heyholetsgogrant Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Gore vs. McCain ... it would be like hitting the rewind button back to 2000 and erasing Bush from history. If we could also un-invade Iraq, un-inflate our currency, and un-pop the housing bubble, that would be great too. :laugh: good point. -Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Skin Fan Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 It won't happen, but if it did, the Dems would win hands down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 27, 2008 Author Share Posted March 27, 2008 Yea, I understand that, but it's a lot different now with the amount money spent and the energy put in this campaign.-Grant I agree it's unlikely. But If I told you in 2000 that the election would be decided by a couple of hundred votes that would have been unlikely too. If I would have told you that almost 60% more people would vote in the 2004 than in 1992 or 1994 that would have been unlikely. Or if I would have said Al Gore got more votes for president than any elected President in history and still lost the election. We are living in historic times. Gore getting the nod would be unlikely. It would depend on three improbable things all occuring.. (1) That Hillary and Obama are separated at the convention by a fraction of the super deligate number.. Say 100 or fewer deligates. Which is still unlikely. (2) That the bad blood between Hillary and Obama grows to such an extent that a large vocal minority of their supporters refuse to accept the other candidate. We're almost there now. (3) That a block of 100 super deligates could be convinced to withhold their votes in favor of an insurgency when both Hillary and Obama would be offering them everything including the kitchen sink to fall into line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 It won't happen, but if it did, the Dems would win hands down I hope the dems think this way. Im curious, why do YOU think this way? You dont see the potential landmine in key swing states created by choosing Gore? Just so Im clear. The party who claimed Gore won FLA, yet Bush was given the Presidency is now going to give Gore the nomination, even though he won nothing? And you dont think that will hurt them, and in fact think it will help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 27, 2008 Author Share Posted March 27, 2008 I hope the dems think this way. Im curious, why do YOU think this way?You dont see the potential landmine in key swing states created by choosing Gore? Just so Im clear. The party who claimed Gore won FLA, yet Bush was given the Presidency is now going to give Gore the nomination, even though he won nothing? And you dont think that will hurt them, and in fact think it will help? Gore won the popular vote in 2000... Al Gore (Democrat)..............................................50,999,897 George W. Bush (Republican)...........................50,456,002 More Americans voted for Gore than any President nomini in the countries history up to that point. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Gore won the popular vote in 2000...Al Gore (Democrat) 50,999,897 George W. Bush (Republican) 50,456,002 Im not sure how or why that's relevant. Or even accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 27, 2008 Author Share Posted March 27, 2008 Im not sure how or why that's relevant. Or even accurate. It's accurate google it up for yourself. The reason why it's relivent is because with Bush's approval rating hitting new lows every month a lot of folks are reconsidering their vote for the guy and the party. If Gore could win the popular vote coming off his own parties troubles in 2000( bimbo erruptions).. It's a good bet he could do significantly better in 2008 with the Republican party now suffering from its own loss of confidence. Gore is prevetted, tan, rested, and ready. Coming off a nobel peace prize and an Oscer. Besides that the 15 or so odd books which have come out about the inner workings of the Clinton and Bush white houses have uniformely been very kind to Albert. It's still a long shot. But it's interesting that it's being spoken of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 It's accurate google it up for yourself.The reason why it's relivent is because with Bush's approval rating hitting new lows every month a lot of folks are reconsidering their vote for the guy and the party. If Gore could win the popular vote coming off his own parties troubles in 2000( bimbo erruptions).. It's a good bet he could do significantly better in 2008 with the Republican party now suffering from its own loss of confidence. Gore is prevetted, tan, rested, and ready. Coming off a nobel peace prize and an Oscer. Besides that the 15 or so odd books which have come out about the inner workings of the Clinton and Bush white houses have uniformely been very kind to Albert. It's still a long shot. But it's interesting that it's being spoken of. Well he certainly had the higher number of votes counted. But over 3 million were uncounted, so it's kind of crazy to claim he won some mythical contest that was never even finished. But I realize its some false hope that the left clings to. To the issue of Gore today. If the Dems did this, the backlash from the Obama voters alone would eliminate his chances of winning PA, FL, OH, IA. And probaly lead to a McCain landslide. Why would Obama strongly dismiss any chance of being Hillarys VP claiming hes in it to be Pres, but then accept the lesser role to a guy whos sat on the sidelines for the past year and half? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Not to mention that the popular vote is a totally meaningless metric for that election, because both candidates ran their campaigns with the understanding that they were trying to win the electoral college, not the popular vote. Had it been a straight popular vote, they both would have campaigned very differently. Bush, for instance, would likely have spent much more time in a place like California, where he knew he had no chance of winning overall, but might have been able to pick up more votes in a straight up popular contest. Likewise, Democrat voters in Texas who might have stayed home knowing that Texas was a lock for Bush likely would have gotten out and voted for Gore. There's no way to know what the popular vote would have been had the race been run that way, and the number's far too tainted to consider in any way valid otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 so I'm going to award the first prize this evening to the girl with the biggest tits. I'd vote for that!! Now that's something I could get behind....or stand in front of!! :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 It won't happen, but if it did, the Dems would win hands down are you kidding me?? Not a chance in Hell. First you would have the Obama voters who would go crazy since he would be dissed. than the hilary voters who would feel cheated. Now take into account the middle voters who could go either way. I think with all this chaos, and if it did happen, they would throw their hands up and vote for McCain. do you really believe that if either hilary or Obama got snubbed that their voters would go to Gore?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Gore won the popular vote in 2000...Al Gore (Democrat)..............................................50,999,897 George W. Bush (Republican)...........................50,456,002 More Americans voted for Gore than any President nomini in the countries history up to that point. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html Well I suppose if we are going down this road, first off, not all the votes were counted officially. So we really don't know. Second, an indy group did count them and Bush did win, unofficially. thirdly, people are still yelling Bush isn't my president and he stole the election. Might I point out that it was GORE who took it to the courts and lost, not Bush and it's not Bush's fault the electoral college is what put him in office. he has no control over that, just as Gore wouldn't have had it been turned around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 28, 2008 Author Share Posted March 28, 2008 Well he certainly had the higher number of votes counted. But over 3 million were uncounted, so it's kind of crazy to claim he won some mythical contest that was never even finished. But I realize its some false hope that the left clings to. There is nothing Mythical about it. The vote is public record. Gore won the popular vote. There is no hedge and no dismissing it. Gore got the majority of the votes in that election. This has actually happenned several times in history. Bush won the electorial college, but lost the popular vote. There isn't anything false hope in there. It's a simple statement of fact. To the issue of Gore today. If the Dems did this, the backlash from the Obama voters alone would eliminate his chances of winning PA, FL, OH, IA. And probaly lead to a McCain landslide. Bottom line is if this happenned today it could only happen if the Obama and Clinton people were behind it and actually voted for it. It the animosity between the two camps was such that they would rather draft a third than support their opponent, and even then only if neither side had enough deligates to take the nomination outwright. Why would Obama strongly dismiss any chance of being Hillarys VP claiming hes in it to be Pres, but then accept the lesser role to a guy whos sat on the sidelines for the past year and half? Because just as the popular vote was not determinant in a close election in 2000's general election for Gore and Bush, the popular vote alone in the democratic parties nomination process is not determinant to gain the nomination. Obama and Hillary in a very close race can't necessarily secure the nomination for themselves, but they might be able to ensure the other guy/gal doesn't get the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 28, 2008 Author Share Posted March 28, 2008 Well I suppose if we are going down this road, first off, not all the votes were counted officially. So we really don't know. Wrong... There is an official vote count. What you are claiming is all the votes didn't make it into the official vote count, which is irrelivent. The official vote count is what it is. Second, an indy group did count them and Bush did win, unofficially. and if if's and buts were candy and nuts... irrelivent... Their is only one offical vote count. thirdly, people are still yelling Bush isn't my president and he stole the election. Might I point out that it was GORE who took it to the courts and lost, not Bush and it's not Bush's fault the electoral college is what put him in office. he has no control over that, just as Gore wouldn't have had it been turned around. I'm not claiming Bush lost the election or Bush is not President. I'm just stating a fact that Bush lost the popular vote. Our election process doesn't messure the popular vote, it measures the electorial college vote. Our election process for president has never depended on the popular vote. I guess the point is however that if the majority of voting Americans voted for Gore once, and a large percentage of those voting against Gore were very unhappy with the candidate they voted for (31% approval rating for Bush for years ), Gore could be a pretty attractive candidate at some point in the future.. That's all I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 "There is nothing Mythical about it. The vote is public record. Gore won the popular vote. There is no hedge and no dismissing it. Gore got the majority of the votes in that election. This has actually happenned several times in history. Bush won the electorial college, but lost the popular vote. There isn't anything false hope in there. It's a simple statement of fact." The counted vote is public record. And Gore had the most number of votes counted when the counting stopped. But there were more than enough outstanding votes left that could have turned the tide, or as some have indicated made it even bigger for Gore. But since there is no official "popular vote" it's irreleavant. It's a desperate attempt by the left to somehow diminish Bush's win in 2000. As pointed out above, it's mostly irrelevant because the candidates dont campaign for popular vtes and the voting public act accordingly. Is a GOPer likely to turn out in TX if he knows its a done deal? Is a Dem likely to turn out in NY? Claiming Gore won the popular vote and then saying that info translates into a Gore win in 08 over McCain is flawed on many many levels. I certainly think it's a possibility that Gore gets chosen, probably more a chance than is being reported. BUt I think the results in Novemeber would be disastrous for the Dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 "Wrong... There is an official vote count. What you are claiming is all the votes didn't make it into the official vote count, which is irrelivent. The official vote count is what it is." No there is not an "official popular vote count". That's a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temple Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 his whole platform is a myth!!! hey man, I don't understand the Bible, but I don't call it a myth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Is the question: Name a politician that came oh so close to becoming president then gained 200 pounds and grew an awful beard?If so, yes he is the answer :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Bait Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 hey man, I don't understand the Bible, but I don't call it a myth... funny, you mention that....I believe the Bible is a myth. The majority of it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Bait Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 hey man, I don't understand the Bible, but I don't call it a myth... look into the recent discoveries of global warming on the planet Mars.....do they have humans supposedly ruining the environment w/ fossil fuels and aerosol cans? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Is Al Gore the answer? What the hell's the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Bait Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.