"basskisser" wrote in message


And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.

Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the point. If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support, he simply
can't be said to be doing poorly.


snip gratuitous insults

..... A lot of people, right about half of
the country, like what Kerry stands for, likes his environmental,
economic, and social issues stances.

No, half the country doesn't "....like what Kerry stands for...", half the
country responds to polls at this time by saying they prefer Kerry to Bush.
But Kerry's support is not deep at all. The general analysis right now is
that if Nader garners more than 3% - 5% of the vote, it will be impossible
for Kerry to win. That is very thin support indeed.

If you look carefully at the progression of support through the early part
of the primary season, you see that Kerry was usually running behind until
the person in the lead tripped somehow. He's like the guy who runs through
the entire ten-mile road race far back in fourth place, but wins when the
first three contenders all get tangled and fall a half-mile from the finish
line.

John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the point. If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support, he simply
can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the point. If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support, he
simply
can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

"NOYB" wrote in message link.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the point. If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support, he
simply
can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS, you
could likely be wrong.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message


And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.

Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the point. If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support, he simply
can't be said to be doing poorly.

Using YOUR analogy, one could also say he simply can't be said to be
doing GOOD, then right?


snip gratuitous insults

..... A lot of people, right about half of
the country, like what Kerry stands for, likes his environmental,
economic, and social issues stances.

No, half the country doesn't "....like what Kerry stands for...", half the
country responds to polls at this time by saying they prefer Kerry to Bush.
But Kerry's support is not deep at all. The general analysis right now is
that if Nader garners more than 3% - 5% of the vote, it will be impossible
for Kerry to win. That is very thin support indeed.

With Bush now at less than 50%, the exact same thing could be said of
him!

If you look carefully at the progression of support through the early part
of the primary season, you see that Kerry was usually running behind until
the person in the lead tripped somehow. He's like the guy who runs through
the entire ten-mile road race far back in fourth place, but wins when the
first three contenders all get tangled and fall a half-mile from the finish
line.

As long as the ignorant, lying, cheating, scum bag falls all the way
to Crawford, Texas, fine!

"basskisser" wrote in message

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes.

Each candidate will get at least one vote. I suppose, in your world, a
candidate might run for office and then vote for his opponent. Not in the
real world.

"basskisser" wrote in message

Using YOUR analogy, one could also say he simply can't be said to be
doing GOOD, then right?

Right. And I never did say that. It's essentially an even race.


The general analysis right now is
that if Nader garners more than 3% - 5% of the vote, it will be
impossible
for Kerry to win. That is very thin support indeed.

With Bush now at less than 50%, the exact same thing could be said of
him!

sigh What does the 50% point have to do with it? There are no reasonable
scenarios wherein a 5% Nader vote causes Bush to lose and Kerry win. A
Nader candidacy simply does not siphon significant votes from the Republican
ledger.


He's like the guy who runs through
the entire ten-mile road race far back in fourth place, but wins when
the
first three contenders all get tangled and fall a half-mile from the
finish
line.

As long as the ignorant, lying, cheating, scum bag falls all the way
to Crawford, Texas, fine!

What are you talking about? There was no one from Crawford in the Dem
primaries. Please try to keep up.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the point.
If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support, he
simply
can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS, you
could likely be wrong.

Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then he wins.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes.

Each candidate will get at least one vote. I suppose, in your world, a
candidate might run for office and then vote for his opponent. Not in the
real world.

Plus, we can always count on those geniuses in Palm Beach County to punch
the wrong chad at least once.

"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the point.
If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support, he
simply
can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS, you
could likely be wrong.

Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then he wins.

Man, how stupid ARE you, NOYB? That is nothing more, as I stated
above, than an assumption. Sure, I'll bet! As YOU said, *IF* one
person votes for Nader. How do you know that will happen? As I said,
you are wrong. Wrong because you are assuming that each candidate will
get SOME VOTES. Jeez, I hate repeating myself, but your answer is
exactly what I pointed out!!! If one person doesn't get any votes,
then, alas, 50% DOES NOT win the election. If you don't get it, I
can't make it any clearer, and you are utterly dumb.