Hillary won't get the nomination

Jarod said:
True, and had Bush won CT you can say the same thing. Had they failed to count all of Texas's votes and only conuted Houston and Dallas's votes Gore would have won TX and thus the presidency!
Click to expand...
But you know that CT was not Bush's home state. Where did Bush, like Gore, gain political power? That was their home state. The one they are expected to win, where they have won before. As to their "not knowing" him, he campaigned there and won a statewide election three times. Once for Senator, twice as VP.

Gore spent almost no time in TN because he thought it was in the bag. It turned out to be a horrible strategy that cost him the election.
 
There are a thousand of "if's" that would have made Gore President, and we can lament over them all day.

The only one that matters to me is that they should have counted all of the votes, and had they done that it would have been President Gore. I personally belive that would have made all the difference. Sure we would have some problems but I dont belive they would be as bad as what we are dealing with currently.
 
Jarod said:
There are a thousand of "if's" that would have made Gore President, and we can lament over them all day.

The only one that matters to me is that they should have counted all of the votes, and had they done that it would have been President Gore. I personally belive that would have made all the difference. Sure we would have some problems but I dont belive they would be as bad as what we are dealing with currently.
Click to expand...

Gore wus an atheist statn worshippr what my preacher told me
 
Damocles said:
Yes you can. Bush had issues with speaking, with experience, certainly hadn't any more Charisma than Gore and was generally a poor candidate. It takes a special amount of bad in a campaign to let him gain as much as he did.
Click to expand...

Bush had MONEY and all the power his name suggests, clearly that is more important than carisma.
 
Jarod said:
There are a thousand of "if's" that would have made Gore President, and we can lament over them all day.

The only one that matters to me is that they should have counted all of the votes, and had they done that it would have been President Gore. I personally belive that would have made all the difference. Sure we would have some problems but I dont belive they would be as bad as what we are dealing with currently.
Click to expand...
I certainly don't 'lament' them. Personally I wish the Rs had an actual strong candidate, that there was no controversy, and that things went differently, but I do not wish that Gore won.
 
Damocles said:
I certainly don't 'lament' them. Personally I wish the Rs had an actual strong candidate, that there was no controversy, and that things went differently, but I do not wish that Gore won.
Click to expand...

Ohhh, do I wish someone had a stronger canidate. The Republicans if not the Democrats, I dont really care which as long as it prevented Bush from becoming president. Had we had a different person, a Clinton, a Bush Sr., a Regan, a Carter, or even a Ford, and we would have been sooooo much better off!
 
Jarod said:
He did chose a bad running mate, and he should have embraced the Clinton legacy not run from it! But you cant call a stragety that got the majority of the votes against a BUSH stupid!
Click to expand...


Yes I can.

If you can't beat an idiot like Bush, you don't deserve to be the President.

Lots of people held their noses to vote for Gore because of his failed strategy and his decision to pick Lieberman and his distancing himself from Clinton and his failure to seriously address his constituency while chasing others.

He could have had a lot more votes than he got.
 
Jarod said:
I belive in this one circumstance the system failed by providing the less qualified person as president, the one a majority of voters did not support. Usually the system works, I am not saying we need to change it. It failed this once.
Click to expand...

Well Jarod, a majority of voters did not vote for Clinton either (in 1992). A majority preferred another candidate (either Perot or Bush). It is not about the majority of voters. It is about the individual selections that each state makes. Some states split their electoral votes... yours can too if you amend your state laws to do so.

Lets start with NY and California shall we? Lets find out how badly Dems want to change to a popular vote. Set the example with CA and NY. Show us the way.
 
Jarod said:
The Gores do not engender the power or the money of the Bushes, come on, dont play dumb.
Click to expand...
They do in Tennessee. His father, then the son were both Senators. The idea that this doesn't matter and they somehow got stupid and couldn't recognize the name on voting day is BS. You are in serious denial. Gore ran a crap campaign. One so crappy that he couldn't even beat a guy that can't speak well or formulate an argument on the fly.
 
Jarod said:
The Gores do not engender the power or the money of the Bushes, come on, dont play dumb.
Click to expand...

A. The Gores were not poor. Don't pretend that they didn't have money.

B. Al Gore Sr. was a longtime member of the House and Senate from the state of Tennessee so you cannot say the Gores did not have power.

Bill Clinton came from limited money and no family power. Al Gore did not.
 
Superfreak said:
Well Jarod, a majority of voters did not vote for Clinton either (in 1992). A majority preferred another candidate (either Perot or Bush). It is not about the majority of voters. It is about the individual selections that each state makes. Some states split their electoral votes... yours can too if you amend your state laws to do so.

Lets start with NY and California shall we? Lets find out how badly Dems want to change to a popular vote. Set the example with CA and NY. Show us the way.
Click to expand...

Unlike Gore, Bush I didn't get a plurality of votes and lose.

People should vote for president, not states. You shouldn't give the majority in a state the ability to cast the votes of the minority in the state.
 
Jarod said:
He did chose a bad running mate, and he should have embraced the Clinton legacy not run from it! But you cant call a stragety that got the majority of the votes against a BUSH stupid!
Click to expand...

You most certainly can call it stupid, because he should have been able to win the electoral votes he needed with ease. But instead he took an easy win and turned it into a close race. One in which he lost.
 
Superfreak said:
Well Jarod, a majority of voters did not vote for Clinton either (in 1992). A majority preferred another candidate (either Perot or Bush). It is not about the majority of voters. It is about the individual selections that each state makes. Some states split their electoral votes... yours can too if you amend your state laws to do so.

Lets start with NY and California shall we? Lets find out how badly Dems want to change to a popular vote. Set the example with CA and NY. Show us the way.
Click to expand...

True, but more voted for the winner than any other canidate. But in 2000 more voted for the looser than any other canidate.
 
Jarod said:
True, but more voted for the winner than any other canidate. But in 2000 more voted for the looser than any other canidate.
Click to expand...

Perot was also a more balanced candidate

We can pretty much assume that Perot took Democrat and Republican votes almost equally. Nader only took Democratic votes.
 
Darla said:
I really don't think that you understand what happened in the 90's. But in order to understand it, you'd have to face it, and you're not going to do that.

So, let's just keep it to today. Rudy will not win NY, nor will any republican presidential candidate. Home states are no longer relevant. They were in the 70's, 80's, and part of the 90's, but it is in the 90's when that began to change. So I guess you can keep saying carter carter carte carter, but, this is the year 2007.

Rudy will not win his home state if he is nominee. And somehow, I doubt that would make you feel better about the democrats stealing Florida. I don't think we'd see you on here claiming that if only Rudy could have won his home state, it wouldn't matter what the dems did in Florida.
Click to expand...

You are 100% correct. The rules of the game have changed. Romney wouldn't win Mass., either if he got the GOP nomination. But, nobody is talking about Rudy or Romney not being able to win their homestates, as being a non-starter as far as getting nominated.

The electoral map, and the polarization of the country is different than 30 years ago, as you pointed out. Gore could have spent money and time trying to win tennessee. But, florida was the prize.

And if all the ballots had been counted in florida, and if Nader weren't in the race, Gore would have, at a minimum, won Florida and new Hamphire. Putting him close to 300 Electoral College votes; Bush would have had around 245 EC votes. Not exactly a blowout, but a comfortable margin of victory for Gore in the EC.
 
Damocles said:
They do in Tennessee. His father, then the son were both Senators. The idea that this doesn't matter and they somehow got stupid and couldn't recognize the name on voting day is BS. You are in serious denial. Gore ran a crap campaign. One so crappy that he couldn't even beat a guy that can't speak well or formulate an argument on the fly.
Click to expand...

I agree he could have run a better campaign, I think he would have won hands down had he embraced President Clinton and not shuned him. I agree he would had done better to have chosen a better running mate. But none of that related, at least to me, about what kind of president he would have been. Had Carl Rove never gotten into politics, Gore would have won. As I said we can lament many many factors.

Gore may not have ever been a GREAT president, but he would not have been worse than Bush. Gore would have been a compitent president. Bush has likely been the worse in at least the last 50 years.
 
Cypress said:
You are 100% correct. The rules of the game have changed. Romney wouldn't win Mass., either if he got the GOP nomination. But, nobody is talking about Rudy or Romney not being able to win their homestates, as being a non-starter as far as getting nominated.

The electoral map, and the polarization of the country is different than 30 years ago, as you pointed out. Gore could have spent money and time trying to win tennessee. But, florida was the prize.

And if all the ballots had been counted in florida, and if Nader weren't in the race, Gore would have, at a minimum, won Florida and new Hamphire. Putting him close to 300 Electoral College votes; Bush would have had around 245 EC votes. Not exactly a blowout, but a comfortable margin of victory for Gore in the EC.
Click to expand...

Had Jesus came down and used divine intervention Gore would have won.

Gore lost because of Gore .. it's just as simple as that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top