Guest Simpson Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 .... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be a Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Countess Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 "Simpson" <two--part@epoxy.com> wrote in message news:VTBfj.36271$Pv2.24608@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... > ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be a > Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. as a former Republican I can tell you that even many Registered republicans will not vote for the Republican nominee in November unless Hillary gets the Democratic nomination which I don't think she will and God I hope not. lots of independents will also help determine the outcome. regardless of what Fox Noise or the talk-radio jerks say, the days of Neocon reign are coming to an end. Obama will be our next president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Simpson Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 spammer wrote: > On Jan 4, 9:24 pm, Simpson <two--p...@epoxy.com> wrote: >> ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be >> a Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. > > > > Ya think? What a dumb friggin' post. Ya think? Dems cast 250,005 votes Pubs cast 118,349 votes. Add 'em up yorself: http://content.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/results.aspx?sp=ia@oi=p&rti=e Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Itchy Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Simpson <two--part@epoxy.com> wrote in news:VTBfj.36271$Pv2.24608 @newssvr23.news.prodigy.net: > ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be > a Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. Huh? I do not get it..there were like 200k votes for Huckabee alone.. and 4k votes for Obama. Seems like the republicans had lots more people turn out. ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dan Kimmel Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 "The Countess" <countess@notyourmama.com> wrote in message news:477eede0$0$28837$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > "Simpson" <two--part@epoxy.com> wrote in message > news:VTBfj.36271$Pv2.24608@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... > > ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be a > > Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. > > as a former Republican I can tell you that even many Registered republicans > will > not vote for the Republican nominee in November unless Hillary gets the > Democratic > nomination which I don't think she will and God I hope not. > > lots of independents will also help determine the outcome. > > regardless of what Fox Noise or the talk-radio jerks say, the days of Neocon > reign are coming to an end. > > Obama will be our next president. Not yet. We'll have a better idea in February. But there's a desire to wipe the slate clean of a failed administration that I haven't seen since '92 (the last time we had to clean up after a Bush). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gooserider Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 "The Countess" <countess@notyourmama.com> wrote in message news:477eede0$0$28837$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > "Simpson" <two--part@epoxy.com> wrote in message > news:VTBfj.36271$Pv2.24608@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... >> ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be a >> Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. > > as a former Republican I can tell you that even many Registered > republicans will > not vote for the Republican nominee in November unless Hillary gets the > Democratic > nomination which I don't think she will and God I hope not. > > lots of independents will also help determine the outcome. > > regardless of what Fox Noise or the talk-radio jerks say, the days of > Neocon reign are coming to an end. > > Obama will be our next president. > > I'm a registered Republican, and I can't imagine voting for Huckleberry. I can't vote for Romney or McCain, either. I would vote for Ron Paul, and I will vote for him in the primary. I would have had no problem voting for Tancredo. But I cannot vote for a Bible-thumping corrupt phony like Huckleberry, or a silver-spoon sucking slick flip flopper like Romney, or a warmongering Washington insider like McCain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steven L. Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Simpson wrote: > ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be > a Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. The Republicans did NOT "stay home" in Iowa. Turnout was higher for the GOP caucus in 2008 than in 2004. What happened was that there was a much larger increase in turnout for the Dem caucus. Young voters, who are usually apathetic about voting, turned out in droves just to vote for Obama. What that suggests is that if Obama gets the Dem nomination, he will clobber the GOP. But if Hillary gets the Dem nomination, it will be much closer. -- Steven L. Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Games Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 "Simpson" <two--part@epoxy.com> wrote in message news:VTBfj.36271$Pv2.24608@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... > ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be a > Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. The FACTS, once again, conspire to urinate in your open mouth: "Updated attendance figures from Thursday night's caucus show Democrats drew roughly 239,000 participants, dwarfing the Republicans' pull of approximately 120,000, party officials said. Those are unprecedented headcounts for both parties." http://www.midiowanews.