The W
Views: 100748436
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.11.14 0002
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush will win in '04
This thread has 83 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 Next(2351 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (48 total)
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#1 Posted on
Bush will win in '04 by doing what his daddy didn't. What's that you ask, well let me tell you. George Bush V. 1.0 was most popular when he went to war with the Saddam. The problem was it was to early in his term and by the time the elections rolled around everybody realized that the economy stunk. Bush V. 1.0 realized that he jumped the gun on war this time around as the people voted him out.

So, what does George Bush V. 2.0 do, well he does nothing but hype a feud with Saddam. He cuts promo after promo about how Sadam must be stopped, meanwhile the economy stinks. Only this time around he waits for elections to creep closer until declaring war with Saddam knowing that most Americans will not cast a vote against a war time president.

It's quite genius when you look at it really, although quite sick. You may doubt me now, but wait and see.

(edited by BigDaddyLoco on 2.1.03 2338)


Promote this thread!
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 229 days
Last activity: 30 days
#2 Posted on
Well it's nice to know that somebody else sees this as well. Another reason to delay the war? If Bush fucks up and/or loses the war, then he can kiss his second term (and probably the Republican majority) goodbye. There are three ways to make Bush 'lose' the war:

1) Large amounts of civillian casualties. If the body-count of non-combatants skyrockets popular support for war will start to fade, while all the anti-war activists will get that much louder.

2) Failure to capture or kill Saddam. Losing Osama was bad, but Iraq has been an adequate distraction from that failure. Losing Saddam as well? More ammo for the Dems in '04. If this happens, and the media keeps some attention on it, look for some scapegoats to be fired in an effort to keep the administration afloat.

3) Deaths of American soldiers. This one can really go either way. Vietnam has taught us to be very wary of sending Americans off to die needlessly. However, after Pearl Harbor America was itching to get revenge. So this could either help or hinder Bush depending on the mood of the public, and how he uses it.

If Bush and the GOP are smart, they'll put the war off for as long as possible.

-Jag



War is when you kill people with no names.
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 510 days
Last activity: 510 days
#3 Posted on
The main reason Bush wins: No primary challenge:
'68 Johnson faced primary challenge. Left election. Republicans win.
'72 no challenge for Nixon. Republican rout.
'76 Reagan challenges Ford. Democrats win.
'80 Kennedy faced Carter. Republicans win.
'84 Reagan unchallenged. Republican rout.
'88 open seat.
'92 Buchanan challenges Bush. Democrats win.
'96 Clinton unchallenged. Democrats win.
'00 open seat.

When a sitting President gets challenged in his own party, he loses the general election. As long as Bush doesn't have to face a challenge from the Right, he's in good shape to retain.



I want you to know, I agree with everything I've just said.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#4 Posted on
But how can Bush win now that we've got the awesome presence of Gephardt on the ticket?! Oh, shut up.



vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3064 days
Last activity: 278 days
#5 Posted on
Given that the likes of Gephardt, Daschle and Lieberman are lining up to chase the Democratic nomination, I'm more concerned that Bush won't have to face a challenge from the LEFT.

Oddly, it wouldn't shock me to see a Republican challenger in 2004, because there's a certain undercurrent among hard-right religious conservatives that Bush isn't conservative ENOUGH. (Translation -- abortion is still legal, we haven't bombed the entire Middle East into the Stone Age yet, and progress towards turning America into a theocracy has been slow.) Someone like an Alan Keyes could easily be a distraction at primary time.




"When I feel depressed, I sit under a willow tree by a cool river, and imagine that I am strangling a duck." -- Kotaro Sarai
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.02
A challenge from the left would be interesting. Look at RedSox's post about primary challengers. They have always come from the left for Dems, and the right from the GOP.

You can also go all the way back to 36' with that logic, as Eisenhower and Johnson in 64' didn't have primary challengers. I don't think Truman in 48' did either, or Roosevelt in 44' 40' or 36'. Hoover didn't in 32' though, and got killed, so that's when it ends.

(edited by MoeGates on 3.1.03 1216)

(edited by MoeGates on 3.1.03 1217)

It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3506 days
Last activity: 3500 days
#7 Posted on
If Republicans can work through a ban on partial birth abortion, conservative Christian voters will stick with Bush. It shouldn't be too hard seeing that a majority of Americans seem to favor the ban, and the AMA has said that the procedure is never needed to protect the health of a mother (unless, of course, you define "health" as not wanting to have your late-term baby torn up while inside of you). I don't see Keyes as being a major third party factor...but does anyone think they might give him a go for VP? Personally I don't see it, and I think they should stick with Cheney. Frist is too inexperienced to be VP.

DMC



Proverbs 9:8
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.02
Keyes as being a major third party factor...but does anyone think they might give him a go for VP?

Thank you, that was the best laugh I had all week.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3064 days
Last activity: 278 days
#9 Posted on
Keyes was just an example -- he'd have zero chance of winning or gaining national credibility, but he's the kind of religious conservative who would have no problem justifying a primary challenge. The rumblings are out there.

From the left, Howard Dean's about the only identifiable liberal running so far, and he's likely to have fundraising issues compared to his opponents. Edwards is too green. Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry and Daschle will attempt to out-bland each other on the way to the nomination, with Kerry being the one I'd bet on if I was a gambling man.

The wild-card, of course, is McCain, and a potential Independent candidacy. (He receives sufficient flak daily from his fellow Republicans to know not to try that route again, and despite the calls by some leftist pundits for him to switch parties and run as a Democrat, he's anything but a liberal in reality.) A Perot-esque indy run could have dramatic implications, particularly if the Dems field a weak candidate.







"When I feel depressed, I sit under a willow tree by a cool river, and imagine that I am strangling a duck." -- Kotaro Sarai
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 510 days
Last activity: 510 days
#10 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    A challenge from the left would be interesting. Look at RedSox's post about primary challengers. They have always come from the left for Dems, and the right from the GOP.

    You can also go all the way back to 36' with that logic, as Eisenhower and Johnson in 64' didn't have primary challengers. I don't think Truman in 48' did either, or Roosevelt in 44' 40' or 36'. Hoover didn't in 32' though, and got killed, so that's when it ends.

    (edited by MoeGates on 3.1.03 1216)

    (edited by MoeGates on 3.1.03 1217)






Truman in '48 had his party split 3 ways, with Thurmond and the Dixiecrats breaking to the right, and Wallace and the Socialists splitting to the left. Reason why I chose '68 was because from that point on the Convention has been more of a rubberstamp to the primaries, unlike previously when the backroom at the Convention held most of the power.
And, as for Alan Keyes as VP: Unless the Republican Party has determined to run on the suicide platform, it won't happen.



I want you to know, I agree with everything I've just said.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.02
Truman in '48 had his party split 3 ways, with Thurmond and the Dixiecrats breaking to the right, and Wallace and the Socialists splitting to the left.

Right, but those weren't primary challenges, they were general election challenges. I'd actually say the convention became the rubber stamp in 72. There was insane political manuevering between Humphrey and Kennedy and the rest for the nomination before Kennedy got shot. Humphrey was definitely a convention nomination, not a primaries nomination.

(edited by MoeGates on 3.1.03 1428)


It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3064 days
Last activity: 278 days
#12 Posted on

    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    Reason why I chose '68 was because from that point on the Convention has been more of a rubberstamp to the primaries, unlike previously when the backroom at the Convention held most of the power.


What about the '72 Democratic Convention, which was a raucous proxy fight for the nomination and for control of the party? (The '72 Republican Convention was sedate by comparison.)





"When I feel depressed, I sit under a willow tree by a cool river, and imagine that I am strangling a duck." -- Kotaro Sarai
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 510 days
Last activity: 510 days
#13 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Truman in '48 had his party split 3 ways, with Thurmond and the Dixiecrats breaking to the right, and Wallace and the Socialists splitting to the left.

    Right, but those weren't primary challenges, they were general election challenges. I'd actually say the convention became the rubber stamp in 72. There was insande political manuevering between Humphrey and Kennedy and the rest for the nomination before Kennedy got shot. Humphrey was definitely a convention nomination, not a primaries nomination.






But, the Dixiecrats walked out of the Convention in '48, and the Socialists had bolted in late '47. The primary system was not the end all/be all for the party at that point.




I want you to know, I agree with everything I've just said.
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3506 days
Last activity: 3500 days
#14 Posted on
So I take it no one believes Keyes as VP would get enough African American votes to make-up for moderates that would not vote Republican? I'm not saying it's ever going to happen but it would make things interesting, and it would solidify the conservative base of the party.

DMC



Proverbs 9:8
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 510 days
Last activity: 510 days
#15 Posted on

    Originally posted by DMC
    So I take it no one believes Keyes as VP would get enough African American votes to make-up for moderates that would not vote Republican? I'm not saying it's ever going to happen but it would make things interesting, and it would solidify the conservative base of the party.

    DMC






If Keyes could draw African-American votes, he would have drawn them in states where independents could vote in primaries. Personally, I like Alan Keyes. Entertaining as hell on the mic. But, all that would happen if he was a Republican VP nominee is the Jesse Jackson's/Al Sharpton's of the world calling him an Uncle Tom.



I want you to know, I agree with everything I've just said.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3064 days
Last activity: 278 days
#16 Posted on
The limiting factor with Keyes is not just his race, but his religious fervor. You can throw dozens of diverse issues at him and get the same "God" and "moral fiber" responses to every one of them.

While many on the right admire that brand of single-minded tenacity, it also makes him unelectable in the mainstream. Bush claimed to be a moderate; Keyes comes right out and declares himself to be an unwavering religious conservative. That doesn't play well with swing voters that are necessary to win major elections, which is one reason that I can sleep at night.




"When I feel depressed, I sit under a willow tree by a cool river, and imagine that I am strangling a duck." -- Kotaro Sarai
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.02
Alan Keyes digs his own grave. In 1996 he had by far the most foreign policy experience (he was Ambassador to the U.N. I believe) of all the primary candidates, but chose not to even talk about that. He's also was probably the most impressive educational credentials out of all of them (the man's a Harvard grad), but also chose not to talk about that. One issue candidates get very small amounts of votes, no matter what that issue happens to be. And Alan Keyes is a one issue candidate by choice, not by necessity.

If the guy actually talked about something other than abortion every time he got the mic, I'd say he could be a viable player in the party. The man's got the credentials and the tools. But I really don't think he's going to do that, and as a result, he's not going to be a player on any level. He's not a polititian, he's not a candidate, he's a crusader. He would rather make a point than win. That's his function, and that's fine, but it's not a recipee for electoral success of any kind.





It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3506 days
Last activity: 3500 days
#18 Posted on
"While many on the right admire that brand of single-minded tenacity, it also makes him unelectable in the mainstream. Bush claimed to be a moderate; Keyes comes right out and declares himself to be an unwavering religious conservative."

Bush claims to be a religious conservative too though. Granted, he is not as much of a firebrand as Keyes, but I think they share more fundamental beliefs than you may think when the chips are on the table. (For example, see Bush's proposal on stem cell research which on the face of it was a fundamentally conservative position.) Also, Keyes did seem more toned down to me when he was on MSNBC, and invited guests of all types of come on and express their opinions. Yes, he is more of a moral crusader and an intellectual debater as Moe says, but who's to say Americans wouldn't go for that in a candidate, especially one who would be a heartbeat away from being the first African American president?

Agreed though, I don't think Keyes would be willing to tone down his presentation to become a more likely candidate. Politics is not in his blood.

DMC





Proverbs 9:8
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.02
but who's to say Americans wouldn't go for that in a candidate, especially one who would be a heartbeat away from being the first African American president?


Americans say they wouldn't go for it. Remember, we aren't talking about a theoretical candidate. We're talking about someone who actually ran (twice?) and got killed.




It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst








Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 113 days
Last activity: 113 days
#20 Posted on
Bush will cruise into a second term if this piece of human garbage actually makes it to the Democratic ticket.

Sharpton to Form Presidential Exploratory Committee


"I'm qualified, probably more qualified than any other person who is expected to be on the Democratic ticket for 2004, because I actually have a following and I speak for the people," said Sharpton, who has never held public office.

What a joke.




Maiden RULES!!!
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Pages: 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Michael Moore: Left-wing Putz
Next thread: Matt Hale: You're Still A Moron!
Previous thread: Freedom of Religion is a lie
(2351 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
You may want to draw a distinction between the "new right" in Europe and "neo-conservatism.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush will win in '04Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.147 seconds.