New Hampshire result

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Politics isn't baseball, or anything close. You can measure how good baseball players are aside from winning and losing, you really can't for politicians (except for perhaps how 'Teflon' they are and how they spin, but that leads to wins).

you couldn't be more wrong... politics are a game, elections are the official results... politicians have certain areas where they can be more skilled and areas where they can be weak.

'Great' politicians who lose to inept politicians are really great and their opponent wasn't really inept. The fact that the 'inept' politician was able to win shows he was better than the 'great' politician.

this would only be true if EVERY ASPECT OF ELECTIONS WAS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF SAID POLITICIANS... there are numerous unpredictable things in the world of politics... a politicians SKILL isn't everything.

so once again Imran is wrong and SAVA IS RIGHT!

[Imran Siddiqui]

you couldn't be more wrong... politics are a game, elections are the official results... politicians have certain areas where they can be more skilled and areas where they can be weak.

And in the end the one who is more skilled at tayloring his message and dealing with spin WILL win.

Unlike baseball, politics is an individual sport. It is likes saying a tennis player that loses to another is better. If he was better, he wouldn't have lost to tennis player B. A can prove if he is a better tennis player by challenging B again and winning. But until that happens...

Look at the 2000 elections, Bush was the better politician. Easily! And that is why he won.

this would only be true if EVERY ASPECT OF ELECTIONS WAS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF SAID POLITICIANS... there are numerous unpredictable things in the world of politics

Dealing with unpredictable things is part of a politician's job. So yes that aspect is under the direct control of the politician - it's called spin.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Put it to you this way, if Clinton lost in 1996, no one would be saying he was a great Presidential politician.

[Ramo]

Not everything clinton said or did was supported by the DLC - he was a VERY pragmatic pol, who did things for political reasons.

I've never heard of anyone on the DLC railing against textile quotas... Who are you thinking of in particular? And anyways, my point was being that the DLC is protectionist in some respects. For instance, agrisubsidies are more significant trade distortions (in the sense of the number of people they screw over) than just about everything else, but the DLC broadly supports them.

Why not the establishment - er, is Ted Kennedy DLC? Is Robert Byrd?? The Dem establishment is much broader than the DLC, and this was true even during the Clinton Presidency.

Fair enough. I was thinking leadership (meaning, death-grip ) when you wrote establishment.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Kucinich and Sharpton are running to try and get their issues aired and discussed. Neither or them think they have, nor did they ever think they had, a shot at winning.

You're both half right. Sharpton is running to get his issues discussed. Kucinich is flagrantly psychotic.

[Guynemer]

He's a member of the brain-eating jockey-gnomes from the "Furious D" episode of The Simpsons.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Look at the 2000 elections, Bush was the better politician. Easily! And that is why he won.

Bush really didn't win the election though, did he? He got appointed because a recount of a vote (that was within the margin of error) was stopped prematurely.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He got appointed because a recount of a vote (that was within the margin of error) was stopped prematurely.

Which would have ended up as a Bush victory if you look at the newspaper recounts.

And yes, he really won.

[Pax]

If politics was a sport it would have to be boxing. Easily rigged. Also it can be made to look like one opponent is the obvious winner until the other collapses.

Nixon was beaten by JFK, making JFK better. RFK was assassinated so we'll never know the outcome of that. I daresay that Nixon would have lost again.

I don't see why people believe that President Bush is undefeatable given the state of current affairs. The same polls that showed Dean ahead of Kerry also showed Bush ahead of them all. So if Kerry beats Dean that proves the polls inaccurate.

Governor Dean has just as much of a record as the former Governor Bush on foreign affairs prior to taking office.

Anyone who feels that Bush is doing a good job is probably going to vote Bush so it makes no sense for these candidates or the democratic party to emulate Bush. It weakens America, the 2 party system, and the voice of the people. We NEED opposition candidates. Who is opposed to Bush. Not Lieberman. So he is out.

The best ticket too beat President Bush would probabably be Kerry/Dean? Whose coming with me?

[mrmitchell]

My thoughts...

Clark, LIE LIE LIE LIE LIEberman, need to drop out and endorse. Well, so do Kucinich and Sharpton, but something tells me they're not really running so much as just being crazy

Thusly we have Kerry, Edwards, and Dean. Edwards will do well in South Carolina (I hope, at least), Kerry will also do nicely, Dean will probably be laughed out of the state.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

He got appointed because a recount of a vote (that was within the margin of error) was stopped prematurely.

Which would have ended up as a Bush victory if you look at the newspaper recounts.

And yes, he really won.

Actually, depending on what standard was used when recounting ballots, including those that were discarded (hanging chads and all that), it could have gone either way. By most standards, Bush would have won, but Gore would have won on a few.

[Imran Siddiqui]

depending on what standard was used when recounting ballots

I'm relying on the standards which were being used in the recount at the time. I think the 'counting all the overvote' standard doesn't matter because that wasn't being used as a standard by anyone in Florida.

[Ramo]

Regardless of whether or not Shrub cheated (which he did ), Gore should have won by a fair margin with the advantages he had going into the race. He was ultimately the crappier politician.

[Capt Dizle]

No northern democrat can beat Bush.

[Ramo]

Democrats don't need the South. We've been over this.