FRIDAY POLLS FIND BUSH LEADING: Battleground, Portrait of America
democRATS=bureaucRATS
the usual lefties are gibbering about the latest NewsWEAK "poll",
two very highly respected polls find Bush in the lead as of Friday,
with increasing numbers, compared with rising negatives for Gore:
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/15/172242
The latest Voter.com Battleground poll - which (unlike Newsweak)
is a bipartisan poll done by real pollsters - shows Bush ahead.
As does Friday's equally respected "Portrait of America" poll.
It might be noted Newsweak is the same liberal magazine which spiked the
Monica Lewinsky story, which was later only learned about because
Matt Drudge informed Americans about the spiked Newsweak story.
NewsWEAK = Gore campaign mouthpiece.
--
"Algore will debate George Bush anytime, anyplace and anywhere
Bush dares to debate him".
- Deputy Communications Director, Gore Campaign
National Public Radio, March 16 2000
"Buc, buc, baGAWP"
- Algore the chicken, September 4 2000
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
hkr...@capu.net
>
> Well, it is certainly interesting to note that while
> the usual lefties are gibbering about the latest NewsWEAK "poll",
> two very highly respected polls find Bush in the lead as of Friday,
> with increasing numbers, compared with rising negatives for Gore:
>
Bullship. Both of these polls in which you find solace are trash polls.
--
Harry Krause
------------
But honey, we can afford it, I sold your car!
qwerty
"democRATS=bureaucRATS" <moderate_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8q0v45$rav$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Well, it is certainly interesting to note that while
> the usual lefties are gibbering about the latest NewsWEAK "poll",
> two very highly respected polls find Bush in the lead as of Friday,
> with increasing numbers, compared with rising negatives for Gore:
>
>
> The latest Voter.com Battleground poll - which (unlike Newsweak)
> is a bipartisan poll done by real pollsters - shows Bush ahead.
> As does Friday's equally respected "Portrait of America" poll.
Equally respected by whom?
Jerry Watson
> Monica Lewinsky story, which was later only learned about because
> Matt Drudge informed Americans about the spiked Newsweak story.
>
> NewsWEAK = Gore campaign mouthpiece.
Bwahahaha, check the article, for sure. Note this:
"Republican Texas Gov. Bush has 38 percent, Democrat Vice President Gore 33
percent, Green Party nominee Ralph Nader 2 percent, Reform Party candidate
Pat Buchanan 1 percent and "other" candidates 2 percent in the latest
bipartisan Voter.com Battleground Poll, released Friday morning. Twenty-four
percent of respondents were unsure.
"That particular result was measured when survey participants were not given
the names of the presidential candidates."
What the hell do they do to get a poll result of choice of candidates when
they don't use the name of the candidates? This is a joke, right?
jdw
archi...@my-deja.com
democRATS=bureaucRATS <moderate_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Well, it is certainly interesting to note that while
> the usual lefties are gibbering about the latest NewsWEAK "poll",
> two very highly respected polls find Bush in the lead as of Friday,
> with increasing numbers, compared with rising negatives for Gore:
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/15/172242
>
> The latest Voter.com Battleground poll - which (unlike Newsweak)
> is a bipartisan poll done by real pollsters - shows Bush ahead.
> As does Friday's equally respected "Portrait of America" poll.
>
> It might be noted Newsweak is the same liberal magazine which spiked
the
> Monica Lewinsky story, which was later only learned about because
> Matt Drudge informed Americans about the spiked Newsweak story.
>
> NewsWEAK = Gore campaign mouthpiece.
And it should also be noted that the latest (9/16) Newsweak
poll only elicited responses from *less* than 600 likely
voters--a sample size TOO SMALL to cover the geographic,
racial, ethnic, occupational, age, etc, diversity of a
country of 270,000,000. Works out to less than 12 folks
per state.
The polls with the better track records usually bring in
around 1000 or so likely voters, almost twice as much as
Newsweak (or is it NewsCHEAP?), even though this obviously
will cost much more.
Aurelius Rome
**********************************************
I, unlike you am not a expet on polls, so tell me why are these two polls trash
and the Newsweek poll not....
*******************************************************************************
What action one takes is usually determined by what one thinks is
best for him/her.
DSuarez
The fact is its not the sample size that counts but the methodology used
to select the sample.
<archi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8q1cs3$9ob$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Ted Clayton
archi...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <8q0v45$rav$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> democRATS=bureaucRATS <moderate_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Well, it is certainly interesting to note that while
> > the usual lefties are gibbering about the latest NewsWEAK "poll",
> > two very highly respected polls find Bush in the lead as of Friday,
> > with increasing numbers, compared with rising negatives for Gore:
> >
> > http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/15/172242
> >
> > The latest Voter.com Battleground poll - which (unlike Newsweak)
> > is a bipartisan poll done by real pollsters - shows Bush ahead.
> > As does Friday's equally respected "Portrait of America" poll.
> >
> > It might be noted Newsweak is the same liberal magazine which spiked
> the
> > Monica Lewinsky story, which was later only learned about because
> > Matt Drudge informed Americans about the spiked Newsweak story.
> >
> > NewsWEAK = Gore campaign mouthpiece.
>
> And it should also be noted that the latest (9/16) Newsweak
> poll only elicited responses from *less* than 600 likely
> voters--a sample size TOO SMALL to cover the geographic,
> racial, ethnic, occupational, age, etc, diversity of a
> country of 270,000,000. Works out to less than 12 folks
> per state.
Which just means a bigger margin of error, which the magazine duly
noted.
> The polls with the better track records usually bring in
> around 1000 or so likely voters, almost twice as much as
> Newsweak (or is it NewsCHEAP?), even though this obviously
> will cost much more.
1000 voters would be about 20 folks per state, which isn't much of an
improvement over 12.
TEd
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily
those of CMU.
"First say to yourself what you would be, then do what you have to do."
-- Epictetus
The Net Avenger
Especially considering that the Internet is predominantly Conservative. The
average yearly income of Internet users is STILL over $80,000. Which is way
above middle class.
I hope you take faith in your polls, and sit back and wait for Bush to
win... *g*
--
The Net Avenger
Seeking Justice Everywhere...
-----
"democRATS=bureaucRATS" <moderate_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8q0v45$rav$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Well, it is certainly interesting to note that while
the usual lefties are gibbering about the latest NewsWEAK "poll",
two very highly respected polls find Bush in the lead as of Friday,
with increasing numbers, compared with rising negatives for Gore:
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/15/172242
The latest Voter.com Battleground poll - which (unlike Newsweak)
is a bipartisan poll done by real pollsters - shows Bush ahead.
As does Friday's equally respected "Portrait of America" poll.
It might be noted Newsweak is the same liberal magazine which spiked the
Monica Lewinsky story, which was later only learned about because
Matt Drudge informed Americans about the spiked Newsweak story.
NewsWEAK = Gore campaign mouthpiece.
--
"Algore will debate George Bush anytime, anyplace and anywhere
Bush dares to debate him".
- Deputy Communications Director, Gore Campaign
National Public Radio, March 16 2000
"Buc, buc, baGAWP"
- Algore the chicken, September 4 2000
archi...@my-deja.com
"DSuarez" <dmsu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> If a sample size of 600 is too small then a sample size of 1000 is
also.
No. The experts have said that roughly 1000 will do it for
size and diversity of the US, assuming a proper methodology.
That's about a 67% increase from 600, and makes all the
difference in the world.
> The fact is its not the sample size that counts but the methodology
used
> to select the sample.
Well, you're half right. But remember, in polling, size DOES matter.
archi...@my-deja.com
Ted Clayton <clay...@mail.cmich.edu> wrote:
>
>
> archi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <8q0v45$rav$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > democRATS=bureaucRATS <moderate_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Well, it is certainly interesting to note that while
> > > the usual lefties are gibbering about the latest NewsWEAK "poll",
> > > two very highly respected polls find Bush in the lead as of
Friday,
> > > with increasing numbers, compared with rising negatives for Gore:
> > >
> > > http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/15/172242
> > >
> > > The latest Voter.com Battleground poll - which (unlike Newsweak)
> > > is a bipartisan poll done by real pollsters - shows Bush ahead.
> > > As does Friday's equally respected "Portrait of America" poll.
> > >
> > > It might be noted Newsweak is the same liberal magazine which
spiked
> > the
> > > Monica Lewinsky story, which was later only learned about because
> > > Matt Drudge informed Americans about the spiked Newsweak story.
> > >
> > > NewsWEAK = Gore campaign mouthpiece.
> >
> > And it should also be noted that the latest (9/16) Newsweak
> > poll only elicited responses from *less* than 600 likely
> > voters--a sample size TOO SMALL to cover the geographic,
> > racial, ethnic, occupational, age, etc, diversity of a
> > country of 270,000,000. Works out to less than 12 folks
> > per state.
>
> noted.
And also means much less reliable, which the mag did not duly
note. A few weeks ago, the same mag had GWB much farther
ahead of algore than did most other polls. So much for
Newscheap's reliablity.
> > The polls with the better track records usually bring in
> > around 1000 or so likely voters, almost twice as much as
> > Newsweak (or is it NewsCHEAP?), even though this obviously
> > will cost much more.
>
> 1000 voters would be about 20 folks per state, which isn't much of an
> improvement over 12.
Actually, it's about a 67% improvement, which could make all
the difference in many diverse states. You lefties love
diversity so much, well now you have to honor your love.
> TEd
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> --
> Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily
> those of CMU.
>
> "First say to yourself what you would be, then do what you have to
do."
> -- Epictetus
Zepp, Weasel Sea Shells by the Sea Shore
wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:57:11 GMT, "The Net Avenger"
><thenet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, the voter.com poll should be noted as mainstream...
>>
>>Especially considering that the Internet is predominantly Conservative. The
>>average yearly income of Internet users is STILL over $80,000. Which is way
>>above middle class.
>>
>>I hope you take faith in your polls, and sit back and wait for Bush to
>>win... *g*
>
>I love it when their losses surprise them!
I love the little net industry that has built up of propaganda polls.
You've got the robo-polls that political newbie Rasmussan is running
at "Portrait of America". You've got what the right wingers try to
dress up as "the Battlefield Poll" but in reality is just Dick Morris'
Voter.com
Now you've got something called "Real Clear Politics", which cherry
picks their polls to try and help poor George Dub, who, granted, needs
all he can get.
All in a pitiful effort to deny really, and return to the good old
days of summer, when Bush had an invincable lead because Bush had an
invinceable lead.
>
>http://www.pollingreport.com/election.htm
>
> Volt
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join the War on Right Wing Ignorance
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>Campaign 2000
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/campaign2000.html
>
>The Truth About DubYa's Texas
>http://www.texastruth.com/
>
>=============================================================
>"You can call my show today, but I must remind you, this is NOT the
>Suicide Hotline, so don't call here with stories of doom & gloom about
>how badly we're going to lose."
> -Rush Limbaugh, 9-15-2000
>=============================================================
**********************************
"I’m running because our country must be prosperous. But prosperity
must have a purpose. The purpose of prosperity is to make sure
prosperity has a purpose, and my purpose is to make sure it does."
--GW Bush, putting to rest once and for all the charge that he speaks in
empty platitudes.
For commentary on all things liberal/leftist: http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/zeppol.htm
Links to hundreds of left wing areas: http://www.snowcrest.net/zepp/lynx.htm
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
****************************************
Zepp, Weasel Sea Shells by the Sea Shore
<thenet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yeah, the voter.com poll should be noted as mainstream...
>
>Especially considering that the Internet is predominantly Conservative. The
>average yearly income of Internet users is STILL over $80,000. Which is way
>above middle class.
>
>I hope you take faith in your polls, and sit back and wait for Bush to
>win... *g*
Back in 1936, the first telephone poll was conducted, by an outfit
called Liberty Polling for Liberty magazine. It showed Alf Landon
leading FDR by about a 60-40 margin.
It was considered a "scientific poll", but it overlooked one little
problem: not many Americans had telephones, and those that did, made,
on average, about three times the national income.
In fact, it was about where the internet is now.
hot...@my-deja.com
combine many polls, that makes the sample size more realistic and
believable. I am a big Bush supporter, but I am being realistic. A week
ago, he still had a chance because the electoral map gave him a chance
to win by a hair, maybe even lose the popular vote. But now one of the
most important swing states, Ohio, is shifting away from him.
What this does, is discourage the GOP base, and may cause a lot of
his supporters not to bother to vote, causing a landslide.
Now, to prevent this, you have to energize your base. To do this, you
need to do something drastic. The debates aren't going to do it IMHO.
The only rabbit I can see Bush pulling out of his hat is switching to a
new VP. I can't imagine anything bigger or more dramatic.
But of course that is not going to happen, the conservatives in the
party would rather just get their way and lose, which bodes very poorly
for the next decade. I see a revolt in thr GOP in 2004,to a pro-choice
candidate, and the conservatives going with a 3rd party
candidate,splitting the vote. This will probably happen the next few
elections until the Dems totally run the budget and taxes way out of
control again by 2012.
But if the conservatives just compromised and supported a pro choice
VP,(which wouldn't have compromised any of their aspirations because
he/she is only a VP, not signing any legislation),then I think Bush
would have won this thing by maybe 20 electoral votes, still a close
race.
I wish the GOP leadership would wake up already and take the bull by
the horns before the Dems sweep everything this year, including the
congress. Where is Trent Lott these days? Boy he stinks as SML.
AbramsComp
look at black and say it's white........Rock on dude you only look more
stupid.....!!!
Deano!
expected this "October Surprise" to at least occur in October though. Maybe
you're trying to get an early start.
http://www.geocities.com/bashbush
Zepp, Weasel Sea Shells by the Sea Shore
wrote:
>Wow, what's this I detect? Honesty? I suppose if all else fails. I would have
>expected this "October Surprise" to at least occur in October though. Maybe
>you're trying to get an early start.
Shit. I hope the guy is just a rogue. The one thing that nobody is
prepared to deal with from the Republicans is simple honesty.
**********************************
kin...@my-deja.com
ze...@snowcrest.net wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:57:11 GMT, "The Net Avenger"
> <thenet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, the voter.com poll should be noted as mainstream...
> >
> >Especially considering that the Internet is predominantly
Conservative. The
> >average yearly income of Internet users is STILL over $80,000.
Which is way
> >above middle class.
> >
> >I hope you take faith in your polls, and sit back and wait for Bush
to
> >win... *g*
>
> Back in 1936, the first telephone poll was conducted, by an outfit
> called Liberty Polling for Liberty magazine. It showed Alf Landon
> leading FDR by about a 60-40 margin.
>
> It was considered a "scientific poll", but it overlooked one little
> problem: not many Americans had telephones, and those that did, made,
> on average, about three times the national income.
>
> In fact, it was about where the internet is now.
>
is not an internet poll- it has been around since 1991, and has a very
good record:
http://www.tarrance.com/battleground/default.asp
Deano!
>On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:49:00 -0700, "Zepp, Weasel Sea Shells by the
>Sea Shore" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:25:45 GMT, happyc...@hotmail.com (Deano!)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Wow, what's this I detect? Honesty? I suppose if all else fails. I would have
>>>expected this "October Surprise" to at least occur in October though. Maybe
>>>you're trying to get an early start.
>>
>>Shit. I hope the guy is just a rogue. The one thing that nobody is
>>prepared to deal with from the Republicans is simple honesty.
>
>that average American feels on these issues.
>
>Thank goodness he is one in a thousand Republicons!
>
> Volt
Me begs to differ witcha Volt my friend. Check my website for some
truly astute observations! (I think you have me confused with the original
poster.)
Chris Nelson
> Face reality, Bush is behind in the majority of the polls. And when you
> combine many polls, that makes the sample size more realistic and
> believable. I am a big Bush supporter, but I am being realistic.
A rare bit of realism and honesty from a Republican. I like you already!
> A week
> ago, he still had a chance because the electoral map gave him a chance
> to win by a hair, maybe even lose the popular vote. But now one of the
> most important swing states, Ohio, is shifting away from him.
> What this does, is discourage the GOP base, and may cause a lot of
> his supporters not to bother to vote, causing a landslide.
> Now, to prevent this, you have to energize your base. To do this, you
> need to do something drastic. The debates aren't going to do it IMHO.
