New Hampshire result - Page 5

chequita guevara · January 28, 2004, 17:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not all politicians have a lack of integrity.

*cg pats Imran on the head. "Your faith is so cute."

MrFun · January 28, 2004, 17:49

faith or naivity??

Imran Siddiqui · January 28, 2004, 17:58

Quote:

*cg pats Imran on the head. "Your faith is so cute

Just because you are overly cynical doesn't mean everyone else has to be

.

chequita guevara · January 28, 2004, 18:00

Bah humbug!

MrFun · January 28, 2004, 18:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

*cg pats Imran on the head. "Your faith is so cute

Just because you are overly cynical doesn't mean everyone else has to be

.

We will convert you to Cynictholicism if it's the last thing we do!

Sava · January 28, 2004, 18:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Sava, what we do know about Clark was that he was fired from his Nato command due to lack of integrity.

no that's the smear campaign Hugh Shelton started and the right has continued to propagate... I haven't seen one shred of evidence supporting that claim. In fact, I've heard both Clinton and fmr. Def. secretary Cohen refute that lie.

Quote:

In contrast, everyone who served with Kerry think the world of the man.

I don't care what those people think. I look at policies. I'd vote for Satan if his policies were sound.

Guynemer · January 28, 2004, 19:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not all politicians have a lack of integrity. Lieberman, for one (while he is a tool), has tons of integrity, even though he's been a politician for so long

But he's not a very good politican.

Interesting philosophical debate: can one have integrity and still be a good politician?

Sava · January 28, 2004, 19:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
Interesting philosophical debate: can one have integrity and still be a good politician?

Yes... but it takes an extremely charismatic person. Playing dirty, however, is easier because it allows weaker candidates (normally some dolt like Bush) to have success. The Dem's are failing because they don't have that killer instinct. And to be fair, the media is against them. That gives them an inherent disadvantage.

btw, Joe Lieberman doesn't have integrity... he panders just like any other dope. It's sad that he's trying to cash in on fear with his "I'm strong on defense" attitude. It's ironic because IMO going to Iraq hurts our national security and takes away from the fight against Al Qaeda.

Imran Siddiqui · January 28, 2004, 19:40

Quote:

But he's not a very good politican.

Well he's been elected to the Senate for decades... that's a pretty good politician by the most important measure

.

Sava · January 28, 2004, 19:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

But he's not a very good politican.

Well he's been elected to the Senate for decades... that's a pretty good politician by the most important measure

.

big deal... corpse Strom Thurmond kept getting elected...

Imran Siddiqui · January 28, 2004, 19:44

Quote:

big deal... corpse Strom Thurmond kept getting elected...

Did I say Strom was a bad politician? If you keep getting elected, that's the biggest part of being a GOOD politician.

Sava · January 28, 2004, 19:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

big deal... corpse Strom Thurmond kept getting elected...

Did I say Strom was a bad politician? If you keep getting elected, that's the biggest part of being a GOOD politician.

no... you can be a BAD politician and still be elected by a dopey group of voters.

Imran Siddiqui · January 28, 2004, 19:57

Quote:

no... you can be a BAD politician and still be elected by a dopey group of voters.

That's impossible. If you win, you are already an above average politician. Why? 'Cause you won! Making your politics admirable to a dopey group of voters is the mark of a good politician. Why is Clinton considered such a good politician? Because he was able to deflect criticism and turn into pluses leading to huge wins! (Though Nixon is probably the best modern politician in American politics... the way he was able to climb back in it was genius)

Sava · January 28, 2004, 19:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

no... you can be a BAD politician and still be elected by a dopey group of voters.

That's impossible. If you win, you are already a good politician. Why? 'Cause you won! Why is Clinton considered such a good politician? Because he was able to deflect criticism and turn into pluses leading to huge wins! (Though Nixon is probably the best modern politician in American politics... the way he was able to climb back in it was genius)

wrong...

good baseball players can LOSE to bad baseball players... there are other factors involved...

likewise with elections... there are other factors involved in elections. Great politicians can lose to more inept politicians.

Imran Siddiqui · January 28, 2004, 20:01

Quote:

good baseball players can LOSE to bad baseball players... there are other factors involved...

likewise with elections... there are other factors involved in elections. Great politicians can lose to more inept politicians.

Politics isn't baseball, or anything close. You can measure how good baseball players are aside from winning and losing, you really can't for politicians (except for perhaps how 'Teflon' they are and how they spin, but that leads to wins).

'Great' politicians who lose to inept politicians are really great and their opponent wasn't really inept. The fact that the 'inept' politician was able to win shows he was better than the 'great' politician.

Sava · January 28, 2004, 20:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Politics isn't baseball, or anything close. You can measure how good baseball players are aside from winning and losing, you really can't for politicians (except for perhaps how 'Teflon' they are and how they spin, but that leads to wins).

you couldn't be more wrong... politics are a game, elections are the official results... politicians have certain areas where they can be more skilled and areas where they can be weak.

Quote:

'Great' politicians who lose to inept politicians are really great and their opponent wasn't really inept. The fact that the 'inept' politician was able to win shows he was better than the 'great' politician.

this would only be true if EVERY ASPECT OF ELECTIONS WAS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF SAID POLITICIANS... there are numerous unpredictable things in the world of politics... a politicians SKILL isn't everything.

so once again Imran is wrong and SAVA IS RIGHT!

Imran Siddiqui · January 28, 2004, 20:07

Quote:

you couldn't be more wrong... politics are a game, elections are the official results... politicians have certain areas where they can be more skilled and areas where they can be weak.

And in the end the one who is more skilled at tayloring his message and dealing with spin WILL win.

Unlike baseball, politics is an individual sport. It is likes saying a tennis player that loses to another is better. If he was better, he wouldn't have lost to tennis player B. A can prove if he is a better tennis player by challenging B again and winning. But until that happens...

Look at the 2000 elections, Bush was the better politician. Easily! And that is why he won.

Quote:

this would only be true if EVERY ASPECT OF ELECTIONS WAS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF SAID POLITICIANS... there are numerous unpredictable things in the world of politics

Dealing with unpredictable things is part of a politician's job. So yes that aspect is under the direct control of the politician - it's called spin.

Imran Siddiqui · January 28, 2004, 20:11

Put it to you this way, if Clinton lost in 1996, no one would be saying he was a great Presidential politician.

Ramo · January 28, 2004, 20:21

Quote:

Not everything clinton said or did was supported by the DLC - he was a VERY pragmatic pol, who did things for political reasons.

I've never heard of anyone on the DLC railing against textile quotas... Who are you thinking of in particular? And anyways, my point was being that the DLC is protectionist in some respects. For instance, agrisubsidies are more significant trade distortions (in the sense of the number of people they screw over) than just about everything else, but the DLC broadly supports them.

Quote:

Why not the establishment - er, is Ted Kennedy DLC? Is Robert Byrd?? The Dem establishment is much broader than the DLC, and this was true even during the Clinton Presidency.

Fair enough. I was thinking leadership (meaning, death-grip

) when you wrote establishment.

Jaguar · January 28, 2004, 20:58

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Kucinich and Sharpton are running to try and get their issues aired and discussed. Neither or them think they have, nor did they ever think they had, a shot at winning.

You're both half right. Sharpton is running to get his issues discussed. Kucinich is flagrantly psychotic.

Guynemer · January 28, 2004, 21:00

He's a member of the brain-eating jockey-gnomes from the "Furious D" episode of The Simpsons.

The Templar · January 28, 2004, 21:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Look at the 2000 elections, Bush was the better politician. Easily! And that is why he won.

Bush really didn't win the election though, did he? He got appointed because a recount of a vote (that was within the margin of error) was stopped prematurely.

Imran Siddiqui · January 28, 2004, 21:50

Quote:

He got appointed because a recount of a vote (that was within the margin of error) was stopped prematurely.

Which would have ended up as a Bush victory if you look at the newspaper recounts.

And yes, he really won.

Pax · January 28, 2004, 22:06

If politics was a sport it would have to be boxing. Easily rigged. Also it can be made to look like one opponent is the obvious winner until the other collapses.

Nixon was beaten by JFK, making JFK better. RFK was assassinated so we'll never know the outcome of that. I daresay that Nixon would have lost again.

I don't see why people believe that President Bush is undefeatable given the state of current affairs. The same polls that showed Dean ahead of Kerry also showed Bush ahead of them all. So if Kerry beats Dean that proves the polls inaccurate.

Governor Dean has just as much of a record as the former Governor Bush on foreign affairs prior to taking office.

Anyone who feels that Bush is doing a good job is probably going to vote Bush so it makes no sense for these candidates or the democratic party to emulate Bush. It weakens America, the 2 party system, and the voice of the people. We NEED opposition candidates. Who is opposed to Bush. Not Lieberman. So he is out.

The best ticket too beat President Bush would probabably be Kerry/Dean? Whose coming with me?

mrmitchell · January 28, 2004, 23:44

My thoughts...

Clark, LIE LIE LIE LIE LIEberman, need to drop out and endorse. Well, so do Kucinich and Sharpton, but something tells me they're not really running so much as just being crazy

Thusly we have Kerry, Edwards, and Dean. Edwards will do well in South Carolina (I hope, at least), Kerry will also do nicely, Dean will probably be laughed out of the state.

Guynemer · January 29, 2004, 00:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

He got appointed because a recount of a vote (that was within the margin of error) was stopped prematurely.

Which would have ended up as a Bush victory if you look at the newspaper recounts.

And yes, he really won.

Actually, depending on what standard was used when recounting ballots, including those that were discarded (hanging chads and all that), it could have gone either way. By most standards, Bush would have won, but Gore would have won on a few.

Imran Siddiqui · January 29, 2004, 00:46

Quote:

depending on what standard was used when recounting ballots

I'm relying on the standards which were being used in the recount at the time. I think the 'counting all the overvote' standard doesn't matter because that wasn't being used as a standard by anyone in Florida.

Ramo · January 29, 2004, 00:50

Regardless of whether or not Shrub cheated (which he did

), Gore should have won by a fair margin with the advantages he had going into the race. He was ultimately the crappier politician.

Capt Dizle · January 29, 2004, 00:59

No northern democrat can beat Bush.

Ramo · January 29, 2004, 01:06

Democrats don't need the South. We've been over this.