Buchanan's answer to this allegation by Tim Russert on Meet the Press today ("Aren't you just making the Repub lose?") was essentially this: "If Algore is elected, I'm much more upset that I lost to him than I am that the Repub lost to him - I'm in it to win". Dennis, you've just about converted me to vote my conscience. Let me say this: If the Duocratic parties keep Pat B. (or other reformer) out of the debates, then it will piss me off so much I will vote for the reform candidate. If he's really Hitler, and you have evidence of it, then you surely shouldn't mind debating him, guys.
Buchanan can win? part II
- Thread starter Futo Inu
- Start date
Ed Brunner
New member
Pat Buchanan has to be considered s serious candidate. Can he win?? Ask me next October. A whole lot is going to happen and a lot of it will be within the Reform Party.
Do I think Pat could be a good President? Sure. Better than Algore? Definitely.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
Do I think Pat could be a good President? Sure. Better than Algore? Definitely.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
Futo, welcome!
All,
Seriously, folks! Isn't this going to be an interesting year?
I'm excited! The two major parties simply can NOT ignore the growing number of voters who feel betrayed, disgusted, and downright angry.
Sure, we differ on many views - but we DO believe in the Constitution! That puts us far higher on the "I am an American!" scale than many (most?) of our leaders!
It's going to be an interesting year! So, let's all of us, each in our own way,
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
All,
Seriously, folks! Isn't this going to be an interesting year?
I'm excited! The two major parties simply can NOT ignore the growing number of voters who feel betrayed, disgusted, and downright angry.
Sure, we differ on many views - but we DO believe in the Constitution! That puts us far higher on the "I am an American!" scale than many (most?) of our leaders!
It's going to be an interesting year! So, let's all of us, each in our own way,
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
Futo, I don't believe that there is anyway that Pat can win. I think that even if he garnered all of the reform votes, and some "trade" democrats along with constitutionalists, he will have a hard time pulling down 20% of the vote.
On the other hand, if he gets in the debate's, with his rhetoric, he will pull many more Republicans than Democrats and that may well put a choke hold on the Republicans.
I do believe that he should be allowed to debate, however, since this will allow many people to be swayed in the polls, and thus convince the Republicans that they need to move further to the constitutionalist idea of government.
I think that we are almost where we were in '93', when Perot got 18% and Republicans found out that the country was unsatisfied with the Governance being put forward. In '94', we got the conservative congress that we wanted. Unfortunatly, it didn't last. Another shake-up is in the works. I just wonder when they will realize that this country is much more conservative than the media makes it out to be.
------------------
jones
On the other hand, if he gets in the debate's, with his rhetoric, he will pull many more Republicans than Democrats and that may well put a choke hold on the Republicans.
I do believe that he should be allowed to debate, however, since this will allow many people to be swayed in the polls, and thus convince the Republicans that they need to move further to the constitutionalist idea of government.
I think that we are almost where we were in '93', when Perot got 18% and Republicans found out that the country was unsatisfied with the Governance being put forward. In '94', we got the conservative congress that we wanted. Unfortunatly, it didn't last. Another shake-up is in the works. I just wonder when they will realize that this country is much more conservative than the media makes it out to be.
------------------
jones
If you check the record, any third party candidate has always served as a spoiler and threw the election to the dums.
------------------
We don't have a chaplain here, but I don't view that as any major problem... You can rest assured that you will not go in that bag until I've said a few appropriate words over you
R. Lee Ermy as Sgt Major Haffner, from The Siege of Firebase Gloria
------------------
We don't have a chaplain here, but I don't view that as any major problem... You can rest assured that you will not go in that bag until I've said a few appropriate words over you
R. Lee Ermy as Sgt Major Haffner, from The Siege of Firebase Gloria
Big G,
“If you check the record, any third party candidate has always served as a
spoiler and threw the election to the dums.”
Always? Check the record?
Well, okay. If you insist.
-------
The following info was derived from the 1999 Almanac published by the
New York Times.
My question is:
In which Presidential elections did the winning candidate get fewer
votes than the runner up and the third place candidate combined?
-------
In these years, the second and third place candidates (combined) received
more votes than the winner.
1824; 1836; 1844; 1848; 1856; 1860; 1880; 1884; 1888; 1892;
1908; 1912; 1916; 1968; 1992; (15 elections)
-------
In these years, the winner had more votes than second and third place
combined:
1828; 1832;1840; 1852; 1868; 1872; 1876; 1896; 1900; 1904;
1920; 1924; 1928; 1932; 1936; 1940; 1944; 1948; 1952; 1956;
1960; 1964; 1972; 1976; 1980; 1984; 1988; 1996; (28 elections)
-------
In 1864 there WAS no third candidate.
-------
In these years the President was elected with a majority (i.e. greater than
50%) of the popular votes cast:
1828; 1832; 1836; 1840; 1852; 1864; 1868; 1872; 1896; 1900;
1904; 1908; 1924; 1928; 1932; 1936; 1940; 1944; 1952; 1956;
1964; 1972; 1976; 1980; 1984; 1988; (26 elections)
So, only in 17 elections, our President was elected by less than a majority
vote.
-------
Now there is another monkey wrench in the works.
To make the “third party spoiler” assumption, one must assume that all
third party voters otherwise would have voted for the second place
candidate. That assumption is a leap of faith few would be prepared to
make.
-------
In 17 elections the winner received more votes than all other candidates
combined. Therefore, the supposition that “a third party always ruins it
all for the most popular candidate” is not supportable.
And, barring reading and/or addition errors on MY part,
that’s the record.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited November 01, 1999).]
“If you check the record, any third party candidate has always served as a
spoiler and threw the election to the dums.”
Always? Check the record?
Well, okay. If you insist.
-------
The following info was derived from the 1999 Almanac published by the
New York Times.
My question is:
In which Presidential elections did the winning candidate get fewer
votes than the runner up and the third place candidate combined?
-------
In these years, the second and third place candidates (combined) received
more votes than the winner.
1824; 1836; 1844; 1848; 1856; 1860; 1880; 1884; 1888; 1892;
1908; 1912; 1916; 1968; 1992; (15 elections)
-------
In these years, the winner had more votes than second and third place
combined:
1828; 1832;1840; 1852; 1868; 1872; 1876; 1896; 1900; 1904;
1920; 1924; 1928; 1932; 1936; 1940; 1944; 1948; 1952; 1956;
1960; 1964; 1972; 1976; 1980; 1984; 1988; 1996; (28 elections)
-------
In 1864 there WAS no third candidate.
-------
In these years the President was elected with a majority (i.e. greater than
50%) of the popular votes cast:
1828; 1832; 1836; 1840; 1852; 1864; 1868; 1872; 1896; 1900;
1904; 1908; 1924; 1928; 1932; 1936; 1940; 1944; 1952; 1956;
1964; 1972; 1976; 1980; 1984; 1988; (26 elections)
So, only in 17 elections, our President was elected by less than a majority
vote.
-------
Now there is another monkey wrench in the works.
To make the “third party spoiler” assumption, one must assume that all
third party voters otherwise would have voted for the second place
candidate. That assumption is a leap of faith few would be prepared to
make.
-------
In 17 elections the winner received more votes than all other candidates
combined. Therefore, the supposition that “a third party always ruins it
all for the most popular candidate” is not supportable.
And, barring reading and/or addition errors on MY part,
that’s the record.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited November 01, 1999).]
Gale McMillan
Member In Memoriam
Lets face it Pat has about the same chance of becoming president in the party he went to as the one he came from. After hearing his rhetoric the last election His party showed that they didn't want him and they showed that again this time So that was the only thing that made him switch. He knows that he can't be elected but there is a lot of loose money floating around and his book deal will make him a millionaire as long as he stays in the public eye. For a man to bolt the party and pull a Perot and assure us of another 4 more years of Goreclinton and know he is doing it has made me loose any respect I once had for him. What you must remember is WIN AT ANY COST! All you have to remember is there is no one running who will not be better than the alternative of Gore appointing the supreme court replacements. If it means that I will loose my business and my toys upsets me no end but the very thought of Gore picking the next 4 judges on the Supreme Court makes me ill. Don't throw away your vote! If Pat takes15% of the vote with him it will ensure Gore a win 45 to 35%
This is a tough one. I started the Buchanan/Bush thread a while back and the topic STILL is not resolved. No doubt about it...Pat is THE NO compromise pro-gun, pro-life, pro-consitution, pro-trade (traditional American that is), pro-American sovernty, pro-liberty, anti-NAFTA, anti-GATT, anti-UN, anti-tax/spend candidate running. The ONLY one who I think compares favorably to Pat B. is that black republican that the party doesn't want either....what's his name...you know, the guy who was illegally detained, transported and left in a bad neighborhood by a LEO when he went to debate before the last elections...you know, the guy who was embassador to the United Nations, but thinks that we should get out of it. No it wasn't Al Sharpten or Jesse Jackson. Not Michael Jackson either. The powers that be (ie. media, corporate sponsers, and party big wigs), won't even allow his name to be heard enough to be known by many of us in this pro-gun forum. Do you all know who the mystery man is? Do the powers that be REALY care about a minority in office like they would like us to think? They show thier true colors when it comes to a candidate like Pat B. or ____?...Thier colors are red IMHO. They like to call themselves liberals. Some call themselves fiscal conservatives too.
IMHO the Republican candidate that the Republicans chose the last two times around lost. We can't blame it on Mr. Perot or anyone else. They lost because of a lack of principle and because they ran a lousey campagn. Other than that the majority of American voters who chose to vote, voted for Mr. Clinton. Those who did, got what they asked for. Lets face it. We live in a corrupt society. A society that is reflected by the leaders that it chooses.
------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
IMHO the Republican candidate that the Republicans chose the last two times around lost. We can't blame it on Mr. Perot or anyone else. They lost because of a lack of principle and because they ran a lousey campagn. Other than that the majority of American voters who chose to vote, voted for Mr. Clinton. Those who did, got what they asked for. Lets face it. We live in a corrupt society. A society that is reflected by the leaders that it chooses.
------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
Gale McMillan
Member In Memoriam
Equalixer are you talking about that black guy who started crying racism when he was interviewed by Colmbs after the debate because they wouldn't let him give speeches rather than answer questions. Just what we need as president!
That would be Alan Keys, and if you listened closely, he was excoriating the liberal press.
Keys has the best positions of any candidate out there, in my opinion, but because he isn't considered a serious candidate by the press, he can't get his message out.
In that clip that you saw, Gale, he had just finished the debate, and had stepped to the podium and asked for questions from the press. There were none.
This is a man who speaks his mind, dosn't worry about polls, and tells it like it is. We would do well to listen to him.
------------------
jones
Keys has the best positions of any candidate out there, in my opinion, but because he isn't considered a serious candidate by the press, he can't get his message out.
In that clip that you saw, Gale, he had just finished the debate, and had stepped to the podium and asked for questions from the press. There were none.
This is a man who speaks his mind, dosn't worry about polls, and tells it like it is. We would do well to listen to him.
------------------
jones
Dennis, I stand corrected. I should have qualified my statement. I know there are always at least 3 candidates for Prez. The communists have a candidate, the libertarians have a candidate, the Dums and Reps also run candidates. What I should have said, is, "any time somebody bolted the Rep party, the election was thrown to the Dums." Sorry for the ignorant post.
------------------
We don't have a chaplain here, but I don't view that as any major problem... You can rest assured that you will not go in that bag until I've said a few appropriate words over you
R. Lee Ermy as Sgt Major Haffner, from The Siege of Firebase Gloria
------------------
We don't have a chaplain here, but I don't view that as any major problem... You can rest assured that you will not go in that bag until I've said a few appropriate words over you
R. Lee Ermy as Sgt Major Haffner, from The Siege of Firebase Gloria
BigG,
! Oh yeah! NOW you tell me! (grin)
If you only knew how hard it was reading that accursed fine print in the almanac (glasses on), then trying to type all those little numbers and read them on the screen (glasses off) - Oy!
My glasses got more miles on them than did my car!
Oh, by the way, as you state your case now I may have to agree!
My effort was not a total loss, however. I learned some interesting trivia:
- In the first Presidential elections there WAS no popular vote.
- In at least ONE election, four candidates from the same Democratic-Republican Party ALL ran for President.
- In a couple elections there were only two candidates.
- In many elections there more than FIVE candidates. (Can't tell how many - they were lumped under "other".)
Kinda interesting....
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited November 02, 1999).]
! Oh yeah! NOW you tell me! (grin)If you only knew how hard it was reading that accursed fine print in the almanac (glasses on), then trying to type all those little numbers and read them on the screen (glasses off) - Oy!
My glasses got more miles on them than did my car!
Oh, by the way, as you state your case now I may have to agree!
My effort was not a total loss, however. I learned some interesting trivia:
- In the first Presidential elections there WAS no popular vote.
- In at least ONE election, four candidates from the same Democratic-Republican Party ALL ran for President.
- In a couple elections there were only two candidates.
- In many elections there more than FIVE candidates. (Can't tell how many - they were lumped under "other".)
Kinda interesting....
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited November 02, 1999).]
Jones,
You put it far better than I did w/half the words. I used to wonder about his stance on the UN until this last debate. I respect the man for being IN the establishment but not OF the establishment. The est. being the globalists and the UN. Do I think he has a blizzards chance in Miami to win? No. For the very reason that you already stated so well. I have serious doubts about Pat B. too. If its so hard for those of us "gun nuts" in this forum to agree about voting for him and giving him a chance at polls, how can we expect the undecided public at large to do it? Retorical Q of course. Anyway, I'm voting for Pat B. in the primaries when it comes time. If something happens to him between now and then, (like a plane crash or something), Alan Keys is the next best choice IMHO.
Dennis,
Thanks for the stats! I appreciate you taking the time to give us that useful information. It applies here.
Right now, I believe that George Bush is the biggest threat to Pat Buchanan winning the election. The establishment "conservative press" is behind him, the GOP is behind him, and the commi Chinese are behind him. IMHO the Chinese govt has the biggest chance to come out the winner if the Demos OR the GOPs win. The commies know that either way they w/have an ally in the oval office. At least they thought that Mr. Bush would be friendly to them like his Dad was. This is no slam. This is what they publically stated. With their intellegence efficiency as it is, I have little doubt that they know more about the candidate than I do, (or the media for what its worth). We already know what allies lie in that office right now. Need I say more? I realize that I'll draw some fire for this last paragraph, but some of us still aren't convinced that this NRA member won't someday pull a "Read my lips, no more gun control" or what ever he happened to say when signing the biggest citizen gun confiscation bill in American history up to that point. I hope I'm wrong, but I'd hate to have to follow that legacy.
------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
You put it far better than I did w/half the words. I used to wonder about his stance on the UN until this last debate. I respect the man for being IN the establishment but not OF the establishment. The est. being the globalists and the UN. Do I think he has a blizzards chance in Miami to win? No. For the very reason that you already stated so well. I have serious doubts about Pat B. too. If its so hard for those of us "gun nuts" in this forum to agree about voting for him and giving him a chance at polls, how can we expect the undecided public at large to do it? Retorical Q of course. Anyway, I'm voting for Pat B. in the primaries when it comes time. If something happens to him between now and then, (like a plane crash or something), Alan Keys is the next best choice IMHO.
Dennis,
Thanks for the stats! I appreciate you taking the time to give us that useful information. It applies here.
Right now, I believe that George Bush is the biggest threat to Pat Buchanan winning the election. The establishment "conservative press" is behind him, the GOP is behind him, and the commi Chinese are behind him. IMHO the Chinese govt has the biggest chance to come out the winner if the Demos OR the GOPs win. The commies know that either way they w/have an ally in the oval office. At least they thought that Mr. Bush would be friendly to them like his Dad was. This is no slam. This is what they publically stated. With their intellegence efficiency as it is, I have little doubt that they know more about the candidate than I do, (or the media for what its worth). We already know what allies lie in that office right now. Need I say more? I realize that I'll draw some fire for this last paragraph, but some of us still aren't convinced that this NRA member won't someday pull a "Read my lips, no more gun control" or what ever he happened to say when signing the biggest citizen gun confiscation bill in American history up to that point. I hope I'm wrong, but I'd hate to have to follow that legacy.
------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
EQUALIZER, don't give up the ship, stranger things have happened in our political history than Pat Buchanan winning the presidency.
If you look back, there have been many populist's (thus the word) who have done quite well. In a 3way race strange things can happen.
Take Perot, for example; This squinty eyed little midget with a bad temper, bad hair cut and a iritating manner about him pulled 18% of the vote in 92' (he got mine that year). Imagine what a lucid debate monger like Buchanan could do!
Once a person has mobilized the grass roots and gains some momentum (momentum = 12 million dollars to get the message out) crazy swings can and do happen.
A bad example of populism gone haywire would be Hitler. I just had to throw that Hitler mention in there!
I don't believe it will happen, but who am I to say what will be? It's going to be a wild weird ride for the next year.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" Hunter S Thompson
------------------
jones
If you look back, there have been many populist's (thus the word) who have done quite well. In a 3way race strange things can happen.
Take Perot, for example; This squinty eyed little midget with a bad temper, bad hair cut and a iritating manner about him pulled 18% of the vote in 92' (he got mine that year). Imagine what a lucid debate monger like Buchanan could do!
Once a person has mobilized the grass roots and gains some momentum (momentum = 12 million dollars to get the message out) crazy swings can and do happen.
A bad example of populism gone haywire would be Hitler. I just had to throw that Hitler mention in there!
I don't believe it will happen, but who am I to say what will be? It's going to be a wild weird ride for the next year.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" Hunter S Thompson
------------------
jones
Ed Brunner
New member
I presume that Alan Keyes made his racism comment after he was detained on his way to a debate as a candidate for president of the USA.
He probably noticed that none of the white guys was stopped.
If so, it puts it in a slightly different perspective. He might have been right.
On the issues it is hard to disagree with him.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
He probably noticed that none of the white guys was stopped.
If so, it puts it in a slightly different perspective. He might have been right.
On the issues it is hard to disagree with him.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
Jones,
I guess your right. Who am I to say. Since Mr. C. got elected twice in a row, I lost hope in society at large voting for a truely pro-gun president w/integrety. You make valid points, so I'm reconsidering. I'm not normally pessimistic, just realistic. What you say is true, so I have to agree.
Gale,
I normally agree with you, so I conceed to the possibility that you might have heard something that I don't know about. Could what Ed say be true? I don't want to make any judgement calls one way or the other w/out knowing the whole story. Especially since Alan Keyes speaks as one who doesn't make excuses or play the race card to get to where he is. Even if he was using a liberal's excuse, which seems somewhat far fetched w/out knowing the context, I believe that he is still one of the best candidates for our side. Just my opinion.
------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
[This message has been edited by EQUALIZER (edited November 02, 1999).]
I guess your right. Who am I to say. Since Mr. C. got elected twice in a row, I lost hope in society at large voting for a truely pro-gun president w/integrety. You make valid points, so I'm reconsidering. I'm not normally pessimistic, just realistic. What you say is true, so I have to agree.
Gale,
I normally agree with you, so I conceed to the possibility that you might have heard something that I don't know about. Could what Ed say be true? I don't want to make any judgement calls one way or the other w/out knowing the whole story. Especially since Alan Keyes speaks as one who doesn't make excuses or play the race card to get to where he is. Even if he was using a liberal's excuse, which seems somewhat far fetched w/out knowing the context, I believe that he is still one of the best candidates for our side. Just my opinion.
------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
[This message has been edited by EQUALIZER (edited November 02, 1999).]
Ambassador Keyes is scheduled to appear on Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes Show on November 3. Airtime is 9pm EST (check local), rebroadcast at 2am. He will also be on ABC's Politically Incorrect on November 4 if you feel can stomach it. Hope some of you folks get to watch and post your impressions.
If anyone is interested in reading about Alan Keys, go to http://www.jewishworldreview.com and click on David Limbaugh's column. It's on the left side of the site. 11-3-99
------------------
jones
[This message has been edited by jones (edited November 03, 1999).]
------------------
jones
[This message has been edited by jones (edited November 03, 1999).]