SERIOUS Man. REAL SERIOUS. dAt EX-CEO of MEGACoffeeHouses and dAt NY RichieRich BBurg, ARE F**Kin IMPRESSIVE. And I HATE DEMs Like a mO fO. BUT These GUYs are TALKin' SENSE. REAL SENSE. MAN O LIVE. WHO'd a THUNK?

Message boards : Politics : SERIOUS Man. REAL SERIOUS. dAt EX-CEO of MEGACoffeeHouses and dAt NY RichieRich BBurg, ARE F**Kin IMPRESSIVE. And I HATE DEMs Like a mO fO. BUT These GUYs are TALKin' SENSE. REAL SENSE. MAN O LIVE. WHO'd a THUNK?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile SUPER NATIONALIST&SUPER PRIVILEGED I'm **in' RACIST; I'm **in' BIGOTED; I'm **in' PREJUDICED; I'm **in' JUDGEMENTAL; I **In' Have ALL dA CONSCIOUS & UNCONSCIOUS BIAS & ALL Other NASTIEs a HuWoMan Can **in' Have. ALL AGENDAs ALL dA **in' Kind of Gender
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 4234
Credit: 6,251,218
RAC: 961
Russia
Message 1977908 - Posted: 30 Jan 2019, 23:52:19 UTC

As Long as They Talk GOoD BRAIN Sense and Don't Get ALL CORTEZZZeee, These DUDEs Will Give ORANGE a RUN fO dA MONEY!!!!!

But Really, They GUNNA Say Some STUPID LEFTist SHAT and MAYBE BLOW IT.

LET's SEE

RUBEWorld STUNNED at ACTUAL BRAINIACs MAKin' SENSE

OH OH OH OH So ORANGE YAPe



ID: 1977908 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
marmot
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 144
Credit: 1,177,060
RAC: 171
United States
Message 1984556 - Posted: 11 Mar 2019, 15:38:45 UTC

The coffee chain CEO isn't leftist at all.
He's center right and designed to split the Republican base so a Democrat can win.
ID: 1984556 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 11388
Credit: 6,966,451
RAC: 4,210
United States
Message 1984633 - Posted: 12 Mar 2019, 1:17:55 UTC - in response to Message 1984556.  
Last modified: 12 Mar 2019, 1:18:10 UTC

The coffee chain CEO isn't leftist at all.
He's center right and designed to split the Republican base so a Democrat can win.


Shhh!
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1984633 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 9116
Credit: 22,719,934
RAC: 20,413
United States
Message 1984642 - Posted: 12 Mar 2019, 2:05:59 UTC - in response to Message 1984633.  

That's a nice concept if it were to work, I'm skeptical.
ID: 1984642 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
marmot
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 144
Credit: 1,177,060
RAC: 171
United States
Message 1984680 - Posted: 12 Mar 2019, 5:45:22 UTC

If it's Warren or Sanders vs Trump; maybe he has a chance to take the middle.

Ross Perot 2.0.

It'll be interesting especially if Greens and Libertarians field some charismatic people who know where Aleppo is.
ID: 1984680 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 9116
Credit: 22,719,934
RAC: 20,413
United States
Message 1984681 - Posted: 12 Mar 2019, 5:55:55 UTC - in response to Message 1984680.  

I probably would like what you are smoking.
ID: 1984681 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
marmot
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 144
Credit: 1,177,060
RAC: 171
United States
Message 1984687 - Posted: 12 Mar 2019, 6:23:42 UTC - in response to Message 1984681.  

1992 election
Clinton: 44,909,889 (43.0%)
Dole: 39,104,545 (37.4%)
Perot: 19,743,821 (18.9%)


I wouldn't discount Howard Shulz potential effect on the 2020 election.
ID: 1984687 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 11388
Credit: 6,966,451
RAC: 4,210
United States
Message 1984995 - Posted: 13 Mar 2019, 22:18:02 UTC - in response to Message 1984687.  
Last modified: 13 Mar 2019, 22:18:28 UTC

1992 election
Clinton: 44,909,889 (43.0%)
Dole: 39,104,545 (37.4%)
Perot: 19,743,821 (18.9%)


I wouldn't discount Howard Shulz potential effect on the 2020 election.


That's 1996.
Also note that, in 1992, Perot had about 19% of the popular vote but won no electors.
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1984995 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 24863
Credit: 46,245,448
RAC: 28,287
United States
Message 1985022 - Posted: 14 Mar 2019, 1:14:34 UTC

Do you hear that giant sucking sound now? The sound of China sucking airliners from Seattle? The sound of companies rushing money to offshore banks?
ID: 1985022 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
marmot
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 144
Credit: 1,177,060
RAC: 171
United States
Message 1985090 - Posted: 14 Mar 2019, 13:49:10 UTC - in response to Message 1984995.  

1992 election
Clinton: 44,909,889 (43.0%)
Dole: 39,104,545 (37.4%)
Perot: 19,743,821 (18.9%)


I wouldn't discount Howard Shulz potential effect on the 2020 election.


That's 1996.


No, that's the '92 results.

Also note that, in 1992, Perot had about 19% of the popular vote but won no electors.


He didn't have to win any electors to kill Dole's electoral count in key states.
ID: 1985090 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 11388
Credit: 6,966,451
RAC: 4,210
United States
Message 1985199 - Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 0:30:33 UTC - in response to Message 1985090.  

1992 election
Clinton: 44,909,889 (43.0%)
Dole: 39,104,545 (37.4%)
Perot: 19,743,821 (18.9%)


I wouldn't discount Howard Shulz potential effect on the 2020 election.


That's 1996.


No, that's the '92 results.

Also note that, in 1992, Perot had about 19% of the popular vote but won no electors.


He didn't have to win any electors to kill Dole's electoral count in key states.


Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96.
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1985199 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 24863
Credit: 46,245,448
RAC: 28,287
United States
Message 1985200 - Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 0:43:53 UTC - in response to Message 1985199.  

Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96.

Don't we all love fake news!
ID: 1985200 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 11388
Credit: 6,966,451
RAC: 4,210
United States
Message 1985206 - Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 1:22:55 UTC - in response to Message 1985200.  

Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96.

Don't we all love fake news!


I haven't checked the percents of the popular vote. They may be from '92 and, if so, misattributing to Dole instead of Bush. I do seem to recall Perot running again in '96, but not getting close to 18% ,,, ?
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1985206 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 24863
Credit: 46,245,448
RAC: 28,287
United States
Message 1985222 - Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 3:47:00 UTC - in response to Message 1985206.  

Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96.

Don't we all love fake news!


I haven't checked the percents of the popular vote. They may be from '92 and, if so, misattributing to Dole instead of Bush. I do seem to recall Perot running again in '96, but not getting close to 18% ,,, ?

FWIW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election
ID: 1985222 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
marmot
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 144
Credit: 1,177,060
RAC: 171
United States
Message 1985239 - Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 7:05:23 UTC - in response to Message 1985206.  

Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96.

Don't we all love fake news!


I haven't checked the percents of the popular vote. They may be from '92 and, if so, misattributing to Dole instead of Bush. I do seem to recall Perot running again in '96, but not getting close to 18% ,,, ?



I copied the '92 results from the Wikipedia page and then went by memory on the candidate.

Perot got 8.4% in '96.

I'm more like my father where I'll remember your age and forget your name.
He was still trying to do statistics while dying of dementia but called me 'that boy'.

So replace Dole with Bush in '92 above.
Perot's candidacy had an effect on the electoral map throwing the election to Clinton.
Self reporting says he split the popular vote 38 to 38 BUT his supporters were overwhelmingly white and so he cut into the Bush white voter base and allowed black voters to tip states, where they had high populations, to Clinton.

I'd like to see Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com go back in the data set and re-analyze the '92 election.
ID: 1985239 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 11388
Credit: 6,966,451
RAC: 4,210
United States
Message 1985374 - Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 20:12:09 UTC - in response to Message 1985222.  

Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96.

Don't we all love fake news!


I haven't checked the percents of the popular vote. They may be from '92 and, if so, misattributing to Dole instead of Bush. I do seem to recall Perot running again in '96, but not getting close to 18% ,,, ?

FWIW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election


I could have looked it up. I've double-checked my memory before. But I was deliberately testing my memory- only and implied this.
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1985374 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 24863
Credit: 46,245,448
RAC: 28,287
United States
Message 1985378 - Posted: 15 Mar 2019, 20:53:58 UTC - in response to Message 1985374.  

Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96.

Don't we all love fake news!


I haven't checked the percents of the popular vote. They may be from '92 and, if so, misattributing to Dole instead of Bush. I do seem to recall Perot running again in '96, but not getting close to 18% ,,, ?

FWIW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election


I could have looked it up. I've double-checked my memory before. But I was deliberately testing my memory- only and implied this.

Was Wiki edited by a Russian? ;-)
ID: 1985378 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
marmot
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 144
Credit: 1,177,060
RAC: 171
United States
Message 1985950 - Posted: 19 Mar 2019, 10:41:17 UTC - in response to Message 1985378.  

Dole wasn't the GOP nominee in '92, GHWB was. Dole was the GOP nominee in '96.

Don't we all love fake news!


I haven't checked the percents of the popular vote. They may be from '92 and, if so, misattributing to Dole instead of Bush. I do seem to recall Perot running again in '96, but not getting close to 18% ,,, ?

FWIW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election


I could have looked it up. I've double-checked my memory before. But I was deliberately testing my memory- only and implied this.

Was Wiki edited by a Russian? ;-)


Complex set of various factions take part in building consensus on those pages.
ID: 1985950 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : Politics : SERIOUS Man. REAL SERIOUS. dAt EX-CEO of MEGACoffeeHouses and dAt NY RichieRich BBurg, ARE F**Kin IMPRESSIVE. And I HATE DEMs Like a mO fO. BUT These GUYs are TALKin' SENSE. REAL SENSE. MAN O LIVE. WHO'd a THUNK?


 
©2019 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.