Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Nov 10, 2003.
looks like the guerrillas' plans are working.
Australia doesn't want to be at war but with little Johnny stil in the texan's pocket the people have little choice.
It's like GW's own personal Palestine.
The important thing is going to be how people feel about it next fall.
i think 2004 is going to be a close election
mp prediction is that the clear majority of voters will be unhappy with W's war, but the economy will have rebounded enough for W to take some credit for it...i don't know how that will translate in the polls but when it's all said and done, the economy is the first thing on most american's minds and that may make W win out in the end
it was the democrats who got in during 1992 starting the clinton revolution with the rallying cry, "it's about the economy, stupid"
This election is going to get ugly fast. It is being cast in terms of a culture war between good and evil by both sides already. The country is going to be even more bitterly divided afterwards. And yes, it will be close again. Very close.
it will be kind of like another civil war...again, but at the polls
in the past, after the civil war, most of the south sided with the democratic party and most of the states which were on the side of the north sided with the gop
somewhere in the 80s the tables turned around and now the south is the most reliable territory for the gop with the last two gop candidates hailing from texas (though neither were born there) and the industrial centers of america will be on the other side of the fence
i think it will be a class warfare with clearly drawn lines with the poor and the college educated and urban dwellers on the democratic side vs the rural dwellers, white male working class, and the south mostly entrenched on the other side
though it won't as clear cut with a simple rich vs poor thing like the races of the past were with the dems solidly representing the poorer and working class americans and the gop being the representative of the rich and educated
political watchers love this sort of thing because it changes so fast and so often...the real dirty fights are usually within a party that is trying to take back the white house and the nine or so democrats are going to go at each other more than they do against the president...but what else is new with the democrats?
i am still a democrat, but barely some days ... but if i had to choose the worst trait of the democratic party, that stupid infighting would be it
i still cannot see myself voting for bush at this point...he hasn't done much for the economy and the second war he got us in, iraq, is a disaster searching for WMDs which were never there in the first place
but i think the democrats need to rebuild themselves in the image that clinton made them in '92...socially liberal but fiscally conservative...namely what some call the blue dog democrats...unlike the across the board liberal democrats of the relativiely recent past or the fiscally liberal, socially conservative dixiecrat democrats of the really old days
times change and i think the democrats need to and their biggest mistake is that the current candidates want to make their own claim and unwisely are drifting from clinton's brilliant politics...if clinton were able to run again he would demolish W in 2004 and the democrats have a real opportunity to do something but they look like they are wasting their chances
if hilary really has a chance next year like some people say, she's blown her chance by not getting in the race already...today, it takes more consensus building and fundraising to win a major election statewide and nationally...this isn't the mayor's race in a town of 5,000 people where a candidate can toss their hat in just six months before election day
This I don't get.
This is just like Al Gore in the 2000 elections. He basically refused to associate himself with Bill Clinton at all (including his politics) because he somehow saw Clinton as tarnished. WHAT???
While I certainly admit the BJ thing diminished Clinton's legacy, it by no means discredited his politics. America (that is, in general) loved Bill Clinton even after the whole scandal was over with and he was leaving office. His approval rating barely slipped at all during the whole mess.
And yet Democrats are still trying to distance themselve from Clinton. What they don't realize is that most people saw past Clintons moral failings (failings which most people realize more than one past president has had) and saw only his politics. In fact, his politics are what will secure Bill Clinton's legacy, but not because his politics are "right" or "righteous" or the "one true path." Rather, it's because Bill Clinton's politics (his ideas, platforms, even methods of campaigning and speaking) are politics that Americans can identify with. Clinton's politics are the types of politics that win elections.
And yet these candidates, like Gore in 2000, will likely miss the boat. They look at Clinton's BJ in the Oval Office reputation and are blinded to the fact that he still had a massive approval rating when he left office. Or, they do see that fact, but somehow miss out on what that fact means.
