Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 09, 2019, 06:29:55 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Endorsements Close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 User Predictions - Discussion
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 99 Print
Author Topic: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion  (Read 820556 times)
bejkuy
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 329


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #850 on: January 30, 2004, 03:36:54 pm »

<<GOP Business, investment, outdoor worker, sales

DEM teachers, health care workers, artisans,

Nice analysis.

I would add,

GOP-virtually all small businessmen, non-union labor.
 
DEM- trial lawyers, any public employees-cops, firemen, etc, college professors, street vendors, tatoo artists,
Logged
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #851 on: January 30, 2004, 04:48:42 pm »

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,566


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #852 on: January 30, 2004, 05:02:48 pm »

Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right? Smiley

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.
Logged
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #853 on: January 30, 2004, 05:05:20 pm »

the difference is Louisiana is Conservative first.  All the dems that have won are moderate to conservative.  John Kerry doesn't stand a chance there.


Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right? Smiley

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,566


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #854 on: January 30, 2004, 05:07:12 pm »

My point was that local elections has very little impact on national elections. I agree that LA will not go Dem and NH most likely will go Rep, but I wouldn't base my predictions for them on the outcome of local elections.

the difference is Louisiana is Conservative first.  All the dems that have won are moderate to conservative.  John Kerry doesn't stand a chance there.


Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right? Smiley

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.
Logged
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #855 on: January 30, 2004, 05:08:06 pm »

Ok we agree then, but I just thought NH was a poor example of that point.

My point was that local elections has very little impact on national elections. I agree that LA will not go Dem and NH most likely will go Rep, but I wouldn't base my predictions for them on the outcome of local elections.

the difference is Louisiana is Conservative first.  All the dems that have won are moderate to conservative.  John Kerry doesn't stand a chance there.


Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right? Smiley

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,566


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #856 on: January 30, 2004, 05:12:17 pm »

Well, we'll never really know that for sure, but if New Hampshire on election day is clearly more Republican than the national average, as compared to 2000, and there is no other significant factor explaining this, then, but only then!, will I concede that you were right and I wrong... Smiley

Ok we agree then, but I just thought NH was a poor example of that point.

My point was that local elections has very little impact on national elections. I agree that LA will not go Dem and NH most likely will go Rep, but I wouldn't base my predictions for them on the outcome of local elections.

the difference is Louisiana is Conservative first.  All the dems that have won are moderate to conservative.  John Kerry doesn't stand a chance there.


Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right? Smiley

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.
Logged
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #857 on: January 30, 2004, 05:13:21 pm »

Smiley winner!  ( just teasing, good discussion )

Well, we'll never really know that for sure, but if New Hampshire on election day is clearly more Republican than the national average, as compared to 2000, and there is no other significant factor explaining this, then, but only then!, will I concede that you were right and I wrong... Smiley

Ok we agree then, but I just thought NH was a poor example of that point.

My point was that local elections has very little impact on national elections. I agree that LA will not go Dem and NH most likely will go Rep, but I wouldn't base my predictions for them on the outcome of local elections.

the difference is Louisiana is Conservative first.  All the dems that have won are moderate to conservative.  John Kerry doesn't stand a chance there.


Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right? Smiley

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,566


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #858 on: January 30, 2004, 05:18:02 pm »

Yes, and I think muddled my post enough to allow me to weasel out, should New Hampshire mess up on election day... Wink

Smiley winner!  ( just teasing, good discussion )

Well, we'll never really know that for sure, but if New Hampshire on election day is clearly more Republican than the national average, as compared to 2000, and there is no other significant factor explaining this, then, but only then!, will I concede that you were right and I wrong... Smiley

Ok we agree then, but I just thought NH was a poor example of that point.

My point was that local elections has very little impact on national elections. I agree that LA will not go Dem and NH most likely will go Rep, but I wouldn't base my predictions for them on the outcome of local elections.

the difference is Louisiana is Conservative first.  All the dems that have won are moderate to conservative.  John Kerry doesn't stand a chance there.


Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right? Smiley

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.
Logged
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #859 on: January 30, 2004, 05:37:39 pm »


I like your wit gustaf, funny post and still hedging your bet! :0

Yes, and I think muddled my post enough to allow me to weasel out, should New Hampshire mess up on election day... Wink

Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,566


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #860 on: January 30, 2004, 05:39:41 pm »

Thanks! Smiley One has to be careful, you know... Wink


I like your wit gustaf, funny post and still hedging your bet! :0

Yes, and I think muddled my post enough to allow me to weasel out, should New Hampshire mess up on election day... Wink

Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #861 on: January 30, 2004, 07:09:26 pm »

<<GOP Business, investment, outdoor worker, sales

DEM teachers, health care workers, artisans,

Nice analysis.

I would add,

GOP-virtually all small businessmen, non-union labor.
 
DEM- trial lawyers, any public employees-cops, firemen, etc, college professors, street vendors, tatoo artists,


Tatoo artists! lol.  How about
GOP: Southern Baptist ministers, left-handed golfers?.
Logged
bejkuy
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 329


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #862 on: January 30, 2004, 07:49:28 pm »
« Edited: January 30, 2004, 08:09:27 pm by bejkuy »

<<GOP Business, investment, outdoor worker, sales

DEM teachers, health care workers, artisans,

Nice analysis.

I would add,

GOP-virtually all small businessmen, non-union labor.
 
DEM- trial lawyers, any public employees-cops, firemen, etc, college professors, street vendors, tatoo artists,


Tatoo artists! lol.  How about
GOP: Southern Baptist ministers, left-handed golfers?.

GOP- White collar criminals, pyramid schemers, poachers.

DEM- Crack dealers, strippers, boxers, carnies, pimps.
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #863 on: January 30, 2004, 10:31:57 pm »

<<GOP Business, investment, outdoor worker, sales

DEM teachers, health care workers, artisans,

Nice analysis.

I would add,

GOP-virtually all small businessmen, non-union labor.
 
DEM- trial lawyers, any public employees-cops, firemen, etc, college professors, street vendors, tatoo artists,


Tatoo artists! lol.  How about
GOP: Southern Baptist ministers, left-handed golfers?.

GOP- White collar criminals, pyramid schemers, poachers.

DEM- Crack dealers, strippers, boxers, carnies, pimps.

Dems: Journalists/reporters, gardens, reads 1+ book per year, listens to NPR, watches CNN, Jim Lehr, subscribes to a news mag.

GOP: News Publishers, cops, Country Western fans, bowlers, reads less than 1 book per year, plays paint-ball,  Fox, Reality TV, subscribes to SI.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #864 on: January 30, 2004, 10:41:49 pm »

Dems: Journalists/reporters, gardens, reads 1+ book per year, listens to NPR, watches CNN, Jim Lehr, subscribes to a news mag.

GOP: News Publishers, cops, Country Western fans, bowlers, reads less than 1 book per year, plays paint-ball,  Fox, Reality TV, subscribes to SI.
Well....I fit into alot of those categories.

On the Dem side, I do read more than a book per year, I watch CNN, and I subcribe to Time Magazine.  On the GOP side, I subscribe to SI.  But I'm blood red baby Smiley
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,765
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #865 on: January 31, 2004, 05:06:17 am »

Is it just you two or are all people from Oregon this cynical about their own voters?
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #866 on: January 31, 2004, 01:07:28 pm »

Is it just you two or are all people from Oregon this cynical about their own voters?

Oregonians are very pragmatic, as in the practical sense.  I think it was first settled by former Missourians! (Oregon has a lot of "firsts" to its credit.)
Logged
nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,907
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #867 on: January 31, 2004, 03:21:51 pm »


I've heard things like that a lot, which I find interesting because I follow sports but certainly am very liberal. Does anybody have an explanation for why sports fans tend to vote more GOP than the national average?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,566


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #868 on: January 31, 2004, 05:36:39 pm »


I've heard things like that a lot, which I find interesting because I follow sports but certainly am very liberal. Does anybody have an explanation for why sports fans tend to vote more GOP than the national average?

I know that in the 50s a very secret, and completely illegal, project was carried out in Sweden, where a group of children were picked out and monitored throughout their lives. Their political opinions were checked through bogus polls, and this was correlated with a lot of other information. It all came out in the 70s and was a big scandal. Rather few things could be correlated with political opinions though, outside the statistical MoE.

And the results were:

Communists were more intelligent than others

Social Democrats were less intelligent than others

Conservatives were more interested in sports (!)

and Center Party voters (kind of rural conservatives) liked motorcycles (that's really stupid, I know...)

That this was all that came out of it is kind of disappoiting, but it seems to confirm the sports-conservative correlation.
Logged
Ritchie Valens
Reaganfan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,008
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #869 on: January 31, 2004, 10:08:05 pm »

My map shows a true, but not total victory for the Republicans.  Kerry may pull 100 votes or so, but Bush should hopefully win.
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #870 on: January 31, 2004, 10:41:05 pm »

My map shows a true, but not total victory for the Republicans.  Kerry may pull 100 votes or so, but Bush should hopefully win.

