Are the American people stupid enough to elect another Republican??

[kentuck]

Yes, they are. I know it is not politically correct to call the American people stupid. But they did put George W Bush into office for a second term.

It seems that under normal circumstances, there are more Republican voters in the presidential campaigns than there are Democrats. If the Democrats do as they have done in the past, there is no guarantee that the Republicans will not win again. I realize that it is a devastating thought.

There is only one way for the Democratic Party to win. They must form a united front. It is not good that Hillary is trying to divide the Party along sex lines. She is a Clinton. People know what to expect if she and Bill are in the White House once again. They are divisive politicians. There is no Ross Perot to put her into office as with Bill in 1992. We need more voters than Hillary can muster in order for the Democrat to win.

At the same time, Obama cannot win if the women leave the Party. There are more women in the Democratic Party than there are blacks or any other group. We cannot accept that anyone would use the women vote to divide the Party for their own political advantage. It is cold and calculating. It is a disgrace.

[SoonerPride]

1. Hillary Clinton has proven that she is not a good team member.

She will drag the party down with her sinking ship.

[Texas Hill Country]

12. hillary has ONLY said that we should vote for the dem nominee. dont blame her, blame us.

[mkultra]

36. we do.

[Arugula Latte]

2. I was so depressed after seeing a snippet of CNN's coverage of Clark County, Ky.

These desperate, down-and-out people vote heavily Republican -- yeah, that makes sense. :eyes: One woman was "leery" of Obama (gee, I wonder why?) and another said "the Bible says a woman's place is in the home!" (Sorry, Hill, she ain't voting for ya.) There was so much ignorance, it was astounding. (I can't wrap my mind around how many people believe that every word in the Bible is literally "true.") So, yes, I worry that people ARE stupid enough to elect another Republican.

[knixphan]

31. especially in the land that time forgot...

[BOSSHOG]

3. Yes. Ignorance, pride and insanity

Those who vote for republicans have been trained that they and only they are right. If anything is fucked up in the world it ain't their fault. They are way to proud to admit they have been wrong all along. And just like the insane they will do the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result. Robotically go to the voting booth (probably wearing a flag lapel pin) and vote for republicans because by gawd that's the party of Merka!!

The Clinton's are divisive? Are they the only divisive humans on the planet as Obama supporters would have one believe? They are the only humans who are cold and calculating? (if in fact they are) Quite a humorous post.

A United Front? I've been sitting back and waiting to cast my ballot for the (D) in November but reading posts from Obama supporters on DU, I get the distinct impression that many (most) of them could not possibly give a flying dog fuck about Unity.

So Obama can't win without the votes that Hillary can muster? So what do we do with them, chuck em in the shitcan?

[kentuck]

5. Hillary and Bill have a history that Obama does not have...

And might I say, a very unsavory and divisive history that divides the Democratic Party by triangulation and unites the Republicans against them. That is the history that we are voting for or against. So we end up with a candidate named Barack Hussein Obama or another Clinton. Understanding how easily manipulated the American are, I can see pitfalls from either candidate. But, in my opinion, we shoud choose the one that is least divisive. It's all so encouraging...

[BOSSHOG]

22. How come

The Clinton's have an unsavory and divisive history? Because the gop disinformation machine made it so? And how come Obama does not have an unsavory and divisive history? Because the gop disinformation machine has not had enough time to work on that yet?

I understand way too well how easy Americans are manipulated. I read posts on DU almost on a daily basis.

Least divisive? The gop will tend to that as soon as we have a bonafide nominee. I find the "least" and the "most" divisive democratic candidate is totally irrelevant come the general election. I'll just march on and vote (D) again and again and again.

[kentuck]

23. You make a good point.

But Hillary will bring the Repubs together moreso than Obama, in my opinion. I think Obama may actually get a good portion of Republican votes. Also, many Democrats never really cared for Bill or Hillary or their DLC politics - they voted for them out of loyalty to the Party.

[BOSSHOG]

24. Always

a pleasure to read your posts Kentuck! All I want for Christmas is a democrat in the oval office (and a large senate and house majority would be nice too.)

[kentuck]

25. I will vote Democratic.

But maybe I am an idealist? Maybe I hope that things will change for the better? But after you've ridden the carnival ride once, it is not as much fun the second time.

