2004 Election Results: Gee Dubya wins in largest landslide EVER!

Great Debates
21

It IS interesting that the conservatives predict George will win handily, while the liberals predict he’ll have a humiliating loss. It is always helpful to try to guard against self-deception, people.

Predicting a terrible economy in two years simply because we’re still in the middle of a two year recession is silly. The odds are pretty good that the recession will be over by then. Nothing to do with George of course, simply the business cycle. But presidents get blamed for a bad economy and praised for a good economy no matter how unfair it is. So hoping for a bad economy simply because that would mean George gets blamed for it is wishful thinking of a particularly masochistic sort.

And of course, we still don’t have a democratic front runner, and we won’t have one untill the primaries. I don’t see a democratic version of George in 2000, where he was annointed the front runner by the party fat cats before the campaign even started. If the democrats can get a decent candidate up there, George will be in trouble. If. I’m concerned about the Al Sharpton factor…none of the front runners has the courage to take him on. If he becomes kingmaker/spoiler at the convention, the democrats are going to be in big big trouble. Just because George is incompetent doesn’t mean the democrats can’t put up someone incompetent too.

And lastly, the wars. A severe terrorist attack on the US isn’t neccesarily good for the democrats. It’s hard to say, but it could easily work in George’s favor if it is played correctly. If we fight in Iraq and lose, George is finished of course. But losing would take some doing, the more likely course is that we win but with a host of bad side effects: civilian casualties, guerilla war against occupying troops, setting off a regional conflict, who knows. An unambiguous win is a plus for George, a tie is bad, and a loss is unrecoverable.

But the thing is, your prediction of how these events will unfold shouldn’t be influenced by how bad you want to see George lose in 2004. Just because you and all your friends hate him doesn’t mean he’s going to lose, any more than all the conservatives liking him means he’s going to win.

In any case, my bold prediction: It definately isn’t going to be a landslide, unless the democrats nominate Al Sharpton or otherwise implode, it’s going to be close. But if I had to bet today, I’d predict another close win for George. But in reality it is waaaaay to early to call, a lot can change in two years. But I’d take a straight 1:1 bet on George, since I think he’s got a slightly greater than 50% chance of winning.

22

What world do you live in? It is almost unheard of for the incumbent party to pick up seats in the midterm election.
Strong candidate? I guess 60% approval ratings is mighty weak to you. As always, you socialists say things like “lack of competence is becoming more clear”, though to most Americans just how competent he actually is is becoming clearer every day. I am so glad that we have a President that puts America first instead of one that feels the pain of those who would destroy us. 2nd year of Iraq war? Really? Kinda like how Afghanistan was supposed to be, eh? Keep dreaming.

23

Bricker, get over it already with your damn bet - or save it for those who really are deluded enough to be confident of their predictions so far in advance - like the OP, for instance. If you had actually read the post of mine you’re crowing over, you’d have noticed a lot of if-then stuff in what I said.

Remember Rule #1 of GD: Don’t be dishonest or boring.

24

Barring a major heart attack in the next 20 months, Cheney is Bush’s 2004 running mate.

If I had to bet on one side or the other in an even-money bet, I’d take Bush. But it won’t be a landslide. In an even-money bet on “will Dubya get 55% of the vote in 2004?”, I’d bet on ‘no’.

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.

Regardless of whether we’re technically in a recession again between now and then, chances are we’ll have a long stretch of ‘jobless recovery’ just as we did 12 years ago. If people are unemployed, or have to stay with a job they’re unhappy with because nobody’s hiring, and employers aren’t even giving cost-of-living raises because they don’t have to, it feels like recession, even if it’s not. That killed Daddy Bush in 1992, and if the Dem candidate plays it right, it could kill Junior in 2004, especially with his “Leave No Millionare Behind” tax-cut plan. But incumbency is a powerful advantage, and Dubya’s not to be underestimated as a campaigner.

25

I wasn’t aware that GD forbid being boring.

Dishonesty, of course, is verboten - I agree.

And I agree you had some reservations in your post… but “If it’s Dean, bye-bye George,” brooks no contradictions. So I offer you this wager: if it’s Dean as the Democratic nominee, and he wins the election, I lose the bet. If it’s Dean, and he loses, you lose the bet. Any other circumstance is a push.

Have we a wager - same stakes as I offered earlier?

  • Rick
26

Bricker, I never bet on anything, ever. It has nothing to do with a lack of confidence, just the knowledge that there’s no such thing as a sure thing.

27

I think at this point it might be helpful to look at the newest Gallup polling numbers which has Bush beating an “unnamed Democrat” by only 8 points (47 - 39). This does not bode well for a Bush “landslide”.

28

Oh, come now Texican. If it wasn’t for 9/11, we’d be writing Bush’s political obituary. His domestic policy basically consists of pillaging the treasury, throwing the money to the wealthy, and hoping that somehow that will fire up the economy. As for the bill for all this, send it to our children. Firing the Treasury Secretary in the second year of your term is not a sign of strength or competence. In foreign policy, he has failed miserably to build a coalition to start his little pet war with Iraq. This is in sharp contrast to his father, who did a masterful job in building a coalition. In the Afghan war, Bush blew it. They had Osama, and he got away. I see a total lack of competence. Enjoy this term while it lasts, it may be the last Republican presidency for a generation. Oh by the way, I’m not a socialist. Just a good American liberal Democrat.

29

No way does Bush win in a landslide, barring the unforseen and unexpected. But, against a Dean / Sharpton ticket, I like the Republicans.

If Bush were to pick Powell or Rice as a VP replacement… That is not a boring hypothetical topic. I don’t think Cheney is gone unless there are major health issues in the interim.

30

Powell has repeatedly said he has no interest in being VP. He turned down the offer when Dole made it, and I can’t see him wanting to play second fiddle to a half-wit like Bush. Powell could be at the top of the ticket any time he wants. If he were to challenge Junior for the GOP nomination in '04 he would win it easily, but I just don’t think he wants any part of the White House. He clearly has no interest in that office. If CP had ever wanted to be peresident he already would be.

31

OTOH, Bricker’s revised bet offer seems to be pretty fair: you’re sure Dean can beat Bush, and Rick’s sure Bush can beat Dean.

And FWIW, the 20 months between now and November 2004 obscure the vision of both sides equally. This is what makes such a bet interesting.

I gotta go with Bricker on this one too - I don’t remember the rule against being boring. Maybe that’s a Pit rule. :wink:

But that’s exactly why one bets. If you’re waiting for a sure thing to bet on, then you’re hoping for someone else to bet on a sure loser against you. Seems kind of unlikely.

32

Well, MSU, it seems we have different ways of seeing events. You say Bush pillages the treasury, while I say he is NOT pillaging my treasury, which allows me more money by which to stimulate the economy. I suppose that you are one of those that think the ever efficient government spending our money is a better way to grow the economy? Is it our money or is it the government’s? I say it is mine, and my taxes are what supports the govt. You seem to be saying that it is the govt’s money, and they decide to let us keep a little to spend on our own, while they decide how the majority is to be distributed.

I suppose by “failed” coalition you mean France and Germany? I have noticed that quite a few countries are backing us on this. Being that France and Germany stand to lose money with Saddam out of power, I can see their reluctance to join.
One last thing; please tell me how we “lost” Osama. I fail to recall how he was within our grasp to begin with, unless you are referring to the previous administrations failures in this area.

33

Bricker, all I can say, is, to repeat, get over it.

I think it’s significantly more likely than not that Dean would beat Bush, but there’s too much water left to go over the dam to put anything of value on it.

However, next time you’re in Boston or I’m in wherever the hell you are, I’ll treat you to a drink anyway. How’s that?

34

“If he were to challenge Junior for the GOP nomination in '04 he would win it easily”

Surely you aren’t serious? Just who do you think will be doing the voting for the nomination, Democrats? That is the only way. Your statement that the party would dump a sitting President with over 60% approval ratings for a guy who just as easily could have been in a Democrat administration is rediculous.

You Democrats are seriously delusional if you believe that your side can win by running as liberals. You might remember that Clinton won by faking a conservative Democrat slant.

35

That’s not only wrong, it’s crazy. There is no way on God’s green earth that Powell could win the GOP nomination in 2004, unless Dubya decides to go streaking down Pennsylvania Avenue or something equally ridiculous.

The GOP prefers to coronate its nominees if at all possible. Given that Dubya’s already president, there just isn’t room for anyone to successfully challenge him from within the GOP. Dubya’s running right down the GOP’s mainstream. Run far enough to his left to have a reason to rock the boat, and you’re too near the center to pick up significant GOP support. And running far enough to his right puts one in true Cro-Magnon territory.

And if the differences between Powell and Bush aren’t that great and he runs against Bush anyway, then he’ll look stupid for running, and will get only modest support. And Republicans will remember (an elephant never forgets), and Powell will kill his political future as a Republican.

36

Fair enough. And I’ll try to stop needling you about it, knowing that your reluctance is based not in lack of confidence, but lack of surety.

For what it’s worth, I often bet even though there’s no such thing as a sure thing … as long as I perceive the odds are in my favor. If I’m rolling dice and someone’s excited about making a five as his point, and he’s yelling, “This next one will be a five!” I’m happy to bet him six-to-one it WON’T be a five. Sure, I may lose – I WILL lose such a bet, in fact, one out of every nine times. But if I’m only paying six to one odds, I’m happy to take my one loss in nine.

Obviously, the 2004 Presidental elections are a tad more complex than dice odds… but I perceive I have a better than 50-50 shot at being right, which makes me happy to risk a mere even money (or even Scotch) bet.

  • Rick
37

Hmm…You guys may be right about Powell winning a primary. He’s pro-choice, pro-affirmative action and stll too black for some. I still think he would would crush in a genrral election, though, if he decided to run as a independent or even as a Dem.

I’m not particularly a fan of Powell’s, btw. I just think he’s been so over-hyped and lionized by the media that he would get a lot of popular support-- and a lot of people would feel far more comfortable with Powell running a war than the chimp we currently have in the WH.

38

You know, sooner or later the electorate will tire of this sort of red baiting and tribal chest beating and will demand more of the President and his supporters that language and thinking more appropriate to superhero comic books and TV wrestlers. The American public can swallow a lot of balderdash but sooner or later even it will figure out who is coming out way ahead on W’s policies, who is getting crumbs and who is really pulling the levers of power.

In the meantime, this thread is deserving of the two syllable scatological explicative reserved for comments not worthy of response.

39

Sold!

I suspect we may end up buying rounds for each other, though, with plenty to talk about! If you ever find yourself in DC, the first round’s on me.

40

There’s a difference between being 90% sure (confident) and being 100% sure (absolutely certain). I think if it wasn’t for 9/11 Bush would be dead in the water already. A lot is going to depend on how badly he continues to botch the Iraq situation. The economy is now irreversible in the time he has left before the election.