Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rude on September 24, 2003, 10:07:10 AM
-
will he win or not in 04?
Try not to blow too much smoke...a simple answer is good.
-
if Dean ends up as dem nominee ofcourse he will....
-
Originally posted by Rude
will he win or not in 04?
...a simple answer is good.
yes and so will America
-
Too early to make a prediction.(IMO)
-
No, it's in the genes.
-
He propably will, but i hope not.
-
Rip will submit his prediction the second Wednesday in November 2004.
I think it's gonna be close, but Bush will edge Clark.
-
[Edit: uncalled for, apologies
-
Then no.
-
Clark and Gore are the only ones that worry me, I guess Billary too. I think he's going to win. I say this because I think the dems are peaking too soon in the opinion polls. But there is an awefull lot of unfounded hate for Bush so he may very well lose.
I haven't made up my mind about clark yet though. Most of what I've heard I haven't like, but some I have.
-
He will lose. The "tax cuts that only benefitted the wealthy" will be his undoing.
The Democrats generally are better politicians than the Republicans and have always excelled at convicing the masses that the Republicans are responsible for their miserable lot in life. The path of personal responsibility is tougher to trod than that of victimhood. For example, it's much easier to persuade someone that his life sucks because those who make more money than he does aren't "paying their fair share" than it is to convince that same person that his life sucks due to the choices that he has made.
The problem is, the "blame someone else" and "take from someone else" mentalities do not lead to making anyone's life better. Are the lives of the poor and disenfranchised better after decades of voting Democratic (and after deacdes of living in "The Great Society")? I think not.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Are the lives of the poor and disenfranchised better after decades of voting Democratic (and after deacdes of living in "The Great Society")? I think not.
So you say poor people vote democratic? And Bush will win, he has the fear factor in favor of him.
-
If Bush's approval rating continues on the current slide, it's far from a done deal.
Think it was Eagleburger on CNN that stated that if the election we're tomorrow, Clark would win (according to polls).
Bottom line... too soon to tell.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
So you say poor people vote democratic?
Yes, poor people, and particularly minorities, tend to vote Democratic. Obviously, this is a generalization, but I think it fairly states the trends of the last 40 years.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
And Bush will win, he has the fear factor in favor of him.
I fear you are mistaken. His warrior popularity has already diminished, and by the time of the election, the Ds will make sure it's all but forgotten with a new, unrelenting rendition of the "It's the economy, stupid!" refrain.
-
It hinges on whether Dubya gets to campaign in the Flight Suit. Nice Package there CIC!
-
Not unless he can manufacture another war.
-
It's way too soon to tell. Trying to predict the race now is like asking a meteorologist to predict the exact weather a month or two ahead of time. We could speculate, of course, but no model in political science of which I'm aware claims to predict accurately this far ahead. Too many of the variables that influence presidential races may change dramatically over the next year.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Ill vote for the republican...whoever that is :D
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Ill vote for the republican...whoever that is :D
Personally, I dislike it when anyone that votes party lines. By voting party lines, you further divide them even further, whe we all should be gettting the Gov't to work together for US!
Vote the issues.
-
"Not unless he can manufacture another war."
This is what concerns me the most. I doubt it would work as well as it did in 2002, but Rove seems convinced that "support the CiC" is his best card, and will do whatever it takes to win.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Personally, I dislike it when anyone that votes party lines. By voting party lines, you further divide them even further, whe we all should be gettting the Gov't to work together for US!
Vote the issues.
With the current configuration of the Electoral College, what other choice is there? There are only two parties. The rest don't count WRT the presidency.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Personally, I dislike it when anyone that votes party lines. By voting party lines, you further divide them even further, whe we all should be gettting the Gov't to work together for US!
Vote the issues.
grab em up rip
that NW living is making you soft in the head
-
What is better.... tits or boobs?
-
Clark is alreadt fallinbg apart. He said on one day he would have voted yes on the Iraq resolution then the next day he aids changed that ands said he didnt mean it.
