Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JBA on November 03, 2004, 09:32:55 PM
-
Looks like thing are only getting worst.
55 Senate seats, Dem leader Daschle is out.
House gains seats.
First time in something like 60 years since this happened.
Bush got more votes (51%) then Clinton ever got in two tries.
And the map becomes more and more red each time we do this.
I don't see the DIVIDED country that the left likes to talk about, where's the two americas?
2000
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/407_1093362283_countymap.jpg)
2004
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/407_1099539277_election_map04b.jpg)
-
Originally posted by JBA
I don't see the DIVIDED country that the left likes to talk about, where's the two americas?
America 1 = Urban/Metropolitan
America 2 = Suburban/ Rural
A few exceptions of course (like south Texas) but overall that is glaringly obvious to me.
-
That map would be really powerful if a lot of those red areas didn't have more livestock or prarie dogs per square mile than people. The popular vote totals were:
Bush: 59,017,382
Kerry: 55,435,808
A clear win for Bush but hardly a landslide, especially considering he is a war president and the dismal candidate chosen to run against him.
Charon
-
Edit. You've added 2004 map, never mind.
-
Looks like you were drunk when you looked at the second map. Spalsh some cold water on yer face and try again.
-
Originally posted by Charon
That map would be really powerful if a lot of those red areas didn't have more livestock or prarie dogs per square mile than people. The popular vote totals were:
Bush: 59,017,382
Kerry: 55,435,808
A clear win for Bush but hardly a landslide, especially considering he is a war president and the dismal candidate chosen to run against him.
Charon
But he didn'y run just against Kerry. He had to battle all the main-stream media (including print and tv, here and abroad).
-
After looking at those maps a little it's become clear to me that there is a liberal mind control conspiracy afoot. Notice how there are concentrations of Democrats along coasts and rivers. They're putting something in the water I tell ya. ;)
-
Originally posted by Edbert
America 1 = Urban/Metropolitan
America 2 = Suburban/ Rural
Would that mean that the pple who decided who would run the show are in fact ... culchies?
LOL LOL LOL (to paraphrase)
-
Jesse Jackson said something intelligent the other night. The DNC needs to become a 50 state party to have a chance. They can't get by just courting a narrow demographic. There's more to America than the big cities.
They talk about "getting our message out". They got their message out, loud and clear. It's just that most of America rejects it.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
They talk about "getting our message out". They got their message out, loud and clear. It's just that most of America rejects it.
Not "most", but a majority.
:aok
-
What's the point of this thread? You get distracted by shiny things as well? We don't select our President based on acreage. Not every one living in those red areas voted Bush, not everyone that lives in blue areas voted Kerry.
All that red isn’t really red nor is all that blue really blue. Some of those areas were real close and could have swung either way.
The fact is the Democrats are for the most part an urban party. It stands to reason that that their base would be concentrated in urban and high population density areas.
-
Originally posted by Charon
Bush: 59,017,382
Kerry: 55,435,808
A clear win for Bush but hardly a landslide, especially considering he is a war president and the dismal candidate chosen to run against him.
Charon
Bush will be helped by the Republicans' increased strength in Congress. With a few contests still undecided, the party boosted its Senate seats to 55 from 51, defeating even the Senate's highest-ranking Democrat, Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. Republicans gained three seats in the House, to 230.
Bush is the first presidential candidate to receive more than 50 percent of the popular vote since his father, George H.W. Bush, did so in 1988.
While I'm often depicted as the quintessential Republican here, it's simply not so.; I voted Libertarian this time.
Nonetheless, this has to be seen as a huge win for the Republicans in general and a huge loss for the Democrats.
Saw Carville on CNN; I don't like the guy but I do think he's pretty astute as a political analyst. His comment was something like "we had an unpopular President, a poor economy, an unpopular war, for the first time we had almost as much money as the Republicans for ads, we had a good health care issue and we not only lost, we got badly beaten. If we couldn't win this one, it's time for some serious reflection on what we're doing wrong."
That's a paraphrase, not a quote but that's the gist of it.
I hope they do reflect. The Dems could have had my vote this year with a moderate Democrat. I could have gone even for Lieberman or Gephardt. Instead, my choice is the most liberal Senator in the land... or close to it, let's not quibble.
