"Rockefeller Republicans take Manhattan"

[The Duke]

And what the hell is a Pug?

Anyway, I disagree with the article.  Arnold, Rudy, and McCain are the three most popular politicians in America, we had damn well ought to point out that all three support Bush.

[The Duke]

I started out as a rockefeller republican.

What happenned?

[The Duke]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(sigh)...  Ah, the good old days.  When Pugs knew their place, and accepted it quietly.  Now we have to start the "house training" ALL OVER!


- Alfie
sit.  stay.

Yeah, how dare we kick your arses on a regular basis.  How dare we control the House, Senate, White House, the Supreme Court, the governorship of the four largest states in the union, and the majority of governorships?  How dare the majority agree with our views?

[The Duke]

Fool.

The NSDAP was most unpopular throughout Germany, as historian Ian Kerhsaw demnstrates in his "The Hitler Myth", a book documenting how Hitler was able to manipulate the publci's image of him.  Hitler the man was popular, his party was not.  He never held a majority in the Reichstag, its best showing before 1933 was only 37%.  They did not take control of the country until Hitler prevented any further elections by invoking the emrgency owers of his Chancelor position (an appointed post, not one to which he was elected).

Is this really your argument?  Not part of your argument, not even the core of your argument, but the whole argument in its entirety, is that Republicans are like Nazis because both can claim to have been popular?

[The Duke]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(sigh)...  Ah, the good old days.  When Pugs knew their place, and accepted it quietly.  Now we have to start the "house training" ALL OVER!


- Alfie
sit.  stay.

Yeah, how dare we kick your arses on a regular basis.  How dare we control the House, Senate, White House, the Supreme Court, the governorship of the four largest states in the union, and the majority of governorships?  How dare the majority agree with our views?

You lost the 2000 election by 540,000 votes.

Oooh, nice comeback!  Ever hear of the electoral college?

[The Duke]

A majority does agree with our views.  We control every bracnh of government at the federal level and the majority of state government agencies.

Bush and Gore were individuals, not philosophies.  Voters voted for the individual in the Presidential election, and it had little to do with which party platform most people aligned themselves with.  Even so, even with the 504,000 votes differential in the PV, so much of that is a result of low turnout in states that were long ago decided.  What would it be lik eif the whole country felt their vote counted?  We will never know, and it is silly to pretend that the PV is representative of anything but a parlor game.

[The Duke]

First of all, fix your quote box.

Second, turnout would have been higher in Texas, but not so much in New York because NY already had a major race of national importance to get them to the polls: The Clinton-Lazio Senate race.  Texas, on the other hand, was long ago decided and voters had little reason to go to the polls.  Texas is also larger the New York.

In fact, in counties won by Bush, there were 143 million people, and only 127 million in counties for Gore.  This tell sme that there were probably a lot more voters for Bush that stayed home than for Gore.  Granted, this is all speculation, and that goes back to my earlier point, that popular votes don't reflect the opinion of voters as much as they would if we had a truly national election.

As for the "issue voters vote Gore" line, I've heard it before.  Something tells me that very few people voted for Bush who didn't want a tax cut and very few people voted for Gore who didn't want bigger government.  People find politicians they agree with to be more likeable, but liberals tend not to admit that.  They always say it the issues, while conservatives see their worldview reflected in individuals and vote for this person because of this "likeability".  But really, it isn't likeability at all.

[The Duke]

Goodwin's Law:

Professor Goodwin, U of I, in 1981 made the observation that Usenet discussions gravitate downhill.

He postulated that as the length of a discussion thread grows, the probability approaches one (1) that one participant will introduce the terms "Hitler" or "Nazi".

The custom has evolved that the first party to utter "Hitler" or "Nazi" has lost the discussion, and the thread terminates.


I agree with states.  Alfie invoked Hitler first and loses by TKO.

But I wonder who wins a discussion when the thread IS a debate about Hitler?

[The Duke]

Bye, Mark, Nancy, and soulsby.

You'll still let me kick your @$$ though, right?

-Ford
delivers servings for free