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=19171042&BRD=2700&PAG=461&dept_id=554432&rfi=6 Try again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scruffy McScruffovitch Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 In News 13nve1vag7j4qdd@corp.supernews.com,, Steven L. at sdlitvin@earthlink.net, typed this: > Simpson wrote: >> ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will >> be a Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. > > The Republicans did NOT "stay home" in Iowa. Turnout was higher for > the GOP caucus in 2008 than in 2004. > > What happened was that there was a much larger increase in turnout for > the Dem caucus. Young voters, who are usually apathetic about voting, > turned out in droves just to vote for Obama. > > What that suggests is that if Obama gets the Dem nomination, he will > clobber the GOP. But if Hillary gets the Dem nomination, it will be > much closer. The telling number isn't the number of GOP or Democrats turned out, but how many moderates/independents showed up and who they were voting for. Some people are still under the mistaken impression that the Reps or Dems actually decide elections. LOL! -- "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take away everything you have." Thomas Jefferson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marinus van der Lubbe Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Patriot Games wrote: > "Simpson" <two--part@epoxy.com> wrote in message > news:VTBfj.36271$Pv2.24608@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... >> ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will >> be a Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. > > The FACTS, once again, conspire to urinate in your open mouth: > > "Updated attendance figures from Thursday night's caucus show Democrats > drew roughly 239,000 participants, dwarfing the Republicans' pull of > approximately 120,000, party officials said. Those are unprecedented > headcounts for both parties." > http://www.midiowanews.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=19171042&BRD=2700&PAG=461&dept_id=554432&rfi=6 > > > Try again. > "Eight years ago [before the judicial coup d' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Governor Swill Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 17:45:53 GMT, Marinus van der Lubbe <mvdl@reichstagsbrand.de> wrote: >"Eight years ago [before the judicial coup d' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steven L. Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Scruffy McScruffovitch wrote: > In News 13nve1vag7j4qdd@corp.supernews.com,, Steven L. at > sdlitvin@earthlink.net, typed this: > >> Simpson wrote: >>> ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will >>> be a Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. >> The Republicans did NOT "stay home" in Iowa. Turnout was higher for >> the GOP caucus in 2008 than in 2004. >> >> What happened was that there was a much larger increase in turnout for >> the Dem caucus. Young voters, who are usually apathetic about voting, >> turned out in droves just to vote for Obama. >> >> What that suggests is that if Obama gets the Dem nomination, he will >> clobber the GOP. But if Hillary gets the Dem nomination, it will be >> much closer. > > The telling number isn't the number of GOP or Democrats turned out, but how > many moderates/independents showed up and who they were voting for. Some > people are still under the mistaken impression that the Reps or Dems > actually decide elections. LOL! You will notice that I phrased it as "turnout for the Dem caucus," not "Dem turnout." That was so I could allow for young and independent voters to turn out for Obama (and as some Independents will turn out for McCain in NH too). -- Steven L. Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gooserider Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:13nve1vag7j4qdd@corp.supernews.com... > Simpson wrote: >> ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be a >> Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. > > The Republicans did NOT "stay home" in Iowa. Turnout was higher for the > GOP caucus in 2008 than in 2004. > > What happened was that there was a much larger increase in turnout for the > Dem caucus. Young voters, who are usually apathetic about voting, turned > out in droves just to vote for Obama. > > What that suggests is that if Obama gets the Dem nomination, he will > clobber the GOP. But if Hillary gets the Dem nomination, it will be much > closer. > Obama can't win the south. No way. You don't win the presidency without the south, and that's just not going to happen. Edwards could win the south. He's a southern white guy. But Hillary won't, and Obama won't. Obama is a black guy with a funny name, and Hillary is Hillary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dan Kimmel Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message news:477ff047$0$9558$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:13nve1vag7j4qdd@corp.supernews.com... > > Simpson wrote: > >> ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be a > >> Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. > > > > The Republicans did NOT "stay home" in Iowa. Turnout was higher for the > > GOP caucus in 2008 than in 2004. > > > > What happened was that there was a much larger increase in turnout for the > > Dem caucus. Young voters, who are usually apathetic about voting, turned > > out in droves just to vote for Obama. > > > > What that suggests is that if Obama gets the Dem nomination, he will > > clobber the GOP. But if Hillary gets the Dem nomination, it will be much > > closer. > > > Obama can't win the south. No way. You don't win the presidency without the > south, and that's just not going to happen. Edwards could win the south. > He's a southern white guy. But