Clearly, it takes more than winning all the debates.
-
Originally posted by Charon
That map would be really powerful if a lot of those red areas didn't have more livestock or prarie dogs per square mile than people. The popular vote totals were:
so only people who like to live in big, crime ridden, dirty, metropolis are the ones that count for what direction our country should be headed?
-
Originally posted by JB73
so only people who like to live in big, crime ridden, dirty, metropolis are the ones that count for what direction our country should be headed?
Yes, backwater hicks ain't no good for nothin' but makin turtle soup and skinning skunks.
-SW
-
Originally posted by JB73
so only people who like to live in big, crime ridden, dirty, metropolis are the ones that count for what direction our country should be headed?
:rofl :rofl :rofl Maybe they want us all to be metrosexuals? :p
-
WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!!!?????
Are you SURE?
(yells) Hey Maw!!!! Skin the SKUNKS!! Skin the SKUNKS!!!! The TURTLES go in the soup!!!
-
Originally posted by Charon
A clear win for Bush, but hardly a landslide, especially considering he is a war president and the dismal candidate chosen to run against him.
I agree it is not a landslide, but it was the first time in 16 years that a candidate got a majority of the popular vote AT ALL. He not only had the most votes FOR of any candidate in this countries history but he also had a higher percentage than any democrat candidate since Johnson. Both Nixon victories, both Reagan victories and even GHBs first election were higher than this one, remember that Kenedy won by fewer votes than Bush did in 2000.
-
See? Them backwater hicks can't even get their specialities right.
Nothin' cracks a turtle shell like Leon Uris. (http://animatedtv.about.com/library/graphics/cletus.gif)
-SW
-
Originally posted by JB73
so only people who like to live in big, crime ridden, dirty, metropolis are the ones that count for what direction our country should be headed?
Well, that, or he was simply pointing out that the lower population density makes JBA's point moot, and the actual numbers show a different story. But, I suppose if you want to read something into his statement, you will.
-
Originally posted by SOB
if you want to read something into his statement, you will.
isn't that mandatory for posting in the oclub?
-
so only people who like to live in big, crime ridden, dirty, metropolis are the ones that count for what direction our country should be headed?
LOL. I have a lot of relatives in rural areas, and have spent quite some time in WV and Tenn. in the past 40 years. A lot of really nice scenery and good folk. But also it's share of washing machines and bags of garbage tossed down the hillside and Jerry Springer folk too. Watch those glass houses.
1 vote = 1 vote
That's what the big cartoon map doesn't quite say. Four percent more people wanted Bush in office than wanted Kerry. A clear win, but hardly a mandate (though he will treat it like one).
Charon
-
I think the election was one huge mandate... across the board.
It's funny, since 1980 really, the Dems message has been consistanly rejected by the voters.
-
Who would have thought, the dems having their own "red scare"
J_A_B
-
I think this is an interesting map. It distorts the state sizes to make them proportional to their populations.
Looks about as much red as blue. Which pretty much matches the results of the election (51% to 49%)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/655_1099593180_map.jpg)
-
I think the election was one huge mandate... across the board.
Why do you say that?
FWIW I'm not a "dem" I typically vote for a Republican Gov. (including the previous crook :() to counter the overwhelming power of the Cook County Democratic machine and didn't vote for kerry in this election. Its that whole "dem" vs. republican thing, IMO, that turns the election into another version of the superbowl (go team!) instead of the unemotional job search for a leader of the American people that it should be. I could give a **** if its a Dem or Repugnant that wins, I want results when it's all said and done.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Why do you say that?
Charon
because across the country, people chose republicans over dems.
Americans voted to keep repubicans in complete control of the government.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
All that red isn’t really red nor is all that blue really blue. Some of those areas were real close and could have swung either way.
Your right!!! We are a land of Purple!!!!!!
-
because across the country, people chose republicans over dems.
No, a slight percentage more people chose Republicans.
If in 2008 the Republicans screw up totally and say a Ralph Nader type wins with 2-4 percent of the vote and maybe a few extra seats in Congress, would you support his mandate to abolish V-8 engined cars and ammend the Constitution to outlaw guns? He would have the power to do that, and the right, but not a mandate.
Charon
-
A slight win does not equal a mandate. A slight win is just that...slight. It could have gone either way. Right now the Republicans have a small national margin in their favor; if they mess up it WILL shift back the other way just as fast.
At the very least a "mandate" should have a two to one margin, or 66% appoval. The gay marriage ban is what I would consider a mandate in many states....I've heard that in some states it passed with margins of 75% or greater.
J_A_B
-
It's funny, since 1980 really, the Dems message has been consistanly rejected by the voters.
I almost missed this one. Yeah, except for those 8 Clinton years, you know, the 1990s.
Just because most of the people you may associate in your local area believe the way you do -- remember, there are areas where you could talk to 10 random people off the street and not find a single one that holds your viewpoint.
Charon
-
At the very least a "mandate" should have a two to one margin, or 66% appoval. The gay marriage ban is what I would consider a mandate in many states....I've heard that in some states it passed with margins of 75% or greater.
I can certainly agree with that. I have no problem with it myself, but clearly I'm in the minority.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
I almost missed this one. Yeah, except for those 8 Clinton years, you know, the 1990s.
Just because most of the people you may associate in your local area believe the way you do -- remember, there are areas where you could talk to 10 random people off the street and not find a single one that holds your viewpoint.
Charon
I'm at work and can't relly get into it a lot ( plus I type slow)
Clinton sqeeked into office, Perot grabbed 19% of the popular vote and probably allowed him to beat Bush Sr. During his terms, didn't the reps control the house and senate?
I don't base my point on what others beleive or who I hang out with. I just feel that it's pretty amazing what happened this election.
As it is now, the majority of American voters voted Bush back into office and canned some more Dems out of office, including Dashel. Pretty stunning if you look at the outcome as a whole imo.
-
You can make a case that Clinton was Barely a democrat, he pushed alot of pretty conservitive things.
-
You can make a case that Clinton was Barely a democrat, he pushed alot of pretty conservitive things.
True. And that's how I like my Democrats. The same with Republicans - moderate, more middle of the road and inclusive. [edit: I would probably be an "old school" Republican if the party still existed today]
I agree Bush had a clear, decisive win, as Toad and others have pointed out. But he is also an activist president, who had a free ride from the do-nothing Democrats before and has no need to really worry about them at all, now.
I think, (though I may be surprised) that a lot of casual bush "war" supporters (the soccer moms, for example) may find some disagreeable supreme court nominations. They may even find their sons and daughters being drafted for that war. Neither candidate wanted it, and both said it wouldn't happen, but we'll just have to see how good the recruiters can do in the next year or how well the Iraqization of the occupation (Hey, I could be J.J. :)) goes.
As J_A_B pointed out about the only clearly mandated issue seems to be Gay marriage.
I posted a thread yesterday that got no response in the euphoria of the day. But I would like some serious feedback from the President's supporters who helped him win. Unless it was just a Ford vs. Chevy thing you obviously have expectations as to what he will deliver. It's something that would apply equally to either cadidate, since Kerry made a lot of promises that seemed too good to be true. It's just about what your expections are by this time in 2008.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=134605&referrerid=5405
I've been wrong or ignorant too many times to list in my life, so I could very well be wrong about Bush and his policies. Maybe he's just not had enough time for the policies to achieve success. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but I want results. Like any politician, he should be accountable to those who elected him.
Charon
-
I dont think more people are becoming republicans. I believe alot of people voted for who they thought was best. I believe if the millions of young people who registered to vote showed up to vote the result might have been slightly different. The 18 to 30 group will oneday understand that they have a powerful say in what happens in this country. Convincing 18 and 19 y/o to stand in a long line to vote will be difficult. They lack patience.
-
"The 18 to 30 group will oneday understand that they have a powerful say in what happens in this country."
probably about the time they're in the 30-45 age group :)
J_A_B
-
Convincing 18 and 19 y/o to stand in a long line to vote will be difficult. They lack patience.
If the worst case scenario happens and they find themselvs standing in lines at the induction center... that may change :)
Charon
-
Charon,
you asked what I expect from my vote...which I voted for Bush...btw
I expect to see the economy to slowly get better, but really get alot better after GWB leaves office at the end of 2008.....
