Democrats Smoke and Mirrors – They wont stop the war
- Thread starter Chapdog
- Start date
Change has to come in small steps, again for now lets consentrate on getting RID of those who support starting this type of war... That means making sure RUDY, and THOMPSON, and MCCAIN and ROMNEY dont get elected!
Next we will consentrate on getting rid of those who let it happen. If we dont do it this way, someone like RUDY or MCCAIN will get in office and another such war, likely with IRAN will be the next step!
Epicurus
Reasonable
Well, that is true, and that's a great argument for the dems doing the right thing and cutting off funding. Because the Republicans aren't going to ever call them anything but weak, no matter what they do. We saw that in 04 when they proudly lined up behind two chickenshit yellow bellies, and turned an actual decorated war veteran into the coward! You can't win. They're sick in their heads, in their hearts, and in their souls.
So you might as well do what's right.
Libertarians voted for George W. Bush in droves, so yes I thorw them in that mix! Any group that supported him the second time!
Epicurus
Reasonable
Bullshit. Got any polls to show that?
Epicurus
Reasonable
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735
Journalists these days tell us that we're a country split down the middle, liberal vs. conservative, red America vs. blue America. Liberals and conservatives read different books, watch different networks, and go to different churches.
In the 2004 election both parties decided their best strategy was not to appeal to moderate voters but rather to find people already inclined to vote for them and get them to the polls.
But in fact a substantial number of Americans don't fit into that liberal-conservative dichotomy.
Our new research finds that 15 percent of American voters are libertarian rather than liberal or conservative. People generally say that a liberal favors government intervention in the economy and protection of civil liberties, while a conservative is opposed to both economic intervention and the expansion of civil liberties. Libertarians oppose government intrusion into both the economy and personal freedoms.
Our research drew on recent data from the Gallup Poll, the Pew Research Center Typology Survey, and the University of Michigan's American National Election Studies. We used questions on both economic and social issues that would allow us to distinguish libertarians from liberals and conservatives.
In all of these calculations, we use a broad definition of libertarian. We include both individuals who would self-identify as libertarian and individuals who hold libertarian views but may be unfamiliar with the word. It is clear that many people who hold libertarian views don't self-identify as libertarians. One Rasmussen poll found that only 2 percent of respondents characterized themselves as libertarians, even though 16 percent held libertarian views on a series of questions.
Gallup consistently finds about 20 percent of respondents to be libertarian. We used a narrower definition, and we found that in 2004 libertarians accounted for 13 percent of the voting-age population and 15 percent of actual voters.
In a closely divided electorate, that's clearly enough to swing elections.
So how do libertarians vote? Libertarians are increasingly a swing vote, and they are a larger share of the electorate than the fabled "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads."
Our data show that libertarians have generally voted Republican—66 percent for Ronald Reagan in 1980, 74 percent for George H. W. Bush in 1988, and 72 percent for George W. Bush in 2000. But they are not diehard Republicans. John Anderson and Libertarian Party candidate Ed Clark got 17 percent of the libertarian vote in 1980, and Ross Perot took 33 percent of the libertarians in 1992.
But for those on the trail of the elusive swing voter, the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent, while the libertarian vote for the Democratic nominee almost doubled. It's not hard to imagine why. Libertarians didn't like Bush's record on excessive federal spending, expansion of entitlements, the federal marriage amendment, government spying, and the war in Iraq. Kerry didn't offer libertarians much except that he was not Bush, but he still narrowed the Republican majority among libertarians from 52 points to 21 points.
We can observe the same libertarian swing in 2004 congressional races. In House races, the libertarian vote for Republican candidates dropped from 73 percent in 2000 to 53 percent in 2004, while the libertarian vote for the Democratic candidates increased from 23 to 44 percent. Senate results were almost identical.
Journalists these days tell us that we're a country split down the middle, liberal vs. conservative, red America vs. blue America. Liberals and conservatives read different books, watch different networks, and go to different churches.
In the 2004 election both parties decided their best strategy was not to appeal to moderate voters but rather to find people already inclined to vote for them and get them to the polls.
But in fact a substantial number of Americans don't fit into that liberal-conservative dichotomy.
Our new research finds that 15 percent of American voters are libertarian rather than liberal or conservative. People generally say that a liberal favors government intervention in the economy and protection of civil liberties, while a conservative is opposed to both economic intervention and the expansion of civil liberties. Libertarians oppose government intrusion into both the economy and personal freedoms.
Our research drew on recent data from the Gallup Poll, the Pew Research Center Typology Survey, and the University of Michigan's American National Election Studies. We used questions on both economic and social issues that would allow us to distinguish libertarians from liberals and conservatives.
In all of these calculations, we use a broad definition of libertarian. We include both individuals who would self-identify as libertarian and individuals who hold libertarian views but may be unfamiliar with the word. It is clear that many people who hold libertarian views don't self-identify as libertarians. One Rasmussen poll found that only 2 percent of respondents characterized themselves as libertarians, even though 16 percent held libertarian views on a series of questions.
Gallup consistently finds about 20 percent of respondents to be libertarian. We used a narrower definition, and we found that in 2004 libertarians accounted for 13 percent of the voting-age population and 15 percent of actual voters.
In a closely divided electorate, that's clearly enough to swing elections.
So how do libertarians vote? Libertarians are increasingly a swing vote, and they are a larger share of the electorate than the fabled "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads."
Our data show that libertarians have generally voted Republican—66 percent for Ronald Reagan in 1980, 74 percent for George H. W. Bush in 1988, and 72 percent for George W. Bush in 2000. But they are not diehard Republicans. John Anderson and Libertarian Party candidate Ed Clark got 17 percent of the libertarian vote in 1980, and Ross Perot took 33 percent of the libertarians in 1992.
But for those on the trail of the elusive swing voter, the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent, while the libertarian vote for the Democratic nominee almost doubled. It's not hard to imagine why. Libertarians didn't like Bush's record on excessive federal spending, expansion of entitlements, the federal marriage amendment, government spying, and the war in Iraq. Kerry didn't offer libertarians much except that he was not Bush, but he still narrowed the Republican majority among libertarians from 52 points to 21 points.
We can observe the same libertarian swing in 2004 congressional races. In House races, the libertarian vote for Republican candidates dropped from 73 percent in 2000 to 53 percent in 2004, while the libertarian vote for the Democratic candidates increased from 23 to 44 percent. Senate results were almost identical.
cawacko
Well-known member
Maybe I missed something but what Republicans are publically claiming to want to be out of Iraq and blaming the Democrats for it not happening?
The problem with that is the Democratic front funner is a woman whos biggest fear is having the weak lable attached to her.
Epicurus
Reasonable
Never "promoted" this war? She voted for it.
Cypress calls people who didn't vote for Kerry "enablers". I'm pretty sure voting for the resolution should at least be called that.
None, but that wont stop them for promoting the idea that Democrats are weak for not being able to force something the supporters of the Democratic party want!
Jarod, I'm afraid that I believe we will already be at war with Iran come the election. And I put Hillary squarely in the war monger category at this point.
If it's any consolation to you, I am still hoping for Gore to enter, and I still believe that he will. Also, if the nominee is Edwards, I won't vote third party. But I can no longer vote for Hillary no matter what, I can't. I couldn't look myself in the eyes if I did that at this point.
Maybe, but to me while both are bad, enabling this war is better than promoting it. My whole point is that if we must support the enablers to get rid of the promoters I will do that. Then Ill start consentrating on getting rid of the enablers, but lets get rid of the promoters first.
If we get rid of the enablers and elect the promoters instead, that is 0 progress.
It must be great in that dreamworld Top.
DigitalDave
Sexy Beast!
You are full of shit if you think I ever voted for that dumbass, I didn't even vote for him the first time before I knew what a fuck-up he was. Damn I wish we still had archives from back in the politics.com days....
So if your choice of canidates who have a chance to win is between someone who promoted and supported and cheered on this war and someone who merely let it happen, you will stay out of it? You wont make at least some effort to depose the one who cheered it?
I never said you did!
True, if she is willing to suffer the consiquences of doing it!