Score another one in the (D) column

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, May 14, 2008.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #1
    Uh-oh! Smears aren't working; guilt-by-association isn't working...what will the Republicans do??

    I have to say, between this third recent Dem win and the polls which show how dissatisfied the public is with the direction this country is taking...it looks ripe for a Republican massacre this fall.
     
  2. elcid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #2
    CNN posted exit polls in WV stating something like 60% would not vote for Clinton if she was the nominee and vice-versa. And before someone says that she won it by a large margine so everyone wants to see her be the nominee, these were Democrats who said they would not vote for the Democrat up for president.

    The Dems have a very divided party on their hands. And while the primaries have had a great voter turnout lately I really see the fact that "My candidate isn't on the ballot" as a very large problem for Dems come November.

    If Obama had the same short primary that McCain did and we were in general election mode it wouldn't even be a race. But like always the Dems are going to find every way to try and lose this campaign.
     
  3. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #3
    I don't think the division is as bad as it sounds in the polling now. If people didn't vote or voted for the other party because their nominee didn't make it, the Dems would be getting the Mormon(Romney), Evangellical(Huckabee), and Libertarian(Paul) votes this fall...

    People are somewhat pissed now that their candidate is losing, but there are months to heal and once Clinton finally drops out and starts working to get Obama elected (or vice-versa if something truly tragic happens to the Obama campaign) I think those who say they won't vote or will vote for the other guys now will soon change their minds as they finally realize they really aren't as different as they like to try to seem at the moment.
     
  4. Antares macrumors 68000

    Antares

    #4
    (full disclosure) Not being attached to any specific party...this poses an interesting question...

    Why do the "smears" and "guilt by association" work for Democrats and not Republicans? In the last few elections (and current ones), Democrats tried to tie Republican candidates, on every political level, to President Bush...even when there is no connection or similarity there. That's just as bad or even worse than what you are saying. I think both parties need to focus on the candidates, themselves, and not try to tie them to some already elected official. That's one of the dirty and unfair part of politics which I wish could be eliminated.

    This is how it goes in terms of party control: People are disatisfied, the Republicans took over for a decade, people are disatisfied, the Democrats will take over for a while, people are disatisfied, the Republicans take over again....and on and on.....back and forth between the two parties.
     
  5. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #5
    What you're saying is hardly fair unless you are specific. If you only make general condemnations, that non-specificity is as bad as the behavior your criticizing. Instead, try... "for instance" and point out how a particular attack or couple of attacks by Democrats were disingenuous.
    True, but its not going away any time soon. Sadly, John McCain is in such a lurch with gaining support from his own party (serious in-fighting going on), that he's going back on his longtime hatred of Bush to pretend to be buddy-buddy and support his programs. That's just fact.
    I think Democrats get too much into "big government", "the poor" and "taxes", while Republicans get to wound up around "small government", "religion" and "corporate protectionism". So, the "see-saw" goes to extremes of those influences. The indisputable fact however, is that from Gerald Ford to George Bush, the national debt in the U.S. has always sky-rocketed under Republican administrations, and shrunk under Democratic administrations.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/calmar/2235223387/

    When its feasible, programs that discourage recidivism, sexual education and youth violence and much better than no-programs and dealing with increasingly disastrous drains on state economies.

    ~ CB
     
  6. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #6
    Definitely a devastating defeat for the GOP. And they threw all they had into this one, lots of money, both of the state's senators and VP Cheney campaigned for the losing candidate. 3 super safe GOP congressional districts lost to the Dems in special elections over the past several months? The Republicans are facing a potential political tsunami if they can't figure out something before Fall.
     
  7. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #7
    and whatever strategist thought that Cheney campaigning for the GOP candidate would be a good idea should never work in politics again. I can't think of a single positive that Cheney would bring in for a candidate, and more than likely turned off moderates and independents by drawing a connection to Bush by using someone the people like even less than Bush...
     
  8. Antares macrumors 68000

    Antares

    #8
    The topic of National Debt is open to some interesting debate. One discussion that I remember from college was where a professor posited that national debt is actually not a bad thing...which goes counter to the normal (and correct) consumer mindset where debt is to minimized or eliminated. The Federal Government is the only entity where (a reasonably sized) debt is actually a good thing. Debt, for the Federal Government, actually gives it more power and control. A surplus is a waste and poor for consumers and businesses. Keep in mind that being over budget is a different thing than being in debt. We want a balanced Federal Budget but we would also want to keep a (reasonably sized) National Debt as well.

    Essentially:
    Fed: Surplus = bad, Balance (budget) = good, Debt = best
    Consumers/Businesses/State Govt.: Surplus = best, Balance (budget) = good, Debt = bad

    I'm taking your statement on the trend of Republicans > Nat. Debt vs. Democrats < Nat. Debt at face value and assume it's true. But I think it would be interesting to do some research and put out a paper on this topic of National Debt, Federal Budgets, government spending in relation to which political parties were in power. It would be interesting to see what the reality is. I miss being in school. :(
     
  9. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #9
    Alan Greenspan gave a very elaborate speech to Congress, several years back, explaining the many issues and consequences of maintaining such a strangling national debt. I listened to it very attentively and taped it. I played it back a couple times, to ensure I was understanding what he was saying. I then went on line, reading additional perspectives. Greenspan was adamant that our debt was way too high.

    You are correct in that some debt is a positive thing. However, we are now paying so much debt service, we cannot fund many important programs. Our huge debt effects how favorable of terms we get from foreign investors. It is effecting our foreign policy strategies. President Clinton wanted to apply the surplus we had to paying down the debt and bolstering social security. In another address to Congress, Greenspan thought this was a very smart move, that would ultimately strengthen the dollar. Greenspan is a hardcore republican, yet he and President Clinton both shared the same agenda for fiscal responsibility.

    Boy, did that ever vanish like a fart in the wind, when Bush took office.
     
  10. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #10
    Well, when there's no similarity or connection it is just as bad. But if we look at '06, the reason so many were aligned to Bush as well as the "culture of corruption" was because many of them were part of that. If you were a Republican in Congress supporting Bush and his policies, why wouldn't the person running against you use that against you? In this case, they tried to align them with Obama, who I don't even think they met, and also to Rev. Wright in some cases. It failed because there really was no connection. And even then, the reason Bush is worse for McCain than Wright is for Obama is because McCain is now pushing Bush policy, which is wildly unpopular, while Wright said some things most people don't like, but they don't think Obama is actually like that (most of them) nor has he been an unpopular President. If in 2010/2012 Obama is a screw up and the Dems in Congress enabled him, then it would be just as valid to use against them. Lincoln Chaffee wasn't aligned to Bush in his election because it didn't fit and wasn't at all accurate. Harold Ford was aligned with some things that weren't true, as was Max Cleland, and it worked, even though it shouldn't have.
     

Share This Page