Finally, Someone said it

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:49 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/ ... index.html

Kennedy: 'We cannot become Republican clones'

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 12:15 am

If Ted Kennedy is their spokesman and Howard Dean becomes DNC chair, they definitely won't be Republican clones... and they definitely won't win any elections for a while.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 1:07 am

Go Teddy !!

Go Howie !!

(increases the odds that Hillary will lose in 2008 ... YES!)

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:49 am

If you look at the most successful democrats in recent history, none of them were as liberal as Kennedy or Dean. The thing was back then, conservatives were really conservative. That is why the â??liberalsâ?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:50 am

I think he's right.

Jesus Freak · Post by **Jesus Freak** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:45 pm

If you have 4 or 5 candidates, it would have to be a very popular guy to get a majority of the votes. I don't understand how that could work out.

And this is a bit off topic, but dangit Birdseye reply to my e-mail and PM! I want to play u!!

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Clinton didn't have a majority. You only need the most votes, not a majority.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:59 pm

I don't know how it is elsewhere, but on my local ballot, there's a "straight-party" voting option, which shows just how ridiculous the partisan thing has become. Basically, it's two check boxes on the top of the ballot, which essentially allow the voter to vote for "All Republicans / Republican-supported measures" or "All Democrats / Democrat-supported measures" without actually looking at the rest of the ballot.

And from what I saw at the last election, lots of people used those boxes.

Gooberman wrote:...A one party system, which you seem to think is a bad thing. I think it’s a great thing. Because a one party system is the same as a no party system. Where you vote for or against someone because you have researched what he stood for, not because he has an R or a D by his name. Labels just distract. And most importantly, it would take away having just two presidential nominees. Can you imagine how great it would be to have 4 or 5 legitimate, (as in they have a shot at winning) names to vote for, for president on election day?

I haven't been around this board for very long, and from what I've seen I usually don't agree with your views, but I have to say I'm with you on this one. (I almost couldn't bring myself to vote for either presidential candidate last November.) The only depressing thing is: it'll probably never happen.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 4:48 pm

I like the system where you rank your order of preference. Like in '92 Clinton would never have been elected president because Ross Perot voters could have ranked Bush senior as their second choice.
And of course Ralph Nader voters could have listed Al Gore as their second choice in 2000 which may have given Gore the needed margin of victory...
[edit] except Gore wouldn't have been there because he and Clinton never got in....

KlubMarcus · Post by **KlubMarcus** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:25 am

Lothar wrote:If Ted Kennedy is their spokesman and Howard Dean becomes DNC chair, they definitely won't be Republican clones... and they definitely won't win any elections for a while.

[edited by Lothar: bandwidth theft removed. Click here for image.]

Yeeeeaaaaarrrrgggghhhhhh! Vote Democrap! Nooowwww!

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:49 pm

Name-calling and repeated thread resurrection with no value-added content will not be tolerated. You have been warned, continued abuse may result in a temporary ban.