I wouldn't get so excited about that nuke.

If the economy keeps going south (5 dollar an hour jobs at McDonalds will get old fast) and the war on terrorism (Iraq) keeps going bad then I think people will be more then happy to long for the days of Bill Clinton when they had jobs and their kids weren't dying in the wrong country. If Hilary is the closest to that then she could possibly win. Plus the republicans are going to have the same problem in for years that the dems had when clinton left. Who is left to run for them?

I'd guess Giuliani would run Pub, if Ahhhhnuld hasn't gotten that pesky little "ya gotta be born here to be President" problem solved by then.

I wouldn't vote for Hilary ever - I don't like her one bit.

i find it funny that you GOPs liked kerry. i from the beginning thought that kerry was a TERRIBLE choice for us. he doesnt not appeal to the base that he has to appeal to, the hardcore liberals. f*** the moderates. this party has to get back to appealing to its base, not the center. i hope they come up with a better candidate in 08. (Clinton, anyone?)

Kerry was a terrible choice to run. Or at least the people who ran his campaign did a terrible job, I am not sure which honestly.

 

All John Kerry had to do is establish himself as an option, instead of "not Bush", and he would have trounced Bush in the election. He spent so much time on what Bush did wrong, and what was wrong, instead of what he was going to do, and what he stood for. Even with the apathy I have towards Bush, I have to say, they had him on stage saying what he had done, and what he was going to do. Hopefully he can deliver on some of the more intelligent ideas they have had.

 

Social security and the tax systems need big overhauls. Its not a popular opinion, but I agree 100% with the sentiment that at least a part of SS sould be privatized. The government should not be providing peoples retirement funds. People need to give up some of the consumerism they do, and save for it themselves. Up until the early 20th century, that is what people did. Social Security wasn't around for the first 150 years that the US was here, and if people actually planned their finances and took care of their own pocketbooks, it wouldn't be necesary now.

 

Reforming the tax code is as simple as closing loopholes, both on the corporate and private sides. The system itself is fine, the progressive nature of it is perfect. To switch to national sales tax would be to become instantly regressive. Right now the lowest 20% of people actually pay a negative tax rate. Because of tax credits and the like, they actually receive tax money from the government on an annual basis. A national sales tax would crush this.

 

There are other issues, but these are the two that jump off of the map at me.

interesting

 

Obama/ Charles Barkley 2008!

Sir Charles is a Dem

 

 

Imagine Barkley in Politics

Based on this map of how the election went nationwide by county and based on the fact that we are a center-right country and becomming more so every election cycle I sincerely hope the Democratic party makes another mistake by nominating Hillary.

If it was at all possible I'd like to see another cartogram where each countys size corresponds with its poplulation.

Congrats to Kerry for giving it the old college try.

Based on this map of how the election went nationwide by county and based on the fact that we are a center-right country and becomming more so every election cycle I sincerely hope the Democratic party makes another mistake by nominating Hillary.

Where'd you get that map nuke?

Had he had a decent Senate record, he may have won.

 

Thanks for laying down when you discovered you lost.

We are so obviously going to be a center right country. Because John Kerry only got the second highest vote total in presidential history - even more than Ronald Reagan.

 

Let's put this "landslide" into perspective. George Bush won reelection of any reelected president by the least number of votes since Harry Truman. Only 50 million people voted in that election. More people voted for Bush's opponent in 2004 than voted for Bush in 2000.

 

Assuming NM and IA go Bush's way, Bush would have won the fewest percentage of Electoral Votes (54%) of a re-elected president since Woodrow Wilson.

 

That's no landslide, that's no mandate. That's, by definition, a narrow victory.

We are so obviously going to be a center right country. Because John Kerry only got the second highest vote total in presidential history - even more than Ronald Reagan.

 

Let's put this "landslide" into perspective. George Bush won reelection of any reelected president by the least number of votes since Harry Truman. Only 50 million people voted in that election. More people voted for Bush's opponent in 2004 than voted for Bush in 2000.

 

Assuming NM and IA go Bush's way, Bush would have won the fewest percentage of Electoral Votes (54%) of a re-elected president since Woodrow Wilson.

 

That's no landslide, that's no mandate. That's, by definition, a narrow victory.

And a win. Kerry lost.

I gained a lot of repect for John Kerry today.

Letting America go on without causing a big controversy.

But also making sure that all votes were counted...

 

Major respect Mr. Kerry 

I agree 100%.

And a win.  Kerry lost.

Right, it is a win but not the "mandate" being discussed.

If it was at all possible I'd like to see another cartogram where each countys size corresponds with its poplulation.

It's not hard to figure out from the map that Kerry's greatest support came from the major cities. Rural and suburbal areas went for Bush.

 

I pulled the map off Fark.com, not sure of the actual source but there's no reason to doubt its authenticity.

We aren't red, we aren't blue. We're purple.

 

i dont necessarily think this country is center right. IMO kerry lost because he didnt appear to the base, the hardcore liberals. he was too close to the center on too many issues. f*** the moderates, the dems gotta go back to focusing on the hardcore liberals in this country. what do you other dems think?

It's not hard to figure out from the map that Kerry's greatest support came from the major cities.  Rural and suburbal areas went for Bush.

 

I pulled the map off Fark.com,  not sure of the actual source but there's no reason to doubt its authenticity.

Oh I totally believe it. My point is that surface area isn't going to win a presidency, population is (for the most part). I just kind of want to see how it breaks down is all.

We are so obviously going to be a center right country. Because John Kerry only got the second highest vote total in presidential history - even more than Ronald Reagan.

 

Let's put this "landslide" into perspective. George Bush won reelection of any reelected president by the least number of votes since Harry Truman. Only 50 million people voted in that election. More people voted for Bush's opponent in 2004 than voted for Bush in 2000.

 

Assuming NM and IA go Bush's way, Bush would have won the fewest percentage of Electoral Votes (54%) of a re-elected president since Woodrow Wilson.

 

That's no landslide, that's no mandate. That's, by definition, a narrow victory.

That's why i feel the Electoral College is dumb. I mean Bush has won both times cause of it. It sould be whom the American people want in the majority, And both times it was Bush' opponent. Just my cents, I'm learning about US politics just lately, I just relate to somethings down here

Oh I totally believe it. My point is that surface area isn't going to win a presidency, population is (for the most part). I just kind of want to see how it breaks down is all.

Heads, I am laughing my ass off at that quote in your profile.

Heads, I am laughing my ass off at that quote in your profile. 

Yah, it's the most intelligent thing I've heard in a while. I literally fell down laughing to that one.

Yah, it's the most intelligent thing I've heard in a while. I literally fell down laughing to that one.

yeah i just heard that during the daily show. black is awesome on there.

i dont necessarily think this country is center right. IMO kerry lost because he didnt appear to the base, the hardcore liberals.  he was too close to the center on too many issues. f*** the moderates, the dems gotta go back to focusing on the hardcore liberals in this country. what do you other dems think?

If they swing to a totally hardcore liberal stance, the Republicans will have a field day. In my opinion, that would be the very worse thing the Dems could do for the health of the party and the influence they have on the nation. The reason it's called "the center" is because that's where most people are. The Republicans retained the presidency and added to the house and senate because they were closer to the center than the Democrats.

 

I'm not trying to start anything here. I'm only expressing an opinion. Feel free to disregard or dismiss it if you so choose.

Democrats miss the point. They don't need to move an inch on the issues. They need to find a better way to phrase the argument. Elections are won and lost on perception, not policy.

Democrats miss the point. They don't need to move an inch on the issues. They need to find a better way to phrase the argument. Elections are won and lost on perception, not policy.

Your side isint doing itself any favors by referring to Republican voters as stupid, ignorant rednecks. Your side comes off as elitist and stuck up and that hurts you more than anything.