Clinton and Obama

[Burf]

Originally Posted by Zerai

Parents who actually care about their kids education, check up on their homework, make sure they attend school...are Democrats.

Well, according to IRB, anyway. You know, since all Republicans are stupid idiots.

[Mithrull]

Let's make it easier:

Percentage difference won among those with only a grade school education:

1960: Kennedy +10%
1964: Johnson +32%
1968: Humphrey +19%
1972: Nixon +2%
1976: Carter +17%
1980: Carter +12%
1984: Mondale +2%
1988: Dukakis +10%
1992: Clinton +12% (+28% over Bush)
1996: Clinton +16% (+31% over Dole)
2000: Gore +8% (High School or less)
2004: Kerry +8% (High School or less)

Election Polls -- Vote by Groups, 1960-1964

Something about the Democratic party which consistently appeals to the least educated.

Now let's look at the college educated:

1960: Nixon +22%
1964: Johnson +4%
1968: Nixon +17%
1972: Nixon +26%
1976: Ford +13%
1980: Reagan +8%
1984: Reagan +22%
1988: Bush +16%
1992: Clinton +3% (over Bush, -14% overall)
1996: Clinton +2% (over Dole, -6% overall)
2000: Bush +11% (college grads only)
2004: Bush +16% (college grads only)

To be fair,

2000: Gore +10% (post grads)
2004: Kerry +6% (post grads)

[spronk]

many people go through 2 stages in life:

1. I am a democrat. I'm hopeful, optimistic, believe my generation will change the world for the better, I hate poverty, I think our government is filled with old men who only help their lobbyist buddies and mistreat the worlds poor. Throw in some environmental stuff here too. What me and my girlfriend/boyfriend (and maybe a few others) do in our bedroom is our own business, and weed never hurt anyone.

... work for a few years...

2. I am a republican. I have a house, mortgage, family, 401(k), my kids go to school, I pay property taxes, I have a brokerage account. Every year the government taxes a ton of my money in taxes and gives me back almost nothing. I see the corruption in government, and I see how lazy people take advantage of the government to try and get a free ride, while I work hard every day for my money. I want to teach my children a strong work ethic and raise them in a society that isn't about porn and drugs. I read daily about kids getting kidnapped, drive-by shootings, drugs in school, and am worried about the future of our country.

After that point some people switch back to democrat because they feel guilty (as the saying goes, never ask someone how they made their first million). Most people tend to harden their conservative views as they get older.

Frankly, if you are young and republican something is wrong with you. You are way too cynical and self-absorbed. Being young is all about being a hippy, experimenting, believing you can change the world, believing you can make a difference, believing in radical and quick change. Only as you get older should you become more conservative and nostalgic for the perfection of your youth.

And lets face it young democratic chicks are way hotter and much more likely to sleep with you.

[Etoille]

spronk a year ago i would have said you were a retard.

however the idealist turned cynic in me (literally exactly as you described) knows its already happened to me and the only reason im NOT republican is because i still split heavily with them on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. (regardless of the time i was or considered myself a democrat i never supported drug legalization and still dont).

i dont feel a connection to the democratic party anymore however because of the things you mentioned.

wtb a party of fiscal responsibility that isnt the morality police. (lewis black for president)

[Arbitrary]

I never felt my political beliefs could be drawn down neat idealogical lines.

[Soriak]

You don't want a fiscally responsible party, because they'd raise your taxes right now. You want a party that is hell-bent on low taxes, no matter what.

[Kaio]

I really don't see the appeal to republican party anymore. Bill Clinton was far more fiscally conservative then GWB whom increased the size and cost of government massively.

Only third parties like the libertarian's seem to be fiscally conservative.

This is how I see it. Parties don't necessarily represent each candidate (and they never do 100%) so I'd rather look at individuals.


Obama: Still spending money but on semi useful shit. Seems to want to go after Al Qaeda directly and stop caring about useless countries like Iran. Pre-emptive war with unproven evidence is disastrous ala Iraq. Someone who will avoid useless wars is likely to spend less money. Also will pull out of Iraq systematically so we will start spending hundreds of billions less then we are now!

McCain: Has no clue about economics, will depend on advisers whom we can only pray are good. He has been flip-flopping lately on virtually everything so I can't be too sure about his policies. He says he wants to get out of Iraq fast but he also talked about staying there for up to 100 years if necessary and also setting up a permanent base in the area. Either way the mostly costly option, war wise. He is also more likely to go to war with Iran. He is also going crazy about global warming now so he might hurt our companies by trying to get crazy environmental laws passed. I also strongly suspect he might no necessarily be flip-flopping on purpose but rather his memory is failing and his advisers are making him into a joke as a result.

Clinton: This bitch needs to fucking drop...

[Burf]

Originally Posted by Soriak

You don't want a fiscally responsible party, because they'd raise your taxes right now. You want a party that is hell-bent on low taxes, no matter what.

Fiscally responsible doesn't have to = More/Less taxes.

I view it as how they SPEND the money, not how they get it. In other words, quit spending money on crap. Now, what the definition of "crap" is is where the debate lies.

[Burf]

Originally Posted by Kaio

He is also going crazy about global warming now so he might hurt our companies by trying to get crazy environmental laws passed.

Quoted for fun.

[Kaio]

I've never seen someone make as strong of a speech on the environment and global warming as McCain has just recently done. It's anti-republican I know and he was quite possibly just pandering to whatever group he was in front of but it was still a damn strong speech.

[Etoille]

Originally Posted by Burf

Fiscally responsible doesn't have to = More/Less taxes.

I view it as how they SPEND the money, not how they get it. In other words, quit spending money on crap. Now, what the definition of "crap" is is where the debate lies.

this.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Burf

Fiscally responsible doesn't have to = More/Less taxes.

I view it as how they SPEND the money, not how they get it. In other words, quit spending money on crap. Now, what the definition of "crap" is is where the debate lies.

Would be an interesting debate. McCain has tried to start it, but it seems he can't name a single program he would cut. In an advert he used some examples, but they were scrapped some time ago before seeing any funding.

The attack on "earmarks" ignores what they are about. Say a bill allocating money for homeland security might earmark some of it to protect the port in New York or some major airport...

Without looking at what exactly should be cut and having that amount to some significant figure, it isn't really a political point of view. There's nobody in favor of government waste or ineffective programs.

[Burf]

Earmarks are a method of spending.
I dislike earmarks because it screws up the objective of whatever it's attached to.
However, earmarks aren't necessarily "good" or "bad," they're just a method.

The good/bad spending would be along the lines of: how much to spend on Defense? Do we really need to give $100,000 grants to find out if Tse-Tse flies poop? stuff like that

[Soriak]

Research money is distributed by federal agencies like the NIH though, not congress directly. I can only imagine the horror if Congress would influence this - no more funding for anything related to evolution

Spending on Defense might be too high, but you know there's no sane politician who would vote to reduce it. He'd be branded weak and unwilling to defend the country... and if some incident happened, that party would be toast. Even if money for airport security were cut and the incident happened at a port, it wouldn't make a difference.

[Burf]

Well, whatever....I was just picking random examples out of my arse for arguments that could be made.