nope...

The Republican chances of carrying the center are slim to none.

Further, how many social conservatives are going to turn out to vote
for Romney?

Many would rather eat poison.

And they feel the same way about McCain.

Republicans are going to have enough trouble getting their own base to
the polls, let alone capture the center.

> > As for Obama, it doesn't appear that the center is too concerned about
> > a black man being president either.
> > Probably you and your fellow rednecks in your trailer park won't vote
> > for him, but that won't matter.
> > Hardcore Republicans can't carry a general election on their own.
> > They need the center to win and the center is leaning strongly toward
> > the Democrats in this election cycle.
> >> So, AGAIN, you two types of votes: Fear voters and Happy voters.
> > The center will be happily voting for Democrats.
> > Game, set, match.
> >> A large than usual number of Happy Voters will come out FOR either a
> >> woman
> >> or a black.
> >> A large than usual number of Fear Voters will come out AGAINST either a
> >> woman or a black.
> >> Since ONLY 13% of the US population is black one MUST assume there will
> >> be
> >> MORE Fear voters than Happy voters if a black guy is on the ticket?
> >> Duh.
> > This election will be won or lost in the center, which is large enough
> > to swamp any possible Republican "fear" vote, especially when about a
> > third of Republican voters will have to hold their nose and swallow
> > their gorge no matter which Republican contender gets the nomination.
> > What do you think the Republicans chances of getting the center are?
>
> That's the whole point.... If you start with a near 50-50 split, which is
> what we saw in 2000 and 2004, then compare Happy versus Fear you end up with
> MORE Fear than Happy which swings the numbers FOR Republicans.....

Hahahaha...

People in the center are FAR more worried about their jobs and the
economy than they are about electing a woman or a black.

You're delusional.

> Remember, there are SIX TIMES as many white people as there are black people
> in America. For every ONE Happy black vote there are potentially SIX Fear
> white votes....
>
> Duh...

No...

There aren't six potential "fear" voters when it comes to electing a
woman or a black.

The people who have such worries are already firmly in the Republican
camp and have been there for years.

Centrists are terribly worried about your racial/sexist fear factor.

They're worried about the economy.

Heh heh...

Rightards....
 
"SilentOtto" <silentotto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c1b127c-9d51-4753-81b5-140e10a8bf35@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 5:54 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> "SilentOtto" <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2a9c0091-0070-4ba0-abc7-5080cd143bf8@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jan 25, 3:00 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> >> > But the Bush administration went hog wild and gutted anything that
>> >> > could have acted as a break.
>> >> Bullshit. Feel free to prove it.
>> > Take a look at CAFTA for starters.
>> > Then look at what the Bush administration did to the Consumer
>> > Protection Agency.
>> Still WAITING for you to PROVE it. Try using some CITES.
> Google CAFTA, rightard.
> And then explain to me what we're going to export to Central America
> besides jobs.

No cites...

>> > When have you EVER seen a country with the divisions that Iraq has
>> > that didn't end up in a civil war?
>> > Name one.
>> > Just one ****ing country.
>> > You can't do it because they don't exist.
>> Germany didn't end up in a civil war after WWII. South Africa, still no
>> civil war.
> Germany didn't have a population with the ethnic divisions that Iraq
> has, rightard.

Nazis. Jews. Most ordinary people would consider those two ethnic
divisions to be rather DIVIDED.

> As to South Africa, they already had one civil war and lest they tread
> very carefully, they'll have another.

You asked for one example, I gave you two....

>> > Or, perhaps you were referring to the economy?
>> > You think that there's going to be a major turn around in the next ten
>> > months?
>> > Right now, it's a scramble to prevent a complete melt down.
>> > Are you really deluded enough to think that there's a possibility of a
>> > major turn around before the elections?
>> A major turnaround isn't required. As the Market resettles it will, as
>> it
>> always does, build again.
> The market settling down isn't going to significantly alleviate
> peoples fears about losing their jobs and their homes.

Most middle class Americans don't have that concern, as the Poll
demonstrated.

Wishing it was true doesn't make it true.

>> If you actually understood large scale investment you'd know that the
>> Market
>> going down meant large selling of stock, which meant a LOT of CASH went
>> into
>> some people's pockets. Nobody holds cash in their pocket, because you
>> have
>> to pay taxes on it eventually, so that CASH will eventually find its way
>> back into the ecomony.
>> Additionally, that large selling of stock brings DOWN the stock prices.
>> Perhaps you've heard "Buy Low - Sell High?"
> Most Americans aren't living off the stock market, rightard.

All Americans are affected by the Market, directly or indirectly.

> They're living by their jobs, and those jobs are increasingly in
> jeopardy.

You say, with NO cites...

> The stock market is important, but it's not what's weighing on peoples
> minds when they say that their worried about the economy.
> Their worried about their jobs.

Apparently NOT THAT WORRIED, according to the Poll.

>> >> If the Liberals ran against the GOP candidates they would be going
>> >> after
>> >> a
>> >> STATIONARY target.
>> > They will...
>> Flip-floping must be part of the DNA of Democrats.
>> > Bush's '04 victory was largely attributed to "security moms".
>> "Security moms" who were AFRAID of Kerry..... That's the FEAR vote.
> They're more worried about their jobs now.

"Security moms" are worried about their jobs?

> The "fear factor" is driving them to the democrats.
> I just heard that there was record turn out for the Democratic South
> Carolina primary.

Not surprising. 48% black with an opportunity for vote for a charismatric
Black guy!

> The Republican primary certainly didn't set any records.

But the state has TWO Republican senators.

>> >> > The turnout in 2006 would have been low for a presidential election,
>> >> > but for an off year congressional election it was a high turnout.
>> >> Wrong. Feel free to prove it.
>> > That's easy.
>> >http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
>> > 2006 - 43.6
>> > 2002 - 37.0
>> > 1998 - 36.4
>> > Notice anything, rightard?
>> It was right in front of your face and you missed it!
>> You're comparing a percentage of REGISTERED WHO VOTED.
> What the hell is someone supposed to compare?
>> The people eligible to Register dropped by 656,931, but the people WHO
>> ACTUALLY REGISTERED dropped by 38,910,400!
> Weasel some more, rightard.
> Even the number of total voters was up.

No, it was WAY DOWN. Lying won't help you.

Turnout:
2004: 122,294,978
2006: 80,588,000

41,706,978 less voters.

38,910,400 less registered.

The 6.7% difference is people who expressed a desire to vote by registering
BUT THEN didn't follow through by voting.

Its slightly meaningful to compare registrations to votes. Its worth trying
to figure out why someone expressed a desire to vote by registering BUT THEN
didn't follow through by voting.

However, its MUCH MORE meaningful to compare the numbers who have registered
in the recent past to current registrations. Between 2004 and 2006 THESE 38
million people said "**** it" for some reason.

When the gap between registered and voted is small, like 6.7% above, it
means that whatever motivated them to register continued tomotivate them to
vote.

So the difference between 2004 and 2006 was a LACK of something to motivate
them to even bother to register. That LACK was a LACK of Fear.

>> >> Wrong, again:
>> >> Gallup Poll. Dec. 6-9, 2007. "In general, are you satisfied or
>> >> dissatisfied
>> >> with the way things are
>> >> going in your personal life at this time?"
>> >> Satisfied: 84%
>> >> Dissatisfied: 14%
>> >> Retarded: 2%
>> >> "Generally speaking, how happy would you say you are: very happy,
>> >> fairly
>> >> happy, or not too
>> >> happy?"
>> >> Very Happy: 52%
>> >> Fairly Happy: 40%
>> >> Not Too Happy: 6%
>> >> Retarded: 1%http://www.pollingreport.com/life.htm
>> > Hahahahaha...
>> > Why don't you cite a poll that actually asks them about the economy?
>> >http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer.htm
>> > ABC News CONSUMER COMFORT INDEX
>> > The Consumer Comfort Index uses a scale of +100 to -100 and is based
>> > on a rolling four-week sample of approximately 1,000 adults
>> > nationwide. (methodology)
>> > Interviewing
>> > End Date Consumer Comfort Index
>> > 1/20/08 -23
>> > 1/13/08 -24
>> > 1/6/08 -20
>> > 12/30/07 -20
>> > 12/23/07 -23
>> > 12/16/07 -17
>> > 12/9/07 -23
>> >http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
>> > This one is too cumbersome to paste, but it shows that the economy is
>> > the biggest concern of voters.
>> >http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer2.htm
>> > "Do you think the economy is now in a recession, or not?"
>> > 1/9-10/08 Yes % No % Unsure %
>> > 61 37 3
>> > 12/6-9/07 57 42 1
>> > 10/12-14/07 46 51 3
>> > Did you really think you were going to be able to lie your way through
>> > this?
>> Every has a complaint about something. What matter is how they feel
>> OVERALL.
>> OVERALL people feel Satisfied: 84%, and Happy 92%.
> I provided three cites that all show that people are worried about the
> economy.
> That's the topic under discussion, remember rightard?
> Now, you can pretend that people will ignore that worry, because
> they're happy with their families or whatever, and vote Republican.
> But, I don't think they will.

