Jump to content
ZASHAGALKA ZASHAGALKA (New Member) New Member

(Hey Roy!) The Doctor is In

Politics   (2,387 Views 32 Comments)
18,206 Visitors; 3,996 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

Left with no choices to vote for, I still voted in the Texas Republican Primary (Early voting began today).

Roy, you'll be happy to know that I voted for Dr. Paul (and so did my wife).

It was a statement vote. McCain caused his breach with his base. HE has to repair it; not the base. Whether or not I'll vote from him in November is completely up to him.

Until then, I made a statement.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Left with no choices to vote for, I still voted in the Texas Republican Primary (Early voting began today).

Roy, you'll be happy to know that I voted for Dr. Paul (and so did my wife).

It was a statement vote. McCain caused his breach with his base. HE has to repair it; not the base. Whether or not I'll vote from him in November is completely up to him.

Until then, I made a statement.

~faith,

Timothy.

Thanks for not voting for Hillary, now it will be easier to defeat McCain in November.:wink2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then again I don't think that his beliefs would be any better for the economy than Bushism or Reaganism....

gdp-growth.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didn't know that they had early voting option in texas, i think that it is a good idea, if you are called out of town or something is gives you a vote

we have open primaries when you are electing a candidate but when the delegates are being elected it is a closed primary the people conducting have to reset the machine

independents don't have a vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for not voting for Hillary, now it will be easier to defeat McCain in November.:wink2:

The conservative website, Freerepublic.com has multiple threads about crossing over to vote for Clinton or, alternatively, to vote for Obama, both as 'strategic' votes.

Rush says a strategic vote for Clinton would be, "Keep her in it, so we can win it".

He says a strategic vote for Obama would be, "Vote her out and end all doubt".

Ultimately, I think any "strategic" voting will just offset each other and be a wash.

Plus, I couldn't stomach having my registration card stamped "Democrat". The primary ballot starts with an affirmation that you are a party member: “I am a Democrat and understand that I am ineligible to vote or participate in another political party’s primary election or convention during this voting year.” (The Republican ballot says the SAME thing, except the Party name is changed, to protect the innocent.)

On top of that, Texas has a primary/caucus. You can vote in the primary AND attend the caucus on Mar 4. In order to attend the Republican caucus, my card has to be stamped Republican. I've been my precinct delegate to the county convention before by caucusing.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I don't know if y'all know this about me, but I'm rather opinionated when it comes to politics. I mentioned that my wife AND I voted for Dr. Paul. You might be thinking that I strongly influenced her vote. Not so.

SHE influenced MY vote. I had determined to vote for Fred Thompson so that I could at least honestly employ my bumper sticker that says, "Don't blame me, I voted for Fred."

My wife convinced me that SINCE I'm going to make a statement vote, I may as well make one that they will actually count and report on.

(Huckabee doesn't count; he's no longer trying to win, he's just trying to amass enough delegates to claim 2nd place. He's positioning for 2012, and nothing more.)

But, isn't that cool? My wife bumped my vote. That's a rare talent.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in general the economy delivers better results under a democratic presidency.

for the 20th income percentile:

democrats produced 2.63% average income growth

vs. republican 0.60% income growth.

advantage: democratic administrations.

for the 40th income percentile.

democrats 2.45% average income growth.

republicans 0.93% average income growth

advantage: democratic administrations

for the 60th income percentile:

democrats 2.46% average income growth

republicans 1.32% average income growth

advantage: democratic administrations

for the 80th income percentile group:

democrats 2.37% average income growth

republicans 1.60% average income growth

advantage: democratic administrations

for the 95th income percentile group

democrats 2.11% average income growth

republicans 2.09% average income growth

advantage: slight democratic administration advantage.

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf

the policies of democratic presidents produce more employment and

output growth, which disproportionately benefit poor and middle-class families.

 

pretty clear and consistent evidentiary pattern that democratic administrations out perform republican administrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, I don't know if y'all know this about me, but I'm rather opinionated when it comes to politics. I mentioned that my wife AND I voted for Dr. Paul. You might be thinking that I strongly influenced her vote. Not so.

SHE influenced MY vote. I had determined to vote for Fred Thompson so that I could at least honestly employ my bumper sticker that says, "Don't blame me, I voted for Fred."

My wife convinced me that SINCE I'm going to make a statement vote, I may as well make one that they will actually count and report on.

(Huckabee doesn't count; he's no longer trying to win, he's just trying to amass enough delegates to claim 2nd place. He's positioning for 2012, and nothing more.)

But, isn't that cool? My wife bumped my vote. That's a rare talent.

~faith,

Timothy.

COOL, your wife must be a STRONG gal! :bow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney was still running when our primary happened so I voted for him as a vote against McCain.

If I voted today - I would do the same as your dear wife suggested. :D

Just to make my "son" Roy happy. :yeah:

That primary/caucus thing in Texas is confusing . . even NPR tonight had a hard time explaining it. :bugeyes:

steph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in general the economy delivers better results under a democratic presidency.

for the 20th income percentile:

democrats produced 2.63% average income growth

vs. republican 0.60% income growth.

advantage: democratic administrations.

for the 40th income percentile.

democrats 2.45% average income growth.

republicans 0.93% average income growth

advantage: democratic administrations

for the 60th income percentile:

democrats 2.46% average income growth

republicans 1.32% average income growth

advantage: democratic administrations

for the 80th income percentile group:

democrats 2.37% average income growth

republicans 1.60% average income growth

advantage: democratic administrations

for the 95th income percentile group

democrats 2.11% average income growth

republicans 2.09% average income growth

advantage: slight democratic administration advantage.

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf

 

pretty clear and consistent evidentiary pattern that democratic administrations out perform republican administrations.

skimmed your article. the data is so cherry-picked as to be laughable. the biggest laugh: your author starts with the supposition that almost every economist disagrees with his assessment:

"the point of the present report is to suggest that almost all previous analyses have missed

what may be the most important influence on the changing u.s. income distribution over the past

half-century."

nice of your guy to point out that only he is right, in a purely non-partisan way.

oh, and you have to love this footnote:

"the limitations of the available data make it impossible to tell whether the partisan composition of

congress also has a consequential effect on income inequality."

in other words, even though democrats have controlled congress for 35 of the last 47 years, there is no way to accuse them of any policy issues that might affect income growth. gotcha. at least that explains the bias.

besides, actually read the article and see just how laced it is with partisan observations about how gloriously innocent and efficient democrats are compared to those vile, evil, scheming republicans. political tripe isn't the same thing as analysis. the conclusions you report are best summed up as follows: garbage in, garbage out. in no way could it be concluded that this hit piece is unbiased, or indeed, factual.

~faith,

timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The data stands for itself. I summarized one table. Frankly the statistical analysis goes into some very high level math. The data however is independently confirmed through other sources at EPI and The Brookings Institution.

This graphic from Paul Krugman also tebds to support Mr. Bartels thesis.

gdp-growth.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×