GOP will win in November

< > You have your facts wrong. In 2000 during the primaries the Republicans had a higher voter turnout than the Democrats. At the Democratic convention in 2000 the total popular votes counted between all the candidates was 14,013,416; compared to the total popular votes at the Republican Convention which totaled at 19,519,539. However, Democrats had more delegate votes than Republicans, but we are talking about voter turnout and not delegate votes. http://www.thegreenpapers.com... < > I am not suggesting that campaign finance is the only winning strategy, but an amalgamation of fund raising, organization, voter turnout, voter registration, and party unity will give the Democrats an advantage over the Republicans in 2008. < > But hasn't won since. Huckabee won because of the evangelical support in Iowa, not because he didn't raise as much as his opponents. Obama outspent Hillary in Iowa and won that state. There is no substance to your argument. < > Yes, of course, and Republicans are supported by corporate lobbyists and special interest groups more so than the Democrats. However in this election cycle, two of the leading Democratic candidates stand by their claim that they do not take money from unions and PACs. Therefore, I don't see what your point is. << Also, there are more registered wealthy democrats than republicans (hard to believe). "The study also found that Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle, but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers.">> Your argument does not show how this favors the Republicans. This debate is not about who is giving the donations or who has the most rich donors, but how much each party is raising. I have shown you previously that the Democrats have been out raising the Republicans in donations. This does not suggest that it is the only reason why Democrats will defeat the Republicans. It simply adds to the list of probable advantages the Democrats have over the Republicans. < > It is also high on the Republican side. Let me list a few better examples of heated rivalry. 1. Mike Hukabee and Mitt Romney concerning Romney's religion. 2. John McCain and Rudy Gulliani about who can keep America safer. 3. Ron Paul against the others on withdrawing from Iraq. Or turn to the topic of immigration and you'll find all sorts of passionate debating between the Republicans on what would be the best policy without any consensus. One of the most common attacks Republicans use on one another is the "flip flop" attack. All the Republicans have attacked each other with flip flopping on nearly every issue they've talked about - including taxes, abortion, crime, immigration, torture, and Iraq war. This is the reason why they appear to be so fractured and having a lack of new ideas. The Democrats are in more agreement with most of the issues than the Republicans are. < > This argument sounds desperate and without substance. There is no evidence that this strategy of saying that the Democrats will bring "bad change" has worked to change voter perception to favor the Republicans. I will argue that a majority of Americans are smart enough to see through the spin. This is more of an ad hominem attack and once again...lacks substance. <> Frank Rich of the New York Times said it best in today's paper: "To voters who do remember Iraq, the supposed military success of the "surge" does not accrue to the Republicans' favor either. Quite the contrary. As every poll shows, most Americans still want the troops home ASAP. Republican declarations that we are "winning" merely lead many voters to a logical conclusion: Why not let the Iraqis take over the remaining triage so we can retrieve the $10 billion a month in taxpayers' money that might benefit us at home?" < > In Jan 12 issue of the Economist, the magazine reports that the US unemployment rate jumped to 5%. The stock markets lost 8% its total value this month alone. And even though a drop in interest rates may slow the downturn it will not speedup the recovery. The Economist states: "Put together falling asset prices, rising defaults and tighter credit and it is hard to see how the economy will bounce back quickly. History, too, suggests the hangover will last. A new study finds that, on measures from capital inflows to asset-price rises, the build-up to America's mortgage crisis looks eerily like earlier financial crises in rich countries. In the average rich-country banking crisis, it took two years for growth to return to trend; at worst it took more than three ." http://www.economist.com... < > http://www.gallup.com... < > You mean rich people like lower taxes. Middle income taxpayers do not get the benefits of Bush's tax cuts, and it is the middle income taxpayers who need it more than the rich. Since the Republicans have not been able to be fiscally responsible while in power it is going to be difficult for the Republicans to run on that issue. < > Except when they win as in 1992, 1996, and 2006. Judging and comparing how candidates campaigned in the past has no relevance and provides no indication about how they will fair in 2008. Your argument does not prove that the Republicans will win in 2008 or that it will give them an advantage. < > Based on what analysis???? < > On the contrary, the focus on the issues is helping the Democrats. The Republicans are divided on the issues and are blindly following Bush's policies. But if these words don't heed you, then read George Will who correctly states: "Today, all the usual indicators are dismal for Republicans. If that broad assertion seems counterintuitive, produce a counterexample. The adverse indicators include: shifts in voters' identifications with the two parties (Democrats now 50 percent, Republicans 36 percent); the tendency of independents (they favored Democratic candidates by 18 points in 2006); the fact that Democrats hold a majority of congressional seats in states with 303 electoral votes; the Democrats' strength and the Republicans' relative weakness in fund raising; the percentage of Americans who think the country is on the "wrong track"....." http://www.washingtonpost.com...