Dems thought that about Bush...bulldog10jw wrote:Turnout is not likely to be a problem in 2012 with a chance to boot the Incompetant-In-ChiefTwinTownBisonFan wrote:
The problem for the conks is that their overall turnout was 5% below RPI (Republican Performance Index) THAT is what should be worrying them.
TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Dems thought that about Bush...bulldog10jw wrote:
Turnout is not likely to be a problem in 2012 with a chance to boot the Incompetant-In-Chief
problem for the GOP (as i've said in many, many threads) the GOP needs a candidate you can vote FOR... not just "i'm not him"... if that was all it took, we'd have had President Kerry.
(Gtmo, Patriot Act, Iraq, Afghanistan, stimulus, big business whore, personal privacy violator, lack of press transparency....the list goes on and on).
Are you saying the Dims had a low turnout in 2004? I doubt it.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Dems thought that about Bush...bulldog10jw wrote:
Turnout is not likely to be a problem in 2012 with a chance to boot the Incompetant-In-Chief
problem for the GOP (as i've said in many, many threads) the GOP needs a candidate you can vote FOR... not just "i'm not him"... if that was all it took, we'd have had President Kerry.
I guess it shows why this country is really in trouble. If anybody makes anything approaching a serious effort to back down on unsustainable entitlement programs they run afoul of the entitlement mentality that's become so entrenched and they pay at the polls. The People of the United States have made their own bed. The only shame with respect to Medicare is that the disgusting parasites who are driving the situation will probably mostly be long gone by the time everything crashes. They'll have gotten theirs.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:The GOP's assault on Medicare was THE issue of this campaign... this one is on Paul Ryan.
Like this donk ad:CID1990 wrote:Medicare might well be the switch that Dems will whip Republicans with in 2012. That is unfortunate, because it is pure political grandstanding. Bill Clinton was also outspoken about Medicare, and numerous other Democrats have been over the past few years.
If political offices are lost over this issue, then we truly are in trouble. I personally find the hyperbolic claims that old people are going to be thrown out of rest homes disgusting. This is the old "starving school children" argument in redux.
There are ways to trim the program, but there are no fixes that are going to be painless.
C'mon, that's hilarious.BDKJMU wrote:Like this donk ad:
[youtube][/youtube]
That's kinky.Grizalltheway wrote:bulldog10jw wrote:
Sure it is. I guess we can count on him losing his own district then.
This was won by Dims doing what they do best. Scaring senior citizens. Good job.
Yeah, as opposed to conks scaring mindless fucks into believing Dems will take away their guns and let gays annul their marriages.
The entitlement mentality folks already keep their money off-shore.JohnStOnge wrote:I guess it shows why this country is really in trouble. If anybody makes anything approaching a serious effort to back down on unsustainable entitlement programs they run afoul of the entitlement mentality that's become so entrenched and they pay at the polls. The People of the United States have made their own bed. The only shame with respect to Medicare is that the disgusting parasites who are driving the situation will probably mostly be long gone by the time everything crashes. They'll have gotten theirs.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:The GOP's assault on Medicare was THE issue of this campaign... this one is on Paul Ryan.
Stop with the hand-wringing and whimpering already.CID1990 wrote:Medicare might well be the switch that Dems will whip Republicans with in 2012. That is unfortunate, because it is pure political grandstanding. Bill Clinton was also outspoken about Medicare, and numerous other Democrats have been over the past few years.
If political offices are lost over this issue, then we truly are in trouble. I personally find the hyperbolic claims that old people are going to be thrown out of rest homes disgusting. This is the old "starving school children" argument in redux.
There are ways to trim the program, but there are no fixes that are going to be painless.
No, they don't.houndawg wrote:The entitlement mentality folks already keep their money off-shore.JohnStOnge wrote:
I guess it shows why this country is really in trouble. If anybody makes anything approaching a serious effort to back down on unsustainable entitlement programs they run afoul of the entitlement mentality that's become so entrenched and they pay at the polls. The People of the United States have made their own bed. The only shame with respect to Medicare is that the disgusting parasites who are driving the situation will probably mostly be long gone by the time everything crashes. They'll have gotten theirs.
AZGrizFan wrote:TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
Dems thought that about Bush...
problem for the GOP (as i've said in many, many threads) the GOP needs a candidate you can vote FOR... not just "i'm not him"... if that was all it took, we'd have had President Kerry.
That's why we have President Obama.
houndawg wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
That's why we have President Obama.
Because Obama could say "I'm not McCain"?
I seem to recall that you were singing a different tune; not to mention waxing poetic about the masterstroke of his choice of running mate.
The producers are entitled to keep every last penny they earn.bulldog10jw wrote:No, they don't.houndawg wrote:
The entitlement mentality folks already keep their money off-shore.
Like you said "The producers"kalm wrote:The producers are entitled to keep every last penny they earn.bulldog10jw wrote:
No, they don't.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/euro ... erland-ubs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That looks as though it is filmed at the Palisades Interstate Park. If you don't like heights, avoid stopping at the scenic view stops...especially the park itself...on a windy day. Those cliffs go straight down.BDKJMU wrote:Like this donk ad:
[youtube][/youtube]
Because Obama could say "I'm not Bush". Remember? McSame, McLame, McBush, etc., etc.,....Are you PLAYING stupid, or does it just come naturally to you?houndawg wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
That's why we have President Obama.
Because Obama could say "I'm not McCain"?
AZGrizFan wrote:Because Obama could say "I'm not Bush". Remember? McSame, McLame, McBush, etc., etc.,....Are you PLAYING stupid, or does it just come naturally to you?houndawg wrote:
Because Obama could say "I'm not McCain"?
and there goes the point - whizzing gently over Z's head... I'm sure it was inadvertent.AZGrizFan wrote:Because Obama could say "I'm not Bush". Remember? McSame, McLame, McBush, etc., etc.,....Are you PLAYING stupid, or does it just come naturally to you?houndawg wrote:
Because Obama could say "I'm not McCain"?
REally? That was your point? And yet YOU were the one talking about President Kerry....you sure you know what your point even IS? In EVERY primary they're voting FOR someone. Until they're left with two crappy choices at the end and whoever does the better job of "I'm not _________" wins.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:and there goes the point - whizzing gently over Z's head... I'm sure it was inadvertent.AZGrizFan wrote:
Because Obama could say "I'm not Bush". Remember? McSame, McLame, McBush, etc., etc.,....Are you PLAYING stupid, or does it just come naturally to you?
Obama, going back to the PRIMARIES was a candidate people were voting FOR. They weren't voting against someone like Howard Dean like they did in '04 by voting for Kerry (and again later against Bush).
Moreover, my entire point is that this point only really applies when you have a challenger going up against an incumbent... beating an incumbent is always just as much about making voters want to vote FOR you as it is wanting to vote AGAINST the incumbent.
OK, Douche1Bag Jr. Go back to sucking your brothers cock.houndawg wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
Because Obama could say "I'm not Bush". Remember? McSame, McLame, McBush, etc., etc.,....Are you PLAYING stupid, or does it just come naturally to you?
McCain could say "I'm not Bush", too.
And his VP pick was political genius of the highest order.
And you're wrong.AZGrizFan wrote:In EVERY primary they're voting FOR someone. Until they're left with two crappy choices at the end and whoever does the better job of "I'm not _________" wins.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
and there goes the point - whizzing gently over Z's head... I'm sure it was inadvertent.
Obama, going back to the PRIMARIES was a candidate people were voting FOR. They weren't voting against someone like Howard Dean like they did in '04 by voting for Kerry (and again later against Bush).
Moreover, my entire point is that this point only really applies when you have a challenger going up against an incumbent... beating an incumbent is always just as much about making voters want to vote FOR you as it is wanting to vote AGAINST the incumbent.
Are you talking only Presidential race? Because I can assure you it happened in the Maryland Governor's race.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:The problem is (and this will be the problem for ANY candidate left in the GOP field) that "I'm not _____" is not enough to beat an incumbent... not even Bush.
Well, that's an interesting theory. How come 98% of the campaign advertising goes directly against your theory then?TwinTownBisonFan wrote:And you're wrong.AZGrizFan wrote:
In EVERY primary they're voting FOR someone. Until they're left with two crappy choices at the end and whoever does the better job of "I'm not _________" wins.
If your theory held any water - Kerry would have been elected in a walk. The problem is (and this will be the problem for ANY candidate left in the GOP field) that "I'm not _____" is not enough to beat an incumbent... not even Bush. Kerry's problem was that he NEVER excited the Dems to vote FOR him... all the energy was against Bush... which is why ultimately, it failed... the same thing is shaping up for the GOP... their base is so angry about Obama that they figure they'll vote to two dogs fucking in the bed of a pickup because it isn't Obama and that'll be enough... to the average voter... it won't be... just like it wasn't with Kerry (who was as close to two dogs fucking in the bed of a pickup as you can get)
1. defeating an incumbent is hard as shit... look at Congress. in 2010, a "wave" year 70 some seats out of 435 changed hands.AZGrizFan wrote:Well, that's an interesting theory. How come 98% of the campaign advertising goes directly against your theory then?TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
And you're wrong.
If your theory held any water - Kerry would have been elected in a walk. The problem is (and this will be the problem for ANY candidate left in the GOP field) that "I'm not _____" is not enough to beat an incumbent... not even Bush. Kerry's problem was that he NEVER excited the Dems to vote FOR him... all the energy was against Bush... which is why ultimately, it failed... the same thing is shaping up for the GOP... their base is so angry about Obama that they figure they'll vote to two dogs fucking in the bed of a pickup because it isn't Obama and that'll be enough... to the average voter... it won't be... just like it wasn't with Kerry (who was as close to two dogs fucking in the bed of a pickup as you can get)
Edit: And if "defeating an incumbent" is so goddamned difficult, how come it's happened in 2 of the past 5 presidential elections where there was an incumbent running?
