A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes that's just you. I think you'll find the number of turned over seats larger in 1994 however, but I could be wrong about that and I don't care enough to look it up. Nor am I trying to prove that my polls outrank your polls. I'm just saying that a polling service that I trust is supporting my views on the public wishes regarding Iraq. I have to get some work done now. Have a good day.

Well, I'm not so sure it is just me, but more of a case of everyone but you, Fox.

This is the funny part of your post -

Quote:

I'm just saying that a polling service that I trust is supporting my views on the public wishes regarding Iraq

Naturally, you trust them because they support your views. No surprise there.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Yes that's just you. I think you'll find the number of turned over seats larger in 1994 however, but I could be wrong about that and I don't care enough to look it up. Nor am I trying to prove that my polls outrank your polls. I'm just saying that a polling service that I trust is supporting my views on the public wishes regarding Iraq. I have to get some work done now. Have a good day.

Well, I'm not so sure it is just me, but more of a case of everyone but you, Fox.

This is the funny part of your post -

Everyone but me? Really? I didn't realize I was all that unique. Hmmm. Boy was I wrong because you sure seem to be sure of that.

Quote:

Quote:
I'm just saying that a polling service that I trust is supporting my views on the public wishes regarding Iraq

Naturally, you trust them because they support your views. No surprise there.

Cycloptichorn

[/QUOTE]

Well after your last two ad hominem posts--which you probably don't recognize as ad hominem--I can truthfully say that I am tired of arguing the point. I will point out that you'll have a tough time proving I'm 'all alone' in my point of view and you cannot claim any ability to know what criteria I use in judging the merit of a source. You did do some better on not making it personal today, however. Usually I give you a D minus or F on that but today I would say you scored a C minus. That's measurable improvement. Smile

0 Replies

I recognize ad hominem when I write it, thanks. We generally do pretty well until you start posting items which practically beg for ridicule, because it's pretty obvious that sometimes you sit here in reality with the rest of us, and others you're just out the window. Perhaps there are some who are willing/desirous of keeping their mouths shut when you fly out the window, but as you know I am not one of them by any means.

Here; I thought you said

Quote:

Have a good day.

On not one but two threads. Couldn't quite resist the urge to come back and get the last word, though, as usual.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

BTW, Fox, something you said got me thinking -

Quote:

My favorite polling group with the highest accuracy ratings recently is Rasmussen who agrees with me.

Agrees with you on which issue? Because, if the issue is 'should be be adding more or removing more troops from Iraq' the answer is, of course, that Rasmussen shows agreement with other polls --

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Dailies/January%202007/BushIraqSpeech.htm

Quote:

Same article -

Quote:

A separate survey found that a plurality of Americans now believe the terrorists are winning the War on Terror. Just 26% believe that President Bush is doing a good or an excellent job handling the situation in Iraq. Another survey found overwhelming support for the Iraq Study Group recommendation to remove almost all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by early 2008.

Damn those facts! They sure screw your argument up, Fox.

Hell, here's a more recent Rasmussen poll -

Quote:

Most Americans (55%) favor a firm timetable for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq within a year. That figure includes 37% who favor an immediate withdrawal and 18% who want a timetable that will complete the withdrawal in a year. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 1,000 adults found that just 33% believe U.S. combat troops should remain in Iraq "until our mission is accomplished."

You are completely, clearly wrong on this issue. Even your preferred pollster is putting out reports that Iraq is a toxic issue. It is the height of ridiculousness for you to pretend any longer that supporting the war in Iraq actually is beneficial to a candidate in '08 - every bit of available evidence has shown this to be false.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bringing some articles.

This is the final paragraph in the linked article:

If Giuliani winds up harnessing enough moderate Republican support to win the nomination, the GOP will have another problem on its hands: how to get evangelicals to the polls in the general election. "Evangelicals just won't vote" if Giuliani is the nominee, says the Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land. "He'll lose Ohio, perhaps Tennessee-maybe even Texas." To Christian conservatives, it's a losing formula. But they still have to find a winning formula that includes them.

Evangelicals may stay home and wash their hair.

Let 'em.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Bringing some articles.

This is the final paragraph in the linked article:

If Giuliani winds up harnessing enough moderate Republican support to win the nomination, the GOP will have another problem on its hands: how to get evangelicals to the polls in the general election. "Evangelicals just won't vote" if Giuliani is the nominee, says the Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land. "He'll lose Ohio, perhaps Tennessee-maybe even Texas." To Christian conservatives, it's a losing formula. But they still have to find a winning formula that includes them.

Evangelicals may stay home and wash their hair.

Let 'em.

I don't believe that for minute. It sounds good in theory, and it makes a compelling threat, but I think it's horseshit. If putting Giuliani in doesn't get them to the polls; keeping Hillary (or whoever) out will. They may have to hold their collective nose, but I'd wager most habitual voters will vote.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Lash wrote:
Bringing some articles.

This is the final paragraph in the linked article:

If Giuliani winds up harnessing enough moderate Republican support to win the nomination, the GOP will have another problem on its hands: how to get evangelicals to the polls in the general election. "Evangelicals just won't vote" if Giuliani is the nominee, says the Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land. "He'll lose Ohio, perhaps Tennessee-maybe even Texas." To Christian conservatives, it's a losing formula. But they still have to find a winning formula that includes them.

Evangelicals may stay home and wash their hair.

Let 'em.
I don't believe that for minute. It sounds good in theory, and it makes a compelling threat, but I think it's horseshit. If putting Giuliani in doesn't get them to the polls; keeping Hillary (or whoever) out will. They may have to hold their collective nose, but I'd wager most habitual voters will vote.

Sure, most. But how many have to stay home to significantly effect the results?

1 or 2% staying home kills candidates in the close elections we see these days.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo--

You've received a rather poor grade from Fox. I'm not sure we can entertain your responses.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sure, most. But how many have to stay home to significantly effect the results?

1 or 2% staying home kills candidates in the close elections we see these days.

Cycloptichorn

How many people who habitually stay home for a lack of desire to support this extreme faction or that will show up to vote for a Moderate? I think lots.

0 Replies

That's one of the main reasons I'm against Hillary as a candidate.

I think that if it's Hillary vs. a so-so Republican, the conservatives will come out in droves to keep her OUT of the White House.

I think that if it's Obama vs. a so-so Republican, the conservatives will be more likely to stay home.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Sure, most. But how many have to stay home to significantly effect the results?

1 or 2% staying home kills candidates in the close elections we see these days.

Cycloptichorn
How many people who habitually stay home for a lack of desire to support this extreme faction or that will show up to vote for a Moderate? I think lots.

Faith in the moderates? An amazing concept.

You think that, for example, more moderates would show up to vote for Guiliani than Fundies would stay home and not vote for him? I doubt it, especially given his Iraq war stance. He's going to have a lot of 'splaining to do to the moderates of America on that one, because they are solidly against it and that isn't going to change betwixt now and then.

Lash,

Quote:

You've received a rather poor grade from Fox. I'm not sure we can entertain your responses.

Hell, I'm shooting for entertaining you with my responses...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

That's one of the main reasons I'm against Hillary as a candidate.

I think that if it's Hillary vs. a so-so Republican, the conservatives will come out in droves to keep her OUT of the White House.

I think that if it's Obama vs. a so-so Republican, the conservatives will be more likely to stay home.

You forget that there are a significant number of Liberals such as myself who will turn out to keep her out of the White House. It kills Hillary even further.

I don't dislike her personally, but I'll be damned if I work to elect another Clinton or Bush family member in my lifetime!!!!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, not forget per se, just a different emphasis.

That's another reason, too. But was reacting to what Bill had to say.

You'd really vote against her though if she became the nominee? You'd vote for, who, Brownback?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Well, not forget per se, just a different emphasis.

That's another reason, too. But was reacting to what Bill had to say.

You'd really vote against her though if she became the nominee? You'd vote for, who, Brownback?

Woah woah. I might not vote at all, hehe

I mean, I'd put out my only good eye before I voted for Brownback...

I used to have such high hopes for McCain, back in the days when it actually seemed like he stood for something. I used to talk about him the way my conservative family talks about Obama....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Does that mean your conservative family likes Obama?

I'm getting more hopeful by the minute... :-)

0 Replies

So, who do you like, cyclo?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Does that mean your conservative family likes Obama?

I'm getting more hopeful by the minute... :-)

Yes, it most certainly does. And so am I.

I missed him in Austin, mostly because I don't live there anymore, but he drew anywhere from 15-20k last week - in the rain. My friends who were there said it was downright amazing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

So, who do you like, cyclo?

See above. I don't deify the man, but Obama has the skillz to get the job done.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

That's one of the main reasons I'm against Hillary as a candidate.

I think that if it's Hillary vs. a so-so Republican, the conservatives will come out in droves to keep her OUT of the White House.

I think that if it's Obama vs. a so-so Republican, the conservatives will be more likely to stay home.

Agreed, for sure... and I believe the polls are beginning to reflect as much. Other than against Giuliani; Hillary is faring worse than Obama or Edwards against the Republicans at this juncture. I expect this pattern to expand.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know