• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Do you vote for Trump?

Only a smart-ass would claim winning big using the actual scoring system isn't winning big.

Hillary was at her most sympathetic during the cheating allegations. Bringing up old issues won't hurt her.

Well, the term "winning big" is completely subjective, PH. I posed the extreme hypothetical situation of one candidate winning each of the 50 states (and DC) by one vote. Say there are 130,000,000 votes cast. (That's roughly how many were cast in 2012). One candidate would have won 100% of the electoral votes & 51 more popular votes out of 130 million. I fully understand how the "scoring system" works...but the question I want to put to you is this: As far as a mandate to govern, would you categorize that victory as "winning big"? That is my only point. Yes, you can win narrowly in several states and pile up larger electoral margins....but does that really qualify as a mandate to install all of your ideas with no regard for the other side if you barely squeak by in the popular vote from all the people (or, in GWB's situation in 2000, you actually lose the popular vote by more than 500,000 votes)?

All of this is merely meant for friendly discussion. I would think that everyone here understands how the Electoral College system works.
 
There is an objective scoring system in place.
 
There is an objective scoring system in place.

All I was asking was for your opinion regarding a specific question. As I said, everyone knows how the "scoring system" works as far as determining the winner. However, that system does not necessarily give the winner the legitimacy needed in the minds of the citizens in order to effectively govern....as we saw after the 2000 election debacle.
 
I didn't read your irrelevant post. "Winning big" clearly refers to the scoring system in place. Debating otherwise makes no sense.
 
I didn't read your irrelevant post. "Winning big" clearly refers to the scoring system in place. Debating otherwise makes no sense.

Very well. It's really not that important....other than that I always try to answer questions asked of me to the best of my ability (especially when it's something as easy as asking for my opinion on a matter), and I don't understand why you would not extend that same courtesy to me. But it's no big thing. Carry on.
 
Last edited:
You claimed to put me on ignore for several months.

I ignored your irrelevant tangent that sought to confound a simple argument.
 
I still back Howard Dean. As I've said about 4 times on these threads, I'm going to write-in a vote for him for president next November. Dean is the biggest reason why I won't vote for Hillary Clinton. In 2003-4, she and her cronies in the DLC (Bruce Reed, Al From, Lanny Davis, James Carville, Paul Begala, Harold Ford, etc.) deliberately sabotaged Howard Dean's campaign and gave us four more years of Bush/Cheney just so that the deck would be cleared for her to become president in 2008. The only thing they didn't count on was Barack Obama coming out of nowhere to win the nomination. Everyone knew that after eight years of Bush/Cheney, any Democrat was going to waltz into the White House....so the last thing the Clinton operatives wanted was a President Dean running for reelection in 2008. They didn't give a damn what four more years of Bush/Cheney would do to the nation. So that's how I feel about Hillary Clinton now.

ETA: Not electing Howard Dean in 2004 was the biggest presidential election mistake this country has made since it reelected Richard Nixon over George McGovern in 1972. Dean was the perfect man for the time to be elected in 2004. An opportunity that only comes along once in a lifetime....and the nation blew it. And Hillary Clinton and the Clinton cronies in the DLC are as much to blame for that as anyone in the country. I have a long memory (ever heard of Carl Tacy and Gene Hooks?)....and I am not as forgiving as Howard Dean.

Harold Ford was 33 years old in 2003. THIRTY-THREE.


You are out of your damn mind.
 
That's why I said that the Clinton cronies in the DLC were as much to blame as anyone.....and all of this didn't just start on the night of the Iowa caucuses. There is a timeline going back for two months or so into November, 2003...after Dean had taken a commanding lead in the polls & money-raising and was in the process of being endorsed by former President Carter, former Vice President Gore & the SEIU....that the Clinton people in the DLC realized that Dean was actually a serious threat to win the nomination. At that time, they sent their people out to the talk shows in a coordinated attack to paint Dean as "too angry" to be president. Then they used sophisticated electronic equipment to create the infamous "Dean scream" after Iowa to follow up on that strategy....and used their influence within the media to get the clip replayed about a million times in the next couple of weeks. Never before was such an insignificant event played up to be such a big thing in a presidential nomination race. And the Clinton people that I have listed, as well as others within the media, did that deliberately.

(You are assuredly going to see the same tactics multiplied tenfold from the GOP establishment regarding Donald Trump. Entrenched powers such as the establishments of both political parties will not give up their power without a fight to the death. We saw it with McGovern. We saw it with Goldwater. We saw it with Dean. And you will see it with Trump.)

ETA: And Dean was hardly a "poor candidate". He was a great candidate who just got steam-rolled by the party establishment and its connections with a powerful media. Dean came from nowhere...and the tiny state of Vermont...to take a commanding lead in the Democratic race by the end of 2003 by using a totally grassroots organization and completely revolutionizing the concept of using social media and the internet to bypass the powerful party bosses. He stood up against the Iraq War when no other Democratic candidate had the courage to do so (other than Dennis Kucinich, who never had any chance to win the nomination). The nation was the big loser in 2004, not Howard Dean. It didn't take long for any reasonable person to see that during the years of 2005 thru 2008.

So was Barack Obama a better Presidential candidate than Howard Dean? Yes or no?
 
So was Barack Obama a better Presidential candidate than Howard Dean? Yes or no?

If you are talking about candidate as in campaigning skills, Obama was better. I can't think of a person who was better at campaigning than Obama. However if you are talking about candidate as in who would make the better president, it would be Dean...by a country mile.
 
If you are talking about candidate as in campaigning skills, Obama was better. I can't think of a person who was better at campaigning than Obama. However if you are talking about candidate as in who would make the better president, it would be Dean...by a country mile.

Cool. I would probably tend to agree with you, but hard to say for sure with only one ever having the job. Ya know?


Anyway, how did a 33 year old man stop Howard Dean from being the nominee? Curious to hear this one...

Harold Ford was 33 years old in 2003. THIRTY-THREE.


You are out of your damn mind.
 
Harold Ford was 33 years old in 2003. THIRTY-THREE.


You are out of your damn mind.

In 2003, Harold Ford was in his 4th term as a U.S. congressman from Tennessee. He was also a member of the "Blue Dog" caucus and very close to those guys I mentioned from the DLC. As a matter of fact, after he finished five terms in congress & lost an election for the Senate, he actually became the chairman of the DLC in January, 2007. Ford was far from a progressive. Here is an interesting article on Harold Ford from Salon:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/09/harold_ford_jr_smirking_sociopath/

Harold Ford, Jr. is the walking, breathing embodiment of virtually everything rotted and corrupt about the American political class. He entered Congress at the age of 26 only by virtue of nepotistic benefits: while in law school, he ran for the seat long held by his father of the same name (he then promptly failed the test for admission to the Tennessee bar). In Congress, he voted for de-regulation of Wall Street (which helped precipitate the 2008 financial crisis); to authorize the Iraq War (and then harshly criticized Democrats who opposed it and refused to admit its error even as late as 2007); in favor of a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages (The Advocate branded him “anti-gay”); and was one of the few Democrats to support the credit-card-industry-demanded bankruptcy “reform” bill that made it harder for impoverished consumers to discharge consumer debt.

After Tennessee voters drove him from Congress by rejecting his 2006 Senate bid, Ford immediately cashed in on his servitude to Wall Street and peddled his D.C. influence by becoming Vice Chairman and Senior Policy Adviser of Merrill Lynch. During Ford’s tenure, “Merrill Lynch nearly collapsed, was bailed out by US taxpayers, and went through a troubled merger with Bank of America,” yet he nonetheless received $2 million a year in guaranteed salary plus what were almost certainly substantial annual bonuses. He left what had become Bank of America Merrill to become a Senior Managing Director at Morgan Stanley, at which time he bought a $3 million co-op in Manhattan. Upon leaving Congress, Ford also cashed in by becoming the last Chairman of the corporatist Democratic Leadership Council (“last” because, typifying his career, the DLC ceased to exist under his leadership). He cashed in further by becoming a Fox News contributor, until he left for MSNBC.

Reflecting the interests he typically serves so eagerly, Ford recently attacked Democratic criticisms of Mitt Romney’s career at Bain Capital on the ground that “private equity is a good thing in many, many instances.” So that’s Harold Ford, Jr.: opportunistic, craven, sleazy nepotistic corporatist who has made a career out of converting his unearned political influence and loyalty to the banking industry into large wads of cash.

This morning, Ford, as he often is, was on Morning Joe (independently significant is that fact that one of the most prolific NBC/MSNBC political commentators — a Democrat — is also a senior Wall Street executive). The show devoted a six-minute segment to Esquire‘s Tom Junod, who — as I noted earlier today — has just published a worthwhile and heartfelt article entitled “The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama,” which examines in depth the multiple ways the President has seized the power to kill; in one section, Junod reports on the U.S. killing of 16-year-old Abdulrahman Awlaki in Yemen, and Esquire has published that section separately under this headline: “Obama’s Administration Killed a 16-Year-Old American and Didn’t Say Anything About It. This Is Justice?” In the Morning Joe segment, Junod repeatedly documented the numerous innocent Muslims — including children — that are continuously killed by Obama’s attacks, such as the 16-year-old Denver-born son of the Islamic preacher, a mere two weeks after his father was killed.


