Bush's approval rating drops To 34 % in California

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben. That avatar is awful

Go back to your roots, Master Kenobi.

Oh, this won't stay up for a long time, but it is a very appropriate avatar considering the championship win for the Spurs.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Oh, this won't stay up for a long time, but it is a very appropriate avatar considering the championship win for the Spurs.

Please save one of mine. The MacGregor one would look good on you. It just isn't right to have you sporting a non-Jedi avatar – it puts the force out of balance.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm trying to do the math to see if they actually take into account that 1/3 of his support does not come into play,

Nearly equally is a big difference than precisely equal. Where's the percentage Boris? In this sort of thing, the percentages make a significant factor, as does the assumption that the Perot vote splits equally in every state. We don't know whether a significant amount of the dem support for Perot was concentrated in urban areas, (a reasonable assumption), while the republican support for Perot was spread out in rural areas across the country.

So saying half of the total Perot democratic vote ends up in NY and in California, means that Perot's republican support cost Bush the election.

Apparently you didn't actually bother to read the analysis.

He lists all the states that Clinton won that could have shifted to Bush without Perot, and Clinton still wins:

Analysis: Perot's vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bush's victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry, particularly before some of the partisan shifts that took place later in the 1990s ñ Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257. But such a result obviously would have made the race a good deal closer.

[notyoueither]

It is sort of strange that Clinton won so convincingly, twice, and that Perot popped up in both his wins.

While when left without Perot, Gore and then the moron got shot down in flames to... no Eisenhower.

[notyoueither]

Correction, Gore didn't get shot down in flames, but he still lost... to Shrub.

[Ben Kenobi]

Uh, Boris, if you read my posts I read the analysis. I quoted the same section you quote including the caveats.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wrong again. Of course, anyone who knows a thing about politics knows that would be irrelevent even if it were true, since Kerry and Clinton are very different candidates.

And Bush Jr is a war president, and pwns Bush Sr. Just because Clinton could beat Bush Sr. in peacetime, doesn't mean that he is going to retain the 53 percent, even including the percentage alotted from Perot, against Bush Jr.

Kerry did well to get 48% percent against Bush in 2004, also accounting for population growth, and the increase in voter turnout. To suggest that Clinton could have done better than Kerry is far from certain, given the political climate. After all, it was said well before that Clinton made a good peacetime president, and a poor wartime one.

Clinton in 1996: 49.2%
Kerry in 2004: 48%

Ah, I didn't think he was quite that high in 1996. You are quite right Boris and I have to amend my statement.

How convenient that you've forgotten the Perot factor this time, after I showed that he drew evenly from each candidate.

All things considered, since Shrub did beat the Gore/Leiberman ticket in peacetime, I don't see Clinton winning in wartime.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

You're not putting enough stock into the man that is Bill Clinton.

Wartime or Peacetime, he will own GWB not only on policies and knowing the facts (Like Kerry did), he'll also win over the crowd BIG time.

GWB wouldn't come close to Clinton in any of the debates they'd have.

Plus, by the time 2008 roles around, if we're still in Iraq, there's no way the wartime president (who, btw, started the war) would win.

And I feel, personally, that Rove would be in a quagmire. How much personal **** can he dig up that we don't already know?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
But then you have to consider our own political culture.

Glass houses are not good launch platforms for stones.

Either Harper or Martin (or Chretien, for that matter) would wipe the floor with Bush or Kerry in a debate...

[KrazyHorse]

Clinton or Nixon might give them a run for their money, though.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Clinton or Nixon might give them a run for their money, though.

Kennedy would eat them all alive. I understand he was just a debating machine and few people could best him when he was in proper form. I mean Nixon was known as a good debator but Kennedy still handled him fairly well.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Either Harper or Martin (or Chretien, for that matter) would wipe the floor with Bush or Kerry in a debate...

They are not the only parts of the culture.

Used to be a PM could lose an election by defending a round of patronage appointments in a debate and getting labeled with it.

Now? Now the PM can be a thief leading a thieving party and his poll numbers stay quite healthy. The poll numbers of the people who want to get the thieves into an election are the ones that plummet.

We shouldn't be giving any lectures for a while.

[KrazyHorse]

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Kennedy would eat them all alive. I understand he was just a debating machine and few people could best him when he was in proper form. I mean Nixon was known as a good debator but Kennedy still handled him fairly well.

That's not what the people who listened to the radio said, from what I heard.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Is that a Mexican siesta you are undertaking?