Politics: The Wrath of Veep

by **pacino** » Sat May 24, 2008 12:40:19

Laexile wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:What is it -- irony? -- that people on the left have vitriol for Hillary that exceeds mine?

TP if you focused on advising GOPs, McCain would lose all 57 states for sure

In all fairness Obama has campaigned in all 57 states and McCain hasn't.

pacino wrote:Clinton polls better than Obama in states where he won?

There's actually only one state where that happened, North Carolina. Probably just fluke polling.

Iowa and Missouri too

by **Disco Stu** » Sat May 24, 2008 14:00:49

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm just glad the primary of 2008 is allowing liberal Dems to acknowledge without acknowledging that they were wrong for bitching about Bush losing the popular vote but winning the election in 2000.

Those were the rules, you know. It would make one deranged and bitter and thinking they were entitled to the office for them to think the rules should have been different.

What is the color in your sky? Seriously.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat May 24, 2008 14:56:30

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm just glad the primary of 2008 is allowing liberal Dems to acknowledge without acknowledging that they were wrong for bitching about Bush losing the popular vote but winning the election in 2000.

Those were the rules, you know. It would make one deranged and bitter and thinking they were entitled to the office for them to think the rules should have been different.

In fact, while the electoral college may be problematic, the lefty issue is with the Florida vote count, and the way in which the US Supreme Court voted on political lines (judicial philosophy is for losers!) to install Bush into the Presidency.

The Gore campaign deserves blame as well, because I think if they had asked for a total recount of the Florida vote, and not just a couple of counties, things would have been very different.

And you fuckers then go ahead and push the whole police state photo id crap, which does absolutely nothing to prevent real election fraud, and yet make it seem like you are interested in free and fair elections.

Actually, in the long run, Bush's incompetence may be a a good thing, because had Bush actually been an effective President, we might have seen a Putin like government emerge in this country.

gee, i seem to be channeling ptk. oh well.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Sat May 24, 2008 15:37:21

Interpol confirms authenticity of captured FARC data

Interpol confirmed Thursday the authenticity of a trove of computer documents seized from Colombia's FARC guerrillas which Bogota says prove close links between the rebels and Venezuela and Ecuador.

He would not comment on the quality of the information in the nearly 38,000 files found on the three Toshiba laptop computers, two hard disk drives and three USB memory sticks of Raul Reyes, the FARC's second-in-command, who was killed in the raid.

...

Noble said Interpol's experts did not have the capacity to examine and translate each of the mostly Spanish documents, which he said would take 1,000 years to read at 100 pages a day.

But he said Interpol experts concluded the data had not been tampered with in the three days before they were turned over to Colombian police forensic experts.

Bogota has said the data on the computers proves that FARC is "financed and armed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez," who assisted in securing the release this year of six hostages held by the rebels.

...

In Washington, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said reports on the contents of the computer indicating Venezuelan support for FARC were "highly disturbing."

"There are serious allegations about Venezuela supplying arms and support to a terrorist organization," he told reporters. "Certainly that has deep implications for the people of the region as well as states in the region."

...

Based on the computer files, Colombia has accused Chavez of funneling 300 million dollars to the rebels, and the FARC of seeking to buy 50 kilograms of uranium for weapons use.

by **Laexile** » Sat May 24, 2008 15:48:01

pacino wrote:
Laexile wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:What is it -- irony? -- that people on the left have vitriol for Hillary that exceeds mine?

TP if you focused on advising GOPs, McCain would lose all 57 states for sure

In all fairness Obama has campaigned in all 57 states and McCain hasn't.

pacino wrote:Clinton polls better than Obama in states where he won?

There's actually only one state where that happened, North Carolina. Probably just fluke polling.

Iowa and Missouri too

He polls better against McCain in Iowa than she does. She polls better in Missouri, but that state was pretty much a draw in the primary. So it's not unreasonable for each candidate to push a little one way or another. Clinton wins by 2 points and Obama loses by 3. With the margin of error that could really be pretty even.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat May 24, 2008 18:15:11

Disco Stu wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:I'm just glad the primary of 2008 is allowing liberal Dems to acknowledge without acknowledging that they were wrong for bitching about Bush losing the popular vote but winning the election in 2000.

