Thread: How come...

^ this.

Originally Posted by Consultant

I couldn't site the source but I saw a poll where 40% of Americans identified themselves as "Conservative", 36% identified themselves as "moderate" and 20% identified themselves as "Liberal".

I think the divide in voting comes from the fact that the people who enter public service are the extremes of either side.

You have to be a little narcissistic to enter politics in the first place. At some point you have to buy into the idea that you are a difference maker and should go fix your city/county/district/state/nation.

I know what poll you are referring to, and I don't think it is very accurate because you are relying on self-identification. "Liberal," also, has been turned into a bad word by some, which will artificially suppress the number of people who will self-identify as liberal even if their views are in line with traditional liberal values.

Originally Posted by Consultant

There are no leaders in the middle, reasonable, sensible people who are not affraid to adopt a hybrid position on these issues - except maybe Ron Paul.

Fiscally conservative, socially libertarian, and when it comes to foreign relations, keep our nose out of other countries business unless they F with us. But a guy like that can't get campaign dollars from big labor unions, or right to life groups, or the trial bar lobby - so he loses and we get monoliths of thought...so-called "progressives" from either party who are trying to "progress" past the constitution and the principles that the country was founded on.

The conspiracy theorists would say that the groups who control the parties control both parties and build vast amounts of wealth no matter what happens, so they keep us divided on purpose. The 2 party system is the flashy right hand we're all staring at while the magicians at the top of the top take our money with their left hand - and we applaud them, cheer at their rallies, and bubble in their names on ballot sheets.

And Ron Paul is a nut, at least in my view. Not someone I would call sensible, reasonable, or moderate. So what you are arguing is a "sensible hybrid" is nothing more than your subjective opinion.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Both parties suck.

The democrats want to tax and spend

The republicans want to spend and not tax

Neither one is solving problems.

The problem is both parties have to have a "big tent." When you only have two major parties, they have to include many different people with many different views. So neither party is going to completely represent every one in the country. It's a reason why I have always favored proportional representation.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Ronald Regan inspired people (regardless of what you think about his policies) with the idea of it being "Morning in America" - and last night I heard a contraversial conservative talking head say that it is still morning in America - it's just a morning with a throbbing headache and vomiting after a long night of too much drinking...but America is coming out of its hangover - at least, that's the hope.

The era of Reagan is done, now hopefully we can recover from it.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Originally Posted by Consultant

I couldn't site the source but I saw a poll where 40% of Americans identified themselves as "Conservative", 36% identified themselves as "moderate" and 20% identified themselves as "Liberal".

I think the divide in voting comes from the fact that the people who enter public service are the extremes of either side.

You have to be a little narcissistic to enter politics in the first place. At some point you have to buy into the idea that you are a difference maker and should go fix your city/county/district/state/nation.

The era of Reagan is done, now hopefully we can recover from it.

LOL concidering if you take what is said about policies and how long it takes to actually show an effect he's the one behind Clintons success.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by draco7891

There are more Democrats than there are Republicans; however, a much higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats turns out to vote in each election, ensuring a close race.

If the Democrats could get the same turnout percentages the Republicans do, they'd win every election hands down, and the US would be a one-party nation with a very unhappy and very vocal minority.

Draco

Well said.

Except for the reality of the electoral college, he's right.

Currently, 35.4% of American adults view themselves as Democrats. That’s down from 35.5% a month ago and 36.0 two months ago. Prior to last month, the lowest total ever recorded for Democrats was 35.9%, a figure that was reached twice in 2005. See the History of Party Trends from January 2004 to the present.

The number of Republicans is now down to 32.3%. The number of Republicans in the country has stayed between 32.3% and 34.05% in every month for the past 18 months.

Elections are not truly national, they are local - even "national" elections are decided at the local and state level.

35.4% democrat
32.3% republican

What I find interesting is the relationship between the approximately 35% of the population who are democrats and the mere 20% who call themselves "Liberal". And where is the other third of the country? No Party Affiliation or unregistered.

That means that roughly a third of democrats would not classify themselves as Liberal.

It's all very interesting.

Which is exactly why the terms "republican" and "democrat" mean nothing. Basically it's only useful for voting in specific primaries, other than that it doesn't define people as clearly as it used to. Growing up, if you were Republican, you generally held more conservative viewpoints and if you were Democrat you generally held more liberal viewpoints. Today you can't even tell sometimes, which is unfortunate simply b/c if people aren't sure who to vote for, they rely soley on the party name next to the candidate that most closely resembles their party affiliation.