Democrats giving away an easy win

[StanleySpadowski]

I've never seen a group have such an epic fail. Clinton is one of the few candidates on the planet that cannot win a national election. Lipstick a pig all you want but she still has unfavorables in the 50s.

In comes Obama to save the party. Only problem is that he's one of the few candidates on the planet that McCain can beat. Without a single significant accomplishment on his resume, Obama performs terribly in swing states then POs a few of them. After 2000, do you really think that Florida's going to go to a Democrat who is personally making sure their votes don't count? Ya think Michigan voters are happy either? Then PA Democrats wet themselves over the prospects of Obama camping in the state for a month and a half before the important late April primary. The only problem is that the savior has blown them off. 20 commercials a day slamming Exxon isn't going to do it when he's barely visited then slammed the governor, the same one who controls the Philly political machine.

Someday maybe they'll remember that Governors give them wins (Carter, Clinton) and legacies of political machines give them failure.

I really thought it would be hard to lose to the Republican nominee, heck it should be difficult not to have a Reagan type blowout win but the Democratic Party never ceases to amaze me with their unique ability to make lemons out of lemonade.

[junk]

They gave it away last time too. It shouldn't be a surprise at this point.

[Heisenberg]

I think a lot in here underestimate Obama. He had literally not a chance in hell of defeating Clinton back when he started running. You may think he doesn't have the experience to compete, but it's also a bonus in some ways. It gives him more of a clean slate. He has less baggage.

I'm not saying he is going to definitely win, but I think his chances are very good once the focus of his campaigning turns its sights towards McCain and we're not splitting the Democrats.

[Big Dakota]

Didn't realize it was November:rolleyes:

[iceberg]

I've never seen a group have such an epic fail. Clinton is one of the few candidates on the planet that cannot win a national election. Lipstick a pig all you want but she still has unfavorables in the 50s.

In comes Obama to save the party. Only problem is that he's one of the few candidates on the planet that McCain can beat. Without a single significant accomplishment on his resume, Obama performs terribly in swing states then POs a few of them. After 2000, do you really think that Florida's going to go to a Democrat who is personally making sure their votes don't count? Ya think Michigan voters are happy either? Then PA Democrats wet themselves over the prospects of Obama camping in the state for a month and a half before the important late April primary. The only problem is that the savior has blown them off. 20 commercials a day slamming Exxon isn't going to do it when he's barely visited then slammed the governor, the same one who controls the Philly political machine.

Someday maybe they'll remember that Governors give them wins (Carter, Clinton) and legacies of political machines give them failure.

I really thought it would be hard to lose to the Republican nominee, heck it should be difficult not to have a Reagan type blowout win but the Democratic Party never ceases to amaze me with their unique ability to make lemons out of lemonade.

i'd not underestimate obama. he will draw the young vote who can't stand "the man" that mccain represents. they'll view him as their best opportunity to show the old dudes how it's done and when obama takes the ticket, he has the opportunity to bring a lot of young people to the democratic party.

will be hard to pull off, yes.
will be hard not to lose them as easily as he gets them too.

[Sasquatch]

I've never seen a group have such an epic fail. Clinton is one of the few candidates on the planet that cannot win a national election. Lipstick a pig all you want but she still has unfavorables in the 50s.

In comes Obama to save the party. Only problem is that he's one of the few candidates on the planet that McCain can beat. Without a single significant accomplishment on his resume, Obama performs terribly in swing states then POs a few of them. After 2000, do you really think that Florida's going to go to a Democrat who is personally making sure their votes don't count? Ya think Michigan voters are happy either? Then PA Democrats wet themselves over the prospects of Obama camping in the state for a month and a half before the important late April primary. The only problem is that the savior has blown them off. 20 commercials a day slamming Exxon isn't going to do it when he's barely visited then slammed the governor, the same one who controls the Philly political machine.

Someday maybe they'll remember that Governors give them wins (Carter, Clinton) and legacies of political machines give them failure.

I really thought it would be hard to lose to the Republican nominee, heck it should be difficult not to have a Reagan type blowout win but the Democratic Party never ceases to amaze me with their unique ability to make lemons out of lemonade.

I think this is an overly sanguine view so early in the process. There are a number of reasons to think that the democrats, provided their nominee is Obama, remain in a strong position for the general election:

1. Unpopular war with which the Republican candidate is closely identified.

2. Stagnant economy, inflation, weakening dollar, and mortgage crisis which will be attributed to republican policies. McCain's laissez-faire attitude will appear unsympathetic.

3. Ridiculously unpopular incumbent president.

4. Democratic base that is galvanized and turning out to the primaries in record numbers.

5. Huge democratic advantage in fundraising.

6. Obama will be thoroughly vetted by the time the general election rolls around. Attempts to play up Wright controversy, etc., will fall on deaf and bored ears which have heard it all before.

7. McCain has not been vetted or battle tested this year, having merely survived a primary process with a weak and inept field, rather than winning it through any strategic brilliance or resonating message of his own. Will be more vulnerable to negative revelations because they will make for novel news.

7. In the past, McCain has not fared well against aggressive campaign tactics when the media spotlight is focused on him. He is prone to angry outbursts and more likely to make a critical mistake on the stump than Obama.

I think that's it for now. In sum, I think it's a bit premature to be writing anyone's political obituary, as John McCain himself can attest.
.

[big dog cowboy]

I really thought it would be hard to lose to the Republican nominee
WOW. On March 28th no less.

[skinsscalper]

i'd not underestimate obama. he will draw the young vote who can't stand "the man" that mccain represents. they'll view him as their best opportunity to show the old dudes how it's done and when obama takes the ticket, he has the opportunity to bring a lot of young people to the democratic party.

will be hard to pull off, yes.
will be hard not to lose them as easily as he gets them too.

Let me preface this by stating that I have already voted for Obama in the primaries but,...............................There is a name for the candidate that relies on the youth vote for victory. It's called runner up.

[iceberg]

Let me preface this by stating that I have already voted for Obama in the primaries but,...............................There is a name for the candidate that relies on the youth vote for victory. It's called runner up.

how many candidates have appealed to the youth message before? gore? kerry? hillary? bill? bush? bush? reagan?

none. no youth today has had a chance at "their" kennedy. i'm not saying obama should rely on it - i'm saying he's likely to get whatever it is of it there and it will likely be higher than previous elections.

[theogt]

I think this is an overly sanguine view so early in the process. There are a number of reasons to think that the democrats, provided their nominee is Obama, remain in a strong position for the general election:

1. Unpopular war with which the Republican candidate is closely identified.

2. Stagnant economy, inflation, weakening dollar, and mortgage crisis which will be attributed to republican policies. McCain's laissez-faire attitude will appear unsympathetic.

3. Ridiculously unpopular incumbent president.

4. Democratic base that is galvanized and turning out to the primaries in record numbers.

5. Huge democratic advantage in fundraising.

6. Obama will be thoroughly vetted by the time the general election rolls around. Attempts to play up Wright controversy, etc., will fall on deaf and bored ears which have heard it all before.

7. McCain has not been vetted or battle tested this year, having merely survived a primary process with a weak and inept field, rather than winning it through any strategic brilliance or resonating message of his own. Will be more vulnerable to negative revelations because they will make for novel news.

7. In the past, McCain has not fared well against aggressive campaign tactics when the media spotlight is focused on him. He is prone to angry outbursts and more likely to make a critical mistake on the stump than Obama.

I think that's it for now. In sum, I think it's a bit premature to be writing anyone's political obituary, as John McCain himself can attest.
.I think his point was that DESPITE ALL THAT, and that's a lot of negative mess for any Repub nominee, McCain is polling extremely well. And why? Well, because the Dems can't get out a clear cut nominee.

