Texsox Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 A little independent research on my part for a Scout project. Sitting Presidents Winning re-election Winner Electoral Margin Wilson 277-254 Coolidge 382-136 F. Roosevelt 449-82 and 432-99 Eisenhower 457-73 Truman 303-189 Nixon 520-17 Reagan 525-13 Clinton 379-159 Seems like for most of the past 100 years it's a landslide when they win. All of the really close elections have gone to the challenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 and that's exactly why I think Kerry is going to win. He's got the lead in Florida and Pennsylvania and can lose Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa and still win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 23, 2004 Author Share Posted September 23, 2004 and that's exactly why I think Kerry is going to win. He's got the lead in Florida and Pennsylvania and can lose Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa and still win. I think the longer he hangs around, the better his chances. I am also hearing from more and more people who are tired of defending him, are just shutting up or saying they are voting for Bush, but will vote Kerry. I also think Bush could have win handily with a VP change and the Dems could have won easily with Edwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 I didn't realize how close the election was until they mentioned it on the radio. I think it is going to be too tight to tell who is going to win it to be honest. I don't think many are honest when polled. When are the debates slated for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confederate_48 Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 First debate is September 30th and their usually like a week apart after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Bush with 55% of the votes. look for it. Kerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 2 words are going to decide this election. "Voter Turnout" The more people that show up to the polls, the better Kerry's chances will be. I'm expecting the largest youth participation % in this election since Vietnam. (18-29 year olds) In fact, did anyone catch that MTV Special the other day with Drew Barrymore. I thought it was pretty impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Bush with 55% of the votes. look for it. Kerry If 55% actually did vote for Bush which they won't, it would be so incredibly embarassing for your country. But I know that the majority of the U.S.A. isn't that stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 If 55% actually did vote for Bush which they won't, it would be so incredibly embarassing for your country. But I know that the majority of the U.S.A. isn't that stupid. So who are you voting for? It better not be either Kerry OR Bush or IMO you're just as stupid. They both stand for the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 So who are you voting for? It better not be either Kerry OR Bush or IMO you're just as stupid. They both stand for the same thing. Neither I'm Canadian. Isn't there anyone else on the ballot you can vote for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Neither I'm Canadian. Isn't there anyone else on the ballot you can vote for? There are lots of third party canditates. There were like 20 on the IN ballot last election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Neither I'm Canadian. Isn't there anyone else on the ballot you can vote for? There is Badnarik (Libertarian), Cobb (Green), the Natural Law Party, the Constitution Party, the Socialist Equality Party and a few others that I can't remember off the top of my head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 by the way, i thought I would share the true story about Kerry's statement about voting for the bill before voting against it... The republicans of course want you to believe that this guy is crazy and is flip-flopping... totally not true.. the true story is that there were 2 bills that were being voted upon at nearly the same time to give troops the money they requested. The first, which Kerry voted for authorized the money but required Bush to pay for the bill by eliminating the tax cut for the richest 1%. The second bill was a blank check for Bush to spend whatever, whenever he wanted, no matter how much the deficit grew. Kerry voted against that one. The truth never hurts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Neither I'm Canadian. Isn't there anyone else on the ballot you can vote for? Thank you, for the clarification, that would help explain some things. Bush and Kerry are out of the same mold. They really are. They are both hypcritical, lying scumbags, and depending on your point of view, one or the other lies more. That's it in a nutshell. Running for president of the USA nowadays means the good candidates will never run because of the anal search the media (whether conservative or liberal) give you. I wish there were a serious third party that could make their way, but these two parties have more money then anything so they stranglehold the power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Thank you, for the clarification, that would help explain some things. Bush and Kerry are out of the same mold. They really are. They are both hypcritical, lying scumbags, and depending on your point of view, one or the other lies more. That's it in a nutshell. Running for president of the USA nowadays means the good candidates will never run because of the anal search the media (whether conservative or liberal) give you. I wish there were a serious third party that could make their way, but these two parties have more money then anything so they stranglehold the power. Yep. Before Perot made the debates, the threshhold to make the debates was 5%. After he made the debates, the corporate sponsors of the DNC and RNC and the debates "suggested" (via the voice of Benjamin Franklins in campaign donations) to up the threshhold to 15%. The best part of the 2000 election was when Nader was banned from going to one of the presidential debates as simply a viewer in the audience. He then got a press pass to go in as a media observer and Boston state troopers stopped him from entering and threatened him with arrest if they continued to try to get in just to watch the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 