Pre Vote Poll 2004

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Tasty,

Here you little prick.....I found it for your little pwned ass:

http://www.poliblogger.com/poliblog/archives/002789.html

Go down to the NYT 7/26/88 poll and bite me.

-GhostSniper Out.

[Cossack]

GS you said that poll showed Dukakis ahead seventeen points four months before the election. Four months is a long time in an election and that very well may have been the case. It does not proove anything. The same goes for the poll numbers about Bush and Kerry. The damn convention has not happened yet! Its a long ways away.

[kami]

I'm not familiar with the Dukakis v Bush vote really but I heard something about the Bush campaign defaming Dukakis in the end run or something like that and because of it, Bush won. Probably got it wrong but it's what I remember hearing, clear it up for me someone?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

That won't happen--Nader wanted to run again and the Greens rejected him because if the Democrats lose again and they got blamed, they knew it would be an insurmountable public relations disaster in the future.

Well, not all of the Green party rejected him.  They even talk about the movement to draft him back into the spot on the official Green Party site.

Maybe he'll end up as the reformist candidate and I'll be real happy =D

I've already decided to swallow my pride on this one and vote Democrat

That's pretty stupid, when you don't even know who's actually running in any party other than the Republicans.  Not that it's likely, but I'd vote for Bush even over Sharpton (one of the few assholes worse than Bush in my view).

I have to ask though Bucc, why would you support Lieberman/Dean but not Kerry? I can see Lieberman, but outside him, Sharpton, and Kucinich, the main five candidates had very similar platforms.

The few areas where Lieberman really bothers me, like his views on reporations, Dean is more moderate.  Dean talks like a liberal, but his decisions have been more moderate in many cases.  

There's not a Democrat that has my vote.  I am holding out hope for someone better coming out in the other parties.  Since I've only voted for one major party member in the four presidental elections I've voted in so far, it's not likely that I'll vote for one this year either.

Ghost Sniper, just a thought, don't trust any web page that get's it's math this wrong:
Reagan v. Mondale (1984)

Evenutal results: Reagan 58.8%, Mondale 44.7%

103.5% of the vote between just those two.  Hmmm.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Ghost Sniper, just a thought, don't trust any web page that get's it's math this wrong:
Reagan v. Mondale (1984)

Evenutal results: Reagan 58.8%, Mondale 44.7%

103.5% of the vote between just those two.  Hmmm.

Hey Bucc, I didn't take the 17 point difference from that site.  I took it out of my memory from July of 1988.  When Tasty called me on it, I went on a search to see if I could back up my argument because I knew my memory on the matter was pretty good.  That was just the first place I found that showed the poll I was referring to.

So,

Tasty=Pwned by GhostSniper so fucking royally.

Thank You.

-GhostSniper Out.

[tasty]

Tasty=Pwned by GhostSniper so fucking royally.

Thank You.

-GhostSniper Out.

Bwahaha. You've got an old ass poll of Dukakis and Bush, and as we all know Dukakis lost major votes late in the election on the "Dukakis in a tank" commercial and the Willie Horton issue, as Bush made it seem like he had no defense credentials and wasn't tough on crime. Obviously, a lot can change in an election, that I don't dispute. It's completely feasible that something might happen resulting in a large victory for either Bush or Kerry.

However, you did absolutely NOTHING to show that political parties are "lining the pockets" of polling institutions, which is your main claim that I disputed. Like a classical conspiracy theorist, you claim that "I said lining the pockets....you don't really think they are going to do it and let it be on the public record do you?
" Ok, so it's so secret that there is no evidence of it. Then what in the hell makes you think that it happens, other than a bizarre assumption on your part? I suppose you believe that Kennedy was shot by a Russian spy and the Bavarian Illuminati run the world too. Until you can provide evidence to back your claim up, it's laughable at best.

You showed that Dukakis was up on Bush in the polls. Which proved? that people's opinions change. Nothing more. "So fucking pwnt?"-- gimme a break.

[Ace]

I'm deleting the next post containing the word "pwn" (or any variation thereof) just on general principles.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

I'm deleting the next post containing the word "pwn" (or any variation thereof) just on general principles.

Wow, looks like Ace has pwned the forum!  lol

[Ace]

Well, it seems Harvey took the fall for you first GS. Better luck next time. :P

[alaric]

On the flip side of the Bush military records controversy, here is an article where a Texas Air National Guard official claims that some of Bush's records were "cleansed" to remove potentially embarrasing information.

Also, it appears that at one point during his service he failed to submit for a flight physical, which is definetly out of the ordinary for a fly-boy. This combined with the reported cleansing of his arrest records seems to indicate that Bush may have been up to something he probably shouldn't have. Are the long standing rumors of GW's cocaine use true? (granted, this is circumstancial evidence, but I'd say it's enough to warrant further investigation, especially for a presidential candidate)

[|MP|Buccaneer]

That won't happen--Nader wanted to run again and the Greens rejected him because if the Democrats lose again and they got blamed, they knew it would be an insurmountable public relations disaster in the future. Nader, although he has an attractive platform and a good record of public service, is being kind of an ass about it. He has set up a committee to explore the possibility of him running as an independent. I've already decided to swallow my pride on this one and vote Democrat

Just wanted to point out that Nader is now running.

[tasty]

Yep, he's running. As long as Bush doesn't win, this is a very good thing. If he does spoil the election, well, at least he's not doing it as a Green.

LET RALPH DEBATE GODDAMMIT

["Sixhits"]

Will some right wing nut just fucking shoot nader? The man is worthless.

Let nader choke on his own cock. Man has no right stepping into such a tight and important race.

["Sixhits"]

DAMNIT! the bastard does have a right.  

just wish he's sit this one out

[Ssickboy]

I feel your pain six.  He can run, and should run.  It will do a few positive things.  Help keep the issues on track, and put us all the through the headache of having to choose one of the two candidates we dislike.  And wether you like nader or not, he helps point out:

the reasons why by both candidates suck and always do.  and why our electoral system has some serious problems and is in drastic/urgent need of reform.  Bush wins again? well... life will suck for a majority of us until people get a friggin clue.  And the US is in need of a big wake-up call anyway.  I thought 9/11 and its aftermath was it.  Apparently not. and I will move to Canada and let you guys sort it all out.  It's all about the ying and yang.  and the US will be in the stages of one big ass Yang years to come.  

and there's run-ons all over this.  dont care. its late. im tired. peace.

[Mr. Lothario]

     This seems rather apropos for the discussion at hand. Watch the commercial to get the Day Pass to read the comic I'm linking to.

[Ssickboy]

funny comic strip.  In order to see the whole thing, you have to get the day pass.  It's easy.  

...just to continue and clarify a bit on my last post.

I understand why everyone is pissed about him running again.  Even his supporters wish him to step down.  But isn't it messed up that we should have to feel this way?  We should have all the options we could possibly want to vote for.  We should not ever be discouraging anyone to run for president.  We lack good candidates up there.  It's gotten to the point where our government (dems and republicans combined) decides who's going to be president.  Or at least they have a strong impact on the decission.  And that has a huge influence on what's being addressed in our government.  Our true needs and concerns are being overlooked and brushed off.  

[kami]

I totally agree with you Six, and Ssick. There's really two sides of it, if he hadn't, the democrats would've possibly had a better chance at winning. On the other hand, now he's promoting democracy as it should be, trying to discredit the two party system is noble enough, still, no one wants Bush to stay...

[c| Lone-Wolf]

Yes, things should change.  Yes, we should have more options, and yes, it is stupid that the entire political system has basically polarized into two legitimate camps, with the rest being small, easily forgotten factions (yes, there IS a communist part which runs for the presidential office)  But it is just how humans work.  Maybe BFG can help me out on this one, but there arent that many different parties in the British Parliment, and in earlier European history, there have always been two major sides, and then the little itty bitty guys, an example being during the French Revolution, there was the Mountain, which was where Robspierre came from, and the Girondists, who all got executed and nobody remembers anymore.  

Here is the thing though, in any other circumstance, its great that Nader is running, yes the issues need to be addressed, but what everybody on the Democratic/Green/Libertarian, whatever, side of things need to think about, is: In a matchup against the Republican Party (the only party i really know of on the flip side of things)  does the Green, or Libertarian party have even a snowball's chance in hell of winning?  Yeeeeah i didnt think so.  So, if you hypothetically agree that the Gree /Libertarian parties would get murdered by the Republicans, you then look for the next logical party which addresses most of the issues you want addressed, and can really have a shred of hope in winning the election, which leds us to....the Democratic party.  

In any other race where it wasnt this maddeningly close, or where the sides are not so sharply split, its good to see these views being voiced, but if you want more of your views realized, vote Democratic.  If you want hardly any of your views (if any) realized, and the rest of them run over by a steam roller then set on fire, vote Republican. =P

[alaric]

Situations like this are why I think we should chuck the electoral college and switch to a strait vote for the office of the President. The States already have their say in the house and senate. When do the people as a whole get to voice their say?

Also, we should switch to an instant runoff voting system like the one in use in Austraila. This would allow 3rd party candidates to become more viable while still keeping the "least hated" person in office.

As for the nader thing, this article provides an interesting perspective on the topic.