TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- favorite presidential candidate?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

^^^and flaming and bashing is what others do best...i don't know if it is just because some people are generally scared that Bush stands a chance of getting re-elected or they can't simply respect other peoples opinions or views on who or 'how' they will vote for / view the current situation.

Seen these types of responses too much...I wonder when the immaturity will finally get to me.

just a general observation....

I continue to look at who may best suit the democratic candidate, unfortunately the last 2 days, more talk of Hillary has overshadowed the actual current candidates...I don't think that's a good thing right now. It keeps the whole of the democratic voters even more divided on what may happen.

^^^^ If you would've seen what this guy has posted before, then I guess you wouldnt just replied to it, hence you shouldnt taken that so serious. What ever is directed to the person I quoted, its not something to really take serious, more to the sarcastic way.. but hey..

understood...

I am just as guilty sometimes, but remember 'emotion'/sarcasm is hard to determine when reading type...and what's written to one person or general group, is still possibly read by all here. It's probably the basis of half the flaming that starts on [these] boards.

Anyone but Bush 2003.

Actually, I'll tell you who I don't like:

Joe Lieberman
John Kerry

Who I do like:

Howard Dean
Gephardt (I don't think he's as conservative as Lieberman, but I'm not aware of his voting record)
Wes Clark (I still need to learn more about him. He got much exposure from his war coverage on CNN, and is leading the other candidates as of now.)

We young people can't afford to be apathetic this election. The US is falling apart before our very eyes, and the BUsh adm. has ruined our standing with the rest of the world with their isolationist foreign policy. I agree we need a 3 party (at least) system in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by 'mju:zik You guys all seem to be on the Dean wagon...but theres no way Dean can beat Bush. Lieberman, IMO, has the best chance at becoming prez. He may not be my fav candidate but would u rather see Bush or Lieb in the white house?

Lieberman is so conservative and moralistic he's almost the same as Bush. I really hope he doesn't win the nomination.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade and the Democrats to lose traditional Democratic votes to the Greens, Independents or to just people not voting at all.

One of the reasons that Gore lost Florida.

quote:

Originally posted by 'mju:zik You guys all seem to be on the Dean wagon...but theres no way Dean can beat Bush. Lieberman, IMO, has the best chance at becoming prez. He may not be my fav candidate but would u rather see Bush or Lieb in the white house?

this made me LOL not only does lieberman mirror bush on a lot of issues, do you think all the christians and especially the south will vote, let alone let a jew be a president?

Wesley clark is beating all the other democrats at the moment. clark did a reversal of his support for the war in iraq, its a contradiction and may hurt his credibility

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz One of the reasons that Gore lost Florida.

... not true. I doubt it was merely close to that. But one of the things that bothers me today the most, is the fact that Cubans had a big role in this, they went totally against the whole democratic party, on vote republican only for a revenge for the Elian Gonzalez issue, something that Al Gore had nothing to do with, but it angers me knowing that Cubans voted for someone just for revenge for their own sake and not this country. Now I laught my ass off to see that Bush did alot of BLABLABLABLALBLA with this Cubans, and now the Cubans are all bitching at Bush because he's done nothing for what they've asked for. Now they are all starting to switch parties again for that same reason. And if there would have been a re-vote.. Gore would have won Florida. ( Remember, Bush won by 100 votes aprox )

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX ... not true. I doubt it was merely close to that. But one of the things that bothers me today the most, is the fact that Cubans had a big role in this, they went totally against the whole democratic party, on vote republican only for a revenge for the Elian Gonzalez issue, something that Al Gore had nothing to do with, but it angers me knowing that Cubans voted for someone just for revenge for their own sake and not this country. Now I laught my ass off to see that Bush did alot of BLABLABLABLALBLA with this Cubans, and now the Cubans are all bitching at Bush because he's done nothing for what they've asked for. Now they are all starting to switch parties again for that same reason. And if there would have been a re-vote.. Gore would have won Florida. ( Remember, Bush won by 100 votes aprox )

You're right. That made me pissed too. So many Cubans voted for Bush and he hasn't done anything for them at all.

This just in:

quote:

The Clark factor Clark From the Wolf Blitzer Reports staff in Washington: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- His announcement last week came as little surprise to most political observers. "I'm here to announce that I intend to seek the presidency of the United States of America," retired Gen. Wesley Clark told a group of supporters in Little Rock, Arkansas. His new surge is another matter. Meet Gen. Wesley Clark, front-runner. In the latest CNN/USA-Today/Gallup Poll, registered voters were presented with a hypothetical head-to-head match-up and asked their choice for president. Wesley Clark led President Bush 49% to 46%, within the 3.5% margin of error. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland says a number of factors contribute to Clark's popularity. "Part of it is his resume, part of it is his announcement bounce, part of it may simply be that he's a fresh face. He is, after all, the flavor of the month." This from a candidate without huge name recognition. Nearly half the general public surveyed is not familiar with Gen. Clark. Still, political experts say Clark's catapult is not the most surprising thing about this poll. "Bush is sinking, Clark is surging," says Bill Schneider, a CNN senior political analyst. "Clark picked exactly the right moment to make his announcement." Indeed, the same CNN/USA-Today/Gallup Poll shows President Bush falling fast. According to this poll, the president has a 50% approval rating, the lowest of his presidency and a 10% drop from last month. His handling of Iraq and the economy are hurting the president in the polls and putting his administration on the defensive. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts has been one of many vocal critics in recent days. "We don't have a postwar policy," he said Monday. "It is being made up every single day, and as a result our men and women are a shooting gallery over there. People want answers. They're not getting them from this administration." But U.S. administrator for reconstruction in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, defended the U.S. course of action before the Senate on Monday, saying, "We can not simply pat the Iraqis on the back, tell them are lucky to be rid of Saddam and ask them to go find their place in a global market to compete without the tools of competition. To do so would invite economic collapse, followed by political extremism and a return to terrorism." Timing aside, is there an "Ike Factor" with Wes Clark? A parallel exists between Clark and another former supreme allied commander in Europe, who rode in on a white horse in 1952 and captured the White House. According to CNN's Keating Holland, that theory may hold some water. "He does particularly well with those over 65, for example. And that's the crowd that remembers Gen. Eisenhower. That's the 'Greatest Generation' that sort of stands up and salutes when they hear the world 'general'," says Keating. According to this poll, right now, Gen. Clark may not even need to be Eisenhower. The numbers for his Democratic rival, John Kerry, are almost equally impressive. They fall within the margin of error, but Kerry still holds a 48% to 47% lead over George W. Bush. This is less than encouraging news for an incumbent making that historically dangerous political gamble on a war's outcome and an economy's recovery.

Good news.
It's a shame so many have had to die for these poll numbers to swing against BUsh.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz Good news. It's a shame so many have had to die for these poll numbers to swing against BUsh.

WHile I don't find anything necessarily surprising about this information, you did use CNN as your source. Seeing as CNN was, up until very recently, Gen. Clark's employer, you could say there is a little bit of bias (we all tend to give our friends more credit than they are most times due).

There are still 13 months and some change until the elections so there is little point prognosticating a Bush defeat now with just one or two sets of polls.

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel WHile I don't find anything necessarily surprising about this information, you did use CNN as your source. Seeing as CNN was, up until very recently, Gen. Clark's employer, you could say there is a little bit of bias (we all tend to give our friends more credit than they are most times due). There are still 13 months and some change until the elections so there is little point prognosticating a Bush defeat now with just one or two sets of polls. MrS

I'm going to come out and predict that it's all going to depend on the condition of the labor market. That's the factor that's either going to make or break Bush's chances in '04. And make or break some of the democratic candidates. A lot of them have been campaigning off the platform of the state of the economy. If the labor market starts to pick up in response to the upswing of the manufacturing sector then this could hurt the campaigning of several democrats.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm going to come out and predict that it's all going to depend on the condition of the labor market. That's the factor that's either going to make or break Bush's chances in '04. And make or break some of the democratic candidates. A lot of them have been campaigning off the platform of the state of the economy. If the labor market starts to pick up in response to the upswing of the manufacturing sector then this could hurt the campaigning of several democrats.

Agreed.

Thus why I said it is way too early to make any solid predictions. A lot of things can change in 13 months. For all we know we could be at war with N. Korea by then (though I hope not).

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel WHile I don't find anything necessarily surprising about this information, you did use CNN as your source. Seeing as CNN was, up until very recently, Gen. Clark's employer, you could say there is a little bit of bias (we all tend to give our friends more credit than they are most times due). There are still 13 months and some change until the elections so there is little point prognosticating a Bush defeat now with just one or two sets of polls. MrS

Mm somewhat true, but the polls are right. The polls speak for themselves, and they arent from CNN, but Gallup itself ( its that the one, or one of the ones that occrider uses for their close to accuracy? ).. . And true, alot of things can happen in 13 months, like some another terrorist attack and Bush gets to lead the nation ones again with the flavour of patriotism.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.