Gerald Ford v. Jimmy Carter
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:05:15 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Gerald Ford v. Jimmy Carter
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Who would you vote for?
#1
Ford (R)
 
#2
Carter (D)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 49

Author Topic: Gerald Ford v. Jimmy Carter  (Read 6028 times)
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 25, 2006, 12:19:26 AM »

1976 rematch in 2008.
Logged
tarheel-leftist85
krustytheklown
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,274
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2006, 01:14:16 AM »

Carter, the "extremist," of course...maybe Ford can trip over driveway curbs and eat nachos and drink beer and watch football w/ Homer Simpson (I hope y'all have seen that episode!).

Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2006, 01:17:10 AM »

Carter. I have respect for both them to some extent though.
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,922


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2006, 01:23:03 AM »

I would have voted for Ford in 76', I sure as hell would vote for him now seeing as to what Jimmy Carter has become.

Also, Tarheel? Why on Earth would the most liberal president we have had since FDR lose Washington and Maine....yet win Kentucky and North Dakota? Some of your maps just leave me scratching my ass.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 25, 2006, 02:02:53 AM »

I would have voted for Ford in 76', I sure as hell would vote for him now seeing as to what Jimmy Carter has become.

Also, Tarheel? Why on Earth would the most liberal president we have had since FDR lose Washington and Maine....yet win Kentucky and North Dakota? Some of your maps just leave me scratching my ass.

Eww.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 25, 2006, 02:05:56 AM »

I would have voted for Ford in 76', I sure as hell would vote for him now seeing as to what Jimmy Carter has become.

Also, Tarheel? Why on Earth would the most liberal president we have had since FDR lose Washington and Maine....yet win Kentucky and North Dakota? Some of your maps just leave me scratching my ass.

Every single time tarheel maniac posts a map, they're almost always nearly exactly the same with minimal variation.  The Democrat always loses most of the west coast, Michigan, and upper New England, while winning Kansas and the peripheral South.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 25, 2006, 02:17:30 AM »

I would have voted for Ford in 76', I sure as hell would vote for him now seeing as to what Jimmy Carter has become.

Also, Tarheel? Why on Earth would the most liberal president we have had since FDR lose Washington and Maine....yet win Kentucky and North Dakota? Some of your maps just leave me scratching my ass.

Every single time tarheel maniac posts a map, they're almost always nearly exactly the same with minimal variation.  The Democrat always loses most of the west coast, Michigan, and upper New England, while winning Kansas and the peripheral South.

Yeah that is pretty strange... although in this case it might make a bit more sense...except Carter winning North Dakota and Kansas... I don't know where that is coming from.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 25, 2006, 02:19:15 AM »

Plus if Carter won anything in the south it would likely be Georgia.
Logged
CPT MikeyMike
mikeymike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,513
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.58, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 25, 2006, 12:28:49 PM »

maybe Ford can trip over driveway curbs and eat nachos and drink beer and watch football w/ Homer Simpson (I hope y'all have seen that episode!).
Outstanding episode indeed.

But Ford wins simply because Carter was the most inept preisdent we've ever had!
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 25, 2006, 12:35:51 PM »

ford (normal)
Logged
TomC
TCash101
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,973


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 25, 2006, 12:41:12 PM »

Considering their ages, I'd need to know the veep nominees to be sure.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 25, 2006, 01:10:55 PM »

Also, Tarheel? Why on Earth would the most liberal president we have had since FDR

LBJ
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,922


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 25, 2006, 01:14:35 PM »

Also, Tarheel? Why on Earth would the most liberal president we have had since FDR

LBJ

Hardly. LBJ was a communitarian style, populist Democrat who happened to like spending. Jimmy Carter was far more liberal.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 25, 2006, 01:20:49 PM »

Also, Tarheel? Why on Earth would the most liberal president we have had since FDR

LBJ

Hardly. LBJ was a communitarian style, populist Democrat who happened to like spending. Jimmy Carter was far more liberal.

How was Carter liberal?

The correct answer is that he wasn't.  He upset liberals in the party enough that he faced a primary challenge from the left and would have lost had the hostages not been taken in Iran.  LBJ meanwhile expanded the federal government's size more than anyone has since.
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 25, 2006, 01:25:54 PM »

Hard to believe this, but ... Ford.  Carter was simply too inept and Ford was quite liberal for a Republican.  He would have been the last Republican I would vote for.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 25, 2006, 01:26:54 PM »

Hard to believe this, but ... Ford.  Carter was simply too inept and Ford was quite liberal for a Republican.  He would have been the last Republican I would vote for.

Ford was quite 'inept' as well.

A Ford presidency from 1977-1981 wouldn't have looked very different from Carter's.
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,922


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 25, 2006, 02:39:35 PM »

Also, Tarheel? Why on Earth would the most liberal president we have had since FDR

LBJ



Hardly. LBJ was a communitarian style, populist Democrat who happened to like spending. Jimmy Carter was far more liberal.

How was Carter liberal?

The correct answer is that he wasn't.

Perhaps not in comparison to you, but Jimmy Carter is in fact a liberal. Few people have foreign policy as far to the left as Jimmy Carter, few people push for national health care on the level that he would have liked, few presidents ever made efforts to decriminalise marijuana like Carter did.

To say that Carter isn't a liberal is ludicrious.
Logged
tarheel-leftist85
krustytheklown
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,274
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 25, 2006, 02:50:40 PM »

In regards to my maps, I think an electoral realignment is inevitable...maybe a bit too optimistic on my part as soon as 2008, but it's going to happen nonetheless. 

According to the Census, Michigan is doing terribly in the population department:  Massive amounts of Michiganders are moving primarily to the Peripheral South.  Who wants to bet that most of those people fleeing aren't African-Americans from Detroit moving away from the state with the highest Klan membership to more hospitable places (like Charlotte, Raleigh, Dallas, and Florida excepting the Klanhandle). 

Though Jeb Bush is like every other Republican, he certainly had to effect himself as a micro-managing populist like Huckabee or "Democrat" Warner in order to win.  Also, I would've said Florida would swing more to Republicans when the Southwestern part of the Peninsula was booming with sky-high real-estate, but that's coming to a close, and most of the growth will stem from the shrinking middle class and retirees who haven't lost their pensions yet (both middle and upper class seniors, I suppose, though many upper class seniors who be more inclined to think like citizens than Ayn Rand). 

Carter would definitely lose Georgia, as it use to reflect a working-class heritage as evidenced by their support of Truman (where every other Deep South state voted for Strom), and although large numbers of Northern blacks are moving to said state, they--for one reason or another, like most Deep South states--don't factor into election results (I think blacks composed roughly 16% of the electorate in 2006, when they compose 29.5% of the state's population--interesting...).  Georgia votes according to the wishes of Long Islanders and Californians moving the snow-white suburbs of Atlanta and the Klansmen elsewhere. 

If Jennings somehow gets that seat in the 110th or 111th Congress, every Peripheral South state will have at least a 40% Dem. delegation.  BTW, wasn't Ford from Michigan?  Pretty soon all that's gonna be left in that state is a snow-white suburbia surrounding a hollow urban core. 

The Great Plains (Oklahoma's going to be difficult, but a strong Constitution party movement may split the Republican vote) may also become more promising.  3/5 of the Great Plains have at least a 50% Dem. Caucus, and Nebraska's three Rep. representatives were held under 60% (I think Kleeb and the Omaha district will go Dem. pretty soon, but the suburb dist. will stay Rep. til eternity). 

The thing about such a realignment, however, is that it won't begin with party switching or from the bottom up.  When Reagan became president, most Southerners still identified themselves as Democrats (and I think a majority in the Deep South).  What you see is popular support for a president, followed by partisan realignment and reversal of party control for lower and state-level offices.  California was consistently, though narrowly, Republican before and during Reagan.  Not so anymore.  These regional realignments may also happen during different elections--perhaps the Peripheral South will realign before the Great Plains or vice versa.  But, as much as both parties like to think they're coalitions will hold and the maps will look similar to 2000 and 2004, it isn't going to hold. 

And I love how the liberal/conservative criterion is abortion...classic!  Let's continue to solve the world's material problems through religion or a psuedo-rebellious lack thereof (like a Christian book that just came out promising riches and better sex) and immaterial (in every sense of the word) problems through politics.  It's worked so well since 1968. 

Maybe California will stay Democratic (with high minority populations), but the whites are going to trend Republican, and I think we can look forward to surprisingly low turnouts for minorities in these western states--for one reason or another.  Washington and Oregon will probably go undergo a Rep. realignment so long as you have Republicans who take the "moderate approach" and flip-flop on their support for wars and abortions depending upon their political feasibility.

But, as everyone else seems to think, 2008 will be like 2000 and 2004--except for Colorado and Arizona which will break 60+% for the Democrat!  LOL
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 25, 2006, 03:18:10 PM »

Maybe the map would like this...



Looks like a bit similiar to 1988..
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 25, 2006, 04:05:28 PM »

Few people have foreign policy as far to the left as Jimmy Carter

You'd have to define 'leftist' foreign policy. (and his foreign policy was pretty identical to that of, say, Ford, prehaps he was even tougher on the Soviets)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Carter never pushed for health care nationalization as president.  Meanwhile LBJ instituted the largest federal health care programs in the nation's history.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Finally you have something, but even this is pretty weak.  Marijuana is a very minor issue, and ti say that Carter pushed for it isn't really correct.  He affirmed his support for decriminalization in front of congress but never had any intentions of fighting for progress.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 25, 2006, 06:48:31 PM »

Since MacBride has since died I'll go with the 1976 VP candidate for this rematch:

David Bergland (L)
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 25, 2006, 06:59:38 PM »

Oh and since Dole and Mondale are both still alive, they're the VP candidates in this matchup in 2008.  Ages on inauguration day 2009:

Ford 95
Dole 85

Carter 84
Mondale 80
Logged
Inmate Trump
GWBFan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,022


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -7.30

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 25, 2006, 10:08:22 PM »

Ford, without a second thought when looking back at how Carter was as president and how he is today as a crazy man.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 25, 2006, 10:20:07 PM »

Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with Tweed and not adam, but Carter wasn't that liberal.  The reason he was ineffective was because congress had a lot of liberal insider Democrats and they saw Carter as a threat.  And comparing to LBJ-well, if the Socialist Party of today were to nominate a candidate what LBJ wanted wouldn't be that different.
Logged
sethm0
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 304


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 25, 2006, 10:53:46 PM »


 Yeah, Carter was not actually that liberal. He also spent more time in the military than any 20th century President besides Eisenhower. He got stuck with a tough situation - he was the first President ever to have to deal with Islamic fundamentalism and a major energy crisis in a real way. He'd get my vote in an instant.

 I don't think he was an amazing President, but I do think he is underrated.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
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 0.062 seconds with 15 queries.