Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Damien
Nearest topic i could find that is related
|
Hmm. I could change the thread subject to something like "2004 Presidential Election", so it covered all of this, rather than just Kerry picking Edwards.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerrek
Here is one possible outcome:
Compiled 2004 Prediction Map
Dem: 264 - Rep: 274
|
Here's another:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...270672,00.html
Quote:
(snip)
A survey released last night shows that Mr Kerry leads in enough of the key states to snatch the presidency from Mr Bush, setting the scene for a contest that could be every bit as closely fought as the 2000 election, when Mr Bush narrowly defeated Al Gore after the intervention of the US supreme court.
Mr Kerry leads in states that give him a total 276 votes in the vital electoral college which determines the presidency. Mr Bush leads in states worth 220 electoral college votes. Three states, including Florida, on which the 2000 contest hinged, remain too close to call this time. But even if all three fell Mr Bush's way, Mr Kerry would have just enough states to claim the White House, for which 270 electoral college votes are required.
The new poll, conducted by Zogby International last weekend in 16 battleground states, shows Mr Bush is regaining some ground compared with early July. That underlines that the 2004 contest could again go right down to the wire and increases the importance of Mr Kerry's eagerly awaited acceptance speech in Boston to morrow, which is expected to be aimed overwhelmingly at undecided voters.
(snip)
But with more than three months to go before polling day, the pollsters warn that the result is simply too close to call at this stage.
(snip)
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerrek
There is no "mess" in Iraq. Maybe for liberals, who expected a utopia of love and flowers after 2 days there. Most of us are more realistic. Iraq has its own government now, and the Iraq police and army are slowly taking over patrolling and guard duty.
|
No mess in Iraq?
Yes, 2 days would be unrealistic, but it's now been over a year since "major combat operations" were over.
It's good that the Iraqi police etc are taking over in some areas.
But things like
this, which seem to be happening on a regular basis, are not good.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerrek
People don't trust him. And, people don't know where he stands. I for one will not vote for someone who I don't know where he stands.
|
I know where Bush stands. Which is why I would not vote for him if I were a US citizen.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerrek
|
Ah, the NY Post....Mr Murdoch's print equivalent of Fox News....
I found
this quite funny regarding a recent NYP "exclusive".
As for Afghanistan....
The survey was of only 804 people.
It's good that the Taliban are not in power (I was going to say "...are gone", but they haven't gone really), & Karzai is apparently a good president. But the rest of the country outside Kabul is apparently still a nightmare, what with the warlords (no better than the Taliban), & the Taliban. And aid agencies such as MSF pulling out, due to the situation, doesn't help.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Damien
Why didnt H.Clinton run anyway? If kerry wins she has no chance till 2012 and then she may be too old while edwards will be just old enough and have the advantage of already being in the white house?
|
Apparently it wouldn't have looked good if she had stood for the 2004 nomination, as she is still only in her 1st 6 year term in the US Senate.
Although if she had run, she would have been very popular.
Interesting article on her (from last November) & whether she would or would not run:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...087351,00.html