blackascoal
The Force is With Me
It says Diebold.
Obama didn't know how he'd vote on Iraq in 2004
- Thread starter WRL
- Start date
It says Diebold.
Rubbish, a good candidate would have never gotten close enough for such supposed cheating to make a difference. If not, then there is no reason to hold this election. Bush will win anyway...
Those of us who know something about history, said Bush was one of the worst presidents ever in 2004. But, bush still had approval ratings around 50% in 2004, so many americans had not yet concluded just how horrible bush was.
These days, its only the bitter dead-enders - the 29% who approve of him - who are clinging to the laughable rhetoric that Bush couldn't be any worse than Gore or Kerry.
It says infinitely more about how incredibly stupid our electorate is.
I had a million problems with Kerry, but on competence alone, he was light years ahead of Bush. The fact that Bush is a 2-termer, and also arguably the worst President in our history, tells you everything you need to know about the American electorate.
They were down as low as 43% during that year and barely rose above 50% in November. The swing happened as people learned more about Kerry. Amazing, huh?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Rubbish, a good candidate would have never gotten close enough for such supposed cheating to make a difference. If not, then there is no reason to hold this election. Bush will win anyway...
I agree with that .. however, it was Diebold that put Bush over the top.
Kerry isn't the only one who must share the blame .. all the democrats talking that ABB (Anybody but Bush) stupidity must also toe the line.
Approval ratings are individual; they are not "in comparison to the competition."
Any old hoo - you were behind the curve on that one. It took you quite a few years to understand what I knew immediately after the 1st Bush/Gore debate....
You think more people liked Bush, because Kerry got swiftboated? I don't think bush's approval numbers changed much at all - outside the statistical margin of error - through the 2004 campaign season.
You're clinging to the fact that kerry couldn't beat bush. Bush is one of the worst ever, no matter if kerry beat him or not. Nixon surely was worse than either Humphrey or McGovern. But, they couldn't beat the criminal nixon.
I get the impression you're glad that Bush beat Kerry.
Yet, as it was an election year they were in comparison. It is preposterous to suggest otherwise. In fact, as November rolled around Bush got exactly what his approval ratings were as percentage of vote.
When have I suggested otherwise? I simply point out that your candidate sucked so much he couldn't beat the "worst ever".
And had it been close in CO, I probably would have held my nose and voted for Bush over Kerry. Thankfully I didn't have to. And that does suggest I think somebody dumber than Bush would have done worse than Bush, especiallysomebody with even more liberal policies along with all that dumb.
WRL
Well...the right is right
Wow, how did this thread turn from Obama wavering over how he'd vote for Iraq from an 02 speech decrying the war, to an 04 confession, he wasn't sure how he'd vote, back to decrying the war, in 07.
Barack Obmama is a blank page, he hasn't even finished his first term, and he's already gotten the most liberal ranking in the Senate, that's farther left than Ted Kennedy, he's has no record, a true blank page, and what is there isn't very pretty, drugs, waivering on issues of war and peace, extreme leftism/socialism, when he actually took a position, instead of just voting 'present' which is few and far between.
It's 2004 all over again, dims selecting the best sounding candidate, not bothering to vet his record, and ignoring their most electable...
Barack Obmama is a blank page, he hasn't even finished his first term, and he's already gotten the most liberal ranking in the Senate, that's farther left than Ted Kennedy, he's has no record, a true blank page, and what is there isn't very pretty, drugs, waivering on issues of war and peace, extreme leftism/socialism, when he actually took a position, instead of just voting 'present' which is few and far between.
It's 2004 all over again, dims selecting the best sounding candidate, not bothering to vet his record, and ignoring their most electable...
