You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #14: I'm really not that worried, Miss_Bevey. Things are not that dire... yet. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
VolcanoJen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 03:41 AM
Response to Original message
14. I'm really not that worried, Miss_Bevey. Things are not that dire... yet.
There are a few points worth making, and you know, I really feel we could all do a better job of using the numbers to prove that Democrats are still hangin' tough in America.

Democrats (yes, DINO's included) occupy 48 U.S. Senate seats, with Jeffords (I) most often voting with the Democratic majority. Republicans occupy 51 seats, with a handful of then voting with us often. Even with our slight deficit, we were able to derail the Estrada nomination, essentially dump Bush's plans to sell off the FCC, and stop the wholesale grab of ANWR more times than I can shake a stick at. Except for the war and that fuckin' Patriot Act, Bush has failed in many of his more important attempts to assert domination over liberals.

In the 2002 Senatorial Election, 20,470,371 Americans cast their votes for the Democratic candidate, while 22,198,747 chose the Republican. That's a difference of only 1,700,000 odd votes. That's no landslide, especially in a post-9/11 world, and represents no mandate. Factor in the 1,606,029 who chose a candidate who was neither Democrat nor Republican, and the current "Republican Revolution" appears even more hollow. America in 2002 was every bit as split and divided as it was in the 2000 Presidential Election.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2002/senparty.htm

And, going back to that election, don't forget that in the popular vote, Al Gore received 50,999,897, or 48.38%. Bush received 50,456,002, or 47.87%. 543,895 more voters chose the Democratic candidate. Add in the Nader votes (2,882,955, or 2.74%), and that means that in the 2000 election there were 3,426,850 more liberal voters than Republican, conservative ones. (Joe Conason does an excellent job of making this crucial poing in his newest book.) If we're going to win decisively in '04, we're going to need those 3,000,000 extra votes to go our way. And it wouldn't hurt us at all to pick up a few straggling Reagan democrats, either.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

It's too early to freak out, and besides, Democrats are going to win back the Presidency in 2004. I'm confident, feeling better by the minute, and energized by our candidates and the real kick-off to campaign season.

Bushies? Bring 'em on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC