When are the millions of traitor Democrats who voted for Reagan, Bush, and Bush going to take some

[TheKentuckian]

heat?

How in the name of all that is good and green on the Earth do we as a party roast a pitiful handful over a slow fire but give tens of millions a pass?

The right wing of the party has regularly flipped sides and acted against the needs and general welfare of America but has the gall to point fingers.

The only ones of us that have a right to point fingers are those of us that have stuck by the party and the people the whole way through Reaganism and even then it should be obvious that blame goes both ways and conservatives deserve the lion's share of the blame and responsibility.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Sorry, "small tent" does not work.

I voted Dem starting with Clinton. Does that mean anyone who's only been Dem for the last 18 years should be read out of the party? Good luck with that.

[TheKentuckian]

4. No, Jim it means you don't get to cry foul to liberals for ruining the country

when you participated yourself.

All I'm talking about is a basic issue of fairness. Its hypocritical to bash that pitiful handful of Democratic or Democratic leaning Nader voters and hold blameless those MILLIONS who went the other way.

I said nothing about running anyone anywhere here. My point was the finger pointing and I don't think that was too difficult to discern. You can't blame the few and absolve the many, while being even remotely fair. It is the very height of hypocrisy to hammer the left when the right by any measure gave the greater numbers to the friends of power and the enemies of the people.

Read before reacting seems reasonable to me but you can deflect with the small tent meme if you want, despite it having nothing to do with the point made.

[Jim Sagle]

13. I agree on finger pointing. But more generally, fingers should be pointed at the leadership class.

[iconocrastic]

50. Funny how one's choice at the ballot box should be considered treason.

This is disturbing. But not surprising from some.

[digidigido]

67. After Clinton, Bush and Obama, it's looking like Nader was right

[iconocrastic]

49. The OP is a true believer in a party of one. Everyone else is a traitor.

If he looks in the mirror he will see the source of his unhappiness.

[dmallind]

2. I believe these folks are called Independents

I am almost as far to the "right" (middle really) as DU allows and I would never consider voting for any of the above.

Reagan peeled off some Dems because he appealed to the blue collar working man types who thought the Dem party was too pie in the sky idealistically. These people either stayed in the Rep party because of social conservatism or came back into the fold when they worked out how antithetical Republicans are to the working population. The number of Democrats who voted for either Bush is as negligible as the number of Republicans who voted for Obama.

What people here call Conservative Dems (at their most polite that is) are hardly much risk of voting 3rd party (absent some charismatic moderate like Ventura) and near none at all of voting Republican. Maybe because we are closer to the divide we can see how deep it really is. What may look like a thin line between centrist Dems and Republicans all the way over in DSA/Green territory is a yawning Grand Canyon like abyss when you're standing on the edge of it.

People who can actually vote both ways fall into two camps. One - I believe the largest - is apathetic politically who vote depending on whim or media reports or who gives nice speeches and so on. The other are those who are truly independent moderates who are likely to shift to and from incumbent parties based on how well they think things are going. Better campaigns win the first group. Better results win the second.

[TheKentuckian]

6. I get that. I'm talking Democrats only and the hypocrissy of pointing fingers by the same folks

How are you going to cry about Nader when "you" (not talking you personally) voted for the cabal directly?

[dmallind]

7. If you voted for Bush, you'd be thanking Nader surely?

Maybe I'm dense but how many Bush voters do you think there are who think the Democrats losing is something that should engender blame rather than applause?

[TheKentuckian]

8. You're blind to the point that about 4 million Democrats voted shrub

and less than 100k voted Nader. It's simple math. The point is the relentless finger pointing to the statistically irrelevent and ignoring millions is high level hypocrisy.

I know many Democrats that voted Bush at least once and shit-tons that voted for Poppy and especially Reagan once or more. Hell, I know a guy that voted Gore in 2000 and then turned around and voted Bush in 04 so he could "fix his mess". People do stupid shit, all people, not just a few mostly very young liberals.

[dmallind]

14. And you're blind to the point that all of them, presumably, PREFERRED Bush

That makes them idiots sure, but it doesn't make them close to as moronic as those who knew only Bush and Gore had a chance, would have preferred Gore over Bush, but voted for Nader.