[skinsscalper]

how many candidates have appealed to the youth message before? gore? kerry? hillary? bill? bush? bush? reagan?

none. no youth today has had a chance at "their" kennedy. i'm not saying obama should rely on it - i'm saying he's likely to get whatever it is of it there and it will likely be higher than previous elections.

Actually Clinton did a pretty good number on the youth vote in 92 and, contrary to my previous statement, I believe it had a positive effect on his campaign.

The whole MTV gig and the fact that he (partially) admitted to drug experimentation struck a chord with the youth at that time. He was a change from the stodgy kind of p***k that reminded you of your high school principal. I was 20 years old at the time and, although I knew I wouldn't vote for him, I thought it was a very effective campaign strategy. I grew up (from what I can remember) with Carter, Reagan, and Bush. Even though I knew nothing of politics (and quite frankly didn't give a ****), I knew that NONE of these guys had ever tried to speak "to me". Bill Clinton kicked a hole right through the door and said "Follow me kids, the party's at MTV". I thought the move was genius.


And, contrary to what you posted, there are a lot of 30-40year olds that believe very much that Clinton WAS their John Kennedy. In fact, in the absence of that rhetoric, his wife wouldn't stand a chance right now.

P.S. If he would have played a Les Paul rather than a sax he would have won by an even larger margin.:laugh2:

[kristie]

WOW. On March 28th no less.

yeah, no kidding.

[burmafrd]

Way too early to say much. At this time in 88 Dukakis was considered the favroite as well.
McCain will be attacked by most of the other Liberal papers like the NY Times (interesting how only a month after they endorsed him they now have launched a campaign to destroy him), and the libs at MSNBC and NBC and else where will go after him as well. I happen to think that a lot of people have wised up to the media= and start to think well of those that are attacked by them. Obama has done NOTHING which has helped him up to now but as the election gets closer a lot of people will look at him and say: what has he done to deserve a chance to be president. I think most reasonable people will say ' NOTHING'.

[silverbear]

I think his point was that DESPITE ALL THAT, and that's a lot of negative mess for any Repub nominee, McCain is polling extremely well. And why? Well, because the Dems can't get out a clear cut nominee.

True... but that advantage ends when the Dems get their nominee... in fact, it's bad news for McCain that he doesn't enjoy a more decided advantage at this point...

And of course, the original poster is just engaging in some comical wishful thinking if he thinks this election is "in the bag" for McCain at this time...

[silverbear]

P.S. If he would have played a Les Paul rather than a sax he would have won by an even larger margin.:laugh2:

ROTFLMAO... this is true...

[silverbear]

Way too early to say much. At this time in 88 Dukakis was considered the favroite as well.
McCain will be attacked by most of the other Liberal papers like the NY Times (interesting how only a month after they endorsed him they now have launched a campaign to destroy him), and the libs at MSNBC and NBC and else where will go after him as well.

Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Faux News will remain the paragons of integrity that they have always been, and the GOP will show that they have WAY too much class to engage in such sordid behavior... there will be no sleazy attacks on Barack Obama, or on Hillary Clinton if it works out that way (God forbid)...

Obama has done NOTHING which has helped him up to now but as the election gets closer a lot of people will look at him and say: what has he done to deserve a chance to be president. I think most reasonable people will say ' NOTHING'.

Gee, sounds JUST like Dubya in 2000...

As always, your rabid right wing hypocrisy is always good for a laugh, burm... you's a funny, funny guy, but it's sad that you're trying to be serious... but that's the fate of witless ideologues on both extremes of the political spectrum, you've convinced yourself that anybody on your side of the argument is a fine and moral individual, and anybody on the other side is the spawn of Satan...

[StanleySpadowski]

I think his point was that DESPITE ALL THAT, and that's a lot of negative mess for any Repub nominee, McCain is polling extremely well. And why? Well, because the Dems can't get out a clear cut nominee.

It's not so much they can't get a clear cut nominee, it's that they can't get a quality nominee.

