"Richard R. Hershberger" wrote:
>
> On May 12, 4:40 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the
> frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > "Richard R. Hershberger" wrote:
> >
> > > On May 12, 1:45 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of
the
> > > frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > "Richard R. Hershberger" wrote:
> >
> > > > > On May 12, 10:26 am, "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu
of
> > > > > the frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > "Richard R. Hershberger" wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On May 11, 11:03 am, "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in
lieu of
> > > > > > > the frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > Curse Of Millhaven wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > On May 8, 4:36 pm, Rod Stiffington <inva...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 08 May 2008 21:24:30 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'the
oblique
> > > > > > > > > > >So basically, Gore destroyed the Internet. It's about
time someone
> > > > > > > > > > >admited that.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > That is the attitude I am talking about. It does not
matter if he
> > > > > > > > > > really had a hand in providing congressional framework
for creating
> > > > > > > > > > the Internet. He is still a big fat joke to some
people. Gore must be
> > > > > > > > > > ridiculed at all costs! Thanks to this clowning, we
are in Iraq
> > > > > > > > > > today.
> >
> > > > > > > > > That's quite a stretch right there. Then again, it's
really no
> > > > > > > > > surprise why Democrats keep losing elections at the
national level.
> >
> > > > > > > > If Democrats couldn't count on New York and California,
they'd have
> > > > > > > > no chance for president at all. But both New York and
California
> > > > > > > > have, or recently have had, Republicans for governor.
> >
> > > > > > > Are you trying to make some point? If so, and if it is that
therefore
> > > > > > > New York and California are in play for McCain, consider
yourself
> > > > > > > pointed and laughed at.
> >
> > > > > > I don't know if they are "in play" for McCain personally. I
suspect
> > > > > > that if a New Yorker or a Californian is the VP, they might
be. It
> > > > > > shouldn't be a secret how you win national presidental
elections,
> > > > > > you pick someone who is super popular *in large states that go
for
> > > > > > the other side*.
> >
> > > > > > Of course why doens't this seem to ever happen? The answer
would
> > > > > > appear to be the nomination process. New Yorkers ran for the
> > > > > > Republican side but they didn't get anywhere. On the
Republican
> > > > > > side, a New York Republican is too "Liberal" to get the
nomination,
> > > > > > at least for president.
> >
> > > > > The thing about the governor****ps is that it isn't all that
unusual
> > > > > for a state to have a governor contrary to its consistent voting
> > > > > patterns in presidential races. Maryland had a Republican
governor
> > > > > until the last election. If that guy were put in the VP slot of
the
> > > > > Republican ticket, does that mean Maryland would be in play?
No, it
> > > > > really doesn't. People vote for governors differently than they
do
> > > > > for presidents.
> >
> > > > I think there's no evidence to sup****t your claim that Maryland
> > > > wouldn't be in play, making the assumption that the governor or
> > > > former governor you are talking about is popular in his own state.
> > > > If voters use different criteria, why do they usually vote in a
> > > > former or current governor as president?
> >
> > > The former governor, Robert Ehrlich, was defeated in his reelection
> > > bid in 2006 by Martin O'Malley roughly 53% to 46%. My sense at the
> > > time was not that Ehrlich was notably unpopular, but O'Malley is
young
> > > a photogenic and until recently front man of an Irish bar band, and
> > > most im****tant of all a Democrat in a Democratic year. Ehrlich
being
> > > elected at all was the oddity, as he was the first Republican
governor
> > > of Maryland since Spiro Agnew.
> >
> > > If McCain were to pick Ehrlich as his running mate, I would stand up
> > > and cheer, because it wouldn't do McCain a lick of good. Obama got
> > > 61% of the Democratic vote in our primary, while McCain got 55% of
the
> > > Republican vote, against effectively no opposition.
> >
> > Your argument is that the Republican governor isn't that popular,
> > can't even win his own re-election. That, I would say, isn't a good
> > example of picking a very popular person from a state that the
> > other side needs to win and using that choice to put that state
> > into play.
>
> My argument is that it isn't all that unusual a state to have a
> governor contrary to its consistent voting patterns in presidential
> races.
>
I don't think that I'm questioning that. I think that's what we are
discussing. Of course the governor that is inconsistent isn't often
the presidential or vice presidential nominee. Sometimes. (We
should look at the last time a sitting governor in a swing state or
most especially a safe opponent state was on the ticket)
> I used as an example of this the fact that Maryland had a
> Republican governor until the last election. I posited that guy were
> put in the VP slot of the Republican ticket, this would not mean that
> Maryland would be in play, because people vote for governors
> differently than they do for presidents.
>
At this point, that's just an idea without any evidence.
> Your clue that this was my argument should have been that I stated it
> two cycles back. You disputed it based on, well, nothing, really.
>
But you didn't make an argument, you made a bald assertion. Since
so many governors win, I think that the presumption is back at you.
> > > > > As for Giuliani, his problem was that he knew only a single
tune. All
> > > > > he had was the "America's Mayor" stuff, and while that was
enough to
> > > > > make him poll well early on, it wasn't enough to get him actual
> > > > > votes.
> >
> > > > Giuliani is too Liberal to resonate with Republican primary
voters.
> >
> > > When people characterize Giuliani as "liberal" (or "Liberal": I
don't
> > > care) I point and laugh.
> >
> > "Liberal" with the large "L" means a group of people at a place and
> > time. "liberal" with the small "l" means literally "liberal".
>
> Actually, were you attaining standard English, you would have written
> that Giuliani is "a Liberal". As it is, you wrote semi-literate
> gibberish and expected others to care enough to figure out what you
> meant.
>
What did I write that was "semi-literate"? The quoted material from
me looks fine on a read.
> > > He is a classic authoritarian,
> >
> > That's certainly not going to stop him from being "Liberal".
> >
> > > but with the
> > > quirk that he doesn't particularly care who sleeps with whom. But
if
> > > that makes him too L/liberal for Republican primary voters, so be
it.
> >
> > In what way is he "authoritarian"?
>
> The whole police state thing springs to mind.
>
Is he for a police state?
--
"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people
laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"
|
