Name. Let's have it. Who could have beaten Gore. Not who you HOPED might could, but who positively WOULD have.
Rather than voting "for" someone, they were voting "against" someone, and in so doing they selected the guy with the highest poll numbers.
That's something you tell yourself to justify your own beliefs.
And it's damn insulting to the other posters on FR; we KNEW who we were voting for and did so gladly.
We trust George W. Bush and it's obviously killing you.
Trying to predict who can or cannot win an election is a losing proposition. History does tell us though that over the last 20 years, extremely conservative candidates do very well come election time.
If you recall, most people thought that Bush Sr. would win in a landslide in 1992. Even the "experts" in the democratic party believed it. How many people believed that a corrupt, draft dodging southern governor would have defeated an incumbent President who had a 90% approval rating 18 months before the election?
How many people predicted that Reagan would win in 1980 (in a landslide, no less)? Not very many. The elites told us he was unelectable. Same thing with Gingrich in 1994. We were told he didn't have a broad appeal, and he certainly wasn't referred to as "dreamy" by anyone (not even among the millions of us who supported him).
I could go on all day with examples of the underdog winning. Rather than pick who has the best chance of winning (considering the evidence that trying to do so is foolish), I think it's best to support the best man or woman for the job and get behind them 100%.
And it's damn insulting to the other posters on FR; we KNEW who we were voting for and did so gladly.
I thought I knew who I was voting for, but I have been proven wrong. I won't be suckered again.
Tell me this: did you vote for the candidate who supported vouchers, or the one who increased the Education budget by 27%?
The one who promised fiscal responsibilty or the one who is increasing federal spending at an incredible rate?
The one who promised to veto the CFR bill, or the one who signed it into law?
The one who promised he was serious about enforcing the laws, or the one who refuses to enforce our border laws?
Bush has certianly done things that I agree with, but he is still taking the country in the wrong direction of an expansionist federal government.
And I will oppose that, regardless of who is in office, or what party they are affiliated with.