Then theres those pics of him with war criminals.
http://www.losaltosonline.com/articles/2003/09/23/news/community/news01.txt
What do you think of General Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate," was the question put to him by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all military men stood in support of each other. General Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!"
"That question makes me wish it were vodka," said Shelton. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."
You dont think they clintons were behind him to run because hes gonna win didja? They wanna get him outa the way for 2008.
If dean gets the nomination (most likely he will) the dem lose the election and Hilary is in great shape for 2008. If the dems win shes gotta wait 8 years.
Bush wins.......
-
personaly, I could care less :D
democrats are the party of infantacide and gun control, what more need I say.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
personaly, I could care less :D
democrats are the party of infantacide and gun control, what more need I say.
I think you meant that you could not care less.
-
Im caring less right now. does that clear things up for you?
-
I'm so happy that you care.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
He will lose. The "tax cuts that only benefitted the wealthy" will be his undoing.
The Democrats generally are better politicians than the Republicans and have always excelled at convicing the masses that the Republicans are responsible for their miserable lot in life. The path of personal responsibility is tougher to trod than that of victimhood. For example, it's much easier to persuade someone that his life sucks because those who make more money than he does aren't "paying their fair share" than it is to convince that same person that his life sucks due to the choices that he has made.
The problem is, the "blame someone else" and "take from someone else" mentalities do not lead to making anyone's life better. Are the lives of the poor and disenfranchised better after decades of voting Democratic (and after deacdes of living in "The Great Society")? I think not.
Lets just say that he doesn't win next year. I still have come out with $800 in past two years and will get another $800 or so next year with the Bush tax refund. So whatever this poor Alabama redneck will vote to keep getting my AH subscription money each year.
-
Bush will win if two or more of the following occur:
1. Bin Laden Captured
2. Saddam Captured
3. WMD Found
4. 6 Months or More of Improving Economic Indicators
Otherwise he's going to have to rely on black helicopters, etc.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
With the current configuration of the Electoral College, what other choice is there? There are only two parties. The rest don't count WRT the presidency.
Yes, but certainly choose the issues that the candidate stands for, not the party! You *do* that right? Or do you just pick "D" whenever you see it on a ballat without researching what the person believes in, or stands for, or supports?
-
.dblpost.
-
My Magic 8 Ball says.........yes!
But that's what it said about his dad in '92. :(
-
Originally posted by AKIron
My Magic 8 Ball says.........yes!
But that's what it said about his dad in '92. :(
His Dad thought that the successful war in Gulf War 1 would carry him thru to the win, unfortunately he forgot that the American people have this bad habit of giving credit to, or blaming, presidents for the economy. Combine that with a handsome looking young buck with the press constantly flashing photos of this new youngster shaking hands with Kennedy in '62 while he was a youth, and add a strong 3rd party candidate, and *poof*, the Clintonista's were born.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yes, but certainly choose the issues that the candidate stands for, not the party! You *do* that right? Or do you just pick "D" whenever you see it on a ballat without researching what the person believes in, or stands for, or supports?
I have just one tendency. I don't typically vote for incumbents.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
democrats are the party of infantacide and gun control, what more need I say.
You would be surprised how many republicans are for gun control. They may end up the ones who try to take it away. Don't laugh.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
If Bush's approval rating continues on the current slide, it's far from a done deal.
Think it was Eagleburger on CNN that stated that if the election we're tomorrow, Clark would win (according to polls).
Bottom line... too soon to tell.
Skuzzy, we need a :bullship: smilie.
Sandman, you're not so young as to remember that that Nixon had an approval rating in 1971 of only 49% and won in 1972.... that Reagan had an approval rating of 47% in 1983 and won in 1984, that Bush Sr. had an approval rating of 68% in 1991 but lost in 1992, do you think that approval ratings a year in advance have anything to do with the chances of re-election?
-
Like I said... too soon to tell.
