Pataki maybe, I hope not though. Guiliani with a southerner or Owens wouldnbt be bad

As good as Arnie is, I don't feel like changing the Constitution for him or any other foreigner.

607519[/snapback]

 

I say change it for Arnie and Bill. They could run on the independent ticket. Bill/Arnie ticket would win 90% of the popular vote.

I would vote for Rudy in a heartbeat. Jeb? Ummm..... I'll get back to you on that one.

Not to sound racist, but you aren't going to see a black president anytime soon, much less an inexperienced one from the democrats.

 

Running Obama would put the Dems even farther out to the liberal left, which ain't exactly what they want to do right now.

 

Besides, an anglo, ultra WASP would have a problem winning if he was a naturalized citizen. Obama is a novelty at this point.

This POV is a losing one. The dems NEED to throw some of the radical left overboard if they want to solidify the middle. Until such reality sinks in, expect similar results for decades to come.

 

 

Please. You Republicans need to get over yourselves. The GOP has no more claim to the middle than the Dems, since their whole party caters to right wing, bible-beating extremists.

 

You won 51%-49% (counting the Nader groups in the liberal column), that's hardly any sort of mandate. This country has hardly been overrun by NASCAR-loving gun nuts. A few people here and a few people there, and it could've easily gone 51-49 the other way.

Not to sound racist, but you aren't going to see a black president anytime soon, much less an inexperienced one from the democrats.

 

Running Obama would put the Dems even farther out to the liberal left, which ain't exactly what they want to do right now.

 

Besides, an anglo, ultra WASP would have a problem winning if he was a naturalized citizen. Obama is a novelty at this point.

607529[/snapback]

 

I know Powell will never run but if he did run I think he would have a very good chance.

This POV is a losing one.? The dems NEED to throw some of the radical left overboard if they want to solidify the middle.? Until such reality sinks in, expect similar results for decades to come.

 

 

Please. You Republicans need to get over yourselves. The GOP has no more claim to the middle than the Dems, since their whole party caters to right wing, bible-beating extremists.

 

You won 51%-49% (counting the Nader groups in the liberal column), that's hardly any sort of mandate. This country has hardly been overrun by NASCAR-loving gun nuts. A few people here and a few people there, and it could've easily gone 51-49 the other way.

607535[/snapback]

 

You're taking it worse than any of the other people on here. Yea and 92 could have gone either way too and there never would have been a clinton presidency. History is history and this is a hell of a win for the GOP, bot just presidential, but they gained seats in both the house and senate

You're taking it worse than any of the other people on here.

 

 

No, I just have to provide a voice of reason to all the chest-beating on here. It would be one thing if you left it at "We won! Yay!", but the shoddy armchair Poli-Sci analysis by a bunch of teenagers on here is going way overboard.

 

Bush wins by a few million votes and all of a sudden, everyone on here is an expert in politics and it's "proof" that there are no liberals left in the country and everyone agrees with Southern Christians.

You're taking it worse than any of the other people on here.

 

 

No, I just have to provide a voice of reason to all the chest-beating on here. It would be one thing if you left it at "We won! Yay!", but the shoddy armchair Poli-Sci analysis by a bunch of teenagers on here is going way overboard.

 

Bush wins by a few million votes and all of a sudden, everyone on here is an expert in politics and it's "proof" that there are no liberals left in the country and everyone agrees with Southern Christians.

607553[/snapback]

 

I think my political science degree gives some weight to my political opinions

I think my political science degree gives some weight to my political opinions

 

 

It would if you were actually using it to give any sort of reasoned analysis and not bleating a bunch of partisanship.

I think my political science degree gives some weight to my political opinions

 

 

It would if you were actually using it to give any sort of reasoned analysis and not bleating a bunch of partisanship.