Hillary won't, and Obama won't. Obama is a > black guy with a funny name, and Hillary is Hillary. Of course you can win without the South. The South is the most un-American part of the country and most out of step with America. Much of the South (but not all of it) will go for which ever loser the Republics nominate. It won't matter. The Republics are now a regional party of fringe extremists. The Democratic Party represents America, and that's why whoever gets the nomination will win big -- without the so-called "important" South. After this election they'll be talking about the marginalization of the South, not how crucial it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Games Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 "Marinus van der Lubbe" <mvdl@reichstagsbrand.de> wrote in message news:lnPfj.28274$4V6.22013@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net... > Patriot Games wrote: >> "Simpson" <two--part@epoxy.com> wrote in message >> news:VTBfj.36271$Pv2.24608@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... >>> ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be >>> a Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. >> The FACTS, once again, conspire to urinate in your open mouth: >> "Updated attendance figures from Thursday night's caucus show Democrats >> drew roughly 239,000 participants, dwarfing the Republicans' pull of >> approximately 120,000, party officials said. Those are unprecedented >> headcounts for both parties." >> http://www.midiowanews.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=19171042&BRD=2700&PAG=461&dept_id=554432&rfi=6 >> Try again. > "Eight years ago [before the judicial coup d' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Friendly Xenu Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Simpson <two--part@epoxy.com> wrote: >... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be >a Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. Voters consider Presidential elections to be more important than all the various caucuses. I don't think we'll see Republinazi apathy come election time. --- "God's going to give us China. And China will be the largest Christian nation on the face of the earth. They're going to come to Jesus." -- Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, 1/2/08, with his global predictions after this year's annual conversation with God Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dan Kimmel Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 "Friendly Xenu" <Xenu@aol.COM> wrote in message news:13o04orrno3b9db@corp.supernews.com... > Simpson <two--part@epoxy.com> wrote: > > >... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be > >a Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. > > Voters consider Presidential elections to be more important than > all the various caucuses. I don't think we'll see Republinazi > apathy come election time. So? Who cares what the regional moonbat party does? Most Americans -- Democrats and independents -- won't be voting for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Itchy Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Werner <whetzner@mac.com> wrote in news:933aa991-1402-43b9-bf9d- e2be9dea5e98@m77g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: > On Jan 5, 12:45 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lockheed Martin Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:23:39 -0500, "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > >"The Countess" <countess@notyourmama.com> wrote in message >news:477eede0$0$28837$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >> "Simpson" <two--part@epoxy.com> wrote in message >> news:VTBfj.36271$Pv2.24608@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... >>> ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be a >>> Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. >> >> as a former Republican I can tell you that even many Registered >> republicans will >> not vote for the Republican nominee in November unless Hillary gets the >> Democratic >> nomination which I don't think she will and God I hope not. >> >> lots of independents will also help determine the outcome. >> >> regardless of what Fox Noise or the talk-radio jerks say, the days of >> Neocon reign are coming to an end. >> >> Obama will be our next president. >> >> > >I'm a registered Republican, and I can't imagine voting for Huckleberry. I >can't vote for Romney or McCain, either. I would vote for Ron Paul, and I >will vote for him in the primary. I would have had no problem voting for >Tancredo. > >But I cannot vote for a Bible-thumping corrupt phony like Huckleberry, or a >silver-spoon sucking slick flip flopper like Romney, or a warmongering >Washington insider like McCain. I hope the dems don't elect Hillary I'm no fan of hers she sounds like an establishment opportunistic politician salivating for power even though I'm a dem at heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Governor Swill Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> used a stick in the sand to babble >>> http://www.midiowanews.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=19171042&BRD=2700&PAG=461&dept_id=554432&rfi=6 >>> Try again. >> "Eight years ago [before the judicial coup d' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gooserider Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote in message news:HOudnTmh1Zlya-LanZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@rcn.net... > > "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message > news:477ff047$0$9558$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:13nve1vag7j4qdd@corp.supernews.com... >> > Simpson wrote: >> >> ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will >> >> be > a >> >> Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. >> > >> > The Republicans did NOT "stay home" in Iowa. Turnout was higher for > the >> > GOP caucus in 2008 than in 2004. >> > >> > What happened was that there was a much larger increase in turnout for > the >> > Dem caucus. Young voters, who are usually apathetic about voting, > turned >> > out in droves just to vote for Obama. >> > >> > What that suggests is that if Obama gets the Dem nomination, he will >> > clobber the GOP. But if Hillary gets the Dem nomination, it will be > much >> > closer. >> > >> Obama can't win the south. No way. You don't win the presidency without > the >> south, and that's just not going to happen. Edwards could win the south. >> He's a southern white guy. But Hillary won't, and Obama won't. Obama is a >> black guy with a funny name, and Hillary is Hillary. > > Of course you can win without the South. The South is the most > un-American > part of the country and most out of step with America. Much of the South > (but not all of it) will go for which ever loser the Republics nominate. > It > won't matter. The Republics are now a regional party of fringe > extremists. > The Democratic Party represents America, and that's why whoever gets the > nomination will win big -- without the so-called "important" South. After > this election they'll be talking about the marginalization of the South, > not > how crucial it is. > So go ahead and tell me when the last president won without the south. You know, all the electoral college votes in Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina, Tennesee, Kentucky, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. You cannot win without the South. Period. The Midwest(except Illinois), Southwest, and Rocky Mountain states have more in common philosophically with the South than they do with the Northeast and West Coast, too. Do you think a candidate can win by only winning the Northeast and the Left Coast? Of course not. Did Clinton win that way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gooserider Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote in message news:isidnUEHCO29ix3anZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@rcn.net... > > "Friendly Xenu" <Xenu@aol.COM> wrote in message > news:13o04orrno3b9db@corp.supernews.com... >> Simpson <two--part@epoxy.com> wrote: >> >> >... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be >> >a Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. >> >> Voters consider Presidential elections to be more important than >> all the various caucuses. I don't think we'll see Republinazi >> apathy come election time. > > So? Who cares what the regional moonbat party does? > > Most Americans -- Democrats and independents -- won't be voting for them. > Independents don't necessarily skew left. Libertarians have nothing in common with big government Democrats, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dan Kimmel Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message news:4780c3d1$0$9621$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote in message > news:HOudnTmh1Zlya-LanZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@rcn.net... > > > > "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message > > news:477ff047$0$9558$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >> > >> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message > >> news:13nve1vag7j4qdd@corp.supernews.com... > >> > Simpson wrote: > >> >> ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will > >> >> be > > a > >> >> Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. > >> > > >> > The Republicans did NOT "stay home" in Iowa. Turnout was higher for > > the > >> > GOP caucus in 2008 than in 2004. > >> > > >> > What happened was that there was a much larger increase in turnout for > > the > >> > Dem caucus. Young voters, who are usually apathetic about voting, > > turned > >> > out in droves just to vote for Obama. > >> > > >> > What that suggests is that if Obama gets the Dem nomination, he will > >> > clobber the GOP. But if Hillary gets the Dem nomination, it will be > > much > >> > closer. > >> > > >> Obama can't win the south. No way. You don't win the presidency without > > the > >> south, and that's just not going to happen. Edwards could win the south. > >> He's a southern white guy. But Hillary won't, and Obama won't. Obama is a > >> black guy with a funny name, and Hillary is Hillary. > > > > Of course you can win without the South. The South is the most > > un-American > > part of the country and most out of step with America. Much of the South > > (but not all of it) will go for which ever loser the Republics nominate. > > It > > won't matter. The Republics are now a regional party of fringe > > extremists. > > The Democratic Party represents America, and that's why whoever gets the > > nomination will win big -- without the so-called "important" South. After > > this election they'll be talking about the marginalization of the South, > > not > > how crucial it is. > > > > So go ahead and tell me when the last president won without the south. You > know, all the electoral college votes in Virginia, West Virginia, North and > South Carolina, Tennesee, Kentucky, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, > Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. > > You cannot win without the South. Period. The Midwest(except Illinois), > Southwest, and Rocky Mountain states have more in common philosophically > with the South than they do with the Northeast and West Coast, too. > > Do you think a candidate can win by only winning the Northeast and the Left > Coast? Of course not. Did Clinton win that way? You're living in the past. Virginia elected one Democratic senator in 2006 and will likely elect another one this year. Democrats will win many of the states listed, and those they don't (Mississippi, Alabama) aren't worth the bother. Let the Republics be the party of the rednecks and yahoos. Most of America is rejecting Cheney/Bush and their enablers in Congress. Obviously 2006 wasn't object lesson enough. That two-by-four is really going to whack you this year, as states you assumed would never abadon the party of greed and failure do so in voting Democratic instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dan Kimmel Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message news:4780c402$0$9547$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote in message > news:isidnUEHCO29ix3anZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@rcn.net... > > > > "Friendly Xenu" <Xenu@aol.COM> wrote in message > > news:13o04orrno3b9db@corp.supernews.com... > >> Simpson <two--part@epoxy.com> wrote: > >> > >> >... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it will be > >> >a Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. > >> > >> Voters consider Presidential elections to be more important than > >> all the various caucuses. I don't think we'll see Republinazi > >> apathy come election time. > > > > So? Who cares what the regional moonbat party does? > > > > Most Americans -- Democrats and independents -- won't be voting for them. > > > > Independents don't necessarily skew left. Neither do Democrats. But they are overwhelmingly against continuing Bush's failed policies with one of the tired retreads vying for the Republic nomination. >Libertarians have nothing in > common with big government Democrats, either. Libertarians get it right about half the time. The other half of the time they're barking mad. Fortunately, there's so few of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gooserider Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote in message news:4O6dncozYZ8gTR3anZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@rcn.net... > > "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message > news:4780c3d1$0$9621$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote in message >> news:HOudnTmh1Zlya-LanZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@rcn.net... >> > >> > "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message >> > news:477ff047$0$9558$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >> >> >> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> >> news:13nve1vag7j4qdd@corp.supernews.com... >> >> > Simpson wrote: >> >> >> ... at the same rate they stayed home for the Iowa caucuses, it >> >> >> will >> >> >> be >> > a >> >> >> Democratic landslide not seen since the days of FDR. >> >> > >> >> > The Republicans did NOT "stay home" in Iowa. Turnout was higher >> >> > for >> > the >> >> > GOP caucus in 2008 than in 2004. >> >> > >> >> > What happened was that there was a much larger increase in turnout > for >> > the >> >> > Dem caucus. Young voters, who are usually apathetic about voting, >> > turned >> >> > out in droves just to vote for Obama. >> >> > >> >> > What that suggests is that if Obama gets the Dem nomination, he will >> >> > clobber the GOP. But if Hillary gets the Dem nomination, it will be >> > much >> >> > closer. >> >> > >> >> Obama can't win the south. No way. You don't win the presidency >> >> without >> > the >> >> south, and that's just not going to happen. Edwards could win the > south. >> >> He's a southern white guy. But Hillary won't, and Obama won't. Obama >> >> is > a >> >> black guy with a funny name, and Hillary is Hillary. >> > >> > Of course you can win without the South. The South is the most >> > un-American >> > part of the country and most out of step with America. Much of the > South >> > (but not all of it) will go for which ever loser the Republics >> > nominate. >> > It >> > won't matter. The Republics are now a regional party of fringe >> > extremists. >> > The Democratic Party represents America, and that's why whoever gets >> > the >> > nomination will win big -- without the so-called "important" South. > After >> > this election they'll be talking about the marginalization of the >> > South, >> > not >> > how crucial it is. >> > >> >> So go ahead and tell me when the last president won without the south. >> You >> know, all the electoral college votes in Virginia, West Virginia, North > and >> South Carolina, Tennesee, Kentucky, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, > Mississippi, >> Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. >> >> You cannot win without the South. Period. The Midwest(except Illinois), >> Southwest, and Rocky Mountain states have more in common philosophically >> with the South than they do with the Northeast and West Coast, too. >> >> Do you think a candidate can win by only winning the Northeast and the > Left >> Coast? Of course not. Did Clinton win that way? > > You're living in the past. Virginia elected one Democratic senator in > 2006 > and will likely elect another one this year. Democrats will win many of > the > states listed, and those they don't (Mississippi, Alabama) aren't worth > the > bother. > > Let the Republics be the party of the rednecks and yahoos. Most of > America > is rejecting Cheney/Bush and their enablers in Congress. Obviously 2006 > wasn't object lesson enough. That two-by-four is really going to whack > you > this year, as states you assumed would never abadon the party of greed and > failure do so in voting Democratic instead. > The states and regions I mentioned will NEVER vote for someone who is weak on illegal immigration and favors gun control. Clinton won because he was a "good ol' boy"--even if he wasn't really. Obama and Hillary have no chance. The only Democratic candidate with a snowball's chance in the South is Edwards. He will be your nominee after Super Tuesday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.