Those were the rules, you know. It would make one deranged and bitter and thinking they were entitled to the office for them to think the rules should have been different.

What is the color in your sky? Seriously.

Busch Light gold, at least when I wrote that gem.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Sat May 24, 2008 18:31:47

What was Bush's approval rating during the 2004 campaign? I ask because, if he could run again, I wonder if he could win...

by **Laexile** » Sat May 24, 2008 19:03:30

Warszawa wrote:What was Bush's approval rating during the 2004 campaign? I ask because, if he could run again, I wonder if he could win...

If we based it on approval rating that would seem unlikely. His approval rating was in the high 40s at the 2004 election. I think approval rating is usually going to be lower than the percentage who will vote a guy. If things aren't going well it's easy to not approve the President or Congress. When faced with a choice of Bush or Obama, however, I'd bet that many Republicans who don't approve right now would still vote for Bush. That said, a 31% approval rating would probably be tough to turn into majorities in swing states.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Sat May 24, 2008 19:17:34

Laexile wrote:
Warszawa wrote:What was Bush's approval rating during the 2004 campaign? I ask because, if he could run again, I wonder if he could win...

If we based it on approval rating that would seem unlikely. His approval rating was in the high 40s at the 2004 election. I think approval rating is usually going to be lower than the percentage who will vote a guy. If things aren't going well it's easy to not approve the President or Congress. When faced with a choice of Bush or Obama, however, I'd bet that many Republicans who don't approve right now would still vote for Bush. That said, a 31% approval rating would probably be tough to turn into majorities in swing states.

Wow, I still find it hard to believe that Bush won in 2004. Approval ratings in the high 40s! Still even now..with his name recognition and his base support I think he could pull it off. I guess it would depend on Ohio and Florida again. I doubt Obama could take NC, VA, IN, IA, etc.....maybe the southwest?

by **dajafi** » Sat May 24, 2008 20:02:40

Bush couldn't win 100 electoral votes, at least if the election were called on the spot. Polling of Bush vs. Kerry in 2005 and 2006 gave Kerry something like a ten-point advantage. Unfortunately, the damage is done, and will continue to accumulate.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat May 24, 2008 20:04:59

Yeah, Bush would get absolutely destroyed. McCain is way more popular than Bush, and he's losing right now.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sun May 25, 2008 12:34:04

The Inquirer and the Star Ledger both endorsed Rob Andrews today.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sun May 25, 2008 19:54:35

Recount on HBO at 9 tonight. I'm looking forward to it. Maybe by the end, I'll be drunk enough to say something that makes little sense, is intended to insult Democrats, but mainly just makes me look like a moron.

by **TomatoPie** » Sun May 25, 2008 21:07:07

jerseyhoya wrote:Recount on HBO at 9 tonight. I'm looking forward to it. Maybe by the end, I'll be drunk enough to say something that makes little sense, is intended to insult Democrats, but mainly just makes me look like a moron.

That's what we do.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sun May 25, 2008 21:25:52

Warren Christopher is the biggest pussy I've ever seen.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sun May 25, 2008 21:30:56

I fucking love Michael Whouley. He spoke to my Campaigns and Elections class senior year. I would absolutely love to go out drinking with him. Dennis Leary is doing him proud.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sun May 25, 2008 21:37:07

"We must also remember there is no shame for putting country above party." - Warren Christopher.

Seriously, who put him in charge of this shit.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sun May 25, 2008 22:08:18

I'm pretty sure if I was a Democrat I would want to take a putter to Joe Lieberman's temple.

by **Disco Stu** » Sun May 25, 2008 22:32:01

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm pretty sure if I was a Democrat I would want to take a putter to Joe Lieberman's temple.

Nah, if you were a democrat you'd be fine with him because you are ok with anyone speaking their mind. You being a republican pretending to be a democrat makes you want to abuse your golf clubs.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sun May 25, 2008 22:34:13

Are you watching Recount?

Archived

Politics: The Wrath of Veep