Why do people vote for Republicans?

I believe it's safe to assume that most of us here agree that Obama is the logical choice for President and the best choice for America. The problem is Obama and McCain are almost tied (at this point) in the race for President. Despite the McCain/Palin lies and the fact that McCain is so obviously out-of-touch with most Americans, 45+ percent are still going to vote for McCain.

My sister and brother-in-law, who make a total of $75,000 a year, are going to vote for McCain even though they know he is not talking about them when he says he'll cut taxes. Their 14-year-old son, who is a self-proclaimed Republican, claims that the Republican party has made their lives better. I love my sister, but, in my opinion, she and her husband have successfully brainwashed my nephew. When you ask any one of them for specifics on how the Republicans have improved their lives, they can't answer you.

I do not completely understand the strange power the Republican party has over people, but I believe some people support the Republican party because it makes them feel morally superior. They may be losing their house, but at least women will not have the right to an abortion. It may have been a few years since they last received a raise from their employer, but at least people will not have the right to burn a flag. They may have no health care insurance, but at least they know their children will not receive sex education in public school. They may lose their job to outsourcing, but at least gays, lesbians, and trans-gender individuals will not have rights and protections that they themselves enjoy.

In the face of overwhelming evidence that modern Republicans cannot govern, why do so many people still vote for them? Is it because it makes them feel morally superior? What do you think?

Tags: John McCain (all tags)



Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

Less government intrusion.

by Liberty 2008-09-16 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?
Good point. However, I just watched John McCain talking about all of the regulation and oversight that's needed in our financial institutions. His ideas didn't sound much like less government intrusion.
by zenful6219 2008-09-16 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

Taxes, taxes, taxes.

by Liberty 2008-09-16 08:33AM | 0 recs
Pull the other one!


Now THAT was a funny comeback.

Yes, the party of spying, government control of reproductive rights, eviserating the wall between church and state....

The Republic party:Slight of hand for the masses, helping the rich get richer since 1885....

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-16 08:32AM | 0 recs
Promises, promises

You're right; they're hypocrites and so are the Democrats.

by soyousay 2008-09-16 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Pull the other one!

You forgot Terry Schiavo, possibly the most egregious invasion of personal privacy and libertarian ideals since the McCarthy hearings.

by vcalzone 2008-09-16 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

I don't think that means what you think it means.

by vcalzone 2008-09-16 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

There's links there if you can't see, the color scheme don't make them show up that well.

by vcalzone 2008-09-16 09:51AM | 0 recs
As in

restricting the right to an abortion?

Violating basic civil rights in the name of National Security?

by fladem 2008-09-16 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

Ask the Gipper...


Taxes , National security , cultural issues ...

People vote for personal reasons , don't know how to answer that question...

by lori 2008-09-16 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

To get serious for a moment, the reason is, the Republics have had one great advantage in that they have a very tightly controlled meme for what they stand for. Ask any Republic, he can spit it out:

Lower Taxes

Strong On Defense

Family Values

It's all COMPLETE Bullshit, but as we all know, they excel at marketing, suck at governance.

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-16 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

"COMPLETE Bullshit" on both sides IMO.

by soyousay 2008-09-16 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

Were you alive during the Clinton presidency?

by skohayes 2008-09-16 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

Your question is wrong.  As a Democrat, you should ask yourself why people don't vote for Democrats.  Or more precisely, why people vote for Clinton but not Gore or Kerry?

by gort256 2008-09-16 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

Bill Clinton campaigned as a centrist.

by soyousay 2008-09-16 09:07AM | 0 recs
taxes=freebies for some

why people don't vote for Democrats.
Here's one reason; some don't like government handouts through taxes especially when they're working very hard to put food on the table and don't expect handouts for themselves.

by soyousay 2008-09-16 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: taxes=freebies for some

Again... Why would you vote for Sarah Palin and John McCain? McCain is supporting tax cuts that are worse for a huge majority of Americans and Palin's most popular accomplishment was taking money from oil companies and distributing it to the citizens.

by vcalzone 2008-09-16 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: taxes=freebies for some

Again? Did you ask me this before?
Why would you vote for Sarah Palin and John McCain?
Where did I say that?

by soyousay 2008-09-16 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: taxes=freebies for some

No, YOU didn't. I know where you stand. But the overall question is why someone would vote for the Republicans. It was a conditional usage, and "one" would have been the grammatically correct pronoun choice.

by vcalzone 2008-09-16 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: taxes=freebies for some

This is simply shortsighted and ill informed. It is cheaper to feed people than put them in prison.

by pneuma 2008-09-16 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: taxes=freebies for some

So we are suppose to feed the lazy too? I think that type of attitude is "simply shortsighted and ill informed.

I realize that there are some that are truly needy, BUT long term freebies doesn't help anyone....especially the tax payers. "Prison" is a red herring.

by soyousay 2008-09-16 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: taxes=freebies for some

I actually am in full agreement with feeding the lazy. If we provide people with the bare essentials they need to survive and nothing more, it at least provides a safety net. It lowers crime rates and is actually in accordance with the foundations of our government.

Look, the only thing more dangerous and desperate than a place where people can barely afford their basic needs is a place where they can't. I live in a fairly cushy suburban area, and even we have seen an increase in crime.

Capitalism, by definition, has to have a much bigger bottom than a top. Left to its own devices, it would get more and more lopsided, and taht's what we have now. It's important to have that safety net. Not meant to provide for comfort, but for necessity.

by vcalzone 2008-09-16 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: taxes=freebies for some

I actually am in full agreement with feeding the lazy.
OMG - You're kidding right?

Does Obama have this view? If so, he's not in touch with the majority of Americans.

by soyousay 2008-09-16 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: taxes=freebies for some

This has nothing to do with morality. I do not believe people have a right to food and shelter. I chafe at feeding lazy people on principle. However, I am smart enough to look past my own feelings to see the reality of the matter. This is basic math, not bleeding heart liberalism.

A properly administered welfare system is far cheaper to support than a society without one. You forget that in addition to the cost of policing and imprisoning people that commit crimes of desperation, the net effect of crime depresses the entire area economically. Moreover, a properly administered welfare system gives a percentage of the beneficiaries (however small that may be), a chance to become productive members of society. The alternative virtually guarantees a permanent criminal class.

by pneuma 2008-09-16 11:19AM | 0 recs
I understand this much

Many years ago, I worked in low income city housing. I went into it with one attitude (helping the poor.) When I left, I realized that for the most part, freebies create a certain lifestyle. There is no incentive to work, it does not help the people. The only thing learned was how to game the system and get more freebies paid by the tax payers.

by soyousay 2008-09-16 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I understand this much

Yes, what's your point? I concede that there are people that will get a free ride. Neither of us like it. It still doesn't change the underlying economics.

by pneuma 2008-09-16 11:57AM | 0 recs
Neither one of us like it BUT...

...you support it; I don't.

by soyousay 2008-09-16 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Neither one of us like it BUT...

So one of us is completely irrational, and supports policy based on emotion rather than reason. Are you sure you are on the right site?

by pneuma 2008-09-16 12:30PM | 0 recs
IMO you are irrational

Is this a Democratic site or a "liberal" only site?

by soyousay 2008-09-16 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: IMO you are irrational

I hate to break it to you, but the position I am espousing is fiscally conservative. If you can demonstrate why my position is irrational, as I believe I have done with yours, I'd be willing to consider your position. That's the liberal part. The refusal to acknowledge cogent arguments belongs on redstate, not here.

by pneuma 2008-09-16 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: IMO you are irrational

Obama sees it my way.

by soyousay 2008-09-16 01:01PM | 0 recs
Obama's irrational?

He too "holds the principle of accountability." I was informed of this here (this diary.)

by soyousay 2008-09-16 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's irrational?

I believe in the principle of accountability as well. I just don't allow my principles to get in the way of doing what is best for the country.

by pneuma 2008-09-16 01:02PM | 0 recs
That's messed up

What's best for the country is to give freebies to those who don't want to work?

by soyousay 2008-09-16 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: That's messed up

Yes, and I have already explained why in posts above. Are you intentionally being a troll?

by pneuma 2008-09-16 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: That's messed up

I'm a troll because I believe in hard work?

by soyousay 2008-09-16 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: taxes=freebies for some

Not kidding, but I also don't think Obama shares that view. He holds the principle of accountability pretty highly.

I am more pessimistic about humanity. I think there will always be a percentage of people who are lazy, and the best thing we can do is just admit that. It's not like we have enough jobs for absolutely everyone anyway.

by vcalzone 2008-09-16 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: taxes=freebies for some

Kudos to Obama for holding "the principle of accountability"

by soyousay 2008-09-16 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: taxes=freebies for some

You laugh, but it's true. He gets criticized for his concept of required service for public school students, but it's not a bad idea. It could save money for government while doing some good and instilling the principle of a community. Slightly socialist, but the concept of required military service has been around for hundreds of years, and this just extends it.

Pretty sure he admits "work for welfare" as the one issue that he opposed at first, but now realizes was a good thing.

by vcalzone 2008-09-16 11:49AM | 0 recs
Wasn't laughing

I was serious.

by soyousay 2008-09-16 12:12PM | 0 recs
The republicans give

out money all the time: to corporations.  Their energy bill was giving billions to oil companies for example.

I will be blunt: I don't think Republicans mind having the government give out money.  What they DO mind is the government giving money to poor people.

by fladem 2008-09-16 12:08PM | 0 recs
I voted for Clinton precisely because...

he wasn't a party favorite. I used to think that only us independents felt that way but after this primary season it's obvious to me that a lot of registered Democrats and Republicans are starting to feel the same way. There may be hope for us all yet.

by JimR 2008-09-16 09:23AM | 0 recs
Not extreme right

IMO, that's why McCain was the best possible pick for the Republicans. He's more of a centrist, same with HRC.

by soyousay 2008-09-16 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Not extreme right
He was more of a centrist.
But centrists haven't voted with Bush 90% of the time, (when he did manage to show up to vote).
Centrists don't want to abolish Roe v. Wade.
Centrists don't pick a rabidly anti-abortion evangelical for a VP.
by skohayes 2008-09-16 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

People didn't vote for Clinton anymore than Gore or Kerry.  In fact, more people and a larger percentage of the vote went for both Kerry and Gore than Clinton rec'd in 1992 when he accidentally stumbled into the White House with 43% of the vote.

Clinton, Begala and Carville get up everyday and kiss a picture of Ross Perot because without Ross Perot in the race in '92 no one would even remember them.

Even in 1996 with Clinton's popularity at its peak he only rec'd 49% of the vote running against a terrible candidate in Bob Dole.

I don't know the answer to the question about why people vote Republican but I can tell you that I sure know a lot of them.  And no matter what you say to them or prove to them they are positive that Democrats hate America, are very weak on national defense, that Democrats want taxes that are through the roof and want as many babies dead as possible.

Even some union friends of mine who refer to themselves as Democrat on 9/11 were saying "Thank God Bush won, we need someone of strength now, this isn't a good time for a Democrat to be in the White House."

I'm just not sure what the answer is, but I know this -- we have to change hearts and minds, we have to sell our ideas better.

by OurYear2008 2008-09-16 11:22AM | 0 recs
Bill Clinton did not accidently

"stumble" into the White House as exit polls and all statiscal data showed ross perot did NOT elect Bill clinton in both 1992 and 1996. Moreover, when Ross Perot was out of the 1992 race from July-October 1992, the race looked like this where Clinton was headed for a landslide while Bush was still polling the same 37% he polled for the entire campaign season. With approval numbers like these in 1992, Bush I was never gonna win re-election. Clinton was headed for a landslide in 1992 AND 1996 but was stopped because of Ross Perot. Bush I only got close to Clinton because Perot came back and saved his ass.

I will NEVER let anyone, Republican or "Democrat" get away with your smear. Bill Clinton won over 270 electoral votes and according to the only thing that can give us any idea, exit polls and data, would still have done so without PRO CHOICE PRO-GAY ANTI-NAFTA NON-CONSERVATIVE ROSS PEROT, as opposed to John Kerry and Al Gore*, who did not receive over 270. Bill Clinton was a better candidate than they were.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 11:30AM | 0 recs
Absent Perot

Clinton would have still won. This is certainly what the exit polls tells us.  The exit polls suggest in '92 that the Perot voters would have split almost down the middle.

What is also true, though, is that Clinton won in '92 because the economy was in shambles. I think it is fair to say that either Gore or Kerry would have won in '92.  It is also true that Clinton lead the party to defeat in the  '94 election where we lost the House and the Senate.

He won again in '96 - but I know Clinton people who were disappointed with the margin given the State of the economy and the fact that the election occured after the Repugs shut down the goverment in '95.  

You are flat wrong about '96 being a landslide if Perot would not have run.  According to the 1996 exit poll, without Perot in the race Clinton would have won by 7 instead of the 9 that he did win by.  

To compare Kerry, Gore and Clinton in the end is silly.  They ran in different times.  You can argue that Kerry did astonishingly well given Bush II's positive job approval rating at the time of the 2004 election.  

by fladem 2008-09-16 12:21PM | 0 recs
you also have to account

the 30 minute smear ads Perot ran towards the end of the campaign starting in October. Look at where Clinton was here, then Perot started the millions on smear ads, and cut Clinton's lead down to size. perot was the thing that clearly stopped a 58-40 win on the Clinton side. this may be worth a look.

Also, its not fair to blame Clinton for 1994. That was Congress, and what will happen to the Pelosi Congress if Obama gets in, and Congress doesn't act. Clinton got in in 1993, the Congress never would cooperate with him, be it on economic stimulus, barely agreed on the deficit reduction, wouldn't give his 1993 welfare reform a chance, and didn't get in lockstep behind the health care bill. That combined with the do-nothing image the GOP was able to paint them with, especially because the Dem congress was in for 40 years, sadly of which the GOP had the White House for 26. If Obama proposes legislation, and nothing gets done with Pelosi, it won't be hard for the GOP to say "the Democrat Congress has been in since 2007 and they've got nothing done" because by 11/2010, it will be nearly "4 years to act for the American people." And part of the reason 1994 happened was because most of the Dems in Congress had never worked with a Dem in their lives, not because Clinton did something bad. Also, what about the VRWC?

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 12:30PM | 0 recs
You are really ignoring the data

I remember '96 well.  In CNN he ranged from 54 to 50 in the tracking poll - he got 49.  As one expects in races involving incumbents, the undecided broke heavily against him.

I see no empirical basis for concluding that Clinton was going to win  by 18.  The data suggests otherwise.  

Clinton was clearly a factor in increased GOP turnout in '94.  To argue otherwise is to argue against reality.  

I like Bill Clinton.  I think he was a good President.  I do not think he was the political genius that is often suggested.  

by fladem 2008-09-16 12:55PM | 0 recs
actually imperical basis

like this shows Clinton woulda won by high double digits. He didn't get a high percentage because Perot was in the race. When voters are given 3 viable or semi-viable choices, people are gonna vote for the 3rd guy. Math alone shows that when you have 3 choice, the top one won't have as high a percentage as he would if it were just two because some people, yes, some people will vote 3rd. You wanna also check these tracking polls which were before Perot really got revved up.

If Perot had been in the race in 1984, I would bet Reagan woulda gotten a much lower percentage than he got. People didn't agree with his policies as much as they disliked Mondale. Reagan still woulda won, but people woulda had another choice than Reagan or Mondale. But would you still call Reagan a political idiot if he had won 1984 49-39-10, and still won an electoral landslide, even after Beirut, the flailing  economy in 1982 and 1983? Was Harry Truman a political loser, even tho he only won with 49 percent of the vote in 1948, or JFK in 1960? Also, I'd rather win an election 49-40 than to lose one 50-48, as other Dems like OurYear2008 would.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: actually imperical basis

WRONG!  I don't want to lose, I want to try something new:  actually winning!  

But goofy, rose-colored memories distorting the facts such as your false assumptions regarding Clinton do not serve any of us well.  I've heard lots of theories regarding why we lose Presidential election after Presidential election but your are the first to argue that what we need to do is revise history to a rosier Democratic version.  What are you going to offer next:  the Republicans squeaked BY to victory in 1994?

Clinton in both elections rec'd the same forty-something percent Dems have been losing with since 1976.  Luckily for him an extraordinary event occured.  A fairly viable third-party candidate ran and messed with the usual formulas.

by OurYear2008 2008-09-16 01:26PM | 0 recs
when you show some data

that Clinton woulda lost either election, then I, or anyone else who thinks will listen to you. You may wanna get over your hate of Bill Clinton, because that doesn't serve you well, and hasn't served the party well, especially considering how poorly the non-Clinton Democratic candidate is doing right now against John mcCain in such an election year. Stop pulling words out of your ass already you worthless troll. You prove your trollness with how only one of your posts on this board is not about bashing Bill Clinton.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: when you show some data

Telling the truth about the elections is not "bashing" Clinton.  Kerry lost the election in 2004.  Now, am I "bashing" Kerry now?

I voted for Clinton TWICE. But that won't allow me to lie about the election and what happened.  Clinton squeaked in accidentally thanks to Perot.  Sorry the truth upsets you so much.

by OurYear2008 2008-09-16 02:38PM | 0 recs
just because YOU say it

means absolutely jack shit. You've basically admitted you SAY stuff like this, but show no evidence, no data, merely your Clinton-hating assertions, which in no way has any bearing on what "the truth" is.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 03:24PM | 0 recs
Wrong on multiple levels

Reagan won in '84 on the economy.  The reason there was no third party candidate in '84 was simple: there was no market for one.  Reagan's approval rating was 58% just before the '84 election and was strong throughout the year.  

A third party candidate would have been invisible in '84.  

The mistake you make is conflating the presence of third party candidates with viable third party candidates.  Nader ran in 2004 and had no impact on the race.  He was not relevent.  In this sense you are fundementally wrong.  

The fundemental truth about Bill Clinton was that there was a group of Democrats and independents who would never support him because of the draft stuff and other personal issues people had with him.   In '96 there was general disgust with the GOP lead Goverment shutdown AND with Clinton's personal background.  That is why Perot ran again.  In fact, I think you can argue that had a Democrat run who did not have the personal baggage Clinton had in '92 Perot would not have emerged as strongly as he did.  

The study you cite is unconvincing: empircal models using GDP and right track/wrong track predict Clinton's share of the vote well.  And of course this study ignores what people actually said they would do if Perot was not in the race.  

Your last paragraph verges on incoherence.  In '48 Truman was running for a fifth consecutive Democratic term and faced revolts to his left and right.  In '60 Kennedy was running against a sitting VP of a popular administration.

As I said initially, you cannot compare candidates without taking into account the times in which they were running.  I like Clinton.  he was a good President and a good candidate.  He was not a genius.  Nothing you have written suggests I am wrong.

by fladem 2008-09-16 01:36PM | 0 recs
i was giving a hypothetical

about Reagan, that a win is a win, and belittling it is wrong. I know there wasn't much of a 3rd party clamoring in 1984, but if there had been, and a Perot type thing had ran, I doubt anyone would be belittling him politically, cuz he woulda won without it. You could argue that a 3rd party may have done well in 1984 because polls showed people didn't agree with Reagan's policies like trickle down and the environment, but liked him as a person and the economy was good. During the first debate, when Reagan bombed, Mondale started to pick up steam, and while he didn't get far, it showed that people would be willing, if it came to it, to look somewhere else. Lucky for Reagan, he recovered his second debate. But the Americans did not like Mondale, and there's no reason to doubt had a decent 3rd party been running in 1984, perhaps the first debate woulda opened up doors for him too. The economy was good with Clinton too, and his approvals weren't very different than Reagan's in 1996. 1996 was one of the few elections where the incumbent Prez ran behind his job approval which was because of Perot running.

And about Truman, I was not comparing Clinton 1996 to Truman 1948. I was just saying its not fair to belittle wins because of percentage of vote in a vacuum. However, not many Presidents have lost a mid term election in such a huge way and had such a bad political honeymoon to come back and win a convincing re-election as Clinton did, and in turn, make permanent many states blue, such as NJ, PA, ME, CT, DE, MD, CA, IL, MI, NH, and VT nearly all of which used to vote Republican before Clinton and now are expected to go for the Democrat.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton did not accidently

It is not helpful to remember history through rose-colored glasses.  Clinton was a minority president and the facts are simple:  absent Ross Perot -- especially in 1992 -- he would have lost.

Since then some Democratic operatives have cherry-picked some national polls and have tried to say that Perot took away almost as many votes from Clinton as he did Bush.  But it wasn't the national polls that mattered because Perots votes were regionally inconsistent just as his "take-away" effect was widely varied state by state.  

Even using the most optimistic polls to attempt to justify Clinton as a winner in his own right the answer is clear:  absent Perot, Bush would have won.  In ALL of the exit polling from that year whenever a voter said they were voting for Perot they were asked who they would be voting for if not Perot.  EVERY SINGLE national polling organization agreed that without Perot in the election that the following states would have gone to Bush rather than Clinton:  Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Louisiana, Mississippi, Iowa, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, New Hampshire and W. Virginia.

Those states as they switched from Clinton to Bush would have taken their 105 total electoral votes and made Bush the winner with 273 electoral votes to Clinton's 265.

We were way better off with Clinton in the White House than Bush but this revisionist nonsense that my fellow Democrats tend to engage in in which they seem to think of Clinton as some type of Reaganesque vote-getter is just ridiculous.  He stumbled in accidentally in 1992 with just 43% of the vote and was a minority 49% president again in 1996.

There has not been a majority Democratic President since Carter in 1976 when he won with 50.1% of the vote.

by OurYear2008 2008-09-16 12:38PM | 0 recs
you back what you say up WHERE?

Where are state exit polls you speak of? people with your horseshit assesment have never produced anything. Actually the state polls don't back you up at all. Plus, the article says that Clinton likely coulda won Ohio anyway.

Also, don't forget that 93% of the time a candidate wins the pop vote, he wins the election, and 100% of the time when the margin is more than 3.1%, which is the narrowest a pop vote loser has lost nationally by and won the election, and that election, 1876 was fraud filled. Clinton won outside the margin of error, 5.6, which means him winning both the pop and electoral vote has a probability of 100%.

But lets look at the states you talk about. First off, West Virgina, Clinton won 48.4 to 35.4 to 15.9. For Bush to have won, he'd need to have won over 80% of Perot's vote, which in WV, a then heavily Dem state in Pres elections that it was won by Dukakis, Carter twice, and did give Bill Clinton huge margins both times, that was never happening. And that would be if all of Perot's voters still votes, and that would not have happened either. Those 5 evs alone put Clinton at 270 from your absolutely BOGUS count, a win is a win. New Mexico, Clinton won 45.9-37.3-16.1. Again, Bush would need over 60% of Perot's vote to win the state in his absence, not happening, and this holds true for Louisiana, which also was won by Clinton in 1996 and he won an absolute majority there too that year, and Clinton was far enough ahead of Bush in Kentucky and Tennessee that Bush would have needed a huge majority, not just 51-49 of Perot's votes, assuming they all woulda voted, which they wouldn't have. Colorado and Montana will bring debate, but then again, they were both really close in 1996 too, and Dukakis didn't do too poorly in either for a loss in 1988, and given the political climates of 1992 and 1996, anti-GOP years in PRESIDENTIAL politics, Clinton woulda likely still won it. Nevada has been a swing state with and without Perot in the last 4 elections. New Hampshire also is a Dem state too nowadays, and again you show no proof Bush woulda won it without Perot.

Also, why can't you just accept that Clinton was a better campaigner and connector with people than Kerry and Gore? Its like you don't like the facts so you have to make up shit you can't produce because you hate the guy for so much for no reason whatsoever. Considering your posting non-history, it seems to me you're nothing but a GOP troll around here trying to bash the Clintons with your horseshit talking point. Face it: WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TWICE WITH MORE VOTES THAN ANYONE ELSE GOT, WHICH IS WHAT MATTERS, NOT SOME FUCKING STUPID "majority percentage" SHIT.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: you back what you say up WHERE?

GEEZ!  Sorry. We can all see that you are really just all emotional about this and just jumping up and down with anger at anyone telling you the truth about Clinton but sorry:  facts are facts.

Go to any of a million sites, use Google.  The exit polling is clear as a bell.  Perot had tremendous effect in some states and almost none in others.

Clinton lucked in to office, face the facts.  It turned out to be good for America, but it was still an accident.  If Clinton was on his way to aq landslide absent Perot how to you explain the complete CRUSHING of the Dems in 1994?

It is amazing!  I think this is why we lose elections.  There are Dems like you completely dealing from fantasy.  I have friends like you.  They seem to think that Clinton was this hugely popular president that won in two gigantic landslides.  He wasn't and he didn't.  Perot got him into the White House in 1992 and a combination of Perot again plus a very poor candidate in Bob Dole let him slip in with his 49% in 1996.

I truly am sorry that you wish to remember it differently than the way it actually was and I rained on your parade.

by OurYear2008 2008-09-16 01:11PM | 0 recs
you know "post hoc, ergo proctor hoc"

means? The 1992 elections do not explain the 1994 elections in anyway whatsoever, and vice versa. They were completely 2 difference election years. According to your logic, Ronald Reagan shoulda gained a lot of Republican seats in 1982, because after all, he won a majority of the vote in 1980 and by a lot, right? NO, WRONG! He lost a ton of seats in 1982, even after his landslide in 1980. IN 1983, Reagan looked a lot like Clinton in 1995. Election years vary, and you cannot link 1992 to 1994.

Also, just because GOOGLE says something, does NOT mean its true. According to your logic, Barack Obama MUST be a Muslim who was educated in a radical madrassa, because "a million sites" from Google says it is. WRONG.  You know no facts, and know no logic. Learn to think, buddy. Plus, I have NEVER seen ACTUAL DATA from exit polls OTHER THAN WHAT I HAVE SHOWN on the internet, just people SAYING WITHOUT STATISTICAL OR DATA BACKUP that Perot changed the outcome, and you are one of those people.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 01:22PM | 0 recs

You are wrong again.  Previous elections as determiners or indicators of the next election is a well-established and respected practice.  What happened to the Republicans in 1982 mid-terms was highly predictable and is what almost always happens after a presidential landslide.  The presidential landslide coattails in congressional victors in marginal districts and then absent the effect of the coattail that candidate loses.

A president who wins in a close race typically then has a mid-term election without much movement.

If Clinton was so highly popular in 1992 that absent Perot he was going to win a landslide he wouldn't have been trounced as he was.  And, I'm sure you'll start crying again over this:  at the time everyone agreed, the trouncing of the 1994 mid-term elections was all about a complete rejection of Clinton.

I far preferred Clinton in the White House than Bush, but its as if his accidental win brought negative Karma.  Clinton's election gave us thousands of office-holders and millions of voters switching to the Republican party and the Republicans control of congress for 12 years.  The only real major bills passed during his presidency were Republican bills (such as Welfare Reform) that he has since tried to claim credit for.

He was a bit too centrist for me!  But trust me, somewhere in his house is a Ross Perot statue that he bows to every single day.

by OurYear2008 2008-09-16 01:41PM | 0 recs

Actually, it was more a rejection of the Democrats in Congress who had been embroiled in scandals in the late 80s and early 90's after having a majority in the House for 40 years.

by skohayes 2008-09-16 03:46PM | 0 recs
but, but , only if their name is

either William Jefferson Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton can you criticize them. The Clintons are EVIL. That is why states like NJ, CA, MI, IL, DE, MD, CT, VT, HM, PA, and ME, GOP states before Clinton are now expected to go into the Dem column this year, as they have for the last 16.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 07:45PM | 0 recs
The national

'92 exit poll is pretty clear: Clinton would have one without Perot in the race.  

As the New York Times reported the day after the election:

Mr. Swindle's prideful sentiments notwithstanding, the impact of Mr. Perot's supporters on the campaign's outcome appears to have been minimal. If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush. Of the 31 states where Mr. Perot garnered more than 20 percent, 17 were won by Mr. Clinton and 14 by Mr. Bush

I have never actually seen a state by state breakdown of Perot's effect. I have no doubt that Perot cost Bush some states - I also have no doubt that Perot cost Clinton some states.  

Do you have a link for your analysis?

by fladem 2008-09-16 01:03PM | 0 recs
he doesn't, and don't expect him to

as his only comments are bashing Clinton on this subject. You can check this news article which I bought from HighBeam online which is a Washington Post article from election 1992 before the GOP wrote bullshit history, printed and scanned it, then uploaded it to Webshots for this purpose. It even says Ohio still may have gone to Clinton absent Perot.

Plus, he may want to note that only 4 out of 55 elections have been won by popular vote losers, and the widest pop margin in an election in which pop vote winner lost electoral was 3.1, and that election, 1876, was rigged. Bill Clinton won by 5.6, which is outside the margin of error, and everyone who has won the popular vote by more than 3.1 has won the election. That means if you win the pop vote, your chances of winning the election are 93%, and if you win it by more than 3.1%, then your chances are 100%, historically speaking.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 01:09PM | 0 recs
Gore got more votes

than Clinton, who never won a majority of the popular.  

by fladem 2008-09-16 12:06PM | 0 recs
Al Gore never got a majority either,

, he also won a plurality too. Kerry got more votes than Nixon in 1972, which further proves the validity of your fucking stupid argument. Also, Bill Clinton had to deal with pro-choice pro-gay anti-NAFTA Ross Perot who in both 1992 and 1996 only prevented Clinton from winning an absolute majority. It who gives a fuck about this stupid "50% of the vote" bullshit. Its about beating your opponent, whatever percent it may be. Clinton beat his opponents by 5.6 and 8.5 percent, Gore only by .5. And Al Gore never won a majority in the electoral vote, which is what counts. A plurality is just as legitimate as a majority, show some fucking honor you GOP Clinton-hating piece of trash.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 12:13PM | 0 recs
The absence of Perot

would not have effected Clinton's margin in either '92 or '96.

I linked to the '96 poll above, which suggests that Perot very maginally helped Clinton in '96.

My memory of exit polling in '92 is that Perot had no effect either way on the margin.

Re Gore you also forget the presence of Ralph Nader in '96.  Your comparison to '72 - an election that took place 24 years earlier - strikes me as a reach.

by fladem 2008-09-16 12:24PM | 0 recs
And I note that you have decided

to troll my post: an always mature way of dealing with argument that you cannot refute.

Have a donut.

by fladem 2008-09-16 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Gore got more votes

To me, the most important thing is to win an election.  As a matter of fact, half of the population don't even vote.  What difference does it make if one candidate receive more than 50% of the population who actually cast the vote?  The president still has to lead the entire population.

The fact is Clinton won an election but neither Gore or Kerry did.  One can argue all the different circumstances surrounding their elections.  One should also accept that certain candidates know how to win an election while certain candidates know how to lose an election.  If Democrats don't look in the mirror and ask the question why more people don't vote for us, I am afraid there will be more elections to lose.

by gort256 2008-09-16 01:29PM | 0 recs
because people and Clinton connected

Kerry and Gore did not, or even attempt to. Hillary was right: they DID come off elitist. Kerry managed to make Bush look like an average "plain spoken fella" when Kerry and Bush were merely political counterparts to one another, one a Democrat another a Republican, both from rich aristocratic families, and BOTH in SKULL AND BONES, the most elite fraternity in the world.  

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 02:02PM | 0 recs
One or more of 3 reasons




Call it the FIG theory of Republicanism if you will.

by Travis Stark 2008-09-16 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?


by gunner 2008-09-16 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

Check the posting history on this guy. GOP troll.

by pneuma 2008-09-16 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

I'm sort of the opposite to your family.  I vote Democratic despite my own personal financial interest.  Why?  Because I'm a social libertarian who believes in an absolute separation of Church and State, abortion rights, and gay rights.  None of this affects me directly.  I'm a white, heterosexual male.  But I think ideals are important.  

I suppose if you take the opposite tack on those social issues, you might very well vote against your self-interest and support the Republicans.

by XoFalconXo 2008-09-16 09:34AM | 0 recs
Morally superior

   works. People love to feel morally superior. Not only that, the Democratic Party still has an image of being....well, how to put this, PANZIES!! It's not a fair image, but that image is still there.

  When push comes to shove, people like to be told what great Americans they are, how powerful our country is and taxes for rich people are evil. and that is the essence of the GOP message EVERY SINGLE ELECTION CYCLE.

  It works. That's why people vote Republican. They're blinded by an attractive (but otherwise useless) message.

by southernman 2008-09-16 09:44AM | 0 recs
Bitter are we?

I think people form psychological attachments to such things as traditional culture, authority, and meritocracy and the GOP pays more lip service to those than Democrats.  I would also argue that Obama is part of a lineage of Democratic candidates (Dukakis, McGovern, and Adlai Stevenson were predecessors) who may delight many liberals in their styles but conform less to traditional styles of American leadership.

Obama, like Gore, seems very much like what he was - a college professor.  Perhaps Americans outside of the Democratic party are less than enthralled with the notion of the president as lecturer-in-chief.

by lombard 2008-09-16 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Bitter are we?

But why would you possibly choose the ridiculously dismal college students instead??

by vcalzone 2008-09-16 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Bitter are we?

I mean, hell, at least Bush was a C student. Are we to believe that 894/899 was more than a D+?

by vcalzone 2008-09-16 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Bitter are we?

HAHA...I have missed you. I hope all is well...

by Liberty 2008-09-16 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Bitter are we?

   Not bitter at all. It's admirable, that the GOP can win with the same shit year in and year out.

  Obama has connected with the people of this country unlike any Democrat in modern history. So the GOP agenda shifted from damage control to savage attack...and it's working.

  It's admirable to say the least. I wish the Democrats had half the brass and guts that the GOP seems to have these days.

by southernman 2008-09-16 11:01AM | 0 recs
This Thread is Informative

It's practically catnip to the people on here who don't share Democratic ideals.

by vcalzone 2008-09-16 09:57AM | 0 recs
Needs all the votes he can get

Maybe Obama ought to read this. He doesn't seem to be able to connect with independents/centrists.

by soyousay 2008-09-16 10:53AM | 0 recs
Your brainwashed nephew

should hang out with my brainwashed 9-year-old niece.  At a wedding on Sun. she asked me who I was going to vote for.  When I told her Obama, she was horrified.  "You shouldn't," she said, "he's going to do terrible things to Israel!"

I told her that whoever said that was telling a terrible lie, and that people tell terrible lies during elections that they never would in any other situation.  

Republicans win because they are good at lies and fear, and because democrats campaign like they should design policy, with nuance.  A whole focus group watching the O'Reilly interview agreed with one audience member who said he didn;t like it that Obama "thought" before he spoke, where McCain just comes right out with it.  Do you want your child's doctor to think before she operates?  Do you want your accountant to think before he files your taxes?  Do you want you child's teacher to think about a plan before delivering a lesson?  Do you want a general who contemplates strategy before giving orders?  But these people actually want a president who has more in common with a successful game show contestant who is fast to the buzzer or a loudmouth who excels at quick witted cocktail party repartee.  

Democrats want someone who thinks before speaking, and blinks before accepting the awesome responsibility of the vice presidency.

by Strummerson 2008-09-16 11:41AM | 0 recs
its because they seem more patriotic

which is what people love in a leader. I have heard it said that Democrats "never talk about loving America is she is" and that they "milk her for everything she's worth." Democrats need to sound more jingoistic, and "own the word 'American.'" That does not mean we should invade countries, but we should wave flags more and use the word "American" more. Obama's having a tough time because many people don't think he's patriotic or "American" enough, which is in part due to his name/background, but also due to his failure to be jingoistic in his ads and language and actions. "Change" isn't enough, loving America should be more emphasized. The flag pin thing and national anthem in which he didn't put his hand over his heart REALLY did nothing for him, but to further worsen his image, and he did the flag pin thing to please the Daily Kos too.  

John Kerry got made into a non-patriot because he never attacked back on the Swift Boat thing, whereas George W. Bush screamed out "America, FUCK YEA." That was Kerry's fault. he let himself get swiftboated the way it looked for a while and still kinda seems Obama is getting.

I do wish Hillary had listened to Penn about owning "American" and won the nomination, because I think she'd be far less vulnerable to getting her patriotism questioned, which is why I picked her over Obama. She also sounded tougher on Islamic terrorism, which is a Dem weak point. But he's the nod now, so he's the only way to go. he should use the word "America" more, and just try to be as patriotic as he can be.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 11:42AM | 0 recs
Cause they're effing crazy - thats why

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

by mydailydrunk 2008-09-16 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

Well, there are different factions in the Republican party, who plug into it for different reasons, but my experience with my parents and the folks I grew up with at a Christian school is this: the ideal state for a human being is to be married to a member of the opposite sex and have children together. The stable family unit is supposed to the cornerstone of civilized society; by making a person a part of larger entity, affecting the whole rather than just one's own self, people are assumed to be more restrained, upright, good, and moral.

When the "traditional" family unit breaks down, as in when larger number of people are single for longer and longer in their lives, when divorce happens, when women participate in the workforce, when kids move geographically far from the family unit, then individual freedom happens, and that supposedly leads to a society of weak, selfish, crime-prone, depressed, neurotic, amoral, aimless people. The '60s really pushed this transition to take place, to the point where divorce is just as common in the church as elsewhere, where singlehood isn't shamed by society, where most families have two working parents, where mobility among young twentysomethings is assumed. Because the "traditionalists" were participating in most of these anti-nuclear family practices, new, out-of-the-mainstream practices were targeted as enemies of the family, things like homosexuality, welfare mothers, single parenthood, mixed race marriages. These no longer hold the same sting they once did (no one is really pushing the idea of returning homosexuality to a crime), so the issues have been ramped up to things like homosexual marriages, homosexual adoptions, etc. The idea that banning gay marriage would somehow return the country to close-knit nuclear families is ludicrous, but the idea is that the tide has to start turning back somewhere.

The one issue that's been constant throughout this whole process is the antipathy against abortion, which has never really been accepted by traditionalists like the shoulder-shrugging about divorce; it's still distasteful, but isn't an outrage. This is the one issue that conservative Christians really do believe will turn back the tide, because an outlaw of abortion not only will encourage "mistakes" to create an instant family, but the fear of making such a mistake will cut down on promiscuity and encourage earlier marriages. And unlike gay marriage, which makes some older people's heads spin to think that they're drawing the line so far past what they were comfortable with to begin with (when everyone was closeted), abortion has been a clear line in the sand for decades, and has a feel of a long-time battle that must, at this point, be absolutely won and never given up on.

Essentially, they believe that people are unlikely to make moral choices without outside influences pressuring them to do so. It used to be the church, and the general conservatism of society that applied the necessary pressure, so when that disappeared, the game plan became to use the government as a force to coerce behavior.

My take on it is that conservatives as a whole do not trust the individual to act rightly on his own, but instead selfishly, thereby hurting other individuals. The have a low view of humanity and a high view of rules and of systems, like markets. Democrats are willing to believe that a vast majority of individuals will use their freedoms wisely without coercion. They take a more optimistic view of humanity and are skeptical of rules and systems that give too much power to a select few.

Republicans think they're realists and Democrats are naive; Democrats think Republicans are stuffy grumps who know nothing of hope.

by indythink 2008-09-16 01:17PM | 0 recs
he will cut taxes

You are right Obama will cut taxes to that bracket by about $300 more than McCain's plan, but Obama's plan is so heavy handed at the top it is hard to believe it wont have a negative effect on the economy.

Both plans do not pay for themselves, so you are left to wonder which will stimulate the economy.  

BTW:  Obama Tax cuts to the lower and middle class are hardly worth noting.  I wouldn't frown at an extra $500, but that extra $42 per month is not going to pay the mortgage.

by Classical Liberal 2008-09-16 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: he will cut taxes
It's not supposed to pay the mortgage. But for those people struggling from paycheck to paycheck, it's going to help.
Clinton did the same thing (taxing the wealthy and corporations) and created more jobs, got more people off of welfare and balanced the budget.
Bush inherited a healthy economy, a budget surplus expected to last for years and managed to screw every bit of that up in record breaking time.
by skohayes 2008-09-16 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: he will cut taxes

Fact check:

Clinton only raised taxes once.  When he was first in office he passed a tax increase and then immediately followed it with another attempted raise.  After he ran on a promised middle class tax cut he had extreme difficulty getting the first one passed, a tie had to actually be broken by the VP in the senate.  Clinton was not a big taxer, despite Republican attempts to paint him that way.

And please, don't get caught up in that nonsense regarding welfare.  The welfare bill that was passed was a Republican bill that Clinton vetoed twice.  He only finally signed it late summer of '96 right before the Democratic convention because his pollster Dick Morris told him he would lose the election if he didn't sign it.  He played ball with the Republicans and I didn't like it but he was being politically expedient.  Now, I guess out of more political expediency he tries to claim credit for the welfare bill that he fought so hard before capitulating.

Obama is erring in claiming on one hand that he is not going to raise taxes for 95% of Americans and then on the other hand saying he is going to pay for all of his programs by taxing business.  People aren't stupid.  Economics 101 - heck, high school economics -- everyone knows businesses don't pay taxes they only collect them.  Tax a business and their prices immediately reflect the increase.  When you tax businesses all you are doing is taxing their customers;  you know, the 95% you promised "no new taxes" to.

Obama is a breath of fresh air and an honest real change.  He shouldn't be mucking that up with the same old political lies and switcheroos like this tax hocus-pocus.

by OurYear2008 2008-09-16 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: he will cut taxes

Fact check:

Clinton only raised taxes once.  When he was first in office he passed a tax increase and then immediately followed it with another attempted raise.  After he ran on a promised middle class tax cut he had extreme difficulty getting the first one passed, a tie had to actually be broken by the VP in the senate.  The second tax increase failed.  Then the Republicans came in after their '94 landslide and they controlled things from then on.  Clinton was not a big taxer, despite Republican attempts to paint him that way.

And please, don't get caught up in that nonsense regarding welfare.  The welfare bill that was passed was a Republican bill that Clinton vetoed twice.  He only finally signed it late summer of '96 right before the Democratic convention because his pollster Dick Morris told him he would lose the election if he didn't sign it.  He played ball with the Republicans and I didn't like it but he was being politically expedient.  Now, I guess out of more political expediency he tries to claim credit for the welfare bill that he fought so hard before capitulating and signing it.

