Democrats Always Lead In the Polls Until the Republicans Get Off Work

[Avatar4321]

So Geo who are you voting for this time?

 

[Caroljo]

Thanks for the NEG Catz!!! Lol!
ONE person with no sense of humor down.....Geesh!

 

[depotoo]

I think it funny I have suddenly gotten calls from Dems in the last hour and haven't received a one from them up until now.

 

[catzmeow]

Possibly. That's not really what I was after. What is your interpretation for why Democrats statistically tend to have earlier voter turnout on major elections? Employment rates is one factor to look at, and a perfectly valid one. What is yours?

I don't blindly believe the premise of the question. Where's that statistic coming from?

It's a pretty well-known phenomenon. I don't have a Bureau of Labor Statistics number to give you, but quite a few articles are discussing this tendency. Here is one:

Obama Boosted by Early Voting in Florida Despite Controversy | TIME.com

Particularly this quote:

"But their real impetus was to reduce Democratic turnout, because Democrats tend to do more early voting than Republicans — and because they gave Obama a 9-point lead among early in-person voters in 2008."

My personal experience of over 20 years of voting tends to bear that out as well. Democrats tend to vote strong early. It's all op-ed type stuff, but it's fun to discuss. So, why do YOU think Democrats vote earlier than Republicans. I'm not necessarily going to slam your opinion, but you seem dismissive of the OP interpretation, and I'm curious if you have an alternate one.

We vote early because we care more.

 

[catzmeow]

Thanks for the NEG Catz!!! Lol!
ONE person with no sense of humor down.....Geesh!

Whine a little and I bet you can get a few more.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

So Geo who are you voting for this time?

Gary Johnson clearly.

 

[Caroljo]

Thanks for the NEG Catz!!! Lol!
ONE person with no sense of humor down.....Geesh!

Whine a little and I bet you can get a few more.

Ohhhh.....a threat?
You just proved my point...thanks!

 

[Caroljo]

No.

the right has been cheating my party out of elections for decades.

Its not fucking funny


not one bit

 

[Barb]

heh

 

[AceRothstein]

heh

47% Milk, awesome.

 

[beagle9]

heh

47% Milk, awesome.

People keep on making fools of themselves with this 47% thing, but here we have Obama listening to Mitt's advice, and you know why that is don't cha ? It's because Obama knew what Mitt meant when he use the term the 47%, where as Mitt already established the fact that he wasn't worried about the 47% who are the poor these days, because they were going to be alright for the moment, and also into the future as the number would deminish by good leadership over time, just as they have been alright for years with assistance given them, and this once they became or do become poor for any reason or at least until they get themselves out of their own messes that they sometimes make for themselves or were somehow created for them. Until then the government will be there for them in which they have now sadly become in the amount of 47% these days, and why is this ? It is all because of socialized/communist style corporate greed found in the private sectors when working everyone as cheap labor, and with little to no benefits or a bright future these days, along with government entitlements creating dependency for those who had fallen out of work, but had made it a career move to remain out of work and upon the governments dime afterwards. This is what has caused these numbers to now exist in the percentages that they are numbering in these days, and Mitt wasn't going to change the government to somehow not help the poor anylonger, but what he was wanting to change is what was causing them to be dependent and poor these days, by working to turn back what was happening to the jobs in this nation, and what was happening to the working middle class & working lower class people in this nation, while also incentivising the rich to invest more and do more all at the same time, and not by attacking them as the enemy of this nation instead. Hmmmmm, maybe Obama was fixing to serve up desert, in which would have been a 10% more increase to the 47% number, so he needed Mitt's advice to help him figure out how to keep that from happening ? Food for thought eh ? I'll roll with it..

 

[Dragonlady]

It is all because of socialized/communist style corporate greed found in the private sectors when working everyone as cheap labor, and with little to no benefits or a bright future these days, along with government entitlements creating dependency for those who had fallen out of work, but had made it a career move to remain out of work and upon the governments dime afterwards.

The 47% are not all unemployed and on the dole. Over 60% pay payroll taxes and withholding so they are employed, but 80% of that 60% make less than $30,000 per year so they pay no federal tax. That would include those employed and paid minimum wages who are working for companies like McDonalds, Walmart, Costco, and many of the other highly profitable big box retail chains. Walmart will help its employees apply for food stamps. The staff of the average Walmart location receive $422,000 in food stamps, Medicaid, and other "entitlements" while Walmart pays minimum wages and books record profits.

Those paying payroll taxes also include members of the US military. How insulting to say that because members of the armed forces pay no income tax, that they need to stop being a drain on the public purse and stop expecting "entitlements" from their government. The cost of equiping and maintaining a standing army garrisoned throughout its empire helped to bring down the Roman Empire.

22% of the 47% are elderly and no longer working and who receive SS, Medicare, etc., but they worked and paid taxes their entire lives for these so-called "entitlements". I guess you want them to get off their asses and get jobs too.

Then there are students, the disabled, and finally we have the people who are content to live off government assistance and have given up hope of getting of it, which is a very small percentage of the overall 47% currently being vilifed by Fox News and Republican commentators and politicians as "takers".

Think about it: Romney's 47% speech probably cost him the election. It was the DUMBEST thing he could have said. "I don't care about those people". People were so pissed off by that comment, they came out in higher numbers in some precincts than in 2008 to make sure that someone with that attitude was NOT going to be elected. Do you really think that going on about the 47% who are "takers" is going to help the Republican Party win the next election?

Isn't it time you look at the large corporations who are helping their employees become "takers" while paying them the least amount possible, and booking record profits off the backs of American middle-class taxpayers. Some of these corporations even have the audacity to complain THEIR taxes are too high.

 

[candycorn]

"Democrats always lead in the polls until the Republicans get off work."

Lol!

another jewel

 

[rdean]

"Democrats always lead in the polls until the Republicans get off work."

Lol!

They have jobs?

Then WTF are they complaining about? I thought the election was about jobs. If they've already got them what's the big deal?

It's not that they have jobs. Delusional Republicans believe they are really "millionaires currently without funds", but one day, their ship will "come in". It's why they fight to protect billionaires. They believe they are protecting their "future investment".

 

[Nyvin]

No.

the right has been cheating my party out of elections for decades.

Its not fucking funny


not one bit

Ef the Democrats. You know whats not funny? Democrats promoting multiple wars, drone striking thousands of children, extending the Patriot Act, supporting eugenics through Planned Parenthood, signing the NDAA destroying our 4th Amendment rights.

You and your party love war, death, and no prosperity. You criticize Bush for Patriot Act and war, but love it when Obama has 5 wars, and extends the Patriot Act.

Obama's "Five Wars" (lol...) are all together 1/30th the size of one of Bush's....