Survey: Republican Voters Motivated and United against Dems

[Divinus Arma]

Pretty interesting. An internal Republican survey has found high solidarity in the Republican base. Expecting a large turnout from Republicans this November. I can't wait. Elections are fun. I would love to see the Dems get their butts handed to them this year. They really think they have a good chance, and I agree. If Dems win it won't be because of the Dems. It will be because of the Republicans. The conditions have never been better for a change of power, but the Democrats just have nothing to offer. All they can argue is that they ain't Bush. Great political strategy.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060809/9whisper.htm



Washington Whispers: GOP voters: like a rock
By Paul Bedard

Posted 8/9/06

Many Democrats may hate the war in Iraq and itch to dump the president, but a new GOP survey shows that Republican base voters stand ready to jam the November polls to return their team to Congress. A three-page-survey memo obtained by Washington Whispers reveals that despite reports of some dissatisfaction with the economy, the war, and President Bush, 81 percent of Republican voters are "almost certain" to vote and an additional 14 percent say they are "very likely." It goes without saying that they'll vote Republican: By a margin of 84 percent to 6 percent, they will pull the GOP toggle switch in the voting booth.

Good stuff.

[Aenlic]

Unfortunately for the Republican "base" voters, they aren't the majority and never were.

When the polling includes everyone, not just those already likely to vote Republican, then the result is much different.

53% of those polled plan to vote Democrat in the 2006 elections, compared to 40% for Republicans (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/10/mg.thu/index.html)

My hope is that eventually the voters here will figure out that neither party has our best interests in mind unless those interests happen to coincide with the interests of the money that got them elected. Except for obvious "wedge" issues which aren't really all that important, you couldn't slide a razor blade between the Republicans and Democrats.

[Divinus Arma]

53% of those polled plan to vote Democrat in the 2006 elections, compared to 40% for Republicans (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/10/mg.thu/index.html)



Yes, but the funny thing about this is that when placed by voting jursidiction, Republicans have a lead. This is because your precious "53%" are concentrated in urban areas. Especially poor urban areas. Of course the rest are just elitists who know whats best for the poor masses and promise them more free crap.

Yay. :dancing:

Does that mean that suddenly "53%" of this country is going to vote Democrat or that "53%" of this country is Democrat? No.

Yay.

I can't wait until November. I'm just drooling for the fight. :boxing:

EDIT: oh, and according to your little poll you provided:


Only 41 percent of Americans believe that Democratic leaders in Congress "would move the country in the right direction." As for the GOP, 43 percent of Americans believe that Republican leaders in Congress "would move the country in the right direction."

BOOM! YOU SUCKAS IS GOIN DOWN!

[Aenlic]

Yes, but the funny thing about this is that when placed by voting jursidiction, Republicans have a lead. This is because your precious "53%" are concentrated in urban areas. Especially poor urban areas. Of course the rest are just elitists who know whats best for the poor masses and promise them more free crap.

Yay. :dancing:

Does that mean that suddenly "53%" of this country is going to vote Democrat or that "53%" of this country is Democrat? No.

Yay.

I can't wait until November. I'm just drooling for the fight. :boxing:

EDIT: oh, and according to your little poll you provided:



BOOM! YOU SUCKAS IS GOIN DOWN!

All I can say is that you have a very poor understanding of statistical sampling, Eclectic.

I dislike the Democrats. It just happens that I dislike the Republicans more. Both parties promise to their constituents whatever is needed to get elected and then proceed to vote exactly as their money men want. It's that simple. It's the great fault in representative government in the modern age. I wonder how either party would actually behave if they were required, by law, to actually vote as they promised prior to getting elected - or re-elected. :wink:

[Divinus Arma]

All I can say is that you have a very poor understanding of statistical sampling, Eclectic.



Ya ya I know. The sample is representative of the broader population.
Here is a poll showing how congress will just be swept away:

http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm

Now take a poll of each district individually. If "I have a very poor understanding", then according to your logic, the entire congress should change hands to Democrats because "53%" will vote Democrat in EVERY district. After all, the sample is representative of the whole population when the poll is a certain size, right? Oh wait. But that won't happen will it? I wonder why that it is? Oh yes: Because people of certain political affiliation happen to live closer to each other in certain areas. Like Democrats in large urban poor areas and super wealthy east coast estates.

:2thumbsup:

Oh YA! Bring on the elections!

[Aenlic]

Ya ya I know. The sample is representative of the broader population.
Here is a poll showing how congress will just be swept away:

http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm

Now take a poll of each district individually. If "I have a very poor understanding", then according to your logic, the entire congress should change hands to Democrats because "53%" will vote Democrat in EVERY district. After all, the sample is representative of the whole population when the poll is a certain size, right? Oh wait. But that won't happen will it? I wonder why that it is? Oh yes: Because people of certain political affiliation happen to live closer to each other in certain areas. Like Democrats in large urban poor areas and super wealthy east coast estates.

:2thumbsup:

Oh YA! Bring on the elections!

Did you even look at that polling data, Eclectic? Are you sure you want to use it as an example of your version of reality? See any red numbers in the right-hand column? In any of those polls, including the Fox News poll and even blatantly partisan polls? Any red at all? Every poll, including those run by Republican affiliated groups like the Winston Group and Moore Information, give a lead to the Dems. Sorry man. You'll come back to relaity when the booze wears off. :wink:

[Divinus Arma]

Did you even look at that polling data, Eclectic? Are you sure you want to use it as an example of your version of reality? See any red numbers in the right-hand column? In any of those polls, including the Fox News poll and even blatantly partisan polls? Any red at all? Every poll, including those run by Republican affiliated groups like the Winston Group and Moore Information, give a lead to the Dems. Sorry man. You'll come back to relaity when the booze wears off. :wink:

You didn't even read my post. Either that or you didn't want to understand it. NO KIDDING IT WAS ALL BLUE. That was my point. Now read my post again and let's continue.

[Aenlic]

You didn't even read my post. Either that or you didn't want to understand it. NO KIDDING IT WAS ALL BLUE. That was my point. Now read my post again and let's continue.

OK. How about this? You show me a district by district poll and then we'll argue district by district. In the meanwhile, the actual numbers don't support your stance. You can attempt to portray the numbers as being incorrect because they don't reflect the actual district by district breakdown. That's fine. That's no different than claiming that the actual numbers are purple and smell like lillies if broken down district by district. :shrug:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes, but the funny thing about this is that when placed by voting jursidiction, Republicans have a lead. This is because your precious "53%" are concentrated in urban areas. Especially poor urban areas. Of course the rest are just elitists who know whats best for the poor masses and promise them more free crap.

Yay. :dancing:

Does that mean that suddenly "53%" of this country is going to vote Democrat or that "53%" of this country is Democrat? No.

Yay.

I can't wait until November. I'm just drooling for the fight. :boxing:

EDIT: oh, and according to your little poll you provided:



BOOM! YOU SUCKAS IS GOIN DOWN!

You're saying the dems will win the urban areas by a storm and lose out in the rural areas? Maybe. But there are a lot of urban areas, and most cities span more than one district.

[Samurai Waki]

That and most Urban areas that vote Dem...which is the majority have in some cases 1000 voters to 1 voter in a rural county. If only 20% of those voters voted, all democrat, you would still have 200 votes to every one vote in a rural county. Thats why Dems mostly campaign in cities, and more often than not, win. The Problem is, that the Popular Vote really never wins... If we had the popular vote, America would be The Union of Socialist America.

[Ironside]

That and most Urban areas that vote Dem...which is the majority have in some cases 1000 voters to 1 voter in a rural county. If only 20% of those voters voted, all democrat, you would still have 200 votes to every one vote in a rural county. Thats why Dems mostly campaign in cities, and more often than not, win. The Problem is, that the Popular Vote really never wins... If we had the popular vote, America would be The Union of Socialist America.

:inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive:
IIRC unless I'm mistaken, 2000 is an exception to the rule in the US. The presidental candidate that wins the election most often wins the popular vote too.

And it would take alot in the US to make anything called Socialist successful, as US math goes something like Socialist= Communist= the Evil incarnate.

What's the US reaction on the words Social Democrat BTW?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

:inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive:
IIRC unless I'm mistaken, 2000 is an exception to the rule in the US. The presidental candidate that wins the election most often wins the popular vote too.

And it would take alot in the US to make anything called Socialist successful, as US math goes something like Socialist= Communist= the Evil incarnate.

What's the US reaction on the words Social Democrat BTW?


Yes and no. While an electoral college decision that is opposite of the popular vote is rare (1824 [decided in house], 1876, 2000), it is actually pretty common for a President to be elected with a plurality of votes rather than a majority (1848, 1856, 1860, 1880, 1884*, 1888, 1912, 1916, 1948, 1960*, 1968, 1992, 1996). An asterisk indicates that the two primary candidates received a percentage of the vote that was equivalent to the first decimal place.

Since the Civil War, only two elections have been won with a majority of 60% of the vote or more: Johnson in 1964 and Nixon in 1972.

Washington would have (did) received more than 80% of the popular vote, though exact records of such were not kept until 1824 -- the only candidate to do so.

[Aenlic]

I also think the American aversion to the word socialism is hilarious, considering how much socialist theory has reformed 18-19th Century capitalism.

Days off, weekends, overtime pay, vacations, profit sharing, retirement plans and pensions, health insurance, child labor laws, workplace safety laws and many more are the direct result of socialist theory applied to capitalist theory. They were all fought over, sometimes violently. You can thank the socialist agitators of the 19th and early 20th centuries for every one of them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I also think the American aversion to the word socialism is hilarious, considering how much socialist theory has reformed 18-19th Century capitalism.

Days off, weekends, overtime pay, vacations, profit sharing, retirement plans and pensions, health insurance, child labor laws, workplace safety laws and many more are the direct result of socialist theory applied to capitalist theory. They were all fought over, sometimes violently. You can thank the socialist agitators of the 19th and early 20th centuries for every one of them.


thank you, socialists, for many of the workplace pleasantries developed over the last century.

thank you, fire, for the new pine tree seedlings let out of their pine cones.

thank you, floods, for renewing the soil.

thank you, Nazis, for your anti-ciggarette campaigns and your organizational abilities.


let any of these things take over and we are all screwed. at least many of us will be terribly uncomfortable. I'm a relative conservative - why would i want socialists in power? i vote no

[AntiochusIII]

thank you, socialists, for many of the workplace pleasantries developed over the last century.

thank you, fire, for the new pine tree seedlings let out of their pine cones.

thank you, floods, for renewing the soil.

thank you, Nazis, for your anti-ciggarette campaigns and your organizational abilities.Let's name 'em socialists with the Nazis. This way everyone will know they're evil.

Puhleese. Your own sentiment is the very product of that very long, irrational obsession with anything remotely socialist in the United States. Those guys never even really posed a real "threat" to the system at any time except for the early 1890s and 1930s, when the nation was so thoroughly screwed up everyone were sick of it enough to turn to an alternative proposal. By the way, it's always fun to remind everyone that the damnable Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the dude that arguably prevented the fall of American capitalism.

You ought to thank socialists to for not being forced to work twelve hours a day for a single job. Oh, and thank you, socialists, for not allowing child labor; damn them for screwing the economy, eh? I think it was the Knights of Labor that tried the eight-hour day thing first only to be squashed in a terribly police-state manner by the proud pro-business government in the late 1800s.

Jeez. 'em Republicans. It's hard not to stereotype you guys with sentiments available in this thread.

[Kralizec]

thank you, socialists, for many of the workplace pleasantries developed over the last century.

thank you, fire, for the new pine tree seedlings let out of their pine cones.

thank you, floods, for renewing the soil.

thank you, Nazis, for your anti-ciggarette campaigns and your organizational abilities.


let any of these things take over and we are all screwed. at least many of us will be terribly uncomfortable. I'm a relative conservative - why would i want socialists in power? i vote no


"As long as I am mayor of this city the great industries are secure. We hear about constitutional rights, free speech and the free press. Every time I hear these words I say to myself, 'That man is a Red, that man is a Communist.' You never hear a real American talk like that."
- Frank Hague (mayor of Jersey City, NJ 1917 till 1947)