- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 6,639
- Reaction score
- 1,487
- Location
- Pennsylvania, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
ps, thanks for completely derailing the thread, as usual, with your offtopic stuff, Canadajohn.
:roll:
:roll:
he is nationally preference polling in 2nd place for the GOP .
by ONLY focusing on Nader, in fact, you by definition made the argument; that the role of the other candidates had no effect.
you could have saved us time and just read the KOS link; you would be surprised to learn that 300,000 self-identified "Democrats" voted Bush.
now- with that info in hand, still want to blame NADER?
So, you're going to peddle the idiotic argument that if Nader wasn't in the race, his 97,500 votes would have gone to Bush? Is that the stupidity you're going to stoop to?
I'm done with your nonsense.
You can post your juvenile "I win" now.
ps, thanks for completely derailing the thread, as usual, with your offtopic stuff, Canadajohn.
:roll:
OMG, Bush IV, or Clinton II.In the RCP averages of the polls, he's currently 7th, when including the two most recent polls where he spiked after his announcement.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination
He's a momentary blip, just like Carson was when he announced, just like Paul was when he announced, just like Cruz was when he announced, etc. etc. etc. Bush is the only consistent as leader. You can dream about a Trump train wreck, but you're going to wake up to another President Bush.
I thought you were done?
I didn't derail the thread - you did. My original post was about the effects of Trump on Clinton and a counter to your point about Perot by pointing out that Buchanan/Nader did the same to Gore. I appreciate that any comment that isn't in lock step with what the DNC tells you to post is considered "derailing", but some of us actually have broader minds than that.
OMG, Bush IV, or Clinton II.
Plus ca change.
so you admit, before even trying to discuss my point (it's my thread! go start your own on your topic if you want!) about Perot's role in Bush/Clinton, you shifted the topic to x/Bush/Gore.
Yes, you derailed the thread.
Just Bush III, but perhaps Hillary will still be trying to win the crown when Bush IV comes along - she'll be fossilized, but don't count her out.
She may be fossilized by the end of her term anyway, should she be elected.
Surely there must be someone somewhere in this nation of 300 million or so individuals who would make a better POTUS than any of the current crop of wannabes.
Somewhere, somewhere, isn't there?
While I do think Jeb Bush will be a good President, your comment isn't without merit. It's often said that no one who'd even remotely be qualified to fill the position is stupid enough to seek it. Why put yourself through the over the top intrusion into your personal life that these candidates go through - it's dehumanizing in many respects. And the families suffer along with it. I'm not surprised that Barbara Bush made the comments she did about enough Bush's - I'm sure she hates her family being picked apart.