Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Even repugs admit Clinton would have won over Bush in 2000!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
LittleApple81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 06:44 PM
Original message
Even repugs admit Clinton would have won over Bush in 2000!
Edited on Mon Nov-03-03 06:57 PM by LittleApple81
If Clinton had been able to run in 2000, even repugs admit he would have won over Bush! That was too funny. (I watched "Conservatism and the Republican Party" earlier on in C-Span. The speaker asked the audience (around 150 repugs) and only 4 thought Bush would have won!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GOPBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. I can't believe they admitted that!
Of course, it's true, but I still can't believe they admitted it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. Do not mess with the Big Dog.
The Big Dog's approval rating only goes up when you try to impeach him.

The Big Dog will just walk out of the room if you ask him questions he doesn't want to answer during a deposition.

The Big Dog shot holes into your so-called "southern strategy".

The worst you can do to the Big Dog is maybe get him to "triangulate" but that's it plus you still get all mad at what he walked away with.

The Big Dog thinks that it would be allowable to have a third non-consecutive turn as president which means the Big Dog wants to come back.

If I was President
And the Congress called my name
I’d say “who do…
Who do you think you’re fooling?”

-- Paul Simon, "Loves Me Like a Rock"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. That's why I call Gore a loser.
Clinton handed him a winning combination, AND GORE BLEW IT!!! Gore should have won in a landslide. He should have buried Bush v.2. But he was such a stumbler that he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and managed to look bad doing it. He should have won by such a margin that the cheating and bad luck, (The poorly designed ballot was bad luck. A Dem designed it, and a Dem committe approved it.) would not have made a difference. You can cheat a little here and a little there but you can't make up for a landslide, and Gore should have had a landslide.:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WindRavenX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Gore ran a bad campaign
This is true. However, all the "X" factors- and I mean just about every damn intangible imaginable in a presidential election- went against him.
And the media damned him while they praised W for being a cutesy, regular-american-joe...
It was a terrible mistake to shun the Big Dog from his campaign, but the fact is people were still pissed about Monica gate and Gore couldn't have that baggage. It's stupid, yes, beyond stupid that it came down to it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. He should have brought Clinton in closer.
If I write any about that, I'll write paragraphs. It makes me steamed at Gore. He was already associated with Clinton from 8 years as his VP, he should have taken advantage of that instead of trying to distance himself from it. I don't think the Monica thing mattered to Joe Average as much as it is said to. But Gore seemed disloyal and ungrateful for shunning the Big Dog. I better shut up, or I'll wear out my keyboard on that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. Rolling Stone published an article entitled "The Press vs. Al Gore"
Don't know if it is still available but it is VERY damning ... of the press, not the candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WindRavenX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I read that, it was excellent
It also featured Gore on the cover, which if I can recall, caused a flood of reader mail regarding his, um, package...
Is that the article you refer to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. As much as I love Clinton the truth is that Gore received more votes than
any Presidential candidate ever with the exception of Reagan. Clinton may have lost in 1992 if Perot were not in the race. Gore did win big, but just didn't realize the criminal capabilities of his opponents. He isn't the one who committed election fraud the other side is. He won! He should be back here now running against Bush, but for some unknown reason the Democratic party wants to lose in 2004!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Polulation was smaller then. Percentage is what counts.
Comparing the absolute number of votes is meaningless. It is like comparing the absolute gross sales of "Gone with the Wind" vs. the latest "Star Wars". Star Wars wins because there has been almost 70 years of inflation. The country is a lot bigger now than then.

I stand by what I said: Gore should have won by a landslide and he blew it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Now that all of that is in the past, I say there is a reason
Gore is not in the White House. We will just have to figure it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark Can WIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
7. That's why they want Hillary in so bad
That way they can finally have their Bush over Clinton victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. I agree, Clark is our best chance. My wife likes him too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaitykaity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
11. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleApple81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wellong Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
13. Waste of time
Isn't discussing the outcome of an election that could have never ever taken place nothing more than mental masturbation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MISSDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Bill Clinton is so adored that
he used the "N" word in a speech at a black awards gala the other night and no one even blinked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wellong Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. are you sure
you are not talking about Cruz Bustamante?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC