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

Great Debates
41

Maybe I wasn’t clear about Dean, either - I think he’ll have a rough time getting the nomination, which is so front-weighted now that money (= TV time) is more decisive than ever. It will be much harder for a grass-roots candidacy like Carter’s or Clinton’s to emerge, yet that’s the route Dean will have to travel.

IF he somehow overcomes that, and it’s possible given that he’s the only Democratic candidate that seems to me to have the possibility of catching fire, THEN I give him odds of beating Bush. If money talks, once again, then I have to bet on Kerry - yet he has never shown much sign in the Senate that he can inspire a followership.

Plus, a winning candidate has to be a present or recent governor or VP (every one since Kennedy, including Dubya and Gore if you’re counting), but not a Senator. In the Democratic field, only Dean qualifies.

42

Depends on what you mean by ‘conservative’. Universal health care was one of his principal issues. That’s hardly conservative.

FWIW, 25 years ago the conventional wisdom was that Republicans couldn’t win by running as conservatives. But it worked. The GOP over the past 25 years has articulated a consistent conservative agenda, and sold it to the public.

If another party is going to win, they can’t do it by selling the same stuff as the party in power; they have to win by selling something different enough that it gives people a reason to not vote for the guys who are already running things. Since the Democrats are by definition to the left of the Republicans, that means they’ve got to identify areas where they believe liberalism works better for America than conservatism does, and sell the public on it. Whether they run ‘as liberals’ or not, that certainly requires them to unapologetically run on a number of liberal positions. The alternative is irrelevance.

43

Did someone mention my name?

Good thing you haven’t forgotten that bet, Bricker…cause meesa gonna be collecting.

Seriously, successful war in Iraq or no the election is going to come down to the economy. If the democratic candidate can hit GWB with ‘Are you better off now…’ every 15 minutes in 2004 then GWB is in major trouble.

Look, we’re going to win a war in Iraq, there’s no doubt about that. But how we govern is going to have a lot to do with how the election goes as well. If the American electorate perceives us as ‘conquerors’ and not ‘liberators’ then that will also be a blow to Bush’s standing in the 2004 election.

A few things I take as signs…

  1. Bush’s numbers are soft. Sure, his core base is strong for him but the 20-25% of the middle is vacillating right now.

  2. The sheer number of democratic contenders who have entered the field. Just seeing 9 candidates so early in the cycle (even if some of them are foolish) indicates that the Democratic party believes they can knock him off with the right campaign and message. I wouldn’t be surprised if we get up to 12 or so by the primaries.

44

If the election was held now, GWB would win, with a larger majority that he did last time- which was REALLY close. Since there is no way GWB will win either Ca (the largest state by quite a bit), or NY (the 3rd largest)- then it can’t possibly be even close to “the largest landslide ever” since some won by all but a single vote (which is unlikely to ever happen again, they way they run the Electoral College).

GW did handle 9-11 very well. Even though I voted for Gore, I doubt if Gore would have done as well. The economy would have been far better under Gore- since a good part of the downturn was caused by a lack of confidence (valid or not) in the Bush Administration.

The War in Iraq hasn’t even started yet. Doubtful if this will be as popular & well handled as Afganistan. The economy may continue to get worse- or more likely, limp along. The threat of war makes the “Bulls & Bears” uneasy- so that is another thing GWB is doing that is hurting the economy- although you can argue he has little choice.

However- the war may go GREAT. The economy may get better. Then Bush will have almost a shoe-in; barring some weird scandal.

But if the war goes badly, we don’t catch Osama, and the economy gets even worse- then the Dems will have a good chance- as long as they don’t nominate someone too liberal.

So- right now, I’d say; we simply don’t know enough to make a decent prediction.

But I’ll give you 3-1 odds, kp, that GWB does not win every single vote in the Electoral College- and since that would be the only way to make it “the biggest landslide ever”, you’ll lose. That much I am confident of.

45

Bush needs to remind the American people that the economy wasn’t exactly stellar during the year before his presidency either, the dotcom bubble burst in early 2000 during the last year of the Clinton presidency. Frankly, the American people might cling to the delusion that government policy can end recessions, but the intelligent voter knows better. It’s just too bad that presidencies get judged on the basis of something like economic strength which is just an uncontrollable roller-coaster anyways.

