Who do you think...

[Guest Mole]

State rights such as the EC.

 

You got me on the comprise thing, I was just trying to win that one.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

A better title for this topic would have been:

 

"Who do you think... will get his ass handed to him in '04?"

 

In that case, I'll say Lieberman... and I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of "Repubs are anti-semitic" theme, which goes well with "Bush=Hitler". As for '08, the Dems will lose again as conservatives kill two birds with one stone... the first black and the first woman in office with Dr. Rice. That'll really kill some fellas on this board.

 

Mole: States vs. Federal has been a longstanding issue. Like abortion, taxes, etc., it's 50/50. You must not know very many conservative Repubs.

 

Marney: You'll never win this argument because you can't cop out with, "Well, I just don't like that fascist, war-mongering moron... so there."

[Guest DrTom]

The interesting this is, Gore won the majority of the popular vote if you only look at the two Big Party candidates. When you add in the third-party chaps, Gore no longer has a majority of the popular vote. So for all you whiners who still carp about the majority of the popular vote when it comes to Gore... kindly STFU.

 

Gore: 50999897

Bush: 50456002

Nader: 2882995

Buchanan: 448895

 

Just looking at those four candidates (there were more), Gore has 48.67% of the popular vote. When I was in school and took math classes, that wasn't a majority, and I doubt that's changed in the intervening years.

[Guest bob_barron]

Mole-

 

Bush won the election. Get over it.

[Guest Mole]

I know he did, there is nothing I can do about it. Like I said before, I just find it interesting he didn't win the popular vote, thats all.

 

The only thing I can do is hope he doesn't win again, that is all.

 

Can we PLEASE ignore Cancer and I's discussion and go back to the whole point of the thread in the first place?

 

Who do you think will win the 2004 election?

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

BUSH

[Guest bob_barron]

George Bush is easily going to win the election.

 

I like to think that I keep up with the news but I honestly do not know who most of those Democrats are. Bush is just too popular and none of these Democrats seem like they can capture the American public's attention and win the election

[Guest Ripper]

The Bush administration, it can be argued, have sent the economy into the shitter, have completely turned away the minority and gay/lesbian vote(hmm...isn't that saying the same thing twice...gay/lesbian...anyway) and has made sure to screw up our economy for years to come...and there is still no way he will lose...

 

SHIT!!

[Guest JMA]

Well, I personally would like Bush out of office. But I've learned to be very cynical when it comes to politics (and wrestling). As of RIGHT NOW no one can beat him. After all, he does have the unscrupulous Religious Right backing him. Sad, but true. This would be a better question to ask when the Dems actually choose a candidate (or at least during the primaries).

[Guest NoCalMike]

A lot can happen in one year's time. When Bush/McCain were going at each other, everyone said the Republicans were too unstable and too much infighting would provide an easy win for Gore, and then we all watched Gore flush his campaign down the toilet all by himself. I am still predicting four more years for Bush(uuuuugh)but, who knows, we should wait for the democratic and third party candidates and see if they can break through Bush's Iron Curtain.

[Guest JMA]

I might have actually been swayed to vote Republican if McCain won the primaries. He is the guy who staged a boycott of Fox News.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

The Bush administration... have sent the economy into the shitter, have completely turned away the minority and gay/lesbian vote...

How?

[Guest MD2020]

They won't ever get rid of it, but I think it serves little purpose. People don't really care about state rights anymore, atleast the people I know.

 

This is just some people who were against the war who would go "Well, I don't know anyone who supports the war!!!"

 

I would just look at them and say "Perhaps you should have more diversity among your friends".

 

That pretty much shut them up.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

I like Dean's platform, but he's an awful speaker from what I've seen so far. Not confident at all. The only candidates who exude any kind of confidence are Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman.

 

Personally, I'll be waiting for the debates to kick up before I make a choice, if I do vote democrat. I'm not a fan of Bush but if all the Dems end up being idiots...it'll be a tough call.

[Guest Ripper]

The Bush administration... have sent the economy into the shitter, have completely turned away the minority and gay/lesbian vote...

How?

HEY!!! You can't cut out the "it can be argued" part!!!

 

And your average voter is not deep into political discussions and don't understand the inner workings of the government. They will simply remember having 8 years of economic bliss under Clinton and the Democrats and 4 years of economic hell under Bush. They won't care or believe any reasoning for it besides him being a bad president. The administrations SUPPORT of Sen. Satorum(or what ever the gay bashers name was) was embarassing and I am pretty sure they turned away the gay/lesbian vote and the University of Michigan AA debate(which was moronic for the president, who got into college not by earning a damn thing but because of alumni privilege, to get into" caused alot of damage to his minority relations. AND there STILL isn't away for him to lose.

[Guest MD2020]

The Bush administration... have sent the economy into the shitter, have completely turned away the minority and gay/lesbian vote...

How?

That's what I was wondering.

 

I mean, outside of Andrew Sullivan and Log Cabin members, it's not like gay/lesbian voters were turning up in droves to vote for Bush. You can't really turn away support that you don't have.

 

As for the economy, the president is like a QB--too much credit when it goes well, too much blame when it doesn't. It's not like Bush personally went out and caused all of the dot.coms to crash.

[Guest Ripper]

First of all, this economy is alot worse off than alot of dot.com's crashing.

 

Second, like I said, your average voter simplifies things. Bush president=economy shit, Clinton president=Economy great, Bush Sr. pres=Economy shit...but even with the Bush name being hand and hand with a shitty economy, he will still win.

 

And though he didn't have a overwhelming gay vote, it certainly doens't help when you say that a gay bashers comments is okay. ESPECIALLY weeks after another party member was making racially insensitive comments and you came out against him(giving the impression that you don't really care about the gay community).

 

Bottomline, the guy has done a pretty shitty job as president, but patriotism from the war will carry him into the white house for another term.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I think Bush will win, but not because he's popular now. If the economy picks up it won't be pretty for Dems in November.

 

I say Lieberman/Edwards will be the Dem ticket in '04...

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

interesting column from arianna huffington that agrees with the dems = spineless theory.

 

Democrats: Profiles in spinelessness

It's time for the Democrats to give up their play-it-safe politics and risk offending a radical minority.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Arianna Huffington

 

 

 

May 28, 2003  |  "I a little bit disagree with chairman Roberts on that."

 

That was Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, kinda, sorta, not really taking exception to committee chairman Pat Roberts' assertion that we've turned the corner when it comes to keeping the peace in postwar Iraq.

 

 

But it could just as easily serve as the motto for the whole Democratic Party: "Vote for us -- we kinda, sorta disagree."

 

The party leaders are so timid, spineless and lacking in confidence that to compare them to jellyfish would be an insult to invertebrates. 

 

Call them the pusillanimous opposition.

 

These dithering poltroons are so paralyzed by the fear of doing or saying something that could be turned against them in GOP attack ads that they've rendered themselves impotent when it comes to challenging President Bush on the two most important issues of the day: tax cuts and Iraq.

 

Exhibit A comes from Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle who, when asked on "Meet the Press" why the Democrats didn't offer a bold, full-throated alternative to the Bush tax cut plan, including the repeal of the 2001 cuts and a guaranteed balanced budget, timorously explained: "Well, we -- you got to take it one step at a time."

 

You do -- why? Is this an AA meeting? Bush doesn't take it one step at a time. He's comfortable leading by leaps and bounds. And he's taking us along with him -- straight over a cliff. We're facing a trillion dollars of new debt, incurred by a president with the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover, and the best the leader of the opposition party can muster is a meaningless cliché? Quick, get that man a dose of political Viagra! At least get the blood flowing ... somewhere.

