I think your issue is the main reason, but other factors could have
changed.
1. As you say, if Bill had not driven away 5% of the population with
his filandering.
2. If Gore was as good a speaker as he is now. He was really bad then.
Brilliant, but spoke down to everyone, etc. It was painful if you
listened to him a lot like I did.
3. If Nader had not run on the "both parties are the same" platform.
4. The Republican were still 90% in the dark about global warming and a
lot of the population believed their psudo-science. Now they are only
30% in the dark. (Estimates from my small brain.)
from 1 to 3, I think the influence decreases. If you change #1, he
would have won. If you change #3, it is a slight edge in his favor.
--- raschueller <raschueller@yahoo.com> wrote:
> He lost in 2000 because he could not hold on to the liberal wing of
> the party... the reason why... he was linked to Clinton.
= M =
owner of significant cat
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Dems2008-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Dems2008-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Dems2008-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder