Democratic National Convention and Kerry Campaign Trainwreck: Day One

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
I'll start out with the television ratings for the 10-11PM EDT hour the networks gave the convention and compare them with the 2000 convention that nominated Al Gore.

ABC News Jennings 3.5 RATING/5 SHARE [DOWN FROM 4.5/8 IN 2000]
NBC News Brokaw 3.3/5 [2000:4.8/9]
CBS News Dan Rather 3.2/5 [2000:3.8/7]

In cable news FOX News is not giving the DNC gavel to gavel coverage and MSNBC and CNN executives have already decried FOX for not showing the opening performance of the national anthem. During the Al Gore speech Bill O'Reilly showed a bit of it and cut away sneering at the sheer lies Gore was telling in the >2 minutes he covered the speech.

For those of you that are saying the Michael Moore/moveon.org/democrats underground.com wing of the DNC is not controlling the debate and the tone of the election? Why look at who is sitting in the Presidential box next to James Earl Carter. Why, it's Michael Moore... the moderate.
dnc7.jpg


Next we'll examine John Kerry's latest poll numbers that will support the claim I made last week that John Kerry and John Edwards will recive no perceptable bounce in poll numbers from this week of events. Here are the latest ABC/Washington Post poll numbers on some key election issues.

Issue Now: Bush Now: Kerry Month Ago: Bush Month Ago: Kerry
Terrorism 55 37 48 47
Taxes 49 43 41 53
Health Care 44 47 38 56
Iraq 52 40 49 47
Education 44 45 43 52
Economy 47 46 45 50

Trust to Handle Terrorism
Group Now: Bush Now: Kerry In June: Bush In June: Kerry
Women 46 43 40 56
Moderates 50 43 42 54
Independents 50 40 48 48

Vote Preference Among Issue Groups
Most Important Issue Now: Bush Now: Kerry June: Bush June: Kerry
Economy (27%) 46 47 37 54
Iraq (21%) 30 63 33 60
Terrorism (20%) 79 17 76 20

I was overwhelmingly shocked by that lead on the terrorism issue.

Candidate Attributes
Best Describes:
Now: Bush Now: Kerry June: Bush June: Kerry
Honest 46% 40 40 52
Consistent 64 24 60 34
Understands 42 46 37 55
Strong leader 55 36 50 45
Shares Your 49 43 46 48
Values
Will Make the 54 38 53 42
Country Safer
Link to ABC News/Washington Post Poll Results

Next out of the news headlines! Rolling here.....

Whoopi Goldberg now considered "radioactive" by Kerry campaign. Translation: Thanks for the money, sorry you got fired from Slim Fast now stay the Shaq'fu away from us or you'll cost us votes. Say, hi Michael! Would you like me to walk you to your seat next to President Carter?

The good news is that tonight is Chappaquiddick night at the DNC in Boston. This year marks the 35th summer anniversary of Ted's valiant romp in the Massachusetts night to save his own life while letting Mary Jo Kopechne take one for the remnants of Camelot. So let's hear it for Ted and his display of aquarobics! For those of you not familiar with Chappaquiddick here's a helpful summary page.

Now the big news from the big cheese, John F'ing Kerry himself, is that he would extend the 9/11 commision for another 18 months.... 18 months longer from when they submitted thier FINAL REPORT. Nothing like keeping groups of government employees around longer than their stated reason for being huh? This is really, really useful. As always.... LINKY LINKY! In the same article JFK wannabe states that
"If I'd been president last week, I would have immediately said to the commission 'yes, we're going to implement those recommendations,"' Kerry said. "Leadership requires that we act decisively. Not talk. Not vague promises. Not excuses. Pedaling and back-pedaling is something America can't afford."
Click to expand...
Isn't that just peachy?

If he were President he would have steamrolled Congress back into session over their long scheduled summer recess. He would have forgone his own convention to ipliment recommendations before ink on the paper was dry and the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA or Pentagon had a chance to agree, disagree or even say "we're already in the process of doing that". But dammit! We would have had ACTION! We would be acting decisvely! America would be safe by the time NFL training camps broke!

Okay, that's enough for today. Now remember to grab your snorkels and watch Uncle Ted preach about morality and public service virtue tonight.

By the way? Why haven't we heard about gay marriage from Boston yet? Isn't Massachusetts the pioneer in one of the last great "civil rights" issues of our times?
 
In honor of Uncle Ted I am going to have a scotch during his speech tonight....well quite a few.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']yup, Moore showed up to the convention in bluejeans and an MSU cap - oh yeah, 'cause he "represents the people."

What an anus.[/quote]

Who are you? The fucking fashion police?
 
Nope, just someone with a sense of appropriateness and class. What the left fails to realize, is that Moore will prove to be a liability for them. Sure, he may be able to drop a $100 "documentary" and show up to political convestions looking like a couch potato, but I think the left will soon find that the everyman resents Moore, and will refuse to vote left accordingly.

[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='The_Continental']yup, Moore showed up to the convention in bluejeans and an MSU cap - oh yeah, 'cause he "represents the people."

What an anus.[/quote]

Who are you? The shaq-fuing fashion police?[/quote]
 
PittsburgAfterDark -

When I go to the "CAG's "vs. mode": Politics and Other Such Controversies", I see 10 threads that you started, 7 of which are bashing democrats.

Start one thread and stop cluttering the message boards with the same theme every freakin' day. It's getting old.
 
I love the ratings slide during this convention. Looks to me that people are already sick of all this political BS and are doing something constructive with their time. I think the ratings will be the same for the RNC too.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']Nope, just someone with a sense of appropriateness and class. What the left fails to realize, is that Moore will prove to be a liability for them. Sure, he may be able to drop a $100 "documentary" and show up to political convestions looking like a couch potato, but I think the left will soon find that the everyman resents Moore, and will refuse to vote left accordingly.

[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='The_Continental']yup, Moore showed up to the convention in bluejeans and an MSU cap - oh yeah, 'cause he "represents the people."

What an anus.[/quote]

Who are you? The shaq-fuing fashion police?[/quote][/quote]

You can stand behind self righteusness and make nasty accusations at people, but I also have freedom of speech and so does Michael Moore, even though most people here don't beleive he should have that "god given right".

Here is Michael Moores essay "Patriots Act".

[quote name='Michael Moore']

What's more American than asking questions?
New York - As a young boy, I loved the American flag. I'd lead my younger sisters in patriotic parades up and down the sidewalk, waving the flag, blowing a whistle and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance over and over until my sisters begged me to let them go back to their Easy-Bake Oven.

I loved singing the national anthem. I won an essay contest on "What the Flag Means to Me." I decorated my bicycle with little American flags for a Fourth of July parade and won a prize for that too. I became an Eagle Scout and proudly promised to do my duty to God and country. And every year I asked to be the one who planted the flag on the grave of my uncle, a paratrooper who was killed in World War II. I was taught to admire his sacrifice, and I hoped to grow up and do my part, as he had, to keep us free.

But, in high school, things changed. Nine boys from my school came back home from Vietnam in boxes. Draped over each coffin was the American flag. I knew that they also had made a sacrifice. But their sacrifice wasn't for their country: They were sent to die by men who lied to them. Those men - presidents, senators, government officials - wrapped themselves in the flag too, hoping that their lies would never be questioned, never be discovered. They wrapped themselves in the very flag that was placed on the coffins of my friends and neighbors. I stopped singing the national anthem at football games, and I stopped putting out the flag.

I realize now I never should have stopped.

For too long now we have abandoned our flag to those who see it as a symbol of war and dominance, as a way to crush dissent at home. Flags are flying from the back of SUVs, rising high above car dealerships, plastering the windows of businesses and adorning paper bags from fast-food restaurants. But these flags are intended to send a message: "You're either with us or you're against us," "Bring it on!" or "Watch what you say, watch what you do."

Those who absconded with our flag now use it as a weapon against those who question America's course. They remind me of that famous 1976 photo of an anti-busing demonstrator in Boston thrusting a large American flag on a pole into the stomach of the first black man he encountered. These so-called patriots hold the flag tightly in their grip and, in a threatening pose, demand that no one ask questions. Those who speak out find themselves shunned at work, harassed at school, booed off Oscar stages. The flag has become a muzzle, a piece of cloth stuffed into the mouths of those who dare to ask questions.

I think it's time for those of us who love this country - and everything it should stand for - to reclaim our flag from those who would use it to crush rights and freedoms, both here at home and overseas. We need to redefine what it means to be a proud American.

If you are one of those who love what President Bush has done for this country and believe you must blindly follow the president to deserve to fly the flag, you should ask yourself some difficult questions about just how proud you are of the America we now inhabit:

Are you proud that one in six children lives in poverty in America?

Are you proud that 40 million adult Americans are functional illiterates?

Are you proud that the bulk of the jobs being created these days are low- and minimum-wage jobs?

Are you proud of asking your fellow Americans to live on $5.15 an hour?

Are you proud that, according to a National Geographic Society survey, 85% of young adult Americans cannot find Iraq on the map (and 11% cannot find the United States!) ?

Are you proud that the rest of the world, which poured out its heart to us after Sept. 11, now looks at us with disdain and disgust?

Are you proud that nearly 3 billion people on this planet do not have access to clean drinking water when we have the resources and technology to remedy this immediately?

Are you proud of the fact that our president sent our soldiers off to a war that had nothing to do with the self-defense of this country?

If these things represent what it means to be an American these days - and I am an American - should I hang my head in shame? No. Instead, I intend to perform what I believe is my patriotic duty. I can't think of a more American thing to do than raise questions - and demand truthful answers - when our leader wants to send our sons and daughters off to die in a war.

If we don't do that - the bare minimum - for those who offer to defend our country, then we have failed them and ourselves. They offer to die for us, if necessary, so that we can be free. All they ask in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. And with this war, we have broken faith with our troops by sending them off to be killed and maimed for wrong and immoral reasons.

This is the true state of disgrace we are living in. I hope we can make it up someday to these brave kids (and older men and women in our reserves and National Guard) . They deserve an apology, they deserve our thanks - and a raise - and they deserve a big parade with lots of flags.

I would like to lead that parade, carrying the largest flag. And I would like the country to proclaim that never again will a war be fought unless it is our last resort.

Let's create a world in which, when people see the Stars and Stripes, they will think of us as the people who brought peace to the world, who brought good-paying jobs to all citizens and clean water for the world to drink.

In anticipation of that day, I am putting my flag out today, with hope and with pride. [/quote]
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'll start out with the television ratings for the 10-11PM EDT hour the networks gave the convention and compare them with the 2000 convention that nominated Al Gore.

ABC News Jennings 3.5 RATING/5 SHARE [DOWN FROM 4.5/8 IN 2000]
NBC News Brokaw 3.3/5 [2000:4.8/9]
CBS News Dan Rather 3.2/5 [2000:3.8/7]

In cable news FOX News is not giving the DNC gavel to gavel coverage and MSNBC and CNN executives have already decried FOX for not showing the opening performance of the national anthem. During the Al Gore speech Bill O'Reilly showed a bit of it and cut away sneering at the sheer lies Gore was telling in the >2 minutes he covered the speech.

For those of you that are saying the Michael Moore/moveon.org/democrats underground.com wing of the DNC is not controlling the debate and the tone of the election? Why look at who is sitting in the Presidential box next to James Earl Carter. Why, it's Michael Moore... the moderate.
dnc7.jpg


Next we'll examine John Kerry's latest poll numbers that will support the claim I made last week that John Kerry and John Edwards will recive no perceptable bounce in poll numbers from this week of events. Here are the latest ABC/Washington Post poll numbers on some key election issues.

Issue Now: Bush Now: Kerry Month Ago: Bush Month Ago: Kerry
Terrorism 55 37 48 47
Taxes 49 43 41 53
Health Care 44 47 38 56
Iraq 52 40 49 47
Education 44 45 43 52
Economy 47 46 45 50

Trust to Handle Terrorism
Group Now: Bush Now: Kerry In June: Bush In June: Kerry
Women 46 43 40 56
Moderates 50 43 42 54
Independents 50 40 48 48

Vote Preference Among Issue Groups
Most Important Issue Now: Bush Now: Kerry June: Bush June: Kerry
Economy (27%) 46 47 37 54
Iraq (21%) 30 63 33 60
Terrorism (20%) 79 17 76 20

I was overwhelmingly shocked by that lead on the terrorism issue.

Candidate Attributes
Best Describes:
Now: Bush Now: Kerry June: Bush June: Kerry
Honest 46% 40 40 52
Consistent 64 24 60 34
Understands 42 46 37 55
Strong leader 55 36 50 45
Shares Your 49 43 46 48
Values
Will Make the 54 38 53 42
Country Safer
Link to ABC News/Washington Post Poll Results

Next out of the news headlines! Rolling here.....

Whoopi Goldberg now considered "radioactive" by Kerry campaign. Translation: Thanks for the money, sorry you got fired from Slim Fast now stay the Shaq'fu away from us or you'll cost us votes. Say, hi Michael! Would you like me to walk you to your seat next to President Carter?

The good news is that tonight is Chappaquiddick night at the DNC in Boston. This year marks the 35th summer anniversary of Ted's valiant romp in the Massachusetts night to save his own life while letting Mary Jo Kopechne take one for the remnants of Camelot. So let's hear it for Ted and his display of aquarobics! For those of you not familiar with Chappaquiddick here's a helpful summary page.

Now the big news from the big cheese, John F'ing Kerry himself, is that he would extend the 9/11 commision for another 18 months.... 18 months longer from when they submitted thier FINAL REPORT. Nothing like keeping groups of government employees around longer than their stated reason for being huh? This is really, really useful. As always.... LINKY LINKY! In the same article JFK wannabe states that
"If I'd been president last week, I would have immediately said to the commission 'yes, we're going to implement those recommendations,"' Kerry said. "Leadership requires that we act decisively. Not talk. Not vague promises. Not excuses. Pedaling and back-pedaling is something America can't afford."
Click to expand...
Isn't that just peachy?

If he were President he would have steamrolled Congress back into session over their long scheduled summer recess. He would have forgone his own convention to ipliment recommendations before ink on the paper was dry and the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA or Pentagon had a chance to agree, disagree or even say "we're already in the process of doing that". But dammit! We would have had ACTION! We would be acting decisvely! America would be safe by the time NFL training camps broke!

Okay, that's enough for today. Now remember to grab your snorkels and watch Uncle Ted preach about morality and public service virtue tonight.

By the way? Why haven't we heard about gay marriage from Boston yet? Isn't Massachusetts the pioneer in one of the last great "civil rights" issues of our times?[/quote]

And yet, polls indicate that Bush and Kerry are basically tied. The numbers you quote must therefore be meaningless, otherwise Bush would have a commanding lead in the polls.
 
Kerry is supposed to have a huge bounce this week in the polls after the convention, but he was also supposed to have one after he chose his VP. If he doesn't get a substantial bounce after the DNC he is going to be through.
 
I wish they'd extend the 9-11 commission. There is no way it should have had to release it findings at the outset of campaign season. That was just asking for a half-ass job.

And who gives a damn how Moore dresses. Crap, if that's the avenue you need to approach from when attacking him, do some self-examination and come back to us with something a little more substantial, something meaningful... something relevant.

And even if his garb were a matter of relevancy (as if politics in this nation needed to become -more- of a freaking pony show), this is Micheal Moore we're talking about. This is his uniform, his fighting togs. He's tried a suit... have you seen him in a suit?
 
[quote name='Squirms']Kerry is supposed to have a huge bounce this week in the polls after the convention, but he was also supposed to have one after he chose his VP. If he doesn't get a substantial bounce after the DNC he is going to be through.[/quote]

People didn't accept Clinton in '92 until after the presidential debates.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Squirms']Kerry is supposed to have a huge bounce this week in the polls after the convention, but he was also supposed to have one after he chose his VP. If he doesn't get a substantial bounce after the DNC he is going to be through.[/quote]

People didn't accept Clinton in '92 until after the presidential debates.[/quote]

There may not be a debate this time, though.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Squirms']Kerry is supposed to have a huge bounce this week in the polls after the convention, but he was also supposed to have one after he chose his VP. If he doesn't get a substantial bounce after the DNC he is going to be through.[/quote]

People didn't accept Clinton in '92 until after the presidential debates.[/quote]

There may not be a debate this time, though.[/quote]

What do you mean?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Squirms']Kerry is supposed to have a huge bounce this week in the polls after the convention, but he was also supposed to have one after he chose his VP. If he doesn't get a substantial bounce after the DNC he is going to be through.[/quote]

People didn't accept Clinton in '92 until after the presidential debates.[/quote]

There may not be a debate this time, though.[/quote]

Why is Bush not going to Debate? That would be hillarious if he refuses to debate.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Squirms']Kerry is supposed to have a huge bounce this week in the polls after the convention, but he was also supposed to have one after he chose his VP. If he doesn't get a substantial bounce after the DNC he is going to be through.[/quote]

People didn't accept Clinton in '92 until after the presidential debates.[/quote]

Clinton took the lead in July, before any debates took place, and by quite a large margin. Dukakis also was ahead in the polls by this time in the season, as much as 17 points ahead.
 
It is pathetic that the republican fan boys show up on a CAG board and post BS propaganda.

It's worse that they can't seem to give it a rest.

When the polls show a Bush loss, I'm sure they will be back and claim that all of current problems are due to others "failure" to support Bush.

Hey- here is one for you- Why did people give Clinton hell for "not inhaling" but not give Bush equal treatment for doing cocaine?

Well, money goes Rupublican, and that money tries to convince the poor dumb bastards that the Republican's actually give a damn about them. Fools.
 
Kerry's past election record shows that he always looks like he's in trouble of winning an election until the results come in. I figure Americans are smart enough to realize that people change their mind on issues over time. If Bush wants to label anyone a flip-flopper, he should look in the mirror.

Give me 10 reasons why Bush should stay in office. Seriously. I can't even think of one.
 
You know what I find so humorous about all these statements that Al Gore won the popular vote? No one ever, EVER states that Clinton went into his first term with 43% of the popular vote 57% of the American people never voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Yet.... we're supposed to forget that.

Oh and yes, the Clinton bounce from the NYC Democratic convention was 17 points. I've been searching for a link but sadly there were no internet links I could find that went month by month for the 92 election. The only proof I have is a book on the topic and I can't post it.

When I go to the "CAG's "vs. mode": Politics and Other Such Controversies", I see 10 threads that you started, 7 of which are bashing democrats.

Start one thread and stop cluttering the message boards with the same theme every freakin' day. It's getting old.
Click to expand...

Boo shaq'fuing hoo. Can't take it? Start your own threads. Respond to mine. Challenge me point by point instead of asking me to STFU cause it ain't gonna happen.,
 
[quote name='Squirms'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Squirms']Kerry is supposed to have a huge bounce this week in the polls after the convention, but he was also supposed to have one after he chose his VP. If he doesn't get a substantial bounce after the DNC he is going to be through.[/quote]

People didn't accept Clinton in '92 until after the presidential debates.[/quote]

Clinton took the lead in July, before any debates took place, and by quite a large margin. Dukakis also was ahead in the polls by this time in the season, as much as 17 points ahead.[/quote]

That may be true, but a lot of people didn't know who Clinton was (what he stood for), the same problem that Kerry's in right now. It wasn't until the debates that people found out.
 
Dude, don't confuse freedom of speech with freedom from consequence.

[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='The_Continental']Nope, just someone with a sense of appropriateness and class. What the left fails to realize, is that Moore will prove to be a liability for them. Sure, he may be able to drop a $100 "documentary" and show up to political convestions looking like a couch potato, but I think the left will soon find that the everyman resents Moore, and will refuse to vote left accordingly.

[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='The_Continental']yup, Moore showed up to the convention in bluejeans and an MSU cap - oh yeah, 'cause he "represents the people."

What an anus.[/quote]

Who are you? The shaq-fuing fashion police?[/quote][/quote]

You can stand behind self righteusness and make nasty accusations at people, but I also have freedom of speech and so does Michael Moore, even though most people here don't beleive he should have that "god given right".
[/quote]
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']During the Al Gore speech Bill O'Reilly showed a bit of it and cut away sneering at the sheer lies Gore was telling in the >2 minutes he covered the speech.

For those of you that are saying the Michael Moore/moveon.org/democrats underground.com wing of the DNC is not controlling the debate and the tone of the election? Why look at who is sitting in the Presidential box next to James Earl Carter. Why, it's Michael Moore... the moderate.
[/quote]

Wait a minute... You decry Moore, who has never claimed to be a moderate, yet you triumph Bill "No Spin Zone" OReilly's biased coverage of Gore's speech? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!

One of the two claim to be an unbiased, reporter of the facts. I will give you a hint... its not Moore.

I think you are above the cut and paste jobs you have been doing from Drudge's website. At least link Fox News, The New York Post, or the Wall Street Journal (not their OpEd pages). Drudge is nothing but wild speculation and hearsay with a couple of AP wire stories thrown in.
 
Here is a link detailing Clinton's 43% of the popular vote in 92:

http://www.aim.org/publications/guest_columns/harrison/2004/mar12.html

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You know what I find so humorous about all these statements that Al Gore won the popular vote? No one ever, EVER states that Clinton went into his first term with 43% of the popular vote 57% of the American people never voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Yet.... we're supposed to forget that.

