I'm a Democrat, and I will not vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. - Page 21

OldManOnFire · 03-13-2008, 10:06 AM

The Iraq debacle was and continues to be a gigantic screw-up!

This was done by the USA. The USA has 'some' responsibility to prepare Iraq for civilized living. The USA has not yet accomplished this and no one seems to know when this will be??

I've said all along that I also believe the USA should pull out from Iraq, but to do it slowly and cautiously. It would be great if we could all pretend this didn't happen and just bring 160,000 troops and tens of thousands other civilians home--but it is not a dream! In spite of all the crap I give you and others in these debates, I do believe the USA must begin a planned withdrawal. But I say let's do 5000 per month or more if it makes sense. This accomplishes three things; it sets in motion the withdrawal and creates and end date, and, it provides the Iraqis plenty of time to take control, and, it should satisfy most Americans that withdrawal from Iraq has begun. Bringing home 5000 troops next month, then another 5000, and so on will bring this debacle to an end in about 2-1/2 years. And even though the USA removes all troops, there will be other responsibilities, like rebuilding parts of the Iraq infrastructure, that might continue for years if the situation remains safe for American workers...

OldManOnFire · 03-13-2008, 10:09 AM

[quote=DRS112;141169]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

You see how my name looks at the top of your post...how it's scewed up? that because you added the [q.u.o.t.e] tag there...you do not need to at the beginning or the end of a quote....the are automatically put there...you only need to put them where you are parsing the text....see how it screws up the following posts too?

You're not doing anything WRONG...but I figured it would be helpful...

Thank you for being helpful but I guess I'm too dumb to understand what you are telling me??

winthrop · 03-13-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

Maybe this article will explain it better than I have:

Study: Public unaware of Iraq toll

Only 28 percent know that nearly 4,000 U.S. troops have been killed

By Karen DeYoung
The Washington Post
updated 9:01 p.m. PT, Wed., March. 12, 2008

Twenty-eight percent of the public is aware that nearly 4,000 U.S. personnel have died in Iraq over the past five years, while nearly half thinks the death tally is 3,000 or fewer and 23 percent think it is higher, according to an opinion survey released yesterday.

The survey, by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, found that public awareness of developments in the Iraq war has dropped precipitously since last summer, as the news media have paid less attention to the conflict. In earlier surveys, about half of those asked about the death tally responded correctly.

Related Pew surveys have found that the number of news stories devoted to the war has sharply declined this year, along with professed public interest. "Coverage of the war has been virtually absent," said Pew survey research director Scott Keeter, totaling about 1 percent of the news hole between Feb. 17 and 23.

The Iraq-associated median for 2007, he said, was 15 percent of all news stories, with major spikes when President Bush announced a "surge" in forces in January of that year and when Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, testified before Congress in September.

"We try not to make any causal statements about the relationship between the absence of news and what the public knows," Keeter said. "But there's certainly a correlation between the two. People are not seeing news about fatalities, and there isn't much in the news about the war, whether it be military action or even political discussion related to it."

Although Iraq topped the list of the public's most closely followed news stories in all but five weeks during the first half of 2007, according to Pew's research, interest fell rapidly in the fall, and Iraq has not held the top spot since October. That corresponded with a sharp drop in the rate of U.S. casualties in Iraq and increased news coverage of the U.S. presidential campaign.

More track Ledger than war
During the last week in January, 36 percent of those surveyed said they were most closely following campaign news, while 14 percent expressed the most interest in the stock market and 12 percent in the death of actor Heath Ledger. In contrast, 6 percent said they were most closely following coverage of Iraq.

Compared with those Americans surveyed who correctly identified U.S. casualties at around 4,000 (3,975 as of yesterday morning, according to the Pentagon), 84 percent identified Oprah Winfrey as the talk-show host supporting Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) for the Democratic presidential nomination, and 50 percent knew that Hugo Chavez is president of Venezuela.

All education levels in the recent survey were similarly uninformed, Keeter said. The Pew "Political Knowledge Update" was based on nationwide telephone interviews of 1,003 adults conducted Feb. 28 through March 2. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

© 2008 The Washington Post Company
URL: Study: Public unaware of Iraq toll - Washington Post - MSNBC.com

_________________________________

As I have been trying to tell you, simply NOT ENOUGH people are demanding that something be done differently than the status quo. Couple this fact with the complexity of the mess in Iraq helps explain why you are not seeing more emphasis to exit Iraq. Anyway, whenever someone gets enough votes to do this, it will still take 2-3 years and the US needs to repair most of the damage...

