I know some of you guys are excited about this guy, like my alter-ego is, but I think he peaked too soon. He runs better as an underdog than a front runner.
First the dems are having him for lunch,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...
Personally, I believe the Clinton cronies are behind this sudden "interst" in Dean's political history. Payback for that Female Doggo slap from Gore in Harlem earlier in the week.
Second, that bastion of conservatism, Vermont, picks Bush over Dean by 27 points....
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationaln...
Clinton doesn't want Dean and Gore taking over the party. I have every confidence he'll do what needs to be done to prevent that from happening.
Might be because of this.
I''ve said it all along, and I''ll say it again: I don''t like Dean.
If Nader runs, I''ll vote for him before Dean, even if it means giving Bush the election in 2004.
Switch: SW-5816-4534-9106
Farscry, you just gave me chills. Please, please, pleeease let Nader run. I really hope Dean gets the Democratic nomination and Nader brings on a string third party candidacy. I think that would give the best set of options so that people could really have some choices in the next election.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
You crack me up, Ral. You mean you want Bush to win, right? Honestly, I''d rather have Bush again than Dean, as crazy as it sounds.
Dean is an opportunist, plain and simple. Bush, while I don''t agree with a lot of his stances, is at least pretty straightforward. I may not agree with him, but I can respect him for that straightforwardness.
Of course, if they had a real candidate, I''d be voting on the Dem nominee. But who knows; maybe Dean won''t get the nomination.
*snicker*
Switch: SW-5816-4534-9106
Nader:Dean::Perot:Bush Sr.
I started my own blog so when I feel the need to make an ass out of myself, I won't have as far to go.
As in neither having a real effect on the election?
I wish you guys would stop encouraging him.
EvilHomer3k wrote:You are an evil, evil person.
Baron Of Hell wrote:YOU VILLAIN!
*cough-bullsh*t!*
We can debate Nader''s effect, as he only received 2.75% of the vote. This might have been enough to push Gore over in key states, or it might not have, as it is impossible to tell if Green Party voters would even have come out for a Democrat.
But Perot received19%of the vote. These weren''t fringe voters finally finding a candidate, but mainstream ones looking for an alternative. Perot was significantly more conservative than Clinton, and attracted Republicans disenchanted by Bush who nonetheless didn''t want to see Clinton in office.
Had Ross Perot not run, Bush sr would have beaten Clinton.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Clinton got 43% of the vote in the 1992 election. Bush got 37 per cent. Perot got 19 percent. If Bush received 12 percent of the Perot votes he would have won. I have no idea if he would have received those votes.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...
It''s funny how a less percentage of people wanted Clinton elected the first term than wanted George Bush elected on his first term. I think the last person to win with over 50 percent of the voted was George Bush in 1988.
Just a little trivia...
Hello my baby!!!
And they accuse us of sour grapes...
I wish you guys would stop encouraging him.
EvilHomer3k wrote:You are an evil, evil person.
Baron Of Hell wrote:YOU VILLAIN!
How is stating a fact ""sour grapes""?
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Assuming that 90 something percent of the people who voted for Perot would have voted for Bush thus giving him the election is about as far from ''fact'' as one can get without talking about their feelings.
Yup, and he served only one term.
The thing about smart people is they seem like crazy people to dumb people -- Thing I saw on the Internet
*ahem*
One more time. How is that sour grapes?
Yeah, thanks to that little bastard Perot who cheated his way to a nomnation and stole the election, throwing us into liberal hell for 8 years! (now,thatwould be sour grapes ;))
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
I believe the issue at hand is this:
...which, given Perot''s 19% showing, is inaccurate.
I started my own blog so when I feel the need to make an ass out of myself, I won't have as far to go.
You can''t conclusively state that Perot''s votes would have gone to Bush. To paraphrase Ralph Nader, if Bush was that strong of a candidate, why did conservatives vote for Perot?
I wish you guys would stop encouraging him.
EvilHomer3k wrote:You are an evil, evil person.
Baron Of Hell wrote:YOU VILLAIN!
Just as I can''t state that they would have gone to Bush, you cannot state that they couldn''t have, meaning that your ""real effect"" comment was also in error.
I started my own blog so when I feel the need to make an ass out of myself, I won't have as far to go.
If you want someone to blame for George Bush''s loss in ''92, try George Bush...
""Read my lips: no new taxes.""
I wish you guys would stop encouraging him.
EvilHomer3k wrote:You are an evil, evil person.
Baron Of Hell wrote:YOU VILLAIN!
Bush has it made now, since Saddamnit is captured !
PSN ID: Haul_N_Oats
Ratboy is right, George Bush is to blame for his own failure in 1992. Dole wasn''t a serious candidate in 1996. Kind of a throwaway candidate due to Clinton''s popularity. Nice to know the democrats aren''t just throwing away an election and are giving us solid candidates for 2004.
Hello my baby!!!
Was that sarcasm Lawyeron? Has everyone here but me forgotten this?
Howard Dean is a joke, and the fact that he''s the current Democrat frontrunner is truly an indication of how far left the core of the Democrat party has moved. Hatred for Bush may please and excite the activists, but it won''t help in the general elections any more than Clinton hating helped the Republicans.
I''m just waiting for the ""random Republican"" vs Hillary in 2008. Talk about polarizing a country. Should be fun to watch. She might serve two terms as senator, however, so that would hold things off for a while.
Xbox One: GWJRoo
Origin: gwjroo
Steam ID
I''m saving money against that dreadful day when Bill Clinton becomes ""First Lady"". Land for my snow farm in Antarctica shouldn''t be too pricey.