Oh and yes, the Clinton bounce from the NYC Democratic convention was 17 points. I've been searching for a link but sadly there were no internet links I could find that went month by month for the 92 election. The only proof I have is a book on the topic and I can't post it.

When I go to the "CAG's "vs. mode": Politics and Other Such Controversies", I see 10 threads that you started, 7 of which are bashing democrats.

Start one thread and stop cluttering the message boards with the same theme every freakin' day. It's getting old.
Click to expand...

Boo shaq'fuing hoo. Can't take it? Start your own threads. Respond to mine. Challenge me point by point instead of asking me to STFU cause it ain't gonna happen.,[/quote]
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Squirms']Kerry is supposed to have a huge bounce this week in the polls after the convention, but he was also supposed to have one after he chose his VP. If he doesn't get a substantial bounce after the DNC he is going to be through.[/quote]

People didn't accept Clinton in '92 until after the presidential debates.[/quote]

There may not be a debate this time, though.[/quote]

I know that Bush wants have a record low two (as in 2) presidential debates, but are they actually suggesting not having any?!?!? I find that hard to believe.
 
We don't want a government that "cares" about us. We are not children. We want a government that will allow us to succeed on our own merits, without a handout.

Oh yeah, and good use of that apostrophe down there. Go get a grammar book.

btw - are you implying that money doesn't flow through the Dem party as well? Need we talk about Kerry's 7 homes?

[quote name='friedram']

Well, money goes Rupublican, and that money tries to convince the poor dumb bastards that the Republican's actually give a damn about them. Fools.[/quote]
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You know what I find so humorous about all these statements that Al Gore won the popular vote? No one ever, EVER states that Clinton went into his first term with 43% of the popular vote 57% of the American people never voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Yet.... we're supposed to forget that.,[/quote]

Bush received 37.7% of the popular vote, Clinton received 43.3% of the popular vote, and Perot received 19.0% of the popular vote.

So Clinton won the popular vote.

In 2000, Gore won 48.4 to Bush's 47.9%.

So what's your point?
 
Not to argue this point any further, but a quick lookup of the word "majority" in the American heritage dictionary reveals the following definitions:

2.a. A number more than half of the total number in a given group

b. The number of votes cast in any election above the total number of all other votes cast.

Based on the definition of the word "majority," Clinton did not get it in '92, thus supporting PAD's original claim.

Clinton may have won the "popular vote," but he did not get the majority of votes. To argue the wording any further would be simple semantics.

[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You know what I find so humorous about all these statements that Al Gore won the popular vote? No one ever, EVER states that Clinton went into his first term with 43% of the popular vote 57% of the American people never voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Yet.... we're supposed to forget that.,[/quote]

Bush received 37.7% of the popular vote, Clinton received 43.3% of the popular vote, and Perot received 19.0% of the popular vote.

So Clinton won the popular vote.

In 2000, Gore won 48.4 to Bush's 47.9%.

So what's your point?[/quote]
 
[quote name='The_Continental']Not to argue this point any further, but a quick lookup of the word "majority" in the American heritage dictionary reveals the following definitions:

2.a. A number more than half of the total number in a given group

b. The number of votes cast in any election above the total number of all other votes cast.

Based on the definition of the word "majority," Clinton did not get it in '92, thus supporting PAD's original claim.

Clinton may have won the "popular vote," but he did not get the majority of votes. To argue the wording any further would be simple semantics.

[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You know what I find so humorous about all these statements that Al Gore won the popular vote? No one ever, EVER states that Clinton went into his first term with 43% of the popular vote 57% of the American people never voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Yet.... we're supposed to forget that.,[/quote]

Bush received 37.7% of the popular vote, Clinton received 43.3% of the popular vote, and Perot received 19.0% of the popular vote.

So Clinton won the popular vote.

In 2000, Gore won 48.4 to Bush's 47.9%.

So what's your point?[/quote][/quote]

PAD never said anything about "majority". He only said "won". Re-read his original claim.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']So 43% is a majority then?

Really????[/quote]

[quote name='E-Z-B']
PAD never said anything about "majority". He only said "won". Re-read his original claim. [/quote]
 
Of course not, because people understood how the electoral college worked in '92. Somehow the dems stopped understanding by 2000.

