Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton versus Bush = 4 more years of Bush

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU
 
Nazgul35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:08 AM
Original message
Clinton versus Bush = 4 more years of Bush
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 10:24 AM by Nazgul35
I fail to understand why Bill Clinton backers support Clinton if they know that Clinton cannot beat Bush if he gets the nomination.

Poll after poll after poll show Bush slaughters Clinton in a head to head match. From the time Clinton first campaigned to now, he only gets 38% of the vote against Bush.

Do Clinton supporters not realize that giving Clinton the nomination means 4 more years of Bush? Do they think that some how Clinton can cover a 14 lead over Bush? It is not going to happen. Even when Bush's numbers plummet Clinton's do not go up against Bush. Clinton still stays at 38%.

I appreciate Clinton supporters enthusiasm for Clinton. But backing him means another four years of Bush.

At what point to they say to themselves, "Clinton cannot beat Bush" and except that fact? When Clinton is at 30% against Bush, at 20%, how about 5%? Will they every except this hard fact? I mean hey, I would love to have Charles Rangal for President. But I am smart enough to realize he CANNOT win.

I am not saying that Clinton cannot win the nomination, I think he can. But if we nominate Clinton who cannot beat Bush instead of a candidate that can, are Clinton supporters not killing the chances of removing Bush from the White House? I think they are. Sorry, but at some point we need to back a candidate that can beat Bush if we want to win in 92'. Polls show, Clinton cannot beat Bush.

Sound stupid? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madmax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. Clinton is not runnng
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 10:12 AM by madmax
Neither one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samsingh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. what are you talking about?
Clinton is not running
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sagan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
3. Is this some kind of Frei Republik campaign on DU?

I have seen many threads lately with the same theme:

X versus Bush = 4 more years of Bush or some variation.

They are always by low posters and non-contributors.

I've had it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
4. Very stupid
I hope there is a point to this, or is it just egg on face?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bif Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
5. What are you talking about?
Bill can't run. Two terms is the limit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nazgul35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
6. you need to read more carefully....
six words into my post I say which Clinton I am talking about....perhaps I needed to use a sledge hammer instead of a feather....this is in response ot the asinine thread about Dean....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Yes, you say Bill Clinton in your post.....then you say Clintons......He
can't run......term limits!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. Yikes,
I find the responses to your original piece frightening. Wonder how they did on reading comprehension.

Folks who didn't get this: It wasn't very hard to get the authors point. You need to read with much, much more care.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeachBuckeye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
7. "sound stupid? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
WEll, yes it sounds stupid and it IS stupid. Your facts are positively upside down. You must be getting your stats from the Free Republic site......but then again, even THEY know that your post is nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
einniv Donating Member (260 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
8. Obviously no one gets what you are saying.
Folks. I do believe he is trying to make the point that based on Clinton's numbers in 1991 that people could easily have said (or were saying) the same thing about Bill Clinton as others say now about current candidates. RE:electability. That it is silly to try to make such predictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Sorry, I guess this sentence is what threw me off.
"Sorry, but at some point we need to back a candidate that can beat Bush if we want to win in 04'. Polls show, Clinton cannot beat Bush."

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nazgul35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. ahhhhh....
I cut and pasted the argument from the other thread....there were soo many Deans to remove I missed that one....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. That happens
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nazgul35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. thank you...
obviously you are a person of superior intellect and grace!!

That, or you took five seconds to use your brain.....

:evilgrin:

Something that doesn't happen alot around here...everyone is sooo ready to post that they don't even bother to read all the threads and posts to see what's going on....

oh well....I'm sure this won't impact our ability to organize and win....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
9. Term limits...
Clinton is not, can not and will not run. Where the hell are you getting these figures from? What moron pollster thought to ask questions about something that can't possibly happen? Are you sure that this pollster wasn't referring to HIllary Clinton? And did you check the source of the poll? The only people who are even suggesting Hillary would possibly run are conservatives and the only reason they are making the suggestion is because they believe that she is such a polarizing figure that even the hint of her candidacy would cause a wave of activism within the ranks of the republican party in order to galvanize support behind a pResident whose numbers are in total freefall, whose policies are increasingly unpopular and whose credibility is being strained to the breaking point. This is just another facet of the "when in doubt, blame Clinton's dick" method of political pandering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ParanoidPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
16. Are you really that err, umm, uninformed?
First off, do you have a link to all those polls you mention? :evilgrin:
Since Bill Clinton isn't running and more importantly can't run, (I assume you meant Bill, you used the word 'he' several times!) who the hell is polling as if he was? IMHO, Your post should be on FreeRepublic! That's the only place I can think of where you could find enough people in one place STUPID enough to agree with you! :)
If this post was a joke, I'm sorry I didn't pick up on it but it should have been posted in the lounge!
As for your last line, a definite YES!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nazgul35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Maybe you should take some time to read....
before you accuse other of being uninformed....

I thought that everyone at DU was bright enough to "get it," but I guees not....too many are too keyed up to post first...ask questions later....

I would strongly urge people to take five minutes to peruse the threads and posts before flying to the key pads to post your responses....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
17. Dont worry I got it HE HE HE HE.....
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 10:33 AM by gully
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
19. Folks - it's a parody
and a great one too I might add!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nazgul35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. dern...
you ruined a perfectly good social science study that was developing...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
20. Cute!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
21. read the other posts here to those who aren't getting it
the point is Clinton had similar numbers at this time in '91
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
22. Nobody know what you're talking about.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
23. Okay. So it's a parody. Apples and oranges once again!
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 11:29 AM by Kahuna
As I recall, bush would have beat Clinton had it not been for Ross Perot. Let another right leaning third party candidate enter the race, then your parody may have some validity. As things stand right now, it doesn't have any validity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Plus, if you extend the analogy of the Perot/Nader numbers
in the 96 & 00 votes, these people were voting for a change (at least, that's what the Repukes would use to comfort themselves while crying themselves to sleep at night). They were voting against Bush 1.

Also, I did read the post, and the first line reads like this:

"I fail to understand why Bill Clinton backers support Clinton if they know that Clinton cannot beat Bush if he gets the nomination."

Never says anything about a SHE, and, as it has been stated, Bill would not be allowed to run for a third term.

Now, I didn't catch the idea of a "parody", yes, sometimes you have to drive home a point with a sledgehammer.

In my local paper, we had a rightwinger complaining about how all the Bush bashers are constantly complaining about the same thing. Funny, when you consider that every time a Bush lover talks, all Clinton did in office was lie about getting a BJ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 20th 2014, 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC