Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Not by God... or Christians. Blame the mormons.
I'm sure the Catholics blame Martin Luther.
Also the popular vote is very close. How does it compare to Bush v. Gore?
You're right, it doesn't. The winner of the Popular vote also won this election.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 630
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes, this is horrible, this post.

Turns out I'd do, what I've always done, cash farm subsidy checks and compulsively masturbate.

The majority didn't vote against him. The majority stayed home.   The GOP candidate had less votes in 2016 than in 2012 or 2008, when they lost both times.   Dems (and repubs) just HATED Hillar

You laugh big d, but it can be a slippery slope. The fact that over half of our country have ignored the socialist voting record, extremist associates and fascists rants is beyond me.I am not saying that Obama = Hitler. I am saying that policies that he could put in motion could start taking away rights, that if a party grabs a hold of, over the course of a few elections could really gain momentum. Obama is on record as saying the constitution is an imperfect document and that he wants to make changes to it.
Am I the only one reveling in the irony of the statement in bold lol? You mean something like wire-taping the whole country, torture, imprisoning people without trial or just cause? Rights like that?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure the Catholics blame Martin Luther.
Maybe, but we were talking about the Bible... not the Catholic religion. Dead Sea Scrolls FTW!
You're right, it doesn't. The winner of the Popular vote also won this election.
We are talking about the total popular vote... not the electoral college.
Link to post
Share on other sites
McCain ISN'T the only one that could keep it close... that was the biggest mistake the republicans made. They wanted to chose a centrist so that they would have a chance, but that just caused everyone in the party to not want to vote for either candidate. They was a very conservative radio DJ here that decided to vote for Obama to punish the republicans for picking McCain, since he didn't stand for anything that republicans stand for. He said that Palin almost made him switch but he just couldn't reward the republicans for choosing McCain. Also the popular vote is very close. How does it compare to Bush v. Gore or Bush v. Kerry?
Who of the republican candidates could have kept it closer? I dont think they come this close with Huckabbee as likeable guy as he is.
Link to post
Share on other sites

All politicians are bullsh.itters including Obama and McCain and will say and do whatever they can to get elected. Obama had better strategists and speech writers and won this election because of the mistakes BUSH/Republicans have made in the past. I really didnt believe McCain had any real chance of winning this election at all. He put up a good fight but America was not going to elect another Republican. Kudos to McCain for his speech in defeat also....a real class act. I really believe McCain was the choice today and with more experience I believe Obama was the future. Obama is a great speaker with little experience who was elected to the most powerful position in the free world. I hope he surrounds himself with intelligent & experienced people who can guide him through the next 4 years in office. Obama is a representation of "Change" & "Hope" in America and in the world and as an American I will support him but I am a little scared and skeptical. America has spoken and our democratic process has elected an exciting and new leader. I look forward to the next 4 years and pray to God America prospers economically, becomes respected in the world once again and stays free from terrorism. Now.......can we go back to talking poker and golf in this section? :club:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who called it? I don't think it's over yet.
You're correct, when I looked 15 minutes ago Coleman was way ahead, but it's closer now.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Who of the republican candidates could have kept it closer? I dont think they come this close with Huckabbee as likeable guy as he is.
I'm not saying that the candidate that would have kept it closer was one of the known people. It's simply a person that is a good speaker (which is getting more and more important) and believes in small government. Maybe a much younger Fred Thompson.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush lost the popular vote, Obama did not. Are you disputing that Bush lost the popular vote in the 2000 election, because if you are, lets bet.
Are you drunk? I WAS JUST ASKING WHAT THE FINAL VOTE TOTALS WERE!!!! I KNOW WHO WON, I WAS THERE!!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Who of the republican candidates could have kept it closer? I dont think they come this close with Huckabbee as likeable guy as he is.
I think Huckabbee could have been a liablity too. But he would have needed like a hybrid clone between Michael Jordan, Chuck Norris, and Jesus Christ for his VP for it even to make a difference. VP picks are overrated. I think Romney or Guiliani would have been his best bet, they are competent with the press, and could have been more effective attack dogs.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you drunk? I WAS JUST ASKING WHAT THE FINAL VOTE TOTALS WERE!!!! I KNOW WHO WON, I WAS THERE!!!
oh, I'm sorry, I have been drinking a little, as a matter of fact. Lemme see here.. CNN has the vote totals ( not final yet) at 55.8 vs 50.9, with I'm not sure what percentage reporting. 52-47 split so far, with a rather large turn out.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Huckabbee could have been a liablity too. But he would have needed like a hybrid clone between Michael Jordan, Chuck Norris, and Jesus Christ for his VP for it even to make a difference. VP picks are overrated. I think Romney or Guiliani would have been his best bet, they are competent with the press, and could have been more effective attack dogs.
I think a pick like Steve Forbes or Michael Bloomberg would have been brilliant considering even before the meltdown the economy was issue #1. Of course social consevatives would have hated that but who else where they gonna vote for.
Link to post
Share on other sites
oh, I'm sorry, I have been drinking a little, as a matter of fact. Lemme see here.. CNN has the vote totals ( not final yet) at 55.8 vs 50.9, with I'm not sure what percentage reporting. 52-47 split so far, with a rather large turn out.
I think Bush had 59,900,000 last election. I remember seeing the headline of a British newspaper that said "How can 59,948,483 people be so dumb!"but that was my whole question. How do the numbers compare the the previous two elections?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a pick like Steve Forbes or Michael Bloomberg would have been brilliant considering even before the meltdown the economy was issue #1. Of course social consevatives would have hated that but who else where they gonna vote for.
Social conservatives wouldn't hate Steve Forbes... except for the fact that he's completely inept socially.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that settles my debate. MA de-criminalized pot, and CA banned gay marriage. Worchester here I come.
Is there a link to the prop 8 result? Last CNN update had it too close to call...
Link to post
Share on other sites

California, Florida, and Arizona all banned gay marriage tonight.Arkansas banned unmarried couples from adopting children... which is very interesting and I think probably really good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a link to the prop 8 result? Last CNN update had it too close to call...
No link, CNN just showed that it's 54% to 46% with like 80% reporting. I guess it could get closer.
Link to post
Share on other sites
California, Florida, and Arizona all banned gay marriage tonight.Arkansas banned unmarried couples from adopting children... which is very interesting and I think probably really good.
That's more of a ban from gay couples adopting than anything.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bloomberg....Of course social consevatives would have hated that but who else where they gonna vote for.
Bloomberg would have been a titanically good choice, and may have even helped carry NY State, which is unheard of ( also why I think Mitt would have been good, 'cause carrying Mass would have been huge).Bloomberg could be your 2012 candidate right there, if the GOP wants to win.Again, I've never understood why you pander to your base in choosing a VP candidate. Your base is your base, they are voting for you no matter what ( baring shoddy Iron Play, naturally). VP candidates should be chosen based on their competence in talking to the press and their popularity in their home state, to help carry a state or two that normally wouldn't have gone to the candidate. Picking a small time Alaskan politician in a desperate gamble to woo hilary votes on the " hey, Hillary's a women, Palin's a woman too" theory, was really a bad tactic. McCain should have hired Rove.. there's a man who knows how to run a campaign.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...