To: CWOJackson
Yep, he'll probably not stand a chance at re-election.Child, it means if the Dems nominate someone like Warner he WILL be the next president. The party of an unpopular president WILL lose the next election. Ask Truman and Nixon.
35 posted on
02/27/2006 5:23:20 PM PST by
Sam the Sham
(A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
To: Sam the Sham
But, the election is still a long way off; furthermore, I don't put any credence in any poll sponsored by old media.
38 posted on
02/27/2006 5:24:35 PM PST by
Laverne
To: Sam the Sham
Child, it means if the Dems nominate someone like Warner he WILL be the next president. The party of an unpopular president WILL lose the next election. Ask Truman and Nixon.
Tell me, has the U.S. and its population changed any in the last 30 or 40 or 50 years? These are not the same times and the not the same parties and the not the same population.
44 posted on
02/27/2006 5:27:06 PM PST by
adorno
To: Sam the Sham
Hate to burst your bubble but no one was going to beat Eisenhower in 1952. He was being courted by both parties but just happened to agree a bit more with the Republicans of the time than with the Democrats. If he had run as a Democrat, he would have won in a landslide.
56 posted on
02/27/2006 5:31:38 PM PST by
COEXERJ145
(Pat Buchanan lost a family member in the holocaust. The man fell out of a guard tower.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson