Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on August 27, 2004, 08:33:04 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/27/bush.electoral/index.html
-
DMF is the stats guy. ;)
-
Nash also fancies himself as an expert of sorts according to some of his posts...
-
Fancying yourself is a good thing.
-
Dumb question.
I can't believe how mistakenly my other posts on this subject have been taken.
Prolly the most straight forward stuff I've ever written in the whole entire history of this BBS.
Sure this poll is valid, they all are.
-
Oops I meant is this poll meaningful (the opposite of meaningless)?
-
Yeah.
-
What do you think about the results?
-
From a Kerry perspective...
It's been a bad, bad week.
Wisconsin flipped to Bush... as did Missouri...
Kerry had a short and very weak lead in Ohio and Florida, and that's been lost.
He's lost West Virginia, and a few solid Kerry states are now up for grabs.
-
Originally posted by Nash
From a Kerry perspective...
It's been a bad, bad week.
Wisconsin flipped to Bush... as did Missouri...
Kerry had a short and very weak lead in Ohio and Florida, and that's been lost.
He's lost West Virginia, and a few solid Kerry states are now up for grabs.
To top it off the Grand Ole Party is about to have their convention. If I were a betting man I'd say Bush will get a bigger bump than kerry did after the DNC convention.
I also look at the "boost" kerry got when he picked edwards....it was lackluster at best.
Seriously and no animosity here.....I think democrats are realizing they got sold a bad bag of goods in the primaries and independents are catching wind of this.
They could have easily defeated Bush with a strong canidate but Kerry just isnt it.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
To top it off the Grand Ole Party is about to have their convention. If I were a betting man I'd say Bush will get a bigger bump than kerry did after the DNC convention.
I also look at the "boost" kerry got when he picked edwards....it was lackluster at best.
Seriously and no animosity here.....I think democrats are realizing they got sold a bad bag of goods in the primaries and independents are catching wind of this.
They could have easily defeated Bush with a strong canidate but Kerry just isnt it.
In all reality it looks like Bush will win reelection.
Naw, no matter who the Democrats put up, there will always be statements of "They should have someone else represent them."
LOL, remember when Dean was leading?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
In all reality it looks like Bush will win reelection.
Naw, no matter who the Democrats put up, there will always be statements of "They should have someone else represent them."
LOL, remember when Dean was leading?
To be honest my friend.....I think the RNC was rooting for Dean. The odds of him self destructing before the end of the campaign are pretty good (SEE: YEEEEEAAARRRRGGHHHH) not to mention all his idiotic comments about "bush knowing about 911" and "security alerts being purly political"
I think a Leiberman/MCain ticket would be leading Bush right now by 10 points. Or even a Clark/Leiberman as well.
Besides being a vet Kerry just does not have a strong enough record to beat Bush.
-
The thing is, once anyone comes into the spotlight, their life comes under a microscope. I'm sure the Republicans could find something to attack no matter the candidate.
Kerry doesn't have a strong enough record as a Senator to beat Bush.
Compare Bush's record as Governor and Kerry's record as Senator and tell me there's a big difference.
Edit... You're right about the Republicans wanting to go against Dean. Bush would probably win that one no problem.
-
I am in total agreement with ya!
-
Bush was a govcernor for 4 years, his first term in office IIRC so he a noob. On top of that the lefties say he is kinda slow so his poor performance may be undertandable by those two elements.
Kerry was senator for 20 years, not a noob in any way, many terms. The lefties also say that Kerry is smart and undersatands complexity. So whats his excuse for a pointless 20 year record?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Bush was a govcernor for 4 years, his first term in office IIRC so he a noob. On top of that the lefties say he is kinda slow so his poor performance may be undertandable by those two elements.
Kerry was senator for 20 years, not a noob in any way, many terms. The lefties also say that Kerry is smart and undersatands complexity. So whats his excuse for a pointless 20 year record?
Chasing around for rich old widows?
C'mon Grun, that last line kind of uncalled for, also not necessary. Undermines the rest of your statement.
-
Ok, now go answer the questipn.
-
Which one?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Kerry was senator for 20 years, not a noob in any way, many terms. The lefties also say that Kerry is smart and undersatands complexity.
So whats his excuse for a pointless 20 year record?
-
There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.
I wouldn't call this election just yet. 60+ days is a long time in politics, especially when there's a war on and some deranged religious yahoos are still keen on blowing themselves up in public places. See Russian Airliner news.
Who should the Dems have run?
Well, this time around all that Bush has is the incumbency. The rest of the situation is an exploitable shambles. I don't think you had to be Miss Cleo to see that during the Democratic primaries.
So then. In no particular order, these folks threw their hats in the ring.
KERRY, KUCINICH, SHARPTON, EDWARDS, DEAN, CLARK, LIEBERMAN, GEPHARDT, MOSELEY BRAUN, GRAHAM
The first "get real" pass would eliminate Sharpton and Moseley Braun.
The second "let's see" pass would probably have eliminated Dean, Edwards, Clark and Kucinich.
That would leave Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Graham, all somewhat well known Democratic politicians with enough record to run on.
So they pick the absolutely most liberal of the bunch, the one with probably the worst Congressional record to run on. The one that came home and P.O.'ed a whole lot of people with his anti-war activities. This is the clever strategy to capture the "undecided swing voters" that obviously are in the middle of the "right wing/left wing" continuum.
I'd have voted for Lieberman this year. I probably would have voted for Gephardt. I'd have to think long on Graham as I never really examined his record in detail. No forking chance on Kerry.
None, zip, zilch, nada.
WTG, Democratic strateegeristies!
-
Toad I have to completly agree with you. As far as real choices go they coulndt have picked a worse canidate.
This sign sums it up beautifully what the left is feeling right now:
(http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_march_20_2004/idiots/117-1737_IMG.JPG)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Toad I have to completly agree with you. As far as real choices go they coulndt have picked a worse canidate.
This sign sums it up beautifully what the left is feeling right now:
(http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_march_20_2004/idiots/117-1737_IMG.JPG)
Gunslinger the problem with that picture is that in all likelyness this man believes that Kerry is not liberal enough...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Ok, now go answer the questipn.
Thought I did by my questions/comments.
I'll be voting for Kerry, not because of what he's done, but because of how Bush has handled the Presidency. We're going in the wrong direction. Runaway deficit and a murky foreign policy that's costing big bucks and fellow American lives (sorry, but I don't see our soldiers as expendible).
Is Kerry going to be this big hero savior to rescue us? LOL, no, that I doubt. My taxes are way to high as it stands. He's claiming to give me a tax break as well.
We'll see.
For those of you that want to point fingers and say "You're voting against Bush, but not for Kerry?"
I'll submit this:
You that voted for Bush last election was more a vote against Gore rather than a vote for Bush. Bush just didn't have a background/record that one could draw conclusions on how he'd be as President. Same thing.
BTW, before you all have a heartattack....relax. The above is my opinion only, just as you have yours.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Thought I did by my questions/comments.
Was this your answer?
Compare Bush's record as Governor and Kerry's record as Senator and tell me there's a big difference.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Was this your answer?
Compare Bush's record as Governor and Kerry's record as Senator and tell me there's a big difference.
LOL, look up ^
I already asked the same question.
Answer: There really isn't any. But you and I both know this.
-
Saburo please quote your own answer. Thanks.
-
Kerry is a great debater. Unfortunately so is Bush. If Kerry has any chance at all it will be in the debates this fall. I think he may be able to do it, he ain't no Algordiot when it comes to the mind games.