1 posted on
05/04/2003 5:57:38 PM PDT by
nwrep
To: *Election President; *President Bush list; *Bush Babes list
ping
2 posted on
05/04/2003 6:00:09 PM PDT by
nwrep
To: nwrep
Yea , but look who he ran against !
3 posted on
05/04/2003 6:12:06 PM PDT by
sushiman
To: nwrep
5 posted on
05/04/2003 6:18:38 PM PDT by
deport
(Beware of Idiots bearing gifts.... One maybe the FR Joke)
To: nwrep
It's a useful indicator, but the "right track, wrong track" measure is even better. It predicted that Clinton would fail to win a majority of the vote in 1996-- which surprised most every pundit.
6 posted on
05/04/2003 6:20:58 PM PDT by
GraniteStateConservative
(Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
To: nwrep
Reagan actually used the veto, and he took his political enemies to task with truth and humor. He ruffled some feathers and the country is much better off for it, though he did lose some percentage points in the popularity contests.
To: nwrep
Yeah, but there are a lot more dead Democrats voting nowadays!
13 posted on
05/04/2003 8:09:02 PM PDT by
Redleg Duke
(Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
To: nwrep
Reagan was a Californian, and typically (with Gore and Tennessee being an exception) presidential candidates -- even bad ones -- win their home states.
It was pretty nice for Reagan starting off knowing he would probably win California.
What would the next election look like if we could fairly confidently put California in GWBush's column? (hint: it would be over -- we wouldn't need to count the votes [except in Florida where they now refer to it as 'practice.']
To: nwrep
You've got the wrong number for Bush-41. He was at 34%, not 43%.
To: nwrep
bttt
51 posted on
05/29/2003 5:22:00 PM PDT by
votelife
(FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
