# 2004 Election Results: Gee Dubya wins in largest landslide EVER! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 3, 2003, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2004-election-results-gee-dubya-wins-in-largest-landslide-ever/158740 "2003-03-03T08:54:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![kp\_72110](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e68b1a/32.png) [@kp\_72110](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kp_72110)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2003, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2004-election-results-gee-dubya-wins-in-largest-landslide-ever/158740/61 "2003-03-04T07:16:44Z")
Thank you for your replies and hijacks… I concede to the majority. Perhaps y’all should start another thread to continue this debate? Peace. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2003, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2004-election-results-gee-dubya-wins-in-largest-landslide-ever/158740/62 "2003-03-04T07:51:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, Sam, I 'd see that the opposite way: > > - If there’s no terrorist attack before 2004, and the US attacks and inevitably wins in Iraq in early 2003, security will not be on the minds of the electorate: we won, OK, so what’s the next priority? Witness Desert Storm I, which went pretty much this way afterwards. You must be young and perhaps don’t remember this drill from the last time around. I remember it well. I was already married and out of college. This is nothing like the first Gulf war. The first Gulf war had nothing to do with U.S. security. Once it was over, it was forgotten. On the contrary, the echoes of 9/11 will continue on for a long time, and a successful war against Iraq would be a huge boost to President Bush. In addition, you’re underestimating just how difficult the U.S. position is in the world with respect to security. In my opinion, Bush is intentionally downplaying the North Korean problem in order to prevent further distractions from Iraq. But that problem is potentially far more difficult. It’s getting harder and harder to see how the U.S. can avoid war with North Korea, or at least a long, drawn out, very tense situation. I expect to see that whole situation elevated in importance as soon as Baghdad falls. And the war on terror doesn’t end with the downfall of Saddam. There is still Iran, NK, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, and lots of other countries harboring terrorists. This battle will be going on for a decade or more. > [@](#): > > - If there is a terrorist attack, especially after Iraq and reasonably close to November 2004, it’s a bonanza for the pubbies: we told you the world was dangerous, we’re doing what we can, and by the way we kicked Saddam’s butt. We’re the ones you can trust, what have those damned Demos done except bitch & moan for 4 years? In general I agree, but that just shows how weak the Democrat’s position is. If there’s an attack, the security concerns play into the Republican’s strengths. If there’s not, the Republicans can play the, “Don’t change a winning team” card. The Democrats are really between a rock and a hard place. > [@](#): > > On second reading: scenario 2 certainly opens up GWB to criticism no matter what, so perhaps we have a lose/lose-less situation. If there is a big terrorist incident, there’s certainly scapegoats to be found to insulate Bush. Tom Ridge looks quite expendable if anything Bad happens. “It was all that crappy management over at HSA! Yeah! That’s the ticket!” It depends on what the attack is. If it was something the Bush administration could have prevented, then yes. And I note that the Democrats are already setting themselves up to be able to play the ‘I told you so’ card by making various vague complaints about the lack of homeland security. But that’s a dangerous game - if they are perceived as being opportunists after a horrible attack, that will hurt. Maybe we can agree that the political ramifications of another terror attack will pretty much depend on the type of attack and how the administration responds to it. ---
**Author:** ![ElwoodCuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/edb3f5/32.png) [@ElwoodCuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElwoodCuse)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2003, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2004-election-results-gee-dubya-wins-in-largest-landslide-ever/158740/63 "2003-03-04T08:36:19Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by december \* > \*\*I think Bush will win a big victory in 2004, regardless of VP, because[ul][li]Republicans did exremely well in 2002.[_]Democrats appear to lack a strong Presidential candidate.[_]Bush has overcome his biggest weakness in 2000, which was lack of experience and apparent lack of competence.[_]By Nov. 2004, the Iraq war will have been completed successfully.[_]The Democrats have veered to the left. Their anti-Bush rhetoric will hurt them in 2004, when his aggressive foreign policy has proved to be successful, especially if terrorism is still a threat.[_]Bush has worked hard to gain minority support, particularly Hispanics.[/ul]I think Condoleezza Rice would probably make a fine VP candidate (and a fine President). I’d love to see her run. However, her campaign skills are untested. [/li] > Bush says he wants Cheney to run again and Cheney says he wants to stay as VP. I have no reason to doubt them. \*\* The Democrats veered to the left? Hardly. If people are pissed off at the Democrats, it’s because most of them caved to Bush and voted to support his war against Iraq. I think the Democrats veered to the right if anything. And Cheney returning as Veep? Please. Not even Bush is that stupid. He’s in bad health and probably the most scandal-vulnerable of anyone in the administration. I’ll put my money on Tom Ridge as his running mate in 2004. Hell, if he had picked TR as Veep in 2000, he would have most likely won Pennsylvania and the whole Florida thing would have been moot. ---
**Author:** ![t-keela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a3d4f5/32.png) [@t-keela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/t-keela)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2004-election-results-gee-dubya-wins-in-largest-landslide-ever/158740/64 "2003-03-04T16:19:00Z")
He ought to just let Big George be his running mate… hot damn, that’s the ticket how’s that go? better than two in the Bush… ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2003, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2004-election-results-gee-dubya-wins-in-largest-landslide-ever/158740/65 "2003-03-04T16:37:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElwoodCuse \* > \*\*The Democrats veered to the left? Hardly. If people are pissed off at the Democrats, it’s because most of them caved to Bush and voted to support his war against Iraq. I think the Democrats veered to the right if anything. \*\* What I meant was the the Democrats have veered to the left since the 2002 election. Apparently the Party agrees with **ElwoodCuse** that they were too far to the right in 2002. The election of 2004 will be a test of this theory. I think the Democrats will be proved wrong. I think most of the votes are in the middle. I think the voters will punish the Democrats for their anti-war obstructionism, not to mention their anti-tax-cut obstructionism, anti-Estrada obstructionism, anti-eleciton reform obstructionism, anti-school choice obstructionism, etc. > [@](#): > > **t-keela** He ought to just let Big George be his running mate… > > hot damn, that’s the ticket > > how’s that go? better than two in the Bush… Are you suggesting that the Democrats nominate Robert Byrd? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2003, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2004-election-results-gee-dubya-wins-in-largest-landslide-ever/158740/66 "2003-03-04T16:39:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > I think the Democrats _can_ win, regardless of how Iraq’s aftermath goes. Just like in 1992, by the time the election rolls around, the war against Saddam will be old news, and the economy will be their friend. I am not so sure. The only thing to be certain is, if GWB has as bad a time in Iraq as he is having now in Afghanistan, the Dems will dig it up and use it against him, even if the media is going to forget about Iraq like it has forgotten Afghanistan. Another thing to consider is the cost of war. Suppose Gulf War II is going to cost 100B US and rebuilding Iraq will take 200B US. Without UN sanction, the only country that may help foot the bill is the UK. You can forget all about Japan, the Arab States, and the EU. 300B, minus say 10% from the UK, that’s a 270B extra burden placed on the US economy. Not pretty. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2004-election-results-gee-dubya-wins-in-largest-landslide-ever/158740.md?page=3)