Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways - Page 214

sgtclub · 11-10-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
A significant margin of victory . . .

Let's talk numbers. Balto has suggested 5%, which I assume to mean 52%-47%, which I note is just 1% less than what Bush got.

Still seems to me that the gains in the House and Senate have to be factored in.

Replaced_Texan · 11-10-2004, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You can argue all you fucking like, but when almost half the voters vote against you, you don't have a mandate. What you have is shrewd political handlers. Bush's people were miles smarter than the Dems in how they ran the campaign, but their success isn't a mandate. A mandate is when the overwhelming majority of all voters vote for you. That did not happen here.

Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with anyone claiming a mandate on anything more concrete than, say, "we think terrorism is bad."

sebastian_dangerfield · 11-10-2004, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
But Reagan lost seats in the Senate and the House. Is this not relevant?

What is the tipping then percentage wise? 53%-47%? 54%-46%? 55%-45%?

No. Its not relevant. people vote locally/regionally for different reasons than those on which they base their presidential votes. "Coattails" can never be proven and is always used as a way of fluffing a victory. Bush did well, but so did his opponent. I don't see coattails here. I see one organized smart party versus a not so organized party.

The tipping point? I'd go with anywhere between 100-0 and 65-35.

SlaveNoMore · 11-10-2004, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Shape Shifter
...I think Josh and Markos would be willing to help with this.

Why not. The UK Guardian tried it in Ohio.

Not Me · 11-10-2004, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm happy to walk, with my money.

Where do you guys get this idea that the Dems are the group with the money? In terms of average income and total assets, the Reps have more money than the Dems. Not everyone in NYC is a Dem and those who are Dems tend to be the lower wage earners compared to those who are Reps. Do you think most Wall Street investment bankers vote Dem? If so, well, you will have to pull your head out of your ass then.

soup sandwich · 11-10-2004, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
But I'll ask the question again to all who disagree. What constitutes a mandate?

My knee-jerk reaction is to say that, yes, this was a mandate: re-election and gains in both houses (didn't the Rs also gain on governorships, too?).

But what holds me back from saying "mandate" is the fact that if 70K Ohioans change their vote, then Bush doesn't win. To formulate a general rule: If you're only a single state away from losing, I don't think you can claim a mandate.

As an aside, who cares? Other than to taunt the other party, what does the term mandate get you? Has anyone ever changed their position to that of the mandated party simply because the term "mandate" was waived in their face. It's really just a rallying the base term, correct?

"You're not thinking of voting against getting rid of the establishment clause are you? Didn't you hear about the mandate?"

Did you just call me Coltrane? · 11-10-2004, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Do you think most Wall Street investment bankers vote Dem?

Do you know any Wall Street investment bankers? B/c I know plenty that do. Bush was good for one sector and Kerry was equally as good for another. Go back to lawyering.

sebastian_dangerfield · 11-10-2004, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Where do you guys get this idea that the Dems are the group with the money? In terms of average income and total assets, the Reps have more money than the Dems. Not everyone in NYC is a Dem and those who are Dems tend to be the lower wage earners compared to those who are Reps. Do you think most Wall Street investment bankers vote Dem? If so, well, you will have to pull your head out of your ass then.

In terms of blue v. red, the blue has all the money.

I don't have an objection to people who voted for Bush for monetary reasons - hell, I almost did. I have a problem with the social conservatives who want my tax money and the right to tell me how to live. Sure, I know they can't really impact me, but its a principle thing. I also don't like them because well, they are just not the sort of people I'd like to have a drink with, so I'd rather they not drink on my dime.

Replaced_Texan · 11-10-2004, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Let's talk numbers. Balto has suggested 5%, which I assume to mean 52%-47%, which I note is just 1% less than what Bush got.

Still seems to me that the gains in the House and Senate have to be factored in.

What exactly are you asking? What is the relevance of whether or not Bush has a "mandate"?

Given the results of this particular election, the opposition is not going to conceed that all of "the people" agree with or support the Bush agenda. Some of them do, and some of them don't. On November 2, a little more than half of them did. It's not an overwhelming result, and it shouldn't be treated as such. You need to be up by at least two touchdowns, and even then you should worry a lot that Terrell Owens is going to end up doing Ray Lewis's squirrel dance in the end zone if you get too cocky.

Not Me · 11-10-2004, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Do you know any Wall Street investment bankers?

Many and they vote Rep.

Shape Shifter · 11-10-2004, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In terms of blue v. red, the blue has all the money.

And the IQ.

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Sidd Finch · 11-10-2004, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Where do you guys get this idea that the Dems are the group with the money? In terms of average income and total assets, the Reps have more money than the Dems. Not everyone in NYC is a Dem and those who are Dems tend to be the lower wage earners compared to those who are Reps. Do you think most Wall Street investment bankers vote Dem? If so, well, you will have to pull your head out of your ass then.

His point, which you missed, is that the blue states subsidize the red. He was not making a point about individuals.

Not Me · 11-10-2004, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In terms of blue v. red, the blue has all the money.

But who in the blue states is it that has the money? Welfare recipients/felons/blue collar workers/teachers who vote Dem? No. The money in the blue states is concentrated in the hands of the Reps.

I live in CA where I think 45% of us voted for Bush for president. Our 45% doesn't have too many field hands in it, but is filled with SV entrepeneurs and other business people who are the reason that CA has so much the money. Compare that to who is in the 55% or whatever it was that voted for Kerry in CA.

Hank Chinaski · 11-10-2004, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
How could I have been so blind? It is a prophecy - the self fulfilling variety.

You both just stepped on my, I thought, rather obvious joke.

Did you just call me Coltrane? · 11-10-2004, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Many and they vote Rep.

You realize that everyone here knows that you're completely fucking insane, right? Even your fellow Bush voters. You know this, right? They know that you're an idiot and a troll. Do you realize that they never defend you, or are you that fucking stupid?

Everyone else: I apologize for responding to this little-dicked simple-minded twerp posing as a woman.