John Edwards

G

goodscalp

I'm supporting North Carolina Senator John Edwards for
the Presidency foremost because of his electability. In a
two way with Bush according to a Time-CNN poll he defeats
Bush 54-44%. He also runs well among Republicans and
Independents defeating Kerry substantially almost 2-1 among
Republicans and independents who voted in the Wisconsin
primary. It's time for Democrats in the "Super Tuesday"
states to wake up and realize the goal is to defeat Bush
and Edwards is the one best suited for this task. A hypothetical
match-up between Bush and Kerry is much closer.
 
Is the goal to defeat Bush, or to vote in the man best qualified for the job?

Quote from goodscalp:

I'm supporting North Carolina Senator John Edwards for
the Presidency foremost because of his electability. In a
two way with Bush according to a Time-CNN poll he defeats
Bush 54-44%. He also runs well among Republicans and
Independents defeating Kerry substantially almost 2-1 among
Republicans and independents who voted in the Wisconsin
primary. It's time for Democrats in the "Super Tuesday"
states to wake up and realize the goal is to defeat Bush
and Edwards is the one best suited for this task. A hypothetical
match-up between Bush and Kerry is much closer.
More...
 
Both Edwards and Kerry are in my opinion significantly
preferable to the incumbent. I believe both are on the
whole equally strong, Kerry has experience, war record
Edwards is more of an outsider and has the ability to bring
a fresh approach to government is also more of a "common-
man." Perhaps the populism practiced by Edwards hearkens
back to that of William Jennings Bryan.
Actually, I believe that either candidate would be the
"best man". To me either would be an improvement over
Bush. I think a Bush-Kerry election may result in being
decided by Antonin Scalia as was the case in 2000.
However, I see Edwards as being victorious in both the
popular and electoral vote.
In sum, to answer your question "The end justifies the
means." - Machiavelli
 
vote this time round if the situation arises. Aren't most supreme court judges conservative or rep? But maybe they too now hate Bush as do other reps?
 
The democrats were very angry over the 2000 election.

Many of them "let it go" as they realized they were powerless to change it after a certain point.

Those democrats who remember will remind their followers that this time they better not leave it to chance, nor the vote of the partisan Supreme Court.

It is my belief that the percentages in 2000 of registered voters who went to the polls in 2000 was greater in number by the Republicans than the Democrats.

In addition, Nader took votes from the Democrats.

The question is this:

If every person who voted for Bush in 2000 votes for him again, how many more votes will they get from people who didn't vote?

If every person who voted for Gore in 2000 votes for the Democrats, how many more votes will they get from those who didn't vote last time, voted for Nader, or from people who were not eligible to vote last time?

We have a group of young people who couldn't vote last time.

Will they be energized to vote, and vote for Bush or his opponent?

Will the increase in minority citizens and immigrants who were naturalized vote for Bush or the Democrats?
 
was a joke. Not only was it undemocratic, as if the ellectoral college isn't enough, the convservative supreme court, under the guidance of the brilliant scalia, decided for the millions of voters.

This kind of illogic sincerely frigthens me.
 
I assume you guys are on loan from the DNC to spread your garbage over the internet, but if you actually believe this stuff I am concerned for you. Get a grip, Gore lost the election. The Supreme Court didn't steal it, it stepped in reluctantly when the Florida Supreme Court began doing an imitation of a Haitian election. The disputed counties were controlled by Dem's in Florida, not Rep's. If you're going to be mad, be mad at the Dem officials who were so incompetent they couldn't even steal an election fair and square.
 
The Supreme Court in effect decided the election, and many people in the Democratic party do believe the election was "stolen."

I don't think it was stolen, but I do think there is more to what happened than we know.

It is clear that the Supreme Court was partisan in their vote, in the same way the the Florida Supreme court was partisan in their vote.

The whole thing was badly handled from both sides.

James Baker was typically brutish and the concern of the Republicans should be that the 2000 election, which has been out of sight and out of mind, may become a rallying cry and source of energy to the Democratic party sufficient to get people out to vote in November.

This may be an election where we see much higher voter turnout than the past presidential elections, which I think favors the Democrats in both the presidential races, as well as gubernatorial, house, and senate elections.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I assume you guys are on loan from the DNC to spread your garbage over the internet, but if you actually believe this stuff I am concerned for you. Get a grip, Gore lost the election. The Supreme Court didn't steal it, it stepped in reluctantly when the Florida Supreme Court began doing an imitation of a Haitian election. The disputed counties were controlled by Dem's in Florida, not Rep's. If you're going to be mad, be mad at the Dem officials who were so incompetent they couldn't even steal an election fair and square.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top