Minnesota (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 04:30:18 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  Minnesota (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Minnesota  (Read 10381 times)
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


« on: March 18, 2004, 07:55:21 PM »

Lets hope that imbecile Nader doesn't get on the ballot again.
Logged
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2004, 09:09:56 PM »

Why do people in Minnesota hate Bush so much.  Your description kind of sounds like New Haven or New York City, where you cant walk a block without seeing anti-Bush grafiti.  But you could understand those two cities because they are in the northeast with high minority populations.
Logged
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2004, 09:34:23 PM »

That's interesting.  Then I guess the only difference between the midwest and the northeast is that here the suburbs are just as liberal if not more liberal than the cities.  Because usually what you have is the cities filled with poor minorities that just vote up and down democratic but aren't really that liberal on a lot of issues.  And then you have the surrounding suburbs that are usually lily-white that tend to be mixed because most of the people are very liberal but also pay a lot in taxes.
Logged
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2004, 11:30:17 PM »

Perot clearly took away votes from both sides.  It would be hard to tell who would have won.  Bush was very unpopular around the time of the election.

Wheras Nader clearly took away votes from Gore.  I VOTED FOR NADER, there is no way on Earth I was going to vote for Bush... and I always vote.
Logged
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2004, 02:53:04 PM »

Just because Perot took votes from Republican states, does not mean he took votes from Republican *voters*

Nader did best in Alaska last time, but no-one would argue it came from Bush voters.

Texas gained 2 electoral votes last election, but no-one would argue that rise came from an increased amount of republicans to the state even though it is a republican state.  The increase in population came from hispanics, that tend to vote democrat.

You need to separate people within a state from the state itself and note that not everyone in a state votes in uniform.
Logged
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2004, 04:03:47 PM »

Bush would have never won Connecticut.  He barely even won fairfield county which is the only part of the state that is republican.
Logged
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2004, 04:14:57 PM »

I saw the memorial and I was pretty offended.  They seemed to turn a funeral into a campaign rally.  I was even offended by his son who was chanting we will win.  

I found it to be as offensive as Bush using the 9-11 attacks to establish an emotional connection with voters to get votes.  

Both of these ploys will fail though.  It failed in Minnesota and it's going to fail in November 2004 when Bush loses re-election by a landslide.
Logged
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2004, 04:18:12 PM »

I feel violated when the Republicans make ads about 9-11.  I lived about 10 blocks from the World Trade Center when they were attacked.  And Bush feels the need to take advantage of that for political gain.  It is just as shameful as the campaign rally in Minnesota, if not moreso.  
Logged
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2004, 04:25:59 PM »

He shouldn't have put images of dead firefighters in his ad.  That was crossing the line.  A poll showed 54% of Americans thought the ad was in bad taste so I am not alone in thinking this.  

We'll see what happens when Republicans hold their rally in NYC this year (again exploiting 9-11).  Republican is a dirty word in NYC and there will likely be huge protests.
Logged
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2004, 04:36:32 PM »

Give me a break, Bloomberg's entire platform was that he has been a registered democrat his whole life.
Logged
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2004, 04:42:10 PM »

Bloomberg is also probably the most unpopular mayor in the history of NYC.  The only reason he won is because there was a very nasty democratic primary where the hispanic community got pissed off that Green won and voted for Bloomberg in protest.  

NYC politics are tricky because you have a lot of different groups that can go either way in local races based on local issues.  But in a national election they all unify against Bush.  Bush won't even get 20% of the vote in NYC.
Logged
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2004, 05:25:02 PM »

That poll is just further evidence that Republicans are disliked in New York City...  the same way gays are disliked in Rhea county Tennessee.
Logged
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2004, 06:03:49 PM »

Bush wouldn't have won CT in 92 even without Perot in there.  

And I think the main reason MN and WI were close was because Nader did so well in those states.
Logged
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2004, 07:53:40 PM »

Give me a break...  since you are all about anecdotal evidence.  I challenge you to walk down any street in NYC and see how many anti-Bush posters, graffiti or flyers you find.  I could almost guarantee that there is no street in Manhattan that doesn't have some kind of anti-republican literature somewhere.  Not even Wall Street.  

If you think that because some former Mayor that was more popular on the people's court than he was as mayor's, opinion is relevant then you're dead wrong.  Like I said, Bush won't get 20% of the vote in New York City even though he will try to exploit 9-11 hard.  

What is Bush going to run on in NYC?  The fact that he hates gays and people who have abortions or the fact that NYC has a 10% unemployment rate?
Logged
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2004, 01:39:02 PM »

CTguy seems to be full of hatred.  Even in the darkest days of the Clinton presidency, I never hated him.  Also, just because you are for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage doesn't mean you hate gays.  I am for the amendment, but I don't hate gays, and I don't think GWB does either.  Same with women who have abortions.  

sorry, but if you support amending into the Constitution permanent second class status for gays, I don't see how can say you don't hate them. Besides, I doubt anyone who supports such an amendment would have many gay friends, simply because no gay would hang around them.In my opinion, anyone who supports the Hate Amendment is a homophobe, end of story. You sound like "I'm not racist, I just think races should remain seperate and interracial mixing is against nature, blah blah blah..."

aside from that, anyone who thinks Bush has a snowball's chance in hell of winning New York should lay off the drugs since whatever they're on is so strong they probably would be dead by the election

Exactly, these conservatives are trying to pity themselves saying liberals are the true evil ones and blah blah blah...  but give me a break, they are the ones that support discrimination in the law.

These are the same people who 40 years ago would have been fighting tooth and nail to keep schools segregated...  yes in the SOUTH where it was politically correct to support segregation... yet they pretend like it's a northern phenomenon.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.035 seconds with 13 queries.