WhoCountsTheVotes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 12:01 AM
Original message |
Dems waste time in New Hampshire while Bush campaigns in Ohio |
|
Bush is smart enough to be able to count electoral votes. Does NH ever vote Dem anyway? Aren't they proud of being the 5th column of the Northeast? Don't they allow Republicans to vote in our primary? :mad:
|
bluestateguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 12:03 AM
Response to Original message |
1. NH was closer than Ohio in 2000! |
|
Al Gore got Nadered in New Hampshire in 2000. He lost it 48%-47%, while he lost Ohio 50%-46%. Writing off New Hampshire to Bush would be a grave mistake.
|
trag
(286 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Not getting it this time.. |
|
No Ohio for Bush this time. Mark my word! My fellow Ohio citizens will not vote Bush this time. *crossing fingers*
|
Davis_X_Machina
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 12:04 AM
Response to Original message |
2. New Hampshire is a swing state... |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-27-04 12:08 AM by Davis_X_Machina
...and carrying it -- Gore missed by ~5,000 votes -- would have made Florida irrelevant, IIRC
|
Toucano
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. I think you're mistaken. |
|
Or I am.
By my math, 2000 was 260 Gore versus 278 Bush.
NH has 4, so that would have been 264 Gore versus 274 Bush.
Correct me if my info is bad.
|
SadEagle
(664 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Actually, 266 in the final count due to 1 DC protest abstaintion. NH4 would have make it 271 Gore, 267 Bush.
|
WilliamPitt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 12:10 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Um...it's a primary. They have to be there.
|
WhoCountsTheVotes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. we spend more resources there than it's worth |
|
I guess this is a generic Iowa/NH bash, but our primary calendar sucks. I like Perot's suggestion - two days of voting, so people who work for a living have a decent chance to get to the polls, and we should have it all at the same time.
Iowa and NH give the corporate media more time to spin early wins and losses from small, unrepresentatives states. That hurts us.
|
returnable
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-27-04 04:25 PM by returnable
The primary schedule is a joke. Two rural, northern, predominantly white states dictate who gets the Big Mo.
I've yet to hear a compelling reason to maintain this tradition. The only argument I hear is "Well, that's the way it's always been."
Bah. No time like the present to make a change :hi:
|
Kathleen04
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 12:33 AM
Response to Original message |
8. There'll be time for OH |
|
Our Dems will be there soon to campaign for March's Super Tuesday. Then our nominee will probably spend a good chunk of time there.
|
WhoCountsTheVotes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. but the media will have already declared a winner |
|
and will be giving that candidate kid gloves treatment, while they call everyone else a long shot.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 18th 2024, 10:09 PM
Response to Original message |