37 Percenters
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
But to be fair 37% of voters would also vote Republican even if they ran a chimp for president, each of the main parties has its 30ish percent of hardcore voters who will back it no matter what which indicates that it is the 30-40% of non-aligned voters that decide elections.
Hence the fact that like chess to win elections you must control the center something that the Republicans have completely ignored for 3 elections.
mmarsh
Active member
Not the majority, the vast majority. The GOP is increasingly limiting itself to White, Male, over 60, wealthy, heterosexual, WASPS (with a few Catholics and Jews here and there).
That's about it. Makes for a very small pool of potential voters to appeal to as he himself admitted.
TETVET little rant was complaining about the fact the GOP is having a tougher and tougher time attracting new voters but he prefers to blame Hillary and Minorities without once asking himself if the reason nobody is jumping on the conservative bandwagon is simply because the product they are selling is crap.
It might very well explain why its President Obama and not President McCain or Romney in the White House.
dadsgirl
Active member
mmarsh
Active member
You know, I am not even sure that's true anymore. Certainly in the Bible belt but everywhere else...things are changing.
You have states like North Carolina that voted Democrat for the first time in Decades (Obama and local elections), you have other states like Florida that vote either way (but vote increasingly Blue on the National Level) and you've got states like Texas, if the shifting demographics continue will be full blue states within a decade or two.
If the GOP loses Texas, its all over. They will be regulated to minority party indefinitely.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Well to be honest I am not sure that means much as if American swing voters are like New Zealands they tend to vote people they are sick of out of office rather than vote in people.
Most of our governments last 3-4 terms, they are voted in to replace a government that we have grown tired of, the second election they increase their majority, the third election they start to go down hill and the fourth they are replaced and the cycle is repeated.
Most people that are not party followers are that way because they are disillusioned with politics in general so they chop and change as the political climate changes.
I for example have always voted National (center right) as the government because I tend to support their policies but I have also always voted for my local Labour (center left) candidate because locally they have always been the best one for the job.
(We have MMP systems based on the German system).
Interesting how you worded this, where it if "Democrats" were inserted it would be called "Racist"!
Looks like Touqueville (sp?) was right, democracy works until the people find out they can vote themselves benefits. Conservatism isn't crap, Liberalism works until the Nation goes down the shit tube like Greece is doing ("until they run out of other people's money" M. Thatcher) . The dems rely on vote buying (Govt benefits programs), miss-educated youth who have been taught that socialism works. McCain wasn't much of a Candidate, but only mass hysteria/stupidity can describe the '08 election of an unqualified, inexpeirienced at anything, person like Obama.
As far as 37%, it vp[robably goes both ways with only 20% or so really up for grabs.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Not by me though as it is just as valid for Democrats or in fact most major parties in countries with two party systems.
Where you have two party systems you invariably end up with 30% supporting each party blindly and the remaining 40% deciding elections.
mmarsh
Active member
First of all George, Socialism refers to the Governments control over industry (its antithesis is capitalism), liberalism is a political ideology (antithesis is conservatism). Conservatives always equate the two words proving they don't really understand either one.
Secondly, Do you really think conservatives don't spend? They are the worst kind of spenders, the borrow and spenders. "Deficits don't matter" -Dick Cheney. Remember?
1. The right likes to blast the left with fancy catch phrases like Thatchers, but the problem is they NEVER want to talk about who had the better economic record. Fancy speeches don't replace hard numbers and they simply cannot backup the rhetoric.
Thatcher, Major, Reagan, and both Bushes policies have 1 thing in common. They all can be described as the 3 D's of Economics: Deficits, Debt, and Depression as they presided over the WORST economies in US and UK history.
2. McCain wasn't a good candidate, but the problem was that the "real" conservatives were even worse which is why they never got close to the nomination and got killed in the primaries.
3. Obama won because in 2008 because of 3 factors
A. The utter disaster of the Bush Administration. People were furious at the GOP (see #1, and the Iraq disaster didn't help either).
B. The fact that the GOP appeared to be completely brain dead about the looming economic crisis, going even as far as to deny its very existence showing how completely out of touch they were.
C. The selection of "Snowball Snooki" (the Alaskan version of "Jersey Shore") as running mate was the final nail in the coffin.
And you know what? Obama wasn't responsible for any of it.
Perhaps in the dictionary, but...Liberals at the present time is a term used by Socialists and other Leftist who (at the top levels) want to control business, the people and everything else, they are not the Liberals of the earlier times.
I used to acuse Bush II of spending like a Democrat, until the Dems took over and showed us how real Dems spend. Bush II spending had topped out & was dropping until the Dems took Congress (purse power) in '07, spending has sky rocketed since then.
A. Reagan inherited a sick economy from Carter, but you didn't hear Reagan blaming Carter for 6 years did you? Reagan deficit: Dems made a Deal with him that if he raised taxes they would cut spending one dollar for every dollar increase in taxes, he agreed and raised taxes but the Dems were lying, instead of cutting one dollar they raised spending by two dollars. Thatcher: yes, changing the direction of a nation's economy can cause disruptions.
B. The collapse was caused by the bursting of the Housing Bubble. McCain & Bush warned of it was early as '05, but where shouted down by Dems like Barney Frank who denied there was a problem, & said they were Racists because the head of Fanny Mac was a black guy. Bubble caused by legislation signed by Carter, enforced by Clinton (at the behest of A.C.O.R.N. Obama's bunch) forcing Banks to lower loan requirements.
C. Palin might not have been fully qualified, but she had more admin experience as Mayor and Governor than McCain, Biden and the totally unqualified community organizer had combined.