 

Daschle's trumpet issued an equally uncertain call when it came to the war on Iraq. First, he helped draft the Senate's resolution on the use of force. Then, after sticking his finger in the political wind and catching a zephyr of antiwar sentiment, he blasted the president for failing "so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war." When that comment, made the day before the war started, unleashed a torrent of criticism from ever vigilant Republican attack dogs, Daschle hemmed, hawed and executed another political pirouette, claiming that he "probably would have avoided making the statement" if he'd known we were on the brink of war.

 

But a quick check of the record reveals this to be an utterly disingenuous dodge: Word of the impending invasion was all over the media when Daschle opened fire on Bush. Maybe the senator's TV -- and his staff -- was on the fritz that day.

 

It is precisely this kind of craven vacillation that has made possible the triumph of the fanatics in the White House. Democrats are wringing their hands over the "tactical genius" of Karl Rove, and the "brilliant political stagecraft" of his TV experts who always present the president in the best light. Such is the Democrats' fragility that the mere smoke and mirrors of posing the president in profile at Mount Rushmore, or asking the people standing behind him during a recent speech on the economy to take off their ties so they would look more like average Joes, leave them quaking in their boots.

 

But the Democratic National Committee's Terry McAuliffe needs to stop worrying about the GOP using footage of Bush's Top Gun landing on the Abraham Lincoln in campaign ads and start worrying about finding a presidential candidate who isn't afraid to take audacious and decisive stands on the party's core issues. If they can't compete on style, they should at least give it a shot on substance.

 

After all, the problem isn't that Democrats are on the wrong side of the issues. It's that they are afraid to make an issue of being on the right side -- not to mention smack dab in the middle of the American mainstream.

 

For example, only one out of four Americans believe the latest round of tax cuts will significantly reduce their taxes, and just 29 percent think the cuts are the best way to help stimulate the economy. Yet Democrats seem congenitally incapable of challenging a president whose entire domestic agenda consists of more and more tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

The numbers also favor the Democrats on the foreign policy front. According to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 57 percent of Americans are opposed to investing the time and money needed to rebuild Iraq. But the Democrats sit idly by, their thumbs otherwise engaged, while the administration's Iraqi tar baby grows stickier by the day.

 

And on and on it goes: On the environment, Social Security, greater access to affordable healthcare, gun control and abortion, the majority of the American people are with the Democrats.

 

Which makes their inability to offer an alternative to the White House juggernaut all the more nauseating. And disgraceful. And tragic.

 

If this sorry state of affairs is going to change, the Democrats are going to have to jettison their reliance on the consultants who botched the 2002 midterm elections by advising party leaders to avoid taking on the president on tax cuts and Iraq and, instead, offer an unambiguous alternative to Bush's well-crafted image as a straight-shooting man of conviction. It's time for the Democrats to give up their broken play-it-safe politics and risk offending a few vocal members of a radical minority.

 

They seem to have forgotten the old sports adage that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Well, here's a scoreboard update for Messrs. Daschle and McAuliffe, and the rest of the party leadership: You're down by three touchdowns and the electoral clock is starting to run down. It's time to stop taking things "one step at a time" and start throwing deep.

 

also, if you want a real, non-stupid argument about election 2000, gregory palast has put together some pretty good evidence of tomfoolery in the state of florida.

 

http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subj...of%20Presidency

 

some convincing evidence that wasn't widely reported in the u.s. is available in his articles, the best of which is the piece for salon.com. and for those who think he's just a democrat sympathist, read some of his scathing accusations of the clinton-saudi leadership connections. they're fascinating, to say the least.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

also, if you can stand another fairly long article, huffington also critiques the supposed widespread approval for bush in this column.

 

The 77-percent solution

While Karl Rove crows over Bush's postwar approval rating, the latest numbers are lower than you'd think.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Arianna Huffington

 

 

 

May 7, 2003  |  "Seventy-seven percent." For weeks now, those three little words have served as the ultimate discussion stopper. A verbal knockout punch. A conversational coup de grâce. The final number as final word.

 

Whether offered up on TV talk shows or tossed across dining room tables, that magic number -- the president's robust postwar job approval rating -- has been as effective at quelling any disagreement with the Bush administration's selectively bellicose foreign policies or its suicidal tax cuts as a laser-guided bunker buster bomb.

 

 

Seventy-seven percent. It's Bush's flak jacket. A Kevlar stat that has cloaked him in an aura of invincibility. An aura that was only augmented by Operation Photo Op, his 2G tail-hook landing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, floating just off the perilous coast of San Diego, and by the sight of his Democratic challengers squabbling amongst themselves in South Carolina -- desperately and pathetically trying to get the audience to picture them slipping into the role of dive-bombing top gun-in-chief. The idea being, I suppose, that it was all about the presidential flight suit, and not the man inside it.

 

Seventy-seven percent: The president is triumphant. Seventy-seven percent: The president can do no wrong. Seventy-seven percent: End of discussion. End of democratic debate. 

 

Or so the president and his handlers fervently hope. Only it's not. It's just the beginning.

 

For starters, majorities can be -- and very, very often have been -- dead wrong. For instance, "Macarena" held the top spot on the Billboard singles chart for 14 straight weeks. Need I say more? And I'm not even pointing out to the president that a majority voted against him in the last election.

 

But let's put aside for the moment the ludicrousness of basing anything on increasingly inaccurate opinion polls (With their plummeting response rates, laughably small samplings and precision-flouting margins of error, these things are becoming less reliable than Rob on "Survivor: The Amazon") and take a closer look at the latest numbers. You'll see that the president isn't flying anywhere near as high as Karl Rove would like us to believe.

 

For one thing, in the latest Newsweek poll, the president's approval rating has already slumped to 65 percent -- a 12-point drop since the post-fall-of-Baghdad euphoria that goosed him to the much bandied-about double 7's. And even that figure pales in comparison to the 89-percent rating his father sported after the first Gulf War -- and Ol' 41 hadn't even toppled a single statue of Saddam, let alone an entire murderous regime.

 

When you break the numbers down further, you discover that the current President Bush is on even shakier electoral ground -- standing astride a partisan chasm that threatens to topple his own monuments. Following Desert Storm, both Republicans and Democrats felt good about the job George the Elder had done: he had a stratospheric 96-percent approval rating among his fellow Republicans and, even more importantly, an 80-percent rating among members of the opposition party, a spread of only 16 points. George the Junior, on the other hand, is facing a massive 51-point difference of opinion: Ninety-seven percent of his party members approve of his efforts, but less than half of Democrats -- 46 percent -- feel the same way.

 

Even after 9/11, Afghanistan, and the fall of Saddam, America is as polarized as it was during the days of dangling chads, scrubbed ballots, and endless recounts. And it's no accident: The administration's policies have sliced the body politic in two, and, as an added bonus, dramatically turned the majority of the civilized world against us.

 

So much for Bush's incessant campaign claims that he was going to be "a uniter not a divider."

 

The instability of the president's putative popularity becomes even more apparent when the subject of the polls is switched from the war in Iraq to the floundering economy here at home. Only 49 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of the economy, and more than half think that the president is not paying enough attention to the issue -- which is a big problem for the White House, since a majority of those polled cite the economy as their top concern. I'm sure Team Bush wishes the rest of us were paying as little attention to the economy as he is.

 

It's no wonder Rove is struggling so mightily to make 2004 about little more than picking a cockpit-ready commander in chief. But being president entails a lot more than making tail-hook landings and ordering last-minute bombing runs on restaurants and mosques where Saddam is purported to be hiding. It requires vision and leadership -- and the ability to come up with a way to deal with 6-percent national unemployment that doesn't include hammering Congress to pass yet another tax cut for the rich or repeating the word "jobs" close to three dozen times in a single speech, as the president did two weeks ago.

 

But even if you put all that aside and focus exclusively on the "endless war" the administration seems determined to wage -- or at least determined to campaign on -- the White House's reliance on polling seems destined to blow up in all of our faces.

 

Can you think of anything more preposterous -- and dangerous -- than determining matters of war and peace based on public opinion surveys? Yet all indications are that Bush and chief strategist Rove are chronic poll watchers and takers. A scary thought when you consider how consistently unreliable polls turn out to be.

 

Take the case of a Los Angeles Times poll conducted during the early days of the Iraq invasion. According to the survey, which was based on the responses of 745 people obviously lacking caller ID, 50 percent of Americans were in favor of expanding the fighting in the Middle East to include Iran if it continued to develop nuclear weapons. Pretty impressive. And utterly dubious. Just one week after the L.A. Times' headline-grabbing findings, a Gallup poll on the same subject came up with wildly contradictory results, determining that a whopping 69 percent of Americans opposed an invasion of Iran -- even if it was proven to be developing WMD or aiding terrorists.

 

So which was it? Were Americans gung-ho to take on Iran or did the thought send a shiver up our collective spine? And what if the Wolfowitzes of the world had used the first set of numbers to convince Karl Rove that launching a preemptive strike against Iran would be a good political move? Would the Gallup findings have then led the president to make an apologetic call to the ruling ayatollahs in Tehran: "Sorry, fellas, my bad. But that's polling for ya!"

 

It's bad enough taking a poll to determine if the public is in favor of requiring school kids to wear uniforms; it's downright Strangelovian to ask them if they are in favor of attacking a sovereign nation.

 

Even if your approval rating is 100 percent.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I don't know if this has been a topic before, but if it has, ignore this.

 

Anyway, who do you think and want to be the next President of the US?

 

I don't think Bush will win again, nor do I think Lieberman will win. Lieberman won't win because he is Jewish, which says a lot for the US. Even though Liberman is from my state, Connecticut and a Democrat, which I am, I still don't want him as President.

 

After he said the reason for Columbine was Marilyn Manson, I knew he wouldn't be a good President.

 

I don't know who else is in the primary for the Democrats, but I just hope it isn't Bush.

 

What about you fellas?

Lieberman won't win because, in 2000, he showed a willingness to sell out his beliefs in pursuit of higher office ("I support --- oh, mean I OPPOSE --- school choice. My bad.") He won't win because he's the most pro-censorship guy running.

 

Who will win the election?

 

Bush --- and fairly easily. I'm PRAYING the Dems follow the advice of some on the boards and pick a REALLY liberal candidate.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

By would I find it "funny" when Clinton didn't win the majority of vote? I find it "funny" that Bush didn't win the popular vote, but won the election. The electoral college is only around because the founding fathers didn't think the people could pick a correct canidate, so they had a back system. The EC isn't needed anymore, in my opinion. Basically, I am saying that Bush shouldn't be President because more people voted for Gore. That is all.

 

So where did Clinton loose the popular vote? If you mean won by the majority of the vote, at least 50%

(emphasis added)

 

And if we are going to get anal about grammar, it's composed not comprised.

You notice that, head-to-head, Bush beats Clinton?

 

Nifty, huh?

-=Mike

...Who hoped that people would recognize that candidates don't run to win the popular vote.

[Guest Mole]

Wow, I never thought that many people would think Bush would win again. Maybe it is because most of the people I talk to are anti-Bush, but most of them don't like Bush as President, nor do they want him again.

 

What has he done good for this country? Lets not discuss the war because that is a topic in its own. Other than that, what has he done for the US?

[Guest Mole]

By would I find it "funny" when Clinton didn't win the majority of vote? I find it "funny" that Bush didn't win the popular vote, but won the election. The electoral college is only around because the founding fathers didn't think the people could pick a correct canidate, so they had a back system. The EC isn't needed anymore, in my opinion. Basically, I am saying that Bush shouldn't be President because more people voted for Gore. That is all.

 

So where did Clinton loose the popular vote? If you mean won by the majority of the vote, at least 50%

(emphasis added)

 

And if we are going to get anal about grammar, it's composed not comprised.

You notice that, head-to-head, Bush beats Clinton?

 

Nifty, huh?

-=Mike

...Who hoped that people would recognize that candidates don't run to win the popular vote.

What? You can't argue that at all.

 

Some people who voted for Bush, could of voted for Clinton. That is one of the weakest arguements I've heard/

[Guest bob_barron]

Wow, I never thought that many people would think Bush would win again. Maybe it is because most of the people I talk to are anti-Bush, but most of them don't like Bush as President, nor do they want him again.

 

What has he done good for this country? Lets not discuss the war because that is a topic in its own. Other than that, what has he done for the US?

Why not? Bush's approval ratings have always been high.

 

Didn't the Democrats getting KILLED in the 2002 mid-term elections show you anything?

 

It's quite obvious that Bush is going to get re-elected.

 

If your friends don't want Bush as President again that's fine but if they don't think he's probably going to win- then they're pretty stupid.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

By would I find it "funny" when Clinton didn't win the majority of vote? I find it "funny" that Bush didn't win the popular vote, but won the election. The electoral college is only around because the founding fathers didn't think the people could pick a correct canidate, so they had a back system. The EC isn't needed anymore, in my opinion. Basically, I am saying that Bush shouldn't be President because more people voted for Gore. That is all.

 

So where did Clinton loose the popular vote? If you mean won by the majority of the vote, at least 50%

(emphasis added)

 

And if we are going to get anal about grammar, it's composed not comprised.

You notice that, head-to-head, Bush beats Clinton?

 

Nifty, huh?

-=Mike

...Who hoped that people would recognize that candidates don't run to win the popular vote.

What? You can't argue that at all.

 

Some people who voted for Bush, could of voted for Clinton. That is one of the weakest arguements I've heard/

ALMOST -- but not quite --- as weak as arguing that Gore won the election because he won the popular vote.

 

Red herrings and straw men are REAL easy to prop up.

-=Mike

...As a rule, Bush supporters wouldn't have voted for Clinton.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

First of all, this economy is alot worse off than alot of dot.com's crashing.

 

Second, like I said, your average voter simplifies things. Bush president=economy shit, Clinton president=Economy great, Bush Sr. pres=Economy shit...but even with the Bush name being hand and hand with a shitty economy, he will still win.

 

And though he didn't have a overwhelming gay vote, it certainly doens't help when you say that a gay bashers comments is okay. ESPECIALLY weeks after another party member was making racially insensitive comments and you came out against him(giving the impression that you don't really care about the gay community).

 

Bottomline, the guy has done a pretty shitty job as president, but patriotism from the war will carry him into the white house for another term.

Oh, the economy's problems are FAR greater than the dot-com collapse --- though that was a biggie.

 

There is that whole virtually non-existant oversight of corporate accounting that really flourished under a former President who shan't be named that didn't help a thing.

 

If Santorum's comments equate to "gay-bashing", then gays have no problem whatsoever in this country. There is a difference between gay-critical and gay-bashing. Just because a comment is opposed to homosexuality does not mean it's gay bashing.

 

Eminem = gay bashing.

Santorum = not.

 

Not that hard to follow, I don't think.

 

If you don't mind me askng, what has Bush done that was so bad? I mean, he only led us during our darkest hour.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

If you don't mind me askng, what has Bush done that was so bad? I mean, he only led us during our darkest hour.

 

http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard.html

 

that sums it up fairly efficiently.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

There is that whole virtually non-existant oversight of corporate accounting that really flourished under a former President who shan't be named that didn't help a thing.

 

the massive deregulation actually started in the end of bush one's tenure.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

If you don't mind me askng, what has Bush done that was so bad? I mean, he only led us during our darkest hour.

 

http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard.html

 

that sums it up fairly efficiently.

The site fails at objectivity when it assumes that tax cuts are bad.