Tea Party/ GOP-

[RIJIMMY]

oooh look data that supports my argument!

There was a strong correlation between opinions about the president and votes in the Massachusetts race.

· Among those who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is handling the job, Coakley won 96% to three percent (3%).

· Among those who Strongly Disapprove, Brown won 97% to two percent (2%).

· Brown also won the vote from 95% of those who Somewhat Disapprove of the president’s job performance.

well whaty'a know Johnny!

and how about....


Among those who Strongly Favor the plan before Congress, Coakley won 97% of the vote.

· Among those who Strongly Oppose the plan, 98% voted for Brown.

· Coakley also picked up 90% of those who Somewhat Favor the plan while Brown was supported by 78% of those who Somewhat Oppose it.

· One key to Brown’s victory is that 41% Strongly Opposed the plan while just 25% Strongly Favored it.


Nah....nuthin to do with the Dems or Obama. Coakley sucks, Brown has a truck. yeee haw!

[JohnnyD]

So how are #2 and #3 supported or are you going to vaguely group those in with people that disagree with Obama?

Johnny - Brown's main FOCUS -

1. I can kill healthcare bill (you remember, Obama's key priority)
2. I am against giving rights to terrorsts (you remember, Obama pushed for trials of 9/11 suspects)
3. Less government (you remember, everything Obama has done in offce)

These numbers don't really support your argument much at all aside from the HC part. Oh, so people that don't like Obama and didn't like the HC proposal voted for the guy that's a Republican and against the HC proposal?

And you still haven't address your "Dropping Like Flies" comments that you try to continue making. It would be easy to say that the Dems see the writing on the walls and are jumping ship, if it weren't for the same number of total Republicans, in both the House and Senate combined, that are not running re-election.

Wiki has a clean layout of who's dropping out.
* Retiring Democrats (5 seats)
* Retiring Republicans (6 seats)
* Democratic incumbents (13 seats)
* Republican incumbents (12 seats)

United States Senate elections, 2010

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

So how are #2 and #3 supported or are you going to vaguely group those in with people that disagree with Obama?


These numbers don't really support your argument much at all aside from the HC part. Oh, so people that don't like Obama and didn't like the HC proposal voted for the guy that's a Republican and against the HC proposal?

And you still haven't address your "Dropping Like Flies" comments that you try to continue making. It would be easy to say that the Dems see the writing on the walls and are jumping ship, if it weren't for the same number of total Republicans, in both the House and Senate combined, that are not running re-election.

Wiki has a clean layout of who's dropping out.
* Retiring Democrats (5 seats)
* Retiring Republicans (6 seats)
* Democratic incumbents (13 seats)
* Republican incumbents (12 seats)

United States Senate elections, 2010

All polls point to a major shift in the 2010 election. I am thrilled that incumbants from both parties are dropping like flies.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

So how are #2 and #3 supported or are you going to vaguely group those in with people that disagree with Obama?


These numbers don't really support your argument much at all aside from the HC part. Oh, so people that don't like Obama and didn't like the HC proposal voted for the guy that's a Republican and against the HC proposal?

And you still haven't address your "Dropping Like Flies" comments that you try to continue making. It would be easy to say that the Dems see the writing on the walls and are jumping ship, if it weren't for the same number of total Republicans, in both the House and Senate combined, that are not running re-election.

Wiki has a clean layout of who's dropping out.
* Retiring Democrats (5 seats)
* Retiring Republicans (6 seats)
* Democratic incumbents (13 seats)
* Republican incumbents (12 seats)

United States Senate elections, 2010

your combining two concepts/posts. You said very clearly that the Brown win was not a reflection on Dems or Obama, the data draws a different conclusion, you decide.

The points I noted where key points Brown was running on, he was very clearly running on these. the poll data does not address it, however i would infer that less taxes = less government and that was clearly outlined in the poll.

As Far as Dems dropping like flies, I dont know of any high profile Reps dropping out, my ignorance, but the headlines the past few weeks have been filled with dems - Dodd, Dorgan, Kennedy, Bayh, . Bayh is not leaving saying he is to old, he is leaving saying things suck and I want out. I have to say that if you think this has nothing to do with Brown's win, the tea party movement or anti-Obama sentiment. Your nuts. Look at how bad this was for Repubs during the Bush years but you didnt see this kind of Exodus.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

your combining two concepts/posts. You said very clearly that the Brown win was not a reflection on Dems or Obama, the data draws a different conclusion, you decide.

I did?

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Thus the problem with your argument. You assume that everyone votes based on policy and the issues. If the Presidential campaign taught us anything, it's that many people vote on sensationalism and voting against what's currently happening in the state.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I did?

from Johnny D -
"Also, you (and just about everyone else) have pretty consistently made the Scott Brown vote a "Vote against the Democrats" and I disagree."

The poll data suggests otherwise.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

from Johnny D -
"Also, you (and just about everyone else) have pretty consistently made the Scott Brown vote a "Vote against the Democrats" and I disagree."

The poll data suggests otherwise.

Now you're the one combining two different concepts/posts.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

your combining two concepts/posts. You said very clearly that the Brown win was not a reflection on Dems or Obama, the data draws a different conclusion, you decide.

The points I noted where key points Brown was running on, he was very clearly running on these. the poll data does not address it, however i would infer that less taxes = less government and that was clearly outlined in the poll.

I love it...

RIJIMMY sez = the data draws a different conclusion

RIJIMMY sez = the poll data does not address it

So the facts are clear, yet to make his point he relies on his inference

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it...

RIJIMMY sez = the data draws a different conclusion

RIJIMMY sez = the poll data does not address it

So the facts are clear, yet to make his point he relies on his inference

-spence

I was too distracted by his inaccurate reference to my position that I missed his comical inference that taxes = less government. So, as long as the government cuts taxes, they should be entitled to regulate every facet of my life?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I was too distracted by his inaccurate reference to my position that I missed his comical inference that taxes = less government. So, as long as the government cuts taxes, they should be entitled to regulate every facet of my life?

They already do. Join the "tea party". Your a better fit then you'll admit

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

They already do. Join the "tea party". Your a better fit then you'll admit

Are you a member?

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it...

RIJIMMY sez = the data draws a different conclusion

RIJIMMY sez = the poll data does not address it

So the facts are clear, yet to make his point he relies on his inference

-spence

F'in stupidity, if you and Johnny cant follow a logical discussion, dont waste my time. Brown had issues he was running on..period. The poll has data...period. Some of Browns running points were addressed as key MA issues in the poll, others were not. I noted which where addressed and which were not. Has nothing to do with my opinion. I clearly separated them. as I said twice, now 3 TIMES. you draw your own conclusion. the data is there......

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

F'in stupidity, if you and Johnny cant follow a logical discussion, dont waste my time. Brown had issues he was running on..period. The poll has data...period. Some of Browns running points were addressed as key MA issues in the poll, others were not. I noted which where addressed and which were not. Has nothing to do with my opinion. I clearly separated them. as I said twice, now 3 TIMES. you draw your own conclusion. the data is there......

I don't think it's a matter of stupidity with JD and Spence. Spence just likes to play devil's advocate. You know he's actually not all that liberal. He likes a good debate and when proven wrong, he stops visiting the thread. It happens all the time, when he runs out of ways to spin his argument.
With JD, he just can't accept when he's been proven wrong. If he sees that someone's getting the upper hand, he makes personal attacks on their intelligence. I guess when you think you're the smartest person in the room, you feel entitled to act like it. Wait a second, I jsut realized that describes our current President to a tee.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

I don't think it's a matter of stupidity with JD and Spence. Spence just likes to play devil's advocate. You know he's actually not all that liberal. He likes a good debate and when proven wrong, he stops visiting the thread. It happens all the time, when he runs out of ways to spin his argument.

This is utter nonsense.

I have demonstrated a consistent ability to keep mindless political threads going longer than perhaps anyone else on the site

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

With JD, he just can't accept when he's been proven wrong. If he sees that someone's getting the upper hand, he makes personal attacks on their intelligence. I guess when you think you're the smartest person in the room, you feel entitled to act like it. Wait a second, I jsut realized that describes our current President to a tee.

The irony of the above if amusing. I've yet to make a personal attack that wasn't in reciprocation. I'm sure it'll be easy to quote some of my posts here out of context to 'prove' the contrary. Then there is you who chooses to chime in and make consistent personal attacks and criticisms of me that are completely unprovoked. I guess when you're arrogant, you feel entitled to act however you see fit.

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

F'in stupidity, if you and Johnny cant follow a logical discussion, dont waste my time. Brown had issues he was running on..period. The poll has data...period. Some of Browns running points were addressed as key MA issues in the poll, others were not. I noted which where addressed and which were not. Has nothing to do with my opinion. I clearly separated them. as I said twice, now 3 TIMES. you draw your own conclusion. the data is there......

A logical discussion? You mean make a point, then find a poll and say that it supports your point, and then say that the poll doesn't address everything and we should draw our own opinions? But then "less taxes = less government" for some reason so the poll did include everything.

However, it all comes down to your original point:

from Johnny D -
"Also, you (and just about everyone else) have pretty consistently made the Scott Brown vote a "Vote against the Democrats" and I disagree."

The poll data suggests otherwise.

...which I still disagree with.

The poll data demonstrates correlation but gives no suggestions for causation. As such, the poll data suggests the tendencies of voters but not the reason behind their votes.