McBush vs Obama

[Scott Dolan]

All the way back to Bush/Kerry.

Huh?

Was that a landslide? I never did catch any recount numbers.

[graypencil]

Hi Y'all!

( Having awakened from a loooooong sleep and working on getting a new CD in motion ..Rip Van Graypencil )

Well, since attempting to create a consensus among the many issues facing this country country( well nigh impossible ..but ) is IMO the first job of a president, the first quality is to elect someone who is a great communicator and can speak INTELLIGENTLY about them. This was the strong suit of presidents like Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan and on this point alone, Obama is obviously my choice. He's also the one best suited to draw the younger generation into the political process which IMO, is vitally necessary to continue a viable political process in the USA.


Not to mention the fact that if someone had nominated Gilbert Gottfried for president, after eight years of the DUBBya disaster, even he'd be an improvement.

[walto]

Nominee		George W. Bush	John Kerry
Party		Republican	Democratic
Home state		Texas	Massachusetts
Running mate		Richard B. Cheney	John Edwards
Electoral vote		286	251
States carried		31	19+DC
Popular vote		62,040,610	59,028,444
Percentage		50.7%	48.3%
Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Bush/Cheney (31), Blue denotes those won by Kerry/Edwards (19+DC). The split vote in Minnesota denotes a faithless elector's vote counted for John Edwards. Each number represents the electoral votes a state gave to one candidate.

[Scott Dolan]

That's a landslide?

[tristano's ghost]

Bush thought so.

[walto]

That's a landslide?

Well, Kerry could have won if he took Texas.

[Jon Abbey]

he would have won if he had taken Ohio, which was a very dubious result for numerous reasons.

[Vince Kargatis]

I don't get it either, walto. Neither popular nor electoral numbers come close to any previous presidential election described as a "landslide". In victory margin ranking, I'm sure that's way down there.

[Jon Abbey]

hopefully Obama's second term in 2012 will be a landslide.

[walto]

That'd be nice, certainly. But if the 1996 election wasn't a landslide, I'd take results like that too.

[Scott Dolan]

Was the country as bitterly divided as it is now?

Was Dole really that viable as a candidate?

Please.

Besides, go back and read what I initially said. I didn't imply the landslide was so 18th century. I was saying I don't believe we'll ever see one again.

[Monte Smith]

I didn't imply the landslide was so 18th century. I was saying I don't believe we'll ever see one again.

We'll have landslide elections in the future. We have not arrived in a place and condition which will define for all time the nature of our politics. Fer corn's sake. Things change. There will be another Nixon versus McGovern or a Reagan versus Mondale. It happens every time one party goes up a cul-de-sac and the other doesn't.

[Scott Dolan]

You may be right. I don't think you are, but it really doesn't matter to me one way or another. I knew goddamn well it wasn't going to happen this cycle.

[patricia]

I would think that the only way that anyone will know what the spread was, no matter who wins the Election will be on November 5 when the votes are tabulated. There will be indications of how the vote is going late on November 4. But, whether the victory for whoever wins is a landslide will depend on who voted for whom.
Considering how ticked the country says they are with the current Republicans, a landslide seemed to be possible for the Democrats when this election cycle started.
Now, other factors seem to have weaseled their way into the mix.
Whether it's admitted or not, race seems to be more of a stumbling block than would have been predicted, at least openly.
When Reagan got his landslide, it was evident that he was going to win, but not by how many votes.
ONE more vote for either side can determine who is President, can't it?
Whether the victory is a bona fide landslide is just an interesting additional thing.

[GoodSpeak]

Are you saying she should have an abortion?

No.


What I am saying is that whole abstinence/no birth control devices policy is a crock of shit.


This isn't just about the pregnancy, Scott...this also involves pre-marital sex. Pro-lifers are pushing a failed agenda and our youth are paying the price.



Family values this ain't.

[patricia]

No.


What I am saying is that whole abstinence/no birth control devices policy is a crock of shit.


This isn't just about the pregnancy, Scott...this also involves pre-marital sex. Pro-lifers are pushing a failed agenda and our youth are paying the price.



Family values this ain't.

Exactly. Anyone who thinks that teenagers will not have sex, particularly if they are in what they think is a committed relationship is living in a different world than exists today.
Of course they will have less casual sex, if their parents raise them to respect themselves.
Interestingly, my kids as teenagers had standards of sexual behaviour for themselves and their friends which were not all that different from what my own parents set.
It is still possible to be thought "easy" or "shop-worn", whether they are girls, OR boys.
I think the addition of boys to the "cheap and easy" column, that being a bad thing is a positive change since I was a teenager.
Matter-of-fact sex education, preferably by the parents, much earlier than in their child's teens, which includes clueing them in to the possibility of disease as well as an unexpected, unplanned pregnancy is not just a good idea.
It's part of raising children responsibly IMO.

[Scott Dolan]

I would think that the only way that anyone will know what the spread was, no matter who wins the Election will be on November 5 when the votes are tabulated. There will be indications of how the vote is going late on November 4. But, whether the victory for whoever wins is a landslide will depend on who voted for whom.

This is an amazing observation.

Either way, this country still remains far too divided for there to be a landslide. Especially with contenders as strong as Obama and McCain running.

[GoodSpeak]

OK.


Now what is your response to the above posts?

[GoodSpeak]

Oh, c'mon, Scott.


Please don't do that attack but don't respond thing again. It really gets to be annoying when you expect, no, demand an answer but refuse to provide one when asked.


What say you?

[Scott Dolan]

What?

What exactly are you wanting me to respond to?

And who did I attack?

[GoodSpeak]

What?

What exactly are you wanting me to respond to?

And who did I attack?

[heaviest of sighs]

Post #48, Scott.


Scroll up a couple, OK?

[Scott Dolan]

Here is post #48:

http://speakeasy.jazzcorner.com/spea...1&postcount=48

Now, again, which questions or points are you wanting me to address?

[Ron Thorne]

Oops . . . [weightiest of farts}

I just pooted. Sorry, folks.

[Scott Dolan]

It happens.

Matter of fact, it reminds me of Mr. Pootz fully living up to his name on the way back from Chicago yesterday.

I had to roll the windows down several times.

[Tom Storer]

This isn't just about the pregnancy, Scott...this also involves pre-marital sex.

Tim, do you think pre-marital sex is wrong?

[Vince Kargatis]

pre-marital sex

Is there another kind?

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

What's quite revealing in this poll (and others like it) is just how liberal the people are who post here and how out of touch you are with main stream Americans.

If the libs here were representative of the country then Obama will get 80% of the popular vote. As of right now it looks like there will be a woman in the White House, and for all the liberal "talk" about "minorities" it's going to be those evil sexist Republicans who do it

Gotta love it!

[walto]

You're right that regular JC voters aren't a random sample of American voters. But the "out of touch" inference doesn't follow. I can be "in touch" with people I disagree with.

[Tom Storer]

Is there another kind?

I can attest that post-marital sex does exist.

[Vince Kargatis]

Interesting!