-
as far as Bush goes - I really think the fear of his re-election is preventing a terrorist attack on US soil until 11/04 in hopes a we end up with another weak weenie dem POTUS
-
Originally posted by Eagler
as far as Bush goes - I really think the fear of his re-election is preventing a terrorist attack on US soil until 11/04 in hopes a we end up with another weak weenie dem POTUS
Like it prevented 9/11? But you do prove the fear factor.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
personaly, I could care less :D
democrats are the party of infantacide and gun control, what more need I say.
Bingo
....and anything whiney (politically speaking of course).
-
did you miss the point six? bush was an unkown in as far as what his reaction would be prior to 9/11/01. the previous boss was known as the guy who would launch a dozen brave cruise missles at empty buildings then opt out for a blowjob.
Bush (for better or for worse) is now known as a president who will us the military in massive force to attack awnry countries that support terra.
-
I hate to rain on your parade, but they don't care who is pres. I guess they didn't know who his dad was huh? Bush unknown? I guess the fear of him being elected will protect our troops in Iraq too.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Yes, poor people, and particularly minorities, tend to vote Democratic. Obviously, this is a generalization, but I think it fairly states the trends of the last 40 years.
Poor people and minorities in urban areas vote democratic.
In Missouri, all the democrats live in counties surrounding Kansas City and St. Louis. If you look at statistics for the state, the rural “poor” communities tend to vote republican.
So… poor, living in cities = looking for hand outs from democrats, poor, living in rural communities = not looking for handouts and vote republican.
Actually if you look at the country county vote between Bush and Gore the republicans appear to live in the rural counties. If you want to tell me that they are the rich, then try driving through Shannon county Missouri where the work consists of a saw mill, Wal-Mart, and a hat factory.
As to whether he will win or not, judging on the alternatives I’ll probably vote for him again. But it’s too soon to tell.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
With the current configuration of the Electoral College, what other choice is there? There are only two parties. The rest don't count WRT the presidency.
That is incorrect. If a state happens to have a third party candidate take the vote then it is their list of designated individuals that gets sent to the “real” vote.
If the Green party wins a state then they win the “set of electors” that they, the Green party, chooses to send.
So by saying that “the current configuration of the Electoral College” prevents a third party from being represented is false. It is the average citizen with blinders on to only two parties that continue to keep the two party system going.
Although I don’t care for the Green party I was disappointed to see that they didn’t get enough votes to get federal campaign money. More advertising to the average Joe would help get a third party off its feet.
It has nothing to do with the setup of the Electoral College.
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
Poor people and minorities in urban areas vote democratic.
In Missouri, all the democrats live in counties surrounding Kansas City and St. Louis. If you look at statistics for the state, the rural “poor” communities tend to vote republican.
So… poor, living in cities = looking for hand outs from democrats, poor, living in rural communities = not looking for handouts and vote republican.
Actually if you look at the country county vote between Bush and Gore the republicans appear to live in the rural counties. If you want to tell me that they are the rich, then try driving through Shannon county Missouri where the work consists of a saw mill, Wal-Mart, and a hat factory.
As to whether he will win or not, judging on the alternatives I’ll probably vote for him again. But it’s too soon to tell.
I don't doubt what you write. I'm sure it's true in some areas. That's why I characterized my statement as a generalization. Although my generalization, like every other, will admit exceptions, I still believe it to be accurate.
Regarding your stated exception, I'm sure that there are many pockets of "poor" folks throughout the country that vote Republican. Nonetheless, I believe that they are in the monirotiy. (For example, I suspect that considerably more poor and minorities live in urban areas than in rural areas.)
-
I agree that taken the number of poor per square mile in an urban area compared to a rural one, there are more in cities no doubt.
Taking all rural counties in a state combined though, I would say it’s almost even with the amount of poor in the urban counties.
I say that because of the concealed carry law that failed here a few years back. All the rural counties voted for it, the urban counties didn’t. I don’t remember the exact number but it ended up being 6-10 counties in the state swayed the vote enough to stop it. St. Louis County to be exact put the final nail in the coffin. I went to bed thinking it passed and woke up hearing it was defeated.
The law failed from literally a handful of votes. Side note, the legislature just passed it a few weeks ago :D.