No, you're missing the bigger picture. You're trying to find negatives to
explain why people will vote against Republicans or for Democrats.

The Polls plainly demonstrate that those negatives ARE NOT THERE.

The Polls ALSO plainly demonstrate that there is plenty of room for
positives to exist that would cause people to vote FOR either Republicans or
Democrats.

This is WHY the current Democrat strategy is a LOSING strategy. The
negatives aren't there so they SHOULD be campaigning on the POSITIVES.

When the vast majority of people feel Satisfied: 84%, and Happy 92% the
candidates look like FOOLS telling them they aren't. This is the KEY reason
why Breck Gurl can't get any good numbers, even in his home state. Same
thing with Hitlary. Buckwheat spends LESS time telling people everything
sucks and MORE time telling them that whatever it is today it could be
BETTER (with him) in the future.

So far, we have NOT seen any meaningful Republican versus Democrat victories
or losses.

>> > There aren't many full blown gun nuts in the center, and none of the
>> > Democrats are pushing for strong gun control.
>> No, they are both supporting the NEW Assault Weapon Ban which is ten
>> times
>> more restrictive than the old Assault Weapon Ban.
> The last assault weapons ban was very popular among those who aren't
> rightard gun nuts.
> I know that rightards, like you, don't like such legislation, but it's
> not going to hurt Democrats among those who might be inclined to vote
> for them.

But that doesn't get you anywhere. Solid Democrats are gonna vote for
Democrats anyway.

>> If you compare gun ownership in the population its IMPOSSIBLE for MOST of
>> them be anywhere except in the Center.
> That's right.
> And most gun owners aren't especially concerned about things like an
> assault weapons ban.

Of course they are. The new Assault Weapon Ban takes hunting back 50 years
by outlawing nearly all centerfire semi-automatic rifles.

>> >> Actual Moderates SPLIT from the Farther Left.
>> >> Sure, some of them will STAY Democrat. But SOME won't.
>> >> Given that you AGREE that the last two elections were very close, if
>> >> the
>> >> Dems lose ANY votes they MUST be made up somewhere. Where?
>> > You don't seem to understand.
>> > It's not the Dems who are going to be losing votes.
>> > It's the Republicans who will be losing votes.
>> > The 2006 congressional elections were just a preview.
>> > Not a single Democrat incumbent was ousted and Republicans fell like
>> > dominoes.
>> But 38 million didn't REGISTER. And by not registering (and not voting)
>> they saw Dems win and GOP lose. These are the SAME people who, when they
>> registered and voted in 2000 and 2004 were enough for the GOP to win.
> As I said before...
> This election is going to be won or lost in the center, and the center
> is leaning heavily towards the Democrats.

You say, with NO cites.....

> They're worried about the economy, their jobs, outsourcing, keeping
> their homes.

No, they Poll PROVES they are NOT.

> If you think that's going to translate into Republican votes...
> Well...

It won't translate to ANY votes UNTIL positives from Democrats are compared
to positives from Republicans.

>> >> And since its a Far Left BLACK Guy and a Far Left WOMAN you have to
>> >> assume a
>> >> LARGE FEAR VOTE which means they have even MORE votes to counter.
>> > Hahahahaha...
>> > You think your racism and misogyny is the majority view, and it isn't.
>> Who said "majority?" You did. It doesn't HAVE to be majority to be
>> significant since the numbers are already close.
> The racists and misogynists already vote Republican.
> You're part of the 30%.

I suspect you can't get your small mind out of the sewer because you like
the taste of what snack on there.

> If Republicans want to win this election, they need to win the center,
> and that's just not in the cards this time around.
> The center has had a belly full of Republicans and their policies, and
> they want change.

No, the Polls plainly say you're wrong. The voters wanted to PREVENT a
change in 2004 based on Fear, that's why so many registered and voted. The
voters DIDN'T CARE, because of a LACK of fear, in 2006 and they PROVED that
by NOT registering.

Clearly THIS TIME around it will be MUCH more important than 2004.

>> > Women are hungry for a woman president, so you can count on a lot of
>> > center women voting for Clinton.
>> Maybe even 50%, but that makes an EVEN split.
> I suspect that the number of center women voting Democrat will be much
> higher than 50%.

No, Polls have consistently shown that she has a 50% Never-Vote-For
albatross around her neck. She could get half that vote, but not more. So
its a wash.

> And that doesn't even count the men who are sweating their jobs.

Those percentages are too small to be meaningful.


> Nope...
> The Republican chances of carrying the center are slim to none.

You say, with NO cites.

> Further, how many social conservatives are going to turn out to vote
> for Romney?
> Many would rather eat poison.
> And they feel the same way about McCain.
> Republicans are going to have enough trouble getting their own base to
> the polls, let alone capture the center.

They won't have that problem. The Democrats won't have a similar problem
either. Republicans are better a rallying around a candidate than Democrats
but both are good enough that they won't lose any.

>> > As for Obama, it doesn't appear that the center is too concerned about
>> > a black man being president either.
>> > Probably you and your fellow rednecks in your trailer park won't vote
>> > for him, but that won't matter.
>> > Hardcore Republicans can't carry a general election on their own.
>> > They need the center to win and the center is leaning strongly toward
>> > the Democrats in this election cycle.
>> >> So, AGAIN, you two types of votes: Fear voters and Happy voters.
>> > The center will be happily voting for Democrats.
>> > Game, set, match.
>> >> A large than usual number of Happy Voters will come out FOR either a
>> >> woman
>> >> or a black.
>> >> A large than usual number of Fear Voters will come out AGAINST either
>> >> a
>> >> woman or a black.
>> >> Since ONLY 13% of the US population is black one MUST assume there
>> >> will
>> >> be
>> >> MORE Fear voters than Happy voters if a black guy is on the ticket?
>> >> Duh.
>> > This election will be won or lost in the center, which is large enough
>> > to swamp any possible Republican "fear" vote, especially when about a
>> > third of Republican voters will have to hold their nose and swallow
>> > their gorge no matter which Republican contender gets the nomination.
>> > What do you think the Republicans chances of getting the center are?
>> That's the whole point.... If you start with a near 50-50 split, which
>> is
>> what we saw in 2000 and 2004, then compare Happy versus Fear you end up
>> with
>> MORE Fear than Happy which swings the numbers FOR Republicans.....
> Hahahaha...
> People in the center are FAR more worried about their jobs and the
> economy than they are about electing a woman or a black.

No, the Polls PROVE you wrong.

>> Remember, there are SIX TIMES as many white people as there are black
>> people
>> in America. For every ONE Happy black vote there are potentially SIX
>> Fear
>> white votes....
>> Duh...
> No...
> There aren't six potential "fear" voters when it comes to electing a
> woman or a black.

That's what I said.

> The people who have such worries are already firmly in the Republican
> camp and have been there for years.

No, pay attention. Happy and Fear voters are NEW VOTERS. They aren't in
ANY camp. Some of them are part of the 38 million who didn't register in
2006. MOST of them may not have voted in DECADES.

> Centrists are terribly worried about your racial/sexist fear factor.
> They're worried about the economy.

No, the Polls PROVE you're wrong.
 
On Jan 27, 12:22 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> "SilentOtto" <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7c1b127c-9d51-4753-81b5-140e10a8bf35@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 26, 5:54 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> >> "SilentOtto" <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:2a9c0091-0070-4ba0-abc7-5080cd143bf8@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Jan 25, 3:00 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
> >> >> > But the Bush administration went hog wild and gutted anything that
> >> >> > could have acted as a break.
> >> >> Bullshit. Feel free to prove it.
> >> > Take a look at CAFTA for starters.
> >> > Then look at what the Bush administration did to the Consumer
> >> > Protection Agency.
> >> Still WAITING for you to PROVE it. Try using some CITES.
> > Google CAFTA, rightard.
> > And then explain to me what we're going to export to Central America
> > besides jobs.
>
> No cites...

