HAL-LE-LU-JA, HAL-LE-LU-JA, hal-le-lu-ja, hal-le-lu-ja, HAL-LE-LU-JJJJAAAAA!!!

[madape]

HAha. I've been thoroghly enjoying the collapse of the Democratic party this afternoon. Most of the disappointed losers seem to realize that the country has abandoned their values and that they need to redifine their platform in order to remain competitive. Others have not and still cling to the hope that they are still relevant in today's political landscape. Sorry, Sturm. Your party, as you know it now, is dead. It has lost all the power it once had because the people of America have rejected everything it stands for. That's how representative democracy works. It doesn't matter whether Bush won by 4 million votes or 40 million. America has undeniably given President Bush a clear mandate to make the decisions they think are best for this country. The people have spoken and the people want Bush to pursue a conservative agenda.

I can understand where your coming from though. People that ascribe to your party's politics are prone to asking for breadcrumbs. But my party is prone to react to your panhandling by saying "get a job" and walking on its merry way. Let's hope that Bush ignores the whining and crying from the left and does NOT compromise his beleifs to cater to a constituency that doesn't even matter anymore.

I pulled the following hilarious quote from a taunting troll on a left leaning blog:

Bush won the popular vote by almost 4 million votes. He got over 50% of the popular vote (something Saint Clinton never did), for the first time since his father did. He got more votes than any President in history, including Reagan. He won Ohio by a "razor-thin" margin of 130,000 votes.

He won the electoral college.

He increased his majorities in the Senate and the House. He kicked the Senate minority leader out on his ass.

He has a majority of governorships and state legislatures.

He went 11 for 11 on gay marriage amendments.

He had better be moderate. He had better reach out. He had better govern from the center. No mandate here, move on, move on.

move on, moveon.org crowd. Your day is done.

[u2sarajevo]

That is great madape.

Moveon.org is still urging it's followers to Vote today. So, it looks like they have not moved on.

[sturm und drang]

Madape wrote:

"People that ascribe to your party's politics are prone to asking for breadcrumbs. But my party is prone to react to your panhandling by saying "get a job" and walking on its merry way. Let's hope that Bush ignores the whining and crying from the left and does NOT compromise his beleifs to cater to a constituency that doesn't even matter anymore."

Once more, for those who are slow to comprehend:

48% of the vote - 55+ million Americans - does not a "constituency that doesn't even matter" make. Not by today's standards, not by the past's standards (see my previous factual response to your unfounded hyperbole), and certainly not by future standards. See you in 2008.

[u2sarajevo]

I, for one, hope (and pray) that the Democratic Party keeps it's hardline liberal stance.

It's good for this Country. Well, after the elections anyway.

[Drbio]

I just hope the thread doesn't go to hell in a handbasket. It's been so good in this forum for three days now. Even the pre-election chat was good.

[Drbio]

How about another picture to break the ice????




You can go to GeorgeWBush.com and watch a very nice video by clicking on the picture. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[Male30Dan]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Madape wrote:

"This election, which was won quite handilty by historical references..."

Hmmmm. The 3 point difference is all the sudden a whipping, an overwhelming mandate? Besides 2000's 500,000 vote, nail-biting anomaly, let's check those "historical references" to demonstrate just what an ass whipping this three point difference really was.

1996
Clinton - 49%
Dole - 41%
Margin - 8 points

1992
Clinton - 43%
Bush - 37%
Margin - 6 points

1988
HW Bush - 55%
Dukakis - 46%
Margin - 9 points

1984
Reagan - 59%
Mondale - 41%
Margin - 18 points

1980
Reagan - 51%
Carter - 41%
Margin - 10 points

Oh, wait...

Wow... It looks like in addition to the whippin that Bush gave Kerry, there were several other elections in which one president whipped another...

Great research S&D... Great research indeed!!! [img]i/expressions/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[u2sarajevo]

I also noticed in sturms great research that Clinton never got a 50% majority.... wierd. But Bush and Reagan did... wierd.

So how long has it been since a Democratic Presidential nominee got 50% of the vote?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
I also noticed in sturms great research that Clinton never got a 50% majority.... wierd. But Bush and Reagan did... wierd.

So how long has it been since a Democratic Presidential nominee got 50% of the vote?

The last time a Democrat won and there wasn't a third party who mattered...1976, Jimmy Carter.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Once more, for those who are slow to comprehend:

48% of the vote - 55+ million Americans - does not a "constituency that doesn't even matter" make. Not by today's standards, not by the past's standards (see my previous factual response to your unfounded hyperbole), and certainly not by future standards. See you in 2008.

I agree that there are a lot of dissatisfied people in the country right now. But lets see THEM reach out to BUSH instead. Why should Bush make the effort? He's a second term President with a majority in both houses of Congress. He's got zero reason to move to the center.

But you don't see the disconnection of the Democratic party do you? The Republicans can get people elected who do not have the "cult of personality" of Clinton. That's because the Republicans know what the majority of the people want. The Democrats do not.

[The Crippler]

does that map show that Dallas/Ft worth was won by Kerry?

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: The Crippler
does that map show that Dallas/Ft worth was won by Kerry?

Not only no, but hell no.

[chumdawg]

In all this talk about "mandates," let's not ignore the elephant in the room. The "divide" in national politics is clearly a racial divide.

If the CNN exit polls are accurate, then whites voted for Bush at a 58-to-41 clip, while minorites voted for Kerry at 70-to-30 (blacks at 88-to-11).

There is NO other issue that divides voters as clearly as this one. Until the Republicans find a way to reach out to more minorities, they will never be able to achieve any sort of overwhelming "mandate." And until Democrats find a way to reach beyond them, they won't either.

This is what people like Jeff Greenfield and Peggy Noonan are talking about when they suggest that the Democratic party has outlived its usefulness. When civil rights issues were at the fore, the Democratic Party had a reason for being. But are they at the fore anymore? Did Kerry offer minorities anything of substance in the way of civil rights that they weren't going to get from George Bush? I can't think of a thing.

Bush's administration includes a black Secretary of State, a black National Security Advisor, and other minorites in the Cabinet (I believe). Bush will likely promote Clarence Thomas to Chief Justice of the United States. Those are significant advancements in civil rights.

What the racial divide really boils down in national politics are not civil rights issues but rather economic issues. As long as minorities keep believing that Democrats will put more money in their pocketbooks, that's where they are going to continue to vote. And that's where the Democrats are struggling to find their usefulness.

[Mavdog]

Bush will likely promote Clarence Thomas to Chief Justice of the United States.

oh no, please, that would be a mistake of incredible magnitude. Thomas has proven that he is already a clear example of the Peter Principle. No promotion for him...

[Max Power]

In all this talk about "mandates," let's not ignore the elephant in the room. The "divide" in national politics is clearly a racial divide.

If the CNN exit polls are accurate, then whites voted for Bush at a 58-to-41 clip, while minorites voted for Kerry at 70-to-30 (blacks at 88-to-11).

The polls I read had 44% of Hispanics voting for Bush.

[Evilmav2]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

oh no, please, that would be a mistake of incredible magnitude. Thomas has proven that he is already a clear example of the Peter Principle. No promotion for him...

What? Clarence Thomas might well possess the finest mind on the Supreme Court this side of Antonin Scalia's, and I believe he would be an absolutely superlative choice as the next Chief Justice...

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Evilmav2

What? Clarence Thomas might well possess the finest mind on the Supreme Court this side of Antonin Scalia's, and I believe he would be an absolutely superlative choice as the next Chief Justice...

how would one know that "Clarence Thomas might well possess the finest mind"? He doesn't write any opinions, and doesn't actively participate in any of the court's proceedings.

Thomas has contributed nothing to the court. He's a waste of the fine robes he has been given.

[mavsman55]

I have only one thing to say:

SUCK ON THAT MICHAEL MOORE!!!

[Rhylan]

Originally posted by: Max Power


But you don't see the disconnection of the Democratic party do you? The Republicans can get people elected who do not have the "cult of personality" of Clinton. That's because the Republicans know what the majority of the people want. The Democrats do not.

This is a very good point, MP, and one that hopefully, for the sake of American politics, the Dems will figure out sometime in the next decade or so. The party has allowed itself to be ruled by those on the fringes... and those traditional-values, "old southern' Dems who are losing their races now probably feel a lot like I felt in '92 when Pat Buchanan made the speech about a "religious war" in America or whatever it was at the RNC. It's just the characteristic of a party in a down cycle, they've been in a down cycle for awhile now.

I'm mostly Republican, but for the sake of the system, I like to see a Democratic party that has some relevance outside of mega-urban areas and the coasts.

[Evilmav2]

He doesn't write any opinions, and doesn't actively participate in any of the court's proceedings.

Thomas has contributed nothing to the court. He's a waste of the fine robes he has been given.

That's not really true. Sure, Thomas is a naturally reticent man, but he has written many notable opinions on his own, and since being elevated to the Supreme Court he has been a powerful constructionist, originalist voice that has fought against governmental anti-religious bigotry and overly gross interpretation of the constitution. His opinion in Mitchell v. Helms was a landmark in that it rules that it doesn't violate the Establishment Clause for the federal government to run programs that provide educational materials to private religious schools; He stood strong in United States v. Hubbell, and provided what might be the most forceful defense of the 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination in modern court history; And in the City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, he again rendered a forceful, originalist opinion that overturned previous rulings (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz in particular seemed to provide for aggressive roadblocks to search for drugs), and condemned overly aggressive Indianapolis P. D. road-blocks as being a blatant violation of the 4th amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. (I had to go on the Cornell site to look up the names of these cases again, but I have read them all in the past)

The common thread in all of these rulings is that Clarence Thomas is willing to render extremely forceful opinions- opinions that are often more 'liberal' than his colleagues- as long as they fully represent what he believes were the original intentions of the founding fathers. As he says in Edmond, "I rather doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered "reasonable" a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing". This statement is absolutely revealing of the way Clarence approaches all of his rulings, as the man will batter down and smash previous case law if he believes it violates the intent of the founding fathers (he is an even stronger originalist than Scalia), but he will Not frame his opinions in useless, vane deconstructionist hogwash. In this sense, he is exactly the kind of Supreme Court justice that I respect, and I think he would be an absolutely superb choice to head the court for the next 20 years or so...

[Drbio]

That was an excellent post Evil.

Damn fine job sir.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: Rhylan
I'm mostly Republican, but for the sake of the system, I like to see a Democratic party that has some relevance outside of mega-urban areas and the coasts.

I am also disappointed that there are so few independents in Congress. One in the Senate and one in the House? That is a direct reflection of how partisan politics have become. You are either my friend or my enemy - there isn't a middle ground.

[Mavdog]

From what I can find Thomas has authored on average three opinions per session. That is certainly not a bellwether of his legal capabilities, but coupled with his almost complete silence in oral arguments leads one to the valid conclusion that his contribution is way too limited to deserve consideration as the Chief Justice.

[Drbio]

I respectfully disagree. Some of the most critical thinkers I know drive me nuts because of their reflective quietness. They pick their words honestly, but carefully and when they speak people listen. Thomas strikes me as that kind of man. It's like E.F. Hutton....when he talks people listen.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Max Power

The polls I read had 44% of Hispanics voting for Bush.

VERY ominous for the dems... If bush can consolidate the hispanic demographic with his call for a viable guest-worker program, the 'pubs dominance may actually grow. Goody..

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

oh no, please, that would be a mistake of incredible magnitude. Thomas has proven that he is already a clear example of the Peter Principle. No promotion for him...

Only for "affirmitive action" if liberal I assume. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[dude1394]

Maybe Mavdog is right. It should maybe be Estrada. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] Hopefully he will be put back up for consideration early...

[Evilmav2]

Originally posted by: Drbio
I respectfully disagree. Some of the most critical thinkers I know drive me nuts because of their reflective quietness. They pick their words honestly, but carefully and when they speak people listen. Thomas strikes me as that kind of man. It's like E.F. Hutton....when he talks people listen.

Great point Doc. Clarence may not be the biggest sqauwker on the court, but when he does express his opinions they are generally resoundingly coherent and strong...

[sturm und drang]

As someone who often synthesizes and tries to make communicable, actionable sense of quantitative consumer data, Mavsman, I can assure that 3% is NOT a whipping. In fact, for a sample size approaching 1000, it would be within the +/- of statistical deviation. Anything within a palatable standard dev – which 3% certainly is – cannot be considered any kind of ass-whipping.

Only a overly-zealous partisan would view 3% as a whipping. Sorry, but it's true. Bush clearly won. There is no debating that. To say he "whipped" Kerry, however, is laughable.

Originally posted by: Male23Dan

Wow... It looks like in addition to the whippin that Bush gave Kerry, there were several other elections in which one president whipped another...

Great research S&D... Great research indeed!!! [img]i/expressions/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[dude1394]

More Zell..

And so while I retire with little hope for the near-term viability of the party I’ve spent my life building, I retire with a quiet satisfaction that after witnessing the struggle of democracy over communism and fascism, the fear I once held that America might not rise to meet this new challenge of terrorism has vanished like a fog under the radiance of a new dawn. While the threat is still real, the shadow looming across a promising future is gone.

And the credit for that goes to one man. Like the last lion of England, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush has stood alone and risked all to give the world a new, clearer path to the advancement of freedom.

Abraham Lincoln, in his second annual message to Congress, stated: “In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom for the free — honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth.”

George Bush has injected into a region of enslavement an incurable dose of freedom, and thus nobly saved that “last, best hope of earth” — free men.

[Male30Dan]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
As someone who often synthesizes and tries to make communicable, actionable sense of quantitative consumer data, Mavsman, I can assure that 3% is NOT a whipping. In fact, for a sample size approaching 1000, it would be within the +/- of statistical deviation. Anything within a palatable standard dev – which 3% certainly is – cannot be considered any kind of ass-whipping.

I am glad you agree with me S&D!!! It is laughable that Bush whipped Kerry!!! Laughable indeed!!! [img]i/expressions/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Drbio]

Fairwell Zell.....may God watch over you in all of your endeavors and may you enjoy the life that you have earned with honor.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Mavsman, I can assure that 3% is NOT a whipping.

When did I say something?

[Male30Dan]

She meant me... That's why I responded to her!

[jacktruth]

RE: Mandate

Part of the issue of mandate rests in the overal victory in this election:
Republicans have won in the house for the last 6 elections.
Republicans have increased thier share in the senate in each of the last 3 elections.
Bush won a larger share of the popular vote since George Bush Sr, who was also a republican.
Conservativism defeated same sex marriage in all 11 states, including the excessively liberal Oregon.

When the media says this country is divided, what they mean is that this country is republican.

Vive Bush!

[Mavdog]

Question: which Presidential candidate has been given the most number of votes in any Presidential election?

Answer: George W. Bush

Question: Which Presidential candidate has been given the second most number of votes in any Presidential election?

Answer: John Kerry

No mandate. period. A divided public exists and Bush has mentioned that same point.

[u2sarajevo]

I suspect the ones that think Bush does not have a mandate are those that are against him.

If I were a Congressperson or a Senator I would give pause before I tried to derail the Bush policies.... When you derail this Country's President you might end up without a job. If you don't believe me, just ask Mr. Daschle (well, I guess I should call him Senator for two more months).

[Evilmav2]

Question: When was the last time a Democratic candidate for president won over 50% of the votes cast in the election?

Answer: 1964

Question: When was the last time a Republican candidate for president won over 50% of the votes cast in the election?

Answer: Last Tuesday

That's a mandate...

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
I suspect the ones that think Bush does not have a mandate are those that are against him.

If I were a Congressperson or a Senator I would give pause before I tried to derail the Bush policies.... When you derail this Country's President you might end up without a job. If you don't believe me, just ask Mr. Daschle (well, I guess I should call him Senator for two more months).

Thune came within a couple of thousand votes of winning the SD Senate seat in '02. He was a highly regarded politican, and it is not an indictment of Daschle's role as the leader of the opposition which cost him his seat.

[u2sarajevo]

Explain it away how ever you like. But Bush has a mandate.

And to Evil: The last Democrat to win a 50% majority was Jimmy Carter in 1976. The results were:

James Carter and Walter Mondale Democrat Total Votes - 40,831,881 Percentage of Popular vote - 50.08%
Gerald Ford and Robert Dole Republican Total Votes - 39,148,634 Percentage of Popular vote - 48.02%