|
Post by ProgRocker on Apr 29, 2005 6:14:07 GMT -5
Observation #1: Bush won the election by a couple percent of the vote
Observation #2: privatizing social security is one of the ultimate goals of fiscal conservatism, yet according to every poll the majority does not support this.
Inevitable conclusion: a significant number of Bush voters were not fiscal conservatives.
Hmm, who could they be? Perhaps fans of theocracy?
|
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Apr 29, 2005 6:57:21 GMT -5
Some research has shown that many of Bush's new votes came from religious people who hadn't voted before. Same with Kerry getting a lot of votes from younger people who jumped on the anti-Bush bandwagon. Can't believe all the research you see since it's mostly biased, but those seem to be likely IMO.
As far as the Bush side, in this age of fear...people will flock to the idea of God and Jesus being on our side. A false sense of security for sure...but what else do they have? They also will become more comfortable with an administration that has faith-based leaders that make faith-based decisions. I believe that's already beginning.
So whether or not people want a theocracy, I think many religious people are leaning towards an admin that incorporates God in their process. I still think that's very dangerous if left unchecked...I guess we'll really see in '08 with a fresh start which way the numbers lean.
Seth
|
|
Fox
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on Apr 29, 2005 11:31:28 GMT -5
Totally off base.
I know lefty's hate to hear it, but people were mainly just voting against the moveon.org's of the world and their hateful agenda. Period.
The liberals of this country are completely out of touch, John Kerry is complete out of touch.
Nobody voted for John kerry, they voted against Bush.
While a lot of people voted for Bush, a lot of people also voted against Kerry (or more specifically moveon.org and their ilk)
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Apr 29, 2005 11:46:48 GMT -5
Come on, Fox. Kerry is no more out of touch than Bush.
Bush has more of a "country boy", or "common man" image, if that's what you mean. He doesn't use big words, and if he does, it's usually incorrectly. So your theory is that village people voted him in. It's possible.
|
|
Sir Van Talvin
Monument http://www.fateswa
The Barbarian at the Ivory Gate
Posts: 460
|
Post by Sir Van Talvin on Apr 29, 2005 16:16:20 GMT -5
I have several reasons why I always treat polls with extreme skepticism:
1) We often don't know the exact number of people who participated in these polls.
2) We often don't know the exact wording of the poll questions (there are such things as misleading questions).
3) We cannot know whether or not the people participating in these polls are fully informed on the issuues.
4) We cannot ascertain the veracity/honesty/sincerity of the answers given.
The only poll that really counts is on the 1st Tuesday following the 1st Monday in November.
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Apr 29, 2005 16:25:04 GMT -5
3) We cannot know whether or not the people participating in these polls are fully informed on the issuues. LOL, actually we do know that very few people are fully informed.
|
|
Sir Van Talvin
Monument http://www.fateswa
The Barbarian at the Ivory Gate
Posts: 460
|
Post by Sir Van Talvin on Apr 29, 2005 16:30:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Apr 29, 2005 16:54:22 GMT -5
Exhibit A: Sir Van Talvin
|
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Apr 29, 2005 17:51:08 GMT -5
The problem is both parties are being run in part(too big a part) by their extreme sides. My wife voted for Bush, but simply because she didn't like Kerry...she thinks Bush is a jackass, but was the better of 2 evils. I was no fan of either and it's sad that the country doesn't have better choices. Once this term is over, it's likely the country will be divided more than ever and what kind of choices will we have then?
Another fiasco is likely unless one party puts out a no-chancer...maybe Hillary? And she's actually very popular...so who knows?
Seth
|
|
Shark Black
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
AKA Raiderblack
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by Shark Black on May 1, 2005 21:58:30 GMT -5
The Republicans will run a moderate. Guliani, McCain.
The Democrats would too if they had one. Well they do but they are to beholden to the George Soros' in the party to nominate one.
|
|
Sir Van Talvin
Monument http://www.fateswa
The Barbarian at the Ivory Gate
Posts: 460
|
Post by Sir Van Talvin on May 2, 2005 5:56:21 GMT -5
I think it's too early to say.....or speculate. However, this last election convinced me that the red states are gonna stay red for quite some time. I often hear on the "Hilary Watch" news about her being popular, but I'd really like to see how that "popularity" stacks up in state-by-state polling (even though I'm skeptical about polls).
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on May 2, 2005 6:18:08 GMT -5
I dont think a moderate republican can make it through the primary.
|
|
Fox
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on May 2, 2005 11:48:38 GMT -5
I dont think a moderate republican can make it through the primary. The republicans have done nothing but put up moderates. I'll also reiterate my previous post in the forum. There is a silent majority in this country that is disgusted by the vocal minority.
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on May 2, 2005 12:53:53 GMT -5
Ok, Bush isn't as far right as Falwell or Santorum, but he is no moderate. McCain is a moderate, and he didn't make it through the primary.
|
|
Sir Van Talvin
Monument http://www.fateswa
The Barbarian at the Ivory Gate
Posts: 460
|
Post by Sir Van Talvin on May 4, 2005 6:07:32 GMT -5
Has Falwell ever run for office?
|
|