You too stupid to use Google?

>
> >> > When have you EVER seen a country with the divisions that Iraq has
> >> > that didn't end up in a civil war?
> >> > Name one.
> >> > Just one ****ing country.
> >> > You can't do it because they don't exist.
> >> Germany didn't end up in a civil war after WWII. South Africa, still no
> >> civil war.
> > Germany didn't have a population with the ethnic divisions that Iraq
> > has, rightard.
>
> Nazis. Jews. Most ordinary people would consider those two ethnic
> divisions to be rather DIVIDED.

Yea...

Jews were a small minority in Germany and Germany was able to get rid
of them without a civil war.

But, the Jews ended up dead, didn't they?

> > As to South Africa, they already had one civil war and lest they tread
> > very carefully, they'll have another.
>
> You asked for one example, I gave you two....

And both failed the test.

> >> > Or, perhaps you were referring to the economy?
> >> > You think that there's going to be a major turn around in the next ten
> >> > months?
> >> > Right now, it's a scramble to prevent a complete melt down.
> >> > Are you really deluded enough to think that there's a possibility of a
> >> > major turn around before the elections?
> >> A major turnaround isn't required. As the Market resettles it will, as
> >> it
> >> always does, build again.
> > The market settling down isn't going to significantly alleviate
> > peoples fears about losing their jobs and their homes.
>
> Most middle class Americans don't have that concern, as the Poll
> demonstrated.
>
> Wishing it was true doesn't make it true.

On the contrary.

The implications of a bad economy has lot's of people worried and
that's what the polls show.

>
> >> If you actually understood large scale investment you'd know that the
> >> Market
> >> going down meant large selling of stock, which meant a LOT of CASH went
> >> into
> >> some people's pockets. Nobody holds cash in their pocket, because you
> >> have
> >> to pay taxes on it eventually, so that CASH will eventually find its way
> >> back into the ecomony.
> >> Additionally, that large selling of stock brings DOWN the stock prices.
> >> Perhaps you've heard "Buy Low - Sell High?"
> > Most Americans aren't living off the stock market, rightard.
>
> All Americans are affected by the Market, directly or indirectly.

More indirectly.

Go ask your trailer trash neighbor which would worry him more.

The DOW dropping or losing his job...


> > They're living by their jobs, and those jobs are increasingly in
> > jeopardy.
>
> You say, with NO cites...

I've already provided polls showing Americans were worried about the
economy.

> > The stock market is important, but it's not what's weighing on peoples
> > minds when they say that their worried about the economy.
> > Their worried about their jobs.
>
> Apparently NOT THAT WORRIED, according to the Poll.

Sigh...

In this context, the economy and their jobs are the same damn thing.

What's they saying?

It's a recession when your neighbor looses his job, and it's a
depression when you loose yours.

>
> >> >> If the Liberals ran against the GOP candidates they would be going
> >> >> after
> >> >> a
> >> >> STATIONARY target.
> >> > They will...
> >> Flip-floping must be part of the DNA of Democrats.
> >> > Bush's '04 victory was largely attributed to "security moms".
> >> "Security moms" who were AFRAID of Kerry..... That's the FEAR vote.
> > They're more worried about their jobs now.
>
> "Security moms" are worried about their jobs?

They aren't "security moms" any more. They're "jobs moms".

>
> > The "fear factor" is driving them to the democrats.
> > I just heard that there was record turn out for the Democratic South
> > Carolina primary.
>
> Not surprising. 48% black with an opportunity for vote for a charismatric
> Black guy!

So?

If Clinton wins the nomination, they'll vote for her.

If Obama wins the nomination, they'll vote for him.

You'll notice that whom ever they voted for in South Carolina, they
didn't do so because the hate the other candidate.


> > The Republican primary certainly didn't set any records.
>
> But the state has TWO Republican senators.

Probably not for long...

Heh heh..

