Conservative Crackup: RIP GOP

**Marcus Bryant** · 10-13-2005

"the sheer size of their base is much less than the GOP"

the 2000 pres voting was a dead heat

the 2004 pres voting was lost by dubya by 600K votes

How dubya's "base" so much bigger than anything else when more people vote against him than for him?

**Extra Stout** · 10-13-2005

Originally Posted by boutons

"the sheer size of their base is much less than the GOP"

the 2000 pres voting was a dead heat

the 2004 pres voting was lost by dubya by 600K votes

How dubya's "base" so much bigger than anything else when more people vote against him than for him?

The point is that the conservative base is larger than the liberal base.

Democrats tend to get more moderates. However, they still don't get enough of them to win.

That party has to establish credibility on national security and culture. They are perceived as soft on the former and excessively libertine on the latter. On national security especially, they don't have much of a message and don't like to talk about it. However, they are coherent on domestic policy, even if you don't agree with them.

**Marcus Bryant** · 10-13-2005

You can use the party affiliation of members of the House of Representatives as a proxy for base strength. Also, in the last election Bush ended up with something like 3 million more votes than Kerry.

Base. Strength.

**boutons** · 10-13-2005

"in the last election Bush ended up with something like 3 million more votes than Kerry."

??? It was one of the few pres elections where the winner of the popular vote (Kerry by +600,000) lost the electoral vote.

**Marklar MM** · 10-13-2005

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/

According to CNN, Bush had 62,040,606 votes-58%. Kerry had 59,028,109 votes-48%

**SWC Bonfire** · 10-13-2005

Originally Posted by boutons

"in the last election Bush ended up with something like 3 million more votes than Kerry."

??? It was one of the few pres elections where the winner of the popular vote (Kerry by +600,000) lost the electoral vote.

You got that mixed up with Gore in 2000.

**boutons** · 10-13-2005

correct.

shrub won the 2004 popular election by 3.5%, the lowest percentage for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson. Without the Rove re-election ploy of the BS Iraq war, dubya would have been defeated in 2004.

**Marcus Bryant** · 10-13-2005

Originally Posted by boutons

"in the last election Bush ended up with something like 3 million more votes than Kerry."

??? It was one of the few pres elections where the winner of the popular vote (Kerry by +600,000) lost the electoral vote.

Are you new to this country? this world?

**SWC Bonfire** · 10-13-2005

Originally Posted by boutons

correct.

shrub won the 2004 popular election by 3.5%, the lowest percentage for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson. Without the Rove re-election ploy of the BS Iraq war, dubya would have been defeated in 2004.

He also got the most votes of any president, ever I believe. You can throw out little factiods about the election for both sides, but the fact remains that a lot of people voted for both, but more voted for Bush.

**boutons** · 10-13-2005

"He also got the most votes of any president, ever I believe. "

yes, with wars going on, a bogus hot war and a polarizing, cultural war, plus the fresh memory of those 600K meaningless votes in 2000, the 2004 turnout was bigger, the total US poplulation was bigger. No credit to dubya in causing a higher turnout, except as a lying, polarizing divder.

The absolute qty of votes cast is comparatively meaningless vs the historically tiny %age margin of victory.

**Marcus Bryant** · 10-13-2005

Funny. Despite a larger turnout in '04, Bush received more votes, received a larger ( , positive this time) margin in the popular vote and in the electoral vote.

**Nbadan** · 10-13-2005

Originally Posted by SWC Bonfire

He also got the most votes of any president, ever I believe. You can throw out little factiods about the election for both sides, but the fact remains that a lot of people voted for both, but more voted for Bush.

No, many people voted for Bush because Kerry votes in Ohio, Florida and other key states were switched by treasonous E-voting equipment supplied by companies who's CEO's openly support W, and who use proprietary software that can be hacked with Microsoft office and a modem. It is estimated that in Columbus Ohio alone, 100,000 votes were somehow magically switched from Kerry to Bush, and yet no one investigated.

**scott** · 10-13-2005

Originally Posted by Nbadan

No, many people voted for Bush because Kerry votes in Ohio, Florida and other key states were switched by treasonous E-voting equipment supplied by companies who's CEO's openly support W, and who use proprietary software that can be hacked with Microsoft office and a modem. It is estimated that in Columbus Ohio alone, 100,000 votes were somehow magically switched from Kerry to Bush, and yet no one investigated.

No... many people voted for Bush because Kerry has the charisma of an oak tree.

The Democratic party needs to learn that you can't fight with and expect to win.

**RandomGuy** · 10-15-2005

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking because you waved your hand and went "bah"?

um, yeaaaahh.

The guy has a pretty good point. The "conservative" movement is simply maturing and splintering, just as the "liberal" one did a while back.

Nothing earth-shattering, but hardly something most would want to admit.

The "conservative" viewpoint will splinter and bicker, even more than the liberal one, because in the end, it is less moral.

**Nbadan** · 10-15-2005

Originally Posted by scott

No... many people voted for Bush because Kerry has the charisma of an oak tree.

The Democratic party needs to learn that you can't fight with and expect to win.

You would have a point if the election was just about John Kerry, but it wasn't. Even in 04, public sentiment was already turning against the Iraq war and the Bush Junta needed to do something to reassure a war-weary nation that despite the lack of presence of WMD's, and any certifiable links between Saddam-Iraq and international terrorism, let alone Al-Queda, by the 911 Commission, the Iraq War was still a worthy cause despite the dynamic justification by the administration, and the daily losses in troops we were sure to keep suffering as a result.

So Diebold, ECS and other E-Voting companies sympathetic to the NeoCon cause, maliciously planted malfunctioning voting booths in heavy democratic districts that would automatically count each 2nd, 3rd, or 4th vote for Kerry as a vote for Bush instead. This happened in every state in the Union which used these companies’ machines and left no paper-trail to recount the votes later, so you can see how votes for Bush added up quickly, and the NeoCon’s consequently got their justification for continuing this losing war. This is why and Rummy kept repeating that W's victory in the 04 election was a yes-vote for continuing the Iraq war at the time, even though the polls were already saying different about public sentiment.

**Marcus Bryant** · 10-15-2005

Perhaps, Kerry lost the election. But the vote is only manipulated when Republicans win...

Thread Tools

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions