Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted May 21, 2004 I'm just judging from what I've heard, seen, and know from the Canadians I am friends with... you're honestly the first I've spoken to that has complained to this extent... but hey, you would know more than I would CWM is 100% right. And now we have to pay a lot more for it thanks to Dalton McFibby. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted May 21, 2004 Think of the wrestling world. Got it? Good. Now, FDR = HHH... It's a lot easier and takes a lot less thought to point the decaying corpse of Strom Thurmond and say, "This is what happens." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted May 21, 2004 I also think it's a little ridiculous... if the american people feel, as a majority, that a sitting president should continue on as president, then he/she should be allowed to. This will make the two-party system last forever, if you think about it. Imagine if more parties spring up, and the votes on both sides are split. You could have a President who's very unpopular with five of the eight parties which together represent a majority of Americans, but keeps getting re-elected again and again because his party has bigger numbers than the other parties. See Israel where it's becoming more and more realistic every day to say that a majority want to pull out, but aren't being listened to because Likud is more united. Lastly, I would like to apologize to all our righties out there for the Clinton lovefest that suddently went down in this thread... *shudders* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 21, 2004 ummm you sure about that? Gore won the popular vote... and thats GORE. Do you HONESTLY believe that more people would've rather voted for Gore than Clinton? Think about it... and saying the economy was "tanking" is a bit of a stretch... if you meant the beginning of a slight deficit, you're correct *ponders* *ponders* *ponders* *scratches nuts* Yeah, I'm pretty sure. I don't think Bill would have won a third term. I think his personal behavoir would have played a big role in some states that barely went for Gore siding with Bush. When the dot-com bubble was bursting, Clinton was cruising the world telling everyone how great he was. And I LOVED the Johnny Alter Newsweek artcile that was headlined "Thanks Ever So Much, President Poor-Mouth" when Bush was "talking down" the economy... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 21, 2004 Think of the wrestling world. Got it? Good. Now, FDR = HHH... It's a lot easier and takes a lot less thought to point the decaying corpse of Strom Thurmond and say, "This is what happens." Which is why I go that extra step for my fans... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 21, 2004 Think of the wrestling world. Got it? Good. Now, FDR = HHH... It's a lot easier and takes a lot less thought to point the decaying corpse of Strom Thurmond and say, "This is what happens." I will, of course, defend my state here. You really should see the stiffs the state Democratic Party ran against Strom for the last 3 or so elections. People would rather keep his staffers in Washington then bring in a blithering 'tard. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nl5xsk1 0 Report post Posted May 21, 2004 Yes, it's safe to say that Clinton would have beat Bush to win a third term, but that's assuming that Ronald Wilson Reagan lost in 1988 ... which he probably wouldn't have. And having Reagan in office for another 4 years would have changed the dynamic of everything that happened afterwards. And, even though I'm a Reagan-fan, having him in office from '88-'92 would have been bad ... the man was nearing senility because of his alzheimers, and it would not have been a pretty picture. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 21, 2004 Yes, it's safe to say that Clinton would have beat Bush to win a third term... No, it's not safe to say that because I'd clock you in the mouth... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted May 21, 2004 Clintons approval rating was still in the mide 60% on his last day in office... yeah, he would have won a third term, no doubt about it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 21, 2004 Well, I doubt it. (Christ, I'm stopping right now before we end up with 5 pages of "U R wrong d00d." "No, U R wrong st00pid...") Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nl5xsk1 0 Report post Posted May 21, 2004 Yes, it's safe to say that Clinton would have beat Bush to win a third term... No, it's not safe to say that because I'd clock you in the mouth... Hey, besides being a proud Republican, I also have a great distaste for guys that like fat chicks ... so I'm not happy that Clinton would have won. I just think that it's likely that he would have. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BDC Report post Posted May 21, 2004 I'm fairly sure that there's a sweetheart period when someone's leaving the presidency, though I might have it mixed up. If it were going into another election, though, not so much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 21, 2004 I'm fairly sure that there's a sweetheart period when someone's leaving the presidency, though I might have it mixed up. If it were going into another election, though, not so much. Clinton had support --- but it was exceptionally shallow. Again, he couldn't pull down a majority against Dole, running as bad a campaign as somebody could run, and a quite irrelevant Perot. People may have LIKED the guy --- but they didn't seem to want to VOTE for him. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted May 21, 2004 Wait a second... he beat Dole in a landslide... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 21, 2004 Wait a second... he beat Dole in a landslide... Didn't pull down a majority of the vote --- and the landslide was markedly less than almost all of the polls indicated heading in. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spicy McHaggis 0 Report post Posted May 21, 2004 Surplus + Bustling economy = evil? I liked Clinton. He was awesome. Well, a surplus means people are being overtaxed, and the president has very little relevance when talking about the economy. You were saying? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 21, 2004 Surplus + Bustling economy = evil? I liked Clinton. He was awesome. Well, a surplus means people are being overtaxed, and the president has very little relevance when talking about the economy. You were saying? Heck, if Kerry wins, he gets an economy in full recovery for him to claim that he rescued. Heck, just like Clinton got in 1992. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 21, 2004 Wait a second... he beat Dole in a landslide... Saying Clinton won in a "landslide" is a bit of a stretch... if you meant "electoral landslide," you're correct. Now Reagan/Mondale or Nixon/McGovern -- THAT'S a landslide... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted May 21, 2004 Wait a second... he beat Dole in a landslide... Saying Clinton won in a "landslide" is a bit of a stretch... if you meant "electoral landslide," you're correct. Now Reagan/Mondale or Nixon/McGovern -- THAT'S a landslide... Landslide or no, the outcome of the election was never in much doubt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted May 21, 2004 The Clinton victory in 96 was a substantial one... you can spin it however you want And I'm sorry, but I think it's really stupid to believe that more people would've voted for Al... GORE over Clinton. Clinton would've beaten Bush. Easily? No, but he would've squeaked a victory by Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 21, 2004 The Clinton victory in 96 was a substantial one... you can spin it however you want And I'm sorry, but I think it's really stupid to believe that more people would've voted for Al... GORE over Clinton. Clinton would've beaten Bush. Easily? No, but he would've squeaked a victory by jig, you are aware that, ridiculous as you may think it is, more people DID vote for both Bush AND Gore than EVER voted for Clinton. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted May 21, 2004 The Clinton victory in 96 was a substantial one... you can spin it however you want And I'm sorry, but I think it's really stupid to believe that more people would've voted for Al... GORE over Clinton. Clinton would've beaten Bush. Easily? No, but he would've squeaked a victory by jig, you are aware that, ridiculous as you may think it is, more people DID vote for both Bush AND Gore than EVER voted for Clinton. -=Mike Of course... chalk that up to a more heated election. After 8 years of Clinton, the right was more mobilized than they've ever been before, and same goes for the left in wanting to keep the democratic party in power... if Bush ran against Clinton, you would've seen the exact same thing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted May 21, 2004 also, Bush was a stronger candidate than Dole I dont however think you can make the same argument for Gore being a stronger candidate than Clinton Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 21, 2004 The Clinton victory in 96 was a substantial one... you can spin it however you want And I'm sorry, but I think it's really stupid to believe that more people would've voted for Al... GORE over Clinton. Clinton would've beaten Bush. Easily? No, but he would've squeaked a victory by jig, you are aware that, ridiculous as you may think it is, more people DID vote for both Bush AND Gore than EVER voted for Clinton. -=Mike Of course... chalk that up to a more heated election. After 8 years of Clinton, the right was more mobilized than they've ever been before, and same goes for the left in wanting to keep the democratic party in power... if Bush ran against Clinton, you would've seen the exact same thing Possibly so --- but in 1996, when the GOP had won the Congress in 1994 and REALLY wanted Clinton gone --- Bill couldn't generate as many votes as Gore and Bush. It's not like THAT election wasn't closely contested. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2004 The Clinton victory in 96 was a substantial one... you can spin it however you want Time to bust out the ol' TSM Maytag: According to this biased Web site, Clinton got 47,402,357 votes, and Dole got 39,198,755. A solid win, but not by the margin my two examples had. Source (I was lazy and just did a google) Ronald Reagan (Republican) 54,455,075 (525 electoral votes) Walter Mondale (Democrat) 37,577,185 (13 electoral votes) Source II Richard M. Nixon (Republican) 47,170,179 60.69% (520 electoral votes) George McGovern (Democrat) 29,171,791 37.53% (17 electoral votes) Ok, time to put my clothes into the dryer... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Crazy Dan Report post Posted May 22, 2004 My only thought process of why I think Clinton could have beaten Bush, if he had been allowed to run was for some reasons. One, a big reason for the Bush Victory was that he came off as a more likeable candidate than Gore. Even though personality is not my deciding factor on who I vote for in a candidate, I usually will look into what each candidate supports and what issues they support. But for many people, this is a big factor. Well as we all know, Bush has that "Awe Shucks" vibe going for him. He is someone that is likeable, and gives the impression that he is one of the fellas. Gore on the other hand, well, he comes off as a stiff. He comes off as a dull, intellectual who bores you to death with details. Even if many of his points are correct, many of the casual voters just did not connect with Gore. And so come election time, Bush was the candidate that they related to more. So Bush was able to pull in votes that helped him win some of those swing states. Another key factor, were the debates. One thing I will criticize Bush on is that his debating skills are not very good, which I attest to his weak public speaking skills. But who ever devised his strategy worked to a T. Because another thing that hurt Gore during these debates is that he came off as an impatient jerk. It was so obvious Gore wanted to get into a debate (I do think Gore had a lot of information to back up his claims), but Bush during a lot of those debates kept his mouth shut, and would throw out a saying here and there. "We need to do this" "In Texas, we did it like this". But to me, I never really saw Bush really offer any solution or statistics, he just pointed out problems. And when Gore tried to get him to expand on what he had just said, Bush kept quite. And it also didn't help that Gore would lose so much patience that he would interupt and get this impatient look. So guess who ended up looking like a more likeable candidate. That is right, Bush. And there are many more examples of Gore screwing up these debates. Where this could have been a great chance to really hurt Bush, ended up hurting Gore instead. One last thing though, which falls under the irony category. I remember Bush saying "If you elect him, he will be the biggest spender in US history". Of course Bush never backed this up with any facts or statistics, but unfortunately it now looks like Bush will be the biggest spender in US history, as he has never met a bill he never liked. So Gore did much to lose the Race. But if Clinton had run, it might have been a whole different story. For one thing, for all of Clinton's faults, and yes he had many, too many to list, he is also one of those candidates that has tha t"Awe Shucks" vibe. Clinton when you hear him talk does come off as a likeable person. He definately has more charisma than Gore, and so if he ran against Bush, Bush would not have had that distinct advantage. And in the debates. As Gore completely blew it with his imapatience, which made him even more unlikeable, Clinton on the other hand would have done a much better job in the debates. I think that Clinton would have handled the debates better than Gore. And to make a long story short, at the worse both would have came out as likeable, instead of Bush looking like the good guy, and Gore looking like the Jerk. And of course, if Clinton had ran, I do think he would have been able to win at least his home state, and that would have given him the win the electorate college. But this is all hindsight, but I do think Clinton would have been a better candidate against Bush, than Gore. And remember, Gore barely lost that election, imagine what a more popular Clinton would have been able to have done. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vanhalen 0 Report post Posted May 22, 2004 Yeah but surely people would get sick of a President after a while, wouldnt they? I mean, Maggie Thatcher looked fucking invinceable after winning her third election, but she was gone two years later, Blair has won two terms, but people are openly talking about him going soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 22, 2004 Yeah but surely people would get sick of a President after a while, wouldnt they? I mean, Maggie Thatcher looked fucking invinceable after winning her third election, but she was gone two years later, Blair has won two terms, but people are openly talking about him going soon. baron, in america, the incumbents have such a monumental advantage that unseating them tends to be exceptionally difficult. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vanhalen 0 Report post Posted May 24, 2004 Ah well I understand now, cheers for that, just wasnt sure why Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
