Why is this man smiling?

[Mornac]

Just so you know how representative government works, the majority wins.

--That's the problem with liberals - you don't have a clue as to how government works. In the 1992 presidential election 66% of the electorat voted against Bill Clinton. The minority won and the majority had to suffer through Slick Willy.

[johnhp]

Yawn.  mornac, there you go again trying to shift away from the topic you tried to discuss.  Unpopulatity.  You were clearly wrong when 54% of Americans, clearly a majority favor Obama

[johnhp]

--That's the problem with liberals - you don't have a clue as to how government works. In the 1992 presidential election 66% of the electorat voted against Bill Clinton. The minority won and the majority had to suffer through Slick Willy.

Maybe the inability to count is the difficulty with reactionaries and economic policy.  let's look at your numbers:

In the 1992 presidential election 66% of the electorat voted against Bill Clinton.

If this is the case, Clinton received only 34% of the vote.  Let's go to the board:

What we discover is that Clinton received 43% of the vote, a plurality in a 3-way race, making him the winner.

What we also discover is your inability to count:

   100% (of the electorate)
   -43% (of the electorate)
   ^___
    57% (of the electorate)

You were off by 9% points.  Oh, and just in case you were unaware, when a candidate wins a plurality of votes garnering him the most electoral votes (more than twice as many as Mr Bush; Mr Perot earned none) that person becomes president.  the party placing second is not co-president.  Given your math skills that may be too much for you.

[Observer]

The Day ObamaCare Died - Sung by Barack Obama.avi

[Boffo]

thanks, Obs, good one

[Mornac]

Yawn.  mornac, there you go again trying to shift away from the topic you tried to discuss.  Unpopulatity.  You were clearly wrong when 54% of Americans, clearly a majority favor Obama

--Me? You’re the one who made the numbskull statement. I just responded to it. You’re not inside of some liberal cocoon here. When you put your idiocy on display for all to see, you’d better expect someone to call you on it.

[Mornac]

Maybe the inability to count is the difficulty with reactionaries and economic policy.

--I don’t think so.

let's look at your numbers:

--Let’s.

If this is the case, Clinton received only 34% of the vote.

--It’s not the case. It’s a typo. It should read 56% not 66%.

Let's go to the board:

--Okay.

What we discover is that Clinton received 43% of the vote, a plurality in a 3-way race, making him the winner.

--Yep, a winner with a clear minority of the vote.

What we also discover is your inability to count:

--No, we discover my inability to always hit the correct key on a keyboard, a hand/eye flaw that you yourself are intimately familiar with.

  100% (of the electorate)
   -43% (of the electorate)
   ___
    57% (of the electorate)
--Agreed.

You were off by 9% points.

--That would be correct. His minority was 43% not 34%. Good job.

Oh, and just in case you were unaware, when a candidate wins a plurality of votes garnering him the most electoral votes (more than twice as many as Mr Bush; Mr Perot earned none) that person becomes president.

--And in case you were unaware (which you apparently are), “a plurality” is not the same thing as “a majority”.

the party placing second is not co-president.

--Well it looks as though you learned SOMETHING here today.

Given your math skills that may be too much for you.

--No, you did well.

[Mornac]

Oh! One more thing...

[johnhp]

--Me? You’re the one who made the numbskull statement. I just responded to it. You’re not inside of some liberal cocoon here. When you put your idiocy on display for all to see, you’d better expect someone to call you on it.

Come back when you learn to count.

[makesenseplease]

do our conservatives imagine in their wildest dreams the GOP is going to become competitive anywhere in the USA besides the deep south?

I'm not conservative but conservatives seem to be competitive in your home state.

[ivanm]

do our conservatives imagine in their wildest dreams the GOP is going to become competitive anywhere in the USA besides the deep south?

You left out Mass.     Enjoy 'cause the Dem' time in office is limited. People finally realized where the stench was coming from.

[johnhp]

I'm not conservative but conservatives seem to be competitive in your home state.

Didn't Romney win the governorship of Mass?  Why is it a shock that a republican can win there?

[johnhp]

You left out Mass.     Enjoy 'cause the Dem' time in office is limited. People finally realized where the stench was coming from.

The problem you fail to understand is that the republican party is in its death rattle everywhere except the south.  they may win elections here and there for the next 5 cycles or so, but they have sandbagged themselves against growth by alienating growing populations of people of color and by their unqualified support of deregulation.

Did you know that the number of those below the poverty line in the suburbs grew by 25% between 2000-2008?  This was the largest growth of poverty in the US in that time period (compared to large cities, towns and rural areas).  More and more people are going to come to understand that the only way to get the economy under control is to have strong regulations and strong enforcement of those regulations over businesses.  This would, prevent or diminish, the feedback loops causing bubbles and crashes.

Add to that other things like the cost of healthcare due to continued privatization.  In Aug of 2009 the American Journal of Medicine published a study showing that a little over 62% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were directly related to health issues; between 2001 and 2007 the percentage of bankruptcies attributed to medical problems increased by almost 50%.  These are hard working middle class families who are forced into bankruptcy because of the cost of healthcare.

You do not fix the economic problem by sending the cause, deregulation, into overdrive and you do not fix healthcare costs by maintaining the status quo.  Those are the republicans plans and that is why they lost in 08 and why they will continue to be a minority party.

[makesenseplease]

Didn't Romney win the governorship of Mass?  Why is it a shock that a republican can win there?

Does anyone think Ted Kennedy would actually back a Conservative?


http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/


Not all republicans are conservatives

The shock is because a conservative won in Mass.

[johnhp]

The shock is because a conservative won in Mass.

Coakley lost.  If she had actually campaigned she would have won.  Voters do not like being taken for granted.