Update: McCain Selects Gov. Sarah Palin as Running Mate

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

My feeling is that the far right is a lot more influential on its party than the far left

I would completely disagree. I agree the far right influence has been a disaster for the Repubs but I think the far lefts influence is so ingrained and institutionalized that it no longer even appears as influence. It actually is the party. It has been going on since the 60's. The Repubs are catching up quick though.

The 25% of this country that would identify themselves as democrats but not in the context of their super liberal party get left out in the cold the same way the 25% of Repubs do.

Our country seems to align basically like this.

15 25 20 25 15

left to right.

the problem in both parties is that the 15 percenters run the show.

the 25 percenters are stuck voting for blobs like Kerry/GW because they can't support someone so opposed to their fundamental beliefs.

and the middle 20 percenters vote the guy they like the best regardless of politics.

we need to bust up the two party system something fierce. it is killing us.

[SmootSmack]

But doesn't seem like as the election has proceeded, both candidates have shifted toward the right of their originally stated positions? Implying that the far right is more influential.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

I honestly don't know how anyone who voted for George Bush twice can actually look at themselves in the mirror and say "I voted for a better America." What a disaster. It's not just my opinion. The man has the lowest approval rating of any President.
Ever. Well done. Go Palin.

It is true that Bush has the "lowest approval rating ever". However:


1. Presidential Approval Rating Polls were not taken until the mid to late 1930s, which means you're leaving out some really bad Presidents.

2. While Bush's 19% number from American Research Group is the "lowest approval rating ever, the average of his numbers in any given week are unlikely to be lower than Harry Truman's 22% number from 1952 when only one organization (Gallup) was doing the polling. George W. Bush has never been lower than 28% in the Gallup poll. Furthermore the American Research Group's numbers for Bush are consistently lower than everyone else's. If you go to their website and look at their numbers, they're all over the place month to month which should cause some concerns as to their methodology. For instance, last month Bush was at 21% in their poll and this month he is at 30%.

3. By following the "lowest approval rating ever" logic, it should be pointed out that Bush also has the "highest approval rating ever" of 92% after 9/11, and Bush's average number throughout his two terms is 50% in the Gallup poll.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I would completely disagree. I agree the far right influence has been a disaster for the Repubs but I think the far lefts influence is so ingrained and institutionalized that it no longer even appears as influence. It actually is the party. It has been going on since the 60's. The Repubs are catching up quick though.

The 25% of this country that would identify themselves as democrats but not in the context of their super liberal party get left out in the cold the same way the 25% of Repubs do.

Our country seems to align basically like this.

15 25 20 25 15

left to right.

the problem in both parties is that the 15 percenters run the show.

the 25 percenters are stuck voting for blobs like Kerry/GW because they can't support someone so opposed to their fundamental beliefs.

and the middle 20 percenters vote the guy they like the best regardless of politics.

we need to bust up the two party system something fierce. it is killing us.

I think the country shakes out this way:

99.99999% Usually Wrong or "Everyone Else" vs.

.00001% Always Right or "Me"

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

It is true that Bush has the "lowest approval rating ever". However:


1. Presidential Approval Rating Polls were not taken until the mid to late 1930s, which means you're leaving out some really bad Presidents.

2. While Bush's 19% number from American Research Group is the "lowest approval rating ever, the average of his numbers in any given week are unlikely to be lower than Harry Truman's 22% number from 1952 when only one organization (Gallup) was doing the polling. George W. Bush has never been lower than 28% in the Gallup poll. Furthermore the American Research Group's numbers for Bush are consistently lower than everyone else's. If you go to their website and look at their numbers, they're all over the place month to month which should cause some concerns as to their methodology. For instance, last month Bush was at 21% in their poll and this month he is at 30%.

3. By following the "lowest approval rating ever" logic, it should be pointed out that Bush also has the "highest approval rating ever" of 92% after 9/11, and Bush's average number throughout his two terms is 50% in the Gallup poll.

All good points

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I would completely disagree. I agree the far right influence has been a disaster for the Repubs but I think the far lefts influence is so ingrained and institutionalized that it no longer even appears as influence. It actually is the party. It has been going on since the 60's. The Repubs are catching up quick though.

The 25% of this country that would identify themselves as democrats but not in the context of their super liberal party get left out in the cold the same way the 25% of Repubs do.

Our country seems to align basically like this.

15 25 20 25 15

left to right.

the problem in both parties is that the 15 percenters run the show.

the 25 percenters are stuck voting for blobs like Kerry/GW because they can't support someone so opposed to their fundamental beliefs.

and the middle 20 percenters vote the guy they like the best regardless of politics.

we need to bust up the two party system something fierce. it is killing us.

Great post. There is so much blind party loyalty due to the lack of viable alternatives.

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

It's hard to imagine anyone doing a shittier job than W, who is perhaps the worst President ever.

That's a pretty harsh statement.

The opinion polls are just that, opinion and emotion. Nobody wants to be over in IRAQ and that's a big part of it. I'm sure GW himself would rather not be there, but you can't just pack up and leave. The Dems even know that..most of them.

You can't pin the economy on GW even though most person will. Just like you can't give too much credit to the Clinton Adminstration for the sucesses of the 90's. It relies too much on the past.

Someone asked what was one of his successes. How about America not being attacked in the last 7 years?

Look, i don't like everything GW has done, but he not as evil as some portray him to be.

[saden1]

He may not be evil but he sure is stupid though not stupid enough not get elected as president twice.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by jsarno

No, but the majority of people agreed to go to war, then pulled the rug out from under him. You also can't blame the rising gas prices solely on him, and those are the two major things people would point to for approval ratings.

Agreed to go to war in Afghanistan, not Iraq. There was a lot of smoke and mirrors that got us into Iraq. Whether we should pull out right now is a completely separate question.

Originally Posted by jsarno

Also, the people would point to the deficit, yet everyone was more than happy to spend their refund check. So, no, I would not count any of those against his tenure.

That is a complete non sequitur. He increased spending dramatically, and the deficit is at record levels - there really isn't a credible argument against the deficit being his doing.

Originally Posted by jsarno

Approval ratings mean nothing, and you know it. It's like Polls, they are useless.

I agree, although they are slightly "less bad".

[MTK]

Originally Posted by saden1

He may not be evil but he sure is stupid though not stupid enough not get elected as president twice.

The term "Elected" should be used loosely, at least in 2000.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by redsk1

That's a pretty harsh statement.

The opinion polls are just that, opinion and emotion. Nobody wants to be over in IRAQ and that's a big part of it. I'm sure GW himself would rather not be there, but you can't just pack up and leave. The Dems even know that..most of them.

You can't pin the economy on GW even though most person will. Just like you can't give too much credit to the Clinton Adminstration for the sucesses of the 90's. It relies too much on the past.

Someone asked what was one of his successes. How about America not being attacked in the last 7 years?

Look, i don't like everything GW has done, but he not as evil as some portray him to be.

Harsh perhaps... but tell me he's not at least in the discussion when talking about some of the worst Presidents we've seen.

[onlydarksets]

OK, back to topic (sort of). Did anyone hear this "voicemail" left by McCain for Palin? Whichever side of the aisle you are on, this is good stuff:
McCain's Voicemail to Palin Leaked to Press (Listen) - 236 - The Room

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

OK, back to topic (sort of). Did anyone hear this "voicemail" left by McCain for Palin? Whichever side of the aisle you are on, this is good stuff:
McCain's Voicemail to Palin Leaked to Press (Listen) - 236 - The Room

That was well done and funny!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Harsh perhaps... but tell me he's not at least in the discussion when talking about some of the worst Presidents we've seen.

Actually, that would be pretty interesting: "Rate the Presidents You Could've Voted For"

Reagan
Bush I
Clinton
Bush II

Though I couldn't vote for him, I would put Carter and Bush II about even.

My bet is that, depending on your leanings, Reagan or Clinton would be at the top.

(Does this count as a threadjack? Can this thread even be threadjacked at this point??)

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Actually, that would be pretty interesting: "Rate the Presidents You Could've Voted For"

Reagan
Bush I
Clinton
Bush II

Though I couldn't vote for him, I would put Carter and Bush II about even.

My bet is that, depending on your leanings, Reagan or Clinton would be at the top.

(Does this count as a threadjack? Can this thread even be threadjacked at this point??)

Could be a good thread. But we'd have to draw the line somewhere. I mean Curmudgeon goes back to the Hoover administration.