I can see why half the republicans would call themselves moderate, too. Split them moderates down the middle. 20% liberal 40% conservative 20% moderate conservatives 20% moderate liberal s Looks like 60%-40% to me. As I said, the nation is right of center. It's not anecdotal evidence, either.
Strawman? I didn't refute the democrats control government right now. Do you think the Democrats will gain seats in 2010 like the republicans did in 2002? I didn't think so.
Then your point is pretty silly. Yes, there was a time when the people elected republicans. Before that, there was a time when they elected democrats. Before that, Republicans. Before that, Whigs. You are living in the past. They'll lose a few seats, as usually happens in midterms, but they'll retain both houses. barfo
We'll see, especially if they pass this health care bill. I am quite sure most people will feel it's being forced on them against their will. And an election year of 10% unemployment rate is really good for incumbents who passed the largest spending bill in history, in the name of "stimulus."
But they don't vote that way, and according to you, it's how they vote that matters. Hard to see how a liberal/socialist/fascist/communist/nazi/Kenyan/terrorist like Obama got elected by a 60-40 conservative majority. Are conservatives really really stupid? "Duh, Obama looks like a nice conservative young man". barfo
Yes. The population realized they were bums. Guess you are thinking they'll forget they were bums? I have a feeling there will be some memory aids provided. barfo
Historically speaking the Dems should lose some in both houses. And how could one party make a talking point stick? Well, it's kind of like calling a stimulus bill to get us out of the Second Great Depression a "massive spending bill". It's all about branding.
I haven't forgotten they're bums - they all are (and crooks, too). I'm not the one defending any of them.
Didn't mean to suggest you thought of them as anything but bums - but you seemed to imply the voters at large would forgive them by the next election. barfo
Historically speaking, GHW Bush shouldn't have won election in 1988, and Republicans shouldn't have gained seats in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Unfortunately, anyone who was aware of the economy and politics in 1980 would know that the economy wasn't as bad in 2008/2009 as in 1980/1981. Let alone the second great depression. You'd think some of us might be offended by the bald faced lie. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" - even that is in the public record. The branding thing only makes sense if you're keeping your own majority in line.
My hope is the voters realize they lose if either party gets elected. Vote Libertarian. The next best thing is divided government. I'm plenty happy with Obama as president if he has a filibuster in the senate to keep him from tripling the biggest deficit in US history and growing government to 150% what it was when Clinton left office just 8 years ago.
I don't think that comparison is anywhere near as important to the average voter as it is to you. Plus the fact that it is only people our age and older that even remember 1980 in an economic sense. Plus the fact that by many measures you are wrong - it was worse last year. barfo
I think people would, if the Libertarians could nominate an electable candidate. And if they had any money to elect a candidate. And, of course, if the Libertarians weren't completely insane. barfo
I'm pretty sure we've had this argument before. Here's one measure: this recession lasted longer. Edit: you think my pointing out that most people don't care about 1980 is a democratic talking point? Or my pointing out that you have to be fairly old now to even remember 1980? That's a democratic talking point? barfo