All I know is they had better wise up before next year. Clinton was most certainly not perfect, but his politics were so in tune with what the American people wanted that it didn't matter. And it didn't matter that Clinton had different ideals than many Americans, either. That was the magic of Clinton's politics: he could disagree with you about any given issue, and yet you would still approve of how he handled that issue in his presidency.
as far as clinton, if he could have got a BJ in the oval office, which is not legally sex, i am sure he went the full four bases and had full on sex...intercourse that is... and bill lied about any true involvement he had with monica
if bill were a CEO, he would have been fired, especially since she was an unpaid intern and the press was willing to call this jail-bait gate due to monica's extemely young age, yet she was over 18, i think just past her 19th birthday at the time of the events mentioned as a junior at lewis and clark college...and bill would have done her if she was 16 if she still looked hot...and if she didn't, i am sure he would have done her anyway
bill is a sex addict and a liar
now that i got that in the open for the gop posters here, the matter is that bill is still a great politician and he was a great president and knew how to run a country...newt gingrich was a cheater and a charming womanizer too but he knew how to be the counterpart of bill and make the gop give bill a headache anytime bill tried to move left...and thus gingrich was an effective gop speaker of the house
in neither case were either man's sexual history a detractment from their job...if they were priests, then yes
but bill and newt were politicians hired to do their respective jobs for their party and be effective, and effective they both were and they will be remembered in history as formidable foes and movers and shakers on the washington scene
What do you mean by very close?
This is the one prediction even Carl Rove makes, and I think he is dead wrong on this. It will not be even close.
What do you mean by it will not even be close?
By the way I did not respond to your Iraq quotes because they speak for themselfs. I would only repeat what the Adminstration said.
I would consider it a blowout in the number of votes if it is 54% to 46%. This would mean 8 million more votes for Bush.
He can get 52% or 51% and still have a blowout in the electoral college.
So I am ready to say that he will get between 51%-54% of the votes.
Not even knowing his opponent, let alone what events will transpire over the next 12 months, that's a pretty bold prediction -- especially coming from somebody who seems to be critical of others who make bold predictions.
Yes, I understand why you did not respond to my administration quotes. They contradicted the case you were trying to make and thus you could not respond without admitting the error.
I'm guessing the popular vote is around 52% - 48% or less. What that translates into in terms of electoral votes I have no idea.
hypothetically, the winner could have several percent fewer votes and the loser can walk away with 53 percent or more of the popular vote
that is possible if the loser in the electoral college still takes california overwhelmingly in the popular vote and new york, but loses much of the south, northeast, and midwest by tiny popular vote margins in each state
the winner could hypothetically win by 53 votes on the popular end and carry every state plus DC, guam, and PR if the winner wins each state or region by one popular vote...and electorally, the election could be called a blowout
I think the situation changed a little bit since the 2000 Census. You can bet that there are some campaign staffers in each campaign that is charged with knowing which states are required in order to win the election.
California is still the #1 most important state, it actually gained some seats in Congress, so it also gained electoral college votes.
Texas gained, Nevada gained, New York lost, there are a few others that I forget.
But its not quite exactly the same as the 2000 situation.
2004 and 2008 will be the same though, not until the next census will it change.
On a different note, I just wished that the DNC gets off its duff and get someone credible to run already. Draft Hillary.
the popular vote will favor bush in direct proportion to the size of the install base of electronic voting machines from Diebold, Sequoia and Election Systems and Software
Maybe we should not have spent the money to buy these new-fangled systems and keep using the punch-card ballots...
but didn't the punch-card ballots also favored Bush in 2000?
to which ones are you referring? the ones that didn't get counted or the ones that went missing?
The ones that didn't get counted again... and again... and again.
I remember reading multiple articles that the recounts of the ballots after the point was moot still reflected the original decision that GWB got more votes.
there were boxes of ballots that went missing.
there are threads and threads about this subject in the archives. the point you make here is debatable and has been debated by many, myself included.
i've no intention on re-opening it, 'cuz i'd just repeat myself.
whatever happened to just putting an x beside a person's name?
still off topic:
if the economy warms up, Bush has a *very* good chance of staying in office.
only half? i think the democrats need to do a better job of pointing out all the deceptions, innuendo and outright lies of the administration in the build up to the war if only half think it was not worthwhile.