Agreed. Bush is just not very bright. The GOP should have gone with McCain.
> The only rabbit I can see Bush pulling out of his hat is switching to a
> new VP. I can't imagine anything bigger or more dramatic.
It would be dramatic, but would paint Bush as treacherous at worst,
indecisive at best, and desperate to boot. If the VP were to be pro-choice,
the Religious Right may flock en masse to Buchanan.
> But of course that is not going to happen, the conservatives in the
> party would rather just get their way and lose, which bodes very poorly
> for the next decade.
If things go as well as they have in this decade, I would say it bodes very
good.
> I see a revolt in thr GOP in 2004,to a pro-choice
> candidate, and the conservatives going with a 3rd party
> candidate,splitting the vote.
The "circular firing squad"!
> This will probably happen the next few
> elections until the Dems totally run the budget and taxes way out of
> control again by 2012.
Fear not. Democrats nowadays are not the kind to bust the budget. They know
that one of the top priorities of the early 21st century is to eliminate the
national debt. They know the voters want this. The only tax increases the
Dems might go for is an increase in taxes that affect only the very rich. In
these days of high gas prices, increasing the gas taxes would be very
unpopular. We have a surplus, so there's no practical reason to raise taxes.
> But if the conservatives just compromised and supported a pro choice
> VP,(which wouldn't have compromised any of their aspirations because
> he/she is only a VP, not signing any legislation),then I think Bush
> would have won this thing by maybe 20 electoral votes, still a close
> race.
But, as usual, the Religious Right would not let him. That's another reason
I don't want to see Bush elected - if he deviates from the path drawn out by
the Religious Right, he will be punished by them.
> I wish the GOP leadership would wake up already and take the bull by
> the horns before the Dems sweep everything this year, including the
> congress.
If the GOP would take the bull by the horns and expell the religious
extremists, they would be in better shape now. But they keep clinging to,
and being controlled by, the Religious Right.
> Where is Trent Lott these days?
Hidden in the attic with the rest of the right-wing extremists, to boost
Bush's chances of winning.
> Boy he stinks as SML.
SML?
Lott sure stinks, I agree.
--
Chris Nelson
400+ failed doomsday predictions!
http://www.mindspring.com/~c.nelson
AUDIO VIDEO DISCO - "I hear, I see, I learn"
tcc2
hkr...@capu.net
>
> <hot...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8q32ga$28r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Face reality, Bush is behind in the majority of the polls. And when you
> > combine many polls, that makes the sample size more realistic and
> > believable. I am a big Bush supporter, but I am being realistic.
>
> A rare bit of realism and honesty from a Republican. I like you already!
>
> > A week
> > ago, he still had a chance because the electoral map gave him a chance
> > to win by a hair, maybe even lose the popular vote. But now one of the
> > most important swing states, Ohio, is shifting away from him.
> > What this does, is discourage the GOP base, and may cause a lot of
> > his supporters not to bother to vote, causing a landslide.
> > Now, to prevent this, you have to energize your base. To do this, you
> > need to do something drastic. The debates aren't going to do it IMHO.
>
> Agreed. Bush is just not very bright. The GOP should have gone with McCain.
>
> > The only rabbit I can see Bush pulling out of his hat is switching to a
> > new VP. I can't imagine anything bigger or more dramatic.
>
> It would be dramatic, but would paint Bush as treacherous at worst,
> indecisive at best, and desperate to boot. If the VP were to be pro-choice,
> the Religious Right may flock en masse to Buchanan.
Interesting idea, but I don't see it as something Bush could carry off.
Who would he pick?
McCain? McCain would not serve with Bush. He considers Bush a numnutz.
And Bush did him really dirty in the primaries.
Colin Powell? He turned Bush down any number of times. Doubt if he'd go
for Bush now.
What shining stars are there in the GOP who could do Bush any good? If
he picks anyone further right than he is, he loses swing voters. If he
picks someone more centrist than he is, he loses hard-nose Republicans.
Maybe Cheney can fake a heart attack and beg to be let off the ticket.
What's David Eisenhower doing these days?
--
Harry Krause
------------
Concerto (n): a fight between a piano and a pianist
kqualls
"Aurelius Rome" <aureli...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000916233454...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> Bullship. Both of these polls in which you find solace are trash polls.
>
> **********************************************
> I, unlike you am not a expet on polls, so tell me why are these two polls
trash
> and the Newsweek poll not....
>
Any poll that shows Gore in the lead is done by a good polling company. Any
poll that shows Bush in the lead is BS. HK is a partisan democrat that must
attack anything that shows that Al Gore is not dominating the race.
The fact that polls are so diametrically opposite at times shows either the
polling methods of most of them are way off base, that the high number of
undecided voters is causing the polls to show wild swings in their ratings,
or that the race is really tight but that the various polling methods skew
themselves towards inflating the numbers for one side or the other.
--
Thanks
Kevin Qualls
kwqu...@hotmail.com
NRA-ILA Volunteer EVC - 1st U.S. Congressional District TN
http://kwqualls.tripod.com
If you want to participate in electing pro-firearms candidates in this
election cycle please email me or join the email discussion group dedicated
to that topic at http://www.egroups.com/group/NRA-ILA_TN-1
Gwen Nelson
Volt (Volt...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:25:01 GMT, happyc...@hotmail.com (Deano!)
: wrote:
: My bad.
: Deno was replying.
: But I know Zepp wasn't the original poster.
: Part of the original must have gotten snipped.
: So who was the HONEST Republicon?
Someone who calls him/herself hotpprs posting from deja.
: Volt
Zepp, Weasel Sea Shells by the Sea Shore
>In article <d60ass0288e9lqgoe...@4ax.com>,
> ze...@snowcrest.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:57:11 GMT, "The Net Avenger"
>> <thenet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Yeah, the voter.com poll should be noted as mainstream...
>> >
>> >Especially considering that the Internet is predominantly
>Conservative. The
>> >average yearly income of Internet users is STILL over $80,000.
>Which is way
>> >above middle class.
>> >
>> >I hope you take faith in your polls, and sit back and wait for Bush
>to
>> >win... *g*
>>
>> Back in 1936, the first telephone poll was conducted, by an outfit
>> called Liberty Polling for Liberty magazine. It showed Alf Landon
>> leading FDR by about a 60-40 margin.
>>
>> It was considered a "scientific poll", but it overlooked one little
>> problem: not many Americans had telephones, and those that did, made,
>> on average, about three times the national income.
>>
>> In fact, it was about where the internet is now.
>>
>That's interesting, but totally irrelevant, since the Battleground poll
>is not an internet poll- it has been around since 1991, and has a very
>good record:
>
>http://www.tarrance.com/battleground/default.asp
>
An online poll that doesn't give the names of the candidates. Right.
hot...@my-deja.com
are not the kind to bust the budget? Who was control of congress most of
this century to put us in jeopardy of going bust like Russia? The Dems.
It wasn't until the GOP got control of congress in 1992 that things
turned around. And Clinton/Gore are taking credit for that?
Gore is already poised on massive spending programs. On health care, the
environment, and worst of all, unchecked spending on education. All
while we still have a huge national debt. You just watch, if this
country goes into a recession due to the huge increases in gas, heating
oil and electricity, all that projected "paper" surplus money could be
wiped out. All the while, Gore will be on his huge spending spree.
At least Bush's plans are more careful, spend some of it on social
programs and give some back to the people, But most important, to make
the education systems accountable for the huge increases in spending
that are coming down the pike. But Gore has everyone duped into thinking
he will be more responsible like the GOP has been, by choosing
Lieberman, who has GOP like ideas. (Vouchers, morale values, lessening
of violence on TV/movies, etc.). The problem here is that Lieberman will
not be signing or vetoing legislation, Gore will. This is the big
charade of the 2000 election that the swing voters will only wise up to
after it is too late. And the media says the GOP convention was a
fantasy?
> This will probably happen the next few
> elections until the Dems totally run the budget and taxes way out of
> control again by 2012.
Fear not. Democrats nowadays are not the kind to bust the budget. They
know that one of the top priorities of the early 21st century is to
eliminate the national debt.
They know the voters want this. The only tax increases the Dems might
go for is an increase in taxes that affect only the very rich. In these
days of high gas prices,
increasing the gas taxes would be very unpopular. We have a surplus, so
there's no practical reason to raise taxes.
tcc2
forks.
sal...@my-deja.com
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/15/172242
>
Which explains a lot. First and foremost, the quality of the poster's,
uh, thought.
Newsmax.com complains that the rest of the press keep on publishing the
results of several dozen pools showing Mr. Gore leading, but neglect to
publish the two or three that still show Bush leading.
As if we cared.
There's only one poll that counts, and I'm increasingly confident of
that one.
BTW, perhaps newsmax can explain to me why all the political ads in my
neck of the woods all say either "Democrat" or "Vote for me", which
seems to me a pretty good indication of how the election is going.
Edward L. Sandwicheater
hot...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Well, I was being honest, so let's be honest about the Dems too. They
> are not the kind to bust the budget? Who was control of congress most of
> this century to put us in jeopardy of going bust like Russia? The Dems.
This country has never been in danger of going bust
> It wasn't until the GOP got control of congress in 1992 that things
> turned around. And Clinton/Gore are taking credit for that?
How many budgets became law without the signature of the president? How
many budgets were turned down by President Clinton because they didnt
meet his standards? Get a clue, the benefits and prosperity we are now
enjoying is due entirely to clinton gore administration.
> Gore is already poised on massive spending programs. On health care, the
> environment, and worst of all, unchecked spending on education.
really? I havent seen anything from Gore that said he was going to allow
'unchecked spending' on education. I do know that the thought of
spending on education would frighten the republicans. The last thing
they want is an educated voter.
>All
> while we still have a huge national debt.
thanks to Ronnie Raygun and his deficit spending
> You just watch, if this
> country goes into a recession due to the huge increases in gas, heating
> oil and electricity, all that projected "paper" surplus money could be
> wiped out. All the while, Gore will be on his huge spending spree.
NOt a chance. The democrats unlike the republicans believe in fiscal
responsibility
> At least Bush's plans are more careful, spend some of it on social
> programs and give some back to the people, But most important, to make
bush has no plan
> the education systems accountable for the huge increases in spending
> that are coming down the pike.
gore is doing MORE then bush in accountability in education.
> But Gore has everyone duped
we're not duped. Quite the opposite. Dubya has been doing all he can to
dupe americans into voting for the party of the selfish and the rich.
We're not buying it.
>into thinking
> he will be more responsible like the GOP has been,
and he will. How responsible is shutting down the government and
stomping and kicking your feet because you dont get your way? You know
what that did for the republicans. They probably wont recover from that
little tantrum. The republicans are going to lose congress soon.
> by choosing
> Lieberman, who has GOP like ideas. (Vouchers, morale values, lessening
> of violence on TV/movies, etc.).
Lieberman will support gore 100 percent.
>The problem here is that Lieberman will
> not be signing or vetoing legislation, Gore will. This is the big
> charade of the 2000 election that the swing voters will only wise up to
> after it is too late. And the media says the GOP convention was a
> fantasy?
>
They didnt say it was a fantasy, they said it was a farce.
> > This will probably happen the next few
> > elections until the Dems totally run the budget and taxes way out of
> > control again by 2012.
>
luckily we will have the opportunity to see if you are right. Im sure we
will prosper under 8 years of President Gore.
> Fear not. Democrats nowadays are not the kind to bust the budget. They
> know that one of the top priorities of the early 21st century is to
> eliminate the national debt.
> They know the voters want this. The only tax increases the Dems might
> go for is an increase in taxes that affect only the very rich. In these
> days of high gas prices,
> increasing the gas taxes would be very unpopular. We have a surplus, so
> there's no practical reason to raise taxes.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mimi Weasel
> This country has never been in danger of going bust
Close, but, no cigar. In 1797 Alexander Hamilton borrowed $100,000 to
cover the country's debt it was repaid in less than 20 years also in
1873 with the onset of the Panic (the 19th century version of the Great
Depression) there was quite a bit of speculation that the country might
not make it intact through its first 100 years whole. You can find
these and many other useful historical facts at www.historychannel.com
--
Mimi Weasel
"If you want to live like a Republican,
vote Democrat". -- Harry Truman
Read my lips: "No new TEXANS"