> >> >> > The turnout in 2006 would have been low for a presidential election,
> >> >> > but for an off year congressional election it was a high turnout.
> >> >> Wrong. Feel free to prove it.
> >> > That's easy.
> >> >http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
> >> > 2006 - 43.6
> >> > 2002 - 37.0
> >> > 1998 - 36.4
> >> > Notice anything, rightard?
> >> It was right in front of your face and you missed it!
> >> You're comparing a percentage of REGISTERED WHO VOTED.
> > What the hell is someone supposed to compare?
> >> The people eligible to Register dropped by 656,931, but the people WHO
> >> ACTUALLY REGISTERED dropped by 38,910,400!
> > Weasel some more, rightard.
> > Even the number of total voters was up.
>
> No, it was WAY DOWN. Lying won't help you.

Only compared to a presidental election year, which is what I said in
the first place.

> Turnout:
> 2004: 122,294,978
> 2006: 80,588,000

'04 was a presidental election year, rightard.

> 41,706,978 less voters.
>
> 38,910,400 less registered.
>
> The 6.7% difference is people who expressed a desire to vote by registering
> BUT THEN didn't follow through by voting.
>
> Its slightly meaningful to compare registrations to votes. Its worth trying
> to figure out why someone expressed a desire to vote by registering BUT THEN
> didn't follow through by voting.
>
> However, its MUCH MORE meaningful to compare the numbers who have registered
> in the recent past to current registrations. Between 2004 and 2006 THESE 38
> million people said "**** it" for some reason.
>
> When the gap between registered and voted is small, like 6.7% above, it
> means that whatever motivated them to register continued tomotivate them to
> vote.
>
> So the difference between 2004 and 2006 was a LACK of something to motivate
> them to even bother to register. That LACK was a LACK of Fear.

You think the center is afraid of a woman or black president.

They aren't.


> >> >> Wrong, again:
> >> >> Gallup Poll. Dec. 6-9, 2007. "In general, are you satisfied or
> >> >> dissatisfied
> >> >> with the way things are
> >> >> going in your personal life at this time?"
> >> >> Satisfied: 84%
> >> >> Dissatisfied: 14%
> >> >> Retarded: 2%
> >> >> "Generally speaking, how happy would you say you are: very happy,
> >> >> fairly
> >> >> happy, or not too
> >> >> happy?"
> >> >> Very Happy: 52%
> >> >> Fairly Happy: 40%
> >> >> Not Too Happy: 6%
> >> >> Retarded: 1%http://www.pollingreport.com/life.htm
> >> > Hahahahaha...
> >> > Why don't you cite a poll that actually asks them about the economy?
> >> >http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer.htm
> >> > ABC News CONSUMER COMFORT INDEX
> >> > The Consumer Comfort Index uses a scale of +100 to -100 and is based
> >> > on a rolling four-week sample of approximately 1,000 adults
> >> > nationwide. (methodology)
> >> > Interviewing
> >> > End Date Consumer Comfort Index
> >> > 1/20/08 -23
> >> > 1/13/08 -24
> >> > 1/6/08 -20
> >> > 12/30/07 -20
> >> > 12/23/07 -23
> >> > 12/16/07 -17
> >> > 12/9/07 -23
> >> >http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
> >> > This one is too cumbersome to paste, but it shows that the economy is
> >> > the biggest concern of voters.
> >> >http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer2.htm
> >> > "Do you think the economy is now in a recession, or not?"
> >> > 1/9-10/08 Yes % No % Unsure %
> >> > 61 37 3
> >> > 12/6-9/07 57 42 1
> >> > 10/12-14/07 46 51 3
> >> > Did you really think you were going to be able to lie your way through
> >> > this?
> >> Every has a complaint about something. What matter is how they feel
> >> OVERALL.
> >> OVERALL people feel Satisfied: 84%, and Happy 92%.
> > I provided three cites that all show that people are worried about the
> > economy.
> > That's the topic under discussion, remember rightard?
> > Now, you can pretend that people will ignore that worry, because
> > they're happy with their families or whatever, and vote Republican.
> > But, I don't think they will.
>
> No, you're missing the bigger picture. You're trying to find negatives to
> explain why people will vote against Republicans or for Democrats.
>
> The Polls plainly demonstrate that those negatives ARE NOT THERE.

Hahahahahahaha...

Yea...

People aren't worried about the economy.

They don't want us out of Iraq.

Heh heh...

Rightards...

