I would love nothing more than a man or woman that is respectable with
valuable ideas and goals for this country to run for president. To have
someone that doesn't think on one side would be the best thing for this country.
In my own opinion, but I realize that will never happen because the majority of
the country is either republican or democrat. It's sad that these guys that are
basically a joke are coming out and running. Again in my own
opinion.
Stacy
"People who hate you do not win unless you hate them. Then you destroy
yourself"
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 3:43
PM
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] election
Tod,
So election 2004, 51% voted for the
person who won, 49% voted against.
In 1992, 43.3% voted for the person who
won, 56.7% voted against.
Going by what you suggest the ballot could
have said "Bush or Not Bush". So no one actually voted for
Kerry, 56 million people voted only because they didn't
like Bush and not because they wanted Kerry? Doesn't that just prove the
point. Only 43.3%, nearly 45 million, actually wanted Clinton for president.
51%, nearly 60 million people, wanted G.W Bush for president.
Nader
might have had more votes in 2004 if the Democratic party didn't work so hard
to suppress voter choice by keeping Nader off the ballots in many states. If
they had a candidate that was actually worthy to be president what would they
have to fear? People would have been motivated to come out and vote for Kerry,
as they clearly did for Bush.
Not only did more people vote for Bush,
the senate minority leader was dumped. In both 2002 & 2004 the Republicans
gained seats in the House and Senate. A clear indication that a majority of
the country is voting against values and ideas of the Democratic party.
Evangelical Christians alone? I doubt it. How about the military and
the people making more than $200,000/yr that Kerry promised to tax more to pay
for, among other things, abortions for anyone woman who wants one. He said it
in the second debate. The defining marriage amendments were only on ballots in
11 states, including Oregon who voted for the marriage amendment and also for
Kerry.
At 08:32 AM 11/6/2004, Tod E. Santee wrote:
Jim,
I might suggest that
the 19.0% for Perot was a vote against both Clinton and G.H.W.Bush -- Not
just Clinton. That might be considered a time there was a "valid" 3rd
Party Candidate. The Perot voters were definitely voting against BOTH
parties. There's no way you can honestly be convinced nearly 20
million people voted Perot only because they didn't like
Clinton.
43.3% Bill Clinton
37.7% G.H.W.Bush
19.0% Ross
Perot
This time, < 1% for Nader? Hardly a vote like
'92. This time it was a vote for one or against the other.
Jim
Lubin wrote:
Oh Tod, with a few minutes of
research, I am happy to report that dubious honor goes to Bill Clinton in
1992.
1992
William J. Clinton -
44,909,889
George H. Bush - 39,104,545
H. Ross Perot - 19,742,267
Votes against Clinton 58,846,812
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html
2004 (Updated 11/5/2004 7:10 AM)
George W Bush - 59,645,158
(and still counting)
John F Kerry - 56,149,771
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/president.htm
More people voted against Clinton than voted For Kerry!
At
07:49 PM 11/5/2004, Tod E. Santee wrote:
On the flip side, given the
turnout, Bush had more people vote against him than any
other candidate in the history of the US. <-- It's all in how
you look at it.
And, given that huge turnout resulted in a
51-49% divide, one would be hard pressed to find anyone who could
honestly call that a "Mandate" for the Christian or traditional
or moral values Mr. Bush holds dear. Everyone believe their values
are moral. That's why they value them.
(Political Capital
my A$$... He'll spend something... that's fer shur)
Best!
Tod
(Electors cast their votes in Dec. -- Some Rep. electors
are now undecided and pissed at Bush!)
Jim Lubin wrote:
>Bush won the election by the largest number of
>votes in
the history of the
country.
|
