Bush has no chance in 2004. He is a 1 term president just like his dad.

:bwave: :salute:

and you base your reasoning on?

Matt, I like you already.... but i'd like to hear your logic.

Dont be a pussy who says things without backing it up.

I have inside information from the Bildebergers. :D

Seriously though. W will lose for the same reason his dad did -- the economy. Even though things look ok now for stocks and the economy, there are some major cracks showing. After a huge decline in the stock market over the next year, the economy will contract, real estate prices will go down, and more importantly people's moods will be angry and negative.

Based on election history over the past 150 years, when the market falls over the president's last 2 years, he is very likely to lose. So it does not matter what W and the republicans say or do from now until the election, he is still gonna be toast.

:okthumb:

Now I'm gonna shock a few people here and say while in the past the economy has been by far the biggest factor in an election that Bush has the possibility of being able to be someone who can defy that trend. IF he can frame the election much more around national security AND the dem candidate doesn't come up with an effective way to deal with that Bush can win despite a bad economy.

Clinton said it best when he visited the college class in Arkansas that studied his presidency http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?Ca...ssue,PE;&Page=2 when he said that the dem candidate, or any candidate for that matter, has to be able to convince voters by doing this:

1) You have to point out something that the public might not have taken notice of that they won't like about the other guy and point out it's something you won't do.

2) You have to point to something that they DO like about the guy and convince them you can do that as well (in our current situation defense)

3) And going back to point two you also have to offer something ELSE you will do on that issue they will like that he won't do.

Even for people who DON'T like Clinton I suggest you watch that video (anyone know what player works for that type (.rm) of file to watch it?) as it's an extremely interesting and candid discussion and whether you like him or not you can get some very interesting political information from the show.

BTW- not sure if that's just a clip or the full show.

MattK I think there is plenty of time for economy to get better....

I also think the group of democrats are a very weak bunch....

I think Bush will win. He is a true leader... I think he has potential to be a great leader.

His father raised taxs, and a bunch of other stupid things.... he was not a leader.... he was a beauracrat... and did not deserve to win the election! Only reason he was elected the first place was thanks to Ronald Reagan ( Who Bush 43 is much closer to in actions then his father)

The number 1 issue, at least for me right now is the war on terror, and National Security, then the ecnomy.... Both I think Bush would do better handling then any democrat....

As much as I hate it, right now the group of dumbasses running against King George doesn't have a fucking chance. And if you doubt for one second that this dude will get us into another conflict at election time and then sell it to the masses that he needs to stay in to finish it then you'll be real surprised. Fuck I hate George Bush, fuck that I hate politicians.

son, the re is no prizes for the longest thread on Oprano
;-)))

I don't know what it may mean for the election, but I agree with your assesment.

I also think the middle east will see major problems, most likely in Saudi Arabia and the Israeli / palestinian conflict.

If we are right, Bush's best chance is national security.

Anyone willing to put some bets against GW Bush in 2004, I am taking offers....

Might as well make some money on this!

Not me. :P

Personally, I could care less who wins. I'd rather see Bush than any of the Democrats, but I guess if it really mattered I would like to see a Libertarian win.

I mean, why not. Let's see what they can do for a change. :rokk:

...are we going to go by popular vote or electoral vote? ;-)))


personally, it doesn't matter who wins, we'll most likely be thrown into a world war 3 situation anyways, sharon and arafat will see to that...

I think we need to more carefully focus on our homegrown terrorists....I personally feel more threatened by the fire and brimstone right to lifers and religious zealots who condone bombing abortion clinics and blame the 911 attacks on homosexuals, white supremacy groups, blind faith right wing zealots, blind faith liberal zealots and the ever-ready to boil over ethnic war that is inevitable in this country more than bad arabs across the ocean.

I think the extremists on both sides of the ideology spectrum represent a very small % of the ppl.

They just get the most coverage. B)

I would like to see it too, but they're having enough of our own problems.

while no doubt Dr. Brown will run again and I'll vote for him again, the Libertarians need to work harder to make strids locally before attmepting anything of substance nationally...

hmmm, ok

I'll bet you $30,000 Bush loses in the 2004 presedential election

you guys think you know politics!? time to put up or shut up baby!

Sykk,

I voted for Brown as well and would do so again. What problems are they having?

I must admit that even though I vote, I do not take much of a personal interest in trying to further the cause.

Mattk,

Who would you vote for and why?

wig, same problems as plaguing the "big two"...a lot of petty bickering and in-fighting over the focus of the party...

too bad, cause if things do get crazy there may be a ripe time period for new approaches to gather some interest and momentum.

Right now it's a joke, but it has to be started somewhere.

It does not matter who the democratic candidate is. The election is about how people are feeling, it is not about rational decision making. When the economy hits the crapper, people will be pissed at the current administration, and W will get voted out. If there is not a popular democrat at the time, someone like Nadar has a shot at making it.

Personally I don't vote or I vote libertarian.

Yup, but that's also why I feel it's important for the party to act locally. If the libertarians can get a nice foothold locally and start influencing local politics, it can set a pathway to more national attention.

It does not matter who the democratic candidate is. The election is about how people are feeling, it is not about rational decision making. When the economy hits the crapper, people will be pissed at the current administration, and W will get voted out. If there is not a popular democrat at the time, someone like Nadar has a shot at making it.

Personally I don't vote or I vote libertarian.[/b][/quote]
Yeah, I understood your philosophy from the first post.

Nader? :blink:

Yup, but that's also why I feel it's important for the party to act locally. If the libertarians can get a nice foothold locally and start influencing local politics, it can set a pathway to more national attention.[/b][/quote]
That's a good point Sykk. :okthumb:

Yeah, I understood your philosophy from the first post.

Nader? :blink:[/b][/quote]

I don't think the Green party could win, but if social dissatisfaction gets really bad, far left democrat could get elected.

Good points Sykk,

you are correct, many diff. people have said that the green party and other parties except the 2, have to gain some ground locally before going for the gold nationally. I still think Ventura might run for national office someday, I don't know when, but I think so.

as of right now, the only dems I see as strong are Kerry and Lieberman.

I like Kerry better as I think he is more mainstream. I would love to see a jew in office someday at the whitehouse, but I don't think I want him.

Kerry's very strong on foreign affairs and has a superb record in Vietnam, Purple heart, silver star, etc, etc. Plus I have always loved him since the early 90's when he was chairman of the Sub Comm. on Pow's, him and Sen. Smith ®. For 1 whole year he dedicated himself to hearings, and all for the info on pow's..

You never know, mabey some Dem. Gov will come into the race later. Clinton started a little late, and won :)

I don't think the Green party could win, but if social dissatisfaction gets really bad, far left democrat could get elected.[/b][/quote]
I would think it would then go to the Dems. I just don't see any of the other parties taking enough votes.

I'd have to say that Nader scared me. I don't know much about him other than the few times I saw him on TV pitching college kids.

His MO was basically, everything that was invented, perfected, designed etc, was because of the Government.

Yeah, that's just what we need. :huh:

Wig,

While Nader might be a little to left for me, I do like and respect him.

He has dedicated his life to fighting big corps that polluted, gov. agency's, etc.

I think after law school, a few yrs. later he won a huge case I belive against Ford???

He is Def. Pro labor and union from what I see.

Todd,

I'm sure that he is a good man at heart. He did not come across conniving, like many career pols.

I just totally disagree with his ideology.

btw, you need checks yet? :yowsa:

Nader scares me as he seems to get a too overboard on some issues. While I appreciate what he has done as far as forcing big corps to clean it up, I don't like his ideas that would seem to almost punish succcessful companies (some of his labor policy ideas). It is refreshing to see someone who cares about the proverbial little man, but unfortunately the little man doesn't vote but boards of directors of large corps do.

While I do think corporations who do pollute the environment should be taken to task (yeah, I'm a tree hugger, so what, try breathing without the oxygen plants produce and take yourself a big gulp of water that is full of lead, rocket feul and/or toxic waste, buy a house up in Yucca Mountain where they want to deposit all of the nuclear waste) I don't agree with so many other things the Green Party suggests.

Of the dems, I like Kerry best as Lieberman scares me with his views on Hollywood and media censorship.

but, I'll most likely "waste" my vote on Dr. Brown again this year ;-)))

The Green Party is downright scary. At best it's socialist, at worst it's on the fringes of communistic.

Consider the current paragraph from their platform (available online at http://www.gp.org/platform/2000/index.html). See Article II Section C number 7:

7. The accumulation of individual wealth in the U.S. has reached grossly unbalanced proportions. It is clear that we cannot rely on the rich to regulate their profit-making excesses for the good of society through “trickle-down economics”. We must take aggressive steps to restore a FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME. We support tax incentives for businesses that apply fair employee wage distributions standards, and income tax policies that restrict the accumulation of excessive individual wealth.

Their underlying ideology is that for the good of society, everyone should make a decent living but there should be no big gap between the rich and the poor. They propose to cap wages and put in place legislation where those who bust their ass, grow mega-successful corporations, or have that one killer idea for an invention or something would no longer be able to become mega-rich. There would be no more Bill Gates, Howard Hughes, J. Paul Getty, John Rockefeller, etc.

This goes against the basic ideas of free market, free enterprise and capitlism. There are no more individuals, only what is good for the group. I believe this was tried in Russia for most of the last century.

I think there's a lot of Libertarians out there. Some libertarians are actually getting elected at the local levels. It would be very interesting if everyone weren't so scared of our two party system and would vote their conscious and vote Libertarian without fearing putting a Democrat in office.

Green Party may actually help in that regard. Hopefully they'll suck away as many Democratic votes as the Libertarians suck away from the Republicans and level the playing field for all of them.

It'll also be interesting to see how Dr. Brown's post 9/11 statements impact his support. They were moronic and brought up some very scary images of what might've happened had he been in office when 9/11 occurred.

He basically had no good answers. 9/11 was an action that called for a show of strength and muscle and that's in direct conflict with the Libertarian ideal of isolationism. Isolationism is all well and good, but if someone brings the fight to you, you gotta be ready to answer.

I think there should be a pool for this with prizes. people should make their picks and give their reasoning and see who in the end is closest.

personally, i think Bush without a war is a political disaster. but i dont see anyone who can challenge him. there are no Democrats that can convince the American public that they will be tough on terrorism, Iran, North Korea, National Defense. The US economy is recovering and growing at more than twice the rate of the EU economy. If anyone thinks that the economy is going to be a political issue in the elections, they are dreaming.

I also believe in the balance of power and the election process and our system of government. i think it would and should also find its center again since there is now one party controlling the 3 branches of government. i doubt that will happen in the presidential elections, it seems more likely that either the house or senate will go back to Democrats in their next election.

People can hate Bush all they want... but the bottom line is that he is and has remained quite popular throughout his presidency regardless of what has happened and what he was accused of (Enron, recession, kyoto, steel tarrifs, abm treaty etc etc). It seems that he and his team are more politically savy than the opposition... whether anyone feels they are right or wrong.

Don't you guys watch the news? The 2004 elections are off!
***********************************************

2004 Presidential Election Canceled

Bush Cites National Security Concerns, Inconvenience

WASHINGTON, June 13 — President Bush announced today that the 2004 presidential election will be canceled due to the war on terrorism and other scheduling conflicts.

Although the U.S. Constitution expressly mandates that presidential elections be held every four years, a little-known clause in the USA Patriot Act, which Congress hastily approved in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, gives the sitting president the option to cancel a presidential election and remain in office indefinitely if he deems it in the national interest.

In a brief statement from the Oval Office, Bush said, ""A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it," adding, "My administration is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."

Upon hearing the news, Democrats on Capitol Hill promptly rolled over and capitulated.

Former Vice President Al Gore was unavailable for comment, as he could not be immediately resuscitated.

Experts agree that the election likely would have been only a formality anyway, with Bush currently enjoying approval ratings unmatched in presidential history. The latest Fox News Opinion Poll put Bush's job performance rating at 165 percent.

The 2004 Re-Election Security Act is the latest in a series of presidential initiatives intended to bring Americans aid and comfort during a time of unprecedented fear and uncertainty. It comes on the heels of Bush's highly touted Economic Security Act and Energy Security Act, as well as the more controversial Snack Food Security Act.

The cancellation of the election is expected to save the oil, energy, accounting, tobacco and gun industries an estimated $50 million in expenditures over the next two years. Instead, the corporations will be asked to make voluntary donations to a new pet project Bush announced today.

Under the plan, known as the Mt. Rushmore Security Act, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt will be joined by new stone carvings of both George W. Bush and his father, former President George H. W. Bush. A dedication ceremony will be held on the first Tuesday of November 2004 in lieu of the presidential election.