Bush’s real problem will be that his greatest strength and his greatest moments were responding to 9-11. He is hamstrung and prevented from highlighting his golden moments because if he does the Democrats will jump in and claim that he’s using the tragedy of 9-11 to his advantage.

Even with all those problems, he’ll beat a New England liberal in a walk. Unfortunately for the Dems, the only candidate they have with executive experiences is…a New England liberal. Gephardt’s tied himself in with the union vote in a time in which union membership has dwindled to the lowest it’s been in 20 years. Edwards is being criticized as a wealthy trial lawyer. There might be alot of displeasure over the economy and the upcoming war, but the Dems haven’t put anybody out there who as of right now is a winner. Clinton came out of nowhere, maybe some unknown Dem will make a similiar run, but I’m not seeing it yet.

46

Wow! Such blind ignorance.

The difference between Dems and Repubs these days? Dems are tax and spend, Repubs just spend. I guess they feel that later a Dem will come along and increase taxes to pay down the deficit. Then they can blame those nasty Dems for taking all your money.

You may be happy that Bush has increased spending on the military and education while cutting social programs, transportation, agriculture and environmental protection. But the overall budget is not lower. Where do you think the money comes from? Think we can just “print s’more”?

“Failed coalition”: France, Germany, Russia, China, Canada, Mexico, Turkey, Arab League, 11 out of 15 Security Council members, etc. etc.

Saying it’s just France and Germany is misleading and WRONG.

(FWIW, I don’t think anyone can predict the election at this point. It’s rather stupid to forget what happened to Bush the elder, and it’s equally stupid to assume Bush jr. will make the same mistakes.)

47

Let’s see, Tex. Who does the deficit belong to? Us? It must, Bush used to tell us the Clinton surplus belonged to us, so the Bush debt must as well, too. Which is more responsible, to spend within our means and pay down the debt, or to rape the treasury for your fat cat benefactors?

And the government decides how the majority is distributed? Oh, come on. Are your federal taxes > 50%? I didn’t think so. Majority, my foot.

48

The hypothetical question was IF Bush were to pick Rice as a running mate. I personally don’t think he would do that because in my opinion the guy is an idiot. However, I do believe if by some chance he managed to pull his head out of his ass and picked her, just by virtue of her skin color and sex, she would bring out a lot of people that normally don’t even vote. I also happen to think Rice, while not an experienced politician, is a decent person and would make an excellent choice. It’s just too bad Bush will be on the ticket as well.

While it may be true that that ticket would run off a lot of the redneck racists in the south, I think it would win over enough women and black voters to counter the minority of klansmen it would run off. I happen to live in the south and I won’t deny the racism that exists here, but you should bear in mind the majority of us aren’t like that. And don’t even get me started on the finest women in the world, southern girls! :wink:

FTR- I was raised in Arkansas and most of my childhood Clinton was the top dog at the capitol. I will admit he is a highly intelligent person, but he is also a self centered, egotistical scumbag. I was shocked when he was elected as President the first time. I had no idea how easily people in this country could be fooled. Call me naive.

At least he did have something Bush didn’t: political experience.

I also lived in Texas for almost 20 years and was there when Bush was elected. He immediately sought the presidency and abandoned his Governership. It was obvious he had no desire to lead Texas, he just wanted to be like daddy and play president. Unlike daddy though, Bush is a few brain cells shy of being homo-sapien. He has nowhere near the brain capacity of Bill Clinton but is every bit as self serving as Clinton. Between the 2 evils, and this is causing my head to explode to even admit, I’d rather have a sneaky smart guy like Clinton then a moron like Bush that just wants to make sure his oil buddies and he make good.

Also FTR- Al Gore did win the popular vote and in fact received more votes then Clinton did in either of his wins.

So I guess it’s obvious I think politicians on both sides are scumbags.

So tell me, what democratic ticket could beat a Bush/Rice ticket?

49

See, this is what the democrats need for a victory on '04, bad things for America. You can almost hear them rooting against us.

By the way, can you cite anything that calls enforcing the cease-fire of the Gulf War an “illegal invasion”?

