Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Dems Will Manage To Lose Pres. Election Again.  
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2487 times:

Once again, it looks like the Democrat Party has found a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

In a year that the Democrat Party should have been able to win the White House with ease, they have instead managed to pick a sure loser.

I am basing this on analysis of every election since WWII.

If we look at the candidates run by the Democrat Party since WWII, they fall into 2 distinct categories.

Successful canditdates:

Truman
Kennedy
Johnson
Carter
Clinton

Unsuccessful Candidates:

Stevenson
Humphrey
McGovern
Mondale
Dukakis
Gore
Kerry

Do you notice the pattern?

The successful candidates were all from the (relatively) conservative wing of the Democrat Party.

The unsuccessful candidates were all from the liberal wing of the Democrat Party (perhaps with the exception of Gore, but with his "green" stance it is arguable, and he was certainly painted as a liberal in the election. It was also the closest of margins, and as such supports the hypothesis).

For those too young to remember, Kennedy was a fiscal conservative and military hawk, enacting tax cuts and actively persuing the Vietnam campagne. He would almost be a moderate Republican by todays standards.

Now it looks like the Democrat Party will nominate the US Senator with the most liberal voting record during the last term.

If history is any sort of an indicator, McCain will win walking away.

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2475 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Thread starter):
they have instead managed to pick a sure loser.

Primaries aren't over yet . . . .

Besides, I don't think Sen Obama is a loser. I despise his ideals about the military- they are simply backward - but on the whole, he's a far better candidate than the Scheister Lawyer . . .

Quoting DLPMMM (Thread starter):
McCain will win walking away.

We can only hope.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2473 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Thread starter):
Johnson

Was the most liberal on social issues that I have ever seen, and also was a military hawk from Texas, guess that's a requirement guess that's a requirement if one is from the Lone Star state. You're probably too young to remember the mushroom cloud ad he used against Goldwater.
Kennedy was also a liberal on social issues and he used his brother Robert as the enforcer.

Al Gore, was a fiscal conservative, pro-military, and in the center on social issues. What he lacked was the ability to speak in a manner that made people enthusiastic about his campaign.

Now this might be the same problem that Senator McCain will face this year if the opposing candidate is Obama. McCain is a dull speaker, while so far Obama is very charismatic. (please note I'm not talking issues here)

Quoting DLPMMM (Thread starter):
f history is any sort of an indicator, McCain will win walking away.

If recent history is any sort of an indicator, if the election was held today, no one would win walking away.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2472 times:



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
Besides, I don't think Sen Obama is a loser. I despise his ideals about the military- they are simply backward - but on the whole, he's a far better candidate than the Scheister Lawyer . .

I meant loser not as a personal affront.

I meant it as he is sure to lose in the general election because of his liberal views.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2453 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 3):
I meant loser not as a personal affront.

I meant it as he is sure to lose in the general election because of his liberal views.

I knew what you mean..but if you look at history, could be the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, voters every so often just get tired of the same government philosophy and just vote for change for the sake of change. Carter and the huge increase in Democrats elected to Congress in 1976 (although Watergate had something to do with it) and the 1994 election which saw the Republicans take control of Congress are prime examples.


User currently offlineRoadrunner165 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 874 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

I think you are wrong.

That is all.

okthxbye

[Edited 2008-02-14 08:55:41]

User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3863 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2439 times:

Nice try Rush. Is the oxycontin wearing out?

But seriously, it's to early but the trends are going the Democrats way.


Enthusiasm scale tips to Dems

•Fewer Americans are calling themselves Republicans. In Gallup polls this year, 52% described themselves as Democrats or independents who "lean" Democratic, compared with 39% on the Republican side. That 13-point advantage is one of the widest for either party since Gallup began taking the measure in 1991.

•Among those who are Republicans, morale is low. Eight in 10 Democrats said in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll last weekend that they're more enthusiastic about voting this year than in previous elections, the highest percentage in either party since the question first was asked in 2000. Nearly half of Republicans said they were less enthusiastic than usual — also the highest percentage ever.

•The Democratic Party gets higher marks all around. A majority of respondents described the Democratic Party as able to bring about changes the country needs andanage [sic] the federal government effectively. A majority said the GOP was unable to do either.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...008/2008-02-13-enthusiasmgap_N.htm

[Edited 2008-02-14 08:52:48]


Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2439 times:

I thnk you're dead wrong on this one. Obama is liberal, but this is a year that people want a different direction. I think many people will see McCain as too much of a Bush clone, whether he is or not-and the Democrats will paint him as such-and that Barack Obama has a terifically good chance of winning, as it stands right now.