You can't blame people who honestly preferred Bush for not voting Gore. They are not going to be pointing fingers at Nader supporters in any event as Nader supporters helped them. They wanted Bush more than Gore!

So any "conservative" Democrats who are blaming Nader voters by definition exclude those who voted for Bush. How could it be otherwise? The Bush voters are not looking to blame anyone. All the blame on DU and elsewhere for the silly purist morons who believed the "tweedle dee" lies is coming from those who voted for Gore. Deal with it.

[PSzymeczek]

52. The first time they vote for Shrub

They're no longer Dems, I don't care how they're registered.

[hileeopnyn8d]

12. I agree with the poster above you

I have never met a Reagan Democrat in real life, and I've not seen any around DU either. I think some of those that voted for Reagan simply became Republicans and Libertarians, others are the infamous swing-voters.

Now, there were Rockefeller Republicans who voted for Reagan, Poppy and Bush in 2000 but jumped ship in 2004, many are now registered Dems.

Keep in mind, race politics had a lot to do with the so-called Reagan Democrats, along with the economy and voter turnout. There hasn't been a comprehensive study on these voters from 30 years ago to know who they are now & what percentage still consider themselves Democrats. And as far as 2000 goes, the same percentage of Democrats voted for McCain as voted for Bush in 2000 & 2004.

I was too young to vote for Reagan in 1980 (missed it by 13 days and I wouldn't have voted for him anyway) and in 1984 I didn't receive my absentee ballot (was in the USAF) until it was too late. I never voted for a Republican, and I didn't vote for Nader either.

eta - I guess there's a Reagan Dem in this thread, I didn't see that before I posted.

[Armstead]

17. There's a diference between moderate liberal and corporate conservative "centrist"

People who were once considered "moderate liberals" are now branded by the Democratic Party as the "far left" by the centrists who essentially want no challenge to the ghastly accumulation of power that the big corporations and elite olocgarchs have aquired over the last 30 years.

Something is wrong with that picture.

[Zoeisright]

68. Actually, those people are called stupid.

Anybody who voted for Bush/Bush/Raygun/McCain is an idiot.

[TayTay]

3. When are we going to stop looking for people to blame

and fix the problems?

It is actually beyond dumb to start trying to figure out who we need to yell at next. Let me spell it out for you:

Democracy = the candidate who gets the most votes in an election wins.

Pissing off the voters and yelling at them for being stupid usually means they won't vote for you.

So, go ahead and insult the voters all you want. Just don't expect them to turn around and thank you for it. Perhaps, just perhaps, you might want to spend some quality time listening to these voters and figuring out why they voted for you before (when presumably you liked them and wanted to reward them for liking you with a cookie) and now, when you want to yell at them and call them names.

[TheKentuckian]

5. I didn't start TODAY'S blamefest, I responded to it.

Just pointing out a large hypocritical blind spot. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you have a finger pointed to the left then you can't ignore the right, that's all.

[apocalypsehow]

9. So, you would rather those millions just forthrightly cross the partisan aisle and vote GOP forever?

That is not a plan for electoral success, I fear.

[TheKentuckian]

11. Not at all in the content or context of the point made

I'm saying it is hypocritical to point one way and not the other. Plese cease trying to make a new case to ignore the one presented.

[secondwind]

10. I admit I was "duped" by Reagan the first time....then he declared ketchup a vegetable

and I didn't vote for him the second time...(not to mention the Star Wars program, the do-nothing about the homeless, etc.)

Reagan actually said this: "What homeless? I don't see any homeless"....kind of hard to see homeless people when you live in a friggin' bubble.

[DavidDvorkin]

15. "Traitors"? I don't remember swearing loyalty to a party.

[mikekohr]

16. And of course there are also the Geen Party Nader voters in 2000

People from both ends of the spectrum have been bamboozled and flim-flammed by the incompetant, clueless, fubared promises and record of the Republican Party as well as the promises of unicorns and rainbows from the far left.

God bless America.

mike kohr

[Armstead]

18. "Rainbows and unicorns"? Are things like basic living wages, ant-trust laws and human rights...

...things that you would consider Rainbows and unicorns?

I can't speak for the OP, but to me your response typifies the problem he is referring to. Basic principles that should be at the core of democratic values are derided and dismissed, as are the people who expect the Democratic Party to challenge the conservative orthodoxy of the GOP.

[mikekohr]

19. Pragmatism

Everyone on this board is for decent wages, fairness, human rights ect.. Voting for Nader gave us George W. Bush and the Republican agenda, policies and their predictable results: fubar, faiure and "f" up.

Al Gore was not progressive enough for many Nader voters. Those "votes of priciple," helped to cast us into the second greatest economic downturn in US history, ran the National Debt up $8.2 trillion, and has cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives among other noteable screw ups.

Priciples should guide our actions but not cloud our pragmatism. Results matter.

mike kohr

[jgraz]

20. Here's pragmatism for ya

If Gore had been just a little more like Nader, he'd have been President instead of Bush. Nader's message would have fallen flat and all those "evil" Nader voters would have supported him.

Why is it whenever someone talks about pragmatism, they're advocating support for the more conservative, corporatist position? Haven't we learned yet that this is a recipe for failure?

[Armstead]

21. No one has a cofrner on the market of "pragmatism"

There are many courses of action that can be considered "pragmatic."

In my view, the pragmatic course of action for gthe democratic leadership re: 2000 would have been to actually listen to WHY those people felt so alienated by the current policies of the Democratic Party...Stupid shit like hollowing out our economy through policies like corprate "free trade" (which is different than equitable fair trade), deregulation of broadcasting, welfare deform, lack of ovdersight of the financial sector, etc.

Nader has jumped the shark personally. But he is not some wild-eyed leftist ideologue. Most of his positions aere what once would have been considered moderate liberalism that was in line with the basic values of the Democratic Party.

The basicv values of corporate accountability and grassroots democracy is NOT just rainbows and unicorns. It is "pragmatic" economic and social policy.

[jgraz]

22. Here's what I never understand about these so-called "pragmatists"

Their solution is to somehow convince millions of pissed-off progressives to compromise their principles and vote against their best interests, instead of working to convince one malleable politician to hold true to the principles of his party.

Doesn't sound very pragmatic to me. :shrug:

[Armstead]

23. "Pragmatism" is the last refuge of scoundrels -- at least those who constantly use that word

I consider myself to be basically pragmatic. But it's become a four-pletter word the way it's used these days to stifle differing opinions and rationalize failure.

My next least-favorite current word that is used is "realism." these days that translates to "we can't try anything different."

[jgraz]

24. I think they're hoping we forget how often the "pragmatist" Dems lose

IMHO, this is what's behind the whole Nader Hater movement. They have to distract us by blaming Nader, because the other choice is to admit their entire political philosophy is a sham.

[mikekohr]

30. Here is a Native American parable on how to lose:

Great Leaders Are Often Undone By Their Own,

History if full of such examples, from William Wallace of Scotland to the assassination of Chief Crazy Horse on the Great Plains of America.

Wallace was given over to the English to suffer disembowelment and dismemberment. Crazy Horse was bayoneted in the back by Private William Gentles as his hands were held behind him by his life long friend Little Big Man. Crazy Horse's last words were, "Tell the people it is no use to depend upon me any longer."

So it will be with President Obama if he fails. It will be the splintering of his own base that will undo him. You can be sure the other side will remain united in opposition. That is how a minority Party, the Republicans, have won 7 of the last 11 presidential elections and controlled the White House for 29 of the last 42 years.

As Hiawatha demonstrated, a bundle of seven arrows could not be broken. But one by one each arrow could be snapped with little effort. If we lose this battle, this is how it will be lost.

In the Spirit of Brotherhood,



International Brotherhood Days
http://www.brotherhooddays.com
mike kohr

[jgraz]

31. Sounds like we should tell those DLC "pragmatists" to quit splintering the base.

That's a helluva lot easier than convincing 60 million Democrats to vote for a party that no longer represents them.

[mikekohr]

33. "We all hang together, or we all hang separately." -B Franklin-

The Republican Party, monolitic, pure of thought, and united in opposition dropped Martha Coakley through the trapdoor last Tuesday. And one by one, they will hang us all.

mike kohr

[jgraz]

36. Irrelevant quote is irrelevant

You need to review the *actual* results of the MA election, not the results you would like to have.

The Republican party had nothing to do with Coakley's lost. Democrats and independents abandoned Coakley because they thought Obama was not being bold enough.

Here's one of many polls confirming what most of us already knew:

http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/mapollresults



Now you can keep throwing up meaningless quotes, or you can face reality. Your call.

[mikekohr]

44. My call is this, Democrats better stay united, because Republicans will.

That is how they have taken 7 of the last 11 Ppresidential election in spite of being out numbered by Democrats during this 42 year period. They stay focused and together.

The three elections they lost are: 1976,after the Nixon fiasco, 1992 & 1996 when Perot split off the right of center Independants, and 2008 when President Obama took the Independants, invigorated the base and turned out stay at home and first time voters.

I am well aware of the poll results in MA. We lost 18% of Democrats. Coakley got hung.

If we stay splintered there will be 60 million Democrats twisting in the wind this November and 45 million Republicans laughing their ass off at us. Again.

mike kohr

[jgraz]

45. Pragmatically, how do you plan on making that happen?

Do you have some secret plan, or should we just give them something to vote for?

[mikekohr]

54. My plan is to vote, and vote Democratic.

And to work within my party to support progressive and aggressive policies and candidates that move the nation forward.

I hope your plan is the same.

mike kohr

[Armstead]

37. Maybe if Demlocratic Party could stop disembowling liberals and progressives first

Maybe your idea of unity would seem more appealing if "unity" were not always presented as "if you are a liberal or progressive you have to give up what you believe in and play along with us conservative Democrats."

[Flaneur]

42. No, voting for Bush gave us George W. Bush.

[mikekohr]

43. Al Gore Lost Florida by 587 votes, 90,000 votes were cast for Nader in that state in 2000

-nt-

[jgraz]

46. How many Democrats voted for Bush in Florida?

You should know this, given your premise that Democrats will fail if they don't stick together.

[mikekohr]

53. The answer, which I assume you know, is 12%

Which makes my point exactly. We as a party must hold together. We can not to afford to lose votes from the right of our party to the Republicans or from the left of our party to third parties with no chance of winning.

The result of these blocks of votes in FL was to put another Bush and Republican policies in place for yet another 8 years. How did that work out?

mike kohr

[jgraz]

57. And how would you have gotten 300,000 FL Dems to vote for Gore?

Be pragmatic, now!

[mikekohr]

59. We as a party need to aggressively contrast our record of accomplishment

with the Republican record of failure. There is not one in a hundred voters that know Democrats outperform Republicans on EVERY economic standard measurable or that 9 of the last 10 recession have occurred when Republican administrations and economic policyies were in place.

After the MA election President Obama stated that he intended to aggressively contrast and define the Republican record. I encourage the President and every Democrat to do so.

THE RECORD -let us celebrate ours, let us make them defend theirs-

“THE PARTY WITH THE BEST RECORD OF SERVING REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC VALUES IS THE DEMOCRATS, AND IT ISN’T EVEN CLOSE!” -Michael Kingsley-


1). FEDERAL SPENDING: since 1960 Republicans increased Federal Spending by 71% more than have Democrats

2). FEDERAL DEBT: since 1960 Republicans have increased the National debt by 100% more per year than have Democrats.

3). GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: since 1921, adjusted for inflation, Democrats out-produce Republicans by 43% . Starting in 1940 the Democratic advantage is 23% better.

4). REAL PER CAPITA INCOME: since 1960 Democrats have outperformed Republicans by 30%. (This is perhaps the most important economic statistic of all)

5). INFLATION: since 1960, Democrats outperform Republicans 3.13% to 3.89%

6). UNEMPLOYMENT: since 1960 it decreases in an average Democratic year by 0.3% to 5.33%, and increases in average Republican year by 1.1% to 6.38%.

7). JOB CREATION: from 1945 to 2003, Democrats produced 174,200 jobs per month, Republicans have only produced 60,600 per month. Every time a Democrat succeeds a Republican, job creation soars. Every time a Republican succeeds a Democrat job creation plummets. NO EXCEPTIONS!

8). DOW JONES AVERAGE: since 1921 the DOW has increased by 52% more under Democratic administrations

9). THE BOND MARKET: since 1940 the value of 10 year Treasury bonds rose 1.2% under Democrats and fell 0.5% under Republicans


SOURCES-Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic Policy Institute, Christian Science Monitor, “The Los Angles Times -Michael Kingsley-

by mike kohr 3/7/2006

RESULTS MATTER, VOTE DEMOCRATIC!

