Majority of Americans are Democrats

[Bronco Bob]

According to Rasmussen.

Democrats 38.7%
Republicans 33.1%

A net advantage of 5.6%

Also meaning 28.2 percent are Independents

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends

So lets pretend. All the Democrats go out and vote for Obama or Hillary.
All the Republicans go out to vote against either of them.
That means over 60% of the Independents would have to vote
Republican to keep either Obama or Hillary out of the White House.
You know that isn't going to happen for Obama, and I doubt there
are 60% of the Independents that hate Hillary that much either.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

[24champ]

Interesting, probably will need a higher number of Independents for McCain because I KNOW there will be a high number of republican people sitting home.

[W*GS]

71.8% of Americans are suckers.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What a coincidence that W*GS should say that.

That's pretty close to the percentage of Americans who don't approve of his boy Dubya.

[Bronco Bob]

What a coincidence that W*GS should say that.

That's pretty close to the percentage of Americans who don't approve of his boy Dubya.

Yeah, but I am reasonably sure he meant that it was the number of
Democrats and Republicans, it you add the numbers up. Doesn't
he sort of pride himself on being a Libertarian? I used the 28.2%
number for Independents as more or less a generic number for
people who weren't Democrats or Republicans - the Libertarians,
the Greens, Communists, Reform party, Constitution party,
Natural Law Party, and what the hell ever else someone is,
as well as people who actually don't belong to any party.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Majority of Americans are Democrats
According to Rasmussen.

Democrats 38.7%
Republicans 33.1%

This news can't be good for W*GS' blood pressure. :D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah, but I am reasonably sure he meant that it was the number of
Democrats and Republicans, it you add the numbers up. Doesn't
he sort of pride himself on being a Libertarian? I used the 28.2%
number for Independents as more or less a generic number for
people who weren't Democrats or Republicans - the Libertarians,
the Greens, Communists, Reform party, Constitution party,
Natural Law Party, and what the hell ever else someone is,
as well as people who actually don't belong to any party.

I know - I just couldn't help but note the irony/coincidence. ;D

[Bronco Bob]

I guess the point I was getting at is that in November 2004
the ratio was 38.6 Democrats to 37.1 Republicans,
with 24.3 as Independents. So with only a 1.5 point
difference, the Independents mattered more.
Only 53% of the Independents had to vote
Republican to give Bush the White House.

So the Democrats have to screw up big time
to lose the 2008 election. The knock against
Hillary is she would rally the conservative base.
But there aren't enough Republicans to matter
this time around and assuming that things
don't get so bitter that she can't keep all
the Democrats, she only has to win over
40% of the Independents and she is POTUS.

[W*GS]

What a coincidence that W*GS should say that.

Only an idiot like you can't figure out that 38.7 + 33.1 = 78.1.

That's pretty close to the percentage of Americans who don't approve of his boy Dubya.

It's also pretty close (tho' still too high) to your IQ, dipwad.

[Crushaholic]

The wildcard is that we don't know how many people will actually vote. Getting all the people in that Rasmussen poll to the voting booth in November could prove problematic. On paper, your theory doesn't look good for the Republicans. However, on paper, Ron Paul should be running away with the nomination with all the internet support he has...

[SoCalBronco]

Now get to the part where 38% equals a majority of Americans.

[Bronco Bob]

The wildcard is that we don't know how many people will actually vote. Getting all the people in that Rasmussen poll to the voting booth in November could prove problematic. On paper, your theory doesn't look good for the Republicans. However, on paper, Ron Paul should be running away with the nomination with all the internet support he has...

But we are talking about a real pollster, Rasmussen.
Not some internet geek's fantasy poll where every
Paulista rushes in to stuff the ballot box for Ron Paul.
Now for the major candidates the polling firms
are screwing the pooch big time. But for Ron
Paul most have been fairly accurate.

Take the Super Tuesday projected and actuals for Ron Paul
from the Real Clear Politics averages for state primaries.

State - projected - actual
Alabama 5.3 - 2.7
Arizona 4.0 - 4.2
California 4.5 - 4.2
Connecticut 4.0 - 4.0
Georgia 4.5 - 2.9
Illinois 7.3 - 5.0
Massachusetts 2.7 - 2.7
Missouri 4.0 - 4.5
New Jersey 4.5 - 4.8
New York 4.0 - 6.4
Tennessee 6.0 - 5.6

Nowhere in any primary was Ron Paul predicted to be in double digits
and nowhere in any primary states did Ron Paul break double digits.

*Ron Paul did pull double digits in some caucuses, but a caucus
is much harder to poll so most polling organizations skipped them.
And caucuses tend to attract more of the fanatics, so they
don't really reflect the mood of the average voter who will
vote in a general election. Even primaries are somewhat
biased because the voters in a primary are more dedicated.

[Bronco Bob]

Now get to the part where 38% equals a majority of Americans.

38.7% > 33.1% > 28.2%

[Bronco Bob]

Another bad sign for Republicans.

Democrats Hugely Outvoting GOP

After Super Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) has every right to declare
himself the Republican presidential frontrunner, but he has miles to go in
getting himself and his party in shape to face his Democratic opponent.
One measure of his task is that more than 14.6 million Democrats went
to the polls on Tuesday and only 9 million Republicans -- indicating a vast
enthusiasm gap between the parties.

McCain polls reasonably well against both Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton
(D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), but they have a sagging economy
and a massive national desire for change going for them in addition to
the energetic desire among Democrats to get the White House back.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/mccains_challenge_democrats_hu.html

[Kaylore]

McCain polls reasonably well against both Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton
Reasonably is an understatement. That said, it will be funny when 20% of Republicans don't vote for McCain in the general.

[Bronco Bob]

Reasonably is an understatement. That said, it will be funny when 20% of Republicans don't vote for McCain in the general.

Mort Kondracke is one of the Fox News talking heads. Still it was interesting
that the ratio of Dem to GOP voters got even his attention.

[24champ]

Reasonably is an understatement. That said, it will be funny when 20% of Republicans don't vote for McCain in the general.

There's so much material for the Dems to run on against McCain...

Too Old
Dems will thank McCain for siding with them on key issues, further alienating the base.

Will Goldwater'd McCain by overplaying the 100 years in Iraq comment among other comments about the situation.

McCain is not presidential.


A whole host of ideas the Dems can destroy McCain on...

[24champ]

Mort Kondracke is one of the Fox News talking heads. Still it was interesting
that the ratio of Dem to GOP voters got even his attention.

For the record Mort is an idiot. One of the few I hate on the all-star panel.

[baja]

Your right McCain does not look presidential.


http://www.guidomueller.com/Assets/fun/golum.bmp

[24champ]

http://www.guidomueller.com/Assets/fun/golum.bmp

ROFL! Gollum/Huck 08. PRICELESS.


Hell that's a funny ad in the making, just make a 3D Ad on McCain as Gollum running around telling Congress to go F themselves.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LMFAO! :laugh:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/chart-jobs04sm.jpg

[Bronco Bob]

http://www.bartcop.com/chart-jobs04sm.jpg

Let's see W*gs try to spin it so that 23 million American were working for dot.com companies.

[W*GS]

Presidents don't create jobs.

[alkemical]

Presidents don't create jobs.

What about when they create new positions? ;)

[Bronco Bob]

Presidents don't create jobs.

Not true. Clinton enacted a policy to hire 100,000 additional police
officers. That's 100,000 additional jobs right there that there
wouldn't have been if not for Clinton's action.

[baja]

Not true. Clinton enacted a policy to hire 100,000 additional police
officers. That's 100,000 additional jobs right there that there
wouldn't have been if not for Clinton's action.

Plus look at all the lawyers he kept employed.

[W*GS]

Not true. Clinton enacted a policy to hire 100,000 additional police officers. That's 100,000 additional jobs right there that there wouldn't have been if not for Clinton's action.

The spending that it cost to hire those 100,000 cops would have been much more efficiently used by taxpayers to hire other kinds of employees.

More citizens in government jobs isn't the way to create meaningful employment.

[baja]

The spending that it cost to hire those 100,000 cops would have been much more efficiently used by taxpayers to hire other kinds of employees.

More citizens in government jobs isn't the way to create meaningful employment.

"Give it to W*GS he'll piss & moan, he hates everything."

[Spider]

The spending that it cost to hire those 100,000 cops would have been much more efficiently used by taxpayers to hire other kinds of employees.

More citizens in government jobs isn't the way to create meaningful employment.

being a cop isnt meaningful ........ you are truly an anarchist

[alkemical]

No, W*gs isn't an anarchist. He actually treasures small gov't, not no gov't. I like anarchy, but i also realize it isn't a...viable solution at this time.

[W*GS]

being a cop isnt meaningful ........ you are truly an anarchist

Not what I said.

Does putting everyone into a civil service job make those jobs purposeful? No.

[Spider]

Not what I said.

Does putting everyone into a civil service job make those jobs purposeful? No.

The spending that it cost to hire those 100,000 cops would have been much more efficiently used by taxpayers to hire other kinds of employees.

More citizens in government jobs isn't the way to create meaningful employment.
so basicaly putting more cops on the street is meaningless .......

[Bronco Bob]

The spending that it cost to hire those 100,000 cops would have been much more efficiently used by taxpayers to hire other kinds of employees.

More citizens in government jobs isn't the way to create meaningful employment.

So next time your house is being burglarized, call a WalMart employee.

[Spider]

No, W*gs isn't an anarchist. He actually treasures small gov't, not no gov't. I like anarchy, but i also realize it isn't a...viable solution at this time.

W*GS would bitch with a small government , W*GS is anarchist .....W*GS is the type of person that is never happy , he always has to have something to bitch and moan about

[alkemical]

Being a bitcher and moaner doesn't make one an anarchist.

[JCMElway]

What about when they create new positions? ;)

Bill Clinton created a few positions! :wiggle:

[JCMElway]

The spending that it cost to hire those 100,000 cops would have been much more efficiently used by taxpayers to hire other kinds of employees.

More citizens in government jobs isn't the way to create meaningful employment.

Yeah, because having more police officers on the street is a horrible idea.......

[JCMElway]

"Give it to W*GS he'll piss & moan, he hates everything."

I bet he wouldn't even eat Life cereal!

[baja]

So Wags what you think of lite rail in Denver?

[W*GS]

so basicaly putting more cops on the street is meaningless .......

Depends.

See the relavant chapter in "Freakonomics".

[W*GS]

So next time your house is being burglarized, call a WalMart employee.

The odds that a cop would stop a burglary at my house during the crime is quite remote.

What is it with you guys that you interpret my belief that 100,000 more cops is not the best way to "create jobs" means I don't think there ought to be any cops at all?

Sheesh.

[W*GS]

W*GS would b**** with a small government , W*GS is anarchist .....W*GS is the type of person that is never happy , he always has to have something to b**** and moan about

I'm sure you're 100% pleased with the goverment(s), and your taxes are just perfect.

There was a thread about you bitching about CDOT... Are you just a whiner?

[W*GS]

Yeah, because having more police officers on the street is a horrible idea.......

Is it the best way to create jobs?

There gets to be a point at which having more cops isn't Good. Do you agree?

[Beantown Bronco]

38.7% > 33.1% > 28.2%

As Socal wrote, that still doesn't equate to a majority.

[Spider]

I'm sure you're 100% pleased with the goverment(s), and your taxes are just perfect.

There was a thread about you b****ing about CDOT... Are you just a whiner?

LOL you picked 1 subject that pissed me off , I ranted now I am over it ,Havent brought it up again .... you on the other hand bitch about government , Schooling , LABF , taxes , Just about everything under the sun ...... W*GS , yo uare just one of those bitter mother ****ers that bitch about everything , but yet take a stand on very little ..... Consistant whinning ..... I havent even seen you pop jokes on here .......

[W*GS]

Typical Spiderian "response".

Everyone except him is whining, moaning, and bitching.

Gotcha.

[baja]

Typical Spiderian "response".

Everyone except him is whining, moaning, and b****ing.

Gotcha.

Tell a joke, prove him wrong

[Spider]

Typical Spiderian "response".

Everyone except him is whining, moaning, and b****ing.

Gotcha.

you are right .... I forgot In Denial part

[Spider]

Tell a joke, prove him wrong

He is googling one right now ...... Just has ot find one about truckers ;D

[Bronco Bob]

As Socal wrote, that still doesn't equate to a majority.

Then you are defining majority in a different way than I am.

I am saying there are more Democrats than there are Republicans OR Independents.
I wasn't saying there are more Democrats than there are Republicans AND Independents.

I'm talking about in terms of elections. That because there are more
Democrats than Republican, it will take less independents to swing
to the Democrats than it did in the 2004 election.

If candidate A has a base of 38.7% and candidate B has a base 33.1%,
then candidate B would need 60% of the remaining 28.2% to win the election.
And I don't think 60% of the Independents are going to vote Republican
this year, no matter who the Democrats run.

[Beantown Bronco]

It's a common mistake.

Majority in all instances is defined as "more than 50%".

Plurality in the case of voting is defined as "the number of votes cast for the winning choice if this number is not more than one half of the total votes cast".

[Spider]

It's a common mistake.

Majority in all instances is defined as "more than 50%".

Plurality in the case of voting is defined as "the number of votes cast for the winning choice if this number is not more than one half of the total votes cast".

Bull**** ........ wtf are you trying to sell ? If I have a group of 17 people and 5vote Republican , 5 Vote independent , 7 vote Democrats , thats a ****ing Majority being democrat you dumb ass

[Spider]

No I am not being mean , but you cant split everything 50-50 when you have 3 ****ing parties ........ **** how stupid can you be ?

[Rigs11]

71.8% of Americans are suckers.

Wigged doesn't count himself in these percentages, he's from venezuela. Right wigged?Hilarious!

[JCMElway]

Is it the best way to create jobs?

There gets to be a point at which having more cops isn't Good. Do you agree?

Yes I agree, but I don't think we're at that point yet. Especially in large urban areas.

[Bronco Bob]

Or think of it this way. You have a cook-out with 11 guests and are
serving burgers and offer a choice of cheeses for a topping.
You have cheddar and swiss. 5 people pick cheddar and 4 people
pick swiss and 2 can't decide. So do you say the majority prefer
cheddar or the majority don't like cheddar? And suppose both
cheese lovers tried to convince the undecideds to go
with their favorite. It would only take one to go with cheddar
for the cheddars to win out. It would take both for the
swiss to win out as the favorite cheese.

[TailgateNut]

Or think of it this way. You have a cook-out with 11 guests and are
serving burgers and offer a choice of cheeses for a topping.
You have cheddar and swiss. 5 people pick cheddar and 4 people
pick swiss and 2 can't decide. So do you say the majority prefer
cheddar or the majority don't like cheddar? And suppose both
cheese lovers tried to convince the undecideds to go
with their favorite. It would only take one to go with cheddar
for the cheddars to win out. It would take both for the
swiss to win out as the favorite cheese.


You'll have to ask AK!

[Beantown Bronco]

No I am not being mean , but you cant split everything 50-50 when you have 3 ****ing parties ........ **** how stupid can you be ?

Actually, I'm right about this. I'm not guessing here.

I'm not talking about splitting anything 50/50.

When a person wins a three person race, but wins with less than 50% of the vote, they have won a "plurality" of the vote. They did not win a "majority" of the vote. It's a fairly simple concept folks.

please see this link if you don't believe me:

http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/plurality.htm

[Bronco Bob]

You'll have to ask AK!

AK, do you prefer cheddar or swiss?

[Spider]

Actually, I'm right about this. I'm not guessing here.

I'm not talking about splitting anything 50/50.

When a person wins a three person race, but wins with less than 50% of the vote, they have won a "plurality" of the vote. They did not win a "majority" of the vote. It's a fairly simple concept folks.

please see this link if you don't believe me:

http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/plurality.htm
well you stick to that idiotic idea .......Majority is a majority .....

[Beantown Bronco]

well you stick to that idiotic idea .......Majority is a majority .....

That silly English language really is idiotic.

Ask anyone else here that deals in numbers or statistics if you think I'm wrong or alone on this. Obviously socalbronco knows this. He was actually the first to bring it up.

[Spider]

That silly English language really is idiotic.

Ask anyone else here that deals in numbers or statistics if you think I'm wrong or alone on this. Obviously socalbronco knows this. He was actually the first to bring it up.
yeah but Socal isnt beating it into the ground like you are ......Majority is. oh **** it , damn chwderhead anyway ..... **** you people dont even pronounce peabody right ....

[baja]

Bull**** ........ wtf are you trying to sell ? If I have a group of 17 people and 5vote Republican , 5 Vote independent , 7 vote Democrats , thats a ****ing Majority being democrat you dumb ass

Why did you pick 17 everybody
knows that is a satanic number - WA*GS

[Bronco Bob]

Why did you pick 17 everybody
knows that is a satanic number - WA*GS

That's why I only invited 11 people to my cook-out.

(You know, I forgot to include myself in the cheddar vs swiss)
(I guess that would make it 12 people. Oh well, I like cheddar)
(more than swiss, so I guess cheddar wins, or at worst ties.)

[Spider]

Why did you pick 17 everybody
knows that is a satanic number - WA*GS

Naw , I was looking at my 17 inch penis , and well ......... ;D

[baja]

Naw , I was looking at my 17 inch penis , and well ......... ;D

Dude step away from the binoculars.

[baja]

That's why I only invited 11 people to my cook-out.

(You know, I forgot to include myself in the cheddar vs swiss)
(I guess that would make it 12 people. Oh well, I like cheddar)
(more than swiss, so I guess cheddar wins, or at worst ties.)

dude eleven is even worse your going to have to shoot one of your guests.

[Spider]

Dude step away from the binoculars.

Do I have to ?

[JCMElway]

Actually, I'm right about this. I'm not guessing here.

I'm not talking about splitting anything 50/50.

When a person wins a three person race, but wins with less than 50% of the vote, they have won a "plurality" of the vote. They did not win a "majority" of the vote. It's a fairly simple concept folks.

please see this link if you don't believe me:

http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/plurality.htm

Semantics, semantics......

[Bronco Bob]

dude eleven is even worse your going to have to shoot one of your guests.

Could be worse. I could have had 12 guests. The last guy who had 12 guests
over for dinner ended up being nailed to a cross.

[Beantown Bronco]

Semantics, semantics......

In the immortal words of Mel Gibson....."I'm always up for some antics"

[baja]

Could be worse. I could have had 12 guests. The last guy who had 12 guests
over for dinner ended up being nailed to a cross.

ya but he still gets invited to a lot of pot lucks.

[Breaker]

38.7% > 33.1% > 28.2%

Classic distortion of the truth.

[Bronco Bob]

Classic distortion of the truth.

I take it you aren't a math major.

[broncocalijohn]

majority is over 50%. We republicans yelled that when we lost to Clinton but held onto the fact that "at least the majority didn't vote for him". Spider, if you finished school, you would have known this :)
The chowda head had it correct.

[Breaker]

Bull**** ........ wtf are you trying to sell ? If I have a group of 17 people and 5vote Republican , 5 Vote independent , 7 vote Democrats , thats a ****ing Majority being democrat you dumb ass

A majority is anything over 50 %, it doesn't matter how many options there are. If 33.7 percent of the Senate identified themselves as Raiders fans, does that make a majority of the Senate Raiders fans... NO!!!! It makes the largest subsection of the Senate Raiders fans, but out the 100 most are not. Stats are often bs because they can be massaged to show exactly what you want them to show.

[Breaker]

Then you are defining majority in a different way than I am.

I am saying there are more Democrats than there are Republicans OR Independents.
I wasn't saying there are more Democrats than there are Republicans AND Independents.

I'm talking about in terms of elections. That because there are more
Democrats than Republican, it will take less independents to swing
to the Democrats than it did in the 2004 election.

If candidate A has a base of 38.7% and candidate B has a base 33.1%,
then candidate B would need 60% of the remaining 28.2% to win the election.
And I don't think 60% of the Independents are going to vote Republican
this year, no matter who the Democrats run.

Technically true, but since you only need 9 states to win the electoral college a minority could defeat a majority as long as they are located correctly. This wont happen because the two biggest Cali and NY are both Democratic, but in theory a significant minority could defeat majority if they are located correctly, although they may need a little help from the independents along the way.

[orangeatheist]

.... you on the other hand b**** about government , Schooling , LABF , taxes ,..

Whoa! I read this far and thought, 'you mean there's no reason to complain about government, schooling, LABF and taxes?'

Government: Too big and FUBAR.
Schooling: Teaching to the lowest common denominator.
LABF: Left-wing socialist plagiarizer who thinks a case can be made for mini nukes. Constantly misrepresents those he disagrees with.
Taxes: Too high and unfairly distributed.

Yeah, I think if this characterizes what W*GS complains about he has pretty good cause. I'm right there with him.

[baja]

Sorry orangeateist I can't date anyone that doesn't love Jesus.

[sisterhellfyre]

Presidents don't create jobs.

Tell that to the Transportation Security Agency.

TSA = "Thousands Standing Around..."

Regards,
m.

[Spider]

A majority is anything over 50 %, it doesn't matter how many options there are. If 33.7 percent of the Senate identified themselves as Raiders fans, does that make a majority of the Senate Raiders fans... NO!!!! It makes the largest subsection of the Senate Raiders fans, but out the 100 most are not. Stats are often bs because they can be massaged to show exactly what you want them to show.

But you still miss ..... if the Raiders were running for office , they would win with a MAJORITY vote

[Spider]

Whoa! I read this far and thought, 'you mean there's no reason to complain about government, schooling, LABF and taxes?'

Government: Too big and FUBAR.
Schooling: Teaching to the lowest common denominator.
LABF: Left-wing socialist plagiarizer who thinks a case can be made for mini nukes. Constantly misrepresents those he disagrees with.
Taxes: Too high and unfairly distributed.

Yeah, I think if this characterizes what W*GS complains about he has pretty good cause. I'm right there with him.
Dude , we all have to pay taxes , there is no getting out of it . unless of course you blow your head off , Sure government ****s up , LABF can be ignored ,Schooling well there is good and bad ........ BUT NOT EVERY ****ING POST ........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF: Left-wing socialist plagiarizer who thinks a case can be made for mini nukes. Constantly misrepresents those he disagrees with.


Orangeatheist: God-obsessed neurotic who constantly 'bears false witness against his neighbors' because it's the only way he can 'win' the debate.

[Spider]

majority is over 50%. We republicans yelled that when we lost to Clinton but held onto the fact that "at least the majority didn't vote for him". Spider, if you finished school, you would have known this :)
The chowda head had it correct.

LOL Look up Majority vote son ...... and the electorial college has very little to do with the popular vote ......Class dismissed

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Spider, if you finished school....

Ha! ROFL!

Pot/kettle/blackism of the week.

[Spider]

Ha! ROFL!

Pot/kettle/blackism of the week.

LOL they know Iam right , but I have pissed them off more then once , so now they wait for me to screw up to jump on it ;D