The Iraq debacle was and continues to be a gigantic screw-up!

This was done by the USA. The USA has 'some' responsibility to prepare Iraq for civilized living. The USA has not yet accomplished this and no one seems to know when this will be??

I've said all along that I also believe the USA should pull out from Iraq, but to do it slowly and cautiously. It would be great if we could all pretend this didn't happen and just bring 160,000 troops and tens of thousands other civilians home--but it is not a dream! In spite of all the crap I give you and others in these debates, I do believe the USA must begin a planned withdrawal. But I say let's do 5000 per month or more if it makes sense. This accomplishes three things; it sets in motion the withdrawal and creates and end date, and, it provides the Iraqis plenty of time to take control, and, it should satisfy most Americans that withdrawal from Iraq has begun. Bringing home 5000 troops next month, then another 5000, and so on will bring this debacle to an end in about 2-1/2 years. And even though the USA removes all troops, there will be other responsibilities, like rebuilding parts of the Iraq infrastructure, that might continue for years if the situation remains safe for American workers...

I did not say we should get out of Iraq overnight, obviously that is not a practical possibility. I have made two points to you, one is that I and 60% of those polled do not believe our government is representing our interests, and that I personally neither hold nor accept responsibility for the actions of a non-representative government. The other point is we are in the middle of a civil war, which we cannot ameliorate. The clashing parties will have their conflict if we are there or if we are not. When they are done, if they are ever done, and they request/demand our help in rebuilding, then yes we should do so. We have no responsibility for making the Shiites and Sunnis act civilized, however, nor do we have a responsibility to stand between them.

OldManOnFire · 03-13-2008, 01:24 PM

Quote:

QUOTE=PursuitOfHappinessParty;141354 Probably because you are so ready to debate the point, preconceived-like, that you don't really read the post. Take this reply of yours, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything previously stated nor did it have anything to do with the post you replied to:

Feel better. Odd time to vent, but now onto what was being discussed......

Well POHP...you said this: "It's that 'reasonably accomplished' part that will turn working people into poor people as they 'reasonably accomplish' starving without 'assistance'."

I provided you some thoughts that relate to your dismal view of the US and the supposed 'rights' you believe people have. If you can't relate my words to your comments, then oh well.

Quote:

Maybe I've read it wrong, but it looks like all it does is give the privatized sector more clout to now 'enforce' itself into areas it was not previously reaching, then eventually they profit the shakier and slower general UHC funds. It's the trade-off they've allowed to give the Dems and GOP something to 'argue' about and to 'barter' with in the name of 'progress' on the issue.

It's all a big conspiracy isn't it? All directed at you...wow!

Quote:

You state this after posts upon posts by myself and many here who see it differently. First off, medical care is as universal or as social an issue as you can get, by definition alone. Everyone needs police protection, everyone needs socialized fire-departments, everybody used roads, and everybody will get sick and/or die.

Please look through your Constitution and you will see that no rights have been granted to anyone for health care. Those items you mention that 'everyone needs' are all government run programs paid by taxation from the public. If you pay attention to the budget problems that exist today in nearly every city, you will see that even these items are NOT AFFORDABLE. There are not enough police, not enough fire personnel, and the roads are in shambles--why??...no money. NOW...you feel you have this right to health care, to be paid by the public, and this amounts to $2 trillion per year today and $4 trillion per year in five years. Now would you like to pay for this with higher taxes or just add it to the current debt for other generations to deal with??

Apparently you are also talking about publicly funded funeral and cemetery services as well??

Quote:

You mention costs. Let's examine the cost. We have a profiting private insurance that makes it's profit without actually providing anything itself.

Hmmmm...so millions of people who purchase health insurance are wasting their time? This insurance that everyone is buying provides NOTHING? So you believe that someone paying $400 per month for health insurance, who suddenly needs $300,000 in medical treatments, is better off paying the $300,000 instead of their $400 per month??

Quote:

It's collects premiums from you/employer, Dr., and Hospital then pays itself after deductibles. So when removed, there's one less 'profit' between me and my care.

So instead of YOU providing for your own health care, at a cost of $400 per month to use the example above, you believe the USA should spend $2 trillion more money each year and provide this service to you for free? And you want this even though through taxes or whatever all citizens must pay the $2 trillion.

Quote:

Rx profit insanity is another area to decrease total costs at. Now, here's the kicker: You're already paying UHC now. You're paying for people who, because they don't have health-care, have waited for the medical problem to become acute or life threatening. You know, when it's at the most expensive it can be. Now this person, who's now so sick they are also impacting their work profit margin, can't pay and it's passed onto you (by law). That's where that $20 aspirin comes from in YOUR bill. Your bill is inflated, you pay the real cost in deductibles, and the insurance pays everyone who is then paying it back in premiums.

This is fine...either pay it this way or pay $2 to $4 trillion more in taxes.

Quote:

Of course we'll have to pay. In taxes in lieu of huge premiums. With UHC we will go earlier and thus solve the majority of health issues cheaper and without impacting the job profitability as well as the patients own income.

Our health is not really about attending a medical clinic; it is about eating healthy, being height and weight proportionate, it is about getting exercise, it is about being educated about our biological systems, it is about stopping our abuse of smoking, alcohol, drugs, etc. All of these items can be done today!! My family does them! What's keeping so many from doing this?? If you believe UHC will solve these issues, then I believe you need to re-think this.

Quote:

Other western civilized democracies have figured this out. Then again, they don't have insurance lobbies turning normal people into profit cheerleaders.

This statement pisses me off more than anything you have stated. Why is it we always wish to blame everyone else for our own problems??? Why is this?? Open your eyes, look around you, pay attention to PEOPLE, and without being too judgemental, you will see lots of fat, lazy, sickly people--all of which can be cured without ever once attending a medical clinic. If I was a doctor and someone who was 50 pounds came to me for some silly medical fix, I would refuse to work with them unless they eat right and lose weight! If we're not idiots, every single one of us knows the ramifications of poor eating habits, smoking, excessive drinking, drugs, little exercise, being overweight, etc. yet 75% of us refuse to do anything about this--why??

I'm all for UHC if and when there is a way to pay for it. But between now and when UHC is in place, there is so much each of us can do to be more healthy. For those who do not take these steps, in my opinion, they have no right to complain...

OldManOnFire · 03-13-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winthrop

I did not say we should get out of Iraq overnight, obviously that is not a practical possibility. I have made two points to you, one is that I and 60% of those polled do not believe our government is representing our interests, and that I personally neither hold nor accept responsibility for the actions of a non-representative government. The other point is we are in the middle of a civil war, which we cannot ameliorate. The clashing parties will have their conflict if we are there or if we are not. When they are done, if they are ever done, and they request/demand our help in rebuilding, then yes we should do so. We have no responsibility for making the Shiites and Sunnis act civilized, however, nor do we have a responsibility to stand between them.

Well...let's just end this discussion with your idea that all of the representatives in Congress, as well as the Cabinet and Military, anyone in the Iraq coalition, the UN, the Iraqi government, who have not managed the ending of the occupation as you would like it to be, are just a bunch of stooges!!

All of them are so stupid for not simply taking orders from your 60% group to get out of Iraq ASAP. What can possibly be wrong with all these government people? It's really amazing that 2000-3000 people can all be so wrong?? Is it slightly possible that most of them want out as well, but for whatever reasons, things simply are not at the right place to do this? EVEN if you were a Republican running for office in '08, or re-election, wouldn't you feel a little better if a withdrawal from Iraq was underway? The Dems will make this a huge issue in the general election, and if all the Republicans needed to do was start the deployment to neutralize the talking point, don't you think they would do this? In my business there's no such thing as a great wine before it's time...perhaps the time in Iraq is coming soon but today it is not easy to make this decision.

I hate everything Iraq, I hate insane-Bush, I hate the Iraq debacle, I deplore the needless deaths and injuries to all of those involved on both sides, and I want it ended as well. But I also am not so closed-minded and self-serving as others to not believe that the USA has the responsibility to make things right. I believe a slow and consistent deployment is the answer as I've mentioned and I hope this happens soon.

winthrop · 03-13-2008, 02:18 PM

I am unwilling to end the discussion when your response indicates you read only part of the post. Here are the parts you evidently missed:

I did not say we should get out of Iraq overnight, obviously that is not a practical possibility ... When they are done, if they are ever done, and they request/demand our help in rebuilding, then yes we should do so. We have no responsibility for making the Shiites and Sunnis act civilized, however, nor do we have a responsibility to stand between them.

