yes, i have found from speaking with people that they usually don't REALLY know exactly why they are voting for a certain candidate. or, if they didn't actually vote, but are bitching about a particular candidate's election to office, they usually don't REALLY know exactly what their gripe is. does anyone know where i could find some info on the demographics of voters in the US? ps - i would've liked to run for president. i was all revved up about it, then i find that cos i wasn't born in this country i'm not allowed. too bad, america's loss...
To what purpose? Most demographic polls address "needed" and "desired" racial bias when it comes to minorities. If you are honestly looking at emulating the two main bone head parties in charge, you can find that kind of dribble anywhere just by reading the liberal press. I understand that James Carvel is still constantly issuing the democratic posturing positions (talking points) at his web outlets. Generally, the mantra is to say and do whatever it takes to stay on the fence so we can reach both ways to get the most votes, no beliefs in concrete need apply. Republican political party positions, sometimes you can look to the fog and take a guess! If you want genuine American people postures and positions, start by looking in the mirror and asking yourself the tough questions. Don't have the American heritage you say? I would beg to differ with you. Don't have the American mind set? Look deeper! Then, to find exactly what others think, go ask them! Rely on your own understanding rather than the perception of a hidden agenda
If you think our economy is heading towards something like Japan (just today, PPI is down 0.4% over the last year, deflation anyone?), then W stands no chance in 2004. By then, unemployment will be much higher, the housing bubble will probably have burst, the consumer will be in the trenches, the FED funds rate could be below 1%, businesses will continue not to spend, etc. Even if W gets rid of Saddam and wins easily in Iraq, the American public isn't going to be asleep for the next 2 years.
Funny. When you jags make enough money to pay some serious taxes, then you'll like W. Bunch of Babs Streisand wannabees.
I have been told I am not too bright. I guess that is true. Because I have no idea what point is being made with the above statement. I pay plenty of taxes. What is that supposed to do to increase my appreciation of Dubya? MD
He can't talk. Without a teleprompter he's utterly lost. But this is just a symptom of being unable to think clear thoughts. He's just a cardboard cut-out being used as a prop by those who really run things. gs
Other than Slick Willie, that comment could have been true of most presidents as far as the real grasp of some things that effect the general public are concerned. Listening to Algore evidences that a) either he can't read the teleprompter either or, b) he really is that disoriented. There are not too many cells connected in that dome either you know!
You guys have to admit, between ALGORE and DUBYA, it was a "lesser of two evils" scenario. Pinch nose, make selection. Colin Powell and Joe Lieberman would have been a much more worthy race.
Very true. The funny thing is, if Powell and Lieberman ran against each other, the Republican nominee would have been the more liberal, and the Democratic nominee more conservative. Which I guess would have been a good thing, since it MIGHT have dashed some of the ridiculous stereotyping we hear here and elsewhere all the time. Dubya seems quite a bit to the right of the majority of Republicans, and Gore was left of the majority of Dems. (Or perhaps Dubya is really not so far to the right as we see him. I wonder what his real feelings are on some of the right wing issues. Gore certainly was off the wall about many of his issues. Hard to believe he could have been serious). It would also have said something honorable about our country if those two had run. Two minorities. Two independent thinkers. Two intelligent and capable leaders. Too much to expect. We are not that advanced yet. But we are gaining on the future. I remember when Kennedy was campaigning. The slurs about him being Catholic. The Pope would be running the country. At least we cleared that hurdle. MD
And what you must admit is no matter who the choice, there would be an advocate group on each side of the argument just as now. All we are doing is making the case for the fact that there are a lot of different ideas afoot. One hundred people could conceivably come up with one hundred different solutions. Those choices could then be sorted into three camps also. Those for, those against, and those who want to compromise both sides and come up with a hybrid solution. In each camp there would also be the many degrees of agreement. Hey, each camp could elect a spokesperson to champion the party cause and opinions. And we could even vote for the decision that we all wanted to go with. And you know what? We could then decide to let one of those positions determine the ultimate wish of the whole group. And even when we descent, we could know that we had a voice in the matter. What a novel concept. Maybe we could even let one of the three spokespersons lead us all with his/her decisions for say, four years at a time. We'd obviously need to give him/her a title of some kind. We can come up with that later. And then...