The OFFICIAL United States Presidential Election Thread! III

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
Yes, they do, lightblue. On the other hand, the red states provide a much higher proportion of soldiers than do the blue states, for instance.

Maybe as a percentage of population but with big population states like California, New York, and Illinois in the blue column I bet we'd see the absolte numbers pretty close.

[Ming]

Originally posted by DanS
Personally, I thought Kerry ran a competent campaign. If the democrats made a mistake, it was in nominating a Northeast liberal in the first place. How can a northeast liberal expect to carry some place like Columbus or Cincinnati? Not saying it can't be done, but it's a real uphill battle. Dean would have suffered the same fate. Northeast liberal.

Kerry's campaign was weak.
Picking Edwards was the first mistake. Here is a guy who probably would have had a problem getting reelected in his home state. The VP choice is supposed to bring something to the table, and the Dems picked somebody who couldn't even deliver his home state.

They knew what the battle ground states were going to be... their VP choice should have been somebody who could have delivered one of them.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

The Democratic attempt to reinstitute the Draft is dead as a doornail now.

I think even the MTV crowd is/was not stupid enough to fall for that Democrat ploy -- the Dems introducing Conscription legislation and, then pointing to it, saying Bush is going to bring back the draft.

[Q Classic]

i thought daschle was from the dakotas?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ned


Let me understand, Oerdin. Radical leftwinger activists the Democrats have traditionally nominated do NOT count as partisan nominations?

Daschle and his Senate co-conspirators have hamstrung judicial appointments for four years. Who is partisan? Who?

My God, not even the people of Wyoming could be mislead by the leftist propaganda anymore and threw that partisan hack out of office.

Ned this is the second time you've reworded my responses to Oerdin.

Stop it! Stop it now!

[Ned]

Originally posted by PLATO
The time is drawing near for us all to try and reach some reconciliation on the issues. Let's look for common ground. There are things that I don't support Bush on and I am sure if the 'Poly Libs look hard enough they can find something to support him on.

I think the left has to get real.

I also think the Jewish vote is woefully misguided by voting 3-1 in favor of Kerry. Jewish interests lie solidly with the Republican Party.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Kontiki


That would have been a neat trick, considering he was running in South Dakota.

He would probably have had a better shot at reelection in another state though.

[Q Classic]

actually, the only two things i'm really sad about in this election are:

1. no third party got the 5% (a pipe dream i know, but STFU anyway...)
2. so many anti-gay marriage amendments passed.

honestly, i don't care if bush or kerry got into power, since i personally think they're both tools and wouldn't have done that much different.

[Q Classic]

He would probably have had a better shot at reelection in another state though.

except he's not quite the carpetbagger keyes was.

add a third disappointment to this election.

3. keyes broke 25%.

[DanS]

Kerry's campaign was weak.

I thought it was very competent. He brought out his vote. He bested Bush in the debates (which is a function of your campaign). He kept on the offensive. He had strong fundraising. They countered Bush claims within a half hour always while it often took the Bush campaign a day or more.

Except... Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. That was the only big mistake. I don't think that decided the election though. The big numbers came out in Ohio for Bush because of social issues. Gay marriage and the gay national agenda. Abortion. Fetal stem cell research. These kinds of issues really get people wound up in Central and Southern Ohio. They feel like the liberal northeast is force-feeding them values with which they don't agree. Think the 8:00 TV family hour, not the 6:00 news hour.

[Ned]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


I'm not a liberal, asshat. I just have enough intelligence to realize that Bush is an incompetent pea brain.

Jimmy, that tells you a lot about the issues, does it not? The Dems are way out there on social issues compared to the bulk of the American electorate.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight


Yep, it's funny how you keep on using the same lines over and over. It's really funny how you just completely ignored the fact that Bush scored higher than Kerry and simply said that "it's obvious he's a moron". Again, you wonder why you people lose so badly all the time?

No, its not Bush's fault, its the fault of everyone who voted for him. The problem is the US is one of the only countries in the world that votes politically based on "moral" issues. Its a disgrace, these people need to get out of the stone age.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

No, we're good at bombing people into the stone age, not at getting anyone out of one.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
I think Dean was vindicated by this whole process. Kerry should've been going after Dear Leader on Iraq the entire time, not just a month and a half before the election. Comeback Kerry, I **** on you.

Ramo, you really don't get it do you?

[Q Classic]

Religion and morals are not interchangable. Islam is a good example of that...

I'm surprised nobody's commented on this.

I will, however, feed the troll: While Islam is a "good example" of religion and morals not being interchangeable, Islam itself is not the problem. The problem is with Muslim Imams who twist the words of Allah and the faith of their believers into doing despicable things.

Not unlike some Christian fundamentalists both here and abroad. Perhaps not to the same extent, but don't try to paint it as the religion's fault.