The Real Sarah Palin

Damocles said:
What? Lose? Or do you forget the ending of that little silliness?
Click to expand...

No! Absolutely not! I all ready made that point. The VP's (and their debates) are largely irrelevant. Lloyd Bentsen beat Quayle like a rented plow mule and his ticket still lost. Why? Cause no one gives a shit about the Veeps there voting for the top of the ticket.
 
Mottleydude said:
No! Absolutely not! I all ready made that point. The VP's (and their debates) are largely irrelevant. Lloyd Bentsen beat Quayle like a rented plow mule and his ticket still lost. Why? Cause no one gives a shit about the Veeps there voting for the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...

Ahh but the debate with Palin will be THE debate of the last 100 years!

Man all this Palinmania is funny.
Pitiful too actually.
 
On the other hand look what Clinton did to Bush in their debate. This episode here probably clinched Clintons election. It was masterful and brilliant.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta_SFvgbrlY&feature=related"]YouTube - Clinton's Debate Moment[/ame]
 
Mottleydude said:
No! Absolutely not! I all ready made that point. The VP's (and their debates) are largely irrelevant. Lloyd Bentsen beat Quayle like a rented plow mule and his ticket still lost. Why? Cause no one gives a shit about the Veeps there voting for the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...
Yup. But something seems to have shifted here. It seems that all the attention is on one veep. Its getting annoying actually.
 
and here's another one. Technically Carter had all his ducks lined up on this issue and when you see how the problem has escalated to today he seems down right prescient. But a one liner from Ronnie shot him down like a one winged duck![ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9y5-Vo61w"]YouTube - Ronald Reagan:There You Go Again[/ame]
 
Damocles said:
What clinched Clinton's election was Perot. I do not believe Clinton would have beat Bush without Perot.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. That's all ready been disproved time and time again. I voted for Bush in 88 and became alienated with him as an out of touch blue blood. I didn't buy into Clinton as a centrist ( I was wrong) but had all ready made up my mind to vote for him when Perot entered the picture. I now deeply regret supporting Perot and not voting for Clinton.

Point being, many a poll was done on Perot supporters and showed they were split down the middle between supporting either Bush or Clinton if Perot weren't running as most Perot supporters were moderates and independents.

Bush lost to Clinton because he was out of touch with the base of his party (as his son learned oh so well) and the American public in general where as this clip shows just how in touch Clinton was.

Perot was as responsible for Bush 1's defeat about as much as Nader caused Gore's defeat.
 
Damocles said:
Definitely. A calculated risk. It either makes or breaks him.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree. He's still behind in the electoral college count and if recent history is any indicator, that's not good for him and his post convention bounce is at it's peak right about now and will probably decline back to preconvention levels. If that occurs. Then Obama will win. But what the hell. What did he have to lose by selecting Palin? If he'd of chosen Guilliani, Ridge, Lieberman, Romney, etc, he'd lose for certain. The only person comparable to Palin would have been Bobby Jindahl and I personally think Palin's a better choice than Jindahl.
 
Mottleydude said:
I pretty much agree. He's still behind in the electoral college count and if recent history is any indicator, that's not good for him and his post convention bounce is at it's peak right about now and will probably decline back to preconvention levels. If that occurs. Then Obama will win. But what the hell. What did he have to lose by selecting Palin? If he'd of chosen Guilliani, Ridge, Lieberman, Romney, etc, he'd lose for certain. The only person comparable to Palin would have been Bobby Jindahl and I personally think Palin's a better choice than Jindahl.
Click to expand...
Or Ron Paul. That would have been as stunning. And Palin is definitely a better choice than Jihndal.
 
Mottleydude said:
Nonsense. That's all ready been disproved time and time again. I voted for Bush in 88 and became alienated with him as an out of touch blue blood. I didn't buy into Clinton as a centrist ( I was wrong) but had all ready made up my mind to vote for him when Perot entered the picture. I now deeply regret supporting Perot and not voting for Clinton.

Point being, many a poll was done on Perot supporters and showed they were split down the middle between supporting either Bush or Clinton if Perot weren't running as most Perot supporters were moderates and independents.

Bush lost to Clinton because he was out of touch with the base of his party (as his son learned oh so well) and the American public in general where as this clip shows just how in touch Clinton was.

Perot was as responsible for Bush 1's defeat about as much as Nader caused Gore's defeat.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the way that they have been read, and it wasn't exactly equal down the middle and only among those who said they voted Perot. Many voted Perot and didn't tell people that they did. It isn't like you could check and just call the people that voted Perot.

I think that the election would have been mighty close, because Bush was "out of touch" with his base. (read my lips) But I think Bush would have got himself a second term, just barely without Perot.
 
Damocles said:
I disagree with the way that they have been read, and it wasn't exactly equal down the middle and only among those who said they voted Perot. Many voted Perot and didn't tell people that they did. It isn't like you could check and just call the people that voted Perot.

I think that the election would have been mighty close, because Bush was "out of touch" with his base. (read my lips) But I think Bush would have got himself a second term, just barely without Perot.
Click to expand...

and Gore would have won if Nader hadn't run. Sorry that's just not true and there's no way of knowing for certain. Bush lost on his own merits and because Clinton ran a better campaign and Gore lost....oh wait.....Gore didn't lose.....SCOTUS appointed Bush President.
 
Mottleydude said:
and Gore would have won if Nader hadn't run. Sorry that's just not true and there's no way of knowing for certain. Bush lost on his own merits and because Clinton ran a better campaign and Gore lost....oh wait.....Gore didn't lose.....SCOTUS appointed Bush President.
Click to expand...
You agree that there is really no way to know. I can live with that. I believe that Clinton would have lost without Perot, but cannot prove it, you believe that Clinton would have won regardless and can't prove it.

One thing is certain. Perot's 16% of the vote is far more significant than Nader's 4%.
 
Damocles said:
You agree that there is really no way to know. I can live with that. I believe that Clinton would have lost without Perot, but cannot prove it, you believe that Clinton would have won regardless and can't prove it.

One thing is certain. Perot's 16% of the vote is far more significant than Nader's 4%.
Click to expand...

Hmm I was either voting for Perot or Clinton and chose Perot.
Not all Perot votes would have been for the repub.
 
uscitizen said:
Hmm I was either voting for Perot or Clinton and chose Perot.
Not all Perot votes would have been for the repub.
Click to expand...
Which was a point made earlier, however more of Perot's vote were taken from the Rs than there were from Clinton.

I was going to vote Perot, until he made up the frogs at the wedding story and quit. But that is not any more significant to my point than your addition here is.
 
Damocles said:
Which was a point made earlier, however more of Perot's vote were taken from the Rs than there were from Clinton.

I was going to vote Perot, until he made up the frogs at the wedding story and quit. But that is not any more significant to my point than your addition here is.
Click to expand...

Ohh Mr. Administrator, do try and make my contribution feel welcome ;)
:cry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top