25-06-2005 10:36									#91
	Got spare money?

If the opposition weren't far out there relative to mainstream Central Canada then maybe they'd stand a chance.

Look within for the answer. Don't blame the electorate for not being as conservative as you'd like...

	25-06-2005 10:42									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Far out? You mean they are on the same side as the majority of Canadians on same sex marriage?

Or do you mean they are on the wrong side of the CBC and CTV?

It really doesn't matter. What matters is that what would have defeated MacDonald, St Laurent, King, Pearson, or even Tredeau, no longer cuts it for defeating a government.

Theft is better than the barbarians from the regions getting a say in things.

Oh, Canada!

	25-06-2005 10:42									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: And I feel, personally, that Rove would be in a quagmire. How much personal **** can he dig up that we don't already know?

Awesome! I win my bet. I got a liberal to blame Karl Rove.



As for the man that is Clinton, I don't doubt that he is a man. I only said that charm and charisma can only go so far. Bush has proven himself to be able to deal with the problems, and therefore, it doesn't really matter who runs against him. The issue is a vote of confidence on Bush.

	25-06-2005 10:44									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Far out? You mean they are on the same side as the majority of Canadians on same sex marriage?

a) barely

b) that's one issue, and not one the majority of Canadians is too worked up about...

	25-06-2005 10:47									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

And since when should blatant theft not be the only issue?

	25-06-2005 10:47									#96
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Considering that Bush beat out Kerry who got a higher percentage of the vote than Bill Clinton ever got, yes I do believe he wins in a two party race.

Bush wouldn't have snowball's chance in h*ll of winning against Bill Clinton. People were more than willing, according to poll numbers, to elect him to a third term when he left office. Its only primarily conservatives who don't like him, and they are a minority compared to the overall population.

	25-06-2005 10:49									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Elect the freekin' NDP for all I care, just turf the thieves.

But no, it seems that we are bound for a siesta of responsible government.

Hopefully, we wake up from it before we are the Mexico of the North.

	25-06-2005 10:56									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Awesome! I win my bet. I got a liberal to blame Karl Rove. As for the man that is Clinton, I don't doubt that he is a man. I only said that charm and charisma can only go so far. Bush has proven himself to be able to deal with the problems, and therefore, it doesn't really matter who runs against him. The issue is a vote of confidence on Bush.

First, Rove is Bush's top campaign advisor. How can he not be responsible for statements made during a campaign?

Second, Clinton has proven himself FAR more capable at doing the job of President than Bush II. Do you really think the American people are dumb enough to elect Bush over Clinton based on who is the better leader?

Wait...don't answer that...

	25-06-2005 11:01									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I am curious why you laugh.

Two 'opposition' parties just cooperated with the government of... 'Fagin' to prolong the corruption.

They really seem to be opposed to corruption, don't they?

	25-06-2005 11:04									#101
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous First, Rove is Bush's top campaign advisor. How can he not be responsible for statements made during a campaign? Second, Clinton has proven himself FAR more capable at doing the job of President than Bush II. Do you really think the American people are dumb enough to elect Bush over Clinton based on who is the better leader? Wait...don't answer that...

I don't think I would like to run on a record of ignoring growing terrorism warnings, with only the destruction of the odd tent in the desert, if I were Bill Clinton.

He would get shredded.

	25-06-2005 11:10									#102
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I don't think I would like to run on a record of ignoring growing terrorism warnings, with only the destruction of the odd tent in the desert, if I were Bill Clinton. He would get shredded.

There's plenty of evidence that the Bush admin ignored growing terrorism warnings as well. Plus, Bush couldn't find Osama. That's enough to get him "shredded".

Oh, and Bill Clinton never went to war with Iraq. By 2008, I feel that that would be an asset.

	25-06-2005 11:10									#103
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I don't think I would like to run on a record of ignoring growing terrorism warnings, with only the destruction of the odd tent in the desert, if I were Bill Clinton.

Let's not forget attacking a country that wasn't a real threat to us without UN approval. A country where we still have troops BTW.

	25-06-2005 11:18									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous There's plenty of evidence that the Bush admin ignored growing terrorism warnings as well. Plus, Bush couldn't find Osama. That's enough to get him "shredded". Oh, and Bill Clinton never went to war with Iraq. By 2008, I feel that that would be an asset.

And of course you think Clinton has a better war record than Kerry, so of course Clinton would be a shoe in, after the ***** slap Osama gave the US after Clinton ignored him for years.

BTW, which embassies or ships were blown up under Bush before 9/11?

	25-06-2005 11:32									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Uh, Boris, if you read my posts I read the analysis. I quoted the same section you quote including the caveats.

Yeah, but you didn't actually read the state-by-state summaries wherein it was explained why Clinton would still win, even if the split in those state was more generous to Bush. Read it again.

	25-06-2005 11:37									#106
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi And Bush Jr is a war president, and pwns Bush Sr. Just because Clinton could beat Bush Sr. in peacetime, doesn't mean that he is going to retain the 53 percent, even including the percentage alotted from Perot, against Bush Jr.

Bush Sr. was a wartime president, it didn't help him. You seem to be ignoring the fact that 60% of the American public now disapproves of the war and that Bush's approval ratings are in the tank.

quote: Kerry did well to get 48% percent against Bush in 2004, also accounting for population growth, and the increase in voter turnout. To suggest that Clinton could have done better than Kerry is far from certain, given the political climate. After all, it was said well before that Clinton made a good peacetime president, and a poor wartime one.

Again, you're ignoring Clinton's infinitely better charisma than Kerry and the fact that he's an all-round better politician. Also, 2004 is substantially different than what 2008 is going to be. The issue isn't, "Could Clinton beat Bush in 2004," it's "Could Clinton beat Bush in 2008." Considering the direction Bush's ratings are going, you don't have much to stand on here.

quote: All things considered, since Shrub did beat the Gore/Leiberman ticket in peacetime, I don't see Clinton winning in wartime.

Considering polls in 2000 showed Clinton handily beating Bush in a hypothetical match up, I'd have to heartily dispute this. Again, Gore was no Clinton, and to discount the large differences in their abilities as politicians is folly.

Beyond that, the war isn't helping Bush anymore, it's hurting him. Did I mention that 60% of Americans now disapprove of the war?

	25-06-2005 11:47									#107
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Bush Sr. was a wartime president? Wasn't the war over and it was the economy, stupid?

	25-06-2005 13:19									#108
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Come on... no one can reasonably believe that if Clinton ran against Bush II today that Clinton wouldn't trounce Bush. Clinton was beloved when he left office and, if anything, is even better liked now. Especially with the burgeoning friendship he has with Bush, Sr. It shows an ability to reach to the other side, something Bush II shows he can't do.

	25-06-2005 14:17									#109
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

But he didn't tell the truth about committing adultery. Excuse me, but isn't that statment just a trifle oxymoronic.

	25-06-2005 20:02									#110
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc But he didn't tell the truth about committing adultery. Excuse me, but isn't that statment just a trifle oxymoronic.

One should always tell the truth about adultery.

Wife: "Where have you been?"
Husband: "I have been banging your sister. She's hot."
Wife: "That's nice. I hope you had a good time."

	25-06-2005 20:08									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Bush is an amateur

Chirac was elected by 82% of the voters, and now he has a whooping 28% satisfaction among the people (70% discontents)

	25-06-2005 21:09									#112
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Soo, if Bush pulls out some stunt, something really bad, that basically makes every single american una...uni... namesously... every single american hate him, with passion...

Can the people do anything? Can they call up their congressman, and demand, that he move to impeach the president?

Is there some clause in constitution allowing a cue, if the prez clearly and undeniably has either lost his mind or is just a bloody fool , the next in line (Cheney ) can depose him?

Just curious. I should think he is responsible for the american people...

Hey, I got cencored. I didn't know it was that bad a word...
I'll change it to fool.

	25-06-2005 21:57									#113
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Tattila the Hun Soo, if Bush pulls out some stunt, something really bad, that basically makes every single american una...uni... namesously... every single american hate him, with passion... Can the people do anything? Can they call up their congressman, and demand, that he move to impeach the president?

The President can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Y'know what that means? Anything Congress says it means. Y'know what kind of evidence is needed. Anything Congress says is needed.

For example, if Congress really wanted to get rid of Bush, it would use the Downing Street memo, which charges that Bush was fabricating the evidence needed to justify going to war. That'd be enuf.

quote: Is there some clause in constitution allowing a cue, if the prez clearly and undeniably has either lost his mind or is just a bloody fool , the next in line (Cheney ) can depose him?

That'd be the 25th Amendment:

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

	25-06-2005 22:26									#114
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Interesting Boris. The numbers don't bear out your conclusion. In 1992, where Bush Sr. lost the election, here are the numbers.

Assuming Perot's support is split precisely 50%, which is not a figure supported by your link, which declines to provide percentages.

Now, Perot got 18.91 percent support in 1992. Now, supposing 1/3 of Perot's support stays home, that leaves him with 12.67 percent.

Secondly, given the first assumption, 6.33 percent of Perot's support goes to Democrats, and 6.33 percent to Republicans, given their preferences in the exit poll.

In 1992, Clinton got 43% of the vote. Adding 6.33 percent onto it leaves you with 50.33 percent of the vote.

Bush in the last election got 50.75 in 2004, more than Clinton would have recieved in 1992 even given the percentages from Perot.

	25-06-2005 22:30									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Even the reddest states of Jesusland are turning on Bush.

quote: America turns on Bush over Iraq Three in five want troops out as President vows to stay By Rupert Cornwell in Washington 25 June 2005 Beset by fading public support for the war and growing violence on the ground, President George Bush flatly rejected any timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq, vowing the United States would stay until the insurgency was defeated and democracy had been established. "This is a time of testing, a critical time," Mr Bush acknowledged yesterday after a meeting at the White House with Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Iraqi Prime Minister. The insurgents "feel that if they can shake our will and affect our public opinion, we'll give up on the mission. But I'm not giving up the mission, we're doing the right thing". The President was speaking amid unprecedented challenges to his whole Iraq policy. A week of carnage in that country was capped by news that six marines were killed on Thursday in the former rebel stronghold of Fallujah, lifting the total American death toll in Iraq to a total of 1,730 ,snip.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world...sp?story=649440

	25-06-2005 22:59									#116
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Now assuming half of the democrat Perot supporters are found in California, New York and Massachusetts, that is a total of:

Total Perot support, 18.91

37.45 G. Bush

43.0 Bill Clinton

Assume Perot support split equally between Clinton and Bush

Assume 1/3rd Perot support does not vote

Assume 1/2 of remaining democrat Perot votes come from New York and California

6.334 percent Democrat percentage
6.334 percent Republican

Half of the democrat Perot supporters, 3.167 in NY and California, for a total of 3,828,693 Perot supporters in NY and California

Now, Perot got 2,296,006 votes in California an 1,090,721 votes in NY.

Okay, that's just not possible. 441,966 voters short. So throw in Massachusetts too, and that works.

So you still have 3.167 percent democrats to distribute among all the remaining states.

Now, the quick and dirty way to do that is to assume that for all the states, you bump up Dem support by 3.167 and Republican support by 6.334, so any state with less than 3.167 percent win for the Democrats goes to the Republicans

Nevada goes to G. Bush
Montana to G. Bush
Georgia to G. Bush
Ohio to G. Bush
Kentucky to G. Bush
New Hampshire to G. Bush
New Jersey to G. Bush

(3) (4) (13) (8) (21) (15) (4) (+68)

So we get 302-236 in the electoral count.

Possibles: Colorado, Tennessee, Louisiana, Wisconsin all wins by less than 5%.

(8) (11) (11) (9)

So we get +39 for Bush and -39 for Clinton

275-263 Bush victory.

	25-06-2005 23:01									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Do you expect us to take any of your electoral analyses seriously?



You probably have as much clue about US demographics as you do about Canadian ones.

	25-06-2005 23:04									#118
	Remove this text

The assumptions I have made are all there KH.

As for the predictions in the Canadian election, I worked off polls, that they themselves ended up being 8% off of the election results. So garbage in, garbage out.

And my original prediction is actually more conservative than the site provided by Boris, so I don't know why you think that my numbers are less accurate.

Interesting, the site gives Bush Maine, and does not consider Tennessee or Wisconsin, and considers Colorado to be solidly Bush.

Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 25-06-2005 at 23:11

	25-06-2005 23:17									#119
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Here's Tennessee which was won by 4.65% Clinton, about the same as Louisiana, and Wisconsin Clinton won by 4.35%, yet the site does not put Wisconsin in the Bush column and puts Louisiana, where Bush lost by 4.6 percent, and gives Bush Maine, which Bush lost by 8.77%.

I don't really understand their analysis here.

	26-06-2005 02:40									#120
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Interesting Boris. The numbers don't bear out your conclusion. In 1992, where Bush Sr. lost the election, here are the numbers. Assuming Perot's support is split precisely 50%, which is not a figure supported by your link, which declines to provide percentages. Now, Perot got 18.91 percent support in 1992. Now, supposing 1/3 of Perot's support stays home, that leaves him with 12.67 percent.

I'll stop you right there. If 1/3 of Perot's voters stay home, then the percentages of the total voters in the race changes entirely. You didn't bother to take that into account, did you?

That's a lot of work to do and yet fail to take this into consideration.

On top of all that, this analysis is pretty pointless in determining how an election would come out today. 1992 is worlds away, and Clinton was an unknown quantity at the time. But he didn't have any problem winning a smooth reelection in 1996. And polls taken in 2000 all showed him easily beating up on Bush.

I guarantee you, there's little chance Bush would beat Clinton in a 2008 face-off. On top of the fact that the country has immense Bush fatigue right now, the nostalgia for the rolling good times of the 90s will prompt many to vote for Clinton, especially when comparing them to the past 8 years they've just undergone.