[jgraz]

60. Step 1: Develop an *actual* record of accomplishment

Hint: NAFTA, Welfare Reform, DOMA and Bank Bailouts don't count.

[mikekohr]

62. Focusing on our negatives is the work of Karl Rove

It's much more productive to the success of our party if you highlight our substantial accomplishment.

mike kohr

[jgraz]

63. I don't work for the party. They're supposed to be working for me.

And pretending the emperor isn't bug-ass naked ain't gonna help things one bit.

[mikekohr]

70. I've examined the record. I've chosen the side that has a long and substantial record of

accomplishment and proven positive results. I've chosen to become involved and active in the party that supports working people. I've never said we are perfect. Our President refers to himself as an, "imperfect vessel."

Referring to President Obama as an "emperor" or "bug ass naked," may be titillating and inflammatory but I do not see how it moves the debate forward or accomplishes anything tangible or useful.

I'm a working person, I can't afford to be ideological. I'm sticking with the Democrats because for the last 80 years they've stuck by my family.

mike kohr

[mikekohr]

55. -correction- he lost by 543 nt

[jgraz]

61. Correction: he won.

He just didn't know it.

[Zoeisright]

69. +1000

[JVS]

25. Really? I'd never heard of them!

[whistler162]

26. We reaallly need a breathalyzer for this site!

[hileeopnyn8d]

27. That made me laugh!

:)

[Posteritatis]

29. "I'm sorry, Sir, you are too sober to view this thread." (nt)

[whistler162]

34. Too many threads like that lately!

[Posteritatis]

28. "Traitors?" Oy. (nt)

[Imajika]

32. What good would this do?

I mean, so what are you saying? We spend our time blaming faceless voters whom sometimes vote in ways we don't like?

What is the value of that?

These "traitor" Democrats are not political junkies or ideologues. They just generally vote Democratic, but are not committed partisans like we are here on a discussion forum.

Even if you find a genuine Reagan Democrat, you achieve nothing by bashing them. That just guarantees they won't vote for the things you care about. The worst possible way to try to persuade someone of the correctness of your ideas is to get in their face and scream at them. Doing that just triggers a sort of defensive posture and they will turn against everything you represent.

[Raineyb]

35. If bashing a Reagan Democrat achieves nothing why is it that so many

on this site think that bashing Nader voters will achieve something with them?

Considering that Nader voters can at least say they voted their principles I don't see how this type of bashing is supposed to move anything forward. Yet it happens around here EVERY DAY.

[jgraz]

38. Except bashing Nader voters actually *does* accomplish something

It helps the DLC corporatists deny reality and continue destroying the Democratic party.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

39. Well, maybe because Reagan was 30 years ago and Reagan is dead.

And Nader is still out pushing his bullshit "THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES! VOTE ME!" line after the disaster that was 8 years of Bush.

More importantly, Reagan voters aren't on DU saying "Vote Republican". They get tombstoned.

[jgraz]

40. Bogus distinction

Reagan may be dead, but his politics are alive and well on this site. Note the number of people who said Dems needed to move to the right after the MA loss.

More importantly, Reagan voters aren't on DU saying "Vote Republican". They get tombstoned.

And if I went around posting VOTE NADER, what would happen to me? :shrug:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

41. They'd be deleted, but you wouldn't be tombstoned unless that's all you did.

Vote Republican people are tombstoned immediately (if they've been here for a short period) or almost immediately if they are long termers.

See the casualty list from the Mass election

[jgraz]

47. I bet I'd be gone after three Nader posts.

Not that I'm going to test it.

[Raineyb]

48. It seems to me that people who think that bashing those who voted for Reagan whose destructive,

selfish, middle class killing policies are not only still in effect but are shoved at us by people who claim to be Democrats, are still alive, is counterproductive have no qualms whatsoever denigrating people who voted for Nader which seems more counter productive because Nader voters can be brought around to the Democratic party and so-called Reagan Democrats are more aptly called Republicans. I have no idea who is going around saying vote Republican, I don't see anyone making that claim. If we're discussing progressive politics it would seem to me that discussing parties that actually respect and WANT to represent progressives is natural.

As to Nader's claim that there isn't any difference between the parties, he didn't really have to work very hard to convince people that there wasn't much difference between the two parties. The best thing the Democratic party can do is to actually govern as though they are different from the Republican party and instead they take every chance they can to tack right.

Welfare reform was a Republican wet dream. So why did a Democratic president champion it? NAFTA is a job killing mess. Something Republicans rather like since they think we should all be slaves to the corporation. Who didn't fight very hard to stop it? It wasn't the Republicans who go campaigning at rallies held by labor unions only to sell out the union membership down the river. Who was President when Glass-Steagall was repealed? That wasn't a Republican president grinning at the signing ceremony for that turkey. This current clusterfuck of a so called health care reform bill which has nothing to do with actually getting care and all to do with shelling out money to the insurance companies who are the problem in the first place? That will be Democrats who are in the majority for that as well. The Democratic party cannot continue to whip up it's base then ignore what it wants. Hell it's not just the base that wants a public option yet this STILL can't get passed? How long do you expect people to keep waiting for the Democrats to grow spines instead of acting like invertebrates?

Nader didn't have to work to convince people that there wasn't that much difference between the parties. People who were paying attention came to that conclusion themselves. It was simply a matter of deciding whether to go third party because the two party system clearly isn't working, or to stay home and not vote at all.

At any rate, the idea that the Democratic party was entitled to the votes of those who voted for Nader is frankly offensive and shows a rather galling sense of entitlement that the party needs to get over because that sense of entitlement will bit them in the ass again if they keep that up as Wednesday should have shown them.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

51. No person who was "paying attention" can possibly come to the conclusion that there is no difference

between the two parties. Not a chance.

[mikekohr]

56. Results Differ and Results Matter.

9 of the last 10 recessions have occurred under Republican economic stewardship. Democratic economic principles out perform Republican on every measurable standard over the last 60-80 years. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mikekohr

mike kohr

[Countdown_3_2_1]

58. I don't understand. Are you calling out the little guy because he doesn't vote straight ticket?

There is that pesky thing called "The Secret Ballot." How are you going to find out who voted the wrong way?
Last I checked we were the DEMOCRATIC Party.

Calling out people who vote the wrong way is somehow UNdemocratic to me.
Whats next, citizen scorecards for Party Purity?

This thread/rant is silly.

I would rather take the extra time to reach out and educate the voter than to call him out.

[Forkboy]

64. never, because if we accept any resposibility as a party then we'd have to address our own failings.

And I can tell you with 100% certainty that this won't ever happen. It's far easier to point fingers than look at what changes might have occurred between 88 and 96 within the Party.

[Ildem09]

65. No one is a democrat if they don't believe in the basic tennants of the party

hard as they try to weasel around them

The Party believes in

1) Unions and the right to fight for collective rights
2) Living Wage.. the fact that the purchasing power parity of the min wage in 1972 is = to about 16 an hour now is sick
3) Universal Health Care. no if's ands or buts
4) Equal rights regardless of who you are or who you do.
5) Universal access to a decent education
6) The Right to a Job
7) The Right to a House
8) The Right to a vacation
9) A foreign policy that protects america. but shows malice or ill will towards no one
10) Freedom from want, etc etc etc

if you don't agree with the above GTFO the Party.

[depakid]

66. Nothing "conservatives" in either party hate worse than taking responsiblity for their actions

and failed policies- although it's a constant credo that they'll apply to most anyone other than themselves- and their cronies.

Indeed, in my experience dealing with these sorts in several professions- it's practically a truism (as is the nearly invariable tendency for "conservatives" to cry and whine the loudest when some misfortune befalls them- or they get caught in some malfeasance).

[cleveramerican]

71. did you miss that swing voters have been in the drivers seat for 30 years?

[mikekohr]

72. DING!, DING!, DING! DING!

Bobby Kennedy said, "You don't have to be smart to be involved in politics but it helps if you know how to count."

VOTER SELF IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS:
18% liberal/progressive
37% conservative
-----------------
Most of the remaining 45% are somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. And I believe only about 10 % of these "Middle" voters are truely swing voters. It is that 10% that determines national elections.

mike kohr