Reaganfan, did you ever come across this story? just stumbled on it yesterday, and was a shock to me.........  I have no idea of the veracity of this, but can vouch that JFK, JR arrived at the same conclusion as to his father's assassination.
------


HINCKLEY AND BUSH FAMILIES WERE CLOSE FRIENDS
Connie Cook Smith's "What America Needs to Know"

We all know who John Hinckley, Jr. is, now being released from a mental facility in D.C. for nearly killing President Reagan in 1981. A much more interesting subject is, who is John Hinckley, Sr.?

In 1980, Hinckley Sr. was a Texas oilman who, the records show, strove mightily to get fellow Texas oilman George H.W. Bush the Republican nomination for president. The Bushes and the Hinckleys were frequent dinner companions.

But far beyond their social connection, neither Bush nor Hinckley wanted Ronald Reagan to become president, because Reagan was opposed to the tax breaks for the oil industry which Bush and Hinckley and other Texans were highly dependent on.

The effort to make Bush Sr. president in 1980 failed, but he and his backer Hinckley Sr. got the next best thing -- the "heartbeat away from the presidency" office of Vice-President of the United States.

A few months later, Hinckley Jr. shot Reagan, and Bush very nearly did become president at that time, after all. Only one time was it announced on the news about the connections between the Bush and Hinckley families: An almost bewildered John Chancellor on NBC Nightly News reported "the bizarre
coincidence" that Neil Bush and Scott Hinckley had dinner plans for March 31, 1981 -- now cancelled, of course.

In other words, the brother of the shooter and the son of the vice-president (and their wives) had a dinner date for the day after the shooting. But it really wasn't such "a bizarre coincidence." Those two families were very
close, but the press never focused on that, as it should have. If Reagan had died, the oilmen's interests would have been served.

Some people think that Hinckley Jr. was mind-controlled, CIA-style, to shoot Reagan. Bush was head of the CIA a few years before, by the way. Others think that Jr. wanted to please his dad and get Bush, his dad's candidate, into the presidency for him after all. And legal experts note that the crime occurred in Washington, D.C., the only venue in the United States at that
time which recognized an insanity defense. If the kid committed the crime in D.C., he would never serve hard time? Well, coincidentally, that's where he committed it.

A very good read on the Hinckley-Bush connections is a book that came out about 20 years ago, entitled "The Afternoon of March 30." It was published as a novel in order to protect the author. This book is now more relevant than ever, and you can obtain it at click here.

In closing, there's another coincidence to mention. I just learned that in January of 1963, President John F. Kennedy announced a plan to cut the tax breaks for the oil industry. Oilmen H.L. Hunt, George H.W. Bush (head of Zapata Petroleum), and others were no doubt enraged. What a coincidence that Kennedy was shot in Texas later that same year.

In the 1990's LBJ's now-undisputed mistress Madeleine Brown announced that LBJ told her Kennedy was murdered "by the oil people, and aspects of the CIA."

And gosh, one more coincidence! We now have another Bush, the oilman's son, becoming U.S. President in a very quirky election. And apparently, he gave the American people completely phony reasons for invading Iraq, one of the
most oil-rich nations in the Middle East
Logged
Ritchie Valens
Reaganfan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,008
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #871 on: January 31, 2004, 11:53:03 pm »

Odd. Very odd. BTW, I see your backing Clark. He voted for Reagan.....
Logged
Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,463
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #872 on: February 01, 2004, 12:22:14 am »

Don't you love conspiracy theorists?

Even if hat they say IS the truth, they say it in a way that makes them look stupid and reactionary, therefor eliminating any chance of it being taken seriously.

Shame, that.
Logged
M
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #873 on: February 01, 2004, 12:28:46 am »

Satellite imaging indicates that the Chinese PLA has built an army of at least five million men near Tijuana in Baja California. Initial reports indicate they plan to seize Hollywood by force, kidnap Jackie Chan, and create a Mandarin-language sequel to the Drunken Master, which will then be beamed across the free world. Details on this alarming turn of events to follow.
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #874 on: February 01, 2004, 12:40:46 am »

Odd. Very odd. BTW, I see your backing Clark. He voted for Reagan.....

Yes, and I did, too......While I liked Carter, I felt he was losing the support of the people in a way that was unstoppable, and despite how much I liked him, a President must have support.  And Reagan was very likeable and persuasive--probably the most liked president ever.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... 99 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC