“When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved,
as a rule the majority are wrong.”
-Eugene V. Debs
Hoosier, Socialist, and American political prisoner
Just 4 fun: Forgotten family history of The Annointed One. (LATimes registration required)
I was just thinking this too… despite Bush’s consistent messages of an “improving economy” and “new jobs,” Bush’s approval ratings are contiuning a slow decline. Two weeks ago, 50 - last week, 49 - this week, 48. I’d say the American electorate is indeed waking up, albeit slowly.
At this point, while I’m sure Bricker’s certainty remains in his own mind, his assertions are far from proven. I suggest that he is the one “out of touch”… he seems to still think that Bush has the support he enjoyed directly after 9/11. News flash: that support has waned significantly. He’s going to have to put up a fight to win.
I’d say, at this point, it’s even money on the results of the election. Unless something major changes between now and then, it’s anyone’s game. I’ll be interested to see if it’s as close as it was last time… it just may be.
Ah, well, if he actually had any facts to support his assertions about what “the public” thinks, this might be in GD instead of the Pit. C’mon, man, if this is what you want to “discuss”, at least put some more cusswords in it, willya? There are standards of decorum to be maintained here.
Tell ya what Bricker, if the gods are unkind and we get The Dumbass back for another 4 years how’s about you gloat by shaking the hand (or stump, if he/she was unlucky) of a returning Iraqi war vet? Maybe then you’ll reflect on the human costs of jumping into wars because ‘you feel like it’ which is the essence of Bush’s justification for this whole exercise as far as I can tell. You also might want to read ‘The Peloponnesian Wars’ by Thucydides and reflect on the whole concept of hubris. Just a thought.
I’d say it’s a reaction to Kay’s report, as opposed to some growing recognition of Bush’s shortcomings. And the economy–market and job growth–will decide the election, just as it almost always does, just as it did for President Clinton. That’s not an endorsement of Bush, BTW.
Sure… all the Democrats are getting unanswered air time right now as the primaries and the convention roll along. But Edwards and Clark are making Kerry spend money now. Bush has a bigger wallet than Kerry and isn’t using it now. The polls are reacting to the current news.
Having lost an uncle to armed conflict, I believe I am reasonably acquainted with the concept.
Nor, fortunately, is “as far as [you] can tell” the actual justification for the armed conflict in Iraq, and a good thing too, for what you can tell appears to be quite limited.
If your point about hubris is directed at my certainty, it’s a valid point - the only one in your post.
On the face of it, this prediction has a 50/50 chance of happening. When you couple that with the fact that we are talking about an incumbent who is ahead in the polls in a strong economy (bull market), it’s really not much of a prediction. Tell me who’s going to win Super Bowl XXXIX and I’ll be impressed.
Haj
“Ahead in the polls” is not a statement of fact. Neither is “strong economy”.
Bricker, you may or may not be right about interpreting the polls, but you still have to explain what factual information you based your confident assertion on. Or was that just smoke from the BBQ?
I think this thread might come back to bite you, Bricker. If Bush loses, you will look like a schmuck, and everybody who disagrees with anything you say for four years after November 3 will reference this thread. If Bush wins, any attempt by you to reference this thread to say “I told you so” will make you look like you’re gloating. This thread puts you in a no-win situation.
Besides, one should never bet one’s credibility on any future event. It takes a lot of correct predictions to build cred, but only one high-profile wrong one to blow it all.
The last poll that I saw showed Bush beating Kerry, albeit not by much. I sort of defined “strong economy” as “bull market” but I should have said “perceived strong economy.”
Haj
Good luck, Rick. Before the election of 2000 was resolved I confidently predicted here at the SDMB that the pending Bush administration would prove itself to be the most corrupt and criminal administration since that of Warren G. Harding.
I was proven wrong. If you ask me, Bush’s is the most criminal administration ever.
But you won’t find my bold predictions here. They were lost to Our Winter of Missed Content and subsequent cullings of outdated threads.
But I’ll remember this. And if you’re right I’ll cry you a river about it.
"Our Winter of Missed Content "
Drag him out and shoot him, I’ll swear out the warrant later.
Uh what? Of course he’s “gloating” with this kind of a thread…
He already said in the OP
Not necessarily true. Jeanne Dixon wrote books, lectured, had private clients, etc. based solely on the fact she said***** “I told JFK not to go to Texas.” That’s what she said, but even that was untrue.
[sup]*I heard her make the claim[/sup]
C’mon, Rick. What’s the point in this?
I, too, feel that most of the screamers on the ‘Bush is EVIL’ side are idiots (or at least people not truly interested in more than being ‘right’) but there are idiots on the other side to the exact same degree.
The bet is on, buddy. I didn’t make it out of any half-assed ‘EVIL!!!’ feeling but out of my experience with judging the electorate and the electoral calculus.
There’s no need for this sort of thing.
Though if I win I fully expect to start a thread with this title: “Oh. Briiiiicker…”
Yes, yes I will.
So don’t think that everyone who’s against GWB is doing it out of unreasoning hatred. I think the trend is there in the numbers (and undeclared persons). But getting all huffy about it a year out won’t do any more than raise your blood pressure or make you look like the sort of person who likes to gloat.
And I have more faith in you than that.
Yea, well, hopefully your uncle didn’t die in an ill-conceived, poorly planned war like we’ve got going right now (two of 'em in fact, although we were right to go in to Afghanistan). 500+ families certainly can’t say the same.
RE: Hubris. It’s directed at you and our leadership. Pride goeth before the fall and we’ve certainly got a proud (and, unfortunately, incompetent) crew in charge right now.
There have been numerous posts on the weak justification for Gulf War II going back before we even started the damn thing–I’d direct you back to them but I get the feeling none of the points made there would sink into that leaden skull of yours.
Yes. I acknowledge the gloating. I am doing so in response to the legions of idiots who are foaming at the mouth with Bush hatred, and my emotional, visceral desire to shove their faces in their error.
My only regret with the wager I offered was that it was taken by the eminently reasonable and rational Jonathan Chance, at whom I would no sooner gloat than… than… well, I just wouldn’t gloat at him, because he’s a rational onserver, not given to partisan rhetoric in the first place.
Well…
I admit, I might well do a small sack dance or two should I win. But only small ones.
Really, this whole thread just looks to me like you’re letting the idiots get to you.
Remember, they’re less than the dust beneath your chariot wheels. Don’t argue with them. Don’t even acknowledge them. They are beneath any reasonable person. They prefer the argument to the solution.
And that’s just for children…not adults. And I know I prefer to be an adult.
If only because there’s so few of us in the world.
Ah yes, the “I’m above partisanship” bullshit. As if.
What, you two are too “mature” to mix it up?
And next time you decide to 69 each other, do it behind closed doors.