[griffi94]

9. with regard to hillary being divisive

that's mostly because the clintons have been the only democratic bump in the road for the gop in the last 28 years. if obama manages a win in november, by summer of 2010 he will be seen as just as divisive as hillary. the gop is going to savage our nominee no matter who it is. the obama supporters who think obama is immune from that are fooling themselves. obamas negatives will be the same as hillarys before this is over.

[BOSSHOG]

20. I could not possibly

agree with you more my beer swilling Longhorn friend. Ergo, one might deduce from your most excellent post that the gop is, in fact, manipulating a part of the democratic electorate. The same part which will be so surprised when those attack ads pop up from coast to coast by early September.

I do disagree with you ever so slightly. If Obama wins the nomination and then the election he will be "divisive" (per the gop) the day after the election. No need to wait until the summer of 2010.

And imagine, a fresh new face hitting the American Political scene in 2015 (who is now about 32 years old and unknown to anyone) who will sweep away the electorate and bring the democratic party out of the quagmire and diviseness of eight years of Obama. Oh how youth is wasted on the young.

[newmajority]

4. I don't believe that Democratic women are going to enable the election

of a man who calls his own wife a "trollop" and a "cunt". This handful of delusional Hillbots who spam this board and plague the radio shows with their hatred are not representative of anything but Hillary's ego. (and inability to use a calculator)

[Andy823]

10. I agree with you.

The majority of women in this country are not going to let McCain take over simply because Hillary did not win the nomination. True some diehards will protest and stay home, or even worse vote for McCain, but I have more confidence in the women of this country, and know in my heart they are not going to be sore losers and take the chance of McCain putting his kind of judges on the supreme court, or allow this war to go on and even for him to start another one. Our country needs to heal, and if the party can't come together then it will lose in November, and never heal. Instead we will have the Bush families "new world order" where the rich own everything, and the rest of us work for bread crumbs so the riche can live their lavish life style!

[polmaven]

18. That handful are not representative of

anything except the Republic party.

[Auggie]

6. They might make it close enough to enable Republicans to steal the votes

they need to win. Why break with tradition?

[Spooky_D]

38. Indeed...

Get the vote close, let Diebold do the rest...

[ladjf]

7. Sadly, yes. There may be some environmental cause to America's

apparent poor judgment.

[Wapsie B]

8. People like this are too blind to see they're voting against their own self-interests.

It's as if they idolize the party of bankers and CEOs enough, the wealthy will bestow favor upon them. Although lack of education does help in some cases I've seen educated people fall into the same mindset. It's unsettling to some to come to the realization that your world view is a total lie. The gop plays into that feeling and makes it easy for them to drown out those thoughts. Why else would they have brought about things like Jeff Christie or Faux News? Flip a switch and your thinking's done for you.

[L0oniX]

11. People who voted for George Bush twice = asscarrot extraordinaries

They are morans, stupid, blinded by pride, religious terrorists, high school drop outs, retards that were bussed to the voting booths, incompetent, fools, idiots, drunkards, inbred, subhuman life forms, senile old fucks, accordion players, race car drivers, suckers, dweebs, dirty rats, evil bastards, megalomaniacs, lovers of Henry Kissinger and the bomb, etc ....add your own descriptions here: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Two Americas]

43. there we go

That is sure to win people over.

[L0oniX]

45. Who wants them. pffft

[AndyTiedye]

13. You Can Fool Some of the People All of the Time

The proud. The stupid. The proud-to-be-stupid. The Bush voters.

For the rest of us there's


Republican Electing Machinez

[polmaven]

14. Well, except -

The American people actually elected Democrats the last two elections!

[kentuck]

16. What makes the presidential elections different?

from the Congressional elections??

[polmaven]

19. I MEANT presidential.

The people did not elect the Bush Brain either in 2000 or 2004.

I fully expect the Congressional elections this year will continue to increase the Democratic majority.

[LucyParsons]

15. Yes

nt

[Phillycat]

17. Yes.

[cliffordu]

21. Yes.

[butterfly77]

26. Yes.

their racism blinds them...

[billyoc]

27. I cursory glance at the New York Times bestseller list should prove that.

We hella stupid. :rofl:

[autorank]

28. First, the American people are very intelligent. Second, they won't give a majority

or plurality to McCain.

The vote villains may steal it for them. There's a lot on the line and if Obama
fails to signal that it's "forgive and forget" when he gets in, they'll try to
steal it. But that will be difficult with the new awareness of election fraud.

U.S. citizens were right on Iraq. They opposed it, Republicans, Democrats,
Independents, until the nuke lies were told, the WMD fantasy. They're for
an environmental clean up and opposed to gas tax holidays. They want to watch
their votes counted - 92%. 55% lack confidence in in the 2004 election outcome.

Nothing wrong with the people.


We have a decadent system run by people who will do anything to stay in power.
That's the problem.

The real questions is:

When the citizens vote Obama into office, will the announced vote totals
reflect that election?

[kentuck]

29. So they were just easily tricked into voting for GWB ?

He beat Kerry in the popular vote, didn't he?

[autorank]

33. No he didn't beat Kerry in the popular vote, as a matter of fact.

But first, here's some advice for those who think those who oppose us are stupid

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00402.htm">"Us" versus "Them"

Onto the popular vote:

Broken Democracy 2004

Election 2004: The Urban Legend

American Coup II

How Bush won 2004


ExitPollz

So, who really won? Kerry.

And it keeps happening ... Landslide Denied 2006

[kentuck]

34. Really?

I thought Bush had about 3 million more votes than Kerry, disregarding everything that happened in Ohio.. Is that not correct?

[autorank]

44. Read Urban Legend (below) and seeif that changes your opinion

The Network Consortium sponsored exit polls had to be adjusted in some pretty crazy ways to
support the 3$ victory because they were polling a 3% loss all day.
(The Network Consortium that sponsors the exit polls consists of : AP, CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC)

What did they do? They created an urban legend - BUSH WIN'S IT IN THE BIG CITIES

Here's rural voting in 2004. From "Election 2004: The Urban Legend" http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00165.htm

FIGURE 1. The 2004 rural vote must have alarmed the Bush camp. It was less as a percentage of the overall vote, dropping from 23% to 16%. Bush’s total rural vote went from 14 million in 2000 to just short of 12 million in 2004. These totals added up to a devastating loss of 2 plus million votes from his base instead of an increase by the 3 to 4 million the campaign needed. This was very bad news for the White House. Their core rural base was absent without leave.

Figure 4. Graph reads from left to right, e.g., 2004 3.8 million rural lead in rural areas; adding the small town margin, Bush has only 4.0 million cumulative - net lead when 2004 small town votes are factored in. This shows that Bush “won”, not by building up a huge lead that was eroded in urban areas, but by building up a much smaller lead that was not nearly as dramatically “eroded” in the cities.

The rural base went down from 23% in 2000 to 16% in 2004. Bush had 2 million less rural votes
in 2004 than in 2000 according to the polls. He lost his base


But he won it in the "big cities" - 500,000 population and up according to the same poll.
-66% "big city" turnout increase (not so) and, of the polls 15 million estimated big citiy
voters, there were 4 million "new" white voters who gave Bush a huge increase over his 2000
big city total.

Amazing isn't it? The first presidential candidate to take a major hit to his base, the rural
segment, then gain in hostile territory, the "big city" Democratic base AND win the election.
It's never happened before.

The vote count was corrupt by on the ground evidence and the efforts of the network pollsters
to adjust their poll to match the reported amount.

We first spotted and analyzed the 66% big city turnout "spike" and disproved it with actual
evidence (in the article, near the end). Nobody has explained it, yet the networks use the same
exit polls to call elections in ever primary state, just about.

[demokatgurrl]

30. ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY FUCKIN YES!!!!!!

There is no doubt in my mind. In fact I have a genuine fear that it is going to happen. Look how many people voted against their own self-interest last time. Look at the Nader voters the previous time.
No doubt in my mind.:mad:

[knixphan]

32. SOME Americans are intelligent.

SOME Americans are dumb.
SOME Americans are just apathetic regarding government, opiated by MSM.

our hope is converting the latter two groups as best we can, to make the first group larger.

starts in school, though...

[WA98296]

35. Well, WHO is COUNTING the votes?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Not this time. Hell, even Hillary could thrash his sorry ass.

All Obama has to do is run as the "not a Republican".

[otohara]

39. In 2004 I Was Sure They Wouldn't

go for Bush again, but in spite of the shit they pulled in OH - more people voted did for him in the country. So yeah, I don't have any trust and and now we have democratic women threatening to stay home or worse vote for McCain because Hillary lost.

[dana_b]

40. yes, I'm worried too.

It seems that the polarity of this country is emphasized more in the media and people fall for it - good ratings?? When you talk to people around you, we seem to have more in common. My point being that people fall for it and vote because of sound bites they see on t.v. rather than what they know in their hearts. And yes, I agree with you about the election fraud - that sure as hell didn't help us!

Hopefully the Hillary women will use their intellect rather than their emotions because we all know that McCain doesn't give a crap about them.

[demokatgurrl]

41. Here is an excellent statement of how close we are

to doing so:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20herbert.html?hp

"The general election is about to unfold and we�ll soon see how smart or how foolish Americans really are. The U.S. may be the richest country on earth, but the economy is tanking, its working families are in trouble, it is bogged down in a multitrillion-dollar war of its own making and the price of gasoline has nitwits siphoning supplies from the cars and trucks of strangers.

Four of every five Americans want the country to move in a different direction, which makes this presidential election, potentially, one of the most pivotal since World War II.

And yet there�s growing evidence that despite the plethora of important issues, the election may yet be undermined by the usual madness � fear-mongering, bogus arguments over who really loves America, race-baiting, gay-baiting (Ohmigod! They�re getting married!) and the wholesale trivialization of matters that are not just important, but extremely complex.

.....
Let the candidates talk about these things. Let them talk about the fact that the Bush administration, which has pushed the troops so unmercifully, opposes a bill (sponsored by Senator Jim Webb and widely supported in Congress) that would expand the education benefits of veterans who have served since Sept. 11, 2001.

[Two Americas]

42. more importantly

More importantly than forming a united front, what is needed is a strong coherent message that makes some sort of sense to people and also for us to stop portraying the battle as a showdown between smart and stupid, or as far as that goes as a showdown between racist and non-racist or sexist and non-sexist. Presenting a united front would be effortless if we were in fact united, and if there was anything to be united around. As it is, calls for unity are actually calls for conformity.

The people are not so stupid as to see those who call them stupid as allies or friends.

People do not so much vote for Republicans as they do against Democrats. That is a blind spot for us, because we are so invested in being right in a very narrow and self-righteous way. It is not the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party they vote against - the people overwhelmingly support all of the programs and ideas that found their greatest expression in the New Deal era. Were we offering that, the Republicans would be routed for a generation or more, and very quickly. That we are not offering that is the reason we can't gain more support from the people. That is not the fault of the people. That we are not offering that says more about us than it does about the Republicans or the people.

We are asking people to vote for an illusion - for the Democratic party that no longer exists, the Democratic party of the 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's. Since those four decades of progress, all we are for the last four decades is "not the Republicans" and the hair-splitting rationales and convoluted arguments that are needed to support the idea that "we are better" only make sense to a small percentage of the population. Most people's votes will be determined by what they are fed by the mass media.

I don't think that either candidate is dividing the party - I think the party is already divided and has been for some time.

I don't expect there to be much examination or discussion of the split in the party or the problems with the party now. Calling for a united front is, in my view, a way to avoid looking at the problems - we are being asked to pretend one more time that we are united. But we aren't, and there is no way to force people to unite. Obama will have to either win or lose before we will start looking at this. But win or lose, the day of reckoning is coming very soon.

The battle is between modernism and traditionalism, and ironically the persistent and stubborn (and very annoying to Obama supporters) support for Clinton represents a resistance to modernism, a resistance to reckless innovation. Obama supporters see it as old (bad, racist, DLC, whatever) against new (hope, belief, change, whatever) and say the Hell with the people in West Virginia, they need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age or else. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but that position is not strong politically.

It is not really a political battle, since neither party talks about politics very much. The voters don't see it as political, they don't even know what politics are anymore.

The reason to listen to Clinton supporters is this - if we are struggling to get almost half of the Democrats on board with the battle for modernism over traditionalism, it will be even worse in the general election because this is our greatest vulnerability with the general public. Screaming and yelling and bullying people will not work, no matter how "right" we are, and for whatever backlash that is causing among Democrats, it is minor compared to the backlash it can cause from the general public.