Why the Dems are barking up the wrong tree.

[Lefty Scaevola]

I did not say there doing weel YET.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


again, I know of know evidence showing non-voters are different in ideological stance or partisan affiliation than voters.

Statistics have shown for years that registered Republicans turn out to vote with a higher percentage more consistently across the nation than to registered Democrats.

Registered Republicans are also more likely to timely renew or reregister if they move than are registered Democrats.

Both of these data are obtainable from voter registration databases.


With respect to non-registered voters, you're stuck with opinion polls, etc., so your sample size is a lot less, and margin for error a lot more, but are you going to seriously claim that Robertsonesque social conservatives, for example, are as common in the group of adults who are elegible, but don't bother registering to vote, as they are in registered voters who actually turn out every election?

[JohnT]

Watching the Dems play fundraising and ethical games, then watching the Republicans do it, is like watching a middle school intramural basketball game with the kids who didn't get picked for any of the other teams, vs. watching the NBA championships.

Uh, so who is "nastier"?

If the Repubs are bad, it's because they've trampled on by the foots of Giants (Rostenkowski, LBJ, Tip O'Neill) and have learned their 40-year long lesson while the other side grew complacent and lost their edge (and their leaders).

[chequita guevara]

Or maybe it's just cuz the same people switched to the Repugs.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by JohnT

Watching the Dems play fundraising and ethical games, then watching the Republicans do it, is like watching a middle school intramural basketball game with the kids who didn't get picked for any of the other teams, vs. watching the NBA championships.

Uh, so who is "nastier"?

That would depend on what the definition of "is" is.

Do you mean "nasty" as in having the most impact, or nasty as in "crude and amateurish."

[JohnT]

I'm just trying to figure who are the Spurs and who are the lady Fighting Tigers of Skokie (IL) Middle School in your analogy.

[Giancarlo]

Re: "dingbat" - oh, I just can't bear the pain

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


You might "win". If you ever had the huevos to stand up to me face to face, honey, I'd fall down laughing so hard that I'd probably end up with a hernia. And if you stayed at least ten feet away from me the whole time, so I couldn't get a hand around your scrawny little neck, you could semi-rightly claim that it was you who put me down there. Other than that, you'd be SOL.

And you just have to rub it in...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by JohnT
I'm just trying to figure who are the Spurs and who are the lady Fighting Tigers of Skokie (IL) Middle School in your analogy.

The Republicans are the Spurs, of course - they've got slick and dirty, plausibly deniable "no laws were broken" politicking down to a science that most Dems couldn't even dream of. It's like a bogus real estate development limited partnership, compared to knocking off convenience stores.

BTW, since I didn't want to rub in my ability to post in closed threads, your posts aren't normally long enough to parse.

[MrFun]

Re: Why the Dems are barking up the wrong tree.

Originally posted by Oerdin

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3227665.stm

There seems to be two points which all of the Democratic candidates running for President seem to be focusing on 1) Bush lied about Iraq & isn't doing a good job supervising the occupation, and 2) He's done a poor job managing the nation's economy. I'd say both are true but #1 doesn't seem to get any traction with voters and it ends up making the Dems look whiners who have nothing positive to add. Seven of the candidates basically say they'd do the same thing which Bush is currently doing (i.e. stay the course and work towards building a democratic western leaning Iraq) with the others say we should drop everything and run. Polls show most Americas think Iraq will become an even bigger problem if the US doesn't try to finish what it started and the seven who agree with Bush aren't going to win votes by claiming to be proto-Bushes.

So far the only issue which has been gaining traction is the economic issue. Unfortunately, the economy is now coming around with unexpected strength and though none of it has to do with Bush's tax cuts (since most of his tax cuts haven't even occured yet) there is no doubt Bush will get up and try to claim he's policy is what fixed the economy (instead of end of an economic cycle which most economist say is responsible for the cyclical upswing).

So here's the question: If you were a candidate which issues would you highlight and who would you show that you are better and have a different vision then Bush? I really do think Bush's tax and spend policies and sky high debts are truly bad for our country but I believe the American voter is to stupid to care about such unexciting things as the national debt, bad tax policies, or over commitment of military forces. How do you get voters attention?

You know what . . . . .











I can't wait until you leave "forever."

joking

[SlowwHand]

[Ben Kenobi]

How would I neutralise the Dems?

Start with the most solidly Republican voting bloc of prolifers. Just talk about the partial birth abortion ban and leave it at that.

Che talks about a small minority, and he is right. The Republicans aren't stupid enough to alienate these voters.

As for the rest, one issue won't crystallise the voters. He would have to focus on seeing Iraq through to the end, why not with a quip from Kennedy, 'we will pay any price?' Smaller government and the tax cut.

[Dinner]

The sad thing is if the Dems don't stop pissing in the wind and find a message which the average man actually gives a damn about then we're going to be stuck with the bubbling fuc-**** for another four years.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I've already reached that conclusion. If Dean in particular can't be silenced, and remains anything near the front-runnier, Bush could laugh his way to reelection unless there was a disaster of a scale that a stray dog could get elected in place of Bush.

[Timexwatch]

Anyone think it would take a Beirut-style military fubaring for people to stand up and really take notice of the situation in Iraq?

[MichaeltheGreat]

For a short while, they would, but we have too much mass in place for a short term event to affect policy.

If we're getting into next summer, and the Pentagon is announcing which units will have second rotations to Iraq, and the One-a-day KIA thing is still happening, then Bush has some real problems. It's too early in the occupation, and too early in the election cycle, to start focusing on it.