On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:25:32 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:36:08 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Once Bush got the Miers' nomination fiasco behind him, most of his base
came back. He didn't get elected by his opponents...so he owes them
nothing.

He owes nothing to the other 49% that pay his salary? Interesting.

They don't like and and most likely never will. Why try to please them?


It isn't a matter of pleasing. I was just tweaking NOYB on his use of
words. Despite his statement, the President works for *all* Americans,
not just those who voted for him. His oath of office was to the
Constitution of the United States. It didn't say anything about
Republicans, only those that voted for him, or any such nonsense.


As long as those who elected him in '04 continue to support him, he has
his mandate.

Well then, I guess he doesn't have his mandate, does he? Seems he has
lost some 10% of those who elected him.

Just what is the definition of a mandate? Is it a plurality? Is it a
majority?

I wouldn't quibble. It is a much battered and misused word, but . . .

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

2. Hence: (Politics) An authorization to carry out a specific
public policy, given by the electorate to their
representatives; -- it is considered to be implied by the
election of a candidate by a significant margin after that
candidate has campaigned with that policy as a prominent
element of the campaign platform.
[PJC]

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:36:08 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Once Bush got the Miers' nomination fiasco behind him, most of his base
came back. He didn't get elected by his opponents...so he owes them
nothing.

He owes nothing to the other 49% that pay his salary? Interesting.

2/3 of that 49% pay hardly any taxes.





As long as those who elected him in '04 continue to support him, he has
his mandate.

Well then, I guess he doesn't have his mandate, does he? Seems he has
lost some 10% of those who elected him.


Nope. Less than 7%. If you consider the poll's margin of error, it's even
less than that. Then when you take into account that he is now polling all
voting age people, instead of likely voters that he polled in 2004, the
disparity is down to a mere couple of percentage points.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:21:10 +0000, NOYB wrote:


He owes nothing to the other 49% that pay his salary? Interesting.

2/3 of that 49% pay hardly any taxes.


Interesting, haven't you read about the Red State/Blue State tax
comparisons? Us Blue States have been supporting you Red States with
federal tax dollars.

As an aside, I've been reading some demographics on the electorate.
Interestingly, Bush has managed to swell the Liberal voting block. It is
now the largest single block, and growing.

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=242


Nope. Less than 7%. If you consider the poll's margin of error, it's
even less than that. Then when you take into account that he is now
polling all voting age people, instead of likely voters that he polled in
2004, the disparity is down to a mere couple of percentage points.

Sure, NOYB, sure. I've mentioned this before, but you may want to check
out some demographics. If Republicans want to remain in power, they had
better expand their base. Adult white males is a shrinking demographic.
So sorry, but Republicans are going to have to address the concerns of the
center to succeed. The days of the "right wing" are rapidly fading.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:21:10 +0000, NOYB wrote:


He owes nothing to the other 49% that pay his salary? Interesting.

2/3 of that 49% pay hardly any taxes.


Interesting, haven't you read about the Red State/Blue State tax
comparisons? Us Blue States have been supporting you Red States with
federal tax dollars.

As an aside, I've been reading some demographics on the electorate.
Interestingly, Bush has managed to swell the Liberal voting block. It is
now the largest single block, and growing.

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=242


Did your research lead you to the following info on "The Pew Research Center
for the People and the Press"?

http://www.undueinfluence.com/tidescenter.htm

But I did find the following bit of info from your link pretty darn
interesting:

"George W. Bush has the broadest personal appeal of any national political
figure among the main independent groups, the Upbeats and Disaffecteds. "

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:15:24 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"George W. Bush has the broadest personal appeal of any national political
figure among the main independent groups, the Upbeats and Disaffecteds. "

I wouldn't get to excited about the Disaffecteds, they tend not to vote. ;-)

As for the demographics, I wasn't using the Pew source exclusively. As I
have stated, the Republican base is white males. That demographic is
declining. The fastest growing ethnic grouping, Hispanics, tend Democrat
by 2 to 1. Couple that with women, blacks, and other minorities, the
Republicans need to expand their base, towards the center. Also, don't
overlook the schisms that develop when one becomes a majority party. I
know you are hoping, but the "right wing" doesn't address the needs of
middle America. By slight numbers, there are still more Democrats than
Republicans, but basically 1/3 Dems, 1/3 Reps, and 1/3 Inds. The 15-20%
truly "right", can't win elections by themselves.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:15:24 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"George W. Bush has the broadest personal appeal of any national
political
figure among the main independent groups, the Upbeats and Disaffecteds. "



I wouldn't get to excited about the Disaffecteds, they tend not to vote.
;-)

As for the demographics, I wasn't using the Pew source exclusively. As I
have stated, the Republican base is white males. That demographic is
declining. The fastest growing ethnic grouping, Hispanics, tend Democrat
by 2 to 1. Couple that with women, blacks, and other minorities, the
Republicans need to expand their base, towards the center. Also, don't
overlook the schisms that develop when one becomes a majority party. I
know you are hoping, but the "right wing" doesn't address the needs of
middle America. By slight numbers, there are still more Democrats than
Republicans, but basically 1/3 Dems, 1/3 Reps, and 1/3 Inds. The 15-20%
truly "right", can't win elections by themselves.

Despite all of your statistics, you don't seem to be able to explain this
fact:

voters have been voting for more Republicans than Democrats in each election
since 1994.

Statistics don't mean much when the actual elections prove otherwise.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:23:21 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Despite all of your statistics, you don't seem to be able to explain this
fact:

voters have been voting for more Republicans than Democrats in each
election since 1994.

Statistics don't mean much when the actual elections prove otherwise.

Ah, but you are looking back. I'm looking forward. ;-)

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:23:21 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Despite all of your statistics, you don't seem to be able to explain this
fact:

voters have been voting for more Republicans than Democrats in each
election since 1994.

Statistics don't mean much when the actual elections prove otherwise.

Ah, but you are looking back. I'm looking forward. ;-)

You're one of the few optimists on the Democratic side.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:44:13 +0000, NOYB wrote:


You're one of the few optimists on the Democratic side.

Actually, I'm quite a bit to the left of the Democrats. ;-) In truth, I
don't have a problem with true conservatives. Something I realized some
time ago, we all what to be free to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness." Unfortunately, I believe both parties have lost sight of
that. Perhaps, the Democrats less so, than this abomination of an
administration. But then, you really wouldn't call this administration
conservative, would you?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:44:13 +0000, NOYB wrote:


You're one of the few optimists on the Democratic side.

Actually, I'm quite a bit to the left of the Democrats. ;-) In truth, I
don't have a problem with true conservatives. Something I realized some
time ago, we all what to be free to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness." Unfortunately, I believe both parties have lost sight of
that. Perhaps, the Democrats less so, than this abomination of an
administration. But then, you really wouldn't call this administration
conservative, would you?

I'd say that they're well to the right of the Democratic party...which suits
my needs just fine.