General Discussion

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)

63. Compared to Dole's 41%, Clinton's 49%

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 04:33 PM

Jan 2012

to become the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win reelection is pretty handily to me.

Clinton carried thirty one states and the District of Columbia for 379 electoral votes, while Dole won 19 states and 159 electoral votes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here's why advocating third party votes for president annoys me. [View all] redqueen Jan 2012 OP

K & R. n/t FSogol Jan 2012 #1

Very well said. katsy Jan 2012 #2

Nicely stated. MineralMan Jan 2012 #3

You're absolutely right. Jackpine Radical Jan 2012 #4

Until society changes significantly, redqueen Jan 2012 #6

No particular dispute there. Jackpine Radical Jan 2012 #8

There will be no 3rd party in America for many reasons but the simplest one is because FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #5

I totally agree. BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #17

Actually he did not get 50% in the second term. former9thward Jan 2012 #50

Compared to Dole's 41%, Clinton's 49% BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #63

K&R tallahasseedem Jan 2012 #7

Yes indeed. AtomicKitten Jan 2012 #30

All important BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #64

K & R Scurrilous Jan 2012 #9

Beginning in all ways with one's self, then, gives one the right, & options, to BRING! IT! to patrice Jan 2012 #10

occupy nt Zorra Jan 2012 #11

Why don't the "centrists" have to kiss anyone's ass or "be patient" to see their agenda implemented? Romulox Jan 2012 #12

Because they have powerful interests on their side. redqueen Jan 2012 #15

and it is imperative that I align myself behind those powerful interests...why? Romulox Jan 2012 #18

This is about votes for the president. redqueen Jan 2012 #20

Sounds like extortion. My question is why the so-called "centrists" are never called upon to Romulox Jan 2012 #21

It's just reality. redqueen Jan 2012 #24

LOL. And 2010, was also "reality". Keep on demanding people sacrifice for you, though. nt Romulox Jan 2012 #31

Where did I demand ANYTHING? redqueen Jan 2012 #34

You're asking us to align behind a "centrist" agenda, which means SACRIFICE for regular Romulox Jan 2012 #35

Um, no. I gave my opinion. redqueen Jan 2012 #36

Your assumptions are YOUR limitations, not others'. nt patrice Jan 2012 #40

this whole thread is just a kinder, gentler, more verbose version of STFU and vote.. frylock Jan 2012 #42

Completely untrue. redqueen Jan 2012 #43

Promoting awareness =/= STFU. Your characterisation suggests bias. Have you heard of OWS? patrice Jan 2012 #46

and a lot of people here wish OWS would just go away.. frylock Jan 2012 #69

And your incoherence? Is it an asset? nt Romulox Jan 2012 #47

How very vertical of you! Please consider, "IMO" or provide specific definition related to specific patrice Jan 2012 #49

More gibberish. What a bizarre attempt at persuasive argument. nt Romulox Jan 2012 #51

More disrespect = more proof of limitation. And . . . patrice Jan 2012 #53

Make that, please tell us why/HOW mutually assured political destruction is good for people & patrice Jan 2012 #55

someones upset their fringe candidates get laughed at... lash out if it makes you feel better... dionysus Jan 2012 #71

The centrists are in the center treestar Jan 2012 #75

I have a serious question for you _ed_ Jan 2012 #79

Yes of course, redqueen Jan 2012 #80

Authentic centrism would BALANCE forces, not destroy. The questions are about HOW to do that patrice Jan 2012 #23

A "REAL Centrist" sounds similar to a "TRUE Scotsman", then; actual "centrism" is Romulox Jan 2012 #29

No evidence? These are the sorts of things that families, and women in particular, have done patrice Jan 2012 #32

We're talking about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, at this time. Your asides are odd, Romulox Jan 2012 #33

Federal, or otherwise, government "... of, by, and for the people" is utopian = DYSTOPIAN = you. patrice Jan 2012 #37

Gibberish. nt Romulox Jan 2012 #45

Name calling is so mature and useful. If I used a name for you that suggests you are possibly one patrice Jan 2012 #52

The issue is starting at the top treestar Jan 2012 #73

I agree with you completely on that!! It's a waste to vote for people who have no chance. nt Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #13

so winning is the be all end all? frylock Jan 2012 #44

Isn't it? Or have you forgotten our 8 years of Bush and all the other GOP shit in office? nt Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #62

i remember those eight years vividly.. frylock Jan 2012 #68

Take it from me, someone who wasn't born here: as long as to run in the U.S. takes mega-million$$$$ Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #77

In the past three elections I have voted for Democrats that I knew were going to lose. progressoid Jan 2012 #59

No, we need to vote regardless. However, knowing how our system works, and knowing that someone Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #61

HUH?????? progressoid Jan 2012 #65

No, if you'll re-read what I said, it was that we have to change it from the bottom up Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #66

OK progressoid Jan 2012 #67

That's odd. No Democrat, huh? Why's that? Where have all the D's gone in Vt? Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #76

I dunno but progressoid Jan 2012 #78

Well, you have enlightened me to an exception, since generally there are D's running Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #83

That's odd. Try this one. A Simple Game Jan 2012 #81

We have a 2-party system because the way to run for office is to beg Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #84

Well said! Spazito Jan 2012 #14

There's something to be enjoyed ... GeorgeGist Jan 2012 #16

K&R. It's time we face the truth BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #19

Thank *you*! redqueen Jan 2012 #22

It's my opinion, too BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #57

Ha... aw. redqueen Jan 2012 #60

The right wing started years ago infiltrating school boards... TreasonousBastard Jan 2012 #25

Ha no, I like your rant. :) Also, thanks for mentioning the Progressive Party! redqueen Jan 2012 #27

Maybe New York is unique. A Simple Game Jan 2012 #85

You are NOT "ranting" BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #58

OP is arguing against your own stated viewpoint - claims thrid party types are annoying and then msongs Jan 2012 #26

The way I see it, redqueen Jan 2012 #28

I Prefer the Wisconsin and Ohio Models Yavin4 Jan 2012 #38

Given the economic system and 2-party set up TBF Jan 2012 #39

I think doing as you describe & striving for campaign finance & voting reform COULD enable patrice Jan 2012 #41

blah blah blah messiah Jan 2012 #48

Your absolutist screen-name is appropriate for your absolutist ability to predict what will come of patrice Jan 2012 #54

The material and power to enact change is worthless absent the will whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #56

0% chance doesn't = a long shot in my book. redqueen Jan 2012 #70

Sounds like you're saying progress will only come... SidDithers Jan 2012 #82

Keep trying whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #86

You can count on it... SidDithers Jan 2012 #89

Sounds like you're baiting an opponent... Kaleko Jan 2012 #88

The poster presented a pretty clear either/or situation... SidDithers Jan 2012 #90

It's called whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #91

For now it looks like 3rd party candidates to an enormous hit with Citizens United. Nothing changes deacon Jan 2012 #72

You do know that the GOP has donated to Green Party candidates, right? redqueen Jan 2012 #74

You left out the best argument against third parties Jim Lane Jan 2012 #87