J.Podhoretz: Republicans did not just lose, they were slaughtered

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dddooo, Nov 24, 2006.

  1. Now, two weeks after the election, the full nature of the "thumpin' " is coming through pretty clearly - and it's devastating news for Republicans and conservatives and even more disastrous for Bush.

    According to vote-cruncher Jay Cost of Realclearpolitics.com, 54 percent of the ballots in open races were cast for Democrats and 46 percent for Republicans. Between 2004 and '06, the GOP's share of the vote fell an astonishing 10 percentage points.

    Cost puts it like this: "Republicans should thus count themselves very lucky. With this kind of vote share prior to 1994, the Democrats would have an 81-member majority, as opposed to the 29-member majority they now enjoy." Only certain structural changes in U.S. politics since 1990 prevented that mega-thumpin'. That is, Republicans in the House were spared a decimation of their ranks by forces beyond their control.

    But those forces aren't beyond Democratic control - which should panic Republican politicians. Many of the structural changes that saved them this time can be undone, especially after the census of 2010 leads to new congressional maps - which it appears will be supervised in a majority of the states by legislatures controlled by Dems

    There's no good news whatever for Republicans in the exit polls or anywhere else. The talk that they suffered at the polls this time because GOP voters were disenchanted by the party? Nonsense: By all accounts, more than 90 percent of Republican voters cast their ballot for GOP candidates, and turnout was high. GOP voters didn't revolt against the Republican Party. Independent and conservative Democrats did.

  2. Whenever the democrats win by a small margin they call it a slaughter.

    Such melodrama. Such a soap opera.
  3. Whenever the democrats win by a small margin they call it a slaughter.
    First of all the New York post is not a liberal paper and John Podhoretz is NOT a democrat by any stretch of imagination, he is a partisan ultra-conservative, right-wing fanatic. More importantly when Bush received 50.73% of the popular vote to Kerry's 48.27% he said "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it". The dems recevied 54% to republican's 46%, this is huge, this is a real mandate.
  4. _______________________________________________

    It may be a mandate in New York and California where the major part of the big lead was recorded (via Clinton and Boxer margins) but elsewhere there is clearly no mandate. Some western states didn't elect one democrat so they, by the same token, received a mandate for their views.

    Those same states will assuredly show major population growth in 2010 and deserve more representation at the expense of the blue states. Interestingly enough the red voters are leaving the blue states and increasing the influence of the red states where they fit in better. So the blues will get bluer but will lose population and representation. As is shown in the Boxer and Clinton vote margins and the states only voting red this last time.
    This population shift is also going on big time as the dims in Minn. drive away business and jobs. The reds are leaving and going to where the jobs are (red states). The blues left behind cling onto power and repeat the cycle.
  5. The dems said that Bush had absolutely no mandate at 50.73% to 48.27%, but now they are saying that there is a huge mandate at 54% to 46%.

    Changing the rules as the game goes on is very melodramatic. What a show. They might as well have fun while it lasts.
  6. 50.73 - 48.27 = 2.46

    54 - 46 = 8

    Now, do you see the difference?
  7. Excuse me but when a party or a candidate receives 54% of the vote - it's clearly a mandate, some actually claimed that 50.73% of the vote was a mandate... And your example with states that did not elect democrats is absurd, that's the nature of democracy, elections and mandates that even those who voted against the winner will have to comply with the winner's agenda - the majority rule.

    Isn't that ironic that Podhoretz disagrees with you and says that things are only going to get worse for rethugs (GOP WOES DEEPENING), especially after 2010. But of course who would ever doubt Doubter's intelligent and well-researched opinions? How is that lie about military deaths under clinton panning out btw? I thought after that whopper you'd be embarrassed to post on this site for at least a couple of weeks.
  8. Yes, I see what's going on.

    50.73 - 48.27 = 2.46 = Absolutely NO mandate.

    54 - 46 = 8 = Suddenly, a HUGE mandate.
  9. Now you got it!!!

    2.46% was the narrowest margin a sitting president was ever re-elected by, on the other side a 10% shift in public sentiment and an 8% percent advantage in an evenly divided country is indeed huge and is undoubtedly a mandate.
  10. It's pretty sad, but this is the most fun I've had all day. You are very entertaining, dddooo.

    From what I've read about the election, some of the most liberal reps were removed from office and replaced by conservative dems. It looks like the population is getting older and more conservative and the liberals are grasping and clinging on for survival.
    #10     Nov 24, 2006