John. Kerry. Not. Running. In. 2008. Stop.

[Sahkuhnder]

@ MobBoss -

You are uncharacteristically silent. Please don't tell me you've given up so easily and aren't willing to stand by your earlier statements.


Still waiting for any actual data to support your speculation:

Bush would win. I have no doubt about it at all.

Still waiting for the reason you brought up Reagan and the '86 elections (if it wasn't to compare them to the 2006 elections under discussion):

And by the way, did you happen to see the results of the last election? Hardly a vote of confidence in the way things have been going now is it?

Sure, I saw the results. And here is a factoid for you. Ronald Regan lost more seats his mid-term election of his second term. And his popularity was huge. The dems were barely able to win back both houses, during a period when they should have won in massive numbers. If you look at the power them dems had in the senate in the 70s and 80s, they still have a ways to go to return to that yet.

I didnt compare them..I merely stated an election fact. Reagan lost more seats to the Dems than W did in their 2nd term mid-term elections. Do you deny this?

Bold by me.

OK, I agree with what happened with Reagan. If you weren't using it to compare, as you now claim, then why mention it at all? It's irrelevant to the discussion so why did you bring it up then, if not to compare and in support of your position?

Still waiting for any actual data to support your four stated "facts" (even though the bottom three aren't facts at all, but are only your personal opinions):

Fact. Bush aleady beat Gore once. Whether you like it or not, that plays into peoples viewpoints.
Fact. Regardless of Bush's popularity, most people still believe Bush (and in turn, republicans in general) would be better than Gore (or any dem for that matter) at protecting the country and dealing with terrorism.
Fact. The republicans are currently just much better at running presidential campaigns than the democrats. Not to be discounted.
Fact. Gore would raise taxes. Bush wont. A lot of people vote their pocketbook on this one.

And as you incorrectly claim this:

Well, you havent exactly provided any actual data either.

Bottom line, there is no real reason to believe Bush wouldnt beat Gore if the two faced off again in an election.

Just let me know how much more actual data and real reason you would like me to provide links to. There is an abundance of information on how little Bush is liked, how people don't "still believe in him", and how far he has fallen since 2000.



And still waiting (I hope!) that this isn't the only reason you would not only say "Bush would win", but that you "have no doubt about it at all":

Its pretty much based on the fact that Gore is an idiot.

I'm disappointed in you, you can do better.

 

[MobBoss]

@ MobBoss -

You are uncharacteristically silent. Please don't tell me you've given up so easily and aren't willing to stand by your earlier statements.


Still waiting for any actual data to support your speculation:

Again, I have given more 'actual data' than you have in order to support my premise. I have also refuted your claim that his low popularity rating would be as much a factor as you think.

Bottom line, everyone thought he would lose to Kerry in 2004 too, but he didnt. He did even better.

See, that is the problem with people who dont like Bush. They continually underestimate him and his ability.

Still waiting for the reason you brought up Reagan and the '86 elections (if it wasn't to compare them to the 2006 elections under discussion):

Huh? What is not to understand? My overall point is this: Its just routine historical practice for a president, regardless of his popularity, to lost seats to the opposing party during his second term in office. Its extremely common - even with the most popular presidents.

Thus, the recent election was merely history repeating itself as just as much it was some 'referendum' on current policy.

Still waiting for any actual data to support your four stated "facts" (even though the bottom three aren't facts at all, but are only your personal opinions):

Actually, they are facts. So feel free to continue to wait if you wish.

Just let me know how much more actual data and real reason you would like me to provide links to. There is an abundance of information on how little Bush is liked, how people don't "still believe in him", and how far he has fallen since 2000.

I would say that is overblown. Just like how people say 'Bush is worse than Hitler' or Bush is the worst president ever'.

Things change when you have to pick from only two people and actually vote for one of them.

And still waiting (I hope!) that this isn't the only reason you would not only say "Bush would win", but that you "have no doubt about it at all":

I have already given plenty of reasons why I believe it would happen. You dont like them? /oh well. I happen to think Bush matches up very well against Gore, and given the fact that he defeated him before and that the economy is doing very well, it is still my opinion that Bush would win again.

But as you said its merely my opinion. Just like your view is your opinion.

I'm disappointed in you, you can do better.

/shrug.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Again, I have given more 'actual data' than you have in order to support my premise..

Bold by me.


You have provided zero links to any data of any kind. What post number should we look at to see the link to your 'actual data'? Talk is cheap and is apparently all you are willing to do. Back up your endless wild claims with some links to something - actual data.



I'll say this as politely as I can. I'm officially calling you out:

POST THE LINK(S) TO THE DATA YOU CLAIM TO HAVE OR FOREVER BE SHOWN TO BE AS YOU TRULY ARE - FULL OF UNSUBSTANTIATED BASELESS CLAIMS.




Post links to actual data to support this speculation:

Bush would win. I have no doubt about it at all.

--------

See, that is the problem with people who dont like Bush. They continually underestimate him and his ability.

I even agree to some degree with this statement, but it doesn't in any way mean that Bush would be able to win an election. In fact, just the opposite. If people underestimate him, they are less likely to vote for him.

--------

You compared the '86 elections with the 2006 one, then claimed you didn't, and then in response proceeded to just now compare them again.

I'll leave it for others to decide:

And by the way, did you happen to see the results of the last election? Hardly a vote of confidence in the way things have been going now is it?

Sure, I saw the results. And here is a factoid for you. Ronald Regan lost more seats his mid-term election of his second term. And his popularity was huge. The dems were barely able to win back both houses, during a period when they should have won in massive numbers. If you look at the power them dems had in the senate in the 70s and 80s, they still have a ways to go to return to that yet.

I didnt compare them..I merely stated an election fact. Reagan lost more seats to the Dems than W did in their 2nd term mid-term elections. Do you deny this?

My overall point is this: Its just routine historical practice for a president, regardless of his popularity, to lost seats to the opposing party during his second term in office. Its extremely common - even with the most popular presidents.

Thus, the recent election was merely history repeating itself as just as much it was some 'referendum' on current policy.

Bolds by me.


"History repeating itself" is comparing a historical event to a current one.


And as I discussed in detail and you chose to ignore, the situation was quite different as W is nothing like Ronald Reagan in popularity or charisma.

--------

I have already given plenty of reasons why I believe it would happen. You dont like them? /oh well. I happen to think Bush matches up very well against Gore, and given the fact that he defeated him before and that the economy is doing very well, it is still my opinion that Bush would win again.

All that is just your opinion my friend, not one tiny shred of actual data. Saying "I think so" is not a reason. Saying "I happen to think" is not a reason. You post bold claims yet when asked for external verification - nada.

If you are right, it should be easy for you to support what you claim. If you can't support what you claim, then...

Less talk - more links. Or, maybe that's too much to ask of you. How about even one single link to relevant data in support of your claim. Yes, that would be a nice change for once, please allow me to encourage you.



Or, maybe I was wrong about you and shouldn't be disappointed? If the very best you really can do is to just post your opinion, and are incapable of ever linking it to actual data to support it, then I apologize to everyone reading our posts for my thinking you were worthy of having a discussion with and instead congratulate you on doing the very best you personally are capable of and able to handle. Everyone reading this can then place value upon all your statements in exactly the level in which they deserve. Bravo for the noble effort!

 

[MobBoss]

You have provided zero links to any data of any kind. What post number should we look at to see the link to your 'actual data'? Talk is cheap and is apparently all you are willing to do. Back up your endless wild claims with some links to something - actual data.

I'll say this as politely as I can. I'm officially calling you out:

POST THE LINK(S) TO THE DATA YOU CLAIM TO HAVE OR FOREVER BE SHOWN TO BE AS YOU TRULY ARE - FULL OF UNSUBSTANTIATED BASELESS CLAIMS.

Sigh. Most of the data I gave is extremely common in nature. Fine. To appease you here it is.

1. Link proving that Bush beat Gore in the 2000 election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000
2. Link proving that Bush beat Kerry regardless of his low approval rating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_US_election
3. Link supporting Bush would squeak out a victory against Gore if they both ran for president against each other: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=435 Given that is from New Jersey, usually a democrat stronghold, is rather telling even if it is a bit old.
4. Assessment on Gores 2008 outlook and why he isnt a viable white house candidate: http://www.spinmatters.com/index.php/sm_section/comments/2008-presidential-race-handicapped/

Chances of Winning the Presidential Race:
Vice President Gore has become one dimensional (environment) and recent polls suggest that his approval rating is not where it needs to be to take the White House. The memory of the Clinton years is strong but not strong enough to put Al Gore back in the White House. 33%

So while Iraq has made Bush more unpopular, in turn Gore has gone futher left and become even more one dimensional. Plus he has gained quite a bit of weight in the last years, making him much less physically appealing. Bush still runs miles and miles almost every day.

5. Poll from Iowa just last month. http://www.kcci.com/download/2006/1221/10584929.pdf

Gore only gets 7% of the poll. 53% of this poll said Bush performance was 'fair' and actually the majority of poll takers that identify themselves as democrats said Bush's preformance was fair as well.

6. Blog from Slate stating why Gore isnt electable: http://www.slate.com/id/2142362/?nav=mpp

7. Article from USA today on Gores hypocrisy. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

And while I am not giving a link to it, I think it fairly evident that the 2006 mid-terms showed that democrats can make gains if they offer more conservative candidates - not ones that are from the extreme left like Gore. This would be most apparent in another Gore vs Bush face-off. Gore, like Kerry...is just too far to the left to beat Bush....even with Bushs bad press from the Iraq war.

Thus I have now given far and away MUCH more data supporting my claim than you have in this thread.

Now, by all means, take your attitude elsewhere. I dont need the flames.

 

[JollyRoger]

Poll from Iowa just last month. http://www.kcci.com/download/2006/1221/10584929.pdf

Gore only gets 7% of the poll. 53% of this poll said Bush performance was 'fair' and actually the majority of poll takers that identify themselves as democrats said Bush's preformance was fair as well.

Gore getting 7% in a primary poll is a far cry from head-to-head. Most states would stay the same. It would only take one state to flip Gore's way. So it is not "without doubt."

And while I am not giving a link to it, I think it fairly evident that the 2006 mid-terms showed that democrats can make gains if they offer more conservative candidates

Which Democrats were more conservative than the Republican incumbant that they defeated? BTW - every single flaming liberal incumbant held onto their seat.

 

[ParkCungHee]

News to you CG....many other presidents were viewed as "the worst president ever" during their tenure in office and yet history has been quite kind to them. One of them happened to be a fellow named Abraham Lincoln. He was extremely unpopular, but he was a leader and did what he thought was right. Bush will most likely be viewed in the top half of presidents we have had and most certainly and without a doubt will not be viewed as the worst president ever.

Step away from the thread and pick up a history book. There was a serious and wide spread belief that after lincoln was assassinated on Good friday, he would rise from the Grave on Easter Sunday. Lincoln was compared to Jesus, Bush not so much. His body was toured around the country on a train and he was embalmed so much that he was still recognizable after thirty years of being dead. They had to encase him in cement because people kept trying to steal his corpse.
Have you ever heard the expression "Your name is mud?", it comes from Dr. Mudd, the physician who attended to John Wilkes Booth, simply by that association, his name became synonomous with being worthless. Trust me, Historians are itching to be able to write the final chapter on Bush, and it isn't looking good.

 

[MobBoss]

Gore getting 7% in a primary poll is a far cry from head-to-head. Most states would stay the same. It would only take one state to flip Gore's way. So it is not "without doubt."

The without a doubt is my opinion. You disagree. /shrug.

However, Gore getting 7% does pertain to his current popularity among voters. The whole Gore vs Bush II thing is just fantasy anyway as Bush cant run again and Gore wouldnt have a chance in any primary situation.

Which Democrats were more conservative than the Republican incumbant that they defeated?

I think you can make a few arguements in certain cases...like Webb from VA. However, that is not the issue, the point is that 2006s crop of Democrat candidates were not from the far left fringe as in years past. That is why they were more successful....they had much better candidates than they usually pick in key races.

 

[brennan]

1. Link proving that Bush beat Gore in the 2000 election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

Er, yeah and this was about you speculating he'd do it again how?

2. Link proving that Bush beat Kerry regardless of his low approval rating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_US_election

Ditto.

3. Link supporting Bush would squeak out a victory against Gore if they both ran for president against each other: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=435 Given that is from New Jersey, usually a democrat stronghold, is rather telling even if it is a bit old.

That's from 2002.

4. Assessment on Gores 2008 outlook and why he isnt a viable white house candidate: http://www.spinmatters.com/index.php/sm_section/comments/2008-presidential-race-handicapped/

Opinions expressed on a blog? I'm convinced MB. NOT.

5. Poll from Iowa just last month. http://www.kcci.com/download/2006/1221/10584929.pdf

Geez, well if you give people a choice of everybody, of course a guy no-one expects to stand would get a low percentage. Irrelevant.

6. Blog from Slate stating why Gore isnt electable: http://www.slate.com/id/2142362/?nav=mpp

I got to the word 'blog'.

7. Article from USA today on Gores hypocrisy. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...re-green_x.htm

Totally irrelevant.

Nice facts.

Summation: your evidence to back you up is: The fact Bush won last time*2, an opinion poll from 2002, 3 opinions from blogs, one ad hom, and a poll that would show how people voted if they had 12 candidates to choose from instead of 2. :raisedeyebrow:

 

[Irish Caesar]

I think you can make a few arguements in certain cases...like Webb from VA. However, that is not the issue, the point is that 2006s crop of Democrat candidates were not from the far left fringe as in years past. That is why they were more successful....they had much better candidates than they usually pick in key races.

Webb was conservative? This is the same Webb that gave the response for the State of the Union earlier this week?

 

[MobBoss]

Webb was conservative? This is the same Webb that gave the response for the State of the Union earlier this week?

He was an Reagan appointee and a Republican for a long while so yes, he has a conservative background.

 

[JollyRoger]

Webb was conservative? This is the same Webb that gave the response for the State of the Union earlier this week?

Not just Conservative, arguably more Conservative than George Allen.

 

[JollyRoger]

He was an Reagan appointee and a Republican for a long while so yes, he has a conservative background.

But doesn't that logic make Raygun a liberal since he was a Democrat and head of a union for a long time? And there he is, appointing a future prominent Democrat to an important position.

 

[IglooDame]

4. Assessment on Gores 2008 outlook and why he isnt a viable white house candidate: http://www.spinmatters.com/index.php/sm_section/comments/2008-presidential-race-handicapped/


So while Iraq has made Bush more unpopular, in turn Gore has gone futher left and become even more one dimensional. Plus he has gained quite a bit of weight in the last years, making him much less physically appealing. Bush still runs miles and miles almost every day.

Of course, from that same website:

Bill Frist
Chances of running:
If Senator Clinton is as close to a lock that exists on the Democratic side, Bill Frist is the Republican version. And while kitten killing videos would derail Hillary Clinton’s campaign Senator Frist is an admitted cat killer. Since he did it to become a better heart surgeon, that transgression is easily forgiven. 94.12%

The credibility of that blog is suddenly in doubt...

 

[ParkCungHee]

But doesn't that logic make Raygun a liberal since he was a Democrat and head of a union for a long time? And there he is, appointing a future prominent Democrat to an important position.

Which would then retroactively turn Webb back into a liberal

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Anyone else notice that Mob has carefully ignored my post?

This whole thread is moot. Gore won Florida. Game over man! Game over!

 

[ParkCungHee]

As he has mine. I think maybe to clean up Off-Topic we should have a "Posts that Mobboss ignores" forum, just to make it easier for him to avoid answering people's points.

 

[MobBoss]

Of course, from that same website:


The credibility of that blog is suddenly in doubt...

Why? That was his odds of running....not of winning.

 

[Kraznaya]

He was an Reagan appointee and a Republican for a long while so yes, he has a conservative background.

Totally irrelevant, currently he is obviously more sane, err liberal, than Macaca Allen.

From this perspective Thurmond is a liberal right? Frikkin Democrat?

 

[Irish Caesar]

He was an Reagan appointee and a Republican for a long while so yes, he has a conservative background.

I know quite well of his past (as Reagan's Secretary of the Navy), but that's not very relevant compared to the present.

A conservative background doesn't matter; what he has to say does. And there's nothing conservative about talking on how to distribute the wealth in the United States economy.

 

[FriendlyFire]

He was an Reagan appointee and a Republican for a long while so yes, he has a conservative background.

Hes Father is a ww2 Vet Webb himself Vietnam veteran and whos son in serving currently in Iraq. Suprisingly we find a lot of Veterans running as democrates.

Mobboss if you had to choose between Webb or Allen whom would you have voted for ?