Greens take away votes from Dems...but Libertarians? Until recently, we were led to believe that it was <b>Rebuplicans</b> who would fight for smaller government. Gingrich actually did, in his day. Gingrich would have certainly made a better president than Bush, IMO.
2004 Presidential election not even close!
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
i don't know, but check this out: http://www.lp.org
p. s. Gingrich is pretty kewl...and on top of it all, he's a space enthusiast (my kind of guy).
You are an obvious student of history LOL!!!
You think a 7 point lead over a candidate that hasn't even been nominated is big???
Almost too funny to address.
What were Bush Senior's poll numbers a year before the 1992 election? Did he win?
Here is my prediction. Not as sophisticated perhaps as those already made here by the likes of GG who supported Ahnold because he "liked him" ...Hey, the "sex appeal" factor helped Kennedy beat Nixon. The women's vote made the difference. Anyway, wishful thinking does not make a difference when predicting the outcome of an election.
Economy recovers and Iraq is self governing: Bush wins easily
Economy does not recover (unlikely) and Iraq is still a mess: Bush loses big.
Economy does not recover....Iraq peacefully self governing:Too close to call
Anthrax Killer, Sadam and Bin Laden remain at large: Costs Bush 5-10 points in election. Still can win, but big handicap.
Another terrorist attack on US Soil....Bush wins.
California comes out of it's fiscal mess under Schwarzenegger....if this can swing California's electoral votes to Bush, Bush wins easily. (Big task for Arnold in one years time, but even setting things in a positive direction could be enough).
Third party candidates can work either way. Ross Perot won it for Clinton. Nader won it for Bush. No one knows who or if there will be a third party candidate. Unlikely the Green Party faithful will waste votes again considering Bush administration's environmental policies.
Bush's biggest handicap will be in pre-election debates. (Unless he can set the ground rules...which is likely for at least one debate, but not all). Democrats will be hard pressed to find a worse candidate than Gore. But politics are weird. Anything can happen. Clark, who seems to be the front-runner now among the candidates seems to be a not particularly well liked guy on a social level based on what is said in the press...this sounds like it could eliminate him if true. Personality counts. (Charisma helped carry Clinton from being the youngest Governor in the history of Arkansas to the Whitehorse). But this could be offset by the fact that he is a true military guy in a time of war. A Democrat Army General. Almost a contradiction in terms. His appeal is yet to really be measured. My opinion is that Powell would have been a Democrat if not for the Military/Republican tradition.
If Powell does not actively campaign for Bush (essentially a vote of no confidence) that can hurt Bush. The degree is dependent on what, if anything Powell says. In his heart, I believe he is a Democrat. Could sway the African American vote, but since this constituency already generally votes Democrat, that will not make a big impact.
The Democratic Party had to have learned something from the debacle of the last debates. Gore outscored Bush by a wide margin by most "expert opinions". But was just not "likeable". Can they make the same error twice?
Bottom line is the election is a year away. Polls today are meaningless. But to me, a 7 point lead for an incumbent over candidate that isn't even nominated does not seem like a large lead at all. I am actually surprised at Bush's weakness in that poll.
C'mon, Bush isn't perfect, but he isn't morally bankrupt. Is this a joke?
Why not Buchannon? How 'bout Rush Limbaugh. Why go just part way overboard?
Peace,
RSI'll have to agree with Maverick74. As of today GW will win the elections. And there are many strong reasons for it.
Only well recognized obstacle to GW winning control, would be a bad economy, news can only pump it up with words so much. There is a point that no matter what you hear and no matter what you would like to believe, your job loss, your family and scraping for food or a descent standard of living will make you think reality.
However; many strong reasons to win. Money is no object.
Remember that people vote on perceptions. Money controls the media and how/what info is fed through the total media coverage.
Money is no object. Media is under control.
GW has excellent amount of funds coming in. The treasury has been looted-funds have transferred because of "war" to very few select special interests/companies, that were and are staunch supporters of GW's/ GOP campaign.
Last August congress passed increase from 33% to 45% or 48%? the acquisition limit of smaller media outlets. As it was noted throughout the hearings the "increase would enhance the homogeneity of news provided to the American public".
Electronic elections.
Has anyone here been following the "black box voting news" hacking issues, and certain congressmen having controlling interests over the electronic voting boxes/software programing companies? So far it's not comforting to read the problems regardless who's behind them. Republican or Democrats, it's irrelevant. If the voting cannot be trusted, whoever wins it's scary.
BUT the most important and most worrisome is yet to come. I truly hope I will be proven wrong. But this administration has an ace up its sleeve that will guarantee control of the nation. A first partial card has already been played, the test has been immensely successful so far. Keep this post in mind.
If and when the full hand unfolds, election will be most irrelevant. GW will win 100% guaranteed.
We'll find out next year.
I know this is chit chat, but this post is by no means intended to start a pissing contests between the posters. Only few items to think about as they relate to next elections. We have had these fights before, and it is/was getting old.
Maverick74, good thread, food for thought.
Cheers
Quote from Error 404:
You are an obvious student of history LOL!!!
You think a 7 point lead over a candidate that hasn't even been nominated is big???
Well, you didn't follow my logic. The poll states that Bush has a 13 pt lead over Dean. I was saying that Dean was going to get the nomination. So take that 13 pts. Then I said the greens and libertarians would take another 5 to 7 pts away from the dems. So take the 13 plus the 5 to 7 and you get a 20 pt margin. And yes, a 20 pt margin is absolutely HUGE considering this President's approval rating is below 50% and his approval rating in Iraq has slipped to it's lowest levels. Now throw in all the Bush bashing on the news, throw in all the protests in Europe and in this country, throw in the bad economy, throw in the body bags that keep getting reported every night on the news, and you still have a guy that theoretically has a 20 pt lead! That is absolutely amazing. If you were an outsider that came into this country and saw how Bush has been treated on the news by the liberal press you would assume we were attempting to overthrow the gov't or something. I mean they would think Bush must be behind 30 pts to Dean. Yet, despite all of what's going on, he has close to a 20 pt lead based on the assumptions that the 3rd party candidates will have. Yes, those numbers are huge!
Helpful tip for Dems in the upcoming debate: While Bush is speaking, do not sigh loudly into your microphone. It makes you look like an immature ass.
I believe that the presidential debates have a profound effect on the swing vote.
During the last presidential debate, a lot of americans figured rightly, that Gore was a complete ass when he walked over to Bush's podium and confronted him. In that one move, Gore lost enough votes to put the election in jeopardy.
That republican from New York who was running for senate showed everyone what a fool he was, when during the debate, he walked over to Hillary Clinton's podium and tried to get her to sign a pledge of some sort.
Consequently, I believe that if the issues remain the same, the next presidential election will be determined by how the debates turn out. If one of the presidential candidates make an ass out of himself, he will lose.
Because I have absolutely no respect for George Bush as a man, much less a president, I hope he loses. I just hope that his opponent, has enough common sense not to throw the election away.
During the last presidential debate, a lot of americans figured rightly, that Gore was a complete ass when he walked over to Bush's podium and confronted him. In that one move, Gore lost enough votes to put the election in jeopardy.
That republican from New York who was running for senate showed everyone what a fool he was, when during the debate, he walked over to Hillary Clinton's podium and tried to get her to sign a pledge of some sort.
Consequently, I believe that if the issues remain the same, the next presidential election will be determined by how the debates turn out. If one of the presidential candidates make an ass out of himself, he will lose.
Because I have absolutely no respect for George Bush as a man, much less a president, I hope he loses. I just hope that his opponent, has enough common sense not to throw the election away.