[quote name='MrBadExample']It's funny how Clinton didn't have to convince the Supreme Court to stop a manual recount so he could be president.[/quote]
 
wow, micheal moore must be some kind of fan to wear that seattle mariners hat on national TV so all can see, especially when they are having THIS kind of year...
 
My favorite part is how PAD is coming at this from a very stereotypical traditional Republican point of view. Instead of making your candidate the better choice, you choose to tear at the other side. Negativity sucks.
 
That's a Mariner's hat? and here I thought it was an MSU Spartans hat. hmmm....

[quote name='thingsfallnapart']wow, micheal moore must be some kind of fan to wear that seattle mariners hat on national TV so all can see, especially when they are having THIS kind of year...[/quote]
 
It's funny how Clinton didn't have to convince the Supreme Court to stop a manual recount so he could be president.

You're right. It was entirely wrong to stop the Florida Supreme Court from making election recount law on the fly and usurping the guidlines the Florida state legislature set. We should have let them keep counting until the desired outcome was reached.

Oh wait, that outcome couldn't have been reached. Not one recount done by any organization showed Gore won. Damn facts. They're getting in the way again.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']That's a Mariner's hat? and here I thought it was an MSU Spartans hat. hmmm....

[quote name='thingsfallnapart']wow, micheal moore must be some kind of fan to wear that seattle mariners hat on national TV so all can see, especially when they are having THIS kind of year...[/quote][/quote]

looks like mariners hat too me, god knows i see enough of them here...

oh wait, i mean i *used* to see enough of them here.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']PittsburgAfterDark -

When I go to the "CAG's "vs. mode": Politics and Other Such Controversies", I see 10 threads that you started, 7 of which are bashing democrats.

Start one thread and stop cluttering the message boards with the same theme every freakin' day. It's getting old.[/quote]

Quoted for truth

Christ if you put this amount of effort into finding/discussing gaming deals it would be like the Circuit City sale plus that Game Rush trade-in deal 24/7.

Seriously, there's like a million right-wing political message boards where people will eat this up and you will be revered. How about posting this kind of stuff THERE for a change?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] It's funny how Clinton didn't have to convince the Supreme Court to stop a manual recount so he could be president.

You're right. It was entirely wrong to stop the Florida Supreme Court from making election recount law on the fly and usurping the guidlines the Florida state legislature set. We should have let them keep counting until the desired outcome was reached.

Oh wait, that outcome couldn't have been reached. Not one recount done by any organization showed Gore won. Damn facts. They're getting in the way again.[/quote]

Your an asshole, find me one recount that shows Gore DIDN'T win. (and not a fucked up conservative republican recount where they destroy votes).
 
[quote name='friedram']I agree, put your effort into saving me money- not spewing your right wing political messages.[/quote]

While I'm most certainly NOT a right-winger, I think that PAD has every right to spew right-wing propaganda; and I have every right to spew socially liberal views. However, I also think that the addition of the new "vs. mode" portion of this site has really inspired some people (like PAD, for example) to post perhaps a bit too much...

But, that's just my opinion! :D

Anyway, the only reasons I get irritated about PAD are:
1) I just simply don't have the kind of time he seems to have to debate politics at such length on a video game site. I'm here mostly for games; as part of my University's Poli Sci dept., I debate this shit all day long. I just think that another environment would be a better place for fruitful political debate - right wing AND left wing AND in-between.
2) Because there seems to be no liberal on CAG with the time or desire to act as a counterpoint to PAD, I'm afraid that impressionable youngsters might be swayed by PAD's very one-sided views. That is not his fault; shit, if people are swayed, then he has achieved his goal, and more power to him.
3) I like the "most recent posts" box on the main page. I use it all the time when i hit CAG; it gives me a good idea of what sort of deals are currently being discussed. However, lately there are always at least 3 or 4 political threads - mostly started by PAD - amongst the 10 in that box. I just hope that PADs cools off a bit with the multiple threading; it just seems abit excessive.

There are plenty of people here of varying ages and backgrounds; we all have our own opinions and the right to share them. God knows, I certainly have MY share of opinions regarding PAD's statements - I just don't have time to sit here all day and go point-for-point. A good debate is healthy, and I really enjoy a good friendly argue; I just feel like perhaps PAD's posts would be recieved a bit better if there weren't SO obviously slanted.

But, hey - WHat the hell do i know?!?! 8)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top