Okay, all you guys who say Bush is going to lose… How much would you like to wager? Name a bet that we can make that’s legal and within the rules of the SDMB, and I’ll take it.
If Vegas were taking bets on the 2004 election right now, they’d be giving Bush’s competitors as a field probably 3-1 odds, or maybe much better. So if you guys want to bet even money, I’m all over it.
You think Bush surrounds himself with people who will rubber-stamp his ideas? Wrong. Bush likes to surround himself with OPPOSING ideas. He likes to have advisors from both ends of the debate, with himself as referee. He feels that that’s the best way to come to a good decision. Probably something he learned in MBA school.
Look his foreign policy team. Do you think it’s a coincidence that they are split almost 50/50 between hawks and doves?
Getting back to the economic team - Yes, Snow can be counted on to support more tax cuts. But his new economic advisor has almost diametrically opposing views. Friedman is a deficit hawk - one of the bigwigs in the Concord Coalition. The supply-siders hate him.
Bush does not like yes-men. He likes healthy debate. He stacks his staff in such a way as to ensure it. That’s a very good policy.
50/50? Other than Powell who is a dove? As for Friedman he’s a bit player included to appease Wall Street, he makes no real decisions. And Bush doesn’t like yes-men? He is a yes-man. Rumsfeld and Cheney say this is what the country needs right now, Rove says how their going go about doing it, and Bush smiles, trips over their words, and tells America.
Hmmm…if that’s the case, then why fire your Treasury Secretary because he felt that the “solutions” of supply-side economics were the wrong policy? If he’s looking for healthy debate and opposing ideas and all.
cainxinth, sorry but the argument that his ratings were falling is absolutely ridiculous! You wanted them to go up a few months after 9/11? He has 60% approval ratings, which are still very, very high, and he will keep those numbers unless something suprising happens. You can point to the midterm elections to see how popular Bush actually is.
Can you back that up other saying ‘He is! He is!’?
When people are blaming your treasury secretary for causing the recession and the Dems have been pressuring Bush to make him resign, you let him go so as not to be an albatross.
Oh please. Bush doesn’t have any ideas. So how could he surround himself with opponants? He’s a weak minded lazy man who quotes the last strong minded person to speak to him. (Which apparently is usually either Rove or Cheney).
Glad Gore’s not running in 2004. He’s such a disappointment. Hell, he couldn’t beat George W. Bush – one of the weakest candidates in recent history. Aside from Dukakis, of course.
I think the Dems are going to start looking at new candidates: Rodham-Clinton, Lieberman and Kerry are just too liberal for mainstream America. If you want to win you have to win over some people who normally vote for the other ticket. That means the candidate has to be extremely likeable (e.g. Reagan or Clinton) and/or a centrist. It also helps to have a crisis on hand to make the incumbent look bad (e.g. the economy, American hostages in Iran).
I’ve heard Gary Hart might throw his hat in the ring again. Dont’ know how credible it is. He had a pretty good shot at it last go round, before the Donna Rice scandal. And looking at how Clinton handled a somehat similar scandal a few years later, Hart may have acted prematurely by taking his name out of the running.
As for Bush playing Rumsfeld/ Cheney/ Rove’s hand. I doubt google will turn up any hard evidence there. It seems likely to me from all I’ve read this past year, and to top it off William Safire (who likes Bush and has spent time one on one with his cabinet) said as much at lecture I saw him at a couple months ago.
I’d have to say the leader is Kerry. But it’s not strong.
We know that Lieberman will give it a go but I don’t think a Jew has any chance of winning (and I’m a Jew myself).
John Edwards, from North Carolina, has been talked about by the Press Corps for the last year or so. He’s sort of a national level rookie but he handles television well. And being from a fairly populous southern state should help. And being so recently on the national stage would make it not devastating for him to lose. Not unlike Clinton deciding to run in 1992.
And I do have a bet on with Bricker (a bottle of good scotch) on Bush losing in 2004. Sooner or later the economy will catch up with him. If things keep getting worse in Virginia he won’t even carry this state in 2004. And that would be painful for him.
Old Gore, new Gore, robotic Gore, or reinvented Gore, I could at least count on Gore to more or less be a Democrat. I’m not sure I can expect that of Edwards, and certainly not of Leiberman. I don’t know Kerry well enough to say for sure.
It’s silly to think that avoiding 2004 sets Gore up for 08. The world changes, and if you don’t stay in the game, it’s hard to fight your way back in. When Dan Quayle decided not to run for the GOP nomination in 1996, it sidelined him from the game, and by 2000, he was irrelevant. If Gore runs in 2008, he will be an also-ran for the Democratic nomination.
Gary Hart: :rolleyes:
JC: I hope you’re right. But it says here that you can’t beat something with nothing. And I might get old waiting for the Dems to stand for something.
[sub]I’m gonna go off and read Beckett’s “Waiting for McCain.” I’ll be Vladimir; who wants to be Estragon?[/sub]
RT, I played in that damn play in high school. You just sent chills up my spine. Brr!
Here’s a quandary for you. The democrats clearly feel a need to move to the center to win elections. Does this indicate that they feel they’re out of step with the electorate (there being a difference between the citizenry and the electorate, if you get my meaning)?
That is…so called ‘traditional’ Democratic values aren’t reflected by the people they want to represent. If they feel they need to move the party to win aren’t they simply setting themselves up to lose?
Win or lose I’d kill to see a drawn out campaign between a true liberal democrat and GWB. The way they run to the center these days is maddening to me.
What makes you say the Democrats want to move to the center? They just elected Nancy Pelosi to be minority leader, didn’t they? That’s a pretty sharp turn to the left.
The Democrats *should move to the right. That’s the only way to re-occupy the center, which is the only way to win elections. If they move to the left, they are going to be in the minority for a long time.
I think Gore will be effective in a role of critic-with-nothing-to-lose for the Dems. He’s kind of been playing that role to this point so far this year, but I expect it to get even louder and sharper as time passes toward '04.
He can do the “dirty work” for Democratic presidential aspirants who have to tread a razor-thin line on separating and contrasting themselves with Bush, while continuing to be perceived as tough on the war on terror, on Iraq and on national security.
Lest any Democrat want to pooh-pooh the significance of those topics, I’d suggest you look at this post-mortem poll re: the ass-whuppin’ y’all took in November.
The Democrats don’t necessary have to move anywhere: but they do have to come up with some sort of justification for why the hell they are wherever they are.
I’m at a loss as to what the Democrats should do. The polls show America is growing dissatisfied with Bush and the Republicans, Gore scored huge PR points by roasting Lott and the Republicans on SNL, and the anti-war movement is developing, the time is right to find a message and a spokesman and DO SOMETHING! I’m sure I’ll get at least the recommended dosage of flak for this one but I’d really like to see them look at Robert M. Bowman for inspiration.
I’d vote for McCain in a second if he dropped the GOP and ran for the independent nomination. His campaign could sell him as a moderate, liberal/ conservative hybrid for the 21st century.TM
Anything but four more years of that Son of a Bush.
I’m disappointed Gore won’t be running. I think he could have been a hell of a candidate. The nomination now comes down to Kerry and Edwards. Either will stand a 50-50 chance of beating Bush the Younger. (Isn’t it so cute when the R’s think they’re the majority in this country?)