PDA

View Full Version : Why Democrats won't win 2008 election even without Ron Paul



dude58677
11-04-2007, 02:44 PM
1) Electoral College
2) The 2006 Congress approval rating is 11 percent which is worse then Bush and the Republican Congress from 2004.
3) Ralph Nader is will take votes away from the Democratic nominee.
4) If Ron Paul is the nominee it will be an absolute landslide as he brings people together like no other candidate.
Buggan
11-04-2007, 02:49 PM
I hope you are right, the only thing worse than Bush would be Hillary :/

I could accept McCain, but that's just cause I think hes an honest man.
reaver
11-04-2007, 02:53 PM
again w/ this dude? lol
I wonder about you guy.
RP4ME
11-04-2007, 03:02 PM
is nader running???
Van Damme
11-04-2007, 03:04 PM
I hope you are right, the only thing worse than Bush would be Hillary :/

I could accept McCain, but that's just cause I think hes an honest man.

I agree completely.
Brutus
11-04-2007, 03:08 PM
Why anyone would support a man who outlawed free speech near elections is beyond me.

Can't have the rabble actually thinking that they can AFFECT things, now, can we?
njandrewg
11-04-2007, 03:59 PM
The congress has a low approval rating because they were elected to end the war and they haven't. I really don't see a pro-war candidate winning
Adamsa
11-04-2007, 04:02 PM
I hate Giuliani so much though... :(
dude58677
11-04-2007, 04:05 PM
The congress has a low approval rating because they were elected to end the war and they haven't. I really don't see a pro-war candidate winning

I would say that people see neither party as anti-war and that is why the Dems approval rating is low. With the electoral college, the favor is going to go to the Republicans. So I would just tell neocons to not worry about voting for a winner and vote for freedom which is Ron Paul.
RevolutionSD
11-04-2007, 04:18 PM
I agree completely.

McCain? He sold out to the establishment many years ago. He's a fraud and certainly no "maverick."
dude58677
11-04-2007, 04:18 PM
Ron Paul even says even says that Hilliary fears the Electoral College: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul226.html
tnvoter
11-04-2007, 04:26 PM
is nader running???

Nader said he's running if Hillary is the nominee.
james1906
11-04-2007, 04:32 PM
The McCain of 2007 isn't the McCain of 2000. He's a hack like the rest of them.
american.swan
11-04-2007, 06:06 PM
1) Electoral College
2) The 2006 Congress approval rating is 11 percent which is worse then Bush and the Republican Congress from 2004.
3) Ralph Nader is will take votes away from the Democratic nominee.
4) If Ron Paul is the nominee it will be an absolute landslide as he brings people together like no other candidate.

Don't forget Greg Palast's reports. The GOP is going to mess up the election again making the Dems nearly 3million votes or more in the whole.
BillyDkid
11-04-2007, 06:09 PM
I hope you are right, the only thing worse than Bush would be Hillary :/

I could accept McCain, but that's just cause I think hes an honest man.Well, I would have to disagree with you big time as far as Hillary vs. Bush and I'm no fan of Hillary and I certainly think Ghouliani would be worse than Dubya and Hillary put together. Hillary is wrong headed and dangerously ambitious, but Bush is flat out a traitor to the country and the Constitution and IMHO a war criminal.
KoozieChaz
11-04-2007, 06:41 PM
McCain? He sold out to the establishment many years ago. He's a fraud and certainly no "maverick."

I think the "party maverick" role has been effectively usurped by Dr. Paul