Clinton versus Bush = 4 more years of Bush

[Nazgul35]

I fail to understand why Bill Clinton backers support Clinton if they know that Clinton cannot beat Bush if he gets the nomination.

Poll after poll after poll show Bush slaughters Clinton in a head to head match. From the time Clinton first campaigned to now, he only gets 38% of the vote against Bush.

Do Clinton supporters not realize that giving Clinton the nomination means 4 more years of Bush? Do they think that some how Clinton can cover a 14 lead over Bush? It is not going to happen. Even when Bush's numbers plummet Clinton's do not go up against Bush. Clinton still stays at 38%.

I appreciate Clinton supporters enthusiasm for Clinton. But backing him means another four years of Bush.

At what point to they say to themselves, "Clinton cannot beat Bush" and except that fact? When Clinton is at 30% against Bush, at 20%, how about 5%? Will they every except this hard fact? I mean hey, I would love to have Charles Rangal for President. But I am smart enough to realize he CANNOT win.

I am not saying that Clinton cannot win the nomination, I think he can. But if we nominate Clinton who cannot beat Bush instead of a candidate that can, are Clinton supporters not killing the chances of removing Bush from the White House? I think they are. Sorry, but at some point we need to back a candidate that can beat Bush if we want to win in 92'. Polls show, Clinton cannot beat Bush.

Sound stupid? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

[madmax]

1. Clinton is not runnng

Neither one of them.

[samsingh]

2. what are you talking about?

Clinton is not running

[Sagan]

3. Is this some kind of Frei Republik campaign on DU?

I have seen many threads lately with the same theme:

X versus Bush = 4 more years of Bush or some variation.

They are always by low posters and non-contributors.

I've had it.

[Democrats unite]

4. Very stupid

I hope there is a point to this, or is it just egg on face?

[bif]

5. What are you talking about?

Bill can't run. Two terms is the limit.

[Nazgul35]

6. you need to read more carefully....

six words into my post I say which Clinton I am talking about....perhaps I needed to use a sledge hammer instead of a feather....this is in response ot the asinine thread about Dean....

[KoKo]

11. Yes, you say Bill Clinton in your post.....then you say Clintons......He

can't run......term limits!

[clar]

14. Yikes,

I find the responses to your original piece frightening. Wonder how they did on reading comprehension.

Folks who didn't get this: It wasn't very hard to get the authors point. You need to read with much, much more care.

[BeachBuckeye]

7. "sound stupid? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

WEll, yes it sounds stupid and it IS stupid. Your facts are positively upside down. You must be getting your stats from the Free Republic site......but then again, even THEY know that your post is nuts.

[einniv]

8. Obviously no one gets what you are saying.

Folks. I do believe he is trying to make the point that based on Clinton's numbers in 1991 that people could easily have said (or were saying) the same thing about Bill Clinton as others say now about current candidates. RE:electability. That it is silly to try to make such predictions.

[madmax]

10. Sorry, I guess this sentence is what threw me off.

"Sorry, but at some point we need to back a candidate that can beat Bush if we want to win in 04'. Polls show, Clinton cannot beat Bush."

:eyes:

[Nazgul35]

13. ahhhhh....

I cut and pasted the argument from the other thread....there were soo many Deans to remove I missed that one....

[madmax]

15. That happens

;)

[Nazgul35]

12. thank you...

obviously you are a person of superior intellect and grace!!

That, or you took five seconds to use your brain.....

:evilgrin:

Something that doesn't happen alot around here...everyone is sooo ready to post that they don't even bother to read all the threads and posts to see what's going on....

oh well....I'm sure this won't impact our ability to organize and win....

[Caution]

9. Term limits...

Clinton is not, can not and will not run. Where the hell are you getting these figures from? What moron pollster thought to ask questions about something that can't possibly happen? Are you sure that this pollster wasn't referring to HIllary Clinton? And did you check the source of the poll? The only people who are even suggesting Hillary would possibly run are conservatives and the only reason they are making the suggestion is because they believe that she is such a polarizing figure that even the hint of her candidacy would cause a wave of activism within the ranks of the republican party in order to galvanize support behind a pResident whose numbers are in total freefall, whose policies are increasingly unpopular and whose credibility is being strained to the breaking point. This is just another facet of the "when in doubt, blame Clinton's dick" method of political pandering.

[ParanoidPat]

16. Are you really that err, umm, uninformed?

First off, do you have a link to all those polls you mention? :evilgrin:
Since Bill Clinton isn't running and more importantly can't run, (I assume you meant Bill, you used the word 'he' several times!) who the hell is polling as if he was? IMHO, Your post should be on FreeRepublic! That's the only place I can think of where you could find enough people in one place STUPID enough to agree with you! :)
If this post was a joke, I'm sorry I didn't pick up on it but it should have been posted in the lounge!
As for your last line, a definite YES!

[Nazgul35]

18. Maybe you should take some time to read....

before you accuse other of being uninformed....

I thought that everyone at DU was bright enough to "get it," but I guees not....too many are too keyed up to post first...ask questions later....

I would strongly urge people to take five minutes to peruse the threads and posts before flying to the key pads to post your responses....

[gully]

17. Dont worry I got it HE HE HE HE.....

:toast:

See here... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=45064&mesg_id=45064

[LynneSin]

19. Folks - it's a parody

and a great one too I might add!

[Nazgul35]

24. dern...

you ruined a perfectly good social science study that was developing...

[Padraig18]

20. Cute!

:)

[ButterflyBlood]

21. read the other posts here to those who aren't getting it

the point is Clinton had similar numbers at this time in '91

[Kahuna]

22. Nobody know what you're talking about.

:shrug:

[Kahuna]

23. Okay. So it's a parody. Apples and oranges once again!

As I recall, bush would have beat Clinton had it not been for Ross Perot. Let another right leaning third party candidate enter the race, then your parody may have some validity. As things stand right now, it doesn't have any validity.

[zbdent]

25. Plus, if you extend the analogy of the Perot/Nader numbers

in the 96 & 00 votes, these people were voting for a change (at least, that's what the Repukes would use to comfort themselves while crying themselves to sleep at night). They were voting against Bush 1.

Also, I did read the post, and the first line reads like this:

"I fail to understand why Bill Clinton backers support Clinton if they know that Clinton cannot beat Bush if he gets the nomination."

Never says anything about a SHE, and, as it has been stated, Bill would not be allowed to run for a third term.

Now, I didn't catch the idea of a "parody", yes, sometimes you have to drive home a point with a sledgehammer.

In my local paper, we had a rightwinger complaining about how all the Bush bashers are constantly complaining about the same thing. Funny, when you consider that every time a Bush lover talks, all Clinton did in office was lie about getting a BJ.