FoxNews poll: Bush leads Gore 60-28

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Holy crap. June 2-3, 1999, MOE of 3%.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2gen2.htm

[Gabu]

wtf?

[Vasall des Midas]

I remember that. Not that poll as such, but Bush's lead in polls at the time when the entire media establishment was working hard to establish him as the next president.

[Clay]

I wonder how the election results would've looked if Bush had picked Elizabeth Dole as VP and Gore and picked Bill Bradley, like in the last poll at the very bottom of that page.

[Verily]

What's most interesting is that Gore led McCain in most of the polls there while trailing Bush widely. The popular belief is that McCain probably would have won easily, but perhaps not.

[© Tweed the Younger]

What's most interesting is that Gore led McCain in most of the polls there while trailing Bush widely. The popular belief is that McCain probably would have won easily, but perhaps not.

Gore's lead on McCain in those polls was simply due to much more name recognition.

[Gustaf]

Seems like those VP candidates gave Bush a minor boost. Interestingly, the fact that he was the son of Bush Sr. apparently mde people more likely to vote for him.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Damn that is strange looking.

[Politico]

A lot of people say things like "Gore blew it" and "Gore is a terrible campaigner."He was down by over a 2:1 ratio at one point during the campaign yet he still managed to receive more votes than Bush on Election Day. It's pretty clear that Gore neither blew it, nor ran a terrible campaign. In retrospect, it's quite remarkable that Gore was able to overcome the Clinton Fatigue of 2000.

[Bo]

That poll is pointless. People weren't paying attention to the race until Labor Day 2000. Dukakis was also leading Bush Sr. by double digits in the summer of 1988.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Stop trolling, Rochambeau.

[memphis]

That poll is pointless. People weren't paying attention to the race until Labor Day 2000. Dukakis was also leading Bush Sr. by double digits in the summer of 1988.

FYI, it's generally considered bad form to bump super old threads.

[Derek]

That's true about Dukakis and he won about what 7 states. McCain would've won easily in 2000.

[Bo]

That's true about Dukakis and he won about what 7 states. McCain would've won easily in 2000.

Agree. McCain would have crushed Gore. Also, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq under a President McCain.

[Derek]

I'm not sure about that. I like McCain on foreign policy and he may have been able to get Saddam to step down without a war even. I can see Reagan doing the same thing. After all he did win the Cold War without actually going into combat. McCain is one of 2 candidates who lost that make my top 5 list of presidential heroes in the 20th century.

[Bo]

I'm not sure about that. I like McCain on foreign policy and he may have been able to get Saddam to step down without a war even. I can see Reagan doing the same thing. After all he did win the Cold War without actually going into combat. McCain is one of 2 candidates who lost that make my top 5 list of presidential heroes in the 20th century.

Bush's original official goal wasn't to remove Saddam--it was to allow the U.N. inspectors back into Iraq. After the inspectors were back in, Bush decided to invade anyway. I think that if McCain was President and Saddam would have allowed the inspectors back in, McCain would have let the inspectors do their job instead of invading Iraq. Reagan did not win the Cold War--it didn't even end under his watch. I could not see Reagan invading Iraq--he would have probably bombed Saddam first, and if Saddam would ahve allowed the inspectors back in, that would ahve been good enough for Reagan. I mean, Reagan didn't invade and occupy Libya when their dictator (Gadaffi) was sponsoring terrorism against the U.S. and U.S. citizens.

[Derek]

I'm not sure about that. I like McCain on foreign policy and he may have been able to get Saddam to step down without a war even. I can see Reagan doing the same thing. After all he did win the Cold War without actually going into combat. McCain is one of 2 candidates who lost that make my top 5 list of presidential heroes in the 20th century.

Bush's original official goal wasn't to remove Saddam--it was to allow the U.N. inspectors back into Iraq. After the inspectors were back in, Bush decided to invade anyway. I think that if McCain was President and Saddam would have allowed the inspectors back in, McCain would have let the inspectors do their job instead of invading Iraq. Reagan did not win the Cold War--it didn't even end under his watch. I could not see Reagan invading Iraq--he would have probably bombed Saddam first, and if Saddam would ahve allowed the inspectors back in, that would ahve been good enough for Reagan. I mean, Reagan didn't invade and occupy Libya when their dictator (Gadaffi) was sponsoring terrorism against the U.S. and U.S. citizens.

That's all true, but I think Bush sent in weapons inspectors to distract ppl while he was planning to take out Saddam. I would too if they tried to kill my dad. As for the Cold War not ending on Reagan's watch, come on. We defeated the Soviets through capitalism in the same manner that China is defeating us with their capitalism against our socialism today. It happened about 9 months after he left office but that's only a technicality.

[Bo]

I'm not sure about that. I like McCain on foreign policy and he may have been able to get Saddam to step down without a war even. I can see Reagan doing the same thing. After all he did win the Cold War without actually going into combat. McCain is one of 2 candidates who lost that make my top 5 list of presidential heroes in the 20th century.

Bush's original official goal wasn't to remove Saddam--it was to allow the U.N. inspectors back into Iraq. After the inspectors were back in, Bush decided to invade anyway. I think that if McCain was President and Saddam would have allowed the inspectors back in, McCain would have let the inspectors do their job instead of invading Iraq. Reagan did not win the Cold War--it didn't even end under his watch. I could not see Reagan invading Iraq--he would have probably bombed Saddam first, and if Saddam would ahve allowed the inspectors back in, that would ahve been good enough for Reagan. I mean, Reagan didn't invade and occupy Libya when their dictator (Gadaffi) was sponsoring terrorism against the U.S. and U.S. citizens.

That's all true, but I think Bush sent in weapons inspectors to distract ppl while he was planning to take out Saddam. I would too if they tried to kill my dad. As for the Cold War not ending on Reagan's watch, come on. We defeated the Soviets through capitalism in the same manner that China is defeating us with their capitalism against our socialism today. It happened about 9 months after he left office but that's only a technicality.

Even though Saddam did a lot of horrible things (including trying to kill Bush Sr.), there are better ways of handling such dictators than simply sending in American troops to remove them from power. I think McCain and Reagan knew that. Also, the U.S. had capitalism since the beginning of its history. Reagan jsut continued our capitalist tradition. Nothing which he did directly ended the Cold War. And the Cold War didn't end 9 months after Reagan left office--it ended almost 3 years after Reagan left office.

[memphis]

China is defeating us with their capitalism against our socialism today.

Signature worthy.

[Derek]

We did send troops to take out Saddam. It wasn't the easiest thing to do. We're still there cleaning up from everything it took.

[Hashemite]

We did send troops to take out Saddam. It wasn't the easiest thing to do. We're still there cleaning up from everything it took.

Go die in a fire. It will be a good thing for the world.

[Derek]

We did send troops to take out Saddam. It wasn't the easiest thing to do. We're still there cleaning up from everything it took.

Go die in a fire. It will be a good thing for the world.

I supported Iraq at the dawn of the invasion and never withdrew my support because it was "too hard" for our country to succeed in.

[President Mitt]

DIAF

[Hashemite]

We did send troops to take out Saddam. It wasn't the easiest thing to do. We're still there cleaning up from everything it took.

Go die in a fire. It will be a good thing for the world.

I supported Iraq at the dawn of the invasion and never withdrew my support because it was "too hard" for our country to succeed in.

I think you may have some reading comprehension problems.