Liberals need to stop sneering at people

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
NO we haven't: this whole "act like normal people", reach out to the "normal people" is bull.

Bush won with 51% percent- that only 1% more than half the voters. The 48% are all eastern establishment liberals? Right- so, the country is made up of 2 types of people, 51% are "normal" and 48% are "Liberal Elites", well, righty-OH

About 20% of the population identifies themselves as conservatives, 11% calls themselves liberals, and the remaining 69% of the American population is right in the middle. The votes are in the middle and we don't get them by becoming more extreme left.

We get that middle by becoming the party who looks after the working man, who promotes education for him and his family, we promote women and women's rights, we become the party of entrepreneurs and small business (as opposed to big business Republicans), and we preach financial discipline & balanced budgets. We’re strong on defense but we promise to eliminate the pork and duplicate contracts; we end the Republican practice of giving massive unbidded contracts to favored campaign donors. And we promise to help more Americans get the health insurance they need.

That’s the platform which is in the center and that’s the platform which will win all we need is someone to say it in a way rural areas can listen to it without being offended.

[Harry Tuttle]

Oerdin, I would feel a lot better and be a lot less venomous if the Democrats weren't so radical this election. When Dole lost, I was ok with it, mainly because Clinton was close to the middle. Really, the Dems need to drift toward the middle, cut out the Angry Protestor routine, and get on target with the rest of America.

[Ted Striker]

What's so radical about them?


Alot of us are extremely angry at what's going on, and that's sincere, it's not a "left wing pot smoking hippies" crowd.

You would never guess I supported Kerry if you met me. I look conservative, act convservative, etc. But I am very angry. There are many like me. Last election people were not angry. This time around almost everyone is LIVID. I supported Kerry because I was ANGRY and felt betrayed.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
No, that is not. the 19% of the voting public who said the economy was their biggest concern overwhelmingly backed Kerry.

Do look at the data out there, why don;t you?

Bush won based on the opiniopns of those who said they were voting on moral values, or to whom the "war on terror" was the most important choice of all.

He got far more of the vote of those who thought the economy was excellent or good (47%) Bush 87% than Kerry got of those who thought the economy was not good or poor (52%) Kerry 79%. That would give Kerry a very marginal lead in raw numbers on economics even though more people thought the economy was down (in their opinion).

The initial reply was to Imran, who said that someone was forgetting the economy. Apparently more voters did too.

[Imran Siddiqui]

19% of the voters said they voted mostly on the economy and they voted for Kerry... which means even without Iraq Bush wouldn't have ran away with anything.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
What's so radical about them?


Alot of us are extremely angry at what's going on, and that's sincere, it's not a "left wing pot smoking hippies" crowd.

You would never guess I supported Kerry if you met me. I look conservative, act convservative, etc. But I am very angry. There are many like me. Last election people were not angry. This time around almost everyone is LIVID. I supported Kerry because I was ANGRY and felt betrayed.

Yes, but did that win the election? Why not focus on the Congressional races? The Dems put their eggs in one basket on the premise that they thought everyone thought like them. That doesn't fly in a nationwide election.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Oerdin, I would feel a lot better and be a lot less venomous if the Democrats weren't so radical this election. When Dole lost, I was ok with it, mainly because Clinton was close to the middle. Really, the Dems need to drift toward the middle, cut out the Angry Protestor routine, and get on target with the rest of America.

Agreed.

[Alexander's Horse]

* If you like this thread, vote for horse for Apolyton President - he understands the common man*

[Ted Striker]

Horse as much as I think you are a jackass, I actually almost started a "Who would you vote for President" thread a couple of weeks ago and I would have picked you as my President

You understanding of the common man, understanding of complex foreign issues, and your affectionate sleaziness remind me alot of Clinton

Understanding of the key issues is clearly demonstrated in your skillful use of DL's to ignite people over hotbutton issues.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
19% of the voters said they voted mostly on the economy and they voted for Kerry... which means even without Iraq Bush wouldn't have ran away with anything.

Most important issue

Iraq (15%) Kerry 73%

Combine that with economy and Kerry crushes Bush.

Bush won elsewhere.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
* If you like this thread, vote for horse for Apolyton President - he understands the common man*

That poll is rigged. Like Nader I was cheated out of being on the ballot.

[Ted Striker]

I had to edit my post. Sorry Horse I just said it in fun.

[Harry Tuttle]

Been fun, going to bed. Accounting to be done tomorrow...

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That poll is rigged. Like Nader I was cheated out of being on the ballot.

You guys should run on the same ticket

I would vote for you

[Theben]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Oerdin, I would feel a lot better and be a lot less venomous if the Democrats weren't so radical this election. When Dole lost, I was ok with it, mainly because Clinton was close to the middle. Really, the Dems need to drift toward the middle, cut out the Angry Protestor routine, and get on target with the rest of America.

This is a tired response.

The polarization of the dems came about due to the prior polarization of the Republicans and their submission to the Religious Right in the early 90's- the main reason you find strong distrust amongst liberals wrt religion + politics. And many attempts at compromise with the right has ended in betrayal. And in 2001 when things weren't looking so good and the repubs were whining that the center/left was attacking them, and should rise above 'their character' , they whined some more when the center/left relished in the right-wings misery?

Yes, the center/left was energized this election (or radical, if you will). The right was no better or worse. But if you want any chance at reconciliation, you'll on the right will have to take the 1st steps, cuz if history's a guide you can't be trusted. Look at it this way, you can brag about being the 1st to offer the olive branch.

It's not impossible. Che and myself have met with Ming, rah, and -JRabbit and gotten along just fine. I met with Lancer, and we're about as far apart ideologically as anyone here, and we got along great.
I told him that "People all want the same things, we just disagree on how to get there." He agreed. What do you think?