|
Grex > Agora46 > #98: Why the liberal democrats will lose the next election | |
|
| Author |
Message |
sabre
|
|
Why the liberal democrats will lose the next election
| 
Jul 19 14:31 UTC 2003 |
#1 Bush has raised more $ than all of the democrats combined
#2 Bush can focus on the election now..while democrats are fighting each other
#3Bush's approval rating will not drop enough for a democrat to win.
#4 There isn't a decent democrat running
#5 All liberals are stupid dipshits..and America is a catching on
#6 Al Gore is a chickenshit
|
| 68 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 1 of 68:
|
Jul 19 15:16 UTC 2003 |
#7 No President has suffered a net loss of jobs on his watch since
Herbert Hoover.
#8 $450 billion federal budget deficit this year and more next year.
#9 Where's Saddam? Where's the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which were
an immediate threat?
|
twenex
|
|
response 2 of 68:
|
Jul 19 16:08 UTC 2003 |
Ken - are you arguing the democrats will *lose* the next election, or win it
because of ##7,8 and 9? sound like arguments against Bush, if you ask me...
#0 reason #5: Takes one to know one...
|
janc
|
|
response 3 of 68:
|
Jul 20 00:45 UTC 2003 |
#1: Being in the pockets of more people than any president ever before is
certainly a big selling point.
#2: Isn't he supposed to be focusing on running the country?
#3: At least not if he starts another war. Expect to hear soon that
Iceland is harboring Weapons of Mass Distraction. A country we can
defeat on a budget.
#4: Bet you don't know anything about the democratic candidates.
#5: Right.
#6: Yup, you don't know anything about the democratic candidates. News
flash: Gore isn't running. That was the last election.
|
kip
|
|
response 4 of 68:
|
Jul 20 01:57 UTC 2003 |
Well, I have to admit to being depressed and in the state of mind that I don't
think the American public will be angered enough to vote for someone else
besides Bush.
Joe Average American doesn't see the cause and effect in federal budget
deficits. Until unemployment reaches 8% and the aforementioned Joe hears that
more than a handful of people on his quiet street are unemployed, he won't
be angry enough to show up to vote, let alone for someone besides Bush.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 5 of 68:
|
Jul 20 02:09 UTC 2003 |
so tod...what's the unemployment rate here in Wa?
|
mvpel
|
|
response 6 of 68:
|
Jul 20 19:18 UTC 2003 |
The Clinton surpluses were at least in some measure illusory - Worldcom is
trying to get back some of its overpaid income tax after it got caught
cooking its books. Enron, Global Crossing, etc. Meanwhile the SEC under
Clinton looked the other way.
|
gull
|
|
response 7 of 68:
|
Jul 20 19:35 UTC 2003 |
Enron didn't pay any taxes, so they can't have contributed to the
surplus.
|
carson
|
|
response 8 of 68:
|
Jul 20 20:13 UTC 2003 |
(and their employees didn't pay taxes either, right?)
|
scg
|
|
response 9 of 68:
|
Jul 20 22:49 UTC 2003 |
Their employees presumably paid taxes on what they got paid, which is hardly
book cooking on the part of the employees, and will not get the employees
taxes back.
|
scott
|
|
response 10 of 68:
|
Jul 21 00:06 UTC 2003 |
Re #6: A lot of Clinton's fiscal/business policy was essentially Republican,
though.
|
pvn
|
|
response 11 of 68:
|
Jul 21 07:17 UTC 2003 |
re#10: What a brilliant strategy! Clinton was secretly a Republican.
|
scott
|
|
response 12 of 68:
|
Jul 21 12:01 UTC 2003 |
Halfway he was. Pissed off a lot of people by coopting Republican themes.
|
tod
|
|
response 13 of 68:
|
Jul 21 16:46 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 14 of 68:
|
Jul 21 16:56 UTC 2003 |
This weekend I hung out with a bunch of acquaintances for a couple of hours.
