perhaps, but I was responding to Bells question regarding conservative voters. Agreed. I believe you are mistaken.
If you like. But I note that you provided nothing to address the question of unemployment, and given that the margin of error in Gallup polls is +- 3 points, the differences that you are pointing to as salient seem pretty slim.
Indeed - but the comparison was to Reagan, and unemployment "right now." Unemployment was actually worse than right now, a year before Reagan was re-elected. That quote in your source - "No American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent" is referring to Reagan's re-election. That's where the "7.2% on election day" figure comes from. The current unemployment rate is 8.6% and dropping (down from 10% a year ago). Absent some interruption in that trend, the rate on election day should be near (or below) where it was when Reagan was re-elected. And it shows a similar trend - unemployment in Reagan's first term dropping from >10% two years before the election, to 8% one year before, to 7+% at election day. If the current trends in unemployment are a clear indicator that Obama cannot win, then they should also have doomed Reagan as well. And yet he won in a landslide. The fact of the matter is that voters don't evaluate the unemployment rate in a vacuum. A President who start with full employment and ends with a high unemployment rate is going to get hammered. But President who starts with very high unemployment and ends up with a reduced rate - even if it's still relatively high in historical terms - may not face much liability for that.
You've gotta be kidding me .... Does it ever occur to you that it feels somehow odd that your best partisan bet is that people are stupid? Well, by your terms, or mine? You're suggesting that Newt Gingrich deserves credit for conning a bunch of morons. By your interpretation, then, barring Ross Perot, the stupid people would have won the country in 1992? It occurs to me at this point to wonder about the conservative lament that liberals are somehow, by nature, elitist. Which only reminds people that what conservatives advocate is pure bullshit, since it is not, in fact, good enough for conservatives. Dude, consider for a moment the damage you are doing to people's opinions of the Republican Party. You are depicting conservatives as uneducated hellions whose desperate needs trump the wellbeing of the nation. I couldn't possibly denigrate Republicans as much as you are right now. Do you know how painful that line was to write, considering that Styx is my all time favorite band? Styx, Floater, Peter Gabriel, in that order. But even I recognize that, even accounting for the Queen and Rush fanatics in the world, Styx is generally considered a joke.
Hold on now - I'm pretty sure what he said was that people are ignorant and apathetic, not that they're stupid. That said, there's the famous adages to contend with: "There's a sucker born every minute" and "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American electorate." Yes, but a good joke. One laughs with Styx, not at Styx.
Living Without You Means I Need to Hoo Myself Well, sure. But more people remember "Mr. Roboto" than "Man in the Wilderness" or "Suite Madame Blue". And, of course, nobody recognizes the later songs like "Together" or "More Love for the Money". I adore Styx. They are my standard for rock and roll, but I'd be better off declaring Rush or Kansas as the best band ever. You know, because if you're a Rusher or a Kansasite, The Beatles suck and are overrated, and the Beach Boys aren't even rock and roll. Oh, wait, this is supposed to be about the pustulent pestilence otherwise known as Newt Gingrich. So ... right. How do I make this all relevant? Oh, okay. Shotgun Messiah has a better chance of being the best rock and roll band ever than Newt Gingrich has of becoming President of the United States. (I'll take this chance to recognize Havana Black, since I rarely find a reason to.)
it's odd that that is your response when I specifically said people are not stupid, just poorly informed. Were they better informed, our Democracy would function much better. I thought we were having a serious conversation, clearly I was mistaken as you've reverted to form... Vaya con Dios Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Understood Oh, give it up. You're not fooling anyone. • "Remember, most people, if they pay attention at all, only pay attention to politics during presidential elections. If you were watching the Republican Presidential Primary debates and judging the candidates only by their performance in them, who would you support?" • "Even the most uninformed trolls here on Sciforums are probably much more up on current events than the average voter." The ignorance you are describing is, in fact, stupid. We've all known some pretty ridiculously stupid people in our times. But you're describing a degree of stupidity that is, to my experience, unrealistic. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm out of touch with "middle America". Maybe that's how people are in your part of the world. Maybe if I spend more time on the east side of the Cascades, getting to know the folks in Wenatchee, Spokane, Yakima, and Walla Walla, I will meet enough "average" people to understand that the ignorance you're describing is a natural result of American society. But to my experience, you're describing something extraordinary. So what is it? Are you trying a con job? Or have I marked you wrongly, and it turns out that folks in Indiana really are, on average, as ignorant and apathetic as you describe? If I told you that Hoosiers were as stupid as you're describing, would you be offended? So what are we to think when you are telling us that they're that stupid? In truth, I think you're reaching for a rhetorical shield without adequately considering its implications. Understood. You don't wish to be taken seriously. I'll remember that next time.
