256-153 Offically on Record now!!

[sitarro]

Actually, if you scroll down you'll see that its a list of a whole bunch of polls from many different news outlets and polling groups.

It goes in order of the date the data was polled. CNN happened to be the newest, also that poll wasn't done by CNN, it was a poll by Opinion Research Corporation, that CNN carried.

However, they all paint the same picture.

The majority of Americans don't support the war (they haven't for some time) and they want out ASAP.

Most polls that aren't taken by homosexual organization also state that an overwhelming percentage of Americans are against Homosexual Marriage.......should we go ahead and make that policy?

 

[Redhots]

That wasn't what I was commenting on, whats that new buzz word going on around here... oh yeah, "populists views" and such.

Rico said that "the electorate does not favor cutting and running." and I responded with the link that the polls show otherwise, thats all.

It wasn't a vote for the war or against the war, it was a vote for a "time table" for the war... a pretty safe issue to "take a stand" on.

Which is why I think the way people voted had more to do with party politics than anything else. It is an election year, and politicans do tend to vote with the voters around this time of year... otherwise they're out an easy $165k / year, a nice $4k / month retirement package if they manage to get re-elected a couple times, plus whatever deals they cut while they're in office.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think for the Republicans in D.C. the vote was more about trying to reafirm party solidarity (something thats started to crack in the last year or so).

Plus the whole idea of setting a time table or not setting one is a pretty safe stance to take regardless of which side you take.

For example: A_Rep_Up_For_Re-election_01 says: "Just because I was against a time table doesn't mean I'm not for getting the hell out of Iraq! Vote4Me!"

A_Dem_Up_For_Re-election_01 says: "Just because I voted for a time table doesn't mean I don't support the troops or even the war itself! Vote4Me!"

If the Republicans in D.C were voting to reafirm party solidarity, why did so many Democrats up for reelection do so?

That is the key to it. If you want to see what the people think, look at the politicians up for reelection in tight races.

 

[dilloduck]

If the Republicans in D.C were voting to reafirm party solidarity, why did so many Democrats up for reelection do so?

That is the key to it. If you want to see what the people think, look at the politicians up for reelection in tight races.

You gotta love it. "Oh ya--I better do what the people elected me to do "

 

[Redhots]

If the Republicans in D.C were voting to reafirm party solidarity, why did so many Democrats up for reelection do so?

I didn't see anything in the article that showed who specificly voted for or against it. Do you have a link to a source that does?

There are 202 Dems in congress and 232 Reps and like 1 indipendent... there were 26 congressmen that didn't vote on the issue... so the numbers look like a pretty partisan split to me. Also the article only mentions Reps voting for a time table, but nothing about Dems voting against one.

I'm not saying that I refuse to believe that any Dems voted against a time table or anything silly like that... just that the original article doesn't give the impression that "Many Dems (up for re-election) voted against a time table".

Anywho, like I said before, the whole thing is just a bunch of election year bullshit IMO and I could care less about it. I'm just wondering what your source is.