The second bill was a blank check for Bush to spend whatever, whenever he wanted, no matter how much the deficit grew. Kerry voted against that one. The truth never hurts. actually is was 500 mil of the 86 billion that was "unclearly marked" for spending that John Kerry voted against. So instead of funding our troops he voted against .005% of that budget. you know, cause he hates wars so much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Thank you, for the clarification, that would help explain some things. Bush and Kerry are out of the same mold. They really are. They are both hypcritical, lying scumbags, and depending on your point of view, one or the other lies more. That's it in a nutshell. Running for president of the USA nowadays means the good candidates will never run because of the anal search the media (whether conservative or liberal) give you. I wish there were a serious third party that could make their way, but these two parties have more money then anything so they stranglehold the power. Well I do agree that they both lie and both are hypocritical. The difference between Kerry and Bush though is that Dubya already lied and failed as president. And say whatever you will about John Kerry, he hasn't failed miserably as president yet... And personally I don't you guys could do much worse than Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 23, 2004 Author Share Posted September 23, 2004 These are two of our greatest men. Either one would make us proud and do a fine job as President. :puke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 These are two of our greatest men. Either one would make us proud and do a fine job as President. :puke Tex, pass me the crack pipe, please, it must be pretty good... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 23, 2004 Author Share Posted September 23, 2004 Tex, pass me the crack pipe, please, it must be pretty good... You have to love the two party system, where the cream rises to the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 I vote we start a soxtalk.com political party. I nominate Apu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 You have to love the two party system, where the cream rises to the top. Just trying to learn some things here... If there was a thrid party, how would it compare to the other two? I believe that the green party is more liberal than the Dems, and the Libertarian is more conservitive than most Repubs. So I doubt parties like that would make most people happy. Then you have the socialist parties and such, but they don't really stand much of a chance with their radical views. Why Democrats and Republicans are the two that are by far the most strong, is because they are not overly liberal or conservative (compared to other parties). A thrid party would probably have to closer to the middle than the two current parties, and I'm not sure if there is a party like that, because moost people who are slightly conservative end up Republican, and the same way with Democrats. Is there a true middle of the road party? Even if there is one, it would be tough for them to make decisions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Just trying to learn some things here... If there was a thrid party, how would it compare to the other two? I believe that the green party is more liberal than the Dems, and the Libertarian is more conservitive than most Repubs. Dems: Big government, socially liberal Reps: Big government, socially conservative 3rd guy: Small government, socially moderate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Dems: Big government, socially liberal Reps: Big government, socially conservative 3rd guy: Small government, socially moderate? That is what i was thinking, but when facing a decision would a moderate 3rd party always go halfway? On some issues, you have to make a conservative or liberal choice, and with most people, their views are mostly conservative or mostly liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 23, 2004 Author Share Posted September 23, 2004 Just trying to learn some things here... If there was a thrid party, how would it compare to the other two? I believe that the green party is more liberal than the Dems, and the Libertarian is more conservitive than most Repubs. So I doubt parties like that would make most people happy. Then you have the socialist parties and such, but they don't really stand much of a chance with their radical views. Why Democrats and Republicans are the two that are by far the most strong, is because they are not overly liberal or conservative (compared to other parties). A thrid party would probably have to closer to the middle than the two current parties, and I'm not sure if there is a party like that, because moost people who are slightly conservative end up Republican, and the same way with Democrats. Is there a true middle of the road party? Even if there is one, it would be tough for them to make decisions... The problem we will have if a third party really gained a foothold is our government would grind to a standstill without one party having a majority. Hmmm, maybe that is a good idea It would be total grid lock. Here's why we are in this mess. If you took the US population and graphed their political range, we would have a bell curve with most being middle of the road moderate. Add that to an inexact label of liberal or conservative. A conservative in California could be a liberal in West Texas. So in the olden days a California GOP candidate may be more liberal that a Texas Democrat. Still with me? Now one thing that Americans do very, very, well is marketing. We have Dems vs. GOPers just like Coke vs. Pepsi. Imagine if Pepsi and Coke changed their formula based on markets? Same thing with political parties. Trying to market a range of beliefs across the country vs. getting everyone to support the same thing. So over the past decades the Dems and the GOP divided up issues and positions and have dove to the left and right. Their members individual voting records do not reflect their true feelings and are not in line with the majority of Americans. Combine that with a press that is expected to search anywhere and everywhere for news, the more tintilating the better, we have flawed candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.