You're so full of rightard **** that I'm not going to bother reading
the rest of your post.

You're a delusional rightard loon grasping at any straw, no matter how
frail, to cling to some hope that the Democrats aren't going to ream
the Republicans this fall.

Well...

I don't give a **** if you delude yourself or not.

This will all be settled in November, and I, as a Democrat, can't wait
for it to get here.










> The Polls ALSO plainly demonstrate that there is plenty of room for
> positives to exist that would cause people to vote FOR either Republicans or
> Democrats.
>
> This is WHY the current Democrat strategy is a LOSING strategy. The
> negatives aren't there so they SHOULD be campaigning on the POSITIVES.
>
> When the vast majority of people feel Satisfied: 84%, and Happy 92% the
> candidates look like FOOLS telling them they aren't. This is the KEY reason
> why Breck Gurl can't get any good numbers, even in his home state. Same
> thing with Hitlary. Buckwheat spends LESS time telling people everything
> sucks and MORE time telling them that whatever it is today it could be
> BETTER (with him) in the future.
>
> So far, we have NOT seen any meaningful Republican versus Democrat victories
> or losses.
>
> >> > There aren't many full blown gun nuts in the center, and none of the
> >> > Democrats are pushing for strong gun control.
> >> No, they are both supporting the NEW Assault Weapon Ban which is ten
> >> times
> >> more restrictive than the old Assault Weapon Ban.
> > The last assault weapons ban was very popular among those who aren't
> > rightard gun nuts.
> > I know that rightards, like you, don't like such legislation, but it's
> > not going to hurt Democrats among those who might be inclined to vote
> > for them.
>
> But that doesn't get you anywhere. Solid Democrats are gonna vote for
> Democrats anyway.
>
> >> If you compare gun ownership in the population its IMPOSSIBLE for MOST of
> >> them be anywhere except in the Center.
> > That's right.
> > And most gun owners aren't especially concerned about things like an
> > assault weapons ban.
>
> Of course they are. The new Assault Weapon Ban takes hunting back 50 years
> by outlawing nearly all centerfire semi-automatic rifles.
>
> >> >> Actual Moderates SPLIT from the Farther Left.
> >> >> Sure, some of them will STAY Democrat. But SOME won't.
> >> >> Given that you AGREE that the last two elections were very close, if
> >> >> the
> >> >> Dems lose ANY votes they MUST be made up somewhere. Where?
> >> > You don't seem to understand.
> >> > It's not the Dems who are going to be losing votes.
> >> > It's the Republicans who will be losing votes.
> >> > The 2006 congressional elections were just a preview.
> >> > Not a single Democrat incumbent was ousted and Republicans fell like
> >> > dominoes.
> >> But 38 million didn't REGISTER. And by not registering (and not voting)
> >> they saw Dems win and GOP lose. These are the SAME people who, when they
> >> registered and voted in 2000 and 2004 were enough for the GOP to win.
> > As I said before...
> > This election is going to be won or lost in the center, and the center
> > is leaning heavily towards the Democrats.
>
> You say, with NO cites.....
>
> > They're worried about the economy, their jobs, outsourcing, keeping
> > their homes.
>
> No, they Poll PROVES they are NOT.
>
> > If you think that's going to translate into Republican votes...
> > Well...
>
> It won't translate to ANY votes UNTIL positives from Democrats are compared
> to positives from Republicans.
>
> >> >> And since its a Far Left BLACK Guy and a Far Left WOMAN you have to
> >> >> assume a
> >> >> LARGE FEAR VOTE which means they have even MORE votes to counter.
> >> > Hahahahaha...
> >> > You think your racism and misogyny is the majority view, and it isn't.
> >> Who said "majority?" You did. It doesn't HAVE to be majority to be
> >> significant since the numbers are already close.
> > The racists and misogynists already vote Republican.
> > You're part of the 30%.
>
> I suspect you can't get your small mind out of the sewer because you like
> the taste of what snack on there.
>
> > If Republicans want to win this election, they need to win the center,
> > and that's just not in the cards this time around.
> > The center has had a belly full of Republicans and their policies, and
> > they want change.
>
> No, the Polls plainly say you're wrong. The voters wanted to PREVENT a
> change in 2004 based on Fear, that's why so many registered and voted. The
> voters DIDN'T CARE, because of a LACK of fear, in 2006 and they PROVED that