607562[/snapback]

 

When a candidate wins the electoral vote and the popular vote, he has a mandate, clinton never won a majority in the popular vote, but ripped it in the electoral vote does thta give him less of a mandate. The fact is bush won, the dems need to regroup and see wh ythey failed. Not dismiss the winners as a bunch of religious nuts and stubbornly stick to the losing tactic

When a candidate wins the electoral vote and the popular vote, he has a mandate, clinton never won a majority in the popular vote, but ripped it in the electoral vote does thta give him less of a mandate. The fact is bush won, the dems need to regroup and see wh ythey failed. Not dismiss the winners as a bunch of religious nuts and stubbornly stick to the losing tactic

 

 

To say that Bush has a "mandate" when he won 51%-49% is really stretching the definition of the word. Ronald Reagan had a mandate. This wasn't any sort of mandate.

 

I'm not dismissing the winners a strictly religious nuts, but people on here saying that the Dems have to get in line with the religious nuts over this are out of their minds.

When a candidate wins the electoral vote and the popular vote, he has a mandate, clinton never won a majority in the popular vote, but ripped it in the electoral vote does thta give him less of a mandate. The fact is bush won, the dems need to regroup and see wh ythey failed. Not dismiss the winners as a bunch of religious nuts and stubbornly stick to the losing tactic

 

 

To say that Bush has a "mandate" when he won 51%-49% is really stretching the definition of the word. Ronald Reagan had a mandate. This wasn't any sort of mandate.

 

I'm not dismissing the winners a strictly religious nuts, but people on here saying that the Dems have to get in line with the religious nuts over this are out of their minds.

607570[/snapback]

 

I dont agree with that last line either, but i think they need to get closer to the center fiscally. In action not rhetoric

To say that Bush has a "mandate" when he won 51%-49% is really stretching the definition of the word. Ronald Reagan had a mandate. This wasn't any sort of mandate.

 

I'm not dismissing the winners a strictly religious nuts, but people on here saying that the Dems have to get in line with the religious nuts over this are out of their minds.

 

 

I dont agree with that last line either, but i think they need to get closer to the center fiscally. In action not rhetoric

 

Okay, so why do you support a fiscally irresponsible president like Bush, then? At least Kerry acknowledged reality that the tax cut couldn't continue if you wanted a balanced budget.

To say that Bush has a "mandate" when he won 51%-49% is really stretching the definition of the word. Ronald Reagan had a mandate. This wasn't any sort of mandate.

 

I'm not dismissing the winners a strictly religious nuts, but people on here saying that the Dems have to get in line with the religious nuts over this are out of their minds.

 

I dont agree with that last line either, but i think they need to get closer to the center fiscally. In action not rhetoric

 

Okay, so why do you support a fiscally irresponsible president like Bush, then? At least Kerry acknowledged reality that the tax cut couldn't continue if you wanted a balanced budget.

607576[/snapback]

 

Because to balance the budget you offset social spending and you can still keep some of the tax cuts. Kerry wanted to get rid of tax cuts and maintain social spending. I think Bush spent a lot b/c of iraq and 9/11 that he wont have to now, and more efforts can go into balancing

Because to balance the budget you offset social spending and you can still keep some of the tax cuts. Kerry wanted to get rid of tax cuts and maintain social spending. I think Bush spent a lot b/c of iraq and 9/11 that he wont have to now, and more efforts can go into balancing

 

 

Okay, but Kerry was still going to keep some of the tax cuts, so I'm finding it hard to see your beef with him. Bush sent us into deficit spending before 9/11, and some of the new agencies he created are some of the biggest money wasters. Plus, now he can make his tax cuts (some of which were set to reverse) permanent, and he presented no plan to balance the budget. So, again, why did you support a proven fiscally irresponsible President over a guy who acknowledged fiscal reality, if fiscal issues are important to you?

You're taking it worse than any of the other people on here.

 

 

No, I just have to provide a voice of reason to all the chest-beating on here. It would be one thing if you left it at "We won! Yay!", but the shoddy armchair Poli-Sci analysis by a bunch of teenagers on here is going way overboard.

 

Bush wins by a few million votes and all of a sudden, everyone on here is an expert in politics and it's "proof" that there are no liberals left in the country and everyone agrees with Southern Christians.

607553[/snapback]

 

Sour grapes.

 

You lost, and your views have been proven to be divergent with that of the country. Simple as that.

Sour grapes.

 

You lost, and your views have been proven to be divergent with that of the country. Simple as that.

 

 

Being an atheist, I already know my views are divergent with that of the country, but the South isn't exactly the moderate center of this country, either. There are more people in NY state than MS, LA, AL, and AK combined and then some.

Because to balance the budget you offset social spending and you can still keep some of the tax cuts. Kerry wanted to get rid of tax cuts and maintain social spending. I think Bush spent a lot b/c of iraq and 9/11 that he wont have to now, and more efforts can go into balancing

 

 

Okay, but Kerry was still going to keep some of the tax cuts, so I'm finding it hard to see your beef with him. Bush sent us into deficit spending before 9/11, and some of the new agencies he created are some of the biggest money wasters. Plus, now he can make his tax cuts (some of which were set to reverse) permanent, and he presented no plan to balance the budget. So, again, why did you support a proven fiscally irresponsible President over a guy who acknowledged fiscal reality, if fiscal issues are important to you?

607583[/snapback]

 

 

9/11 was the kick in the jaw to deficit spending, it triggered afganistan and iraq which tripled spending. Kerry wanted to keep tax cuts for people who make under 200,000 dollars. This means that people in the 100,000 dollar bracket are going to start running around lookin for loopholes, remmeber of course that the people who create jobs are the people who have more money. you cant start a business making 12000 a year. So in the end all that would happen is that decreasing tax cuts will only create more money to pay for more and more of the spending programs and nothing to actually diminish the deficit

marlinfan-Capefish??? :mischief2

607505[/snapback]

:thumbup

Sour grapes.

 

You lost, and your views have been proven to be divergent with that of the country. Simple as that.

 

 

Being an atheist, I already know my views are divergent with that of the country, but the South isn't exactly the moderate center of this country, either. There are more people in NY state than MS, LA, AL, and AK combined and then some.

607587[/snapback]

 

Flawed democratic electoral thinking.

 

Yeah, the dems have a super consolidated base in the uraban NE. Problem is it doesn't matter, as proven last night.

Flawed democratic electoral thinking.

 

Yeah, the dems have a super consolidated base in the uraban NE. Problem is it doesn't matter, as proven last night.

 

 

Sure, if you want to say the views of half the country are irrelevant.

9/11 was the kick in the jaw to deficit spending, it triggered afganistan and iraq which tripled spending. Kerry wanted to keep tax cuts for people who make under 200,000 dollars. This means that people in the 100,000 dollar bracket are going to start running around lookin for loopholes,

 

 

You don't think they look for loopholes now? Raising taxes will just make them pay more when they use the loopholes they already use.

 

 

remmeber of course that the people who create jobs are the people who have more money.

 

 

That's assuming the money that they save will be used to create new jobs and new jobs in this country - neither of which is guaranteed.

So then the alternative should be to tax people more and more based on how hard they work and how successful they are. doesnt sound like freedom to me

Legacy, I want to post for you, a part of Barack Obama's speech and what I feel will be the future of democrats economically:

 

Don't get me wrong. The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon. Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice [...]

 

 

Now you would vote for him based on those economic principles right? You and I had a conversation a while ago about how libertarians and democrats share the same goal but differ on approach. And Im confident that the above will be the future of the democratic party economically. No, not tax and spend. But realizing there are major problems with middle and lower income America. Now combine that with social libertarian aspect, and I ask you, would this be a party you would be ok with? But Im afraid it cant happen. Why? Because if Obama ran today, and we even assume he was white, he wouldnt win because he advocates smart military spendng and opposes an amendment on gay marriage. Am asking you, are you ok with that?