Giuliani Defends Right to Bear Arms???.... for his aggenda o

[selurcspi]

Jac,

I thought you taught history

Even a Brit knows the the Republican party was formed out of the whig party as it collapsed; and the two never existed at the same time. That still means two parties.

[joelr]

It's a matter of getting the least antigun person into office.

That would be whoever isn't Hillary.

That, I think, remains to be seen. Hillary might be inclined to throw a bone to the pro-self-defense community, while Rudy or McCain, say, might want to burnish their "moderate" credentials by supporting "reasonable gun safety measures."

Not that it matters in Minnesota; Minnesota is going to go for Hillary, so those of us who don't vote for her are going to make making protest votes, anyway. Considerations like the ones in Florida -- where it was going to be close -- don't apply.

I think by election time it's going to be clear that while it's going to be close nationally, Hillary will be the winner, and that she'll have a double-digit lead among likely voters in Minnesota.

[joelr]

So this poses a provocatively hard question, and one many of us may have to answer sooner rather than later: if the candidates of the two major parties are Clinton and this new Giuliani, where does the voter who believes that the gun/2nd amendment issue is the key indicator for any candidate's views of government and people (http://mnguntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=902) go with his vote? Here is another case of how the two-party system is a disastrous failure. Do you "throw away" a vote on a third party or write-in candidate? Take the best possible choice of the two? Sit out the election in protest? Or protest the current administration's policies by voting for the other party? I think many of us may be between a rock and a hard place on this--and the many other issues which gun rights preview. Would be interested to hear some discussion on what many of you are thinking if the election shapes up this way (which appears somewhat likely at this point).

Choose the one that will do the least harm in other areas.

Alternately, if you're in Minnesota: vote for a third-party candidate as a protest. Minnesota is going Democrat anyway; what's the harm in putting in a vote for D. Duck, M. Mouse, R. Nader, or other comic book characters?

[Rags]

So this poses a provocatively hard question, and one many of us may have to answer sooner rather than later: if the candidates of the two major parties are Clinton and this new Giuliani, where does the voter who believes that the gun/2nd amendment issue is the key indicator for any candidate's views of government and people (http://mnguntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=902) go with his vote? Here is another case of how the two-party system is a disastrous failure. Do you "throw away" a vote on a third party or write-in candidate? Take the best possible choice of the two? Sit out the election in protest? Or protest the current administration's policies by voting for the other party? I think many of us may be between a rock and a hard place on this--and the many other issues which gun rights preview. Would be interested to hear some discussion on what many of you are thinking if the election shapes up this way (which appears somewhat likely at this point).

Choose the one that will do the least harm in other areas.

Alternately, if you're in Minnesota: vote for a third-party candidate as a protest. Minnesota is going Democrat anyway; what's the harm in putting in a vote for D. Duck, M. Mouse, R. Nader, or other comic book characters?

I'll still vote for the non-Hillary, major-party candidate.

Sure, Minnesota's electoral-college votes will go for the Democrat, but the popular-vote totals will matter at least a little. The Democrats talked endlessly about how Gore won the popular vote in 2000; well, at least part of that can be laid at the door of people who might otherwise have voted for Bush instead voting for obscure, or at least never-gonna-win, candidates on the political right.

But the major part, as I have been explaining to people since 2000, was this: Bush won the popular vote as well, if you factor out the illegal aliens voting, the convicted felons voting, and the addled old folks who couldn't have told you the name of the current vice president, who were rounded up in buses and vans by Democratic party workers and driven to the polls. Take those people out of the picture, and it's just about a landslide for Dubya.

[princewally]

Not that it matters in Minnesota; Minnesota is going to go for Hillary, so those of us who don't vote for her are going to make making protest votes, anyway.

I don't know that it's such a settled issue. We've gone Democrat since 1976, but it has been close(1984), and that was against a local.

Voter turnout generally drops in relation to eligible voters whenever the republicans field a candidate who is either a) a RINO, of b) uncharismatic. In 2000, before Bush completely borked his 'conservative street cred', he actually stood a chance. 3.5% of the votes made the difference. In 1996, voter turnout dropped by 144 thousand, because Dole would have a hard time getting elected if there was NO opponent. Charisma is an important feature for getting elected.

If the republicans actually field a true conservative with a decent amount of charisma, Minnesota might go republican next year. Hillary isn't terribly charismatic, and she's started waffling already. The MSM will never play it, and most people don't research enough to know about it, but she isn't a good candidate for 'First Female President', IMNSHO.

Year - Vote Difference - Candidate - Eligible Voters - Total Turnout
2004 - 98319 - Bush vs Kerry - 3658000 - 2842912
2000 - 58607 - Bush vs Gore - 3521000 - 2458303
1996 - 353962 - Clinton vs dole - 3384000 - 2211161
1992 - 273156 - Clinton vs Bush Sr - 3247000 - 2355796
1988 - 147080 - Bush Sr vs Dukakis - 3118000 - 2125119
1984 - 3761 - Reagan vs Mondale - 3003000 - 2115317
1980 - 80933 - Reagan vs Carter - 2888000 - 2079411
1976 - 251045 - Carter vs Ford - 2710000 - 1978590
1972 - 95923 - Nixon vs McGovern(R. took the state) - 2523000 - 1773838
1968 - 199095 - Nixon vs Humphrey - 2170000 - 1606307
1964 - 431493 - Johnson vs Goldwater - 1987000 - 1577509

[Rags]

Worth noting in this context: The Strib conducted two Minnesota Polls, one on the eve of the second Reagan election, the second on the eve of Bush senior's election. They asked randomly selected Minnesotans to say whether they were, politically speaking, conservative or liberal.

Results: First poll, 1984, about 20 percent called themselves political liberals, 40 percent (you read that right) conservative.

The Strib wasn't able to believe the results, either, so they went back in 1988, and got almost exactly the same results, with a slight increase in the gap.

By rights, Minnesotans should be slam-dunking conservatives into office. It does not happen that way, though.

[SethB]

But the major part, as I have been explaining to people since 2000, was this: Bush won the popular vote as well, if you factor out the illegal aliens voting, the convicted felons voting, and the addled old folks who couldn't have told you the name of the current vice president, who were rounded up in buses and vans by Democratic party workers and driven to the polls. Take those people out of the picture, and it's just about a landslide for Dubya.

First, how do you know how those people voted on their secret ballots?

Second (or perhaps more important), in many states convicted felons are permitted to vote, sometimes while they're in prison, sometimes after they've finished their sentences.

Finally, the determination of who is a legitimate voter isn't up to you.

[Andrew Rothman]

...if you factor out the illegal aliens voting, the convicted felons voting, and the addled old folks who couldn't have told you the name of the current vice president, who were rounded up in buses and vans by Democratic party workers and driven to the polls. Take those people out of the picture, and it's just about a landslide for Dubya.

First, how do you know how those people voted on their secret ballots?

Well, in exit polls, the most popular response to "who did you vote for" was "pudding!"

[Rags]

But the major part, as I have been explaining to people since 2000, was this: Bush won the popular vote as well, if you factor out the illegal aliens voting, the convicted felons voting, and the addled old folks who couldn't have told you the name of the current vice president, who were rounded up in buses and vans by Democratic party workers and driven to the polls. Take those people out of the picture, and it's just about a landslide for Dubya.

First, how do you know how those people voted on their secret ballots?

Second (or perhaps more important), in many states convicted felons are permitted to vote, sometimes while they're in prison, sometimes after they've finished their sentences.

Finally, the determination of who is a legitimate voter isn't up to you.

First, I don't know. Just a pretty reasonable guess.

Second: Okay, factor out the convicted felons voting legally. It's going to make almost no difference anyway. But the illegal aliens voting is a huge factor -- and due to get much bigger after New York and other states start issuing them driver's licenses.

Third: You are right, determining who is a legitimate voter isn't up to me. It's up to the law, and that's I was talking about: those who are not legitimate voters under the law.