|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Feb 22nd, 2004 07:52 PM | ||
| Ronnie Raygun | I'm sure SOME of Perot's vote would have gone to Clinton......just not much. | |
| Feb 22nd, 2004 06:36 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | I don't think Clinton would have gotten any of Perot's vote. It would be more appropriate to say that 1/3 would have just stayed home. | |
| Feb 22nd, 2004 06:11 PM | ||
| Ronnie Raygun |
"If you took every Perot vote and gave it to Bush, I can't even guess if he have beaten Clinton, though I suppose it's possible. I think you'd have to stretch to say that 100% Perot voters were lapsed republicans." - Max Perot had a very conservative political stance....I think everyone can agree on that. Here are the popular results..... Clinton 43.3% Bush 37.7% Perot 19.0% If you give Clinton 1/3 of Perot's vote, which I think is extremely generous, Bush still wins the popular vote by almost a percentage point......about the same as Gore. I think the 92' election and the 00' election are almost identical. Still, without Perot, Bush wins.... |
|
| Feb 20th, 2004 01:25 PM | ||
| mburbank |
I actually can't recall Clintons margin of victory,or how it went state by state. If you took every Perot vote and gave it to Bush, I can't even guess if he have beaten Clinton, though I suppose it's possible. I think you'd have to stretch to say that 100% Perot voters were lapsed republicans. On the other hand, I'm fairly sure if all of Naders votes had gone to Gore, he'd have won in Florida and taken the lectoral college as ell as the popular vote. I think it's safe to say there were no lapsed republicans voting for Nader. Ecah election had a spolier, and in each case that spolier had an impact. Between those two spoilers there was a spoiler free election, which Clinton one over Dole with a large margin. |
|
| Feb 19th, 2004 06:02 PM | ||
| Ronnie Raygun |
Perot got 17% of the vote.....What did Nadar get?....7% The 92' election was more "clear" because Perot took more of the vote from republicans than Nadar did from Democrats. |
|
| Feb 19th, 2004 10:21 AM | ||
| mburbank |
"I don't think Ross Perot is running this time..... " Well, Nader might, but he sure won't draw anywhere near the number of votes he did last time. Or had you forgotten Nader ran last time and drew away a whole lot of votes kind of sort of exactly the way Perot did? Perhaps not as many, but them margin in Bush V. Gore was way smaller. Way, way, smaller. n fact, Gore had more votes. Whereas Clinton beat Bush by a comfortable, clear, undeniable margin in both the popular vote and the elctoral college. |
|
| Feb 18th, 2004 09:19 PM | ||
| Ronnie Raygun |
"But seriously, Bush is going to attack him on that? W, the man who's raised the most special interest money in political campaigning history twice in a row?" - Max The Bush team is just trying to highlight that Kerry has acceptedmore special interest money than any other senator in the last 15 years.....which is certainly more than Bush.....because Kerry is campaigning against special interests.....exposing Kerry as a hypocrite. "They're both rich, inbred, skull and bones old boy insiders insiders. All the things I dislike about Kerry are qualities he and Bush have in common." - Max Maybe it'sbecause of this.... http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4286105/ Bush vs. Kerry? They’re distant cousins Genealogy buffs claim political rivals are linked A family tree analysis indicates that President Bush, at left, and his front-running Democratic challenger, John Kerry, are 16th cousins, three times removed. Such links aren't all that unusual, genealogy buffs say. By Matt Sedensky The Associated Press Updated: 1:29 p.m. ET Feb. 17, 2004HONOLULU - Democratic presidential candidates are constantly being compared to the current commander in chief. Now, two genealogy buffs say they have proof President Bush and the current Democratic front-runner share similarities thicker than water. Bruce and Kristine Harrison, Hawaii-based publishers of historical databases, traced back the family histories of Bush and Democratic Sen. John Kerry. The result? They're cousins. Well, 16th cousins, three times removed, to be exact. But cousins, nonetheless. Truth be told, one might find such distant family ties between Bush and any of the four other major Democratic candidates. The link between the president and the Rev. Al Sharpton might date back a bit further, Bruce Harrison said, but tracing ancestries helps illuminate a greater message on human interconnectedness. "I believe everybody on the planet is related if you go back far enough," said Harrison, 51, whose Millisecond Publishing in Kamuela puts out a line of ancestral history CDs. He and his wife have spent the last eight years compiling information from hundreds of genealogical books and periodicals. "We're setting the stage for others to explore their curiosity," he said. Other big-name ancestors Harrison says the search through family trees also turned up other big-name ancestors of Kerry and Bush. Playboy founder Hugh Hefner is the president's ninth cousin, twice removed, while Kerry can count Johnny Appleseed as his sixth cousin, six times removed. Both the president and the Massachusetts senator can claim ties to figures ranging from Charlemagne to Walt Disney to Marilyn Monroe, Harrison said. For an average user of the Family Forest software, it could be more difficult to find such well-known links, but Harrison says he believes everyone can find some ancestral information in the database. As for the political adversaries' kinship, the only reunion in store seems to be a debate, should Kerry win his party's nomination. A Bush campaign spokeswoman said she had no comment on the issue. A message left with Kerry's spokesman was not returned. 'Just bragging rights' The Honolulu County Genealogical Society's Mary Ann Bolton said she wasn't too impressed with those who troll family trees looking for star-studded connections. "I don't really put too much into that," she said. "That's just bragging rights." Harrison said his motivation in finding the link wasn't political, nor was it purely curiosity. Since publicizing the Bush-Kerry relation, the number of daily visits to his Web site has more than tripled. © 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ------------------------------- "Anyone who says they think they know how this election is going to play out are full of shit. Anyone who takes todays polls or tomorrows or the next days should recall that polls said democrats were going to vote for Dean." - Max I agree. "Anyone who thinks W is invulnerable ought to remember his Dadies invulnerability."- Max I don't think Ross Perot is running this time..... "And anyone who claims to know what America thinks right now is living in a paralell universe. I think this is going to be the most bizarre bare knuckle election I've lived through. Election day is a long way off. Time for revelations, scandals, dropping shoes, lies, crimes, subpeonas and a heart attack or two."- Max I agree. .....of course we still all have our opinions as to how this thing will turn out. |
|
| Feb 18th, 2004 07:10 PM | ||
| Pee Wee Herman | You forgot Ronald Reagan dying and everyone, even the Democrats, praising the Gipper. | |
| Feb 18th, 2004 06:56 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Let me be the first Democrat on the block to say that Kerry is a politician, given to the vices and foibles of politicians. But seriously, Bush is going to attack him on that? W, the man who's raised the most special interest money in political campaigning history twice in a row? Mr. Enron, Mr Halliburton, Mr outsourceing jobs is good? Sure W's only washington experience is being President, but he's chest deep in people who don't know theirs anyplace outside the beltway. They're both rich, inbred, skull and bones old boy insiders insiders. All the things I dislike about Kerry are qualities he and Bush have in common. Anyone who says they think they know how this election is going to play out are full of shit. Anyone who takes todays polls or tomorrows or the next days should recall that polls said democrats were going to vote for Dean. Anyone who thinks W is invulnerable ought to remember his Dadies invulnerability. And anyone who claims to know what America thinks right now is living in a paralell universe. I think this is going to be the most bizarre bare knuckle election I've lived through. Election day is a long way off. Time for revelations, scandals, dropping shoes, lies, crimes, subpeonas and a heart attack or two. |
|
| Feb 18th, 2004 06:53 PM | ||
| Ronnie Raygun |
It's funny watching these people getting so excited. Just look at the voter turnout in these primaries.......it's at about 10%....how impressive! |
|
| Feb 18th, 2004 06:00 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
Guys... Kerry's lead is not unexpected considering all the campaigning he's done. Bush is only beginning to tap into the massive funds he's retrieved. It will all come out in the wash. |
|
| Feb 18th, 2004 05:42 PM | ||
| Ronnie Raygun |
Or maybe this is why Kerry seems to be slipping..... http://washingtontimes.com/national/...8030r.htmKerry seeks to position self as union man By Stephen Dinan THE WASHINGTON TIMES WAUSAU, Wis. — Presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry, who has been a firm supporter of free-trade agreements during 20 years in Congress, is campaigning as a champion of labor and workers as he prepares to receive the AFL-CIO's endorsement Thursday. Mr. Kerry, who is expected to handily win Wisconsin's Democratic primary today, began a four-day "dialogue with American workers" yesterday, calling job security, pensions and workers' rights "the central issue of this campaign." "If your whole plan is just to give wealthy people a tax cut, and not to invest in the kinds of things I just described, we don't have a prayer of changing things," the senator from Massachusetts said after touring a technical college in Wausau. Polls show Mr. Kerry is headed for a strong showing today. A Zogby/MSNBC/Reuters poll showed him with 47 percent support among likely Wisconsin voters, followed by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean at 23 percent and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at 20 percent. Both Mr. Dean and Mr. Edwards have said they will continue their campaigns even if they don't win here, but Mr. Dean's campaign continues to suffer. Mr. Dean yesterday told reporters that Steve Grossman is no longer his campaign chairman. Mr. Grossman, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told several news outlets over the weekend that he was going to throw his support behind Mr. Kerry if Mr. Dean didn't win in Wisconsin. In his own appearance in Wausau, Mr. Dean was asked why his campaign seemed lackluster. "What happened to the tone?" one man asked during a question-and-answer period. "You're almost overmoderated. You don't wear that ugly gray suit anymore." Mr. Dean's answer focused on the future. "We're going to change this country one way or the other. If I win the presidency, it'll be a lot quicker," he said. He also returned to his campaign roots, attacking the Democratic Party itself, though his attack was harsher, including comments such as "the Democratic Party needed a spine transplant." Mr. Kerry continued to ignore his Democratic rivals, never referring to them in his hourlong town hall meeting. Instead, he renewed his attack on President Bush, this time blasting him for traveling to Florida over the weekend for NASCAR's Daytona 500 race. "We don't need a president who just says, 'Gentlemen, start your engines.' We need a president who says, 'America, let's start our economy and put people back to work,' " Mr. Kerry said. "In the three hours it took to complete that race yesterday, we lost 350 manufacturing jobs. We added $178 million to the deficit of our nation, and 700 people lost their health insurance in the United States," Mr. Kerry said. "This is not a time for photo opportunities." Mr. Kerry is proposing a review of all U.S. trade agreements in the first months of a Kerry administration, incentives to keep U.S. companies from going overseas, and a major jobs training initiative to help people who can't find work. Mr. Edwards, who with his South Carolina primary victory has won one of the 16 Democratic contests so far, appears to be the best situated to continue to the Super Tuesday primaries March 2. He has begun to criticize Mr. Kerry, who captured 14 of the 16 nominating contests, for his past support of the North American Free Trade Agreement. "I was against NAFTA," Mr. Edwards told supporters in Appleton yesterday. "Governor Dean and Senator Kerry were for it. There are differences." He also promised to take the primary process "well into March" in order to point out those differences. During his Senate tenure, Mr. Kerry supported NAFTA, permanent normal trade relations with China, granting the president fast-track trade negotiation authority and creation of the World Trade Organization. But the Massachusetts Democrat began to sound a different tone earlier in the campaign, and with his campaign saying the AFL-CIO endorsement is looming, Mr. Kerry is making a major push to redefine himself. In Sunday's debate and again yesterday, he blamed Mr. Bush for the job losses from trade agreements. He reiterated yesterday his opposition to two other free-trade treaties being negotiated — one with Central American nations and one as part of the entire Western Hemisphere. |
|
| Feb 18th, 2004 05:30 PM | ||
| theapportioner |
Yeah here's the smackdown: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...-18-poll_x.htm 12 point Kerry lead. |
|
| Feb 18th, 2004 05:19 PM | ||
| teh_mastar! |
How 'bout these apples? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in600505.shtml http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4049942 |
|
| Feb 18th, 2004 03:59 PM | ||
| Ronnie Raygun |
I think democrats as well as the American as a whole are have doubts about John Kerry.....http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Pres...cking_Poll.htm It could have something to do with this....... http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004080465,00.html ...or maybe not. |
|
| Feb 18th, 2004 10:05 AM | ||
| mburbank | Why should I have said that when I meant you should leave telling jokes to me because I'm good at it and you're bad at it? | |
| Feb 17th, 2004 07:23 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
|
|
| Feb 17th, 2004 07:21 PM | ||
| Anonymous | Whoops. There, I fixed it. | |
| Feb 17th, 2004 05:48 PM | ||
| mburbank | I'll do the jokes. | |
| Feb 17th, 2004 05:07 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | But you see, I heard about this study on the news. | |
| Feb 17th, 2004 04:44 PM | ||
| Anonymous | I heard in the news that a study has been conducted which shows that nearly all reporters can store cell phones, microphones, and extra stationary in a gullet just between their head and left shoulder blade. | |
| Feb 17th, 2004 04:42 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Good lord, the school bus pulls up outside your house and 'i heard' and 'a study' comes out of you before you've even gone potty and had mom make you a snack. 'I heard' 'a study' that shows you are aone note weiner. But is anyone surprised? |
|
| Feb 17th, 2004 04:35 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
I heard that a study has been conducted which shows that nearly all reporters are socially liberal, but most tend more toward the conservative side when it comes to economics. And, be honest... does that really suprise you? |
|
| Feb 17th, 2004 04:33 PM | ||
| mburbank |
You lost me. If we compare the fact that the press which knew who and for how long Bush senior had been comitting adultery and never refered to it to their coverage of Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinski, we see liberal bias? Suppose we concider the barely extant coverage of Ginrich's multiple adulteries. The press follows all sorts of things. Power, favors, laziness, momentum, excitement, smut. But with the exception of publications which are speciffically about their political slant, of which there are more than few on both sides, I see no bias. Just baseness. In adition, I think The Nation, The Progressive and Mother Jones wear their hearst on their sleeves. Newsmax pretends to be news and Fox says they're fair and balanced. The NYT rolled on their bellies for the adminstration during the Iraq war and haven't even retracted stories where they got used like old tissues by the administration. I think it takes a budding paranoiac to see a bias in the media as a whole, liberal or conservative. We have a vast blanket of laziness punctuated about once a decade by someone who actually cares about investigative journalism. The only people who worry about a political bias in the press are folks who want to see themselves as victims, of which there are plenty. Do what a historian does. Read widely and where disparate sides agree it's probably a fact. You know, like the way everyone thinks Michael Powell at the FCC is a corrupt sack of crap, from the NRA to the League of Women Voters. Anyone who simply believes what they read is a sheep. Sheep have a tendency to get slaughtered. |
|
| Feb 17th, 2004 03:42 PM | ||
| Ronnie Raygun |
"The media was relentless with Clinton and his sex scandals. There is no liberal bias. You are a lost cause." They had no choice, he was impeached by Congress. Just compare this to when Bush Sr. was running for president back in 88'. Then you'll see the liberal bias. |
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
