Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tomegun
That made me chuckle (inside) but it is a sad statement.
Did he really get elected the first time?
|
If you recount only the precincts that were strongly democratic and were more like to find missed democratic votes, no. But if you reo****ed all the state, yes.
Gore only wanted to recount the votes in places where he thought it would favor him....not a general recount where they might also find votes that would benefit Bush in a recount. I've yet to understand how anyone can think that a selective partisan recount could be anything close to fair or just.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tomegun
The second time is beyond my understanding...why America why?!!
|
Again, the candidate the Dems put up against him was unacceptable to enough people.
Personally, I think that GWBush is overall the weakest/poorest president we've had since Carter. In that timeframe, I think that Reagan is 1st and Clinton is 2nd (even though he left the ecomomy in a tailspin in his last 9-12 months....and not rebound for Bush, who was left with most of the blame when he couldn't recover from the mess he was left with) and G.Bush was 3rd.
If Gore had won instead, he would have likely been in the bottom spot. He was no match for Reagon or Clinton...he may or may not have beat out the first Bush, hard to say without him actually winning.
Kerry, had he won, may have ultimately slipped in above GW Bush (that was not an obvious thing...he had a lot of weaknesses too) but he was never going to come close to either Reagan or Clinton....maybe would have been a match for G. Bush.
When both parties have poorer candidates, you've got little choice but to get a lessor president.