50

Hmm, another diehard conservative. Seeing a pattern, am I?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
**I think Bush will win a big victory in 2004, regardless of VP, because

[li]Republicans did exremely well in 2002.[/li][/QUOTE]

Even after screwing up the country for the last two years…

[QUOTE]

[li]Bush has overcome his biggest weakness in 2000, which was lack of experience and lack of competence, mentally and politically.[/li][/QUOTE]

Well, it all depends on what you mean by “overcome.” If you mean “completely succumb to it,” then I’m right there with you.

[QUOTE]

[li]By Nov. 2004, the Iraq war will have been completed successfully.[/li][/QUOTE]

Especially since it’s only going to be a “War on Terrorism”-size conflict.

[QUOTE]

[li]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.[/li][/QUOTE]

That is, unless some ridiculous country actually has the nerve to complain about American interventionalism, which has never been criticized yet (cough).

Yet if Bush’s foreign policy actually works, you’re saying that we’ll have more terrorists to worry about?

[QUOTE]

[li]Bush has worked hard to gain minority support, particularly Hispanics.[/li][/QUOTE]

Once again, cough cough.

[QUOTE]

[li]Democrats appear to lack a strong Presidential candidate.[/li][/QUOTE]

All I have to say is… Clinton 2004!!!

51

Hmm, another diehard conservative. Seeing a pattern, am I?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
**I think Bush will win a big victory in 2004, regardless of VP, because

[li]Republicans did exremely well in 2002.[/li][/QUOTE]

Even after screwing up the country for the last two years…

[QUOTE]

[li]Bush has overcome his biggest weakness in 2000, which was lack of experience and lack of competence, mentally and politically.[/li][/QUOTE]

Well, it all depends on what you mean by “overcome.” If you mean “completely succumb to it,” then I’m right there with you.

[QUOTE]

[li]By Nov. 2004, the Iraq war will have been completed successfully.[/li][/QUOTE]

Especially since it’s only going to be a “War on Terrorism”-size conflict.

[QUOTE]

[li]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.[/li][/QUOTE]

That is, unless some ridiculous country actually has the nerve to complain about American interventionalism, which has not been criticized to date (cough).

Yet if Bush’s foreign policy actually works, you’re saying that we’ll have more terrorists to worry about?

[QUOTE]

[li]Bush has worked hard to gain minority support, particularly Hispanics.[/li][/QUOTE]

Once again, cough cough.

[QUOTE]

[li]Democrats appear to lack a strong Presidential candidate.[/li][/QUOTE]

All I have to say is… Clinton 2004!!!

52

The vast majority of third party candidate voters are gonna go dem this time around. A big chunk of those liberal lazy weasels that said “it doesn’t matter who’s in the White House” are gonna get off their duffs to vote. Dang, I’ve already marked my calendar to make sure I register in time for absentee voting overseas, and I haven’t voted since 1980.

The economy is gonna sink Bush like it did his Daddy. Bush can’t even get Greenspan to support his latest crapola, and that’s saying something about a political animal like Greenspan. Heard that Republican line far too long about how deficit spending is good for you. Regean got away with it, but burned plenty of fingers. Hell, even I thought there might be some normal Republican fiscal conservatism in the White House, but Bush’s spending policy and tax cuts are going to fester in the underlying economy for many many years.

53

Barring horrible events happening, I think Bush will win handily.

The Democrats have BIG problems, and not just for the next election. There’s a good chance the Democrats will stay in the minority for a decade or two. Look at all the trends moving away from the Democrats:

[ul]
[li]Security has risen to the top of the list of concerns again as it did in the Cold War, and like it or not, Republicans kill Democrats on security.[/li][li]The population is aging, and populations turn more conservative as they get older.[/li][li]The Democrat’s ‘base’ is fracturing. The black vote used to go, what, 95% Democrat? That’s going down every year as blacks become wealthier and Republicans actively reach out to them. [/li][li]There is a growing ‘investor class’, and that helps Republicans.[/li][li]Campaign finance reform has hurt Democrat’s ability to raise money. Republicans have always been better at raising ‘hard’ money.[/li][li]Republicans are in the majority in both houses, and hold the White House. Incumbents always have an advantage.[/li][li]The Republicans will have a very unified convention in 2004, and Bush can raise money like crazy. The Democrats, on the other hand, rate to have a very divisive year, and by the time a single candidate is chosen there will have been a lot of damage.[/li][/ul]