It is not clear when, if ever, another presidential election will be held. But congressional researchers announced today that they had discovered another obscure clause in the USA Patriot Act that sheds some light on the matter.

The clause, buried in a subsection called the Bush Dynasty Security Act, states that in the event George W. Bush should ever leave office, anyone not named Jeb, Jenna or Barbara is expressly prohibited from governing the country.



Last edited by Timon at Jun 14 2003, 11:32 PM

they surelly did and Stalin fullfilled the promise of equality.
There were no rich and poor in Russia,
he made everybody EQUALLY poor.

My parents salary was $200 a month each...not bad for medical doctors with 30 years experience
;-)))

hmmm, ok

I'll bet you $30,000 Bush loses in the 2004 presedential election

you guys think you know politics!? time to put up or shut up baby![/b][/quote]
MattK,
time to be a man...I accept your bet,
do you have any escrow agent in mind or do you trust mine?

put up and collect $60k if Bush loses election by landslide.

i think your position is about "how you are feeling" not "how PEOPLE are feeling"

elections if you recall are about "how the MAJORITY of people are feeling"

to support your position, it means you have to prove that most people are dissapointed with Bush. he still remains popular.

Timon,

That was great!!!!!!

:rokk:

LOL :lol:

Let me guess.. that came from The Onion?

I got it from About ;-)

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/we...y/aa040102a.htm

You all have forgotten I' M RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE USA in 2004
With Richard Milhouse Nixon as my VP candidate

I plan to have spam in every fucking email addy in the world

Ye ha motherfuckers let's rock
With the Vick yes all dig don't stop
Got riffs to rock
Brought booze to slam
Now who's the man
Vick Rock
God Damn
Back on the scene like a fiend four beats
ain't slept in weeks
Got too many freaks
Seen too many geeks
Try to rock the rap

So I'm back with heat
To unseat the whack
I'm a unpack and setup shop
I'm a step back
And watcha rock
I'm a bomb tracks
To stop the pop
Then I'm a master blast it
Thru the after shock
I got
Dug ditches
To bury you bitches
Who whoa the flow
Who wanna stop the show
So I'm a roll and throw
Another on point seven
From north of America
to Way south of heaven

I'd vote for you Vick!

I will put up 30k against MattK that Bush does not lose in a landslide.....

Who is going to be escrow?

Classic.

Too early too tell. Too many factors undecided (you know, small stuff like the state of the world and who the Democratic candidate will be).

Of all the main possibilities:
A Bush wins in landslide
B Bush wins close
C Democrat wins in landslide
D Democrat wins close

I would think C is least likely at this point but possible if economy slides or Osama strikes again or something like that.

I think it's an impossible prediction to make from this point but that some people will hit it on luck.

I think C becomes even more unlikely if Osama strikes again, if there is one thing people can depend on it's that Bush kicks terrorist butt.

Classic.[/b][/quote]
kinda cruel. like turning back Cubans once they made it to Florida.
i feel sorry for GFY refugees.

I think C becomes even more unlikely if Osama strikes again, if there is one thing people can depend on it's that Bush kicks terrorist butt.[/b][/quote]
That could be too. I think it would depend on the timing and how well the Democrats market it as a Bush failure vs. how well Bush can market it as
a Bush success. It could be done poorly or well on either side.

Osama still being out there could be marketed well as a Bush failure I think ESPECIALLY if he strikes again. If Osama is caught near election time though that would really give Bush a push and no marketing needed.

This is where guys like Rove and Carville really shine.

I think a lot of die-hard Republicans say "Bush kicks terrorist butt" and a lot of die-hard Democrats say "But where's Osama?" with a lot of people in between leaning a little more towards the former though.

I bet they have Osama tied up in some basement, if he'd be dead the US wouldn't need Bush no more ;-)

Those die hard democrats.... you have to be a pretty die hard moron to argue Rumsfeld is sitting on his ass and that the failure to capture Osama is due to incompetence.... and then to add insult to injury claim that some tree-hugger is going to do a better job.

If any new candidate is going to beat Bush I think his strongest selling point is going to be charisma, good speaking skills and the ability to give a good spin on whatever his agenda is.

To win over the masses it's not what you're selling that's important, it's how you sell it ;-)