If this is your first visit to the Roth Army, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Originally posted by knuckleboner you don't get the 2nd highest amount of votes in U.S. presidential history if your own party isn't somewhat solidly behind you...
I don't really think this election was based on party support. I think it was more people choosing between two different ways to approaching current issues.
Originally posted by Ally_Kat I don't really think this election was based on party support. I think it was more people choosing between two different ways to approaching current issues.
If that all even makes sense.
no, it totally does.
i was mostly kidding (pumping up kerry by noting his own high vote totals...)
but in actuality, i thought his concession speech was normal concession speech kinda stuff. he highlighted "uniting democrats" in order to kinda placate his supporters. sort of an, "it wasn't a TOTAL loss" kind of thing.
well, either that, or he was commenting on how they broke nader's ability to influence an election...
Is it me, or did we hear more of Nadar in the last election? Not in terms of election results, but campaigning. I didn't hear anything from him this year. And nothing from the other 3rd party guys.
He's kinda like Ross Perot now. I can't see him running again.
Comment