RCow
-
Posts
195 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by RCow
-
-
Luntz thinks Kerry is going to win. Turnout overall has been as much about economic security as about national security vote. Kerry is winning economic voters 4 to 1. (Bush wins on national security vote.) Kerry could be headed to 310 or 320 electoral vote. But if Bush carries Fla. or Ohio, Bush can still win. (Networks aren't likely to make a call early because of tight races in Fla. and Ohio.) But . . .
Way too close to call/BUT leaning Kerry by 1 percent in Fla. and Ohio
Pa.: 54 percent for Kerry
Wisc: 3 point lead for Kerry
Iowa.: 1 point lead for Kerry (Bush supposed to win)
NM: Kerry plus 2
Nev: Bush plus 1
NH: Kerry by 3
NJ: 8 points for Kerry
Colo: Bush plus 2
Mich: Kerry plus 4
When all is said and done: "Kerry's people must be feeling very confident." Election not over. But based on initial data, Luntz's educated judgment is that Kerry is headed to victory. Unless something happens with late voting. Right now, Kerry is doing about 2 points better in states where expected to be closer.
Looks like economy security more important than Bush knew.
Senate: Looks like GOP picks up 3. Dems pick up 1, for net up 2 for GOP Thune over Daschle by 4 points. Likely enough to sustain Indian reservations numbers coming in later for Daschle.
GOP picking up N.C. and S.C.
Bunning in Ky.
Oklahoma goes GOP (Coburn)
Plus 3 for GOP.
Castor in Fla. is looking good.
Salazar up in Colo.
-
Internal Democratic numbers. Yeah, I know, they're wrong . . .
OH
52 / 47 - Kerry projected to win by 4 points
FL
52/48 - Kerry projected to win by 1 point
PA
58/42
IA
50/48
WI
53/47
MN
57/42
NV
48/49
MI
51/45
NM
49/49
-
-
-
Great job, Gringo, excellent thread topic.
-
-
Who's on the Oline? Sportsline keeps saying "J. Bannan".
BTW, that short 5 yard TD run just killed his average.
-
Your partisan translator is working fine, you refused to read what he wrote.
"I keep hearing about Kerry's record for the last 20 years. I'd love to know what GW was doing 20 years ago."
Don't suppose you want to answer that question.
-- in the unrelated note: You can't possibly proud of Bush's policy education and medicare policy disasters. Each is an embarrassment. Hence, they barely register as Bush campaign issues. Very few Rs who voted for those absurd bills will even discuss them.
Kind of fits the theme of: Firm, resolute and astonishingly wrong.
-
Yeah, really embarrassed when compared to the Mets since 1986 (or ever). Some stats:
The METS have finished AT LEAST 13 games out of first place in their division SEVEN times in the last 11 years while the Yankees have been in the playoffs every year, winning 9 division titles and 4 Championships.
Since 1988, the METS have finished LAST in their division more times (3) than first (1).
Cumulatively, the METS have finished 287.5 games behind their division's winner since their last first place finish. That's an average of 18 games back.
Maybe Mo Vaughn will come back soon.
The Mets. That's funny.
Obviously, as usual, you just don't get it.
It's pathetic how you waste your time typing up irrelevant crap just so you can (again) tell someone how stupid they are, when in fact you have no idea what you're talking about.
Next time, take a breather and try to imagine you're not as clever as you think.
-
Ah, Met fans hate the Yankees almost as much as a Red Sox fan, it's likely Met fans were buying the beer and still rejoicing in the Yankees' embarrassment.
-
-
Wow. You REALLY, REALLY don't get it. God I hope Kerry wins.
(Not that you'll address it, but I'd love to hear you explain the black part. Is it not "pro-black" or is it anti-black? What does it mean to be either one? Also didn't you mean pro-abortion? Is Pro-gay marriage mean you promote or encourage gay marriage; does it mean your also anti-straight marriage?)
-
How many times before 2004 have you seen this ridiculous question in a presidential debate? If he gave any answer, what would the follow question have been? Are the moderators in the business of supplying Kerry with campaign material?
The net of this is that Bush did not fall in to an undisguised trap. Every person on the planet makes mistakes every day. Why do we need confirmation of this?
Where does the buck stop? Where do the stupid questions stop?
If you think it's a stupid question then you don't have any idea why Bush is so despised by half the nation.
-
Shameless. Yeah, that's right, Democrats will party with the terrorists. You just don't get it. You still have no idea why Bush is not cruising to re-election.
-
The irony of this post, and the irony of this column. This guy writes a column admitting the best thing to heal the "hole in the heart", the best possible outcome for the entire world, the thing that will make it all better, is the successful conclusion of the foreign policy set forth by President Bush.
But he also clearly believes that John Kerry, who disagrees with every aspect of the President's policy, is the better of the two to successfully carry it out.
He ignores the French and German statements to the effect that they have no intention of changing their positions no matter who is President-elect on November 3rd, and their complicity in the Oil-for-food scandal which would explain why. Please explain how you or John Kerry change their minds on this.
How about his statement that the we are the ones exporting fear, you agree with his take on that as well?
Can you explain to me when exactly the "whole world" liked Ronald Reagan? Was it when he declared the USSR as the "evil empire", or when Pershing missiles were deployed? I'm assuming the list of admirers includes John (the Reagan years were a time of "moral darkness") Kerry, since he chose to invoke Reagan favorably during the debates.
The irony resides in the article, and the defense of it.
This is what's wrong with the Bush Administration. It has completely failed to admit that maybe things aren't going so well, that huge mistakes were made and we should possibly adjust our course. Arrogance in face of the obvious.
You don't get it, this article was NOT about John Kerry, or the Democrats. He makes NO reference or judgement to Kerry's record nor does he EVER say that everything Bush did was wrong.
In fact, Friedman has in general been supportive of Bush's policy goals but not the way he has managed it. That's why he continually uses the term "incompetence." You can fully support the decision to build a house but criticize how it is constructed -- it's poorly built, mismanged, has extreme cost overruns and he still hasn't explained what it will look like, how it will it get built or how much it will cost. Friedman still supports the idea of building the house but contends we will only succeed if Bush admits some mistakes and makes a few much needed corrections. (This analogy can go on for some time . . .)
It really doesn't matter what France and Germany say right now. They have their politics as well and there are many other nations in the world. We need as much help as we can get. We can't and shouldn't do this alone, it's simply won't work. It's about finding a way to make the policy succeed -- at as little cost to us; but it will take world leadership. We need the world to follow us and help us follow through. Friedman makes NO judgement about going into Iraq (which he supported) but he discusses the negative consquences of Bush's decisions and policy making that have hamstrung our ability to follow through and succeed; and what he thinks BUSH (not Kerry) could do to make a course correction. However, to do that he has to stop giving the Republican rightwing a big ol' wet kiss and do what's necessary to succeed.
Just as important, it's not just about Iraq but other negative consequences Bush's policy and approach have made on the War on Terror and other troubles around the world.
As for the export fear line: you'd have to purposefully misread his meaning to believe he was equating Bush to Bin Ladin. It's about what kind of leader or nation we want to be; one that's fatalistic and controls the debate by extolling fear, distrust and jingoism -- if you don't do as we say you'll all die -- or worse, if you not with us your against us. The right wing in this country eats it up but's no way for a world leader to act, and certainly not in the best interest of the US.
The world certainly wasn't in love with Reagan, but they certainly respected him a hell of a lot more and as a result he got a lot more accomplished. Unlike his father, W sure made the decision to get rid of Saddam; but it's too bad W has yet to demonstrate the ability and skill to do what is necessary to follow through and win the peace as well.
-
-
The irony of this thread. This guy is the supreme moderate of foriegn policy and the right kicks him to the curb because he doesn't praise Bush. He supported the Iraq War but has always believed Bush mishandled the walk up and Mission Accomplished aftermath.
So, the best way to heal the "hole in the heart" of the world is for the French and Germans to reverse their positions on helping out in Iraq, and for President Bush's policies to be successful (a democratic Iraq for an ally). That would be nice.However, it is obvious that no level of ability to communicate, follow through and persuade would have changed or will change the positions of the countries so deeply involved with the oil-for-food scandal - he should read more current events.
The first part is very true and one of the few perscriptions for an optimistic future in the MidEast. The second is right wing propoganda. It's like saying the ONLY reason we went to Iraq is to enrich Cheney and Halliburton. It's possibly "a" factor, but barely registers as the principle reason or motivation.
If the Bush Adminstration stuck much more closely to Friedman's prescriptions over the past two years they'd be cruising to reelection. Instead Bush listened to the extreme wing of his Party and is teetering on the brink of disaster, both in the world and electorally.
Hope for the Middle East is supporting the moderates not fueling the extremists. That would also work here at home.
When the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, America had more power in the world. When much of the world detests George Bush, America has less power. People do not want to be seen standing next to us. It doesn't mean we should run our foreign policy as a popularity contest, but it does mean that leading is not just about making decisions - it's also the ability to communicate, follow through and persuade. -
Not even close. The Mets were a doormat team that came out of absolutely nowhere to win the pennant and shock an awesome O's team in the WS.
The Sox were six outs from the WS the year before and THEN went out and added one of the 3 best pitchers in baseball.
It's a shock to their fans after the long wait, but there was no question in April that they were one of the best teams in baseball.
I'm a Mets fan first (then Sox - I don't want to discuss '86) but the 2004 Sox would destroy the 1969 Mets. In '69, I'm not sure the Mets were favored to finish the season let alone 1st in the National. The '69 Orioles were dominant, it was a complete shock.
-
Talked to my Dad last night, a life long die-hard Sox fan (which a lot rubbed off on me) and he was simply overjoyed. I had a heart attack every inning but I couldn't imagine what he went through. He said, "I feel so relieved."
I told him, "now don't die on me now." His Dad, who died last year, would have turned 95 yesterday. Missed it by one year but at least my Dad lived to see it.
-
I was actually referring to your criticism of OGT in another thread, but your ability to comprehend nuance has never been very strong. The only thing sadder than that is your continued attempts to pin the same weak points and Debbie jumping on like the little slobbering ankle biter that she is.
Conspiracies imply competence. Shoots that whole theory out of the water.
Sorry, mindreading and codebreaking vague, nuanced references to previous threads was never my strong suit. Then again, making a credible argument was never yours.
-
Hilarious. Truly.
This is a good system, one makes a comment then another can come in later to say "good one." That way you can get mutual affirmation.
Have you tried "I know you are but what am I?" That's even more clever.
I can take as well as I can dish it. However, you have a weak character trait to tell me how I feel and take liberties about what I think in order to fight that ghost. For instance, you pretend or lie that I objected to Rich's humor (it was pretty clever - especially for Rich) when in fact I will just give it right back to him. I retorted to your "me too" post with quick observation about how you both are (somewhat ironically) very much alike. I can expand on it if you'd like.
Now back to "Conspiracy Theatre" brought to you by the Trilateral Commission.
-
-
I saw a great game down there.....1999 I think.....Baltimore vs Tennessee, the year Tennessee went to the Super Bowl. Baltimore came back, Rod Woodson iced it with a late interception for touchdown.
I think it is a very nice stadium that they have in Baltimore. Never been to FedEx, but maybe next year I'll make a trek down there to see a game....if I can get tickets.
Tickets are hard to come by. I've gone corporate each time sitting in "good" seats (never been "upstairs"). Place already feels tired. To top it off, they still haven't figured out the traffic and parking.
-
Uhhhhhhh, where do we start here.....
Ravens fans are not Redskins fans in waiting, or whatever weird idea you have there. People in Baltimore pretty much despise any and all Washington teams.....especially the Redskins over any other. There's a history of hatred there, going back to the days of Washington football owners who did what they could to circumvent any chance of a Baltimore football team. When the Colts arrived that finally changed. No.....Ravens fans and Baltimore people in general hate the Redskins.
Does tailgating suck? It's not good, certainly not the same as Orchard Park. Some of it exists, but not a lot. Most of it occurs under that monstrosity of elevated highways in between Camden Yards and the football stadium.
I guess it depends on the game.....but I have been at the bank stadium where the Baltimore fans can generate as much noise as at Rich Stadium. Maybe it's easier to generate noise in the bank stadium because the stands are a bit more steep. The upper decks look much closer to one another than Rich Stadium.
The stadium itself is quite nice. Needs a few more bathrooms, but plentiful space in the concourses. Overall, inside the stadium looks pretty nice. Field looks really good.....top of the line scoreboards. Overall game presentation is quite good.
The prices are the poor thing about the Ravens franchise. Otherwise I think they put on a pretty good show.
Boring? No......I don't agree with that at all. I have been to enough games at Rich Stadium in the past few years where "boring" was the theme of the entire day.
Agreed, the tailgating is so-so, but it's the urban environment and setting. Baltimore fans hate Washington. I really like the stadium, it's doesn't have tradition because it's new and the fans may have been less enthused because it was against the Bills (face it, we suck, no rivalry at ALL), the game was pretty dull other than a few plays, and the outcome was pretty much decided early.
I've been to a few games -- two versus Pittsburgh and one against Cleveland and the atmosphere was electric. I follow the Ravens and not nearly the fan compared to the Bills but you couldn't help but get into it.
Stadium staff is friendly and efficient, pretty/quick short lines at the concession and rest rooms, easy to get in and out and while the traffic can be a B word that's to be expected. The Club Level is to die for. Great sightlines, every seat is good (even way up top - yes, I've been there), sound system is awesome and of course the scoreboard is unrivaled.
Oh, and FedEx sucks. What a horrible stadium.
Latest Internal Exit Polls
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Ok, let's concede 15 points in PA -- that's still a Kerry win, isn't it?