Still Great News in the Battleground Poll

Intellectual Conservative ^ | 11-03-05 | Bruce Walker - Commentary & Analysis

[IronJack]

Ideologically, liberals have a pretty good position. But their actualization of the theory discredits them as anything but overgrown children with grandiose delusions.

Conservatives, on the other hand, have a tougher product to sell. But their forthrightness lends them a credibility that softens the harshness of their position.

It all comes down to this: do you want a nice guy who lies to you, or a ba$tard who tells you the truth?

[Kay]

Good post.

[jim macomber]

"One year later, in September 2004, the percentage of Americans who called themselves "conservative" or "very conservative" had risen slightly to sixty percent, while the number of Americans who considered hemselves "liberal" or "very liberal" had dropped to thirty-four percent -- leaving exactly the same gap between conservative and liberal of twenty-four percentage points."

Um...isn't that 26%?

[smoothsailing]

LOL! Unless a majority of us are insane, the ba$tards win!

[Carry_Okie]

How do these numbers explain John Kerry coming within 60,000 votes of winning an election?

[LS]

Jesus told the truth, yet He could do so with compassion. It's not impossible. "One thing you lack: . . . ."

Most doctors will tell you the truth, with compassion. So I don't think it's an either/or as you portray it.

Nor do I think the liberal position, ideologically, is "pretty good." It's based on a tissue of lies. Take, for ex., the basis of all liberalism/marxism/socialism, the "labor theory of value," which says, essentially, that all labor is valuable and you should therefore be rewarded JUST for doing work. When you do not create value for someone else---yet you still (through government edict) get rewarded---you are engaging in pure selfishness. This is not as it is always portrayed by the left---as a grand, benevolent, selfless "sharing."

[sanjacjake]

Kerry Lies..Kerry cheats....whatdoyaknowaboutthat? Jake

[xcamel]

Chicago voted twice, remember?

[Kay]

You mean in Ohio, right? Because Bush won by millions in the popular vote.

[uncbob]

So how the hell come didn't Bush win in a pop vote and electoral college LANDSLIDE like REAGAN in 80-84 and his father in 88

[Carry_Okie]

You mean in Ohio, right?

Yep. I figure fraud is worth a couple of million votes to the Slave Party, but numbers like those cited above would easily overwhelm such an effort. They don't. Fruther, conservatives are usually more likely to show up at the polls.

[GOPJ]

Conservatives are winning, and winning convincingly, the ideological battle for the hearts and minds of Americans. The number of conservatives and strong conservatives is growing, and the number of liberals is shrinking.

Good news.

[qam1]

The theocrats scare many people who are otherwise Conservative away

[Soul Seeker]

Sure, that's it.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

Yeah, but don't let that bother you. Just put that in with the 20 or 30 things about the Battleground Poll that we're supposed to ignore.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

Because Reagan and Bush Sr. didn't have that political genius Karl Rove!

[B Knotts]

It's all in how you communicate the message. President Reagan was the greatest at this; we haven't had anyone like that rise up through the GOP ranks in recent years.

[COEXERJ145]

How do these numbers explain John Kerry coming within 60,000 votes of winning an election?

And Bush came within the same number of votes of winning 5 or 6 more states.