In a group of about 20, I think 5 or 6 were unemployed. Several more had
recently been unemployed and were working desperation jobs. The main topic
of discussion was how to file for bankruptcy.
|
richard
|
|
response 15 of 68:
|
Jul 21 23:51 UTC 2003 |
re: #0...Sabre, you forget one important factor. George Bush
technically (if you just counted the popular vote), LOST the last
election. More people voted against Bush than for him. More people
voted for Al Gore than for George Bush. That's a fact. George W. Bush
is the only president in American history to be elected while actually
getting fewer votes than his opponent.
So ask yourself this, if all those people who didn't vote for him last
time don't vote for him again, and given the economy why should they,
why is his re-election so assured? If things shake out the same way,
it'll probably be another barn burner.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 16 of 68:
|
Jul 22 00:39 UTC 2003 |
Especially if the democrats can find a more attractive candidate than Gore...
|
mary
|
|
response 17 of 68:
|
Jul 22 01:49 UTC 2003 |
And I haven't been as enthusiastic about a Presidental
candidate since McGovern. Go Howard Dean!
|
klg
|
|
response 18 of 68:
|
Jul 22 02:11 UTC 2003 |
Yes!
|
klg
|
|
response 19 of 68:
|
Jul 22 02:28 UTC 2003 |
re: "#15 (richard): ... George W. Bush is the only president in
American history to be elected while actually getting fewer votes than
his opponent...."
Care to reconsider that statement, wise one?? (Or perhaps you are the
only fan of President Tilden.)
http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/results/restable.html
1876
Rutherford B. Hayes, Rep. 185 4,035,924
Samuel J. Tilden, Dem. 184 4,287,670
1888
Benjamin Harrison, Rep. 233 5,445,269
Grover Cleveland, Dem. 168 5,540,365
|
scg
|
|
response 20 of 68:
|
Jul 22 03:27 UTC 2003 |
Ok, so this was the only such election that didn't include a candidate with
a name like Rutherford or Grover. ;)
A lot has happened in the last two years, and Bush has been a very different
sort of President than he said he would be. I don't think it's unreasonable
to assume he'll have a somewhat different, while certainly overlapping, set
of supporters.
Dean strikes me as saying most of the right things, but it bothers me how
exactly he's sticking to the Berkeley liberal democrat line. It's not that
I disagree with him much, but I'd like to see him disagree with his core
constituency on *something*, just so I'd have some sort of evidence of his
ability to engage in independent thought.
Newsweek has an article on Howard Dean's background this week. According to
that, like George Bush, Dean is a Yale "educated" recovering alcoholic from
an New England aristocratic family. I feel like I've dealt with enough
alcoholics in the last few years that Bush's complete irrational obsessiveness
over war, oil, and tax cuts looks very familiar. Dean appears irrationally
obsessive about things I agree with much more, and there's no question which
of them I'd pick if given the choice between the two, but I still don't think
I trust him.
|
carson
|
|
response 21 of 68:
|
Jul 22 04:27 UTC 2003 |
re #7, 9: (point being, Enron's existence meant that people were
employed, earning money, and paying income taxes. ditto Arthur
Andersen, WorldCom, and any other high-profile collapsed big
business. now that these former employees are likely not earning
as much income, they're not paying as much income tax, and the
surplusses are going away.)
(that's not to say that tax cuts aren't also having any effect
on government revenue; rather, it's to agree with mvpel that some
of the surplusses of the Clinton years were ill-gotten and to
explain why.)
|
polygon
|
|
response 22 of 68:
|
Jul 22 17:40 UTC 2003 |
Re 19. You beat me to it!
|
mary
|
|
response 23 of 68:
|
Jul 22 18:01 UTC 2003 |
Steve, I bet the point you're looking for is Dean's stance
on capital punishment. He's being candid and honest but
it will hurt him.
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 68:
|
Jul 22 19:28 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|