Those liabilities are formidable. And this should give you pause: Only one Democratic president has been elected since 1980, and by all accounts George Bush I ran one of the worst presidential campaigns in history, and Clinton was one of the most gifted politicians the U.S. has ever seen. Even so, the elections were close. And that was when conditions in the U.S. were about as good as they possibly could be for a Democratic run at the presidency.

While noting that 2 years is an eternity in politics, if someone wanted to bet me today I’d probably offer 2-1 odds on a Democrat beating Bush.

54

Sam, I’ll leave your list to others. Some of what you say is well taken, other things not. One thing, tho:

Um, you have looked at the Dow and Nasdaq lately, right? Just checking.

Taps foot, looks at watch, counting the nanseconds until hearing hand-waving yadayada about bubble economies, dividends, other nonsense, to explain away why the investor class wouldn’t be pissed in 2004. Humph.

A rising tide lifts all yachts, I guess.

55

Sure, I’ve noticed. I’ve also noticed that people who hold stocks are still more likely to vote Republican than Democrat.

And you can’t honestly blame anything about the recent downturn in the markets on Bush, can you? Or if you do, please point towards the policy of his that resulted in this downturn.

And let me amplify your small print - the dot-com bubble broke before Bush was elected. The economy started slowing long before Bush was elected. And then 9/11 happened.

Blaming any of this on Bush is disingenuous. But this is really a hijack, so let’s just drop it.

56

Sam: You haven’t disappointed me. :smiley:

I don’t blame all of it on Bush right now. However, blaming low stock prices on Clinton in 2004 is going to sound pretty silly. Its starting to sound pretty silly now. I think the investor class will finally take note at some point, no?

As far as dropping it: fine – but it was your bullet point, why is commentary on it not valid?

57

If Gore would run w/ Clinton as his VP then the Dems might win…otherwise ol’ GW will just bribe the morons with a few hundred more bucks back on their tax returns.

Damn I can’t believe the idiots that went for that…some of my own friends. You should have seen them, waving their few measly $$ around like they showed me.

Now…mm-mmm…need some mustard for them biscuits, I just want to sling-blade their ass.

58

Actually, on reflection, let me amplify on the economy theme a little:

  • Deficits were once a huge hot-button issue.
  • Deficits are now back with a vengeance.
  • GWB has submitted a budget that basically shows deficits “as far as the eye can see” (quoting someone, cite lost).
  • There is currently no plan to reduce spending or deficits.
  • The GWB admin is being very elusive on the costs of war with and rebuilding of Iraq. The bill will come due before 2004.
  • GOP fiscal conservatives are at best uncomfortable with this situation, rumor has it some are pretty pissed.
  • Waving all of this away as a cost of the War on Terrorism will only go so far.
  • At some point, everyone will ask, What is the Plan to deal with these deficits? The GWB admin had better have some reasonably good answers.

So, in 2004: deficits are far beyond record levels. The money supply has tightened up as a result, driving up interest rates to borrowers. Stocks are in the toilet because businesses can’t secure funds for investment.

Conclusion: This will be an issue businesses, fiscal conservatives, and Democrats can rally around, and a very big achilles heel for GWB unless some amazing changes occur in the next 17 months.

59

Deficits are Bush’s weakest area. And it’s hard to see them getting all that much better by 2004. In fact, they’ll probably get worse.

On security, Bush’s weakest area is homeland security. There is room to exploit him there.

So sure, the Democrats can find some issues. The question is whether or not finding a few issues is going to be enough to overcome all the powerful advantages Bush will have.

The big unknown is a major terrorist attack in the U.S. If there is no attack, Bush will be able to run on a platform of saying, “I’ve kept you safe for three years now.” On the other hand, if there is an attack, Bush’s homeland security weaknesses are going to be big trouble.

60

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. :slight_smile:

  • 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?
    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!” :smiley: