The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I know the truth. I know that B. Obama won because Hoss did not put his Hognostications this week and when he does not do so, the Skins lose. If the Skins lose the game prior to a Presidential Election, the Democrat Candidate wins. The result of this election is directly linked to Hoss' actions/inactions in this board. However, some of you may have different views.

Exercise your right to vote.

I'm not sure how this is a different question then how McCain lost.

All of the above, except maybe the trust part (representing change would have been enough). Also I think his race had something to do with getting out minority voters to the polls. He is also very bright and articulate.

JSPB22 wrote:All of the above, except maybe the trust part (representing change would have been enough). Also I think his race had something to do with getting out minority voters to the polls. He is also very bright and articulate.

He IS articulate if one is into preachy know it all from a guy who's demonstrated in no possible way he has any much less all the answers to be President.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I'm not sure how this is a different question then how McCain lost.

They are different. The reasons for which one person may have supported one candidate may not have been the same for not supporting the other. Wait and watch.

He IS articulate if one is into preachy know it all from a guy who's demonstrated in no possible way he has any much less all the answers to be President.

The GOP has mistakenly seen themselves as the exclusive standard bearer for the middle class in America, as the party who represented (and defined) "American values." Karl Rove's legacy will be one of exchanging relatively short-term gain for long-term failure. He's turned them into a regional party and ceded the national stage.
On CNN earlier today, some guy who represented young conservatives was bemoaning the lack of "young, attractive candidates to articulate the conservative message." It ain't the messengers homey.
Obama was better funded, more articulate and much ... MUCH ... better organized. I live in Virginia, had you asked me from the outset, I would have put this state in McCain's column. I thought it was winnable for Obama but I didn't really believe that. The fact that it went for Obama along with Pennsylvania and Ohio is a pretty clear repudiation of the GOP and a resounding endorsement of Barack Obama's message.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:All of the above, except maybe the trust part (representing change would have been enough). Also I think his race had something to do with getting out minority voters to the polls. He is also very bright and articulate.

He IS articulate if one is into preachy know it all from a guy who's demonstrated in no possible way he has any much less all the answers to be President.

None of that has anything to do with being articulate.

- He appeals to more people.

- He's articulate.

- He's addressed more IN-HOUSE issues in the United States that McCain failed to discuss.

- Obama is more worried about fixing our country than meddling with other countries. We have needed someone who wants to fix OUR problems as opposed to creating more with others.

- Obama actually answers questions that are asked to him and doesn't tip-toe around the answer.

Um...he got more votes?

The Republicans did the same thing that the Democrats have done for the past 2 elections... they did not run the candidate most likely to win a national election. The outcome may have been the same, but, it would have been a better fight.

The pending announcement of the incredibly partisan and combative liberal Congressman Ron Emanuel as his COS should tell us where he will be taking us... it's not warm and fuzzy, and certainly not the centrist path he sold to the American people.

DEHog wrote:Um...he got more votes?

Bingo! We have a winner!

Countertrey wrote:The Republicans did the same thing that the Democrats have done for the past 2 elections... they did not run the candidate most likely to win a national election.

Who was more likely to win for the Dems in 2000 than Gore?

The Republicans did the same thing that the Democrats have done for the past 2 elections... they did not run the candidate most likely to win a national election. The outcome may have been the same, but, it would have been a better fight.

Who out of the group of Republicans that lost to McCain in the primaries do you think would have had a better shot against Obama?

Sir_Monk wrote:

The Republicans did the same thing that the Democrats have done for the past 2 elections... they did not run the candidate most likely to win a national election. The outcome may have been the same, but, it would have been a better fight.

Who out of the group of Republicans that lost to McCain in the primaries do you think would have had a better shot against Obama?

Romney... who would have won the candidacy had Huckabee not continued to run to soothe his ego, splitting the base. Huckabee was able to appeal only to the extreme right, and, therefore, could not win. Romney would have been acceptable to the right, but has also demonstrated the ability to go into the most liberal state in the country and win the Governor's office. He has an exceptional understanding of economics, so was perfect for that issue.

Romney... who would have won the candidacy had Huckabee not continued to run to soothe his ego, splitting the base. Huckabee was able to appeal only to the extreme right, and, therefore, could not win. Romney would have been acceptable to the right, but has also demonstrated the ability to go into the most liberal state in the country and win the Governor's office. He has an exceptional understanding of economics, so was perfect for that issue.

That's kind of what I thought. I still think Obama would have won, but when the economy became the major issue of this election a few months ago, it would have been a different race.

Were do you think the Repubilcan party goes from here?

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The Republicans did the same thing that the Democrats have done for the past 2 elections... they did not run the candidate most likely to win a national election.

Who was more likely to win for the Dems in 2000 than Gore?

Alfred E Neuman would have been an improvement.

Think about it. He lost to George W Bush. The economy was booming. Things were rosey... there is no way that he should lose... but he did.

I can remember when W won the nomination, I thought anyone could beat him... I thought they had nominated the wrong Bush brother. But, there was no way I was voting for Al Gore, who was an "entitlement" candidate, in the same was that Dole was nominated in '96. He was not the best candidate... but he was "entitled". So, he got the nomination... and got his butt kicked.

Sir_Monk wrote:

The Republicans did the same thing that the Democrats have done for the past 2 elections... they did not run the candidate most likely to win a national election. The outcome may have been the same, but, it would have been a better fight.

Who out of the group of Republicans that lost to McCain in the primaries do you think would have had a better shot against Obama?

None of them. But they are not the only Republicans. Reagan and then the Contract with America in 1994 showed that this country has not completely abandoned Conservatism. That the Republicans haven't had a serious candidate who even remotely embraced small government since shows they have.

Countertrey wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The Republicans did the same thing that the Democrats have done for the past 2 elections... they did not run the candidate most likely to win a national election.

Who was more likely to win for the Dems in 2000 than Gore?

Alfred E Neuman would have been an improvement.

Think about it. He lost to George W Bush. The economy was booming. Things were rosey... there is no way that he should lose... but he did.

I can remember when W won the nomination, I thought anyone could beat him... I thought they had nominated the wrong Bush brother. But, there was no way I was voting for Al Gore, who was an "entitlement" candidate, in the same was that Dole was nominated in '96. He was not the best candidate... but he was "entitled". So, he got the nomination... and got his butt kicked.

I understand your point about being entitled, having served as Clinton's VP for the previous eight years, but I dispute that there were stronger candidates in the Democratic party. I also dispute the butt kicking. In fact, I dispute that Gore even lost the election.

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The Republicans did the same thing that the Democrats have done for the past 2 elections... they did not run the candidate most likely to win a national election.

Who was more likely to win for the Dems in 2000 than Gore?

Alfred E Neuman would have been an improvement.

Think about it. He lost to George W Bush. The economy was booming. Things were rosey... there is no way that he should lose... but he did.

I can remember when W won the nomination, I thought anyone could beat him... I thought they had nominated the wrong Bush brother. But, there was no way I was voting for Al Gore, who was an "entitlement" candidate, in the same was that Dole was nominated in '96. He was not the best candidate... but he was "entitled". So, he got the nomination... and got his butt kicked.

I understand your point about being entitled, having served as Clinton's VP for the previous eight years, but I dispute that there were stronger candidates in the Democratic party. I also dispute the butt kicking. In fact, I dispute that Gore even lost the election.

Al Gore being a lunatic didn't help either. Running around with his eye twitching, playing the organ and saying how he's going to murder Jacques Clouseau, I mean George Bush....

Obama in the end won for the same reason as over the last 20 years every candidate won, HW, Slick, Slick, W and W, the other party nominated a HORRIBLE candidate and it didn't send much message at all.

Redskin in Canada wrote:I know the truth. I know that B. Obama won because Hoss did not put his Hognostications this week and when he does not do so, the Skins lose. If the Skins lose the game prior to a Presidential Election, the Democrat Candidate wins. The result of this election is directly linked to Hoss' actions/inactions in this board. However, some of you may have different views.

Exercise your right to vote.

I also dispute the butt kicking.

Read it again, and tell me who got his butt kicked.

In fact, I dispute that Gore even lost the election.

Forget that virtually every non-partisan review has validated the results...

You and yours should take your cue from Richard Nixon, who, in 1960, was pushed to challenge the results in Cook County IL, which were pretty clearly fixed. This, and a few other areas, could have changed the election. He said no, and conceded the election. In other words, if NIXON can get over it (with a much better case), why can't you?

The irony is, in making his case, Gore went to the SON OF THE MAN WHO FIXED THE 1960 ELECTIONS IN CHICAGO!!!!

Now, clearly, Gore DID win the popular vote. Shame that's not how the President is determined, huh?

But, I'm sure you are OK with the thousands of absentee military votes that didn't get counted, huh? Can't have it both ways.

Countertrey wrote:

I also dispute the butt kicking. In fact, I dispute that Gore even lost the election.

Read it again, and tell me who got his butt kicked.

Hmm, let's see... the average American?

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

I also dispute the butt kicking. In fact, I dispute that Gore even lost the election.

Read it again, and tell me who got his butt kicked.

Hmm, let's see... the average American?

Well, I would agree... as it was Dole... and therefore, the average American, who lost to the Clintons in 1996...

The way I looked at it was the Skins could afford to lose a game. Being 13-3 for the regular season is enough to get us the bye. On the other hand America needed change. You're welcome.