|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.189.66.85
In Reply to: RE: You know damn well you read it. You simply have no intelligent response.nt posted by jamesgarvin on November 04, 2009 at 14:01:39
The link I provided devastates your "decidedly Democratic" meme, and no further comment is required.
Follow Ups:
to attempt to prove that New Jersey is not a Democratic state? These are the relevant numbers since 2003. Let's compare, shall we?
three Democratic Governors, no Republican Governors
voted for every Democratic Presidential candidates since Bill Clinton
voted for 28 Democratic Federal Congressman, 23 Republican
voted for 5 Democratic Senators, and 0, that is right, 0 Republican Senators since 1983
voted for 253 times for Democratic members of the State Legislature, and 187 for Republicans
more than 600,000 registered Democrats than Repubclicans.
On Thunderhead's side:
voted for Republican Governors in 1944, 1947, 1970, 1981, 1994, and 2001.
You do know what decade this is? Face it, from 2000 to the present, New Jersey is decidedly Democrat. Unless you are dumb enough to think that Governor's elections in 1944, 1947, 1970 somehow change votes and party affiliation in 2009. Wait. You are dumb enough to think that.
How is it legitimate for you just up and ignore its Republican tradition going back decades?
You are kidding, right? I am cutting off in 2003 because the current political climate is relevant to the current electoral climate in New Jersey. How New Jersey voted in 1950 matters nothing. We could go more current, if you like, but that does not help your argument. The current politics of New Jersey is that it is a state in which the Democrats control, and lost an important election, despite the leader of their party aggressively campaigning for the Democrat's candidate.
2003 is when New Jersey, by all election accounts, became a State controlled by Democrats. Go back far enough and you find that Federalists controlled electoral politics in New Jersey. I would not argue that the Federalists are influential in New Jersey.
This tells us two things. One, Obama could not deliver his voters to the polls to help a member of his own party, and a candidate he told the voters in New Jersey was necessary to aid in recovery, and, two, he could not persuade Independents.
How does this effect anyone? Not directly, but be assured that representatives in moderate districts with significant numbers of independents have taken notice. For example, only today, our local Representative, who Obama and Pelosi are relying on, has stated that if the health care plan which he votes on includes a provision to pay for abortions, he is voting against it. He called it a 'deal-breaker.' The moderates ears are perked.
That you are choosing to arbitrarily fix and limit the evidence, and, indeed, that you must do so just to make your argument work, completely lays bare your position.
Fact: New Jersey has been and will continue to be a narrowly divided swing state. One year, or for a few, it votes for Democrats, then next, or next few, it votes for Republicans.
Have a nice day.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: