Pigasus Award Nomination for Bush

[kevinsbikes]

I would like to nominate George W Bush for the Pigasus Award. I only see his re-election as a Paranormal Event. A complete shift of the entire Universe as I know it. Yes, I realize that my nomination resembles sour grapes... I just have a hard time with the state of affairs of our nation. How on Earth did we re-elect a total retard!?
Please, will someone second my nomination.

 

[American]

Please remember in 2008 that it wasn't guys like me who voted for Bush - it was fundamentalist Christians. You need to mock and insult middle America much more strongly and often, and that should help matters greatly.

 

[Just thinking]

How on Earth did we re-elect a total retard!?

The answer is really quite simple -- regardless of personal political affiliation, there was no good candidate opposite him. This leads one to reconsider just where the retarded thinking lies.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The answer is really quite simple...

If you say so.

 

[Phrost]

Please remember in 2008 that it wasn't guys like me who voted for Bush - it was fundamentalist Christians. You need to mock and insult middle America much more strongly and often, and that should help matters greatly.

I suspect you're not sincere, but I'll ditto your comment.

The fact that "the other side" felt so morally and intellectually superior that they can't understand how they lost is the exact reason why they lost.

Some of us voted against Kerry, as much as others voted against Bush.

Both parties could have fielded better candidates. But I suspect that even if it was a choice between Lieberman and McCain (both true moderates within their parties), or any other, better set of candidates, people would have chosen sides and lined up to fling dung at each other just the same.

Typical monkey behavior. And people wonder about Evolution?

 

[Just thinking]

... Both parties could have fielded better candidates. But I suspect that even if it was a choice between Lieberman and McCain (both true moderates within their parties), or any other, better set of candidates, people would have chosen sides and lined up to fling dung at each other just the same.

Typical monkey behavior. And people wonder about Evolution?

It can't be just the above -- look at the vote tallies between the 2000 and 2004 elections. In 2000 Bush won by only an electoral victory, and not a majority; in 2004 he won by both an electoral majority as well as a popular majority -- and it was in the millions. In order to do this he had to cross party lines (to some degree), to suggest anything else seems highly unlikely. Both blacks and hispanics (as groups) gave a greater percentage of their votes to Bush (2004) than they did to Gore (2000). Now, I'm not going to get into how or why this happened -- that it did is all that matters. I'm reminded of a line from the film "Patton", where the general comments that one wins wars not by dying for your country, but by getting the other poor bastard to die for his. Well, in an election candidates need to do more than just "get out the vote" -- they need to get people from the other side to vote for them as well. Do the math, for each voter from the other side that goes over to your side, your side gets a 2 vote advantage -- one less for them, one more for you.