Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 100

Thread: OT - Political Quote of the Day

  1. #41
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2190575]Guess what? She doesn't need 50% to win. Bill never got 50% and won twice. If Rudy --whose unfavorable ratings are just as high-- is the candidate, she probably only needs about 45% of the electorate to win, because the fundies won't come out for him as well as they did for Bush.[/QUOTE]

    those are the people who have specifically said they won't vote for her....you are now basing your hopes that of the remaining 50% of the electorate, 45% of them will vote for hillary and 5% would vote for Guiliani....assinine as usual....

  2. #42
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2190418]How'd that work out for y'all in '92 and '96?[/QUOTE]

    thanks Phoenixx....

    [QUOTE=Phoenixx;2190602]Only because Perot received 18+% and 8+% in '92 and '96, respectively.[/QUOTE]

  3. #43
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2190623]those are the people who have specifically said they won't vote for her....you are now basing your hopes that of the remaining 50% of the electorate, 45% of them will vote for hillary and 5% would vote for Guiliani....assinine as usual....[/QUOTE]


    Well, since she is running in a statistical dead heat in virtually every national poll against the GOP leaders, I'd say it's not as asinine as you say. How many of the people who say they won't vote for Hillary say that because of her views on, say, abortion, and would say that about any pro-choice candidate?

    Do you think someone like that will vote for Rudy, also pro-choice? No, they will vote for a third party or not vote at all, which was what happened in 1992.

    In any event, I see no reason why you need to start tossing invectives like "asinine" into a perfectly civil, mostly stats-and-strategy based discussion on politics.

    We're not arguing about policy here, we're prognosticating about a horse race, and yet you --and you alone in this thread-- still can't manage even the slightest bit of civility.

  4. #44
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2190570]and the lunatic leftists will not vote for hillary so forget about the rat wing....[/QUOTE]

    yeah right - 8 years of Bush has given the left has a motivated vote base who would pull the lever for a battery operated simon game at this point.

    there's no question Hillary sucks and would be the easiest for GOP to defeat but if Rudy wins the nomination it's all over for the GOP. I really don't see a GOP candidate strong enough to win regardless, but Rudy definately has no chance.

  5. #45
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2190647]yeah right - 8 years of Bush has given the left has a motivated vote base who would pull the lever for a battery operated simon game at this point.

    there's no question Hillary sucks and would be the easiest for GOP to defeat but if Rudy wins the nomination it's all over for the GOP. I really don't see a GOP candidate strong enough to win regardless, but Rudy definately has no chance.[/QUOTE]

    yet polling over a six month period from different polling services show 50% of the people will not vote for hillary....

    further- based on your previous perdictory powers on presidential elections there's no doubt Guiliani will win in '08....

  6. #46
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2190647]there's no question Hillary sucks and would be the easiest for GOP to defeat but if Rudy wins the nomination it's all over for the GOP. I really don't see a GOP candidate strong enough to win regardless, but Rudy definately has no chance.[/QUOTE]

    SO:
    1) Hillary sucks and is the ideal candidate for the GOP to beat.
    YET:
    2) The GOP doesn't have a candidate strong enough to ideally beat Hillary.
    AND:
    3) Had Fred or Rudy some John Kerry/John Edwards hairdos, maybe things would be different.

  7. #47
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2190643]Well, since she is running in a statistical dead heat in virtually every national poll against the GOP leaders, I'd say it's not as asinine as you say. How many of the people who say they won't vote for Hillary say that because of her views on, say, abortion, and would say that about any pro-choice candidate?

    Do you think someone like that will vote for Rudy, also pro-choice? No, they will vote for a third party or not vote at all, which was what happened in 1992.[/QUOTE]

    fractional versus her constant wavering on issues such as national defense, matching 401K from the government, immigration and a $5K bond for all born in America...all of which go hand in hand...

    as far as a "third party"...there is no third party candidate ala Perot or Nader out there....and while you rest your hopes on them not voting for a pro-choice candidate, national defense trumps all and will motivate people.... and there's no debating Guiliani would destroy hillary in that category...

    [QUOTE]In any event, I see no reason why you need to start tossing invectives like "asinine" into a perfectly civil, mostly stats-and-strategy based discussion on politics.

    We're not arguing about policy here, we're prognosticating about a horse race, and yet you --and you alone in this thread-- still can't manage even the slightest bit of civility.[/QUOTE]


    you are right we are prognosticating....but when evidence for the past six months show steadfastly 50% of the electorate will not vote for hillary and your claim is "well, she'll only need 45%" (which would've lost in '04) that means that of the remaining 50% who are voting 9 of 10 people would have to vote for her...that's assinine...

  8. #48
    I think the democrats on this board underestimate the hatred that the right wing has for the clinton name. All of those pro lifers with nobody to vote for will cast their vote for Rudy just to vote against hilary.

  9. #49
    the same people on the board are overestimating hillary. she isn't gonna win the nomination because everyone knows she will get butchered by the rove.

  10. #50
    [QUOTE=Jetfan_Johnny;2190762]I think the democrats on this board underestimate the hatred that the right wing has for the clinton name. All of those pro lifers with nobody to vote for will cast their vote for Rudy just to vote against hilary.[/QUOTE]

    No, I think we get it exactly.

    The right-wing has coined a term for Bush hatred, "Bush Derangement Syndrome" -- that actually has some truth to it. Democrats dislike Bush so intensely that they sometimes froth about it, and that is very offputting to someone neutral trying to make up their mind.

    That's why, despite all the passion in the democratic base against Bush, they were never quite able to win swing states over against him in general elections.

    The Republicans have the exact same syndrome with the Clintons, and it is the certainty that her opponents will become a bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth lunatics that is Hillary's greatest asset in a general election. There is a reason the GOP's antics during the Lewinsky saga made Bill Clinton one of the most popular presidents ever.

    The right wing definitely hates her, but its hatred will alienate anyone who doesn't feel it as strongly.

  11. #51
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2190671]

    you are right we are prognosticating....but when evidence for the past six months show steadfastly 50% of the electorate will not vote for hillary and your claim is "well, she'll only need 45%" (which would've lost in '04) that means that of the remaining 50% who are voting 9 of 10 people would have to vote for her...that's assinine...[/QUOTE]

    Seeing as the most recent Rasmussen poll puts her favorable ratings at 49%, equal with her unfavorables --and also has her in a statistical tie with Rudy and Thompson nationwide-- it doesn't seem like that unreasonable an expectation at all. "Evidence" --as you put it referring to one poll-- also shows several months of her running strongly against either GOP candidate.

    Why, I might ask, is using Rasmussen "asinine" but using Zogby smart? Is it because one poll says what you wish was true?

    She is a highly polarizing figure, after all, and polarization, by nature, works two ways. Her opponent is going to get more than 45% in all likelihood, and so will she.

    Anyhow, my hope is that this is all academic, and that Obama runs away with it anyhow.

  12. #52
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Jetfan_Johnny;2190762]I think the democrats on this board underestimate the hatred that the right wing has for the clinton name. All of those pro lifers with nobody to vote for will cast their vote for Rudy just to vote against hilary.[/QUOTE]

    that's it....

    the left hopes to draw an association between Guiliani and Bush...

    there is a much stronger association between hillary's involvement in bubba's administration and his poor handling of national security; which will trump all on election day....

  13. #53
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2190853]that's it....

    the left hopes to draw an association between Guiliani and Bush...

    there is a much stronger association between hillary's involvement in bubba's administration and his poor handling of national security; which will trump all on election day....[/QUOTE]

    bubba is old news. 2008 will be all about Iraq and money - if Iraq remains a s--thole, chances are the economy will be weaker by then, possibly using the r-word - the Presidency will not be won by the GOP. it's just that simple.

  14. #54
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2190852]Seeing as the most recent Rasmussen poll puts her favorable ratings at 49%, equal with her unfavorables --and also has her in a statistical tie with Rudy and Thompson nationwide-- it doesn't seem like that unreasonable an expectation at all. "Evidence" --as you put it referring to one poll-- also shows several months of her running strongly against either GOP candidate.

    Why, I might ask, is using Rasmussen "asinine" but using Zogby smart? Is it because one poll says what you wish was true?

    She is a highly polarizing figure, after all, and polarization, by nature, works two ways. Her opponent is going to get more than 45% in all likelihood, and so will she.

    Anyhow, my hope is that this is all academic, and that Obama runs away with it anyhow.[/QUOTE]

    you keep talking about "favorables"...the polls represent people who said they would not vote for hillary in any way, shape or form...that's not unfavorable that's outright disgust for a person...apples and oranges...

    I'd love to see hussien win....he's as far left as they get, keeps making a fool of himself and would be less of a challenge....

  15. #55
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2190865]bubba is old news. 2008 will be all about Iraq and money - if Iraq remains a s--thole, chances are the economy will be weaker by then, possibly using the r-word - [/QUOTE]

    your simple mindedness is classic.....

    [QUOTE]the Presidency will not be won by the GOP. it's just that simple.[/QUOTE]


    good to hear you make this prediction :yes:....you're the same one who went on for weeks prior to '04 on how GWB would not win based on his JA #!!!

  16. #56
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2190866]you keep talking about "favorables"...the polls represent people who said they would not vote for hillary in any way, shape or form...that's not unfavorable that's outright disgust for a person...apples and oranges...

    I'd love to see hussien win....he's as far left as they get, keeps making a fool of himself and would be less of a challenge....[/QUOTE]

    One vote is one vote. It doesn't count more or less because of how disgusted the voter is.

    As far as Obama goes, if you look at the polls, they suggest you should root for Hillary.

  17. #57
    Immigration is a gorilla? Really? Ok, then I guess you will complaining about Bush's Immigration policies (lack of) for the next 4 to 8 years.

    Gonzalez's, the former AG, admitted that his grandparents were not in the country legally and yet it is now a Democratic problem?

    [QUOTE=sackdance;2190559]Immigration is a gorilla. You will have run-of-the-mill Democrats voting for Rudy if Hillary keeps up the 3-tiered drivers licenses that accommodate illegals compromise. And if she listens to people and reverses course, well, she'll catch hell for it. The trick about liberals, and I'm serious, is to keep the electorate from learning about what they really think. And in this instance, immigration, a dirty secret wandered off her reservation.[/QUOTE]

  18. #58
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,802
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2190460]hillary is unelectable based and they point to polling data....[/QUOTE]

    Wasn't that same thing said when she ran for Senate?

  19. #59
    [QUOTE=cr726;2190930]Immigration is a gorilla? Really? Ok, then I guess you will complaining about Bush's Immigration policies (lack of) for the next 4 to 8 years.

    Gonzalez's, the former AG, admitted that his grandparents were not in the country legally and yet it is now a Democratic problem?[/QUOTE]

    Nice work. Now defend drivers licenses for illegal aliens. Right.

    Anyway, it's a Democratic because they painted themselves into a corner they didn't have to. I read in an opinion piece the issue, if it keeps going this way, favors 80-20 Republican.

    [I]D-r-i-v-e-r-s L-i-c-e-n-s-e-s f-o-r I-l-l-e-g-a-l A-l-i-e-n-s. [/I] Wow.

    The Republican party would like to thank Hillary, Obama, and especially Governor Eliot Spitzer (take a bow) for their energized revival.

  20. #60
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2190871]
    good to hear you make this prediction :yes:....you're the same one who went on for weeks prior to '04 on how GWB would not win based on his JA #!!![/QUOTE]

    pot calling kettle

    weren't you the one saying the Iraq war was a great idea

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us