Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (26096)	1/24/2004 4:09:36 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 793931

That is one weird poll. But as we all know, a simple majorities does not a president elect. Electoral politics makes everything far dicier. And the combination of Democrats considered the best ticket to beat Bush in November among Democrats and Democratic leaners would be Kerry-Edwards or Kerry-Clark, both at 21 percent, followed by Kerry-Dean (19%). Personally, I think Kerry-Graham would be stronger than any of those mentioned above, if only because of electoral politics. Graham wouldn't guarantee FL for the Democrats, but would make it more likely at any rate--more likely I think than Edwards would make NC, and counts for more electoral votes. Do people on this board have an opinion as to whether the electoral is still a good thing or a bad thing? Clearly, the intent of the people at the Constitutional Convention and, indeed, that whole generation, was quite different from the way the EC is run today. Then, people were supposed to elect reputable and respected individuals to go to a meeting with a real purpose--that is, the electorals were intended to exercise their individual judgment about who would be the best candidate. It was supposed to be a group that was elected for this one act and then disbanded in order to lessen the possibility of corruption, and instill in the electors a sense of weighty purpose. They were definitely NOT intended to rubber stamp the desires of the people who elected them. Further, they were supposed to be from different states so that the then very different regional differences would be reflected, differences which are far less pronounced today than they were in the late 18th C.

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (26096)	1/24/2004 6:47:10 PM
From: KyrosL	Respond to of 793931

Very surprising results in that poll. In retrospect, the media focus on the Democratic primary and its numerous debates has a side effect very detrimental for Bush: Because the candidates stick mostly to attacking Bush's positions, the Democratic positions get a gigantic free media ride. Bush may need all those millions after all. With Iraq simmering down and the economy bubbling up, Bush should have been doing a lot better by now. If the job machine doesn't restart soon, Bush may be in trouble.