The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

What's giving me fatigue is Balta's f***ing avatar.

It's the only revenge I can take on the world for the existence of Tebow.

[lostfan]

It's the only revenge I can take on the world for the existence of Tebow.

I heard Tebow was traded to the Jets! Can you confirm this rumor for me? Perhaps via ESPN?

[Balta1701]

I hate election years in general and while 2012 isn't as bad as I thought it'd be for someone who's active on social networking it seems like there's quite a bit of meaningless bulls***. I do remember actually talking about public policy in 2008 even if some of it was about stuff that was never really going to happen (cap and trade, high speed rail, etc.) but what are we talking about now... basically nothing.

 

But seriously, literally everything the Romney campaign says is stupid and/or a bold-faced lie. I know this is true of every elected official but Romney goes to new levels with it.

The Wierd thing for me is, I find myself caring about the minutiae less this year, despite the fact that Romneys actual policy proposals follow the truly crazy Ryan budget. Whether that's burnout or the fact that I'm comparing to 2008 Obama + "omg credit default swaps are going to f***ing kill us all!", I dunno.

[Balta1701]

I heard Tebow was traded to the Jets! Can you confirm this rumor for me? Perhaps via ESPN?

It's so sad that the other 29 nfl teams all ceased to exist so suddenly. At least their widows can take comfort in tebows rippling, rain soaked chest.

[lostfan]

The Wierd thing for me is, I find myself caring about the minutiae less this year, despite the fact that Romneys actual policy proposals follow the truly crazy Ryan budget. Whether that's burnout or the fact that I'm comparing to 2008 Obama + "omg credit default swaps are going to f***ing kill us all!", I dunno.

I think the 2008 election was just kind of a special circumstance. Something about Obama vs. Hillary (barrier broken either way), followed by the crash, followed by McCain's bizarre behavior and gift of herpes to the American public nomination of Palin kept everyone's interest until about halfway through 2009. In my memory that's never happened before. On Nate Silver's 538 blog today he mentioned how many less polls there are compared to this same time in 2008.

[kapkomet]

I know. Let me rephrase: Romney is not even attempting to talk about policy, any further than "Obama sucks and f***ed us all" which is completely meaningless considering that was automatically going to be said by whoever the nominee was. Can't even be bothered to give specific reasons why and (I know this is going to sound like I'm speaking some forgotten, ancient tongue) what he's actually going to do different (tax cuts don't count. you're a Republican, no s***.) Yawn...

 

Meanwhile the media does what the media does, reporting a 3-point swing in a single poll as if it actually means anything at all whatsoever while the rest of the national polls hold steady with Obama's built-in electoral lead in a race that hasn't really budged in months, and won't. Someone wake me up in November.

I absolutely cannot disagree with this. Rmoney hasn't said s*** on what would make him a better president. Now granted, a pile of dogs*** on the street might be better, but you hit on the biggest issue I have with this guy. He doesn't know what the f*** he's doing. Barry on the other hand, knows exactly what he's going to do, and we're well on our way.

[lostfan]

I absolutely cannot disagree with this. Rmoney hasn't said s*** on what would make him a better president. Now granted, a pile of dogs*** on the street might be better, but you hit on the biggest issue I have with this guy. He doesn't know what the f*** he's doing. Barry on the other hand, knows exactly what he's going to do, and we're well on our way.

I was in the 5th grade and didn't know s*** about politics then compared to now but what I vaguely remember about the 1992 election was that Bush couldn't make a case against Clinton (who was pretty specific about what he wanted to do and people were receptive to what he was saying) and Bush kept just saying Clinton was going to be so awful but otherwise couldn't give a good reason why people should stick with the 12-year status quo that he was a part of. Romney is more or less doing that except he's so terrified of his own (actually not really that bad) political record that he won't run on it. It's actually funny to me.

[Y2HH]

I was in the 5th grade and didn't know s*** about politics then compared to now but what I vaguely remember about the 1992 election was that Bush couldn't make a case against Clinton (who was pretty specific about what he wanted to do and people were receptive to what he was saying) and Bush kept just saying Clinton was going to be so awful but otherwise couldn't give a good reason why people should stick with the 12-year status quo that he was a part of. Romney is more or less doing that except he's so terrified of his own (actually not really that bad) political record that he won't run on it. It's actually funny to me.

 

Bush lost to Clinton because of Ross Perot. Perot split the republican vote and Clinton won with something like 43% to HW's 37%, had Perot not run, HW would have won easily.

[lostfan]

Bush lost to Clinton because of Ross Perot. Perot split the republican vote and Clinton won with something like 43% to HW's 37%, had Perot not run, HW would have won easily.

I forgot all about that motherf***er. But like I said I was in 5th grade lol.

[Y2HH]

I forgot all about that motherf***er. But like I said I was in 5th grade lol.

 

I was a junior in HS (at Bogan High School), and was pretty indifferent to politics at the time...I had other pressing concerns. Like girls.

 

But I'm glad Clinton won...and then won again. I like Clinton.

[cabiness42]

Bush lost to Clinton because of Ross Perot. Perot split the republican vote and Clinton won with something like 43% to HW's 37%, had Perot not run, HW would have won easily.

 

Yes, but you have to do a pretty s***ty job as the incumbent President if that many people think Ross Perot is a better option.

 

[Y2HH]

Yes, but you have to do a pretty s***ty job as the incumbent President if that many people think Ross Perot is a better option.

 

1000 points of light.

[StrangeSox]

I've posted something in here before about one Louisiana charter school teaching that "Lochness Monster is real therefore evolution is false," but's here's another list of some crazy s*** taxpayer-funded schools will be teaching in Louisiana now:

 

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/201...ana-tax-dollars

 

this is probably the worst but there's other strong contenders:

3. "God used the Trail of Tears to bring many Indians to Christ."—America: Land That I Love, Teacher ed., A Beka Book, 1994

 

Oh and one school tried to have mandatory pregnancies tests with expulsion for positive results.

Edited August 8, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Rex Kickass]

Bush lost to Clinton because of Ross Perot. Perot split the republican vote and Clinton won with something like 43% to HW's 37%, had Perot not run, HW would have won easily.

 

That's a little simplistic view of things. Perot did get a lot of disaffected folks out to the polls in 92, but its also likely that many of those voters would have stayed home. Some of that 18% (likely 3 or 4 points of that) also peeled off of Clinton's total. Looking at the results, its possible that Perot not being on the ballot might have flipped as many of nine states from blue to red, but that still would have only amounted to 75 Electoral Votes, giving Clinton something in the neighborhood of 295 votes - not the landslide he got electorally, but still enough to eek out a victory.

[StrangeSox]

One of the best Onion articles ever:

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nations-l...not-part,28999/

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes, but you have to do a pretty s***ty job as the incumbent President if that many people think Ross Perot is a better option.

 

Bush 1 did a lot of good things, they were just unpopular. Raising taxes after making a promise not to (in such a unique way: "read my lips") doomed him.

[Y2HH]

That's a little simplistic view of things. Perot did get a lot of disaffected folks out to the polls in 92, but its also likely that many of those voters would have stayed home. Some of that 18% (likely 3 or 4 points of that) also peeled off of Clinton's total. Looking at the results, its possible that Perot not being on the ballot might have flipped as many of nine states from blue to red, but that still would have only amounted to 75 Electoral Votes, giving Clinton something in the neighborhood of 295 votes - not the landslide he got electorally, but still enough to eek out a victory.

 

Doubtful. Perot got a LOT of votes from republican voters, not just people who weren't going to vote. To highlight this, Bush almost lost Texas. That says it all. There are undoubtedly some voters that wouldn't have voted, but looking over that electoral map, Bush lost a LOT of states by just a few percentage points, where Perot had 10-20% of the state.

 

Perot was basically a republican candidate running as an Indy. I find it highly unlikely that 3 or 4% of his votes came from democratic voters.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Y2HH

[Rex Kickass]

Doubtful. Perot got a LOT of votes from republican voters, not just people who weren't going to vote.

 

Perot was basically a republican candidate running as an Indy. I find it highly unlikely that 3 or 4% of his votes came from democratic voters.

 

Perot got 19% of the vote in 2012. If 4 of those 19% came from voters who may have voted Democrat because of dissatisfaction with Bush (and crossover like that was more common in 1992 than we'd see today), Clinton would have still gotten 47% of the votes cast. It's also, very likely, that the Perot campaign got a few million voters to the polls who would not have otherwise voted in 1992 at all.

 

Since most of the votes Perot got were in strong blue or strong red states as it was, it would not have helped Bush win very easily. His path to 270 was a lot more complicated than a Perot spoiler.

[Y2HH]

Perot got 19% of the vote in 2012. If 4 of those 19% came from voters who may have voted Democrat because of dissatisfaction with Bush (and crossover like that was more common in 1992 than we'd see today), Clinton would have still gotten 47% of the votes cast. It's also, very likely, that the Perot campaign got a few million voters to the polls who would not have otherwise voted in 1992 at all.

 

Since most of the votes Perot got were in strong blue or strong red states as it was, it would not have helped Bush win very easily. His path to 270 was a lot more complicated than a Perot spoiler.

 

I edited.

 

As I highlighted, Bush almost lost the state of Texas to Clinton because of Perot. There are many repeated examples of this. It's simply undeniable.

[Balta1701]

It's also, very likely, that the Perot campaign got a few million voters to the polls who would not have otherwise voted in 1992 at all.

I just checked this number out of curiosity, and man, I'm amazed by how much this is actually true.

 

1996: 96,456,345 49.1%

1992: 104,405,155 55.1%

1988: 91,594,693 50.1%

 

1992 was the highest voter turnout since the 1972 election.

[Y2HH]

I just checked this number out of curiosity, and man, I'm amazed by how much this is actually true.

 

1996: 96,456,345 49.1%

1992: 104,405,155 55.1%

1988: 91,594,693 50.1%

 

1992 was the highest voter turnout since the 1972 election.

 

It was the first time and last time in the modern age people had choices...heh

[Balta1701]

It was the first time and last time in the modern age people had choices...heh

(In case you're interested, it seems like there's actually a trend of increasing turnout over the past decade or so, with higher turnout in 2008 than any year since 68).

[Rex Kickass]

I edited.

 

As I highlighted, Bush almost lost the state of Texas to Clinton because of Perot. There are many repeated examples of this. It's simply undeniable.

But he did not lose the state of Texas to Clinton.

 

You could make the argument that Perot played spoiler in Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio. If that's the case, we're talking a total of 75 electoral votes swapping from candidate to candidate in 1992.

 

That would give Clinton 295, Bush 243.

[Y2HH]

But he did not lose the state of Texas to Clinton.

 

You could make the argument that Perot played spoiler in Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio. If that's the case, we're talking a total of 75 electoral votes swapping from candidate to candidate in 1992.

 

That would give Clinton 295, Bush 243.

 

More than just those.

[StrangeSox]

What other state would you credit to Perot tipping?