| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Jessie Ventura | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 11 2003, 05:59 PM (418 Views) | |
| nztrekkie | Nov 12 2003, 06:01 PM Post #16 |
|
Lieutenant
|
take a chill pill bill.......(i should be a poet).....if it's all getting too much for you, you can redeem yourself by door knocking for Dean next year.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 12 2003, 06:20 PM Post #17 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Stop trying to troll on this board, NZ... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 12 2003, 07:10 PM Post #18 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
What? Like remedial voting classes for Floridians?
In reality NZ, the Republican experience in Florida had very little to do with the recall in California. I am also not really jumping on the band wagon that the GOP has a prayer here at this point. In the recent recall of Govenor Davis you have to take into account a variety of factors that turned most moderate Democrats against him and some Liberal Democrats as well. Truthfully, he won reelection a year ago by virtue of the fact that his opponent (businessman Bill Simon) coincidentally ran into a whole herd of legal troubles with his business ventures during the election. That and the fact that in the gubenatorial primaries former Los Angeles Mayor (and staunch friend of Ahhhhnold) Richard Riordan was seen as too moderate by conservative Republicans. He got slammed by Davis and Simon in the primaries then. If the Republican voters and party had been smart enough then to realize that their best hope of defeating Davis then was to run Riordan instead of Simon, most of LA would have gone to Riordan in the General Election. What you ended up with a few months after Davis' reelection was a lot of people snapping their heads up from their tables all of sudden and screaming "MY GOD! WHAT HAVE I DONE?" So, Davis is faced with a recall and runs hard to the left. He signs two critical pieces of legislation that really irritate people: (1) A bill to triple vehicle registration fees, and (2) A bill that will grant illegal aliens the opportunity to get a legal California Driver's License. What were the results? The first bill hits core work-a-day Democrats right in the wallet. The second tells a whole bunch of recent immigrants that it does not matter whether they are a citizen or not (some folks don't realize it was this second bill that really hurt Davis with the Latino vote). So, to come back to point, taking all of the preceding into account a great many political strategists suddenly think California is automatically in play for the approaching Presidential election. While it is possible, I do not believe it is likely. It might mean that the GOP will not automatically write-off the Golden State they way the did with Clinton's and Gore's campaigns. Remember, too, that Gore carried California in 2000 and still lost. The Democrats know they need California to win, so they will not assume anything about where its loyalties lie. The Dems are just going to have to work that much harder in states that are in play this time round... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Nov 12 2003, 08:04 PM Post #19 |
|
Lieutenant
|
well thanks for an informative post - the "is California significant" question is simply one that to me, irrespective of to what the real issues are/were, both parties badly want to win, and probably think they can win, California. In recent days Bush has been trying to cast himself is the light of Ron Reagan remember ! I beleive the GOP now knows it is in trouble and is taking EVERY opportunity, of their own making or not, to get relected. Because they know that to lose in 04 would be the most humiliating defeat for a President since 1933, or even before, maybe ever ! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 12 2003, 08:10 PM Post #20 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
It's still a bit early to say that the GOP figures it's in trouble. President Bush's poll numbers have been compared lately not only to Reagan's in '84 but to Clinton's in '96. A better barometer will be spring of next year as the Democratic candidates shake loose (that should start around February at the latest). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Nov 12 2003, 08:14 PM Post #21 |
|
Lieutenant
|
I think you just highlighted what separates the old style "real" politicians, of which Clinton was a recent example, from the more typically modern, "poll every question" numbers driven type today. The numbers may not say the GOP is in trouble, but I think the "gut feeling" types think it is and have for months been trying to stem the fall out. The 04 election will be no less close than 00, which would be a "moral loss" anyway, IMHO. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 12 2003, 08:26 PM Post #22 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Your gut feeling... hang on while I wipe away the tears of laughter. Are you sure that your gut feeling isn't just desperation? I hate to pee on your campfire, boy, but the '04 election will be a Bush landslide win. It is 1984 all over again (no, not in the Orwellian sense). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Nov 12 2003, 08:37 PM Post #23 |
|
Lieutenant
|
sorry bill, I just couldn't let another one go by......... that particular prediction is now proudly on my wall waiting for Nov 04. BTW - just so I know, you don't consider the 2000 election a landslide do you ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 12 2003, 08:37 PM Post #24 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Respectfully, NZ, I disagree. I think due to where the the pll numbers are the Democrats are feeling comfortable and the Republicans are well aware they will not have the cake-walk they hoped to have. (As an interesting aside, just as I went to post this--- I got polled! Though it was on healthcare issue and labor unions. Think I might have tip their scale slightly to the right
)
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Nov 12 2003, 08:41 PM Post #25 |
|
Lieutenant
|
Ha ! there you go ! so what is the thought about Florida this time round ? how can the Reps win if they lose California, Florida and NY ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 12 2003, 08:44 PM Post #26 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
^^^ Last I heard on Florida was that it is thought to be in play but leaning in the direction of Bush. Again, wait until the spring after Super Tuesday and so on; then I'll let you know if I am worried... <_<
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Nov 12 2003, 08:46 PM Post #27 |
|
Lieutenant
|
did you see bills election prediction ???? :lol: I think Florida must go Dem this time surely ?????? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 12 2003, 08:53 PM Post #28 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Yes, I saw Admiralbill's prediction. And to add to it a bit, I have the NBC Nightly News on in the background as I sit here. They had their "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert on discussing things Presidential politic (He used to work for retired Democrat NY Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan) reminding everyone about the Reagan/Clinton comparison and that President Bush Sr. was polling very good at this point of the game. Incidentally, the latest polls on economy are starting to show the President climbing again (this may not be good news if we are going to use recent election cycles as a barometer
)
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Nov 12 2003, 09:43 PM Post #29 |
|
Unregistered
|
Hi, nztrekkie. re: Florida - with any luck, yes. But I think things were looking better for the Democrats 6 months ago than they are now (everywhere - not just Florida). The Democrats themselves deserve a lot of the blame for their own troubles - but President Bush also deserves part of the blame (or credit, I guess). Since I feel so strongly about helping President Bush enjoy an early retirement, I've been leaning toward voting for the Democratic candidate (ordinarily I won't vote for anyone in either of the two major political parties). I could and probably would vote for someone like Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerry, General Clark or Governor Dean. But if the Democrats run with Congressman Gephardt, I'll certainly vote for the Green Party candidate. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 12 2003, 10:03 PM Post #30 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
No, 2000 wasn't a landslide, [INSULT DELETED BY 38957]. You just can't handle it, can you? [ANOTHER MEAN STATEMENT DELETED BY 38957]. Florida will go strongly for Bush in 2004. That mistake won't be made twice. Other "swing states" that went for Gore that will most likely go for Bush: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa. That's 67 electoral votes right there. Another possibility is Michigan (an additional 18 votes). The swing states that went for Bush that could swing Democrat: Missouri. 11 electoral votes). A lot of this has to do with party affiliation. There are a greater percentage of people who define themselves as "Republican" than "Democrat" in 2003. In 2000, 28% defined themselves as Republicans. In 2003, the number is 34%. In both 2000 and 2003, 33% defined themselves as Democrats. Republicans are more likely to vote in any election. So, let's run some numbers: 271 plus 67 equals 338 electoral votes (or 356 including Michigan. 338 minus 11 = 327 (or 345 including Michigan). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:14 PM Jul 11