Having a unpopluar President in your party is seen as far worse as an unpopular Congress. The focus, fair or not, is usually on the Chief Executive, not the legislature. I am not saying Obama will win, but he has a very good chance to win.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2430 times:



Quoting AirCop (Reply 2):
Was the most liberal on social issues that I have ever seen, and also was a military hawk from Texas, guess that's a requirement guess that's a requirement if one is from the Lone Star state. You're probably too young to remember the mushroom cloud ad he used against Goldwater.

Johnson was definately more conservative overall than most of his northeastern democrat colleges. The mushroom Cloud ad against Goldwater was simply to paint barry as an out-of-the-mainstream arch conservative.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 2):
Al Gore, was a fiscal conservative, pro-military, and in the center on social issues. What he lacked was the ability to speak in a manner that made people enthusiastic about his campaign.

I already addressed the Al Gore circumstances here:

Quoting DLPMMM (Thread starter):
(perhaps with the exception of Gore, but with his "green" stance it is arguable, and he was certainly painted as a liberal in the election. It was also the closest of margins, and as such supports the hypothesis).



Quoting AirCop (Reply 4):
I knew what you mean

My statement here was directed at ANCFlyer.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 4):
..but if you look at history, could be the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, voters every so often just get tired of the same government philosophy and just vote for change for the sake of change. Carter and the huge increase in Democrats elected to Congress in 1976 (although Watergate had something to do with it) and the 1994 election which saw the Republicans take control of Congress are prime examples.

You can make individual excuses for each individual election, but the overall pattern looks very solid.

Carter was from the conservative wing of the Democrat Party.

I don't know why you are bringing up off-year congressional elections into the thread, is it is completely off topic.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2417 times:



Quoting Roadrunner165 (Reply 5):
I think you are wrong.

That is all.

okthxbye

Thank you for your riveting analysis.

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 6):
Nice try Rush. Is the oxycontin wearing out?

But seriously, it's to early but the trends are going the Democrats way.

I don't know why you have to resort to name calling. Very immature of you.

Those same articles you cited could easily have been published 4 years ago, and we saw how that turned out.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 7):
I thnk you're dead wrong on this one. Obama is liberal, but this is a year that people want a different direction. I think many people will see McCain as too much of a Bush clone, whether he is or not-and the Democrats will paint him as such-and that Barack Obama has a terifically good chance of winning, as it stands right now.

Having a unpopluar President in your party is seen as far worse as an unpopular Congress. The focus, fair or not, is usually on the Chief Executive, not the legislature. I am not saying Obama will win, but he has a very good chance to win.

Fair enough.

Are you saying that my hypothesis is wrong WRT all the elections since WWII, or that this election will be different for the reasons you stated?


User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2405 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Thread starter):
Dems Will Manage To Lose Pres. Election Again.

We can only hope.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2403 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 7):
Having a unpopluar President in your party is seen as far worse as an unpopular Congress.

Not having really good candidates running helps also. Frankly, the GOP candidates are just not 'inspiring' enough. They seem to be a tad dull, especially as compared to Obama.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 7):
I am not saying Obama will win, but he has a very good chance to win.

I think he does. Out of presidential candidates, even going back to the little history I know, he compares to very few prior candidates and would be completely out of the typical US president. This may be good for the country in the long-term. And if he doesn't do well, it is only four years.


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2398 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Thread starter):
McCain will win walking away.

I seriously doubt anyone is going to win by a big margin.

McCain will have a victory is Hillary is the Democrat.

It will be very close if Obama is the candidate.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2391 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Thread starter):
Kennedy was a fiscal conservative

Fiscal responsibility isn't left or right, it's good sense.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2367 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Thread starter):
For those too young to remember, Kennedy was a fiscal conservative and military hawk,

Per your profile that you be you..This year will be 45 years since Kennedy was killed.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 8):
I don't know why you are bringing up off-year congressional elections into the thread, is it is completely off topic.

I don't agree, Carter was elected because people wanted a change from the Nixon years, not because he was an excellent candidate, by the way 1976 was a presidental election year.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 8):
Johnson was definately more conservative overall than most of his northeastern democrat colleges.

I wouldn't go that far, remember he got the Tonkin Bay Resolution passed in the House by 414-0 and the Senate 88-2, and he had to twist alot arms to get his civil rights acts passed.

Check this out; Tell me in 45 years has anything change, notes written by Rep. Morris Udall of the 88th Congress.
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhib...ts/udall/congrept/88th/640207.html


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2353 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 9):
e you saying that my hypothesis is wrong WRT all the elections since WWII, or that this election will be different for the reasons you stated?

On this election. This whole election cycle has been different-no true, clear front-runner from either party; no sitting VP running; a once popular president who is now very unpopular. It's a recipe for something we haven't seen before.

I think one thing that is working in Obama's favor is that the American people are tired of being scared by this president and his party over terrorism. It doesn't mean they're not concerned about it, but they're a bit weary of the last 7 years, since the events of 9/11. They want a new, fresh direction, and that's something neither Mr. McCain nor Mrs. Clinton seems to offer the voters.


User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3863 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2342 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 9):
I don't know why you have to resort to name calling. Very immature of you.

I thought you were Rush when you wrote "Democrat Party". My apologies to you Sean and I hope your grieving over Rudy's defeat is over.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 9):
Those same articles you cited could easily have been published 4 years ago, and we saw how that turned out.

Four years ago there was support for the war, Katrina was just a person's name and various scandals hadn't come to light.

The Republicans did the right thing politically when they chose a centrist. He's got the best chance to win.



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2330 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
They want a new, fresh direction, and that's something neither Mr. McCain nor Mrs. Clinton seems to offer the voters.

That, I think, is the only reason Obama has a good chance of winning. McCain does NOT represent change, he's been in politics for too long. My belief is that the Democratic party is very happy that McCain is the GOP front-runner. While he appears to be a good candidate, he certainly has big skeletons in his closet. Anyone remember the 'Keating-5'?

Plus google 'McCain Temper'. There are plenty of stories out there about his 'volcanic' temper. One example:

"In fact, McCain reportedly has a long history of outbursts and confrontations with his Senate colleagues."

If he loses his temper just once in any debate, he'll be done for.

McCain, IMHO, has very little chance of winning unless he runs against Hillary.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
They want a new, fresh direction

That can only be represented by Obama.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2298 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
On this election. This whole election cycle has been different-no true, clear front-runner from either party; no sitting VP running; a once popular president who is now very unpopular. It's a recipe for something we haven't seen before.

So you are saying that my hypothesis holds true for past elections, but you think this election will be different for the reasons you stated.

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 16):
I thought you were Rush when you wrote "Democrat Party". My apologies to you Sean and I hope your grieving over Rudy's defeat is over.

More name calling to exemplify your lack of maturity and cogent thought process. I don't know why some people cannot have an intelligent conversation about politics without resorting to snide remarks about other posters.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 14):
I don't agree, Carter was elected because people wanted a change from the Nixon years, not because he was an excellent candidate, by the way 1976 was a presidential election year.

Are you saying that Carter was not a relative conservative Democrat?

And the off-year elections comment was in response to your 1994 congressional elections remark. The 1994 congressional elections were off topic as they had nothing to do with Democrats who were elected or defeated in Presidential campaigns.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17):
That, I think, is the only reason Obama has a good chance of winning.



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
I think one thing that is working in Obama's favor



Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 11):
I think he does.

We can all think this election will go this way and that way, but if history is a barometer or unless my hypothesis is wrong, then the Democrat Party has chosen the wrong candidate in Obama.


User currently offlineDc10s2hnl From New Zealand, joined Aug 2006, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2294 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
This whole election cycle has been different-no true, clear front-runner from either party; no sitting VP running; a once popular president who is now very unpopular. It's a recipe for something we haven't seen before.

That's precisely why we can't be accurate with making predictions based on previous election results. Anyone that claims to know exactly what-the-hell is going to happen is just wishing out loud. Hillary is not yet completely dead (Florida and Michigan shenanigans anyone?), Obama hasn't got it completely wrapped up. Maybe even Huckabee will end up getting his "divine intervention" he talks about!  duck 
All I know is the Dems better get their crap settled soon -- the longer they duke it out, the less resources they have against McCain!


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2281 times:



Quoting Dc10s2hnl (Reply 19):
All I know is the Dems better get their crap settled soon -- the longer they duke it out, the less resources they have against McCain!

History was shown in the general election the candidate that can effectively deliver the message of hope for the future, doesn't lose, some examples, FDR, Reagan, Clinton..so if becomes Obama vs. McCain, its McCain who might not have the resources.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2280 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 18):
but if history is a barometer or unless my hypothesis is wrong, then the Democrat Party has chosen the wrong candidate in Obama

Applicable IMHO if McCain was a better candidate. I still believe that McCain will be easily savaged by the Democratic party once the candidates are known.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2252 times:



Quoting AirCop (Reply 20):
History was shown in the general election the candidate that can effectively deliver the message of hope for the future, doesn't lose, some examples, FDR, Reagan, Clinton..so if becomes Obama vs. McCain, its McCain who might not have the resources.

Gore was undoubtedly a better speaker than GW Bush and lost. Dewey was a much better orator than Truman. Stevenson was more charasmatic than Ike (in fact, a patch of moss was more charasmatic than Ike).


User currently onlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2230 times:



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
Primaries aren't over yet . . . .

No but the DNC convention is going to be awesome.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
Besides, I don't think Sen Obama is a loser. I despise his ideals about the military- they are simply backward - but on the whole, he's a far better candidate than the Scheister Lawyer . .

Personally Hillary is not as trustworthy but their ideals are kind of similiar. If you ingore their rhetoric they are anti capitilism and want governement to start controlling everything. Not to mention going very weak on our fight in the middle east.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
We can only hope

I think we will see McCain win a hard fought election by about the same margin as GW won in 04'.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 7):
I thnk you're dead wrong on this one. Obama is liberal, but this is a year that people want a different direction. I think many people will see McCain as too much of a Bush clone, whether he is or not-and the Democrats will paint him as such-and that Barack Obama has a terifically good chance of winning, as it stands right now.

But how can he be a Bush clone? All I hear is how far from the right he is and how he is not a conservative. Look, Obama using this "we need a new direction" is simply rhetoric and is just codepink yelling to get out of Iraq. Just because McCain isn't going to cut and run doesn't make him another GW. That is propaganda. The two biggest issues are the war and the economy. The currrent situation the economy is in is not the governments fault. It is OUR fault. GW didn't drive up our credit cards and not pay, GW didn't sell houses to people who had no chance of paying for them and Obama's ideas of giving the lower middle and lower class free education and free health care at the expense everyone with jacking up taxes is the worst idea I have ever heard. He is merley trying to get the knee jerk reaction that Kerry tried in 04'

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 15):
They want a new, fresh direction, and that's something neither Mr. McCain nor Mrs. Clinton seems to offer the voters.

What exactly is that direction because I still haven't heard anything from him about that. All he has done is pander to the anti war left and said he is going to give them free everything without exactly saying where the money is going to come from. Oh wait he did last night, he is going to go after the big busines CEOs that in his opinion "make too much". This guy is downright scary. If his direction is paying the taxes Canada does, more government and less military it sure is a direction I don't want.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17):
That, I think, is the only reason Obama has a good chance of winning. McCain does NOT represent change, he's been in politics for too long. My belief is that the Democratic party is very happy that McCain is the GOP front-runner. While he appears to be a good candidate, he certainly has big skeletons in his closet. Anyone remember the 'Keating-5'?

Plus google 'McCain Temper'. There are plenty of stories out there about his 'volcanic' temper. One example:

"In fact, McCain reportedly has a long history of outbursts and confrontations with his Senate colleagues."

If he loses his temper just once in any debate, he'll be done for.

I guess Bobby Knight should not be remembered as one of the best basketball coaches then? Maybe he should have been done after he threw the chair then? Give me a break, I could care less if a person loses his temper, your telling me Obama has never lost his temper in his life? I want a leader who is going to get the job done. I think if you go watch C-span or scrutinized every senator or congressman and every bill you will see people losing their tempers more often than you would think. This is just a ploy to discredit McCain now because he is the GOP Presidential candidate.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2216 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 23):
I guess Bobby Knight should not be remembered as one of the best basketball coaches then?

Diplomacy is not a requirement to being a good coach.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 23):
I want a leader who is going to get the job done.

Screaming at others may not be conducive to getting the job done. Then again, a government that does nothing is usually better than a government that tries to do anything.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 23):
I think if you go watch C-span or scrutinized every senator or congressman and every bill you will see people losing their tempers more often than you would think.

We all lose our tempers, but not all have a reputation as a 'hot-head'. Clinton was very well known and video exists of him losing his temper. But no one ever gave him grief about it. If McCain already has that reputation, from members of his own party, it bodes ill for his future.


25 Post contains images Halls120 : What you meant was "Al Gore never mastered the ability to speak in public without coming across as a pompous, arrogant know it all," right?
26 KFLLCFII : Or it'll be the best thing that's happened to him. Shows he's not the guy to pander, to pussy-foot around. Hope is great, but it doesn't guarantee de
27 Klaus : Decisiveness is only a good thing if you know how to make the right decisions. Otherwise even GWB might actually have been a great president.
28 Post contains images Pope : And he invented the internet! He also has a Grammy and an Oscar.
29 RJdxer : Which begs the question..... Perhaps when he is forced to actually come up with some hard answers to some difficult questions the public will realize
30 Joni : It would be "interesting" in the wrong way, IMO, if the Democrats lost this election as it would signal that democracy in the US would no longer work.
31 Post contains images KFLLCFII : Indeed. But what good is hope without decisiveness? (Or worse, with pandering or pussy-footing?) Why, because the people would have decided who they
32 Confuscius : Welcome to Mexico. That's what happened to Mexico for a long time up until the 90s. From a party standpoint, the Democrats will retain control of the
33 Klaus : The slogans on their own are not worth a lot (if anything). I found the one-on-one grilling of the various candidates on Meet the Press much more int
34 Post contains links Cfalk : If the American people are paying attention, they might notice how infantile the Dems in Congress are acting, and must start to wonder how they will
35 JCS17 : Obama is basically a shinier, more attractive version of former far-left Democrat presidential candidate Walter Mondale. I'll give Mondale some credit
36 FlyDeltaJets87 : My prediction is that the electoral map will look pretty similar to how it did in 2004, with the deciding state being Ohio. So who is the next Presid
37 AirCop : Who cares, all Bush wants out of this bill, is protection for the Telecoms. Bush keeps saying that America will come under harm due to Congress failu
38 Cfalk : And allow the telecoms to become the sacrificial goats to the altar of our litigious society? Just imagine of some Ninth Circuit court rules that AT&
39 Jetjack74 : Since WA state doesn't make us define our party, I voted for Barack Obama in the WA state primary because Mitt Romney is out and McCain is going to wi
40 Allstarflyer : And Nixon had a lot going for him until he stepped in front of a camera while running against Kennedy. Being polished and looking sharp can go a good
41 AndesSMF : Those who saw (first ever televised debate) them gave Kennedy the edge. Those who heard them on the radio gave Nixon the win. Let's not forget how im
42 NAV20 : DLPMMM, fair to say that two out of your five examples, Truman and Johnson, were effectively running for re-election after quite long, competent spel
43 RJdxer : I sure would like to know which program you watched. I heard a whole lot of pie in the sky without anything substantial to back it up. We're going to
44 Falcon84 : Talk about someone living in an delusion, you take the cake, JCS. It won't be a bloodbath if McCain wins. It'll be very close. If Obama stays on his
45 CaptOveur : And so the political pissing contest threads begin. My election prediction: Someone will win, I give Obama better odds than Hillary as coming out the
46 Elite : Millions are dead set against Hilary Clinton already, and if she gets a nomination people might vote McCain not because they like him but because they
47 AirCop : Try looking up the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution. Interesting that you picked on the 9th District, when its been courts in the 3rd
48 Cfalk : Would you give the same opinion of our evesdropping attempts on the Germans or Japanese in WWII? The listening posts were on US soil, as they are now
49 Post contains links JCS17 : The surge has worked, whether you (or Miss Pelosi) choose to believe it or not. America is winning in Iraq, and has been doing so for the past year.
50 AGM100 : My Prediction... Hilary wins Texas , Obama wins Ohio. They go to the convention with no delegate winner. Super Delegates pick Clinton .... after the r
51 AirCop : While it appears that it HAD stabilized Iraq for awhile, but lately at least my newspapers are reporting the bombings etc have resumed. As for the su
52 Klaus : Prefabricated programs which may or may not work are not the real criteria - but exhibiting the intelligence to deal with challenges not just by spou
53 RJdxer : GWB is not running for President. This goes back to another reason the Democratic party stands a big chance of losing this election. They are going t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why The Democrats Will Continue To Lose posted Fri Nov 5 2004 20:47:26 by Air2gxs
For Whom Will You Vote In Next Us Pres. Election? posted Fri Apr 7 2006 03:19:22 by DL021
Five Most Important Issues To You This Election posted Wed Jan 30 2008 22:56:33 by Allstarflyer
Belgium To Lose Some Territory To Germany posted Fri Jan 11 2008 06:40:36 by LHStarAlliance
Guatemala Votes After Violent Pres. Election posted Mon Sep 10 2007 15:57:21 by MaverickM11
Will I Live To Be 80? posted Fri Jul 6 2007 19:03:23 by Halls120
Grrr...Probably Will Have To Have Surgery posted Fri Jul 6 2007 16:19:07 by Falcon84
Nancy Pelosi Will Go To Damascus .. posted Sat Mar 31 2007 23:09:59 by Beaucaire
Chirac Not To Run For President Again! posted Sun Mar 11 2007 11:21:27 by RootsAir
I Want To Lose My Virginity... posted Tue Dec 12 2006 16:23:50 by Iamcanadian