Does anyone think Gingrich is capable of beating Obama? If Sarah Palin ever wanted to be the Republican Candidate, she has missed her opportunity. These are low calibre people, all of them.
Didn't we agree that it is a Republic, and not even a Democratic one? (see the EC thread) By the way more information doesn't always lead to better leaders.... But anyhow, this presidential race is almost as exciting than the NFL playoff chances.... Looks like Romney is running on entitlement (being 2nd 4 years ago), and nobody real smart challenged him. Well, maybe Huntsman but one need name recognition...
Specifically: a federal democratic republic. No one holding more sway than the other. But, yes, there is democracy involved, lest your vote would not be courted with such aplomb. ~String
Not to hijack the thread, but... People also voted in the Sovietunio, so there was democracy involved too. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No. There wasn't. And the fact that you try to make that leap, proves your utter stupidity and demonstrates that I'm wasting my time. Grow a brain. You're acting dense and you know it. Then again. Maybe you don't. Soviet elections--local, within the various republics and national--were all rigged by the politburos. Only one party could run. You had no choice. Americans have choice, they just choose not to exercise it. Local elections are easily decided--almost "dictatorship of the majority" style by the electorate. Don't believe me? Go to a city council some time. Spend some time in communities in New England (who vote by raising hands in town squares). My home town outside Cleveland put a hundred gazillion things to vote every November (no city council: everything was "direct democracy"). Ever hear people bitching about poor schools in America? That's all on account of our obsession with local, direct democracy. Statewide ballot initiatives. California--most recently--defeated a gay-marriage law and stripped gay people from the right to vote. Companies didn't do that. Political organizations didn't do that. People did. People who went out to vote. Same for every statewide election I know of. Federal elections are much more watered down. You certainly have every opportunity to vote whatever you want with the House and that's how it's intended. You're simpering complaint about the two-party dominance is more a complaint about the dumb voting habits of Americans than "rigged elections". I know you don't know this, because you're too lazy to actually vote here, but I've voted in three states (Ohio, Florida and Arizona) and there are ALWAYS third, fourth, fifth party candidates. ALWAYS. It's not hard to get in an American ballot. Especially for federal office. So, unless you're seeing something--you know, that you can prove outside of your annoying conspiracy theories--let us know. ~String
Utter bullcrap. If the system is set in a way, that noone but the 2 chosen ones can compete for the ultimate price (and not much difference there is between them most of the time), than the system is not democratic, period. P.S.: One could say the Russians also could decide to exercise their right or not, because they had at least 2 choices, to vote or not.
Well according to Madanthonywayne, the candidate would only have to stop short of being the 'anti-Christ' for Republicans to vote for him/her against Obama: In short, if his words are to be taken seriously, the candidate could be Hitler.. just so long as it's not Obama and he'd still have Republicans voting for him, including Madanthony apparently. It seems the only qualification required is that he not be Obama. Anything and everything else can be overlooked.
Including the lack of that long form birth certificate that was so important to Republicans in 2008 and 2009 and 2010. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have seen a copy of the long-form certificate...Here Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nah, they'd vote for him too. It's very difficult to get 3rd party candidates on the ballot for the big offices here...I will generally pick Democrats if I can, but depending on what sort of court they are running for, I'd rather face a Libertarian than a Republican in many cases. I won't let the libertarians anywhere near schools or regulatory agencies though.
The best thing for America would be to vote in Obama again, but with a good majority this time so he doesn't have his hands tied. Gingrich as Republican candidate will get him off to a good start. I support Gingrich.
The best thing America can do in 2012 is to reelect Obama and give him enough support in Congress to be able to brake the Republican/Tea Party insanity.