These are the kind of Democrats who worked behind the scenes to destroy Howard Dean's bid for the Democratic nomination in late 2003 and early 2004. The DLC was full of them....and they were all Clinton people of one form or another. And I didn't say that Ford stopped Dean. He was just part of the DLC, which led a coordinated attack to stop Dean.
 
Last edited:
Just go ahead and delete that post too, Bud, because it is full of nonsense.
 
Just go ahead and delete that post too, Bud, because it is full of nonsense.

Why don't you just admit that you posted without knowing the first thing about Harold Ford, other than his age....and you're supposed to be a progressive, aren't you? Everything in that Salon article is fact. All those votes are on the record. And Harold Ford is typical of the people behind Hillary Clinton.

Howard Dean was a progressive. Hillary Clinton is a corporate-owned political hack.
 
Well, the term "winning big" is completely subjective, PH. I posed the extreme hypothetical situation of one candidate winning each of the 50 states (and DC) by one vote. Say there are 130,000,000 votes cast. (That's roughly how many were cast in 2012). One candidate would have won 100% of the electoral votes & 51 more popular votes out of 130 million. I fully understand how the "scoring system" works...but the question I want to put to you is this: As far as a mandate to govern, would you categorize that victory as "winning big"? That is my only point. Yes, you can win narrowly in several states and pile up larger electoral margins....but does that really qualify as a mandate to install all of your ideas with no regard for the other side if you barely squeak by in the popular vote from all the people (or, in GWB's situation in 2000, you actually lose the popular vote by more than 500,000 votes)?

All of this is merely meant for friendly discussion. I would think that everyone here understands how the Electoral College system works.

All I was asking was for your opinion regarding a specific question. As I said, everyone knows how the "scoring system" works as far as determining the winner. However, that system does not necessarily give the winner the legitimacy needed in the minds of the citizens in order to effectively govern....as we saw after the 2000 election debacle.

Very well. It's really not that important....other than that I always try to answer questions asked of me to the best of my ability (especially when it's something as easy as asking for my opinion on a matter), and I don't understand why you would not extend that same courtesy to me. But it's no big thing. Carry on.

If you are talking about candidate as in campaigning skills, Obama was better. I can't think of a person who was better at campaigning than Obama. However if you are talking about candidate as in who would make the better president, it would be Dean...by a country mile.

In 2003, Harold Ford was in his 4th term as a U.S. congressman from Tennessee. He was also a member of the "Blue Dog" caucus and very close to those guys I mentioned from the DLC. As a matter of fact, after he finished five terms in congress & lost an election for the Senate, he actually became the chairman of the DLC in January, 2007. Ford was far from a progressive. Here is an interesting article on Harold Ford from Salon:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/09/harold_ford_jr_smirking_sociopath/

Harold Ford, Jr. is the walking, breathing embodiment of virtually everything rotted and corrupt about the American political class. He entered Congress at the age of 26 only by virtue of nepotistic benefits: while in law school, he ran for the seat long held by his father of the same name (he then promptly failed the test for admission to the Tennessee bar). In Congress, he voted for de-regulation of Wall Street (which helped precipitate the 2008 financial crisis); to authorize the Iraq War (and then harshly criticized Democrats who opposed it and refused to admit its error even as late as 2007); in favor of a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages (The Advocate branded him “anti-gay”); and was one of the few Democrats to support the credit-card-industry-demanded bankruptcy “reform” bill that made it harder for impoverished consumers to discharge consumer debt.

After Tennessee voters drove him from Congress by rejecting his 2006 Senate bid, Ford immediately cashed in on his servitude to Wall Street and peddled his D.C. influence by becoming Vice Chairman and Senior Policy Adviser of Merrill Lynch. During Ford’s tenure, “Merrill Lynch nearly collapsed, was bailed out by US taxpayers, and went through a troubled merger with Bank of America,” yet he nonetheless received $2 million a year in guaranteed salary plus what were almost certainly substantial annual bonuses. He left what had become Bank of America Merrill to become a Senior Managing Director at Morgan Stanley, at which time he bought a $3 million co-op in Manhattan. Upon leaving Congress, Ford also cashed in by becoming the last Chairman of the corporatist Democratic Leadership Council (“last” because, typifying his career, the DLC ceased to exist under his leadership). He cashed in further by becoming a Fox News contributor, until he left for MSNBC.

Reflecting the interests he typically serves so eagerly, Ford recently attacked Democratic criticisms of Mitt Romney’s career at Bain Capital on the ground that “private equity is a good thing in many, many instances.” So that’s Harold Ford, Jr.: opportunistic, craven, sleazy nepotistic corporatist who has made a career out of converting his unearned political influence and loyalty to the banking industry into large wads of cash.

This morning, Ford, as he often is, was on Morning Joe (independently significant is that fact that one of the most prolific NBC/MSNBC political commentators — a Democrat — is also a senior Wall Street executive). The show devoted a six-minute segment to Esquire‘s Tom Junod, who — as I noted earlier today — has just published a worthwhile and heartfelt article entitled “The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama,” which examines in depth the multiple ways the President has seized the power to kill; in one section, Junod reports on the U.S. killing of 16-year-old Abdulrahman Awlaki in Yemen, and Esquire has published that section separately under this headline: “Obama’s Administration Killed a 16-Year-Old American and Didn’t Say Anything About It. This Is Justice?” In the Morning Joe segment, Junod repeatedly documented the numerous innocent Muslims — including children — that are continuously killed by Obama’s attacks, such as the 16-year-old Denver-born son of the Islamic preacher, a mere two weeks after his father was killed.


These are the kind of Democrats who worked behind the scenes to destroy Howard Dean's bid for the Democratic nomination in late 2003 and early 2004. The DLC was full of them....and they were all Clinton people of one form or another. And I didn't say that Ford stopped Dean. He was just part of the DLC, which led a coordinated attack to stop Dean.

Why don't you just admit that you posted without knowing the first thing about Harold Ford, other than his age....and you're supposed to be a progressive, aren't you? Everything in that Salon article is fact. And Harold Ford is typical of the people behind Hillary Clinton.

Howard Dean was a progressive. Hillary Clinton is a corporate-owned political hack.

QFP
 
If you are talking about candidate as in campaigning skills, Obama was better. I can't think of a person who was better at campaigning than Obama. However if you are talking about candidate as in who would make the better president, it would be Dean...by a country mile.

So why would the dreaded DNC be able to topple one candidate at the first hurdle so easily and then lose to another hurdle 4 years later?

Your Dean/DNC conspiracy theory is just so brazenly false that I'm pretty sure you don't even believe it yourself.
 
Why don't you just admit that you posted without knowing the first thing about Harold Ford, other than his age....and you're supposed to be a progressive, aren't you? Everything in that Salon article is fact. All those votes are on the record. And Harold Ford is typical of the people behind Hillary Clinton.

Howard Dean was a progressive. Hillary Clinton is a corporate-owned political hack.

hahahhahahahahahaha

No.

hahhahahahahahahahaha
 
So why would the dreaded DNC be able to topple one candidate at the first hurdle so easily and then lose to another hurdle 4 years later?

Your Dean/DNC conspiracy theory is just so brazenly false that I'm pretty sure you don't even believe it yourself.

DV7, if you are going to continue to discuss this situation, the first thing you need to learn is that the DLC and the DNC are two completely different organizations. I haven't said the first thing about the DNC.

(And don't try to act like it was just a typo, because you did it twice in a two-sentence post. You are in way over your head in trying to discuss this situation with me. You evidently do not even know these are two different organizations. It would be like me trying to discuss European soccer with you....something that I know nothing about)
 
DV7, if you are going to continue to discuss this situation, the first thing you need to learn is that the DLC and the DNC are two completely different organizations. I haven't said the first thing about the DNC.

(And don't try to act like it was just a typo, because you did it twice in a two-sentence post. You are in way over your head in trying to discuss this situation with me. You evidently do not even know these are two different organizations. It would be like me trying to discuss European soccer with you....something that I know nothing about)

BKF? More like TKO.

Hafta start calling the little fella dv4.5
 
If by some act of god Howard Dean won the democratic nomination, he would have gotten steamrolled in the general election just like every other time the Democratic party has been dumb enough to nominate a northeastern liberal/progressive.

His crazy outburst which was the downfall in his campaign was after a disappointing 3rd place finish in Iowa.
 
Did Dean win a single state in that primary? Didn't he only win his home state after he tucked his tail between his legs and quit?
 
Back
Top