Jump to content

ShouldThe Democrats Concede?  

46 members have voted

  1. 1. ShouldThe Democrats Concede?

    • Yes
      23
    • No
      17


Recommended Posts

Guest Agent of Oblivion
Posted

Quitters. If he concedes I'm never voting Democrat again.

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Good move for Kerry. He had about zero mathematical chance of getting the electoral votes he needed. We were looking at the outstanding states here at work, and figured he'd need something like 85% of all outstanding votes nationally (including provisionals, which can be expected to break approximately along party lines) to have a chance, and that just wasn't happening. Props to Kerry for not dragging this out longer than necessary.

Posted
Quitters. If he concedes I'm never voting Democrat again.

He's not a quitter. He recognizes the situation and the damage stretching this out causes to America and the Democratic Party.

-=Mike

Guest Evolution
Posted
He's not a quitter. He recognizes the situation and the damage stretching this out causes to America and the Democratic Party.

I don't usually post in CE, but...

 

What?

Posted
And I haven't heard a single Democrat call Bush illigitimate as far as this win is concerned

Partly, that's because I've been cleaning up the folder as some of the Dems around her completely lost it like St. Gabriel of Djibouti.

That must've been pretty amusing...

 

I didn't take it nearly as hard as I thought I would. I just kind of said a few cuss words under my breath, shook my head when Florida was called for Bush and then... decided I have more important things to worry about.

 

The world will not end now that Bush gets a second term, and in all honesty, I wish him well

It was up until a point...

 

 

He was advocating that Kerry illegally produce enough votes in his favor to win because HE didn't vote for Bush and, therefore, Bush wasn't HIS president.

Guest Agent of Oblivion
Posted

Not to this voter, buddy.

 

Nah seriously though, 2000 redux would just piss people off. NBC's reporting it now.

Posted
He's not a quitter. He recognizes the situation and the damage stretching this out causes to America and the Democratic Party.

I don't usually post in CE, but...

 

What?

If Kerry thought that the Democrats could survive another Florida, he'd sue.

 

However, since the Dems are hurting and the numbers are so far against Kerry in Ohio, he knew better than to push his luck.

Posted
He's not a quitter. He recognizes the situation and the damage stretching this out causes to America and the Democratic Party.

I don't usually post in CE, but...

 

What?

America does not need a long, drawn-out election --- especially since there is no chance of Kerry actually winning.

 

And the Democrats, if they fought for any length of time, would be nailed --- rightly so --- with the "sore loser" label.

-=Mike

Guest thebigjig
Posted
And I haven't heard a single Democrat call Bush illigitimate as far as this win is concerned

Partly, that's because I've been cleaning up the folder as some of the Dems around her completely lost it like St. Gabriel of Djibouti.

That must've been pretty amusing...

 

I didn't take it nearly as hard as I thought I would. I just kind of said a few cuss words under my breath, shook my head when Florida was called for Bush and then... decided I have more important things to worry about.

 

The world will not end now that Bush gets a second term, and in all honesty, I wish him well

It was up until a point...

 

 

He was advocating that Kerry illegally produce enough votes in his favor to win because HE didn't vote for Bush and, therefore, Bush wasn't HIS president.

Yeah thats rather ridiculous... but lets face it, a Kerry win would've caused a similar hysterical reaction from the conservatives here.

Posted

I disagree. I'd simply snipe and carp at Kerry --- but the "He's not my President" crap is sad.

-=Mike

Posted
Am I nuts for predicting the Republicans in 2008 barring a major collapse of epic proportions?

I'm actually picking the GOP to hold the WH, pretty much non-stop, for the next 20 years.

 

Going hard-core anti-war tends to be death for the DNC.

-=Mike

Guest Salacious Crumb
Posted
Am I nuts for predicting the Republicans in 2008 barring a major collapse of epic proportions?

No, the GOP has infinately better options for candidates right now.

Guest whitemilesdavis
Posted

If the Republicans ran Mcain in '08, I think he'd win by a landslide against anyone.

Guest thebigjig
Posted

It's McCain in '08

 

Regardless of whether you like him or dislike him, he's the star of the Republican party, loved by moderates, respected by the average american, and even by a lot of Democrats.

Posted
Am I nuts for predicting the Republicans in 2008 barring a major collapse of epic proportions?

The Republicans haven't put forward their choice of a candidate yet.

 

 

If it's a centrist like a John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, or (with a Constitutional amendment) Arnold Schwartzeneggar, they'll probably pick it up again.

 

 

If it's someone on the far right, it depends on who the Dems put up and if there are any good Third Party candidates.

Guest Salacious Crumb
Posted
It's McCain in '08

 

Regardless of whether you like him or dislike him, he's the star of the Republican party, loved by moderates, respected by the average american, and even by a lot of Democrats.

I would doubt it. His actions after his run in 2000 have hurt his political stock greatly.

Guest Agent of Oblivion
Posted

I'd vote for him based on personality.

Posted
Am I nuts for predicting the Republicans in 2008 barring a major collapse of epic proportions?

Well, it depends who they (and the Democrats run).

 

If it's Hillary vs. Rudy, good god.

Rudy Giuliani might be too moderate to appeal to the whole base, but who knows. It's him or Frist, I think, but legislators don't quite make the best Presidents.

Posted
Am I nuts for predicting the Republicans in 2008 barring a major collapse of epic proportions?

Well, it depends who they (and the Democrats run).

 

If it's Hillary vs. Rudy, good god.

Rudy Giuliani might be too moderate to appeal to the whole base, but who knows. It's him or Frist, I think, but legislators don't quite make the best Presidents.

Hillary vs. Rudy would be something I'd like to see...

 

 

I wanted to see Rudy clean the floor with Hillary in 2000 but his cancer diagnosis scuttled that one.

 

Lazio SHOULD have been able to beat her, but those questionable pardons by Bill Clinton in the last days of his term sure swung things towards Hillary in New York state.

 

(To clarify, Lazio was a piss-poor candidate to begin with... He was in trouble before any of the pardon-trading swung votes Hillary's way)

Guest thebigjig
Posted
Am I nuts for predicting the Republicans in 2008 barring a major collapse of epic proportions?

Well, it depends who they (and the Democrats run).

 

If it's Hillary vs. Rudy, good god.

Rudy Giuliani might be too moderate to appeal to the whole base, but who knows. It's him or Frist, I think, but legislators don't quite make the best Presidents.

Rudy's pro-gay at a time when that seems to be the Republicans football issue which guarantees the evangelicals would think twice.

 

The choice is McCain: Moderate, loved by moderates. McCain would have a better chance at winning than say DeLay who would only appeal to the party's extremes

Posted
Am I nuts for predicting the Republicans in 2008 barring a major collapse of epic proportions?

Well, it depends who they (and the Democrats run).

 

If it's Hillary vs. Rudy, good god.

Rudy Giuliani might be too moderate to appeal to the whole base, but who knows. It's him or Frist, I think, but legislators don't quite make the best Presidents.

Rudy's pro-gay at a time when that seems to be the Republicans football issue which guarantees the evangelicals would think twice.

 

The choice is McCain: Moderate, loved by moderates. McCain would have a better chance at winning than say DeLay who would only appeal to the party's extremes

Tom DeLay knows better than to run for the Presidency...

 

His history as the Republican Whip would be used against him, as he was pretty much the party's enforcer in the House.

Posted
Am I nuts for predicting the Republicans in 2008 barring a major collapse of epic proportions?

Well, it depends who they (and the Democrats run).

 

If it's Hillary vs. Rudy, good god.

Rudy Giuliani might be too moderate to appeal to the whole base, but who knows. It's him or Frist, I think, but legislators don't quite make the best Presidents.

Rudy's pro-gay at a time when that seems to be the Republicans football issue which guarantees the evangelicals would think twice.

 

The choice is McCain: Moderate, loved by moderates. McCain would have a better chance at winning than say DeLay who would only appeal to the party's extremes

Tom DeLay knows better than to run for the Presidency...

 

His history as the Republican Whip would be used against him, as he was pretty much the party's enforcer in the House.

Plus, Americans are stupid:

 

The Whip? What's a Whip? Sounds a little too kinky for me. I don't want no leather queers in my White House

Guest thebigjig
Posted
His history as the Republican Whip would be used against him, as he was pretty much the party's enforcer in the House.

That and the ethics investigations, regardless of whether they have merit or not, could no doubt be used effectively by a Republican candidate running against him in the primary or the Democrat in the actual election

Posted

Tom DeLay knows better than to run for the Presidency...

 

His history as the Republican Whip would be used against him, as he was pretty much the party's enforcer in the House.

Plus, Americans are stupid:

 

The Whip? What's a Whip? Sounds a little too kinky for me. I don't want no leather queers in my White House

Whip = Second in command of a party within a chamber of Congress

 

 

The Whip, traditionally, is the party's enforcer. Dick Cheney was in this position in 1988 before Bush Sr. appointed him to the Cabinet.

Posted

His history as the Republican Whip would be used against him, as he was pretty much the party's enforcer in the House.

That and the ethics investigations, regardless of whether they have merit or not, could no doubt be used effectively by a Republican candidate running against him in the primary or the Democrat in the actual election

That's a connected issue... he was accused of strong-arming people in the House by threatening to pull the party's support for them if they didn't vote the party's way.

Posted

Tom DeLay knows better than to run for the Presidency...

 

His history as the Republican Whip would be used against him, as he was pretty much the party's enforcer in the House.

Plus, Americans are stupid:

 

The Whip? What's a Whip? Sounds a little too kinky for me. I don't want no leather queers in my White House

Whip = Second in command of a party within a chamber of Congress

 

 

The Whip, traditionally, is the party's enforcer. Dick Cheney was in this position in 1988 before Bush Sr. appointed him to the Cabinet.

I know what a Whip is, it's his job to keep the party on the same page and not crossing over.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...