Only 20% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans

blackascoal said:
A. Neither the White House or Obama is liberal.
Click to expand...
in the sense that the White House is a building and not a person, I will grant you the first....in the sense that Obama is not a person but an aspect of your imagination that doesn't exist in real life, I will grant you the other.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the statistic currently the most important....100% of Americans are in trouble because liberals control Congress and the White House.....
Click to expand...

I disagree, I belive that 100% of Americans are finally in less trouble because liberals control Congress and the White House.
 
blackascoal said:
C. You don't speak for the American people who are MUCH more satisfied with the direction of the country and the administration than they were during the Bush years.
Click to expand...

I'm speaking for the American people who are in a deep shitload of trouble because we just got done spending trillions of dollars we don't have and may never have.......and that's all of them.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
in the sense that the White House is a building and not a person, I will grant you the first....in the sense that Obama is not a person but an aspect of your imagination that doesn't exist in real life, I will grant you the other.....
Click to expand...

You simply do not know politics. You know propaganda and bumper-stickers, but most certainly not politics if you classify Obama as a liberal .. or even worse, a socialist.

You're free to parrot your programing all you want. I defend your right to be a parrot .. just don't confuse it with human thinking.
 
blackascoal said:
You simply do not know politics. You know propaganda and bumper-stickers, but most certainly not politics if you classify Obama as a liberal .. or even worse, a socialist.

You're free to parrot your programing all you want. I defend your right to be a parrot .. just don't confuse it with human thinking.
Click to expand...

we apparently live in different worlds......mine is the one that isn't imaginary.....
 
Cypress said:
There must be some republican viral chain email that went around with this 3% number, because I've seen this three percent number quoted numerous times in cyberspace.

Obama won by 7% points. Not 3%. Which is a landslide, in the context of modern american politics. Mike Dukkakis, who was considered to be blown out of the water, only lost by around 7% as I recall.
Click to expand...

1) No, 7% of the popular vote is not considered a landslide

2) Technically it is a 3.6% SWING.... you swing 3.6% the other way and the election theoretically goes to McCain.

3) Dukakis was indeed a similar percentage of the popular vote behind Bush that McCain was behind Obama. The reason Dukakis' loss was considered a landslide loss was due to the number of states he lost. McCain carried 22 states. Dukakis carried only 10.
 
Damocles said:
First it was 7 points solely if you round down McCain's number while rounding up Obama's (the actual percentages: Mccain 45.7% Obama 52.9%)... secondly, Dukakis was "blown out of the water" because he lost nearly every single state in the electoral college, not because of the percentage in the popular vote. Every state hated Dukakis, except a tiny region in the northeast, 3 states in the midwest and 2 states in the northwest. McCain outdid Dukakis by about double his votes in the electoral college.

The 3% swing is based on the 6% difference between Obama and McCain, if 3% voted McCain rather than Obama the result would have been a statistical tie.
Click to expand...

psst..... subtract 45.7 from 52.9..... (it equals 7.2%) :)
 
blackascoal said:
With all due respect, that is a completly ridiculous comment.

A. Neither the White House or Obama is liberal.

B. The vast majority of the American know full-well where the crisis we face came from. The name "George Bush" was hardly spoken by REPUBLICANS.

C. You don't speak for the American people who are MUCH more satisfied with the direction of the country and the administration than they were during the Bush years.
Click to expand...

with all due respect, the above is ridiculous....

A. Obama is not liberal compared to YOU. He most certainly is liberal in regards to the domestic agenda he is pushing (via his talking heads Pelosi and Reid)

B. The majority of Americans beleive what the media and idiots in DC are telling them. This crisis began long before Bush took office. A fact anyone willing to research the issue can see. That said, Bush did indeed suck and will likely take the lions share of the blame.

C. Comparing Obama to Bush is like comparing Bundy to Dahmer. Well, we like Bundy better because at least he didn't EAT his victims. It is not hard for people to be 'more satisfied' with Obama when you are comparing his numbers to one of the worst Presidents in our nations history.
 