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
That is incorrect. If a state happens to have a third party candidate take the vote then it is their list of designated individuals that gets sent to the “real” vote.
If the Green party wins a state then they win the “set of electors” that they, the Green party, chooses to send.
So by saying that “the current configuration of the Electoral College” prevents a third party from being represented is false. It is the average citizen with blinders on to only two parties that continue to keep the two party system going.
It has nothing to do with the setup of the Electoral College.
In 1992, Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote and not a single Electoral vote. Sounds rather advantageous to the GOP and DNC if you ask me.
-
Yes but that’s misleading to just say “he won 19% of the popular vote”. Did he win any states? If he indeed won a whole state then his “party” would have been asked to designate a set of electors to represent their vote.
Statistically by saying “you won the popular vote but lost the election” is also misleading. If you won the election, you won the popular vote as well. The way in which the Electoral College works is based off of the popular vote. Except for Vermont and New Hampshire, I’m pretty sure Vermont does it a little differently and I think New Hampshire as well but on that I’m not so sure.
If a candidate wins the popular vote in a state then their parties set of electors is sent to cast their vote for the state. Where it looks odd is when a state such as California is entered into the mix. The popular vote goes for candidate A, so their electors are sent for A. However, there was a “popular vote” for candidates B, C, D, etc that get tallied in with the whole country.
The majority vote for the state wins for that candidate. When the votes for the rest of California get added to the mix it looks as if the “populous” vote didn’t get counted right but it did.
Cali has 10 million people of which 6 million voted for A leaving 4 million for B. Missouri has 5 million people of which 2 million voted for A. In Iowa who has 3 million people of which 1 million vote for A. Idaho has 3 million of which 1 million also vote for A. Candidate A has a country populous vote of 10 million. Candidate B has a country populous vote of 11 million.
Who wins the election? A does because there are more electoral votes granted to California because it has more people. B had more “votes” but not in densely populated areas thus loosing the election.
That’s why it’s so important to fill out your census cards when they come around. That’s the only way they draw new districts and gain electoral votes. The number of electoral votes is directly proportional to the number of legislators from that state.
-
I believe it's Maine that doesn't go with the "all or nothing" approach.
FWIW, I'm not surprised that you approve of the current method... Your vote weighs more than mine.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
FWIW, I'm not surprised that you approve of the current method... Your vote weighs more than mine.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that…
If you’re on the west coast, California?, your vote weighs more than mine. Missouri doesn’t have near the electoral votes that California has.
I’m not sure that I approve of the current method but not because of your “populous vote” argument. It works because it is a direct representation of the population for a specific region based on their beliefs and ideals.
The problem with that is it essentially gives urban areas the right to dictate to rural areas who the countries leaders are based on pockets of dense population. It’s an “us versus them”. City slicker versus farmer.
I know I got a little complicated there at the end so I can understand it may have been a little hard to follow.
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that…
One electoral vote in Missouri represents 523,937 people.
One electoral vote in California represents 638,473 people.
-
So you like throwing numbers that suit you.
California has 54 electoral votes.
Missouri has 11 electoral votes.
I was just trying to educate you on your obvious ignorance of the Electoral College. With only about 70% of registered voters casting ballots, and that’s registered not actual population, if only one person shows up in each state to vote, whose vote counts more?
Pointless discussion, you can lead a horse…
-
scared white men are a minority in this country so no. Plus he has the worst record as president since Hoover at pretty much every issue.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
scared white men are a minority in this country so no. Plus he has the worst record as president since Hoover at pretty much every issue.
What will you do if he's re-elected???
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
So you like throwing numbers that suit you.
California has 54 electoral votes.
Missouri has 11 electoral votes.
I was just trying to educate you on your obvious ignorance of the Electoral College. With only about 70% of registered voters casting ballots, and that’s registered not actual population, if only one person shows up in each state to vote, whose vote counts more?
Pointless discussion, you can lead a horse…
I know how the Electoral college works. If all you can offer is a personal attack, you are correct. It is a pointless discussion.