IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Still smokin' the DNC rope and refusing to learn, I see.
These mostly are middle- and low-income folks, people making less than $50,000 a year. While they make up some 80 percent of the U.S. population, exit polls on Nov. 7 found that for the first time they’ve fallen to less than half of the voting population. As the Clinton-Gore-Lieberman Democrats have jerked the party out from under this core populist constituency, pursuing the money and adopting the policies of the corporate and investor elite, the core constituency of the party has — big surprise — steadily dropped away. In 1992, the under-$50,000 crowd made up 63 percent of voters. In 1996, after Clinton and Gore had relentlessly and very publicly pushed NAFTA, the WTO and other Wall Street policies for four years, the under-$50,000 crowd dropped to 52 percent of voters. After four more years of income stagnation and decline for these families under the regime of the Clinton-Gore “New Democrats,” the under-$50,000 crowd dropped this year to only 47 percent of voters.

At the same time, those who are prospering under the Wall Street boom, cheered on by the policies of both the Republican and Democratic leadership, have become ever more enthusiastic voters. In 1996, voters with incomes above $100,000 (about 3 percent of the population), made up 9 percent of the turnout; this year, they were 15 percent of the turnout.

This rising income skew among voters causes both parties to push more policies that favor the affluent minority, which causes an even greater turn-off for the majority, which causes … well, you can see the downward spiral we’re in. This is especially damaging to Democrats, since the non-voters are their natural constituency. This constituency feels discarded, not only by the Democrats, but by the whole process.
...
Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader’s votes wouldn’t have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader.

http://www.salon.com/2000/11/28/hightower/
If we don't stop blaming third parties for the Clintonian Democratic candidates shortcomings and the misguided DNC policies, we will lose every election henceforth.
bcnu,
Mikem

I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
New Gore ran from Clinton. Gore was in the House 3 years before Bill was Governor.
If Gore had embraced Clinton rather than running from him (and picking Lieberman), it seems clear (to me) that he would have won his home state and would have won the election.

Your counter-factuals don't change the fact that lots of people in Florida intended to vote for Gore but ended up voting for Buchanan due to the weird ballot. If those votes had been cast as they intended, and counted properly, Gore would have won.



There were lots of reasons why Gore lost (Lieberman, the butterfly ballot, being unable to crush the "inventing the internet" criticism, people being taken in by "Compassionate Conservatism" and "Reformer with Results" and "Humble Foreign Policy" and "No Nation Building" and all the rest. His somehow being a creature of the DNC (or the DLC, even) wasn't one of them.

Oh, and he did win the popular vote, of course. Somehow Democrats winning the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections is a sign of failure...



FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Aside sigh. I *WISH* my ballot looked like that. Not the punches, but all the parties.
bcnu,
Mikem

I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right.
Christopher Hitchens.
New y'all want to wait for all of the ballots to be counted before declaring a win on the popular vote?
always look out for number one and don't step in number two
New AP Numbers.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/2016-election-results/

She's up around 600k as of ~ 1 PM today. Supposedly if the trends hold, she'll win by 1.5-2M.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
     Well that was unexpected. :-( - (Another Scott) - (39)
         Re: Well that was unexpected. :-( - (pwhysall) - (1)
             Unfortunately the rest of the world is going to have to get in line too -NT - (malraux)
         obg heheheh, hillary landslide - (boxley)
         Some have been saying... - (rcareaga)
         Not entirely unexpected - (Andrew Grygus)
         Where are you looking? Google has Trump winning popular vote 48% - 47% -NT - (drook) - (1)
             Just mutterings on B-J. - (Another Scott)
         Do you know what's going to be stranger? - (hnick)
         Yep, Putin's Pussy won. :-( -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (6)
             CIA says Trump was Putin man in the election subversion effort. - (a6l6e6x) - (5)
                 CIA? - (hnick)
                 If the Russians wanted Trump to be President, does that mean ... - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                     of course they would have preferred hillary - (boxley)
                     They were not responsible for her being the nominee. - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                         Well they had to be happy that Trump was facing the only Democrat who could lose to him. -NT - (mmoffitt)
         no more piss and vinegar here - (rcareaga) - (1)
             Re: no more piss and vinegar here - (dmcarls)
         While I did think it possible, I too, was surprised. - (mmoffitt) - (21)
             You made this - (pwhysall) - (20)
                 That kind of "reasoning" is how we ended up here. - (mmoffitt) - (19)
                     A monarch, and a functional healthcare system :) - (pwhysall) - (18)
                         And fortunately a powerless monarch . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                             scotland, without a sense of humor -NT - (boxley)
                         Allow me to help you -- AGAIN. - (mmoffitt) - (15)
                             blah, blah, blah. - (pwhysall) - (4)
                                 I apologize. I should defer to you. You've lived in the Midwest for 30 years. Er, wait a second... -NT - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                     What's that got to do with anything? Have you heard of the Internet? -NT - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                         Oh sure. Because you really get to know people on the Internet. How old are you? 23? :0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                             What's that got to do with anything? -NT - (pwhysall)
                             "Why show up to vote for yet another Corporate Clown?" - (rcareaga) - (9)
                                 I might have been overly optimistic about the upside to a Trump presidency. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                     "overly optimistic" - (rcareaga) - (6)
                                         Yeah, Stein and Johnson aren't to blame. - (Another Scott)
                                         Still smokin' the DNC rope and refusing to learn, I see. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                             Gore ran from Clinton. Gore was in the House 3 years before Bill was Governor. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                 Aside sigh. I *WISH* my ballot looked like that. Not the punches, but all the parties. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                 y'all want to wait for all of the ballots to be counted before declaring a win on the popular vote? -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                     AP Numbers. - (Another Scott)
                                     [blinking rotating text] Ya think?!?! [/blinking rotating text] (sheesh) -NT - (Another Scott)

Add a Klixon 'snap' relay for overtemp control.
73 ms