There's a great percentage of the farthest left Democrats who thought they had this election in the bag so they could run candidates who bordered on socialists. They needed to realize that whomever can portray themselves closest to the middle usually wins the big prize. The far leftists took over the party and have probably screwed it. They needed a Bill Clinton-like nominee (I'd argue that rhetoric aside, his actions were more to the right than GW Bush).


People want to point to poll numbers of candidates like Dukakis. It's a different day and age. Internet, 24 hour news channels. Voters make up their mind much earlier in the process now.

I also would have thought that they would have learned that the only number that matters is the Electoral College. Obama the candidate isn't going to beat McCain in the handful of states that matter. Florida's out of it for him, he's screwing up PA horribly...his only chance is to carry Missouri, Ohio and then pull a red state to blue. I'm having trouble finding what state that could be as he's not pulling the white, blue collar unionists that he'd need to dominate to win.

[theogt]

True... but that advantage ends when the Dems get their nominee... in fact, it's bad news for McCain that he doesn't enjoy a more decided advantage at this point...

And of course, the original poster is just engaging in some comical wishful thinking if he thinks this election is "in the bag" for McCain at this time...Yeah, but when is that going to be? August? How much more damage is that going to cause to the Dems? It's amazing how stupid they're being.

[Sasquatch]

There's a great percentage of the farthest left Democrats who thought they had this election in the bag so they could run candidates who bordered on socialists.

Could you elaborate on this?

[Sasquatch]

Voters make up their mind much earlier in the process now.

This has not been borne out by the democratic primaries where Obama has routinely cut into and overcome leads enjoyed by Clinton because of her name recognition.

[ZeroClub]

I've never seen a group have such an epic fail. Clinton is one of the few candidates on the planet that cannot win a national election. Lipstick a pig all you want but she still has unfavorables in the 50s.

In comes Obama to save the party. Only problem is that he's one of the few candidates on the planet that McCain can beat. Without a single significant accomplishment on his resume, Obama performs terribly in swing states then POs a few of them. After 2000, do you really think that Florida's going to go to a Democrat who is personally making sure their votes don't count? Ya think Michigan voters are happy either? Then PA Democrats wet themselves over the prospects of Obama camping in the state for a month and a half before the important late April primary. The only problem is that the savior has blown them off. 20 commercials a day slamming Exxon isn't going to do it when he's barely visited then slammed the governor, the same one who controls the Philly political machine.

Someday maybe they'll remember that Governors give them wins (Carter, Clinton) and legacies of political machines give them failure.

I really thought it would be hard to lose to the Republican nominee, heck it should be difficult not to have a Reagan type blowout win but the Democratic Party never ceases to amaze me with their unique ability to make lemons out of lemonade.

If it is true that Obama is "one of the few candidates on the planet that McCain can beat," there should be at least five democrats who McCain would have no chance of beating. Can you name five? I can't.

All candidates have strengths and weaknesses. And because the opponent's machine can exploit these weaknesses (or manufacture and exploit false weaknesses), no candidate is invulnerable.

[StanleySpadowski]

This has not been borne out by the democratic primaries where Obama has routinely cut into and overcome leads enjoyed by Clinton because of her name recognition.


How one sided can you be?


Point out where Obama has made up a significant deficit.

Obama has beaten Clinton badly in states that have a 0% of going Democrat in a general election. Do you really hold out hope that Obama can carry South Carolina?


He's an AlGore. Everything in column A and they screw the pooch.


Look at the electoral college. Where do you see Obama picking up states that Gore/Kerry lost? If anything, he'll cost the Democrats "safe" states like California, Minnesota and Michigan.

[Sasquatch]

How one sided can you be?


Point out where Obama has made up a significant deficit.

Obama has beaten Clinton badly in states that have a 0% of going Democrat in a general election. Do you really hold out hope that Obama can carry South Carolina?


He's an AlGore. Everything in column A and they screw the pooch.


Look at the electoral college. Where do you see Obama picking up states that Gore/Kerry lost? If anything, he'll cost the Democrats "safe" states like California, Minnesota and Michigan.

Rasmussen Reports - Electoral College Update - March 29, 2008 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update)

[REDVOLUTION]

They gave it away last time too. It shouldn't be a surprise at this point.

I dont know what they gave away or what lock they had? on this one.

Last two elections have been split down the middle.



Didn't realize it was November:rolleyes:

Yup.

[StanleySpadowski]

Rasmussen Reports - Electoral College Update - March 29, 2008 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update)



I'm not exactly sure what your point is. If it is according to Rasmussen that the election comes down to Colorado and Nevada for the Democrats to any chance to win, I sure as heck like those odds.

Maybe you want to make the point that Michigan and Pennsylvania have gone from solidly Democratic to toss ups/leans Republican.

A simple rule of thumb is that polling has a tendency to favor the Democrat candidate by 1-3 points so I'm not really sure how your post does anything but solidify my point that Democrats are pissing away a sure shot at the White House by their own malfeasence.

[theogt]

According to Rasmussen, if the election were held today, McCain would win a landslide victory in the Electoral College.

[Sasquatch]

According to Rasmussen, if the election were held today, McCain would win a landslide victory in the Electoral College.

Where are you getting that from? This is from today's daily presidential tracking poll:

New polling released today for Virginia (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/virginia/virginia_2008_presidential_election) showsMcCain with a solid lead over both Democrats. The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update) shows the Electoral College race is much more competitive than it was a month ago. Democrats leading in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. When “leaners” are added, the Democrats lead 247 to 240 (see summary of state-by-state results (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_presidential_race_state_by_state_sna pshot)). New polling data will be released later today for Wisconsin.

LINK (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)

[Sasquatch]

I'm not exactly sure what your point is. If it is according to Rasmussen that the election comes down to Colorado and Nevada for the Democrats to any chance to win, I sure as heck like those odds.

Maybe you want to make the point that Michigan and Pennsylvania have gone from solidly Democratic to toss ups/leans Republican.

A simple rule of thumb is that polling has a tendency to favor the Democrat candidate by 1-3 points so I'm not really sure how your post does anything but solidify my point that Democrats are pissing away a sure shot at the White House by their own malfeasence.

You asked which states Obama could conceivably win that Kerry lost. According to its latest data, Rasmussen rates Colorado, Ohio and Nevada as toss-ups and New Mexico as leaning democratic.

I also don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Florida and Michigan will be going republican in response to the democratic primary fiasco. Michigan's economy is in a woeful state and it's estimated that Florida will suffer a further 25% decline in home values. McCain's hands-off approach to economic problems may not find a receptive audience in those areas and you can bet the democrats will be pushing their plans for health care reform hard to the retirees in the sunshine state.

All I'm saying is that it's a bit premature to be swearing in John McCain as the next POTUS.

[theogt]

Where are you getting that from? This is from today's daily presidential tracking poll:

New polling released today for Virginia (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/virginia/virginia_2008_presidential_election) showsMcCain with a solid lead over both Democrats. The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update) shows the Electoral College race is much more competitive than it was a month ago. Democrats leading in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. When “leaners” are added, the Democrats lead 247 to 240 (see summary of state-by-state results (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_presidential_race_state_by_state_sna pshot)). New polling data will be released later today for Wisconsin.

LINK (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)Look at the actual polling in each state. If you include the "toss-ups" in which McCain is leading (e.g., Ohio and Michigan) to the Republican side and some states that they have on the Democrat side which actually have McCain leading in the polling (e.g., Pennsylvania and New Hampshire), then it'd be a landslide for McCain.

By my count, with those states in aligned according to their most recent Rasmussen polls, McCain would have 304 electoral votes.

[StanleySpadowski]

You asked which states Obama could conceivably win that Kerry lost. According to its latest data, Rasmussen rates Colorado, Ohio and Nevada as toss-ups and New Mexico as leaning democratic.

I also don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Florida and Michigan will be going republican in response to the democratic primary fiasco. Michigan's economy is in a woeful state and it's estimated that Florida will suffer a further 25% decline in home values. McCain's hands-off approach to economic problems may not find a receptive audience in those areas and you can bet the democrats will be pushing their plans for health care reform hard to the retirees in the sunshine state.

All I'm saying is that it's a bit premature to be swearing in John McCain as the next POTUS.



As I said, if the Democrats are pinning their hopes on winning Colorado and Nevada, I sure like the odds.


Michigan was once considered "safe" for the Democrats. The fact that it's even it play let alone leaning for McCain in most polls shows just how effed up the Democratic Party has become. Nominate someone like Mike Easley (Governor of North Carolina, a red state and a catholic which would win Florida, New Mexico and bring Texas into play thanks to the hispanic vote)and this race is over before it even starts.

Of course Easley doesn't have any communist tendencies so his chances in the Democratic primary would be slim and none and Slim just left town.

I swear it's like a watching a team being spotted three touchdowns and having them not even show up until the score is 21-24. All the advantages in the world and they've pissed them away.

[theogt]

As I said, if the Democrats are pinning their hopes on winning Colorado and Nevada, I sure like the odds.


Michigan was once considered "safe" for the Democrats. The fact that it's even it play let alone leaning for McCain in most polls shows just how effed up the Democratic Party has become. Nominate someone like Mike Easley (Governor of North Carolina, a red state and a catholic which would win Florida, New Mexico and bring Texas into play thanks to the hispanic vote)and this race is over before it even starts.

Of course Easley doesn't have any communist tendencies so his chances in the Democratic primary would be slim and none and Slim just left town.

I swear it's like a watching a team being spotted three touchdowns and having them not even show up until the score is 21-24. All the advantages in the world and they've pissed them away.I think the biggest problem is that Democrats began thinking in 2006 that general backlash against Bush and the Iraq war gave them a 'mandate' to enact liberal economic policies. Raising taxes and nationalizing health care are spoken of nonchalant. I think you're exactly right, if they'd tone down that sort of rhetoric and appoint a moderate fiscal conservative, they'd win in an unbelievable landslide.

[silverbear]

Yeah, but when is that going to be? August? How much more damage is that going to cause to the Dems? It's amazing how stupid they're being.

I really don't see it as stupidity, I see it as a struggle for the future direction of the party... Hillary represents more of the same, Obama represents a new direction... the Democrats aren't real sure which way they ought to go, so they're torn right now...

But as both candidates have noted, they don't really see Democrats on the losing side switching over to the party that promises us more of the Iraq war... I don't either... to most Dems, either Obama or Clinton are preferable to McCain...

The real advantage for McCain right now lies in fundraising... Obama and Clinton still have to allocate funds for this fight, McCain is able to save his for the main event... this is not an insignificant advantage, I'll admit, but the pace at which Democrats have been fundraising this year (don't remember ever seeing an election cycle in which the Dems outdid the GOP in fundraising, like this year), I think when the nominee is determined the money will flow in again, and things will even out...

[silverbear]

A simple rule of thumb is that polling has a tendency to favor the Democrat candidate by 1-3 points

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... you really say some of the funniest stuff, Stan... maybe that's YOUR rule of thumb, but the truth is there are polls out there that consistently favor Democrats, polls out there that consistently favor Republicans... your comical stereotyping is a load of crapola...

so I'm not really sure how your post does anything but solidify my point that Democrats are pissing away a sure shot at the White House by their own malfeasence.

"Malfeasance"?? Do you know what that word means, son?? It means "wrongful conduct by a public official"... it is commonly used to describe ILLEGAL conduct by a public official...

Now, how exactly does two Democrats fighting for their party's nomination constitute "malfeasance"?? Perhaps you meant their "incompetence", but I can't be sure what you really meant...

I'll say it one more time, if you think this election is over, you're deluding yourself... indeed, McCain faces a tough, uphill fight, defending a war that the American people hate... he has to convince those people that they're wrong if he is to have any hope of being elected, and frankly, I don't think he can do it...

Your posts these days are the essence of wishful thinking...

[burmafrd]

The Dems keep saying trust big government and most people know that is a crock.

[iceberg]

The Dems keep saying trust big government and most people know that is a crock.

it's all a crock. which is why i don't understand how one side can feel so superior to the other.

[silverbear]

The Dems keep saying trust big government and most people know that is a crock.

Yeah, the GOP has done a GREAT job of reducing the size of government these last 8 years...

You do know that it's bigger than ever, don't you?? And it was your precious Republicans who oversaw that expansion, they controlled Congress AND the White House... your boys who claim to want smaller government went out and created a whole new Cabinet-level agency, the Department of Homeland Security; how exactly is that "reducing the size of government"??

You probably ought to try thinking before cranking out these ridiculous right wing diatribes... :D

[silverbear]

it's all a crock. which is why i don't understand how one side can feel so superior to the other.

Anybody who doesn't view all politicians with a high degree of skepticism is a fool...

[Hostile]

it's all a crock. which is why i don't understand how one side can feel so superior to the other.Here here.

Newsflash, neither party is ever going to solve all the problems. Not going to happen no matter how many buy it.

Anybody who doesn't view all politicians with a high degree of skepticism is a fool...Or running for election.

[REDVOLUTION]

it's all a crock. which is why i don't understand how one side can feel so superior to the other.


Essentially.

The system is broken at the source. Nothing good can come of it until that is changed.

[silverbear]

Essentially.

The system is broken at the source. Nothing good can come of it until that is changed.

And change is never gonna happen as long as the inmates are running the asylum... the guys woofing about public financing of elections and election reform and such are the same guys using the system to their own benefit...

[SuspectCorner]

I'd be shocked and delighted if, this time, there weren't some jicky "occurance" with the electronic tabulation, voter rolls, write-in ballots, etc - like had been reported in Florida and/or Ohio over the last two elections.

And doubley so if such an occurance (or occurances) benefitted the Democratic candidate - for a change.

Yeah, like that'd happen...

Color me cynical. But I'm getting tired of this $#!+.

[iceberg]

And change is never gonna happen as long as the inmates are running the asylum... the guys woofing about public financing of elections and election reform and such are the same guys using the system to their own benefit...

change is never gonna happen as long as one side feels they're 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong. on EITHER side.

compromise goes a long way to understanding.

[REDVOLUTION]

And change is never gonna happen as long as the inmates are running the asylum... the guys woofing about public financing of elections and election reform and such are the same guys using the system to their own benefit...


Agree on what you mean... I just think the analogy is wrong.

If "inmates" were running the asylum - that would be us and that would be bad.

The so called leaders are running the show with only their benefit in mind.

[BrAinPaiNt]

The Dems keep saying trust big government and most people know that is a crock.

Well...one has to wonder what the republican party, under neo-cons, are doing because they may rail on big government and spending when election times roll around but their actions say otherwise.

This admin has been just as bad as many dems in a few categories and worse in others.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Agree on what you mean... I just think the analogy is wrong.

If "inmates" were running the asylum - that would be us and that would be bad.

The so called leaders are running the show with only their benefit in mind.


http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/flipbooks/img/movies/production_stills/v/v_for_vendetta/C249-22A.jpg
People should never be afraid of government,
the government should be afraid of the people.

[big dog cowboy]

Well...one has to wonder what the republican party, under neo-cons, are doing because they may rail on big government and spending when election times roll around but their actions say otherwise.

Comon' BP, you know it's all about perception. :)

[Sasquatch]

Change will not come from above.

http://www.shcl.co.uk/blog/uploaded_images/puppet800-738599.jpg

[Dallas]

Change will not come from above.



Jeebus. Do you even know how to edit a picture? Please do not post these huge images. For crying out loud. :mad:

[REDVOLUTION]

Vito Corleone: I never wanted this for you. ... I thought that when it was your time that you would be the one to hold the strings. Senator Corleone. Governor Corleone. Somethin'.

Michael Corleone: Another pezzonovante.