TOPICS:
JUN 28, 2007 12:04 PM
aldoushuxley said:
Screw it, in 08 I am voting for Mcain, I am 21 and the Democratic candidates cannot possibly win that have been chosen. Hillary because she is female and half the country is still uncomfortable with a female president. My personal reasons for hating her, she is a psycho neo communist bitch. Obama, he's going to lose a lot of southern voters for his skin color, and frankly his last name sounds remarkably like Osama. My reasons for Mcain, he's pro war pro military and pro progress, just about every democrat I have seen is pro taxes, and pro programs that they never seem to back up when they get elected. My saying, I used to be a republican until I learned how to read, I used to be a democrat until I learned how to think. Now I am pro military any president who is pro military has my vote.
Wha...? Ergh....
what?
Clinton is a...communist.
A communist. Right.
So I'm just assuming that everyone on here kinda ignores whatever Aldoushuxley has to say, right? That's why there are no direct responses to this?
JUN 28, 2007 12:28 PM
Why would it be a bad thing for Republicans? When I was a child I didn't remember signing the 'Until you are 40 you are a democract,' agreement.
One thing I think has been shown is saying the right things and doing the right things are completely different. People who are zealous tend to be more active, and those could be young people who are involved with WWJD just as fast as PETA.
I think the whole Dem v. Rep is repugnant myself. People should research the PEOPLE, how they vote, how honest they are. Looking at a bumper sticker is silly for the most part, and just spreads further ignorance and melange that already paralyzes the system. Maybe the best thing would be Bloomberg winning as an independent. I would love to see how both sides rip apart everything they don't like by sticking the opposing "label,' on him.

LostLucy
USA
December 2006
JUN 28, 2007 05:57 PM
Secret service protection was not given to Barack because of a credible direc tthreat, nor bc, as someone has implied "some candidates feel they deserve it".
If you are out there worrying about 'others' who are sexist and racist, I suggest you check your own soul.
10,000 people donated to Barack Obama's campaign THIS WEEK bringing the total as of this minute to:
250,399 people making close to 350,000 donations.
The latest poll by the LA times of REGISTERED and LIKELY voters says President Obama
As the L.A. Times puts it, "This poll shows that Obama, among the top three Democratic candidates, appears to be the more electable candidate." No kidding. Compare Obama's performance to Clinton's against three GOP contenders. Clinton loses to McCain by 4 points, Obama wins by 12. Clinton loses to Romney by 2 points, Obama wins by 16. Clinton loses to Giuliani by 10 points, Obama wins by 5.
In other words, he runs 15 to 18 points ahead of HIL in a general election. Give whatever caveats you want about polls and the election being a year and a half away, this is an important finding. I've seen all sorts of anecdotal evidence of independents and moderate Republicans and unafilliated or independent voters being open to Obama and hostile to Clinton, and it's starting to show in the polls.
JUN 28, 2007 06:19 PM
LostLucy said:
Secret service protection was not given to Barack because of a credible direc tthreat, nor bc, as someone has implied "some candidates feel they deserve it".
If you are out there worrying about 'others' who are sexist and racist, I suggest you check your own soul.
Why would they extend it to someone so early on, and to someone that may not normally get it (read: pre-nomination) if there wasn't a credible threat? Yes, I realize they are denying that there was a threat, but that doesn't mean there wasn't. Note: he's the "earliest ever" presidential nominee to be put under Secret Service protection.They're not doing it for their health. While I can't prove he wasn't put under protection because of a threat, what the hell makes you so sure it wasn't exactly because of that? Do you have some inside information we should be aware of?
And just because 350,000 people (less than 1% of the population) donates to him, doesn't mean there aren't people out there who may not like him.
Also, what the hell are you talking about "check your own soul" just because I think some retarded racist might try to assassinate him doesn't mean I think a black man shouldn't be president. In fact, I wouldn't put it past some racist fuck to try something stupid, and at the same time he's one of my two top choices. So, I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at.
Link
JUN 28, 2007 08:37 PM
Drock1205 said:
Why would it be a bad thing for Republicans? When I was a child I didn't remember signing the 'Until you are 40 you are a democract,' agreement.
Uh... it would be a bad thing for Republicans if lots of kids these days voted because lots of kids these days are trending Democrat. What's not to get here?
I think the whole Dem v. Rep is repugnant myself. People should research the PEOPLE, how they vote, how honest they are. Looking at a bumper sticker is silly for the most part, and just spreads further ignorance and melange that already paralyzes the system. Maybe the best thing would be Bloomberg winning as an independent. I would love to see how both sides rip apart everything they don't like by sticking the opposing "label,' on him.
Dude. That's so... deep.
JUN 28, 2007 09:55 PM
Subrosa said:
Drock1205 said:
Why would it be a bad thing for Republicans? When I was a child I didn't remember signing the 'Until you are 40 you are a democract,' agreement.
Uh... it would be a bad thing for Republicans if lots of kids these days voted because lots of kids these days are trending Democrat. What's not to get here?
I think the whole Dem v. Rep is repugnant myself. People should research the PEOPLE, how they vote, how honest they are. Looking at a bumper sticker is silly for the most part, and just spreads further ignorance and melange that already paralyzes the system. Maybe the best thing would be Bloomberg winning as an independent. I would love to see how both sides rip apart everything they don't like by sticking the opposing "label,' on him.
Dude. That's so... deep.
What can I say, I'm like a modern day Yoda. Only less green and grammatically correct my sentences be, hmm.
However, i would point out my 2nd paragraph was explaining my first a bit more, basically that many kids spout the "yey democrats" bit, then sit on their asses playing their game gears and eating cheetoes on election day. The ones who do vote are the "zealous" ones, and I've seen studies (although admittedly it was a couple of years ago) that say these types are pretty split on the ideological spectrum.
Would it kill people to start to research the politicians and vote for them and their issues? Maybe then there would be less who rely so stupidly on "party lines" and focus on the true issues. Ah, to sleep, perchance to dream.
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come...
JUN 28, 2007 10:09 PM
Drock1205 said:
Subrosa said:
Drock1205 said:
Why would it be a bad thing for Republicans? When I was a child I didn't remember signing the 'Until you are 40 you are a democract,' agreement.
Uh... it would be a bad thing for Republicans if lots of kids these days voted because lots of kids these days are trending Democrat. What's not to get here?
I think the whole Dem v. Rep is repugnant myself. People should research the PEOPLE, how they vote, how honest they are. Looking at a bumper sticker is silly for the most part, and just spreads further ignorance and melange that already paralyzes the system. Maybe the best thing would be Bloomberg winning as an independent. I would love to see how both sides rip apart everything they don't like by sticking the opposing "label,' on him.
Dude. That's so... deep.
What can I say, I'm like a modern day Yoda. Only less green and grammatically correct my sentences be, hmm.
However, i would point out my 2nd paragraph was explaining my first a bit more, basically that many kids spout the "yey democrats" bit, then sit on their asses playing their game gears and eating cheetoes on election day. The ones who do vote are the "zealous" ones, and I've seen studies (although admittedly it was a couple of years ago) that say these types are pretty split on the ideological spectrum.
Would it kill people to start to research the politicians and vote for them and their issues? Maybe then there would be less who rely so stupidly on "party lines" and focus on the true issues. Ah, to sleep, perchance to dream.
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come...
Well, I guess what I would say to that is that while party identification is a good indicator of voting behavior, it is not in any way absolute. People cross the line and vote the other side all the time. Have faith. They do this more than you think.
JUN 29, 2007 10:50 AM
Drock1205 said:
Subrosa said:
Drock1205 said:
Why would it be a bad thing for Republicans? When I was a child I didn't remember signing the 'Until you are 40 you are a democract,' agreement.
Uh... it would be a bad thing for Republicans if lots of kids these days voted because lots of kids these days are trending Democrat. What's not to get here?
I think the whole Dem v. Rep is repugnant myself. People should research the PEOPLE, how they vote, how honest they are. Looking at a bumper sticker is silly for the most part, and just spreads further ignorance and melange that already paralyzes the system. Maybe the best thing would be Bloomberg winning as an independent. I would love to see how both sides rip apart everything they don't like by sticking the opposing "label,' on him.
Dude. That's so... deep.
What can I say, I'm like a modern day Yoda. Only less green and grammatically correct my sentences be, hmm.
However, i would point out my 2nd paragraph was explaining my first a bit more, basically that many kids spout the "yey democrats" bit, then sit on their asses playing their game gears and eating cheetoes on election day. The ones who do vote are the "zealous" ones, and I've seen studies (although admittedly it was a couple of years ago) that say these types are pretty split on the ideological spectrum.
Would it kill people to start to research the politicians and vote for them and their issues? Maybe then there would be less who rely so stupidly on "party lines" and focus on the true issues. Ah, to sleep, perchance to dream.
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come...
?
JUN 29, 2007 10:55 AM
Admiral_Pants said:
Drock1205 said:
Subrosa said:
Drock1205 said:
Why would it be a bad thing for Republicans? When I was a child I didn't remember signing the 'Until you are 40 you are a democract,' agreement.
Uh... it would be a bad thing for Republicans if lots of kids these days voted because lots of kids these days are trending Democrat. What's not to get here?
I think the whole Dem v. Rep is repugnant myself. People should research the PEOPLE, how they vote, how honest they are. Looking at a bumper sticker is silly for the most part, and just spreads further ignorance and melange that already paralyzes the system. Maybe the best thing would be Bloomberg winning as an independent. I would love to see how both sides rip apart everything they don't like by sticking the opposing "label,' on him.
Dude. That's so... deep.
What can I say, I'm like a modern day Yoda. Only less green and grammatically correct my sentences be, hmm.
However, i would point out my 2nd paragraph was explaining my first a bit more, basically that many kids spout the "yey democrats" bit, then sit on their asses playing their game gears and eating cheetoes on election day. The ones who do vote are the "zealous" ones, and I've seen studies (although admittedly it was a couple of years ago) that say these types are pretty split on the ideological spectrum.
Would it kill people to start to research the politicians and vote for them and their issues? Maybe then there would be less who rely so stupidly on "party lines" and focus on the true issues. Ah, to sleep, perchance to dream.
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come...
?
Alas! The destruction of western civilization!
JUN 29, 2007 03:34 PM
Drock1205 said:
Admiral_Pants said:
Drock1205 said:
Subrosa said:
Drock1205 said:
Why would it be a bad thing for Republicans? When I was a child I didn't remember signing the 'Until you are 40 you are a democract,' agreement.
Uh... it would be a bad thing for Republicans if lots of kids these days voted because lots of kids these days are trending Democrat. What's not to get here?
I think the whole Dem v. Rep is repugnant myself. People should research the PEOPLE, how they vote, how honest they are. Looking at a bumper sticker is silly for the most part, and just spreads further ignorance and melange that already paralyzes the system. Maybe the best thing would be Bloomberg winning as an independent. I would love to see how both sides rip apart everything they don't like by sticking the opposing "label,' on him.
Dude. That's so... deep.
What can I say, I'm like a modern day Yoda. Only less green and grammatically correct my sentences be, hmm.
However, i would point out my 2nd paragraph was explaining my first a bit more, basically that many kids spout the "yey democrats" bit, then sit on their asses playing their game gears and eating cheetoes on election day. The ones who do vote are the "zealous" ones, and I've seen studies (although admittedly it was a couple of years ago) that say these types are pretty split on the ideological spectrum.
Would it kill people to start to research the politicians and vote for them and their issues? Maybe then there would be less who rely so stupidly on "party lines" and focus on the true issues. Ah, to sleep, perchance to dream.
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come...
?
Alas! The destruction of western civilization!
Nah; that was television.

meatpieboy
Korea, D.P.R.
June 2004
JUN 29, 2007 03:36 PM
Admiral_Pants said:
attn_ho said:
now all we need is a thread titled Republicans Gaining Ground and we'll have a political Milwaulkee Threesome!
Of course, Silliness will boast "Free-Soil Gaining Ground", "Bull Moose Gaining Ground", and maybe even "Know-Nothings Gaining Ground".
But those aren't silly.
JUN 30, 2007 03:53 AM
ardour said:
I'm still not convinced. I can only really remember the last two federal elections and just how disapointing the voter turn out for youths were. I mean, last time should have been motivation enough...
In my country I've not been happy with my choices for Prime Minister, but I still go to vote, even if it's just for a write in candidate. If everyone my age did, the political parties would look at those stats and try and cater more to my ideas. The conservative party wouldn't even be able to exisit. So it's not just about voting for who you want to win. I encourage anyone my age to vote, no matter who! ![]()
The youth vote did turn out. If these numbers are correct, they increased by higher numbers overall than any other age group, and they proved particularly crucial in keeping Kerry close in battleground states like Ohio:
http://blog.rockthevote.com/2004/12/and-what-election-it-was.html
You wouldn't know it to hear from the MSM, but that's because the MSM is lazy, and they assumed if the youth vote truly surged, it would bring Kerry into the White House with it.
JUN 30, 2007 04:44 AM
Skywisdom said:
So I'm just assuming that everyone on here kinda ignores whatever Aldoushuxley has to say, right? That's why there are no direct responses to this?
That theory seems sound to me.
Why bother having reasonable discussions with the utterly wilfully ignorant?
JUN 30, 2007 12:31 PM
magpieboy said:
Admiral_Pants said:
attn_ho said:
now all we need is a thread titled Republicans Gaining Ground and we'll have a political Milwaulkee Threesome!
Of course, Silliness will boast "Free-Soil Gaining Ground", "Bull Moose Gaining Ground", and maybe even "Know-Nothings Gaining Ground".
But those aren't silly.
What about "Ground Gains Soviets"?
That one's kind of a thinker.
JUN 30, 2007 07:34 PM
Subrosa said:
While I don't really agree that either would be so much more a threat to be assassinated that it would become an issue much more than it normally is, I am really disheartened by people using that idea as an excuse not to vote for either one of them. It's like saying "because they're so gutsy, I'm going to vote for the other guy!"
I'm not saying that's what you're doing, I'm just making a larger point.
I getcha, I'm just saying If I was in that position, and I knew some narrow-minded fucks would like to kill me, I'd have lost my nerve in the first debate.
Besides, I'm not a member of any party, so I can't vote for the "other guy" in the primary anyway
.
JUN 30, 2007 07:49 PM
Subrosa said:
Almost 50% of eligible voters in that age group voted in the 2004 election. It's not necessarily a good turnout, but it's not chump change either.
Moreover, you do realize that young people tend to get older eventually, right?
Yeah, but who do they tend to move towards once they get older?
Not all of them, but quite probably most of them tend to shift rightwards.
A good many of the people who voted against pot legalization initiatives actually smoked pot themselves when they were teens.
AUG 27, 2007 11:20 PM
Democrats are pulling even farther ahead amongst the youth.
Two larger-than-life politicians, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ronald Reagan, charged into the California governor's office with the help of young voters, many of whom were drawn to the Republican Party by a message of sunny optimism.
But what those two very different Republican politicians did to attract millions of young adults looks to be a feat the Grand Old Party may not repeat anytime soon - either in California or on the national level in the 2008 presidential election.
A Democracy Corps poll from the Washington firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner suggests voters ages 18 to 29 have undergone a striking political evolution in recent years.
Young Americans have become so profoundly alienated from Republican ideals on issues including the war in Iraq, global warming, same-sex marriage and illegal immigration that their defections suggest a political setback that could haunt Republicans "for many generations to come," the poll said.
The startling collapse of GOP support among young voters is reflected in the poll's findings that show two-thirds of young voters surveyed believe Democrats do a better job than Republicans of representing their views - even on issues Republicans once owned, such as terrorism and taxes.
And among GOP presidential candidates, only former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani registers with more positive views than negative with young voters, the poll shows.
The anti-GOP shift for this generation - which is expected to reach 50 million voters, or 17 percent of the electorate, in 2008 - represents a marked contrast from their predecessors, the Gen Xers born in the mid-'60s to mid-'70s whose demographic represented the strongest Republican voters in the nation, pollster Anna Greenberg said.
Today, "on every single issue, Democrats are doing better with young people - no matter what the issue is," said Greenberg.
Catherine Brinkman, 28, of Foster City, who heads the California Young Republicans, said she hears from many of her Republican friends who say, " 'Look at our (presidential) candidates compared to the Democrats: They have Hillary, everyone knows her ... and you have this phenomenal (senator) out of Chicago, who is African American and energized.' "
The perception is that "we're still selling the same old white guys," Brinkman said.
The problem for the Republicans with young voters may be especially potent in California, where political veterans say the widening gulf between Schwarzenegger and the increasingly conservative tilt of Republican elected officials threatens a party that already has found it difficult to win statewide for the past 15 years.
"I think you have to be concerned when you have some (Republican) people who are saying that global warming is a hoax and that status quo for health care is acceptable," said Adam Mendelsohn, the communications director for Schwarzenegger.
"These are all positions that don't reflect where Republicans are in this state - and this is especially true when you start looking at young Republicans."
Schwarzenegger, by supporting issues "once owned by the Democrats," such as the environment and education, has lured many young voters to support him and "closely identify themselves as Schwarzenegger Republicans," Mendelsohn said.
But Democratic strategist Garry South said Schwarzenegger's success at the polls won't translate to other Republican candidates.
South pointed toward the recent state budget battle, which pitted Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislators against conservative GOP senators who delayed the $145 billion budget for almost two months to pressure for more cuts and protections for businesses against environmental lawsuits.
The demands of the state senators, South said, were so far to the right of the average voter that "the Republican brand in California now is so tainted and toxic that the only way you're going to win is to buy yourself out of the brand."
That means wealthy GOP candidates such as Schwarzenegger or Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner must dip into their considerable bank accounts to "spend millions and tell voters why you're different. But if not - you will go down like lambs to the slaughter," South said.
In California, the GOP's relatively weak prospects in the presidential election and in future statewide elections can be traced to what has been an increasingly tone deaf approach to a new set of priorities among voters, particularly the young, said Cal State Sacramento political communications Professor Barbara O'Connor.
"The fact that the governor's rating is around 60 percent is indicative of the legacy solutions that he proposes are resonating with the voters," including health care, infrastructure issues and education, O'Connor said.
"When a bridge is collapsing, the levees are in danger of flooding, or they're sitting in gridlock ... people don't care about, 'I saved you this much money,' " O'Connor said of the traditional Republican effort to cut the budget. "They care when their life is better. Parties should try to fix things - or ignore them at their peril."
Greenberg said the poll showed the war in Iraq and President Bush are unpopular with younger voters, which contributed to the decline in support for the GOP.
Younger voters, who grew up in the Clinton years, are also increasingly at odds with the GOP and its leaders on social issues.
"This is a more diverse generation, racially and ethnically, and it's more progressive on social issues like gay marriage," Greenberg said. "They see the Republican Party as profoundly different on tolerance and identity."
The poll also suggests the GOP is not addressing young voters' deep concerns about their future economic security. "Young people's economic struggles, more than any other issue, defines their political agenda," she said.
The study released last month of 1,017 voters ages 18-29 was conducted May 29-June 19. Voters were reached by a random telephone survey, through the Internet and on cell phones. The poll did not disclose a margin of error.
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner is a polling firm generally affiliated with Democrats. Its founder, Stan Greenberg, was a pollster for Democratic President Bill Clinton.
The GOP's problems for the future that show up in the poll are evident among young conservatives such as Wes Hanson, 17, a Livermore High School senior who describes himself as church-going, strongly anti-abortion and deeply concerned with the impacts of illegal immigration. But Hanson, who will cast his first presidential ballot in the 2008 election, is not sure he will register Republican - and is just as likely to be a "decline-to-state" or independent voter.
"I feel that Republicans tend to look out more for the best interests of the majority," especially on fiscal issues and moral responsibility, Hanson says.
But, like many in his age group, he has a libertarian streak and believes party lawmakers are wrong to try to legislate issues such as same-sex marriage.
"I don't think it's any of the government's business," said Hanson, who says he is still not inspired by any of the GOP's 2008 presidential candidates.
Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, acknowledged the challenges that the Iraq war and other issues have created for the party, but said they are not insurmountable.
"Obviously, this is a tough political environment for our party, but we believe our brand of individual responsibility, lower taxes and national security is one that resonates with youth voters," he said
Brinkman, with the Young Republicans, said GOP leaders can start making repairs by going back to the Reagan playbook - and "back to our core values." That means talking about how lower taxes, less government and fiscal responsibility can deliver opportunity for students and young professionals - and hope.
With headlines about a mortgage crisis, outsourcing, health care costs and immigration, she said young voters want their political parties to stop fighting and offer solutions.
"When it comes to the American dream," Brinkman says, "we're thinking, where is it?"
Brinkman backs Giuliani for president and believes he may be the kind of leader who can inspire young people who may be deserting the Republican Party.
The former New York mayor has star power and an energized message - and the under-30 crowd knows him from his performance in New York after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.
"He has something that people want to see; they want to be around him," she said.
AUG 28, 2007 01:09 AM
NickFaust said:
I want people who say they are not conservative or progressive. I want people who analyze issues and understand the there is no "right" way. There is just a way that may seem right at the time.
What you're describing sounds much like the way of One No, Many Yeses.
Viva Zapata!
AUG 28, 2007 01:14 AM
ASSH0LE said:
A good many of the people who voted against pot legalization initiatives actually smoked pot themselves when they were teens.
Mmhm. Check out The Rebel Sell and The Edukators for some critiques on how the "counterculture" is part and parcel of the normative culture it claims to reject. A buttress, even.












emotedcreations
Germany
July 2006
JUN 28, 2007 11:57 AM