Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BrandonTO416

Election 2004 Projection /w Map

Recommended Posts


I feel Missouri will pull through and save us.

It will have been 4 years as if a boulder has been lain on my chest - and I'm waiting for it to be taken off.

Maybe Republicans will say that was what it was like during the 90's, but they hated Clinton for the person he was - not his performance. How can you argue against so many jobs being created and so many good things?

Its literally been pretty bad over the past few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not a republican, but I don't like Clinton because he was a lying cheating little beotch. I'm surprised Hillary didn't divorce him like she should have.

Anyhow, I believe Missouri will vote for Bush, I live here, so I would have an idea of what Missouri could vote for. For one, we have alot of military bases, and Bush has made alot of trips here since we are halfway between Washington and Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest donaltopablo

I don't care what conservatives say, Clinton just wasn't that bad a president. I still don't give him credit for the good economy, and don't blame Bush for the bad economy. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that neither had any thing to do with performance of economy.

Ohh, and as for why some of us don't call him a liar because we don't yet believe he went war on a lie. But that's a whole other topic. Just explaining why some people call Clinton a liar, but don't yet call Bush a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Gore had taken New Hampshire in '00, Florida would not have been an issue. New Hampshire flips a lot, hopefully the hometown-ish edge will make it flip to Kerry this time around.

I think Kerry has to be extremely strategic in picking a running mate. It could really make all the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare to:

usa_cities.png

Red is money going to Bush

Blue is money going to Democrats.

The darker the color the more the money.

Not that it means a whole lot but it's interesting.

Missouri, NC and Vermont are skewed because of the contributions to Ghephardt, Edwards and Dean, but that could show that the electorate of those states has been energized as well.

In an unscientific poll of Floridians I know, Bush will win. He is spending obscene amounts of money on advertising down here as well. Unless Kerry picks Graham as a running mate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the distribution of Electoral votes in your prediction is:

Kerry-341

Bush-197

Brickell, that map is very informative.

Here is another one from that site that make me think that heckles's prediction might be wrong:

RepVDemStatemap.png

Political leanings by state

RepVDemCountymap.png

Political leanings by county

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida will be the battle ground again this November. And within Florida central florida will decide where the electrol vote will go. North Florida is predominatly republican and the south is democrate while the central area is "half and half".

The votes of our mayor election in Orlando is almost 50-50 between democrate and republican. So, it is still very close in Florida. LEts hope Jeb Bush did not play any stunts this year.

Do you guys belive that Jeb Bush is behind the previous presidential election mess in Florida to help his brother "win"?

I have asked a lot of my friends to register to vote for demo this fall. Lets hope American will come to theire senses and vote for Kerry this fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just would like to know, is Kerry willing to go to war with other nations like North Korea if necisarry? Is he willing to continue the fight on terrorism? That is allmost all I have against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a good question. I think that he won't pull out of Iraq- at least that's what I've heard. As far as continuing the fight on terrorism, I don't know. I don't like Kerry that much anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just would like to know, is Kerry willing to go to war with other nations like North Korea if necisarry? Is he willing to continue the fight on terrorism? That is allmost all I have against him.

Look, KC, I'm not talking down to you. Do you really know what terrorism is? Do you know what a stalinist communist-like regime is - such as North Korea? Are you aware that Saddam was nothing more then a dictator - not a terrorist?

There are clear differences here. Terrorism and dictatorships are quite different. You also handle the situations differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey, you know what? In my eyes, terrorist doesn't have to mean your a member of Al Qaida or a group in the Philipines.

Didn't Saddam create terror? Doesn't Fidel Castro create terror? Doesn't the idiotic dictator of N. Korea create terror?

Your saying that Hitler was not a terrorist because he was a dictator?

In my opinion, a terrorist is a low lifeform of a human that kills other people and doesn't ask for forgiveness and shows no remorse. A terrorist is someone who orders his people around, even killing them for minor crimes or for speaking their mind.

Saddam Huissein was a terrorist

Adolf Hitler was a terrorist

Fidel Castro is a terrorist

Stalin was a terrorist

Nero was a terrorist

Hitler's men were terrorists

Dictator Kim Jong Il is a terrorist

Lenin was a terrorist

Mao Tsetung was a terrorist

Ho Chi Minh was a terrorist

Claudius was a terrorist

Lucius was a terrorist

Kruschev was a terrorist

etc.. etc...

I hope you understand what I think about it ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just would like to know, is Kerry willing to go to war with other nations like North Korea if necisarry? Is he willing to continue the fight on terrorism? That is allmost all I have against him.

Do you want us to go to war with North Korea? Do you grasp the implications of a war with North Korea? A war against a country that very well may be a nuclear power, that seems to have missiles capable of striking the West Coast of the US. A war that would really really really piss off China.

And I hear what you are saying about terrorists, and people who terrorize. But North Korea, and the 'War on Terror' are two completely different things. North Korea will only push us so far, because we know where they live, they are a sovereign nation. The 'War on Terror' is being fought against nationless organizations. It is very difficult for us to target and fight, which makes it very easy for these organizations to strike us with less fear of reprisals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abraham Lincoln and Sherman were terrorist by that measure.

Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan...

It's all relative. Unfortunately, BushCo has completley diluted the word.

Don't get me wrong, I love this country. That doesn't mean I have to turn off the brain to do it.

Bush won't go after North Korea. There's nothing there. He'll be stuck still fighting for Iraq. Bush and uneccasarry wars are bad for a our national securtiy.

How do you respond to that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want us to go to war w/ N. Korea, but it's just that someday we may have to. We could (at least) assassinate their dictator. Or do something to stop their nuclear program and wait for their government to collapse like Russia.

We don't have to touch China (and we shouldn't by any means) because their communism is already declining. Their people are becoming more educated and are getting more wealthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest donaltopablo

Bush and uneccasarry wars are bad for a our national securtiy.

I think Bush's lack of PR ability and failure to recongize the main political factor driving most Arab concerns is the big hit to our national security. If he knew how to properly sell the war and knew how to deal with the politics in the middle east, the war probably would not be a big hit to our national security.

Misinformation and the ability for those who hate us to use our own actions against us, because of poor understand or support for our actions will always be the biggest downfall to our actions and become the biggest threat to our national security. Even though I support the war, I'm horribly against most of the Bush administrations policies in the middle east and their handling of the situation in general, including Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey, you know what? In my eyes, terrorist doesn't have to mean your a member of Al Qaida or a group in the Philipines.

Didn't Saddam create terror? Doesn't Fidel Castro create terror? Doesn't the idiotic dictator of N. Korea create terror?

Your saying that Hitler was not a terrorist because he was a dictator?

In my opinion, a terrorist is a low lifeform of a human that kills other people and doesn't ask for forgiveness and shows no remorse. A terrorist is someone who orders his people around, even killing them for minor crimes or for speaking their mind.

Saddam Huissein was a terrorist

Adolf Hitler was a terrorist

Fidel Castro is a terrorist

Stalin was a terrorist

Nero was a terrorist

Hitler's men were terrorists

Dictator Kim Jong Il is a terrorist

Lenin was a terrorist

Mao Tsetung was a terrorist

Ho Chi Minh was a terrorist

Claudius was a terrorist

Lucius was a terrorist

Kruschev was a terrorist

etc.. etc...

I hope you understand what I think about it ;)

Its obvious you don't know what terrorism is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heckles, my view on terrorism is different than yours, it's not wrong. I hope your not promoting that.

Just because my opinion or view on something is different than yours, it doesn't make it wrong.

And I will even broaden my definitions...

Son of Sam was a terrorist

Ted Bundy was a terrorist

Charles Manson is a terrorist (or was, whichever you think is proper)

Jack the Ripper was a terrorist

The real definition of a terrorist is:

"A person who uses or favors terrorism."-World Book Dictionary

Terrorism is:

"the act of terrorizing;use of terror, especially the systematic use of terror by a government or other authority against particular persons or groups"

or

"a condition of fear and submission produced by frightening people"

or

"a method of opposing a government internally through the use of terror"-World Book Dictionary

to Terrorize is:

"to fill with terror"-World Book Dictionary

Hence the war on terror is against dictators, and religious fanatics (the violent kind of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.