Gore Leads Polls on '04 Democratic Race

[lordofgun]

Al Gore holds a wide lead over his likely rivals for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, according to surveys by The Washington Post and ABC News. But if he is thinking about re-creating the Gore-Lieberman ticket from 2000, the results of the polling suggest he might think again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28387-2002Jul18.html

<hr>

HAHA! I hope the dems are stupid enough to put Gore up for the nomination!

:lol:

[LtBillsFan66]

Well he did get more votes in the last election. What does that say about Bush?

[Patrick76777]

Great, we get to choose from dumb and dumber again.

[lordofgun]

Originally posted by BillsFanOne
Well he did get more votes in the last election. What does that say about Bush?

1. Dems cheated.
2. Electoral college is a good thing.

:D

[Valerie]

Originally posted by Patrick76777 Great, we get to choose from dumb and dumber again.
lmao@Patrick :lol:

[Earthquake Enyart]

It's too bad Ross Perot turned out to be crazy.

[LtBillsFan66]

I'm writing myself in.

[John]

Polls taken this early in the process often reflect how well known a candidate is and are likely to change significantly once the primary season begins.

I wouldn't put too much stock in this . . .

[BillC]

Goddam 22nd amendment... I could have been a bigger dynasty than the Yankees

[clumping platelets]

Clinton in 2004 :up:

:party:

[Meathead]

Whether Gore got more votes or not is moot - the EC is the right way to go to avoid major metropolitan areas from controlling elections.

But Gore did have more people attempting to vote for him in Florida and should have won. It was the butterfly ballot and the inability of the poor Florida system to handle unexpectedly large turnout in minority districts that doomed him. At best GW got lucky lucky lucky. I won't say what at worst is.

[WG]

The majority of voters vote simply based on personality preference and have not a clue as to how this country actually works nor take an interest in it.

Gore won't be running for anything btw. The dems know he is WAY too dry. He may run in the primaries, but if Hillary runs, IMO she'd win the primaries before Gore would. I'm thinkin' another altogether.

The fall elections this year will tell us much about where things stand...

[WG]

Clinton may run for Pimp of Hollywood in '04, but that's about it...!

:D

[BillsMan80]

Well, what did we honestly expect in Florida??? That is Miami Dolphin country...I mean, we should have known that something was going to happen...In fact, I just named my fantasy team for G-Dubya...the NJ BushWhackers.

[ticatfan]

Well if you had who we've had for the last 9 years you would be very happy to have clinton back.lol

[Dozerdog]

We want McCain! :patriot:

[BillC]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
Clinton may run for Pimp of Hollywood in '04, but that's about it...!

:D Hmmmm...... do you ned to live in the area?

[mybills]

Originally posted by BillsFanOne
Well he did get more votes in the last election. What does that say about Bush?

According to the final Tally, Gore did NOT get more votes. Unless you count illegal ones! (X-cons etc...):D

[gameboy]

I'd be interested to know if anyone on the sight has actually met Gore or any of the other players mentioned from either party, and what their impression was. I've met Gore and spoke with him briefly.

[WG]

Actually mybills is right! That whole thing about winning the popular vote is a bunch of nonsense. Once the counting was all in, Bush had the popular vote as well.

The original tally they had was only when the contests were officially over %age wise. But all the votes in all states hadn't even been counted. Even in Florida it wasn't as close as reported by some.

Libs just can't take losing very well. :D

[Halbert]

Read up on it. Yes, Bush won the vote that the machines could count. And in recounts of punch card ballots that were actually cast, Bush would have won in 3 of the 4 methods used to count how uncounted votes didn't read. Fact is Bush won on poor polling and technicalities. Thousands upon thousands of votes from minority districts were lost. Using even the most wildly conservative percentages to estimate the number of votes lost by gore has him winning by many thousands. No judgment or bias necessary to see that. All other arguments boil down to simplistic generalization window dressing.

[Cntrygal]

yeah.... and absentee military ballots were thrown out because the US Postal system doesn't postmark mail that comes from APO addresses. Makes me happy to vote when deployed.....

[Halbert]

Actually, post election analysis now shows that Bush benefited greatly from the absentee ballot process. I didn't even bother to bring that up because of the inflammatory nature of the subject and the fact that the votes lost in minority districts far outweighed any method of estimating the absentee ballot impact.