> by NOT registering.
>
> Clearly THIS TIME around it will be MUCH more important than 2004.
>
> >> > Women are hungry for a woman president, so you can count on a lot of
> >> > center women voting for Clinton.
> >> Maybe even 50%, but that makes an EVEN split.
> > I suspect that the number of center women voting Democrat will be much
> > higher than 50%.
>
> No, Polls have consistently shown that she has a 50% Never-Vote-For
> albatross around her neck. She could get half that vote, but not more. So
> its a wash.
>
> > And that doesn't even count the men who are sweating their jobs.
>
> Those percentages are too small to be meaningful.
>
> > Nope...
> > The Republican chances of carrying the center are slim to none.
>
> You say, with NO cites.
>
> > Further, how many social conservatives are going to turn out to vote
> > for Romney?
> > Many would rather eat poison.
> > And they feel the same way about McCain.
> > Republicans are going to have enough trouble getting their own base to
> > the polls, let alone capture the center.
>
> They won't have that problem. The Democrats won't have a similar problem
> either. Republicans are better a rallying around a candidate than Democrats
> but both are good enough that they won't lose any.
>
> >> > As for Obama, it doesn't appear that the center is too concerned about
> >> > a black man being president either.
> >> > Probably you and your fellow rednecks in your trailer park won't vote
> >> > for him, but that won't matter.
> >> > Hardcore Republicans can't carry a general election on their own.
> >> > They need the center to win and the center is leaning strongly toward
> >> > the Democrats in this election cycle.
> >> >> So, AGAIN, you two types of votes: Fear voters and Happy voters.
> >> > The center will be happily voting for Democrats.
> >> > Game, set, match.
> >> >> A large than usual number of Happy Voters will come out FOR either a
> >> >> woman
> >> >> or a black.
> >> >> A large than usual number of Fear Voters will come out AGAINST either
> >> >> a
> >> >> woman or a black.
> >> >> Since ONLY 13% of the US population is black one MUST assume there
> >> >> will
> >> >> be
> >> >> MORE Fear voters than Happy voters if a black guy is on the ticket?
> >> >> Duh.
> >> > This election will be won or lost in the center, which is large enough
> >> > to swamp any possible Republican "fear" vote, especially when about a
> >> > third of Republican voters will have to hold their nose and swallow
> >> > their gorge no matter which Republican contender gets the nomination.
> >> > What do you think the Republicans chances of getting the center are?
> >> That's the whole point.... If you start with a near 50-50 split, which
> >> is
> >> what we saw in 2000 and 2004, then compare Happy versus Fear you end up
> >> with
> >> MORE Fear than Happy which swings the numbers FOR Republicans.....
> > Hahahaha...
> > People in the center are FAR more worried about their jobs and the
> > economy than they are about electing a woman or a black.
>
> No, the Polls PROVE you wrong.
>
> >> Remember, there are SIX TIMES as many white people as there are black
> >> people
> >> in America. For every ONE Happy black vote there are potentially SIX
> >> Fear
> >> white votes....
> >> Duh...
> > No...
> > There aren't six potential "fear" voters when it comes to electing a
> > woman or a black.
>
> That's what I said.
>
> > The people who have such worries are already firmly in the Republican
> > camp and have been there for years.
>
> No, pay attention. Happy and Fear voters are NEW VOTERS. They aren't in
> ANY camp. Some of them are part of the 38 million who didn't register in
> 2006. MOST of them may not have voted in DECADES.
>
> > Centrists are terribly worried about your racial/sexist fear factor.
> > They're worried about the economy.
>
> No, the Polls PROVE you're wrong.
 

Similar threads

WorldNews
Chinese Communist Party rules out 'independent' checks in graft fight
Replies
0
Views
24
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Policeman wounded in gun attack outside Greek socialist party office
Replies
0
Views
29
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
London's mayor appoints former EU commissioner Mandelson to advise on Brexit
Replies
0
Views
25
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Nicaragua presidential hopeful ends bid as opposition wilts
Replies
0
Views
24
WorldNews
WorldNews
S
Miami Heat's Bosh could reunite with Wade on Chicago Bulls
Replies
0
Views
24
Sports News
S
Back
Top