Obama is erring in claiming on one hand that he is not going to raise taxes for 95% of Americans and then on the other hand saying he is going to pay for all of his programs by taxing business.  People aren't stupid.  Economics 101 - heck, high school economics -- everyone knows businesses don't pay taxes they only collect them.  Tax a business and their prices immediately reflect the increase.  When you tax businesses all you are doing is taxing their customers;  you know, the 95% you promised "no new taxes" to.

Obama is a breath of fresh air and an honest real change.  He shouldn't be mucking that up with the same old political lies and switcheroos like this tax hocus-pocus.  Again, it has to be said.  People aren't stupid, they know when a politician says they aren't going to tax them but they are going to "tax business" that is just an attempt to sneak more taxes by the taxpayers.

by OurYear2008 2008-09-16 05:44PM | 0 recs
you've shown your true

fucking idiot colors, not just with your comments above but how you actually believe "Obama is a breath of fresh air and 'honest' real change" while you show no honor to Bill Clinton. You trash him like a Republican, and should be ashamed to call yourself anything close to a Democrat. You're the kind of piece of shit who thinks Bill Clinton "abandoned" gays with the gays in military even tho it was the Democrat Congress and Sam Nunn who abandoned him.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: you've shown your true

You're just embarrassed because the fairy tale nonsense you hand out was so handily repudiated by the facts.

With goofs like you around we'll never win a thing.  Obama was doing great until he started listening to all the morons who lead us to defeat in the past.  When Obama was Obama he soared.  Now that the handlers of the past defeats have control of him he's making mistake after mistake and these mistakes are reflected in the polls.

My snapping you back to reality has you swearing and rambling irrationally.  Your emotional constitution is apparently as weak as your political memory.

by OurYear2008 2008-09-16 07:19PM | 0 recs
your posts above

in our earlier discussion should alone be an exhibit to all of your irrational Clinton hating, how you trash his achievements using "convention wisdom" and "everybody says" as opposed to me, who uses data, polling, things that are considered a lot more credible in this world than "conventional wisdumb." Then, you proceed to bash the only Democratic President elected two times since FDR even more in your last post with Republican talking points. You know no honor, or rationality except your redneck conservative Clinton hating that would make Sean Hannity cum on himself.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: your posts above

So first you are embarrassed about my burying you in facts that reduced your fairy tale rose-colored glasses memories to the crushed debris that a steamroller of truth leaves behind.  Then you found yourself reduced to juvenile swearing and irrational rambling.  And finally you devolved to flat out lying (I voted for Clinton and never trashed him in anything I wrote) and sick, bizarre, deviant sexual fantasizing relative to your no longer latent lust for Sean Hannity.

How do you reconcile your blurry-eyed love for Bill Clinton with your trembling hands lust for Hannity?

by OurYear2008 2008-09-16 07:53PM | 0 recs
you buried me in bullshit

considering how you could cite NOTHING, do polls, no data, NOTHING to illustrate why you think you are correct about Ross Perot's non-spoiler role. I cited polls and data. People in this world tend to give credence to people who back up what they say with outside independent reputable data rather than those who use "conventional wisdom." The sun revolving around the earth was once conventional wisdom too.

In your latest Clinton hating diatribe, you give Clinton no credit for reforming welfare, a campaign promise he made long before the 1996 election. Then, you trash his attempts against the 103rd Democrat Congress to further reduce the deficit. You then state "Obama is a breath of fresh air and an honest real change.  He shouldn't be mucking that up with the same old political lies and switcheroos like this tax hocus-pocus." That is where you lost all credibility. That is the rose coloured glasses. Seems like you forgot FISA pretty quickly, or his sharp turn around on flag pins.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: you buried me in bullshit

You didn't cite facts.  You wallowed in dreamy-eyed nonsense about silly memory.  I actually detailed the exact states and electoral count that would have reversed absent Perot in the election.

NO ONE gives Clinton credit for Welfare Reform except Bill Clinton.  The bill he ultimately signed was written by conservative Republicans and was VETOED by Clinton TWICE.  After the second veto Clinton said, "They can send it back again, but I'll just veto it again, over and over."  Then, they sent it back again AND HE SIGNED IT!

The Democratic Party threw a fit about it!  So how does Clinton get credit for a bill he didn't write and fought all the way and only came into law because of his flat-out capitulation to Republican political pressure?

I wish Obama hadn't supported FISA and I couldn't care less one way or the other about Obama and flag pins.  But I'm voting for him in November just like I did in the primaries.  It sounds like YOU don't like Obama and love Clinton.  So, having trouble getting over Hillary losing?

by OurYear2008 2008-09-16 08:15PM | 0 recs
you're pointless

and if anyone looks at the argument we had above, they'll see where I'm coming from.

With welfare reform, Bill Clinton defied radical liberals like YOU, he just wanted a good bill, and so what if he knows how to play politics. Jimmy Carter didn't, and look at where it got him in 1980. And Barack Hussein Obama will be no different, with his "new style" of politics.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-16 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

by OurYear2008 2008-09-16 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do people vote for Republicans?

by OurYear2008 2008-09-16 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re:I've asked myself this many times.

Particularly after 2000 and 2004.  I live in a blue state and most of the people I know vote as I do, so I still have no idea.  I've read lots of theories but nothing definitive.  

Republicans are very good at marketing, and as we know, have fostered culture war because it is good for the GOP, even if it is bad for the country.  I think the media has also been a factor, as in their portrayal of "Gore the Serial Liar" and "Bush the Likeable, Regular Guy."  

I think it's a complicated thing, and probably depends on lots of factors.   For instance, if 911 never happened, it's very likely that Bush would have been a 1 term president.  I have family members who voted for Bush strictly because they felt he was better for national security.

People I know who are devout Christians/Catholics usually vote republican, so religion may also factor in.  Yet all of the Jews I know, devout or otherwise, vote democratic.

Sorry to ramble on; I suspect that the success of the GOP is attributable to many things, some of them completely beyond the control of our party.  But our own ineffectiveness has certainly helped the GOP win elections.    

by half nelson 2008-09-16 08:24PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads