― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:40 (eighteen years ago) link
did you have some other math in mind?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:41 (eighteen years ago) link
xxpost - In the same issue they run a pro-Gene McCarthy piece, a piece about Mencken, and a piece critical of Greenspan. Like I said, I don't think it's an easy magazine to pigeonhole and although I don't have a sub I always check in.
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:41 (eighteen years ago) link
But back to gabbneb and his "obstructionist binaries" and focus group claptrap...
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:42 (eighteen years ago) link
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:49 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:49 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:57 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:59 (eighteen years ago) link
uh, actually it's not. Clinton 96 got 49.23. Gore 2000 got 48.38. Kerry got 48.27.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:01 (eighteen years ago) link
"do the math"
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:02 (eighteen years ago) link
In other words, whose "centrism" are you talking about?
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:06 (eighteen years ago) link
sorry, I'm still including Perot's numbers. I know how you hate that. Total votes for other candidates vs. total votes for Clinton = Clinton won by a tenth of a percentage point.
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:18 (eighteen years ago) link
and? these corporations give millions to both parties (3 of the 4 are among the top 100 soft money contributors 89-02). they favor Repubs because Repubs are more on their side.
Those resources have been used to push a nakedly corporate agenda under the guise of 'centrism'
this is the sleight of hand Sirota specializes in. he doesn't say that the DLC is doing the corps' bidding, but he tries to make it sound that way. I see no reason to ascribe nefarious motives to the DLC any more than the party itself.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:29 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:32 (eighteen years ago) link
This is what is kind of confusing me.
Rahmneb, are you saying that Democrats need to claim ownership of the center and then define later what the center is? Or do Democrats claim ownership of centrist concepts and by default claim the center?
And do they claim the center by crying BUSHCO IS THE MOST EXTREME ADMINSITRATION EVAH by default or does the party just claim the center and then let the electorate figger out how EXTREMIST Bushco is?
― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:34 (eighteen years ago) link
xpost
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:35 (eighteen years ago) link
I think it's fair to say that a lot of potential Clinton votes went to Perot and at the same time safely conclude that Perot cost Bush (and maybe Dole) the election.
really? in 96? you want to explain with the numbers?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:49 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:50 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:50 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:53 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:55 (eighteen years ago) link
― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:55 (eighteen years ago) link
Back to square one...
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:02 (eighteen years ago) link
And yeah, far-leftist-candidates always do fantastic!
Wtf are you seriously talking about?
― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:04 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:10 (eighteen years ago) link
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:16 (eighteen years ago) link
xpost that's the thing, it'd be nice if SOMEONE on this thread would define their definitions of far this or far that or blah blah blah cos I'm not really sure how quite a few of the republicans being bandied around as democrat nemesises don't qualify as "centrist" in some way.
― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:20 (eighteen years ago) link
But I wouldn't count to heavily on bringing non-voters on board. It's a nice bonus, and something to work hard on for the long term, but in any given election it seems to be a relatively minor factor unless you're running Arnold Schwarzenegger.
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:21 (eighteen years ago) link
At any rate, he could've given up Colorado, Nevada, Louisiana, Georgia, AND Ohio to Bush and still would've won the election.
― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:23 (eighteen years ago) link
no, you're the one with the 'what if' scenarios that involve something other than Clinton winning 96 by 8.5% of the vote.
and o. nate raises an interesting point. are Dem popular vote percentages directly proportional to moderation?
Truman - 50%Stevenson '52 - 44%Stevenson '56 - 42%Kennedy - 50%Johnson - 61%Humphrey - 43%McGovern - 38%Carter '76 - 51%Carter '80 - 41%Mondale - 41% Dukakis - 46%Clinton 92 - 43%Clinton 96 - 49%Gore - 48%Kerry - 48%
I'd say no. But they do seem pretty proportional to how comparatively Southern the Dem ticket was.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:25 (eighteen years ago) link
so your point is that Clinton would have lost if Perot hadn't run because more people voted for Dole + Perot + Nader + Harry Browne + write-ins than voted for Clinton, never mind that Dole + Perot were not > Clinton (and somehow imagining that the popular vote winner is automatically the EC winner)?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:28 (eighteen years ago) link