A possible positive development in the Republican Party.

[DinoDoc]

blue dogs are alive and while.

Wrong again?

Two blue dogs did just get primaried though those are exceptions rather than the rule while in the Republican Party anyone deemed not extremist enough gets primaried as a rule.

Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman say high.

[Al B. Sure!]

PAY UP

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/americans-split-along-pro-choice-pro-life-lines.aspx

GALLOP -

PRO CHOICE
REP - 28%
DEM - 68%
IND - 51%

PRO LIFE
REP - 67%
DEM - 27%
IND - - 41%

MAY - 2011

That doesn't actually counter Jon Miller. He said a greater percentage of Democrats are pro-life than Republicans are pro-choice... you showed that the percentage of pro-choice people who are Republicans is slightly more than the percentage of pro-life people who are Democrats. But that's not the same thing.

[Elok]

That doesn't actually counter Jon Miller. He said a greater percentage of Democrats are pro-life than Republicans are pro-choice... you showed that the percentage of pro-choice people who are Republicans is slightly more than the percentage of pro-life people who are Democrats. But that's not the same thing.

Technically, that's not proven here; you made a claim about the size of the abortion camps within the parties, while Ming provided data on the breakdown of the abortion camps by party. Depending on the size of the parties and the popularity of each opinion, that could dramatically skew the results. Don't get me wrong, I imagine the two are about equal--I'm just making a statistical quibble here. Because I can, I guess.

[Dinner]

Wrong again? Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman say high.

Jesus, you are a **** aren't you. I said it sometimes happens but there are still many blue dogs out there so how does your garbage link prove that wrong? It doesn't and you know it. They're not going extinct no matter what a right wing media outlet like Politico claims. Compare that to how EVERY liberal Republican is gone and almost all moderate Republicans are gone. The Dems simply have a much larger party tent than the Republicans.

Besides your own link attributed the decline to redistricting in red states and voters in red states going Republican instead of the Dems pushing them out of the party. Talk about confusing cause and effect. Hell, you're far more consistently wrong in your posts than I will ever be. Read your own source.

[regexcellent]

The blue dogs are a dying breed, and you don't even agree with them anyway.

[Dinner]

There numbers went down by 26 from 2008 to 2010 but that is, as DD's source even said, because Republicans redistricted a lot of their districts so that Republicans could take them. His claim was that, like Republicans, Dems were forcing out members which is completely false as even his own source agrees.

The problem the blue dogs had in 2010 is that red states went way redder so as blues in red states they took the brunt of the loses. It has nothing to do with Dems forcing out blue dogs (2 lost primaries this year but last cycle 26 lost to Republicans) so, no, DD is completely wrong to claim Dems are forcing out ideological minorities the way the Republicans force out anyone not an extreme rightist.

[giblets]

That doesn't actually counter Jon Miller. He said a greater percentage of Democrats are pro-life than Republicans are pro-choice... you showed that the percentage of pro-choice people who are Republicans is slightly more than the percentage of pro-life people who are Democrats. But that's not the same thing.

You and Elok are apparently illiterate.

The meaning is pretty obvious. Unless you think 147% of pro-lifers are either Republican, Democrat or Independent.

[Ming]

Yep... I thought the poll I provided a link to, and then summarized was exactly addressing the point JM made.
I was actually surprised to see how close it was, because I assumed like JM that his guess was on target.

[Al B. Sure!]

doh!

[Elok]

I'm not illiterate, TYVM. Just lazy and hasty.

[Elok]

Nonetheless, I'd like Al to acknowledge that I misread Ming's post FIRST.

[giblets]

I'm not illiterate, TYVM. Just lazy and hasty.

I believe you because you don't have a record. Sorry to lump you in with Al.

[Ming]

I really wasn't going to say anything about elok's and Alby's posts until you (gribbler) did. I really didn't care that they couldn't read the data correctly. The post had been addressed to JM, and he got the point. And as I said, I was surprised when I went looking for the stats to see just how close it was.

But thanks for defending my honor