Democratic Presidential Candidates

[Frank]

Originally posted by demsformd

Gore won the popular vote

Repeat after me - there IS NO "popular" vote. There is only an aggregate of votes cast for electors, and that doesn't elect a President. People seem to know this factually, but don't grasp this intellectually. You don't win the World Series based on how many RUNS you score, only how many GAMES you win. If you get a lot of runs in a few games, but lose four of them overall ---- it --- doesn't --- matter. Saying he "won the popular vote" is like griping about some team losing the Super Bowl, even though they scored the most points in the playoffs. Doesn't work that way.

but the Bushes stole it "fair and square"

If by that you mean, they won by the count made - and the re-count - and the re-recount (and EVEN won the unofficial count done by the press AFTER the election was *over* in just about every fashion imaginable) - and that the process was done legally and according to the Constitution - you *object* to that?

You initiated a legal process, and it was completed by the courts. Your guy lost. You were willing to pronounce legitimate victory IF your guy won - but he didn't. He didn't win under any count made. And THAT is unfair?

but more people did go into their polling place in Florida intending to vote for Al Gore than what actually happened. Just how many Jews will vote for Pat Buchannan who even said "those aren't my votes."

Interesting. How you know this, I can't guess, since those ballots don't have voter's names on them, so there's no way to tell what you seem to know, and no one has ever been able to establish. No one went back in, pulled out their ballot and pointed to the "error".

Let me be a little harsh about this - this confusing butterfly ballot was designed by a Democrat, approved by a Democratic election board, and was understandable when presented to passers-by on the streets of New York, and to a grade school class. Here's the harsh bit - if you can't be bothered enough to pay enough attention to your ballot - one easily understood by *children* - to know who it is you are voting for, I sure don't want you deciding who is to run the most pwerful nation on Earth. You might as well hand it to chimpanzees. Voting is a right that some citizens on this globe have fought and died to have - you damn well ought to take it seriously.

 

[MGKrebs]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I'll explain to you why there is a big difference between saying Cheney will probably be dead and saying that Kennedy is a fat drunk:

Dems has no way of knowing if Cheney will be dead by 2008. He can only hope. There is no real reason to believe that Cheney will be dead by 2008. People with heart situations can live for many many years, happily and productively. Currently Cheney is alive and kicking and there is no reason to believe he will be dead in 5 years.

If there is no reason to believe Cheny won't make it 'til '08, I think that would be a big clue that it is a tongue in cheek comment.

Kennedy, on the other hand, is indeed fat, by the common usage of the term. He is overweight in a rather grand fashion - all you have to do is look at him to see it. He is also, by all accounts, a drunk. No, I don't know this for absolute fact - I don't know the guy personally nor have I ever tossed a few back with him. But we do know that he had been drinking when he drove his car off that bridge and killed that girl. Unless the media made it up and Kennedy chose not to demand a retraction. We've also seen news accounts of his various DWI incidents.

I don't care about the fat and drunk stuff. But continuing to use words like "murder" and "kill that girl" are NO DIFFERENT than commenting on Cheney's longevity. I do not see any distiction. If it's OK for you, why isn't it OK for somebody else?

So it should be OK for me to say that Laura Bush "killed that guy" in that traffic accident she had years ago, right?

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by MGKrebs
So it should be OK for me to say that Laura Bush "killed that guy" in that traffic accident she had years ago, right?

Now you're onto something because, to the best of my knowledge, she DID kill that guy. Of course, she wasn't drunk, just careless. And she was only 17 (which is why, SMC, we adults are leery of teen drivers). But, yes, that's closer to apples and apples.

 

[vraiblonde]

Oh yeah - and Laura Bush didn't leave the scene after the accident to avoid a drunk driving charge. But you're still within range.

 

[Heretic]

The difference is Ted committed a crime (actually several) and Laura committed a moving violation.

 

[smcdem]

Back to the nomination...WE WANT KERRY!! wahoo!

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by smcdem
Back to the nomination...WE WANT KERRY!! wahoo!

We do? Not according to any polling data I've seen. Care to clarify who the "we" is? All those that have not yet reached voting age.

 

[MGKrebs]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Oh yeah - and Laura Bush didn't leave the scene after the accident to avoid a drunk driving charge. But you're still within range.

He probably couldn't tread water for long enough for somebody to come by and then go call the cops. And let's be clear- the drunk driving allegation is an assumption, right? Kinda like Cheney's longevity?

 

[Heretic]

Ok lets say that Ted wasn't drunk, that makes him either a coward , not wanting anyone to know that young lady was in the car with him or it just makes him some rich bastard that thinks so little of other people that he didnt care about her. He didn't report the accident until the next morning

 

[demsformd]

Back to the matter at hand...the Democrats that WILL be running for President. Edwards is coming up strong if you ask me....Go John Go!!!

Did anybody watch Crossfire last night? The GOPer on there just didn't give any of the Democratic candidates a shot of winning. If I am one the conservatives on here, I would not want the leadership of my party to be relaxed.

 

[Heretic]

I caught it, was one of the more boring episodes I have seen.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by demsformd
If I am one the conservatives on here, I would not want the leadership of my party to be relaxed.

Barring anything really unusual happening - it's unlikely that Bush will lose to anyone, given today's figures. *Current* polling shows *everyone* losing to him, and that is almost certainly why Gore chose not to run - he's run twice before, and has a better chance of waiting until 2008. IF Edwards gets the nod, he might get some votes because he is somewhat moderate, but he'll still lose to Bush at this point.

 

[demsformd]

Bush I had an approval rating of 91 percent at this time during his term...and he got his backside kicked. And even if one's party is in a more favorable position (believe me, you guys are) I would not underestimate the opposition...Look at my party in the mid-terms...we were complacent in Georgia where two of our candidates lost and here in Maryland where we lost the statehouse. There are thousands of other examples where my party did not think that Bush would have any effect. You guys are thinking that you killed the Democratic Party...but we always come back though, don't we?

 

[Frank]

Did you somehow miss the part where I said, barring anything unusual happening? That was a mere 12 years ago, and a lot of us remember it VERY well. Among other things, besides a recession (actually *ending* - but job creation usually lags behind a recessionary recovery) and a Democratic congress that pushed hard to make him break the "read my lips" pledge - and I remember, because we were talking furloughs then, and Bush chose NOT to shut down the government but capitulated to their demands - there was also this big surprise in the form of Ross Perot.

He did NOT get his backside kicked - he lost - but Clinton won with a mere 43% to Bush's 37.5%. I have little doubt that had Perot stayed out of the race altogether, Bush would have won, just as Gore would have won cleanly had Nader stayed out of the race. Perot got a whopping 18.9% of the vote.

Something else - mid-terms have a stronger turnaround in the House if a strong candidate of the opposite party makes a change of party in the White House - the "coat-tail effect". What happens is, a lot of guys get an extra push that year in the House riding on the President's coattails, but lose after the term ends in two years, because their *real* support was minimal. What made this so different this year was, you really can't get a weaker entrance into office than Bush had in 2000 - but he had the OPPOSITE happen, in mid-terms. Look for bigger gains in Congress, BOTH House and Senate (Senate, because the Republicans were defending a larger number of seats this time around).

 

[demsformd]

Clinton carried over 350 electoral votes in 1992, it was a landslide. (After all, doesn't the electoral college decide elections? That is what the conservatives said everyday since 2000) Perot's supporters were more inclined to vote for Clinton...in 1996, when Perot only received around 8% (a decline of about 11 points), Clinton's total from 92 went up seven and Dole's margin went up three from Bush's. The Perot voters were more likely to vote for Clinton...had Perot not run in 1992, it would have still been a Clinton victory albeit by not as large a margin (yet still quite healthy). I'm really bored so I am thinking that I might do an election scenario to prove this point more fully.

And I agree that Gore did not run because he felt that he would lose (possibly not even get the nomination).

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by demsformd
Perot's supporters were more inclined to vote for Clinton...in 1996, when Perot only received around 8% (a decline of about 11 points), Clinton's total from 92 went up seven and Dole's margin went up three from Bush's. The Perot voters were more likely to vote for Clinton

Perot voters were more likely to vote for CLINTON? What are you smoking? (You can't compare the elections - I voted for Bush in 92 but voted for Perot in 96 - thus throwing off your comparison - Bush and Dole were not the same person). Every analyst I have ever read has repeated the same thing - Perot was a spoiler for Bush. You do remember, that he initially intended to run as a Republican, that there was talk of him as a vp candidate when he withdrew - as a Republican - that most of the Reform Party consists of former Republicans and they nominated a former Republican, in the last election? That as the Reform Party has imploded, the ranks of registered Republicans has swelled? That their platform is basically conservative?


I can't think of even one Perot voter who has ever voted Democrat - the analyses I have read are consistent with my experience.

 

[demsformd]

Do you recall Perot telling his supporters to vote for Clinton during the waning days of the campaign when he realized that he had no chance of winning? When you receive 18% of the vote...you are no longer a spoiler. At that point, you are an actual candidate. So Frank, are you saying that all of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush had Perot not run? Such an analysis is grossly oversimplified. And it is amazing that in 96 more of Perot's voters voted for Clinton than Dole.

I think that the GOP is just still unable to accept that Clinton beat them good.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by demsformd
Such an analysis is grossly oversimplified. And it is amazing that in 96 more of Perot's voters voted for Clinton than Dole.

You don't have the slightest bit of proof for that - only that the elections came out different. So who switched sides to vote for Nixon, giving HIM a landslide? Who did the same for Reagan, in '84? You cannot compare elections. I did NOT vote for Dole in '96 - but neither did I vote for Clinton. Dole was NOT Bush. All you know is that fewer people voted for Perot in 96 (if you look at the ranks of the Reform Party, they are ex-Republicans). All that means is, most people no longer believed he could win. People DID believe that, in 92. Secondly, you had an incumbent president during an economic boom, which took most of the wind out of Perot's "what are we going to do about the deficit?" mantra.

I think that the GOP is just still unable to accept that Clinton beat them good.

I think Dems are unable to accept that *twice* the majority of voters did NOT choose their guy. You don't have to look far in the Reform Party to see they are all VERY conservative. To claim they would have voted for Clinton is almost an insult to them. And it goes against every analysis I have ever seen. You're dreaming.

 

[demsformd]

At least our president won more popular votes than the other guy.

 

[demsformd]

The Reform Party was generally of a conservative ideology, yet it was also very moderate. It placed a heavy emphasis on debt reduction, which is not a conservative idea nor a liberal one (history proves that members of both ideologies neglect to keep the budget balanced). Its platform supported abortion rights as well as some gun control measures. It had appeal to many people, not merely conservatives. Many young people voted for Perot just because he represented a distaste for the two-party system and Perot's lack of political correctness on the campaign trail. And Perot only a major impact in states like South Dakota, Texas, and other areas of GOP strength. He may have only caused states like Georgia, Montana, and Colorado to go to Clinton.