US Presidential Elections

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Obama came in first with 88%...

[Nick_i_am]

No ones going to vote for him, because theres a black and a woman running this time.

 

haha what?

 

African americans account for about 10% of the total voter population and already have a 50-70% voter turnout (overwealmingly democratic) in national elections, making any bonus from a black candidate neglible.

 

Likewise, in a statewide survey done in Iowa only 13% of people said that gender mattered at all in picking a candidate.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Nick_i_am

[Guard Dog]

I had McCain 1st with 70%. Huckabee was 66% Paul was 60% Hillary was 34%, Obama was 29%. My best match was Fred Thomson at 74%. I don't see how with Thompson, he never said anything while he was running. Who the heck knows what he believed.

[walkerguy]

First Black, first woman. Not another ugly Republician white guy is gonna be the president (And only Obama, Clinton, McCain even have a chance) If you're right about the elections over here, nick, you can come back and plummet me with "told u so" emocicons in November. Here is a list of presidents of the past. Make comparisons, if you will.

 

58 historians interviewed by C-SPAN in 2000 came up with this (history hasnt changed in 8 years BTW)

 

my favs are lincoln and FDR, then washington

 

BEST

1-lincoln

2-fdr rooselvelt

3-washington

4-teddy roosevelt

5-truman

6-wilson

7-jefferson

8-kennedy

9-eisenhower

10-lyndon johnson

 

WORST

1-buchannan

2-andrew johnson

3-pierce

4-harding

5-W harrison

6-tyler

7-fillmore

8-hoover

9-Ulysses grnat

10-arthur

 

Susan Page "Putting Presidents in Their Place" USA Today interview with CSPAN historians (2/21/00)

Edited February 21, 2008 by walkerguy

[SteveThaiBinh]

I agree 86% with Mike Gravel. Should I know who Mike Gravel is?

[Pop]

He's sort of like Dennis Kucinich, but taller.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Jolly good.

 

*heads off to Wikipedia to find out who Dennis Kucinich is*

[Tale]

Go Hillary Clinton!! We need a Clinton to clean-up after a Bush! Clinton/Bush 20 years + yay!!!! Second choice McCain and third Barrack Osama.

You can't be a real poster. Whose alt are you?

[Pop]

Under Clinton congress spent $2.50 for every $1 raised in taxes (remember that was AFTER the largest tax increase in history). So you (as usual) point out the flaws of the republicans while overlooking the same from the dems.

Fiscal stinginess has never been part of the Democratic platform. I don't expect it from them.

 

The other thing is your vitriol and general nastiness toward the military and everyone who has served in it (present company included I'm sure) is unbecoming. I know you feel how you feel but I would remind you that the military does not make policy or start wars. The military itself is a tool in the hands of whoever is in the White House. The men and women in it are mostly hardworking and contentious and are just trying to do the job in front of them. I say this not base solely on your last post but a many of the things you've posted over the years. To most Americans (you know the people you refer to as

[Deadly_Nightshade]

58 historians interviewed by C-SPAN in 2000 came up with this (history hasnt changed in 8 years BTW)

 

That would be more impressive if you provided the names of some of the historians, as, just like in any other field, you can always find people who have degrees but no real knowledge. Not that I am saying all fifty are ignorant, but people who are experts on presidential history would be better qualified to make a list like the one you mentioned then, for example, a person who focuses on the settlement of the Americas.

[Nick_i_am]

First Black, first woman. Not another ugly Republician white guy is gonna be the president (And only Obama, Clinton, McCain even have a chance) If you're right about the elections over here, nick, you can come back and plummet me with "told u so" emocicons in November. Here is a list of presidents of the past. Make comparisons, if you will.

 

Great, but your point is that they'll win BECAUSE of their gender/race and that that's the only factor at play here, not just that, but that they'll win by a landslide because of it.

 

I wanted to know if you had any actual reason to belive that.

[walkerguy]

58 historians interviewed by C-SPAN in 2000 came up with this (history hasnt changed in 8 years BTW)

 

That would be more impressive if you provided the names of some of the historians, as, just like in any other field, you can always find people who have degrees but no real knowledge. Not that I am saying all fifty are ignorant, but people who are experts on presidential history would be better qualified to make a list like the one you mentioned then, for example, a person who focuses on the settlement of the Americas.

 

Sorry, don't have that information. I do have this: Susan Page "Putting Presidents in Their Place" USA Today interview with CSPAN historians (2/21/00). I gave this information originally on this thread. I will find the actual source if I can, ok?

 

I beleive either Obama or Clinton will win. They're both good and because black/woman is a first now in the U.S.... yeah. Also: McCain has a small chance.

 

As for Clinton/Bush 20 years thingee, I'm JOKING. I am also not an ALT.

 

As for SteveThaiBinh, I feel your pain: WHO THE HECK ARE THESE PEOPLE?????

[Tigranes]

I must say, walkerguy, there is very little scientific sense in 'ranking' presidents. Especially if we are not told what criteria and what standards are used. How do you give points and rate presidents on what they did and what happened during their reign, over decades and decades? The answer is, you can't. Those kind of studies are no more academically valid than Top 10 Games of the Year from Gamespot.

 

I will be happy with either Democratic candidate, probably, but your assertion that McCain has a small chance is quite very simplistic - there is a very good chance he will win the November elections, especially if the Democratic primaries stay 50-50 right until the end and it requires deals and superdelegates to get something going for the General.

[Hurlshort]

Geez, check out the tremendous list of stuff that LBJ passed when he was in office:

 

1964: Civil Rights Act of 1964

1964: Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964

1964: Wilderness Act

1964: Nurse Training Act

1964: Food Stamp Act of 1964

1964: Economic Opportunity Act

1965: Higher Education Act of 1965

1965: Social Security Act of 1965

1965: Voting Rights Act

1965: Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965

1967: Age Discrimination in Employment Act

1967: Public Broadcasting Act of 1967

1968: Bilingual Education Act

1968: Fair housing

 

That's some productivity right there.

[Pop]

No, that's fascism and infringing on freedoms.

[BIOShazard]

In my order:

Obama (He is like us, and knows what we want)

McCain (won Primary for Republic in my state)

Clinton (She was the First Lady of Bill, so she would have learned something. That might not be a good thing tho )

Huckabee (Ever since I saw him on a tag on the Landover Baptist Church, he lost a vote. Those people are hyopcrites)

Romney (Just because he dropped out. no courage/confidence at all)

[Pidesco]

* 1 Mike Gravel 74% similarity

* 2 Barack Obama 69% similarity

* 3 Hillary Clinton 66% similarity

* 4 John McCain 63% similarity

* 5 Mike Huckabee 60% similarity

 

 

Does this mean I don't care either way?

[walkerguy]

Think of the list of Prezes how you want, I'm not going to issue a full data report. I'm not a bureacrat. As for McCain, I'm not some computer either, its obvious Clinton or Obama have it well over McCain. I just finished viewing the Prez Debate in Austin. ( ) Clinton did sorta better than Obama. Obama's papers kept being picked up by a fan too. It was civil, Hillary said how honored she was and Obama pulled her chair out for her, which underscored the desire for tensions between them to lessen. It'd be nice when one of them wins that the loser becomes the VP. (Slightly Off-topic: If I was ever in power I'd abolish electoral colleges and superdelegates, etc) Anyhow, .

 

(This is not an image of the 2008 Austin, Texas Debate)

 

Edited February 22, 2008 by walkerguy

[Tigranes]

Think of the list of Prezes how you want, I'm not going to issue a full data report. I'm not a bureacrat.

 

Fair enough - but that doesn't stop you from using your judgment. Even a cursory, speculative glance over the methodologies of any such 'listing' would prove it irrelevant to any serious debate. You posted it, so you must have thought it of some report; my point is that it is not. I will be happy to have you prove me wrong, of course, but having a healthy debate has nothing to do with being 'bureaucratic'; certainly I don't ask you to give a comprehensive report of how that listing occured.

 

As for McCain, I'm not some computer either, its obvious Clinton or Obama have it well over McCain.

 

Again, nobody's asking you to be a computer. But you are giving no rationale at all, no reason at all, behind why you believe McCain is so far behind. It is not credible at all, at the moment.

 

Anyhow, I caught about half of the debate - Hillary is obviously faster on her feet (or just better prepared) than Obama and is the better in debates, but Obama did enough so that she probably hasn't really pulled ahead significantly. He managed, in the portions I saw, a couple of rousing 'hits' such as the attack on McCain's 100-year-Iraq, which is a nicer direction to go (for Dems) than Hillary's Xerox opener.

 

Texas is surely he last gasp for Hillary (if she only barely wins it, the other states won't be too keen to push on) - I wonder how it got that way in so short a time, but Obama is a good campaigner.

[walkerguy]

Think of the list of Prezes how you want, I'm not going to issue a full data report. I'm not a bureacrat.

 

Fair enough - but that doesn't stop you from using your judgment. Even a cursory, speculative glance over the methodologies of any such 'listing' would prove it irrelevant to any serious debate. You posted it, so you must have thought it of some report; my point is that it is not. I will be happy to have you prove me wrong, of course, but having a healthy debate has nothing to do with being 'bureaucratic'; certainly I don't ask you to give a comprehensive report of how that listing occured.

 

As for McCain, I'm not some computer either, its obvious Clinton or Obama have it well over McCain.

 

Again, nobody's asking you to be a computer. But you are giving no rationale at all, no reason at all, behind why you believe McCain is so far behind. It is not credible at all, at the moment.

 

Anyhow, I caught about half of the debate - Hillary is obviously faster on her feet (or just better prepared) than Obama and is the better in debates, but Obama did enough so that she probably hasn't really pulled ahead significantly. He managed, in the portions I saw, a couple of rousing 'hits' such as the attack on McCain's 100-year-Iraq, which is a nicer direction to go (for Dems) than Hillary's Xerox opener.

 

Texas is surely he last gasp for Hillary (if she only barely wins it, the other states won't be too keen to push on) - I wonder how it got that way in so short a time, but Obama is a good campaigner.

 

Thank you for being more reasonable. As for MY credibility, if YOU have faith in McCain I won't try to diminish your enthusiasim, like I said to i_am_nick, come shower me with I TOLD YOU SOs if McCain wins!

[Guard Dog]

It'd be nice when one of them wins that the loser becomes the VP.

 

That just will not happen for a number of reasons. They are both Senators, that combo has not won in over 100 years. They are both from states the democrats are going to win anyway so nothing would be gained by having each other. They are both lawyers with no previous business experience and both very liberal. When you pick a VP you need to employ a little strategy. Pick a popular politician from a state whose vote is in play. Or you pick a political icon not in politics. If you are young, pick someone older, if you are older pick someone young. If you are moderate, pick a liberal that will appeal to the left of you party. The VP choice really is not made based on how qualified a candidate is of how good a President they would make, it is all about what they would bring to the campaign.

 

And the other thing is Hillary will not be second chair to anybody.

[Walsingham]

It'd be nice when one of them wins that the loser becomes the VP.

 

That just will not happen for a number of reasons. They are both Senators, that combo has not won in over 100 years. They are both from states the democrats are going to win anyway so nothing would be gained by having each other. They are both lawyers with no previous business experience and both very liberal. When you pick a VP you need to employ a little strategy. Pick a popular politician from a state whose vote is in play. Or you pick a political icon not in politics. If you are young, pick someone older, if you are older pick someone young. If you are moderate, pick a liberal that will appeal to the left of you party. The VP choice really is not made based on how qualified a candidate is of how good a President they would make, it is all about what they would bring to the campaign.

 

And the other thing is Hillary will not be second chair to anybody.

 

I think Obama should pick an actual timberwolf.

[Guard Dog]

I HAVE NEWS!

 

BIG BIG BIG NEWS!

 

HERE IT IS: Ralph Nader Planning Another Presidential Run

 

YESSSS!!!!!! My favorite candidate of all is getting back on that political horse and is going to ride it for all it's worth. Good Luck and Godspeed Ralph. I wish you all the best! Now you get in there and you fight for those liberal votes. Not even Barak can out liberal Nader. If you hate corporate greed WITHTEETH, Nader is your guy. If you want planned economics Pop, vote for Ralph. Sand if you want health care and want me to pay for it Go Green baby, Mr. Nader is your man.

[walkerguy]

It'd be nice when one of them wins that the loser becomes the VP.

 

That just will not happen for a number of reasons. They are both Senators, that combo has not won in over 100 years. They are both from states the democrats are going to win anyway so nothing would be gained by having each other. They are both lawyers with no previous business experience and both very liberal. When you pick a VP you need to employ a little strategy. Pick a popular politician from a state whose vote is in play. Or you pick a political icon not in politics. If you are young, pick someone older, if you are older pick someone young. If you are moderate, pick a liberal that will appeal to the left of you party. The VP choice really is not made based on how qualified a candidate is of how good a President they would make, it is all about what they would bring to the campaign.

 

And the other thing is Hillary will not be second chair to anybody.

 

Sounds logical, I don't argue this at all.

As for Nader, *sighs* a no-name will not win.

[Sand]

Not Nader again. Sheesh.