As for our representatives representing us, thanks, I will stand by that apparently radical idea just the same.

OldManOnFire · 03-15-2008, 09:26 AM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by winthrop

I am unwilling to end the discussion when your response indicates you read only part of the post. Here are the parts you evidently missed:

Yesser master...

Quote:

I did not say we should get out of Iraq overnight, obviously that is not a practical possibility ... When they are done, if they are ever done, and they request/demand our help in rebuilding, then yes we should do so. We have no responsibility for making the Shiites and Sunnis act civilized, however, nor do we have a responsibility to stand between them.

Great if you don't want out overnight then a five or ten year plan will work okay for you. It works for me as long as we remove 'x' number of troops every single month and there is an end date.

You do what everyone else does in trying to micromanage the situation in Iraq. Who cares about this thing or that thing, for the very last time Winthrop, the USA attacked and destroyed Iraq killing and injuring millions, and some serious retribution is required. Not you, or me, or any other know-it-all on this board, can determine when and what needs to be accomplished. This has not been done before! It's an evolutionary process! This means it's almost going day-to-day! Like it or not this is the situation. The difference between you and me is, although I don't understand their actions to date, I do believe the 2000-3000 people who control our government have a much better idea what to do than you and I. The only thing I'd like to see is the plan to withdraw over 2-3 years and the end date that this creates--other than this I don't think there is much 'we' can do.

Quote:

As for our representatives representing us, thanks, I will stand by that apparently radical idea just the same.

If you bothered to read the article I posted above, the simple fact is not enough people care enough about the Iraq occupation. I guess they have more important things to do other than think about a bunch of dead and critically injured US soldiers and millions of Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed and the US economy going down the shitter because we are spending $2-3 trillion--maybe they're all shopping--who knows??

Here are two examples for you which I have provided before on these boards which explains how little US citizens care about Iraq:

If Iraq was such a big damned deal, why aren't Americans in the streets every weekend protesting????? I know there are 10 people here and 30 people over there doing small protests once in a while. I know more will be made of Iraq on it's anniversary next week. But think of it this way Winthrop; IF ONLY 1% OF AMERICANS CARED ENOUGH TO PROTEST, THIS WOULD BE 3,000,000 PEOPLE ON THE STREETS EACH WEEKEND! If it was a big deal you would think we could have 5% which is 15,000,000!! But we don't and I'll let you answer the question 'why not even a stinkin 1%?'.

Now if people are too lazy to protest in the streets, how about this example? If Iraq was such a big deal again, why is it that a lousy 5% of the American public cannot contact their representatives on a daily or weekly basis???? Why don't our Congress-persons receive at least 15,000,000 contacts per day or per week????

Americans in all their patriotic BS glory don't even care enough to protest or contact their representatives...pitiful at best...

winthrop · 03-15-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

Great if you don't want out overnight then a five or ten year plan will work okay for you.

Where did I write "five to ten years" as "Okay" with me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

It works for me as long as we remove 'x' number of troops every single month and there is an end date.

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

You do what everyone else does in trying to micromanage the situation in Iraq. Who cares about this thing or that thing, for the very last time Winthrop, the USA attacked and destroyed Iraq killing and injuring millions, and some serious retribution is required. Not you, or me, or any other know-it-all on this board, can determine when and what needs to be accomplished.

And who does? The clowns who put us in this situation? No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

This has not been done before! It's an evolutionary process! This means it's almost going day-to-day! Like it or not this is the situation. The difference between you and me is, although I don't understand their actions to date, I do believe the 2000-3000 people who control our government have a much better idea what to do than you and I.

That is a major difference between "you and me". I do not, judging by their actions thus far, believe those "2000-3000" have any idea what they are doing in this situation, nor have they heretofore. Bush and his gang ignored every warning, including his vice president's own flipflop from the first Gulf War, and insistently plowed into this mess, and the congress, Democrats and Republicans, gave him godspeed to do so. We are not being well represented in this manner, by any measure, yet you claim they "know better than us". Nonsense. They certainly have not demonstrated any such thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

The only thing I'd like to see is the plan to withdraw over 2-3 years and the end date that this creates--other than this I don't think there is much 'we' can do.

Two to three years at the maximum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

If you bothered to read the article I posted above, the simple fact is not enough people care enough about the Iraq occupation.

I read the article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

I guess they have more important things to do other than think about a bunch of dead and critically injured US soldiers and millions of Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed and the US economy going down the shitter because we are spending $2-3 trillion--maybe they're all shopping--who knows??

Here are two examples for you which I have provided before on these boards which explains how little US citizens care about Iraq:

If Iraq was such a big damned deal, why aren't Americans in the streets every weekend protesting????? I know there are 10 people here and 30 people over there doing small protests once in a while. I know more will be made of Iraq on it's anniversary next week. But think of it this way Winthrop; IF ONLY 1% OF AMERICANS CARED ENOUGH TO PROTEST, THIS WOULD BE 3,000,000 PEOPLE ON THE STREETS EACH WEEKEND! If it was a big deal you would think we could have 5% which is 15,000,000!! But we don't and I'll let you answer the question 'why not even a stinkin 1%?'.

Now if people are too lazy to protest in the streets, how about this example? If Iraq was such a big deal again, why is it that a lousy 5% of the American public cannot contact their representatives on a daily or weekly basis???? Why don't our Congress-persons receive at least 15,000,000 contacts per day or per week????

Americans in all their patriotic BS glory don't even care enough to protest or contact their representatives...pitiful at best...

So the only option is revolution in the streets? We went to the polls in 2006 and voted in a Democratic majority to address this matter, but those representatives have failed to represent us. Americans today have to deal with sometimes fragile jobs, demanding families, everyday life, often not obviously directly touched (although of courses they are directly touched, $4.00 per gallon gasoline being only one example) by the conflict, so I am not going to fault them for not burning the Capitol to the ground in protest of the Iraq war. That is what the voting booth is for, at least in allegedly civilized cultures such as ours.

OldManOnFire · 03-15-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

QUOTE=winthrop;143417 Where did I write "five to ten years" as "Okay" with me?

Well Winthrop...first you said 'who says the Iraq issue needs to end overnight?', and now you say 5 to 10 years is too long...or maybe it's too short? The real issue here is that if the powers-to-be don't do exactly what you feel is correct, then they're a bunch of idiots--right?

Quote:

That is a major difference between "you and me". I do not, judging by their actions thus far, believe those "2000-3000" have any idea what they are doing in this situation, nor have they heretofore. Bush and his gang ignored every warning, including his vice president's own flipflop from the first Gulf War, and insistently plowed into this mess, and the congress, Democrats and Republicans, gave him godspeed to do so. We are not being well represented in this manner, by any measure, yet you claim they "know better than us". Nonsense. They certainly have not demonstrated any such thing.

So if I read you correctly Winthrop...you are saying they're all idiots and you possess more knowledge and solution than all of them combined...hmmmmm? Did you know that some people are locked away for long periods of time when they start believing such things??

Quote:

So the only option is revolution in the streets?

Of course this is not the only option Winthrop. I gave you two examples to prove that people generally do not give a rip...period! But I see you did not answer my question why there is no major protesting and not millions of contacts with Congress each day??

Quote:

We went to the polls in 2006 and voted in a Democratic majority to address this matter, but those representatives have failed to represent us.

You're assuming this was the reason--right? So if they didn't do what you believed they should do, then vote all of them out at their next election.

Quote:

Americans today have to deal with sometimes fragile jobs, demanding families, everyday life, often not obviously directly touched (although of courses they are directly touched, $4.00 per gallon gasoline being only one example) by the conflict, so I am not going to fault them for not burning the Capitol to the ground in protest of the Iraq war. That is what the voting booth is for, at least in allegedly civilized cultures such as ours.

So great...no need for further complaining...just wait until you can vote again...

winthrop · 03-16-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

Well Winthrop...first you said 'who says the Iraq issue needs to end overnight?', and now you say 5 to 10 years is too long...or maybe it's too short?

You do see the difference between "overnight" and "5 to 10 years"...correct? I said 2 to 3 years at the maximum. We have been there for five.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

The real issue here is that if the powers-to-be don't do exactly what you feel is correct, then they're a bunch of idiots--right?

No, if they do not do what is right, they are something...maybe idiots, maybe something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

So if I read you correctly Winthrop...you are saying they're all idiots and you possess more knowledge and solution than all of them combined...hmmmmm? Did you know that some people are locked away for long periods of time when they start believing such things??

There is ample evidence the powers that unfortunately be have no idea what they are doing. Let me ask you this...the Bush Cabal supposedly has more information than any of us. Does this stop you from criticizing him or calling him "insane"...hmmmmm?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

Of course this is not the only option Winthrop. I gave you two examples to prove that people generally do not give a rip...period! But I see you did not answer my question why there is no major protesting and not millions of contacts with Congress each day??

I in fact did answer your question, which you then quoted in your post. Here it is again, in case it slipped your memory:

Americans today have to deal with sometimes fragile jobs, demanding families, everyday life, often not obviously directly touched (although of courses they are directly touched, $4.00 per gallon gasoline being only one example) by the conflict, so I am not going to fault them for not burning the Capitol to the ground in protest of the Iraq war. That is what the voting booth is for, at least in allegedly civilized cultures such as ours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

You're assuming this was the reason--right?

Why The Democrats Won
Bush, Iraq War And Congressional Corruption Badly Hurt The GOP

When one political party controls all the levers of government power, it also carries the burden of responsibility for the state of the nation in voters’ minds. The Republican Party learned this lesson the hard way in this year’s congressional election. CBS News exit polls show an angry electorate that has taken its frustration out almost entirely on Republican candidates for office, while not a single Democratic incumbent lost a seat.

Sensing a dangerous national tide, Republicans had hoped to make this year’s election about local issues. However, those leaving the polls said that national issues were more important in determining their votes by a nearly 2-1 margin. And most of the national issues cited by voters as important reflect the negative mood of the American public this election.

One of the most dramatic shifts has been on the issue of Iraq. In 2004, a narrow majority of voters (51 percent) said they approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. This year, only 41 percent of voters said they approved of the war in Iraq, and only one-third said that the war had improved the long-term security of the United States. Among those who disapproved of the war, 4 out of 5 voted for the Democratic House candidate.

This change in voters’ views of Iraq appears to directly reflect voters’ evaluations of how George W. Bush is handling his job as president. In 2004, 51 percent of voters approved of Bush. Two years later that figure has also dropped to 41 percent, and 4 out of 5 of those critical of Bush voted Democratic.

If voters were only unhappy with Mr. Bush, Republicans might have been able to limit their losses in this election. However, 61 percent of voters also disapproved of the Republican controlled Congress – up from 49 percent disapproval in the 2002 midterm elections for Congress. And 7 in 10 of those disapproving of Congress this year cast their ballots for Democrats.

Throughout the campaign season, Democrats argued that Republicans in Congress represented a “culture of corruption.” This theme appears to have resonated among voters. Forty-one percent of voters said that corruption and scandals in government were extremely important in their House vote, with an additional 33 percent saying the issues were very important. Those citing corruption and scandals as very important favored Democratic House candidates by 8 points, and those who said they were extremely important favored Democrats by 24 points.

The anti-Republican tide evident in these exit poll responses was strong enough that its impact could be seen across virtually all demographic groups. In certain cases, however, the tide was enough to change a previously Republican leaning group of voters into a Democratic leaning group of voters.

This was certainly the case for suburban voters — a coveted demographic group in recent elections. In the 2002 midterm election, suburban voters favored Republican candidates 57 percent to 40 percent. This midterm, suburbanites went for Democrats by a slim margin, 51 percent to 48 percent.

Perhaps the biggest effect of the national tide this year could be seen among independent voters. Independent voters were even more pessimistic about the Republicans’ handing of the legislative and executive branches than the average voter was. Only 33 percent of independents approved of Mr. Bush’s job performance, and only 28 percent approved of Congress’ job performance.

The result of this pessimism was that independents made a key difference in determining control of the House this year. While in 2002 Independents were almost evenly split between Republicans (48%) and Democrats (45%), this year Independents favored Democrats by a whopping 18 points, 57% to 39%, easily providing the margin of victory across multiple contests.

David R. Jones is an associate professor of political science at Baruch College, City University of New York. He has published a book and several scholarly articles on American politics and voting behavior. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles.

The exit polls were conducted by Edison/Mitofsky Research for the National Election Pool among 13,208 voters nationwide as they left the polls on November 7, 2006. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 1 percentage point for the entire sample.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

So if they didn't do what you believed they should do, then vote all of them out at their next election.

It is not only what I believed they should do. It is what the majority of voters believed they should do, as indicated above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

So great...no need for further complaining...just wait until you can vote again...

Who said anything about not complaining? I said only the vote makes, or at least is supposed to make, a real difference.