Damocles said:
First it was 7 points solely if you round down McCain's number while rounding up Obama's (the actual percentages: Mccain 45.7% Obama 52.9%)... secondly, Dukakis was "blown out of the water" because he lost nearly every single state in the electoral college, not because of the percentage in the popular vote. Every state hated Dukakis, except a tiny region in the northeast, 3 states in the midwest and 2 states in the northwest. McCain outdid Dukakis by about double his votes in the electoral college.

The 3% swing is based on the 6% difference between Obama and McCain, if 3% voted McCain rather than Obama the result would have been a statistical tie.
Click to expand...

"First it was 7 points solely if you round down McCain's number while rounding up Obama's (the actual percentages: Mccain 45.7% Obama 52.9%)."


You need to brush up on your math, bro. 52.9 minus 45.7 is 7.2%, so I actually rounded down the margin of Obama's victory.

At any rate, that's just arithmetic...the point is you and other republicans I've noticed have consistently quoted this 3% margin of victory. Where are you getting that 3% number? Drudge?


And the point wasn't about the electoral college. The electoral college is 535 people. It doesn't represent the popular will of the nation. Grind was saying that the alleged 3% margin of victory, with regard to the popular vote, was an indication of democratic "weakness" within the electoral population at large.

With regard to who people wanted to be president (not who 535 electoral college persons voted for), Obama's margin of victory was on the scale of Poppy Bush's margin over Dukkakkis. Which was 53.4 to 45.6% according to Wiki.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
"First it was 7 points solely if you round down McCain's number while rounding up Obama's (the actual percentages: Mccain 45.7% Obama 52.9%)."


You need to brush up on your math, bro. 52.9 minus 45.7 is 7.2%, so I actually rounded down the margin of Obama's victory.

At any rate, that's just arithmetic...the point is you and other republicans I've noticed have consistently quoted this 3% margin of victory. Where are you getting that 3% number? Drudge?


And the point wasn't about the electoral college. The electoral college is 535 people. It doesn't represent the popular will of the nation. Grind was saying that the alleged 3% margin of victory, with regard to the popular vote, was an indication of democratic "weakness" within the electoral population at large.

With regard to who people wanted to be president (not who 535 electoral college persons voted for), Obama's margin of victory was on the scale of Poppy Bush's margin over Dukkakkis. Which was 53.4 to 45.6% according to Wiki.
Click to expand...

Try reading comprehension. They did not state Obama's margin of victory was 3%. They stated the SWING was 3%. Again, technically it is 3.6%. But that is what they are referring to.
 
Cypress said:
"First it was 7 points solely if you round down McCain's number while rounding up Obama's (the actual percentages: Mccain 45.7% Obama 52.9%)."


You need to brush up on your math, bro. 52.9 minus 45.7 is 7.2%, so I actually rounded down the margin of Obama's victory.

At any rate, that's just arithmetic...the point is you and other republicans I've noticed have consistently quoted this 3% margin of victory. Where are you getting that 3% number? Drudge?


And the point wasn't about the electoral college. The electoral college is 535 people. It doesn't represent the popular will of the nation. Grind was saying that the alleged 3% margin of victory, with regard to the popular vote, was an indication of democratic "weakness" within the electoral population at large.

With regard to who people wanted to be president (not who 535 electoral college persons voted for), Obama's margin of victory was on the scale of Poppy Bush's margin over Dukkakkis. Which was 53.4 to 45.6% according to Wiki.
Click to expand...
First, yup... 7.2%... My math sucked. Very not normal for me.

The electoral college is why they simply called the Dukakis election a "landslide", you can keep repeating it was the "same thing" but it wasn't. McCain nearly doubled Dukakis' electoral votes and that was with the perfect storm for the Ds, it will never get politically better for y'all than that particular election... 3.6% that's all that was needed for a shift. That ain't much. But what am I doing? I think it is even better for the Rs if you think you are somehow impervious to any shift in opinion now that Bush is out of office...

Forget I said anything at all. These are not the droids you are looking for.
 
Superfreak said:
Try reading comprehension. They did not state Obama's margin of victory was 3%. They stated the SWING was 3%. Again, technically it is 3.6%. But that is what they are referring to.
Click to expand...

thank you superfreak. I guess cypress's reading comprehension still hasn't improved during his long absence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top