Judging by nothing more than Gore's numbers, factoring in the difference in popularity of Gore and Clinton--by this estimate, Clinton would have won... But we really can't say what a Clinton campaign, and a Bush attack on Clinton's gaffes would have led to.
Do think Clinton would have won, though.
Dunno, Sofia ... an awful lot of votes were more against The Clinton Legacy than for The Bush Promise, IMO. I note too that Clinton was not exactly disinterested, or inactive, in Gore's campaign.
Furthermore, according to
the Consortium News( definitley a left wing source, the Democrats will have a very difficult time in November 2004
quote:
"The Democrats must defend more seats than the Republicans in the Senate, with 19 Democratic Seats up against 15 for the Republicans. On top of that, 10 of those seats are in states - Nevada, Norht Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Indiana- Bush won in the 2000 campaign. In Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, Democratic incumbents will not run for another term leaving ooen seats in hard to win states for Democrats.
By contrast there are only two vulnerable Republican seats. In Illinois where the incumbent Peter Fitzgerald has decided not to seek re-election, and in Alaska where Lisa Murkowsku will have to run on her own for the first time against Tony Knowles, a popular former governor in an otherwise solid Republican state.
Other than those two seats, pickings seem slim for Democratic challengers.. Barring any surprises between now and election day, the only seats that are even worth mentioning are Kit Bond's seat in Missouri( although the Democrats are having a terrible time finding a candidate), Jim Bunning's seat in Kentucky( where Paul Patton's sex scandal appears to have spared Bunning a serious reelection fight) and Arlen Spector's seat in Pennsylvania( worth mentioning only because of a primary challenge from conservative Rep. Pat Toomey"(Who is a Republican).
As for the House, it is too early to say where the national electorate will be. But Redistricting( See Texas) has made all but a handful of seats safe for one party or the other leaving only 25 to 50 seats up for grabs depending on what the national campaign looks like. The Democrats may have a chance of gaining seats, though likely not enough to take back the House"
end of quote
I am hopeful that those facts and figures will bring some clarity to the discussion which, so far, in my opinion, has been filled with unsourced and undocumented Opinion.
Dear Sofia- If Clinton would have won, why didn't he carry the House and Senate with him in 1996?
Remember, that was before the Scandals.
Italgato wrote:I am hopeful that those facts and figures will bring some clarity to the discussion which, so far, in my opinion, has been filled with unsourced and undocumented Opinion.
You have copied and pasted from an article, published on June 25, 2003, written by Sam Parry.
The complete article can be read here
Bush's Iraqi Albatross
Yes, of course, Mr. Hinteler- That is why I put it in quotes. You do know what quotes are, don't you?
You put material in quotes when it is not you original material.
I began with
"The Democrats and ended with "The House" and I clearly noted quote and end of quote.
I also indicated that the source came from Consortium News.
Do you have a problem with that or don't they use quotation marks in Germany????
By the way, Mr. Hinteler- I NEVER use "cut and paste"
Thank you.
We do so, Italgato. And we quote the source (who, what, where, when) as well.
Parry's main thrust is that The Republicans "Bought the Media". That one could think such a thing could be done is disingenuous. The Media provides to The Public precisely what The Public will buy. The Public is not buying The Democrats. That is simple economics.
Mr. Hinteler- Thank you. I appreciate your comment.
I take it that you are in favor of everyone who posts quoting who, what, where and when.
SO AM I!!!
We are on the same page.
May I use your comment to aid me in instructing others who do not follow that guideline?
I find that very few people do utilize that method.
I will, however, be most careful to do so in the future.
I am sure that you will do likewise.
Thank You.
Well, it's quite easy with the splendid software given to us here on A2K: just copy the link in your reasponse like all we others do :wink: ... and everything is correctly reported.
Mr. Timberlandko- You are quite right. The article was attempting to show that the Republicans were attempting to control the media. However, the portion of the article that really caught my attention was the section in which it clearly stated that the Democrats would have a very very difficult time in taking over the House and Senate in 2004.
That is all that my post was aiming to do.
As I said, If anyone disagreed with the figures given in the article, they were free to dispute them ( with data, of course). If there is no dispute concering the figures which clearly show that the Democrats would have a great deal of trouble taking the House and Senate in 2004, then I am content to let the stand.
Mr. Hintler- I cannot copy my link in my reasponse.
But I can give a link in my response.
And I will repeat, I hope that all will do the same-
Don't you agree- Mr. Hinteler?
Italgato wrote:Mr. Hintler- I cannot copy my link in my reasponse.
There's on top of the box, wherein you write the response, a button called "URL" on the right site. Use it. :wink:
Sofia wrote: But we really can't say what a Clinton campaign, and a Bush attack on Clinton's gaffes would have led to.
Clinton's gaffes? Surely you jest, Sofia. Say what you will about Clinton, the man was smooth. Verbal mistakes were not a problem of his. The thought of a Clinton-Bush debate leads to only one conclusion: Bush is lucky it never happened...
Links to facts, to verifiable data, are of more interest to me than are links to opinion. I follow these discussions to discover, explore, and examine the opinions of the participants in these discussions. I find it of little benefit to the advancement of an exchange of opinion that one or another of the participants draws on pundits as form of support or verification. I care more about what and why someone may think a thing than about with whom that individual may share an opinion. I do, however, enjoy lifting facts from the opinions of pundits which demonstrate a fallacy of logic in the conclusions offered by those pundits. Its something I do with some frequency.
Let us explore some of the "facts" lifted from the article in question-Mr. Timberlandko
l. The Democrats must defend mor seats than the Republicans in the Senate- 19 Democratic Seats up against 15 for the Republicans
2. 10 of those seats are in states Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Indiana- Bush won in the 2000 campaign.
3. Democratic incumbents may not run for another term leaving open seats in hard-to-win states for Democrats.
I AM NOW PUTTING IN A COMMENT (AGAIN A FACT AS THE ABOVE ARE FACTS--EDWARDS-N.C. HUTCHINGS- S.C. AND MILLER- GA. ARE NOT RUNNING AGAIN.)
Only 25 to 50 seats up for grabs depending on what the national campaign looks like.
I would be beholden to anyone who could point out any errors of fact in the above.
Dunno if this disappoints you, Italgato, but I was challenging neither your facts nor their source. I pointed out I thought it great fun to use the other side's facts to refute their assertion ... sorta like I'm doing now, I guess
I must admit Mr. Timberlandko that I am confused.
How do you use the other side's facts to refute their assertions.
Fact- More Democratic Senate Seats are up in 2004 than Republican Senate Seats
Assertion- It would appear that the Democrats will have a more difficult time defending their seats than the Republicans.
I really don't understand how that fact can be used to quarrel with the assertion!
