"electability" (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 11, 2024, 06:23:56 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  "electability" (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: "electability"  (Read 4966 times)
Poundingtherock
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 917
« on: December 28, 2010, 01:53:30 AM »

I don't know how you can characterize Kerry's performance as a strong one.  Bush looked strong in the early part of 2003 but his approval ratings fell dramatically in that year and in 2004.

The climate wasn't particularly favorable or unfavorable to either Bush or Kerry.  Kerry could have plausibly spun Iraq as a failure and the economy as sputtering.  There was an opportunity for Kerry to win and potentially win big.

Unfortunately for us Republicans, there is a ceiling on the number of electoral college votes we can get these days and Bush's 280 + isn't that far off (perhaps he could have plausibly won Pennsylvania) considering that Washington/Minnesota are not serious possibilities without third-party help.
Logged
Poundingtherock
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 917
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2010, 01:15:48 PM »

You guys blew a chance to really change the map with either Clinton and in the bizarro world where Edwards doesn't screw someone other than the sociopath/psychopath he had for a wife who was a bigger balloon than even Michelle Obama.

There wasn't one Obama voter from 2008 who wouldn't have also voted for those two.  There's no reason why West Virginia, Missouri, or Arkansas (and perhaps Montana) shouldn't have gone to the Democrats.  These states tend to vote for the Democrat Party nominee with the conditions at play in 2008 and Obama somehow managed to lose these states by 20 (with the exception of Montana) when Clinton and a faithful Edwards would have won everywhere else that Obama won.
Logged
Poundingtherock
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 917
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2011, 10:01:08 PM »

anvikshiki ,

You are acting like Vera Baker.  The point is that Montana and Missouri should have been easy Democrat Party wins given the election cycle.  Clinton did not win Montana because of Perot.  That's a right-wing myth.  Perot voters would have split equally between Clinton and Bush I.

I see that you have to recycle a right-wing lie in order to prop up Obama.

Missouri, West Virginia, and arkansas are easy Democrat Party victories for a somewhat sane Democrat given the economic conditions in the country and the hatred of George W. Bush.
Logged
Poundingtherock
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 917
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2011, 10:51:23 PM »

Vera, is that you?
Logged
Poundingtherock
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 917
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2011, 11:39:58 PM »

What evidence.

The exit poll showed that Perot voters split equally between Clinton and Bush.  It is a complete right-wing fabrication that Perot had any significant impact on the 1992 election.

The only reason why the poster I suspect to be Vera Baker is citing Perot is that he's trying to prop up Obama.

There is absolutely no evidence that Perot voters would have acted differently in Montana than they nationally. 
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 11 queries.