All this information is out there for anyone who wants to look it up. As you do, notice the complete lack of official comment from the right on the subject - interestingly conspicuous in its absence. The conclusion is very easy to draw.

[SoCalBillsFan]

bush is president. get over it. HE won the electoral college. Make all the excuses you want it wont get gore into office.

I thought this was two years old?

[Halbert]

Nobody's making excuses. I'm a registered independent, have voted for R pres before, and I support Bush as president. Don't like him, but I support him.

I just don't want anyone to forget what really happened. I'm ashamed that the current administration forced this country to not count votes that were available to be inspected. If there's one right that should be sacred it's the right to vote and we should have done everything in our power to count as many as possible. The butterfly ballot and uncast minority votes can never be recovered so even though we can estimate with a high degree of confidence how they would have voted, they can never be included in any actual results. But the existing punch card ballots COULD and they were suppressed due 100% to political manipulation. Many, many thousands of people have died protecting the right to vote and we have disrespected that sacrifice. Our reputation on that subject is forever tainted.

It's likely the Democrats would have done the same thing but that doesn't excuse the Republicans. There's a reason why there hasn't been any discussion from the right on the topic, that's because they know what they did - suppressed the counting of available votes. Perhaps the only thing more disgusting is the behavior of the Supreme Court to overturn the proper decision of the Florida Supreme Court to count those votes. I'm actually glad that Bush would have won the most reasonable recount because it only highlights the absurdity of what they did. We threw out countable votes on purpose, and I will always view that as wrong. Sticking our heads in the sand doesn't make it go away.

Until s/he proves he doesn't deserve it, I'll always support whatever president we have, despite how I may vote myself. But anyone who gets satisfaction out of that election debacle is seriously short on perspective.

I just hope it never, ever happens again - no matter which party wins. It's an embarrassment to our country.

[Halbert]

btw - the only reason I responded was to counter the very false impression that Bush won "fair and square". He won but it certainly wasn't by anything other than a freak accident. The dispicable behavior to supress a just recount was a separate issue.

I would take the exact same stance if anyone from any party had won the same way. It's not healthy for us to forget what happened that day, no matter who ends up benefitting from it.

[mybills]

IMO, Gore was the one who made a mockery out of this Country by dragging it through the courts, and not stepping aside gallantly as all have done in past close elections. He looked like a big loser cry baby, then topped it off by taking digs at the Rep party in his defeat speech. He's a little "Clinton mini-me" and had he gone into office instead of Bush, this Country would be worse off than it is right now.

I'm a pretty good judge of character based on peoples facial expressions, never trust someone (Clinton) who smiles "all the time"...like a kid with his hand in the cookie jar..and yes, he had secrets, but a robot expression (Gore) tells me there's no heart in the job, and you've got to CARE about your Country, not get into office just because. Somehow I doubt Gore would have shed a tear like Bush did during 911. If he did, it would have been a miracle...you know, like how those blessed statues cry? LOL

GO GW!!!!!

[Patrick76777]

Jeb made sure that the votes were swimming with the fishes in Lake Okeechobee

[mybills]

Originally posted by Patrick76777
Jeb made sure that the votes were swimming with the fishes in Lake Okeechobee

Nah, they were swimming in liberal tears :D

[LtBillsFan66]

I'm voting for Trafficant in '04.

[ticatfan]

Not being a american and have nothing to do with the election,but I seen that clinton worked 18 hr days and the us was booming and now President bush puts in half that time and takes an afternoon nap and now look at the economy.Is there a connection?

[EricStratton]

No

[BillC]

Hey,

In guess if I turned the Spanish station off (you see the chicks on that?) and put away the Victoria Secret catalogs, I'm sure I could have gotten everything done in at least 14 hours.

All work and no play makes Billy a dull boy....

[Patrick76777]

Hard core republicans like to think that the economy was doing well during the Clinton admin, because of what Reagan and Bush did from 80-92. And that it’s going bad now because of Slick Willie’s 8 years. I have a difficult time following this train of thought! The economy is so volatile that any national or international event can have an immediate and drastic effect on the economy. But they like us to believe that it took Reagan’s economic policy a decade to have a positive effect. That’s non-sense.

As for political parties, I am a firm believer that it’s unwise to blindly follow one party or another 100%. I think that we all should have our own political opinions and be able to look at everything with an open mind. I’ve said it before, I voted for Gore, Because I thought he was more intelligent then Bush, But I would have voted for McCain over Gore.

As for Bush and his vacation time. It’s a little much. Everytime you hear about him, he’s on some sort of vacation. I said it in November 2000; there is NO WAY this guy will win again in 2004. Like I said earlier, we had to choose from Dumb and Dumber. Lets get some intelligent personable bull**** artists (because that’s what makes a good politician) together for 2004. Then we can have a fun election.

Wow, I’ve got to get back to being funny. I hope all the conservatives don’t hate me now.

[LtBillsFan66]

I agree with you Patrick. I hold many conservative views, but I'm not a blind follower of every Republican. I've been very sad to see conservatives finger pointing lately. They’ve reduced themselves to liberal tactics. A lot are still hung up on Bill Clinton. They are in a funk, IMO.

[mybills]

<b>Hard core republicans like to think that the economy was doing well during the Clinton admin, because of what Reagan and Bush did from 80-92.</b>

Reagan did more for us than Bush Sr. and Clinton combined. The words <u>part of the</u> should be inserted before 'Clinton admin' to be a more accurate statement too! But I won't knit pick any further :D

[Sabre Ally]

Yep, he sure did. Reagan did more to ruin this country than both Bushes and Clinton combined.
Trickle-down economics my http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/moon.gif

[gameboy]

I believe connecting economic performance to a president is one of the great American myths. It takes years for serious economic change to take effect.
Another great American myth is the linkage of the president alone to any policy or event. The job is way too big for one individual. I usually vote for the candidate whom I think will bring in the best team. Regardless, the dynamic that evolves between the administration and congress is ultimately what determines events, not one or the other.

[SABURZFAN]

Originally posted by lordofgun


1. Dems cheated.
2. Electoral college is a good thing.

:D



they're ALL a bunch of cheats.

[mybills]

Originally posted by Sabre Ally
Yep, he sure did. Reagan did more to ruin this country than both Bushes and Clinton combined.
Trickle-down economics my http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/moon.gif

Please tell us exactly how you think he ruined this country.
I for one, am very curious.

[lordofgun]

It's funny how all the dems are blaming Bush for these corporate scandals when most of it happened under Clinton's watch. It's just taken a couple of years to come to light.

[Patrick76777]

Originally posted by gameboy
I believe connecting economic performance to a president is one of the great American myths. It takes years for serious economic change to take effect.
Another great American myth is the linkage of the president alone to any policy or event. The job is way too big for one individual. I usually vote for the candidate whom I think will bring in the best team. Regardless, the dynamic that evolves between the administration and congress is ultimately what determines events, not one or the other.




I agree that Presidents are often given too much credit or given too much blame in most cases but not with the economy! If we drop a bomb, the Dow goes up, We get attacked the Dow goes down. These changes are always immediate. I think many people don’t have confidence in Bush. That’s not saying he’s doing a bad job! He’s just not a good bull****ter. I’m paraphrasing here but Clinton was suave. He acted like he was trying to put the moves on a woman (nice analogy). I can see Slick Willie scoring every time. At the same time I don’t think Bush has the tools to pull off the same move. People see him stumbling over his words, stopping after every phrase and looking into the camera with that 3 second pause like he’s looking for recognition. Republican’s don’t think so, but I believe that most people just don’t see him as a strong leader. I think we need someone strong! Maybe a military type but not a full out Warmonger. Maybe someone like McCain or better yet Powell

[Patrick76777]

Originally posted by lordofgun
It's funny how all the dems are blaming Bush for these corporate scandals when most of it happened under Clinton's watch. It's just taken a couple of years to come to light.


I don’t think anybody is blaming Bush as much as they are criticizing the way he has handled it. I’m not going to bring up the controversy with his stock options because I think that 90% of all politicians have inside information and use it to make money. Plus I think it’s a low to bring something like that up. We have all made mistakes in our past. I hate how rival parties dig up past indiscretions and try to use them against each other. Plus I have a tough time placing blame on these corporate scandals. These are big boys. They're cooking the books themselves. Slick Willie really had no way of knowing what was going on. It happened and now we have to find a way to prevent it. But at the same time we need to keep government involvement to a minimum.

[lordofgun]

I voted for Buchanon! :D

[gameboy]

Originally posted by Patrick76777


I agree that Presidents are often given too much credit or given too much blame in most cases but not with the economy! If we drop a bomb, the Dow goes up, We get attacked the Dow goes down. These changes are always immediate.

I stand by my original claim. There are two innacuracies in the logic of this argument. First, the president is not responsible for us getting attacked. Second, the stock market is not the economy. In fact, this time period provides us such proof. The "economy" has been doing quite well. GDP results for the last two quarters show strong growth. The market, on the other hand is doing poorly. This recent paroxysm is due to the lack of trust in the accuracy of accounting data. What used to be "generally accepted accounting principles," has become "currently accepted accounting principles." It isn't either parties fault.

[Patrick76777]

Originally posted by gameboy


I stand by my original claim. There are two innacuracies in the logic of this argument. First, the president is not responsible for us getting attacked. Second, the stock market is not the economy. In fact, this time period provides us such proof. The "economy" has been doing quite well. GDP results for the last two quarters show strong growth. The market, on the other hand is doing poorly. This recent paroxysm is due to the lack of trust in the accuracy of accounting data. What used to be "generally accepted accounting principles," has become "currently accepted accounting principles." It isn't either parties fault.


You completely misunderstood my post; I never said anywhere that the President drops bombs. I was giving examples of how major events have immediate affects on the economy. And I can’t accept you agreement that the stock market is not a part of and doesn’t have a MAJOR effect on the economy. PLEASE.

[gameboy]

Originally posted by Patrick76777

And I can’t accept you agreement that the stock market is not a part of and doesn’t have a MAJOR effect on the economy. PLEASE.
I didn't say it wasn't part of the economy. The market, occasionally, gets de-linked from the economy for it's own peculiar reasons and this is one such time. If it turns out to be anything but a brief episode, it does have an impact. I was merely trying to point out that the US economy is the biggest entity on earth, and the president has a much more limited effect on it that most people think. It takes years for policy changes to have a real impact, and many, many months for interest cuts to have an effect, another factor the president doesn't have a direct input on.

[Patrick76777]

Good point. I’ve always said that we, as Americans think the president handles a lot more then he actually does.

[Halbert]

I'd vote for Powell for President in a SECOND.

[Patrick76777]

same here!

[Meathead]

Lyonel Jefferson for President!

[Halbert]

1) I'd love to see the anguish on my hard-core liberal black friends as they decided between "Uncle Tom" and "My brutha"

2) I'd love to see the look on the right as they comprehend the impact on "My Gawd, what have we done?!"

3) I'd love to see the look on the Dems as they comprehend "All those votes and we didn't offer up ONE candidate."

4) I'd love to see the deemphasis of the trivia question "who is Ezola Foster?"

And finally,

I'd love to see how long a man of character and virtue could last in that meat grinder - hopefully forever.

[Shiny Chicken]

I'm very much a liberal... but there is a very good chance I ould vote for Powell.

I voted for Gore... but I agree... it was a dumb and dumber election, and I didn't want "dumber" to win, so I voted for "dumb".

I would have prefered to vote for Nader or Bradley, myself. I think it's a shame Bradley lost the democratic primary. I think he would have destroyed Bush... even just based on intellect alone. The main reason Bush won was because of Clinton-Gore fatigue... most people I know that voted for Bush didn't like him very much... they voted for him because they didn't like Gore... Bradley would have easily destroyed Bush.

Now Bradley vs. McCain... that would have been a presidential election worth seeing.

[Patrick76777]

Originally posted by Benjudah
I'm very much a liberal... but there is a very good chance I ould vote for Powell.

I voted for Gore... but I agree... it was a dumb and dumber election, and I didn't want "dumber" to win, so I voted for "dumb".

I would have prefered to vote for Nader or Bradley, myself. I think it's a shame Bradley lost the democratic primary. I think he would have destroyed Bush... even just based on intellect alone. The main reason Bush won was because of Clinton-Gore fatigue... most people I know that voted for Bush didn't like him very much... they voted for him because they didn't like Gore... Bradley would have easily destroyed Bush.

Now Bradley vs. McCain... that would have been a presidential election worth seeing.


Very nice post.