bush's approval rating were around 50%, and he had the advantage of a war time incumbent.
At that point, he wasn't among the least popular presidents ever. For some strange reason, there were still tons of people who thought he was doing a good job.
Kerry won't run
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
bush's approval rating were around 50%, and he had the advantage of a war time incumbent.
At that point, he wasn't among the least popular presidents ever. For some strange reason, there were still tons of people who thought he was doing a good job.
His ratings were barely 50% at the time of the election, before the election there were periods where his approval rating was below that. He was definitely the least popular sitting war President since LBJ.
Likely Bush would loose his home state today.
Damo you are being disingenous. You know that it was a political miscalculation that Gore lost Tenneessee. First of all he had been the senator from Tenneessee, but he had not lived in the state for many years. our senators, Nelson and Matrtinez are from Florida but I have no personal knoledge of them anymore than I do about Bush or Kerry or Gore for that matter.
When you are running for presidnent and you are spending your time and resources, if the race is very tight, you are tempted to take your home state for granted. Gore did just that and did not spend money or campaign in Tenneessee. Bush did spend lots of money and campaigned in Tenneessee. It was a political miscalculation on Gore's part and says nuthing about the man.
You are really showing a sharpe edge lately against democrats that you did not used to have. What gives?
Damo you are being disingenous. You know that it was a political miscalculation that Gore lost Tenneessee. First of all he had been the senator from Tenneessee, but he had not lived in the state for many years. our senators, Nelson and Matrtinez are from Florida but I have no personal knoledge of them anymore than I do about Bush or Kerry or Gore for that matter.
When you are running for presidnent and you are spending your time and resources, if the race is very tight, you are tempted to take your home state for granted. Gore did just that and did not spend money or campaign in Tenneessee. Bush did spend lots of money and campaigned in Tenneessee. It was a political miscalculation on Gore's part and says nuthing about the man.
You are really showing a sharpe edge lately against democrats that you did not used to have. What gives?
You are being disingenuous. You have far more information about the Senators in Florida than I do. Mostly because I don't vote for them, hence do not educate myself about them. However, I do know that coming from a state gives you a boost in the polls of that state, it takes something more real than imagined to get people not to vote for somebody from that state.
It is clear that you want to defend him, that you want me to believe that it was some sort of oddity, but it isn't. People in Tennessee know more about him, and had reason not to vote for him for President. Therefore, because the people he previously represented that know of him rejected him he did not easily become President as he would if those same people he represented voted for him.
That he was VP for 8 years doesn't change the fact that previous to that he represented the people in Tennessee so poorly that they decided not to vote again for him to represent them.
As for the "sharp edge" we have started talking on topics we haven't for a while, I simply reiterate my stance that I had before. And I'll bet you a ton that Texas would vote for Bush again...
My sharp edge is against the apologists, those who cannot see anything wrong with somebody with a D by their name. Nothing to say against them, who pretend that it doesn't matter that Al Gore's original state, whom he previously represented, rejected further representation by that same person and because of that he is not President. Had he won that state, like almost all people who were President before have won their home state, Florida would have been a moot point.
I think it is silly to base a presidental decision on if his home state supported him or not. Especally if the guy had been through three national elections and been vetted nationwide.
He won an election how many times to the Tenneessee Senate?
Bush did not win Connectectut.. He was born there!
He won an election how many times to the Tenneessee Senate?
Bush did not win Connectectut.. He was born there!
It would be silly, especially since I wouldn't know until after the election was over. It clearly wasn't what I based my decision on. It is just one way that I can better understand why he wasn't elected to begin with. Had he won his home state, the reality is we wouldn't be talking about President Bush.
He may have been born in Connecticut but in reality he was Governor of Texas, he won twice there. The people he represented before clearly wanted him to continue to represent them.
uscitizen
Villified User
He may have been born in Connecticut but in reality he was Governor of Texas, he won twice there. The people he represented before clearly wanted him to continue to represent them.
//
Correct, but I am not so sure he could win again there .
As I said before , a lot has happened since then...
//
Correct, but I am not so sure he could win again there .
As I said before , a lot has happened since then...
Right, they might, given the choice, decide to vote against the person that represented them, just as those people in Tennessee did.
Except he didn't. To all intents and purposes, the state in which he was Governor would be his home state.
Tennessee had Gore as Senator, he represented those people. Those he had previously represented rejected him. In Bush's case, those he had previously represented not only accepted him, but did it overwhelmingly, twice. Kerry or Gore didn't have a chance in Texas, had Gore had the same advantage the election would never have been decided by a few hundred votes in Florida.
You can pretend otherwise, but the places where the two represented people, who knew the most about them, rejected the one and voted for the other. The result wasn't happy for you, but they were real. Those who knew the most about Gore simply didn't want him, they voted for the other guy.
Tennessee had Gore as Senator, he represented those people. Those he had previously represented rejected him. In Bush's case, those he had previously represented not only accepted him, but did it overwhelmingly, twice. Kerry or Gore didn't have a chance in Texas, had Gore had the same advantage the election would never have been decided by a few hundred votes in Florida.
You can pretend otherwise, but the places where the two represented people, who knew the most about them, rejected the one and voted for the other. The result wasn't happy for you, but they were real. Those who knew the most about Gore simply didn't want him, they voted for the other guy.
Congress. However at that point he had not represented them before and is therefore an anecdotal story but not a match to the current subject.
Except he had never represented anybody in an office at that point. As I said to Uscit, it really adds no value other than as an anecdotal event.
The place that Bush represented voted for him, the place that Gore represented would not vote for him. Those who they represented and knew best rejected one, accepted the other.
The home-state advantage is huge. In almost every case, the one who gets the job also wins their home state. Shoot, in almost every case the one who doesn't also wins his home state.
uscitizen
Villified User
ROTFLMAO, Just ignore the man behind the curtain
different party different rules Jarod
Not even. I have stayed on topic from the beginning. My point was that the people that Gore had directly represented voted against him, the people that Bush directly represented voted for him. And that while running for President people tend to vote for the guy from their state. Look at past results.ROTFLMAO, Just ignore the man behind the curtain
different party different rules Jarod
I believe that the people in Tennessee, having voted for him before, had reason to reject him later. And I know for a fact that if he won his home state, 25 Electoral votes, Florida, 25 Electoral votes, would not have mattered even a little...
ROTFLMAO, Just ignore the man behind the curtain
different party different rules Jarod
Damo did not used to be like that!