A democrate will take office in 2008 ( beginning 2009) and then will lay claim to what Bush has accomplished in his term before
basically the same thing will happen as to what happened back when Reagan and Bush Sr. turned the country around, then by the time all their work trickled through it was into Clintons second term year......so clinto looked good and people kept him for another 4, yet by the time Clinton left office in Dec of 2000, things had swung to bad economy etc.and majority of nieve people in the US thought it was GWB's faught, btw alot of how things go is not at all the Presidents faught regardless who the pres is at the time, congress plays a big role in it all and so does the lobbyist, big corporations, the Big 8, other nations, UN, OPec, and so forth....just the media and most lay the blame or the fame on the President.....
Tim Russert made me laugh yesterday, when he slipped up saying is it is unforntunate we lost, I mean , that Kerry and the democrats lost.......
we all know how the media pushes it's views down everyone's throat.......national media really, some local media stick to their beliefs
I have more thoughts or opinions, but this stuff gets to boring to discuss....rather spend my free time in the game :)
-
(http://www.inettek.com/stuff/us.jpg)
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/655_1099634416_hans.jpg)
-
hehe
-
Originally posted by Charon
No, a slight percentage more people chose Republicans.
If you have a 100 lb force shoving a mass to the left and a 103 lb force shoving to the right, the mass accellerates to the right. That three lbs means a bunch.
A majority of Governers, a plurality of state legislatures, both federal congressional houses, the executive branch, and soon a couple of SC appointments.
-
Stay down, or we'll do it again.
-
Ugh... I just certainly hope Bush will be more moderate then some of his supporters are asking him to be...
Do we really need a constitutional amendment telling people who they can marry? Ie, do we really need a constitutional amendment defining what a "person" is, and not having that definition be equal?
Not that he can just write it in, but his opinion would certainly influence other's.
I tell you, I define myself as a moderate Republican, I sent Bush money, and supported him up until he backed the whole amendment movement... But I'm a northerner. I can go to my town hall and see a pillar with the names of all the men, just from my small town, that died to make men equal. It really strikes me as sinister that today we might try to do anything less.
-
Originally posted by Charon
If the worst case scenario happens and they find themselvs standing in lines at the induction center... that may change :)
Charon
Do you actually buy that Bravo Sierra?
For the United States, the age of the conscript soldier is over. Being a soldier these days is a profession, it is a far different military than it was in the day of the citizen soldier. Hence the importance of the National Guard and the Reserves. Fortunately, for the most part, the U.S. military is a much smaller more effective force using a lot more of Boyd's tactics as opposed to the earlier days of massive numerical forces.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Ie, do we really need a constitutional amendment defining what a "person" is, and not having that definition be equal?
Under the suggested amendment, any unmarried person is perfectly equal to marry someone who is unmarried of the opposite gender. There is no inequality about it.
Now for it to be written in the constitution, that is wrong as the constitution is to limit the power of government. Murder and theft are not unconstitutional as the are not mentioned in the constitution.
Marriage definitions should remain statutory.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
I tell you, I define myself as a moderate Republican, I sent Bush money, and supported him up until he backed the whole amendment movement... But I'm a northerner. I can go to my town hall and see a pillar with the names of all the men, just from my small town, that died to make men equal. It really strikes me as sinister that today we might try to do anything less.
You seem to be part of a very small minority, most people over there seem to follow their leader blindly(in both camps).
-
It isn't that more people are becoming Republicans, just fewer people are becoming what the Democrats feel their party should be. The Democrats have once again turned far to the left, that is not where the majority of the U.S. wants to go.
People aren't leaving the Democrats, the Democrats are leaving the people.
If the Democrats fail to stop their rapid slide to the left, their base will shrink down to those who hate the right, the socialists and marxists, the rest of the FAR left, the homosexuals, and those who vote Democrat because they or their families always have. And that last segment is rapidly dying off.
The sad part of that is the Republican party and the nation will suffer for it. Without a reasonable Democratic party as a viable alternative, the Republican party will have no serious competition, and it is the competition that makes the system work.
-
What exactly are the dems doing that puts them in the far left? I'm asking this seriously as from euro POV both of your parties are heavily in the right. For example, are you a commie if you support gay marriages?
-
I see the Republicans won Lake Michigan.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/655_1099593180_map.jpg)
eskimo
-
Originally posted by mora
What exactly are the dems doing that puts them in the far left? I'm asking this seriously as from euro POV both of your parties are heavily in the right. For example, are you a commie if you support gay marriages?
Communism has little in common with support for gay marriage. For many, "communism" did become synonymous with subversion during the cold war. Not without justification imo.
Many in this country are traditionalists. Those holding to this believe that certain values and principles are necessary to maintain our nation's health and prosperity. Others sneer at that word as if it connotes bigotry, simple or closed mindedness, and ignorance.
The left have done much sneering lately but have discovered they are the minority and their revulsion has been repulsed.
-
Yeah, they got almost all the fisherman vote. The Dems should have never put out that ban on treble hooks and rod registration agenda from Fishingrod Control Incorporated.
-
Do you actually buy that Bravo Sierra?
For the United States, the age of the conscript soldier is over. Being a soldier these days is a profession, it is a far different military than it was in the day of the citizen soldier. Hence the importance of the National Guard and the Reserves. Fortunately, for the most part, the U.S. military is a much smaller more effective force using a lot more of Boyd's tactics as opposed to the earlier days of massive numerical forces.
We'll just have to see how the numbers add up. Iraq is being run at the Reserve's and Guard's expense, with multiple deployments that in many cases are causing severe financial hardship to the point of losing businesses and homes.
Stop loss is also not very well appreciated - there is no gurantee what an enlistment entails anymore - and the word is getting around. There are some initial indications that when given the chance, there will be a massive deflation of the numbers in the Guard and Reserves (with little recruitment to replace the losses), and some impact on the regular military.
So, whether or not it is BS will depend on the numbers and how quickly Iraq is brought under control. If either or both is favorable, then all is well. If not, then likely a draft or some extreme incentives ($$$) to make sure the numbers add up. Simple math, regardless of the politics.
Here's Hackworth's perspective on the issue:
Most of our warriors – who are mainly from blue-collar families from Small Town, USA – have few political connections and few conduits though which they can effectively sound off. So when they get screwed over by a desperate Pentagon’s makeshift policies – such as the “Stop Loss” program that’s holding over large numbers of our servicemen and -women well beyond their contractually agreed-upon terms of enlistment, or the widespread calling up of out-of-shape, ill-trained citizen soldiers from the Individual Ready Reserve – these “volunteers” salute, suck it up and lay their lives on the line.
But like elephants, they won’t forget that they are “backdoor draftees,” as Kerry and John McCain call them. Which means that when their hitches are up, they won’t be rushing to re-enlist. And they’re also warning their younger brothers, sisters and pals to stay away from recruiting stations.
Although Pentagon puff artists insist they’re making quota, recruiters are already saying it would be easier to find $100 bills on the sidewalk outside a homeless shelter than fill their enlistment quotas, even with the huge bonuses now being paid.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=92&rnd=641.5475424872716
Charon
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, they got almost all the fisherman vote. The Dems should have never put out that ban on treble hooks and rod registration agenda from Fishingrod Control Incorporated.
Jesious. :D
I colored that thing in 2 minutes which is about what it was worth. So a swath of red cuts across a damned lake. I also forgot to color DC blue but do ya complain about that? Nooooooo....
-
Hey! Good thing the "treble hook" deal didn't pass!
I already landed one!
-
A Mandate is what it is.
1. First time in 68 years a pres. is re-elected and adds senate and house seats.
2.first time in a long time Party leader loses. Tom daschel.
3.recived more the 50% of vote. That will be the high water mark for years to come. We will not have 60-70-80% winners ever again.
(Side note Clinton never got 50% in two elections)
and J F KENNEDY won by less then the margin in Ohio alone.
4. Added 2-4% points in every state.
5. Nearly 4 million more votes then Kerry
6.nearly 8 million more then 2000
7.increased Hispanic vote to 42% and black to 11%
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Not "most", but a majority.
:aok
Isnt *most* a *majority*? :D