Were you surprised

[lookout123]

i absolutely agree glatt. i expect in '08 we'll get a dem president, unless the D's really really really step on their crank in the next two years. that seems highly unlikely.

[Shocker]

Originally Posted by lookout123

i absolutely agree glatt. i expect in '08 we'll get a dem president, unless the D's really really really step on their crank in the next two years. that seems highly unlikely.

Watch out lookout... if you didn't see my prediction earlier, you should go back and read it, and then read tw's attack back and see how "illogical and fickle" you are for making any such prediction at this point. I mean forget that the majority of his response has nothing to do with what I said or even what this thread is all about and surely you will see the folley of your ways LOL

[tw]

Originally Posted by Shocker

I mean forget that the majority of his response has nothing to do with what I said or even what this thread is all about

If your post was not about a president in '08, then why did I quote that sentence and reply accordingly to that paragraph? Why would I mention your other paragraphs that are not disputable? Why waste bandwidth on paragraphs based in reasoning and history. Those other paragraphs were speculation based in sound logic and with historical precedent.

If using current attitudes, then a most likely president is Republican and one who is not wacko extremist. But history demonstrates that picking a future president in two years is about as reliable as making a profit from slot machines. Furthermore, sitting Congressmen rarely become a president.

BTW Shocker, where is the attack? Are you that touchy? Did I say your mother wears combat boots? Of course not. Did I challenge other parts of your post? No. Obviously no reason to. One paragraph in your post that is not based in history predicts a president two years early. Traditionally, presidential contenders are mostly unknowns two years before an election. That is not an attack. That is simple fact based is history. And that reply was exactly what you posted about in your paragraph 6. Where is this attack?

Do you deny that most readers of these posts are fickle? If yes, then why did you not post a reply? Your salience implies you agreed. Lookout123 examples the concept:

Originally Posted by Lookout123

]many people (the swing voters) didn't so much vote FOR something (democrats) as they voted against the negative emotions caused by the war which emotionally can be set squarely on the shoulders of the republicans.

His is a traditionally likely statement. Why such an emotional change? Well if you could answer that question, then there are many presidential contenders who would hire you.

An interesting discussion would be on why 'fickle' emotions changed so sharply. During Vietnam, it was called Tet. We had no such single event during "Mission Accomplished". And yet something changed sharply in but maybe six months causing independents - those who don't blindly follow the party line - to suddenly see George Jr lying. If so much can change so quickly over such little events, then how in hell does anyone hope to guess a next president? Better would be to use a dart board and monkey. Just ask Senator Gary Hart about sure bets.

That reply was exactly about your paragraph 6. Are you now retracting paragraph 6?