Subject:
|
Re: Quiet in here
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:15:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
374 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, William A. Swanberg wrote:
> I would say the Republican primary race at this point is still up in the
> air, *provided* that McCain can take California (and who can predict how
> they'll vote???).
If I remember correctly, the California primaries are simultaneous -- every
candidate for every party is run on the same ballot. So potential sabateours
(sp?) have to choose between knocking down the opposing party, and building up
their own guy. I think this will work to the advantage of McCain -- since the
Democrat race is more clear-cut, the Demo's have more free-reign to crossover
and vote McCain. The Republican race is closer, so Rep's need to vote for the
guy they actually want to win their party's primary.
> You know that George W. will take Texas, which means that
> McCain will *have* to take California, and New York or Illinois (or both) in
> order to win at the convention. Anything else (including Michigan, Larry,
> sorry) is just frosting.
Nah, if McCain had *lost* Michigan, it would have been the beginning of the end
for him. Winning Michigan lets him keep the mantle of a serious candidate.
> Of course, McCain starts off in a hole, compounded by the fact that he's
> from a state with few electoral votes (too bad cacti can't vote, McCain
> would be a shoo-in), whereas George W. already has one of the "big 4" in his
> pocket.
Sucks to be honest. Well, more honest.
> Naturally, as a current soldier/former veteran, I would like to see McCain
> win the nomination. It's been too long since there was a vet at 1600
> Pennsylvania.
Personally, I don't see what advantage there is to having a Pres. who's main
claim to veteran fame is that he was a POW. I'd rather elect a retired general
-- at least, we'd know he can lead.
> (And don't get me started on slick Willy's latest pay "raise"
> for the military, we must be the only people on Earth that get a 5% raise
> and end up with less money...soldiers on food stamps...it makes me sick to
> my stomach.)
That is bad. And inefficient.
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Quiet in here
|
| (...) Yes and no. We can vote for any candidate for any party, but only votes from party members count towards the delegates. Anyone who wants to have their vote for McCain (or Bush) actually mean something had better register as a Republican. Bruce (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Quiet in here
|
| (...) Well, speaking as a veteran, I'd rather have someone in office who knows firsthand what the real consequences of armchair warfare are for real soliders. I'd value the leadership that a retired general could bring to the office but I'd also (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Quiet in here
|
| "Bill Farkas" <kfar@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:FqF0zx.9B@lugnet.com... (...) beating (...) abandon (...) doesn't (...) intention (...) Gump (...) without (...) like (...) to a (...) goods on (...) I would say the Republican primary race at (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
