Bush would lose to every president since carter

cuz kerry is a frickin loser. I would have voted for any of those presidents over bush. But instead my alternative was kerry. Obviously I went with bush.
 
[quote name='jughead']cuz kerry is a frickin loser. I would have voted for any of those presidents over bush. But instead my alternative was kerry. Obviously I went with bush.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, with as much as people didn't like Bush, the election was the democrat's to be had. Unfortunetly they put up a halfassed candidate and people thought even though Bush was horrible they thought Kerry would have been even worse. Either that or they didn't show up to vote because Kerry was just another stuffy old white guy.
 
Carter was before the Republican slime machine got going into full gear. Because of this, he still has a comparitively undamaged image compared to other Democrats who have suffered ridiculous, unfounded attacks on their record (See: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, or the entire Clinton presidency in which he was investigated for every crime under the sun, and all they could get him on in the end was lying about a BJ.) In the modern political environment, I have no doubt he'd be shredded like a pigeon sucked into a jet engine.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Carter was before the Republican slime machine got going into full gear. Because of this, he still has a comparitively undamaged image compared to other Democrats who have suffered ridiculous, unfounded attacks on their record (See: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, or the entire Clinton presidency in which he was investigated for every crime under the sun, and all they could get him on in the end was lying about a BJ.) In the modern political environment, I have no doubt he'd be shredded like a pigeon sucked into a jet engine.[/QUOTE]

the republican slime machine has been going since there has been a republican party. same thing for democrats. people seem to think that ugly partisan fighting is something new. it's been going on since washington, and it's going to continue.
 
There's always been and will always be partisian fighting, but the ugliness of it is something rises and falls over time. The current level of slime-throwing and manipulation is very much near a record all-time high, unseen since the early 1900's. Most of the 20th century was actually a remarkably clean time, for political debate in the US.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Agreed, with as much as people didn't like Bush, the election was the democrat's to be had. Unfortunetly they put up a halfassed candidate and people thought even though Bush was horrible they thought Kerry would have been even worse. Either that or they didn't show up to vote because Kerry was just another stuffy old white guy.[/QUOTE]


And now we get to pay for it with 35 years of Bush appointees on the supreme court. Hooray! An entire generation (my children) being judged by people with the social morals of my great-grandparents. Social evolution be damned! Hell, regular old evolution be damned too!

But I agree, that's two elections in a row that should have been blow outs but the democratic leadership let themselves get played by a fat, bald, asshole from Texas (Rove) who is willing to throw any sense fair play out to win. (John McCain has a black love child, Ann Richards is a lesbian, Kerry isn't a war hero.) If they had one pair of balls between them they would have mopped the floor with Bush, even with the blatant ballot tampering and gay baiting.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']I think the real question is how the hell did bush get away with stealing the election away from Gore, ala Katherine Harris[/QUOTE]

I think Gore gave up too easily (if it was Bush who was in that position no way he would have given up) and Gore didn't have the right lawyers. I'm still bitter about it thinking about how different this country would be if Gore had won.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Agreed, with as much as people didn't like Bush, the election was the democrat's to be had. Unfortunetly they put up a halfassed candidate and people thought even though Bush was horrible they thought Kerry would have been even worse. Either that or they didn't show up to vote because Kerry was just another stuffy old white guy.[/QUOTE]

Yep, the Dems made a big mistake by putting up the classic Massachusetts liberal, Kerry. If it had been a more moderate candidate like Lieberman, the White House definitely would have been theirs.

And I'm not surprised Bush loses to the immediate past four presidents. First of all, Bush is very unpopular right now. Secondly, nostalgia does have some power in this regard...if Clinton and Carter's times were reversed, I think you would see Clinton at Reagan-like numbers there and Bush beating Carter.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Yep, the Dems made a big mistake by putting up the classic Massachusetts liberal, Kerry. If it had been a more moderate candidate like Lieberman, the White House definitely would have been theirs.

And I'm not surprised Bush loses to the immediate past four presidents. First of all, Bush is very unpopular right now. Secondly, nostalgia does have some power in this regard...if Clinton and Carter's times were reversed, I think you would see Clinton at Reagan-like numbers there and Bush beating Carter.[/QUOTE]

There wasn't a good field available. Kerry who, while experienced, intelligent and capable, had no charisma. Edwards had no experience and unknown capabilities, dean just didn't control himself well enough, and he had been succesfully cast as a radical by republican groups. Lieberman just isn't someone who most democrats like.
 
I love any attention that is brought in this direction. I'll say it for three more years and it won't do a lick of good. There's no sense in running against someone that will never appear on a ballot anywhere again.

What does this change? Who does this help? What can be gained from polling like this? What would be leader will benefit from this "breaking news"?

The left is so blinded by their hatred that they can't develop a coherent strategy on any subject or objective. Of course the next course of action will inevitably be to blame the American people for electing Bush twice and when that happens they'll lose again.

Then they'll blame Bush again.

This is really amazing to watch. This fixation is so self destructive and self defeating that those participating in it fail to realize what it is they're doing.
 
[quote name='munch']the republican slime machine has been going since there has been a republican party. same thing for democrats. people seem to think that ugly partisan fighting is something new. it's been going on since washington, and it's going to continue.[/QUOTE]

Actually I believe the start of the 'slime machine' was on Nickelodeans "You can't do that on Television" just don't say "I Don't KN#W"

Really that poll or story is fairly sophomoric as there is no context.... Bush against Carter in 80... lets see Carter is getting pummelled on Oil Prices, and terrorist Hostages---I bet an oil man 'tough on terror' would do well against Carter. And wouldn't it be a fun race to see George Sr. vs George W. what side would cheney take? Who hates Saddam more? If one wanted to figure it out, one might just be able to 'prove' that Polk, or Harrison, or Coolidge could beat (Clinton, Reagan, Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt-either one) in a 'vs' election.


I'm even in the well lets say NOT Pres. Bush side of things and even I think those numbers are dumb.
 
[quote name='Mr.Answer']Actually I believe the start of the 'slime machine' was on Nickelodeans "You can't do that on Television" just don't say "I Don't KN#W"

Really that poll or story is fairly sophomoric as there is no context.... Bush against Carter in 80... lets see Carter is getting pummelled on Oil Prices, and terrorist Hostages---I bet an oil man 'tough on terror' would do well against Carter. And wouldn't it be a fun race to see George Sr. vs George W. what side would cheney take? Who hates Saddam more? If one wanted to figure it out, one might just be able to 'prove' that Polk, or Harrison, or Coolidge could beat (Clinton, Reagan, Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt-either one) in a 'vs' election.


I'm even in the well lets say NOT Pres. Bush side of things and even I think those numbers are dumb.[/QUOTE]

Ya know, there's a lot more to that poll than I posted. Everything else was stuff that had been posted, or I didn't care much about.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Lieberman just isn't someone who most democrats like.[/QUOTE]

And that's the problem. A lot of moderates who only voted for Bush because they detested Kerry would have supported Lieberman. Unfortunately, the radical 10% of the Democratic Party that votes in the primaries selected someone far too liberal to win, even against as poor a candidate as Bush.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']And that's the problem. A lot of moderates who only voted for Bush because they detested Kerry would have supported Lieberman. Unfortunately, the radical 10% of the Democratic Party that votes in the primaries selected someone far too liberal to win, even against as poor a candidate as Bush.[/QUOTE]

Kerry didn't lose because he was too liberal, it was because he lacked personality. But there's no point in putting up a presidential candidate when his own party doesn't like him.

I don't even think you remember the primaries. Overal the preferred candidate was dean, but Kerry was the most electable so they settled for him.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I don't even think you remember the primaries. Overal the preferred candidate was dean, but Kerry was the most electable so they settled for him.[/QUOTE]

Most electable? I suppose that's one way of glossing over the collective media hard-on for the "dean scream," and how one moment ruined an entire political career. For fuck's sake, he's the equivalent of Ken Mehlman now; he might as well have been demoted to fry station. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Most electable? I suppose that's one way of glossing over the collective media hard-on for the "dean scream," and how one moment ruined an entire political career. For fuck's sake, he's the equivalent of Ken Mehlman now; he might as well have been demoted to fry station. ;)[/QUOTE]

Little harsh there, he became chairman of the DNC after all that. He lost his hopes for the presidency, but his career is anything but dead.

But if you remember, that reason was repeatedly heard when people were asked why they didn't vote for dean or edwards.

More than half of voters said that of the seven contenders on Tuesday's ballot, Kerry seemed the most capable of beating President Bush in November, a factor the Kerry camp is relying upon as the campaign turns to states in the South and West that vote next week.

Electability has emerged as a pronounced factor in voters' considerations this year as concerns have grown that former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who enjoyed popularity among activist Democrats with his opposition to the war and the Bush tax cuts, could prove unable to reach a broader audience.
Click to expand...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/01/29/electability_boosted_kerry_polls_suggest/

Support for Kerry has surged in each of the seven states since he won the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. A sweep of most, or all, of the states voting today would bolster Kerry's assertion that he is the most electable Democrat and -- while leaving him far short of the delegates he needs to capture the nomination -- add to the sense of inevitability surrounding his candidacy. ..

Kerry has played on the perception that he is the most electable Democrat, exhorting crowds to go to the polls "not to send a message but to elect a president.'' .......

"He now looks like the guy most likely to beat Bush in most people's minds,'' said Paul Hegarty, executive director of the Arizona Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/03/MNGH84NN671.DTL

Almost all exit polls reveal that most Democratic primary voters care about one thing when voting: electabality. In almost every state, Democratic voters believe Kerry is the most electable.
Click to expand...

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=18642&pid=1112

There really isn't a constituency waiting out there to be tapped. The other thing is that seven out of ten said that they thought he was best to beat George W. Bush -- that he was the most electable in spite of the fact that Edwards did have this appeal, demonstrated appeal to independent voters.
Click to expand...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june04/camp_02-18.html
 
Anyone ever see "The One" with Jet Li? It shows an alternate universe where Gore won in 2000. Everything was really clean and it looked like it'd be 2020. And then it showed Bush's universe and everything was a shithole. :lol:
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I love any attention that is brought in this direction. I'll say it for three more years and it won't do a lick of good. There's no sense in running against someone that will never appear on a ballot anywhere again.

[/QUOTE]


You keep saying this so I assume you believe it but, in all fairness, the righties did not stop bashing Clinton even though he would never appear of a ballot again.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Kerry didn't lose because he was too liberal, it was because he lacked personality. But there's no point in putting up a presidential candidate when his own party doesn't like him.

I don't even think you remember the primaries. Overal the preferred candidate was dean, but Kerry was the most electable so they settled for him.[/QUOTE]

I just disagree completely, and yes I do remember the primaries quite clearly. Democrats voting in the primaries, primarily staunch liberal party people, may have seen him as the "most electable," but the populace at large obviously didn't and doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top