Bad trend for the dems

[JIMV]

Rasmussen Reports
Tuesday, January 01, 2008

The number of Americans who consider themselves to be Republicans jumped nearly two percentage points in December to 34.2%. That’s the largest market share for the Republican brand in nearly two years, since January 2006 (see history from January 2004 to present).

At the same time, the number of Democrats fell to 36.3%. That’s down a point compared to a month ago. During 2007, the number of Democrats has ranged from a low of 35.9% in July to a high of 37.8% in February.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends

[Drivesme]

Not much of a 'trend' at all really, the numbers are with in .6% for the Democrats and down .4% for the republicans.

The only 'trend' this shows is that the numbers go up and then come back down.

It isn't the republicans or the Democrats that decide the election anyway, it's the indy vote and they are overwhelmingly polling to Obama.

[JIMV]

Not much of a 'trend' at all really, the numbers are with in .6% for the Democrats and down .4% for the republicans.

The only 'trend' this shows is that the numbers go up and then come back down.

It isn't the republicans or the Democrats that decide the election anyway, it's the indy vote and they are overwhelmingly polling to Obama.

I see you did not read the article. If you had you would have noted that the trend is months old and that the over 6% advantage the dems had in 06 has been cut in half....

If they fall at this rate for the next 10 months, the dems will be a minority by election time.

[Drivesme]

I see you did not read the article. If you had you would have noted that the trend is months old and that the over 6% advantage the dems had in 06 has been cut in half....

If they fall at this rate for the next 10 months, the dems will be a minority by election time.
I did read it and I also looked the numbers.
Which as pointed out are so close to the 2004 numbers as to not even worth mentioning.

The only trend is that the numbers go up and then they go down, look at the numbers, they tell the story.

[JIMV]

I did read it and I also looked the numbers.
Which as pointed out are so close to the 2004 numbers as to not even worth mentioning.

The only trend is that the numbers go up and then they go down, look at the numbers, they tell the story.

The trend is the story...in 2005 and 2006 it favored the dems...today it favors the republicans.

[Drivesme]

The trend is the story...in 2005 and 2006 it favored the dems...today it favors the republicans.
Can you see those numbers jimmy??
See how they go up and down?

[Drivesme]

Not much of a trend is it?

BTW,
Democrats continue to have a significant advantage on ten key issues tracked by Rasmussen Reports. Nancy Pelosi's Party also holds a solid lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot. Pelosi herself is viewed favorably by 38% and unfavorably by 51% of voters nationwide. At her peak, shortly after becoming the first woman Speaker of the House, Pelosi was viewed favorably by 49% of voters.

Sorry buddy, cling to whatever you want, but it isn't going to do you any good.

[McGyver]

The trend is the story...in 2005 and 2006 it favored the dems...today it favors the republicans.

WOW....Now THAT's a stretch....or should I say "Spin?"

Jim, if it gives you comfort to "think" that this trend will remain or continue to turn upward by November of this year....Then by all means...have at it.

I personally get great comfort in hearing "real current news" like how much excitement is generated by the Democratic Candidates in Iowa and New Hamshire, and how "lack-luster" the Republican Candidates are in Iowa and New Hampshire. And how record numbers of people are caucusing and even voting for the very first time because they are so excited by their Democratic Presidential Candidates.

The Election is still a long way off....Much can happen between now and then on BOTH sides. I'm betting that the Current Corrupt Republican Politicians will
once again show themselves for the Inept, Incompetent, insensitive "politician" that they are....and I personally believe the American People are tired of the Rich getting Richer and the Poor getting Poorer! But then, that's just my opinion....I guess we'll all find out in November.

[JIMV]

Can you see those numbers jimmy??
See how they go up and down?

Like the stock market BUT, what mattes is not the short term but the trend over months and, like the stock market, the dems are losing value:D

[McGyver]

Like the stock market BUT, what mattes is not the short term but the trend over months and, like the stock market, the dems are losing value:D

Jim, I notice you have no problem with "smarmy" answers like the one above to Drivesme....And you certainly have No Problem posting Liberal Bashing Articles and Pictures....However, when a Poster asks you "politely" a legitimate question like...."Who is YOUR choice for the Republican Presidential Race," you seem to run away from it?? Why do you run away from legitimate questions, And yet, for some reason feel you MUST respond to each and every "fluff" post directed your way??? Just curious to know what your criteria is for "answering" REAL questions, instead of just "knocks and slams?" You really seem to prefer THEM! As if legitimate questions are too difficult?
Or is it that You prefer to bash and slame everyone else's choices, and therefore, if you don't "share" YOUR choice, then no one can say "anything" to you about your choice....Kind of one sided isn't it Jim???

[freewolf46]

Rasmussen Reports
Tuesday, January 01, 2008

The number of Americans who consider themselves to be Republicans jumped nearly two percentage points in December to 34.2%. That’s the largest market share for the Republican brand in nearly two years, since January 2006 (see history from January 2004 to present).

At the same time, the number of Democrats fell to 36.3%. That’s down a point compared to a month ago. During 2007, the number of Democrats has ranged from a low of 35.9% in July to a high of 37.8% in February.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends



Well I believe the trend shows something other than people suddenly becoming convinced the republican part is better than the democrats. Fact is, most people are really tired of both parties. That has been the sentiment for some time now, and particularly this past year, and even more so these past few months as we approach the primaries. So why the numbers?

Well there is an unmentionable candidate that is running as a republican who is appealing to many people from all sides and the influx indicates that in order to vote in the primaries for him, they must be registered as republican. Quite a few democrats have switched over for this reason. That accounts for some and the decline of the democrats. Then there are those who have never voted before and they also must register with the party offering the person who inspired them to vote. There is also a large number of people who have voted before but haven't participated in what they see as a farce for quite some time and have been dropped from the rolls. They are being brought back in.

The increase in the number of republicans show the largest increase taking place during the same time that candidate shows the largest increase in popularity and funding.

I think many will be surprised at the number of people who are ready to shed all party clothing and go where ever they have to in order to vote for the only true representative of the Constitution of The United States.

For the first time in a long time the people have an honest, constitutionalist, with integrity and a voting record that matches his words. He is running in the republican party and THAT is what is feuling these numbers. If he was running as a democrat, you would see the reverse. Finally, people are starting to see that the label is much more irrelevant than doing something to really change this country, and no matter what they have to register as, they will in order to give this person the best chance.

I sure hope one doesn't think these numbers show a sudden love for the party of big war and spending that matches any liberal's agenda, all while taking freedoms along the way as the price of protection from lunatics. It doesn't.

[JIMV]

Jim, I notice you have no problem with "smarmy" answers like the one above to Drivesme....And you certainly have No Problem posting Liberal Bashing Articles and Pictures....However, when a Poster asks you "politely" a legitimate question like...."Who is YOUR choice for the Republican Presidential Race," you seem to run away from it?? Why do you run away from legitimate questions, And yet, for some reason feel you MUST respond to each and every "fluff" post directed your way??? Just curious to know what your criteria is for "answering" REAL questions, instead of just "knocks and slams?" You really seem to prefer THEM! As if legitimate questions are too difficult?
Or is it that You prefer to bash and slame everyone else's choices, and therefore, if you don't "share" YOUR choice, then no one can say "anything" to you about your choice....Kind of one sided isn't it Jim???

I must have missed the question...right now I am leaning toward Romney as I liked his performance in Mass. Asfor the rest, that is simply a matter of who I would not support, McCane and Paul...

[Old Round Guy]

Where did this new Freewolf come from?

It seems that I find myself more and more in agreement with his posts now.

Who/where is this "unmentionable candidate" you refer to? I'm still looking for one that I could support. There still isn't even ONE of the declared candidates, Republican, Democrat or suggested third party that I could support at this time.

Everything considered I'm pretty much a populist. Some of the candidates that are finding favor in the late hours of the campaign I find to have some ideas that are unworkable IMHO.

[Notus Lotus]

I'm behind Ron Paul on a lot of things...he's anti-war, anti-drug war, etc. But I can't get behind him when he makes use of a State's Rights argument when it comes to education, health care, caring for the poor/aged/mentally ill, a woman's right to choose, etc.

I think that in a country as rich as ours, health care and education should be considered basic needs, and thus rights. Why should a child in Mississippi not have the same rights as a child in California? We are the United States, not the sort of together states.

Seems that historically, it's the party currently out of power who wants States Rights. Right now that would be Libertarians. But Libertarians want the right to deny me some of my rights, including the right to choose to carry a fetus to term, and the right to be a citizen under the 14th amendment. Seems hypocritical.

[JIMV]

I'm behind Ron Paul on a lot of things...he's anti-war, anti-drug war, etc. But I can't get behind him when he makes use of a State's Rights argument when it comes to education, health care, caring for the poor/aged/mentally ill, a woman's right to choose, etc.

I think that in a country as rich as ours, health care and education should be considered basic needs, and thus rights. Why should a child in Mississippi not have the same rights as a child in California? We are the United States, not the sort of together states.

Seems that historically, it's the party currently out of power who wants States Rights. Right now that would be Libertarians. But Libertarians want the right to deny me some of my rights, including the right to choose to carry a fetus to term, and the right to be a citizen under the 14th amendment. Seems hypocritical.

You use the word 'rights' too often for it to have meaning. A 'right' is only something government cannot take away from you. A 'right' exists outside of government and is only protected by that government. All else are either privilidges or wishfull thinking.

For example...no one else has a 'right' to my wealth, which seems to be the essence of your post, the idea that government has a 'right' to take my wealth to provide 'rights' to other folk. You wrote not of 'rights' but of politics and pandering.

[JIMV]

January 2, 2008, 6:03 pm
Republicans Out-Raised Democrats for National Commitees
By Leslie Wayne

When it comes to fund-raising, Democrats have outpaced Republicans almost across the board. The lone exception is the Republican National Committee, which reported yesterday that it had raised $83 million for the year, easily topping the Democratic National Committee, which had raised $50.5 million in the first 11 months of 2007.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/republicans-out-raised-democrats-for-national-commitees/

[Notus Lotus]

You use the word 'rights' too often for it to have meaning. A 'right' is only something government cannot take away from you. A 'right' exists outside of government and is only protected by that government. All else are either privilidges or wishfull thinking.

For example...no one else has a 'right' to my wealth, which seems to be the essence of your post, the idea that government has a 'right' to take my wealth to provide 'rights' to other folk. You wrote not of 'rights' but of politics and pandering.


Spin it like a dreidal if you like, but that's certainly not what I meant.
You have the right, since you were born here (I'm assuming) to be considered a citizen of this country, which carries many privileges, but which also carries with it some responsibilities related to the running of the country and the well-being of your fellow citizens. Why the well being of your fellow citizens? Because the healthier and better educated the citizenry is, the healthier and better educated the country is. Which can only enhance your own experience as a citizen. That you don't want to contribute to your country's health and welfare is a reflection of your rightwing, I got mine, selfish mindset.

I just can't help but laugh at the mental image I have of you: Scrooge McDuck sitting on his pile of gold, quacking away "It's mine, all mine!"

I don't want to get my hands on your "wealth". I just think you should pay your fair share.

[JIMV]

You have the right, since you were born here (I'm assuming) to be considered a citizen of this country, which carries many privileges, but which also carries with it some responsibilities related to the running of the country and the well-being of your fellow citizens.

You DO have a right to be considered a citizen...after that you run into ambiguity. Who defines those responsibilities? The constitution does not list many responsibilities other than voting. The rest is a matter of opinion and politics.


Why the well being of your fellow citizens? Because the healthier and better educated the citizenry is, the healthier and better educated the country is.

Who defines that well being? How is it achieved? Again, none of that is in the Constitution so is simply politics.

Which can only enhance your own experience as a citizen. That you don't want to contribute to your country's health and welfare is a reflection of your rightwing, I got mine, selfish mindset.

Enhancing ones experience as a citizen is not a function of government as defined in the Constitution.

I just can't help but laugh at the mental image I have of you: Scrooge McDuck sitting on his pile of gold, quacking away "It's mine, all mine!"

While I see you sneaking in the back window, mask over face, all set to loot me for your own ends.

I don't want to get my hands on your "wealth". I just think you should pay your fair share.

Define fair share...As long as those doing the taking are not doing the paying, it is not fair.

[lenny]

I'm behind Ron Paul on a lot of things...he's anti-war, anti-drug war, etc. But I can't get behind him when he makes use of a State's Rights argument when it comes to education, health care, caring for the poor/aged/mentally ill, a woman's right to choose, etc.

I think that in a country as rich as ours, health care and education should be considered basic needs, and thus rights. Why should a child in Mississippi not have the same rights as a child in California? We are the United States, not the sort of together states.

Seems that historically, it's the party currently out of power who wants States Rights. Right now that would be Libertarians. But Libertarians want the right to deny me some of my rights, including the right to choose to carry a fetus to term, and the right to be a citizen under the 14th amendment. Seems hypocritical.


You and I probably aren't too far off. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of the fear of some of the more extreme ideas like abolition of Dept. of Ed., drastically weakening the social safety net, etc., is a bit misplaced. I just don't think a lot of that stuff is at the top of the agenda for him, and there is also the fact that he'll, at least I think, bring us back to where we'll have three coequal branches of govt. He'll have to deal with a Democratic congress which I think would be a nice balance. Plus I think he respects the other side and respects the fact that a lot of his support is coming from people who are not traditional Libertarians.

To me it came down to some really key issues.

1. Foreign policy. Ending the undeclared wars and bringing our troops home for use as defense, and not to enrich the military/industrial complex. Non-interventionism not isolationism. He articulates it well and he'll do what he says he will do.

2. Ending the criminal Never Ending War on Some Drugs and treating the issue as what it is: a health issue. I'm disgusted with it and the explosion in prison populations.

3. Just say no to the police state. All this unconstitutional crap (patriot act, elimination of habeas corpus, posse comitatus, illegal warrantless wiretapping, and on and on) has to be stopped now.

4. Taking on the "Federal" Reserve.

5. Doing something about the IRS. 40,000 page tax code, and all the BS loopholes is beyond insanity. Lets kill it and bicker about the details after the fact.

I'm sure there are a few others, but if these things aren't addressed now then none of the other stuff (abortion, schools, national park stuff, whatever)is going to matter.

[Notus Lotus]

You DO have a right to be considered a citizen...after that you run into ambiguity. Who defines those responsibilities? The constitution does not list many responsibilities other than voting. The rest is a matter of opinion and politics.




Who defines that well being? How is it achieved? Again, none of that is in the Constitution so is simply politics.



Enhancing ones experience as a citizen is not a function of government as defined in the Constitution.



While I see you sneaking in the back window, mask over face, all set to loot me for your own ends.



Define fair share...As long as those doing the taking are not doing the paying, it is not fair.


I'm surprised that a strict Constitutionalist such as you aren't voting Paul.

WE the people define the citizen responsibilities by who we elect to represent us. You call it "government", I call it Democracy.

We the people also define well being and how it is to legally be achieved by the people we elect to represent us. You call it "politics", I call it Democracy.

I believe it is every man's duty to care for the lesser of his brothers. If you argue to me that the Founding Fathers intended for us to be a Christian Nation, as many do, you must also embrace the notion of "That which ye do unto the least of my brothers, that you also do unto me." Fine, you believe in helping out others, but on your own, and not coerced by any government mandate. Great! But there is a percentage of your fellow citizens who need more help than their church or family or good friends can provide. I think it's the responsibility of We the people to step in, pool our funds, and help those people. We the people elect representatives to carry out our wishes of who,how and how much to collectively help. You call it sneaking in to your house and stealing your gold. I call it Democracy.

You say the Constitution indicates our only responsibility is to vote. So we vote. We are where we are now because of voting. You could say the Constitution is responsible for exactly who we are as a country right now. I guess if we get enough of you Constitutionalists voting, we'll have it your way. You would call that a win. I would call it Democracy. Hopefully there are enough people with more brains than a gnat so that scenario will never play out.

[Notus Lotus]

You and I probably aren't too far off. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of the fear of some of the more extreme ideas like abolition of Dept. of Ed., drastically weakening the social safety net, etc., is a bit misplaced. I just don't think a lot of that stuff is at the top of the agenda for him, and there is also the fact that he'll, at least I think, bring us back to where we'll have three coequal branches of govt. He'll have to deal with a Democratic congress which I think would be a nice balance. Plus I think he respects the other side and respects the fact that a lot of his support is coming from people who are not traditional Libertarians.

To me it came down to some really key issues.

1. Foreign policy. Ending the undeclared wars and bringing our troops home for use as defense, and not to enrich the military/industrial complex. Non-interventionism not isolationism. He articulates it well and he'll do what he says he will do.

2. Ending the criminal Never Ending War on Some Drugs and treating the issue as what it is: a health issue. I'm disgusted with it and the explosion in prison populations.

3. Just say no to the police state. All this unconstitutional crap (patriot act, elimination of habeas corpus, posse comitatus, illegal warrantless wiretapping, and on and on) has to be stopped now.

4. Taking on the "Federal" Reserve.

5. Doing something about the IRS. 40,000 page tax code, and all the BS loopholes is beyond insanity. Lets kill it and bicker about the details after the fact.

I'm sure there are a few others, but if these things aren't addressed now then none of the other stuff (abortion, schools, national park stuff, whatever)is going to matter.

I can get behind all those things you mention. The thing that troubles me about Paul is his stance on state's rights as it pertains to the environment, our food and drugs, a woman's right to choose,etc., To me, this makes the United States not so united, and that is abbhorent to me...that a kid in Alaska may not have the same educational opportunities as the kid in Florida bothers me. You guarantee that by a country wide system of education, IMO. Caveat: I'm well aware that where you live in a state or city will determine how superior your education is and I'd like to see THAT change, but I'm really talking just your basic education. No trips to Deutschland for the Sophomore German Club.
Plus, Paul let loose with some pretty racist rhetoric 15 years ago. Maybe he's changed THAT odious opinion, but it still troubles me that he had it to begin with.

I'm a leftist lefty liberal, and no matter how I try to justify it, I just can't fully embrace any candidate other than Kucinich. Not only are his ideals my ideals, but he was one of the few to speak out against the war before it started, and is working hard to bring the criminals in this administration to justice.

It appears he doesn't have a prayer in the world, but voting for the lesser of 2 evils hasn't done much for us, so dammit, I'm voting my conscience. But I understand why you would find Paul a good choice, really I do. And the race is young. I still have time to change my mind. We'll see.

[lenny]

Yeah, I hope I didn't come across as though I were trying to talk you out of voting for your chosen candidate or whatever, but I thought I might give some insight as to why someone on the left might justify voting for him.

I love Dennis, and definitely think you should vote your conscience. The thing for me is that I'm in Oregon with a closed primary and am classified as "not affiliated with any party" so am not allowed to vote, unless... If I want to vote for a Dem or Repub I have to re-register 90 days before the primary. I just assumed that Kucinich wouldn't make any noise, and thought that Paul might actually have a chance, even if it's a small one. So as far as these primaries I have to make up my mind early. :mad: I'd rather just get my ballot and vote for one candidate regardless of party.

That racist thing you are referring to was not written by Paul but by some overzealous staffer. He renounced it and has given his views on racism several times...I'm just too lazy to go searching right now. :D

[freewolf46]

Where did this new Freewolf come from?

It seems that I find myself more and more in agreement with his posts now.

Who/where is this "unmentionable candidate" you refer to? I'm still looking for one that I could support. There still isn't even ONE of the declared candidates, Republican, Democrat or suggested third party that I could support at this time.

Everything considered I'm pretty much a populist. Some of the candidates that are finding favor in the late hours of the campaign I find to have some ideas that are unworkable IMHO.

Ron Paul is the unmentionable I refer to. I do not think there is any person who would fall into line with my personal preferences. That is why I support the person who believes in allowing me the freedom to pursue, or not pursue my personal preferences. I posted a set of links on another forum that explain our government (what it should be) as designed by the founding fathers. It is set of four very short clips and well worth the watch, in my opinion.

I am in support of the candidate who most firmly believes in this form of government and has proven it by a voting record to match that belief. Personal preferences aside, and personal goals or pet projects aside, I find myself a firm believer in this form of government. I don't believe the agenda of the left falls in line with the intentions of the constitution, and I also just as firmly believe that the right has become just as big of a threat to the constitution as any other. Neither show any real desire to live under the rule of law. Here are the four short clips. They show what I have always believed, but never had an opportunity to support in a candidate. It was always a choice for me between two violators of these beliefs and choosing the one who appeared at the time to be the lesser of the violators. All have been a bitter disappointment.

As it stands right now, I am in complete disagreement with the republican party and the right, who has pursued it's idea of forcing our will on the world via embargoes, manipulations, subversive actions, and war if necessary. We have no moral or legal authority to support our foreign policy. I find equal distaste for any socialistic approach that would add good wholesome causes to the list of rights as citizens simply by virtue of being a good cause. Rights are free and do not demand the taking of others rights for enforcement. If they require contribution from another, they are not a right as protected under the constitution or the bill of rights. That's what I believe and feel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTQQJOEn9yI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW6AKVyi6As&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23JIFy8Vm6Q&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I16M-qH3SbU&feature=related

[Drivesme]

Like the stock market BUT, what mattes is not the short term but the trend over months and, like the stock market, the dems are losing value:D

Wow, you refuse to see what is right in front of you.

[Drivesme]

Well I believe the trend shows something other than people suddenly becoming convinced the republican part is better than the democrats. Fact is, most people are really tired of both parties. That has been the sentiment for some time now, and particularly this past year, and even more so these past few months as we approach the primaries. So why the numbers?

Well there is an unmentionable candidate that is running as a republican who is appealing to many people from all sides and the influx indicates that in order to vote in the primaries for him, they must be registered as republican. Quite a few democrats have switched over for this reason. That accounts for some and the decline of the democrats. Then there are those who have never voted before and they also must register with the party offering the person who inspired them to vote. There is also a large number of people who have voted before but haven't participated in what they see as a farce for quite some time and have been dropped from the rolls. They are being brought back in.

The increase in the number of republicans show the largest increase taking place during the same time that candidate shows the largest increase in popularity and funding.

I think many will be surprised at the number of people who are ready to shed all party clothing and go where ever they have to in order to vote for the only true representative of the Constitution of The United States.

For the first time in a long time the people have an honest, constitutionalist, with integrity and a voting record that matches his words. He is running in the republican party and THAT is what is feuling these numbers. If he was running as a democrat, you would see the reverse. Finally, people are starting to see that the label is much more irrelevant than doing something to really change this country, and no matter what they have to register as, they will in order to give this person the best chance.

I sure hope one doesn't think these numbers show a sudden love for the party of big war and spending that matches any liberal's agenda, all while taking freedoms along the way as the price of protection from lunatics. It doesn't.


Free this is a poll, nothing more, it is not a count of 'registered' anythings.
On top of that it's a rassmusion poll and we all know what that means.

I know who you are talking about and I'm sorry to say that he isn't the reason.
In fact, he is viewed, rightly, as an extreme rightwing nut job.
He maybe or he may not be, but that is how he is viewed outside of a very few places.
He doesn't have the numbers, in any state, to be a factor.

[JIMV]

So, now that Paul lost his best chance to matter much, where will his supporters go?

[lenny]

So, now that Paul lost his best chance to matter much, where will his supporters go?

I haven't met anyone who thought Iowa was Paul's best chance of winning until now (assuming that's what you're talking about). I thought his best chance for some early momentum would be in the "live free or die" state. Still, I was hoping he'd place 3rd or 4th in Iowa. He did trounce Ghouliani though. I imagine that if he'd have had similar T.V. exposure as Rudy he'd have come in 3rd or 4th. Sucks that he didn't beat Thompson. I didn't think the dumber-than-dirt wing of the Republican party would have such a good showing.

[JIMV]

I haven't met anyone who thought Iowa was Paul's best chance of winning until now (assuming that's what you're talking about). I thought his best chance for some early momentum would be in the "live free or die" state. Still, I was hoping he'd place 3rd or 4th in Iowa. He did trounce Ghouliani though. I imagine that if he'd have had similar T.V. exposure as Rudy he'd have come in 3rd or 4th. Sucks that he didn't beat Thompson. I didn't think the dumber-than-dirt wing of the Republican party would have such a good showing.

To win in a primary state, one has to win a large number of votes from a large number of voters. In a caucus state all one needs do is pack a room, a much easier task. As he didn't manage, I expect a poorer result in NH, single digits at best.

[McGyver]

To win in a primary state, one has to win a large number of votes from a large number of voters. In a caucus state all one needs do is pack a room, a much easier task. As he didn't manage, I expect a poorer result in NH, single digits at best.

Well Jim....Be prepared, because I have a feeling this year much of what you expect.....will not come about! You certainly could not have expected that Ron Paul would get 10% even in the Iowa Caucus. And you certainly could not have expected that Ron Paul would raise more money than any other GOP Candidate the last quarter.....So, Expect The Unexpected!

[Drivesme]

So, now that Paul lost his best chance to matter much, where will his supporters go?
Where everyone else is going, Obama.

[Drivesme]

To win in a primary state, one has to win a large number of votes from a large number of voters. In a caucus state all one needs do is pack a room, a much easier task. As he didn't manage, I expect a poorer result in NH, single digits at best.
Jim read up how the republican 'caucus', they don't. What they is have a little primary, then go home. (which explains the early numbers you were fretting about)
They don't have the guts to do a real caucus because they would actually have to make a public stand, on their own. Republicans can't do that.

[Old Round Guy]

Good morning Freewolf,

Just a short reply, at least for now, to your post.

I pretty much agree with your evaluation of the candidates, that's pretty much the way I feel.

Having viewed the links I would sumarize by saying that McManus encapsulates the American ideals pretty well.

I can't agree on some of his basic concepts. McManus wants to put everything into boxes that are a little bit too tight for my way of thinking.

I think the concepts of Republic and Democratic forms of government can be and are pretty much intermingled in present day. I don't see Democracy deteriorating into Oligarchy AS LONG AS the proper checks and balances and the rule of law are held to.

Isn't the concept of the Republic pretty much to meet the common good of the majority of the population without government infringement? But by the same token, shouldn't that majority have a say in how we are governed? Isn't that what free elections are all about, and isn't that what America seems to be telling the candidates both in the 2006 and the present elections?

One other thing I don't agree with is the imagery that McManus uses to drive home his points. I MOST strongly feel that could have been done much better. Okay, it's a history lesson, but some of the imagery is too repetitive (IMHO) and something else could have been used to make a better point.

Case in point, what America's earlier days were and what they stood for, and what they are now and, just imagine, what they can grow to be.

Leave some of the goblins of the past where they belong, in the past.

[McGyver]

So, now that Paul lost his best chance to matter much, where will his supporters go?


UNFORTUNATLEY, "MANY" WILL JUST STAY HOME! And THAT should SCARE the Hell Out of YOU Jim!



************************************************** ************************************************** *

[JIMV]

UNFORTUNATLEY, "MANY" WILL JUST STAY HOME! And THAT should SCARE the Hell Out of YOU Jim!



************************************************** ************************************************** *

It would if there were very many of them in the repbulican base...

[McGyver]

It would if there were very many of them in the repbulican base...

Come On Jim.....There's NO WAY in Hell, ANY Repubican can Win with JUST their 30% Base! What the heck are you talking about?

Did you happen to notice the "difference" in the turnout for Democrats Vs the turnout for Republicans in Iowa?



************************************************** ************************************************** *

[freewolf46]

Come On Jim.....There's NO WAY in Hell, ANY Repubican can Win with JUST their 30% Base! What the heck are you talking about?

Did you happen to notice the "difference" in the turnout for Democrats Vs the turnout for Republicans in Iowa?


correct you are. The republican party blew it's chance with Bush. The numbers are not there to win. They would need independents as well as disenfranchised democrats. Not a candidate offered beside Paul could defeat Obama or Edwards. McCain, Romney, Or Huckabee, might come close against Hillary, but not against Obama or Edwards. Many democrats hate Hillary. They don't hate Obama or Edwards and that is why those three I mentioned might come close.

Realistically, none of the republicans beside Paul could possibly get a democrat to vote for them and they will get no independents, and that means they are just out of this race period.

Those who would say they do not need those who are supporting Paul to win in November are living in some dream world. Without them, the republicans are finished and they will not have them even when they drive Paul out of the race. They will not vote, or they will write in, or vote in protest for a libertarian, or vote for one of the democrats.

The republicans have sold out 95 percent of a conservatism platform, (other than in word only), just to keep a failed foreign policy in place. Foolish.

[freewolf46]

Good morning Freewolf,

Just a short reply, at least for now, to your post.

I pretty much agree with your evaluation of the candidates, that's pretty much the way I feel.

Having viewed the links I would sumarize by saying that McManus encapsulates the American ideals pretty well.

I can't agree on some of his basic concepts. McManus wants to put everything into boxes that are a little bit too tight for my way of thinking.

I think the concepts of Republic and Democratic forms of government can be and are pretty much intermingled in present day. I don't see Democracy deteriorating into Oligarchy AS LONG AS the proper checks and balances and the rule of law are held to.

Isn't the concept of the Republic pretty much to meet the common good of the majority of the population without government infringement? But by the same token, shouldn't that majority have a say in how we are governed? Isn't that what free elections are all about, and isn't that what America seems to be telling the candidates both in the 2006 and the present elections?

One other thing I don't agree with is the imagery that McManus uses to drive home his points. I MOST strongly feel that could have been done much better. Okay, it's a history lesson, but some of the imagery is too repetitive (IMHO) and something else could have been used to make a better point.

Case in point, what America's earlier days were and what they stood for, and what they are now and, just imagine, what they can grow to be.

Leave some of the goblins of the past where they belong, in the past.

And a good morning to you as well. Thanks for your response and more importantly, thank you for taking the time to actually watch the whole thing.

I do agree that the imagery is a bit much. The style is for drama and I don't particularly care for drama, but I do believe the lesson is accurate. One has to take into account the source and of course any source's bias. That's why I usually don't pay much attention to the drama and spin and instead look for the truths, which are the only relevant thing.

On the point you make about the concepts of Republic and Democracy being pretty much intermingled, I do take the opposite position. It is my understanding that their principles are in conflict with each other. While the basic concept of democracy is that the majority rules, the basic concept of a republic is to keep the majority from ruling. In that republic we use democratic principles, but we live by the rule of law that protects the individual from the majority.

As far as the point you make that shouldn't the majority have a say in how we are governed, I agree. What I disagree with is the way that majority uses that influence outside the framework of the republic. Not sure if I am explaining this right, but the constitution should only be used by the majority and not direct governing. In other words, the majority can change the rule of law (the constitution) by means provided in that document itself. Once that rule of law is changed to reflect the majority's wishes, then individual policies are formed within the framework of the new or altered document and not according to majority rule. In other words, the majority should have a say in selecting the guiding principles, but not in the application.

Thanks again for taking the time and the courteous response.

[NuclearShadows]

First off I would like to say hello to ya’ll. I have to admit I missed the forum and all that it is, good and bad.

One the subject of polls… Dems and Repubs both in the thirty percent range.
The first thing that struck me is that those are basically the same percentage as people who believe in Ghosts and UFOs. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305277,00.html)
LOL

As the the matter of rights, we all know that we could have a whole thread on that one.

I seem to be in much agreement with Notus Lotus on presidential choices. Kucinich is my preference but he has no chance of being a winner. I like much of what Ron Pauls says also but am uncomfortable with the same things as Notus Lotus.

As you all know, I am all about the issues of war and militarism. As far as that goes, besides Kucinich, Paul is the only true anti-war candidate. Obama and Hilary are both warmongers at heart.

A couple of questions for the “constitutionalists” here. I know that the argument is that providing for the national defense is one thing mandated by the constitution as the responsibility of the federal government. But does it bother you at all that near 50% of your tax dollars go to pay for past, present and future wars and a 2003 GAO study by the Defense Department's inspector general found that the Pentagon couldn't properly account for more than a trillion dollars in monies spent. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL) And since then there have been other similar reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36544-2005Jan25.html) not to mention the US Special Inspector-General for Iraq Reconstruction reports (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0127/dailyUpdate.html) on the waste there that are continuing today.

[JIMV]

Come On Jim.....There's NO WAY in Hell, ANY Repubican can Win with JUST their 30% Base! What the heck are you talking about?

Did you happen to notice the "difference" in the turnout for Democrats Vs the turnout for Republicans in Iowa?



************************************************** ************************************************** *

I have to ask you the same question? What 'win with only 30% of their base'...do you believe Paul holds the remaining 70%? If so why are his numbers amongst republicans in poll after poll so low. He might be all the way to 14% in NH, a libertarian stronghold, but nationally he is about 4%.

As to Iowa turnout, do some research...dems always turn out 2-1 over republicans in the caucuses but the national vote in novermber is always much, much closer.

If every Paul supporter was a registered republican who routinely voted republican and then all of them decided to stay home in November, we would have a problem equivalenrt to the pat Bucannon vote in 2000.

We'll survive.

Lets spin that question a bit. What if all the bitter Hillary voters decide to stay home when Obama gets the nod? That is about as likely and a far bigger number.

[Old Round Guy]

Freewolf, some time after I made that post I remembered a concept of "Democratic Republic". That's rather what I was trying to get at without being able to put a name on it at the time.

Democratic, with the majority having a say in how they are governed through free and open elections, AND, MAINTAINING THE CHECKS AND BALANCES, THE RULE OF LAW AND ACCOUNTABILITY, and Republic through limiting the role of government.