Any Democrat beats Bush

The President seems to have lost the US public, particularly with respect to Iraq and the economy.

It doesn’t even matter who the Dems put forward.

What will he do to get back on the good side of the public? Relinquish this increasingly unpopular war effort? Or drop his tax gift to the rich?

Also: the public thinks the GOP congress is not doing a good job, and wants us to wait for UN security council support before moving against Iraq.

I predict he will win the war, relent on some of his more unpopular economic policies and be just in time to catch the upswing of the economy. But that’s just as good of a prediction as the one you seem to be making, which is to say that it is worthless.

Oh ho ho, that’ll do wonders for his reputation among lefties. Not only can they call him Dumb and Evil, but Spineless as well.

And that’ll sure swing over the middle and lower class voters.
“Yeah, I’m still out of a job and broke, but that millionare down the block couldn’t afford to install a third pool! Ha!”

The Dems are so fragmented right now, how many do they have running now? Eight, ten or twelve? The GOP has more of the public behind them then the press and the Democrats want to admit and it scares the crap out of them. Four MORE years out of the loop!! The sky is falling!!

I’d vote for Oscar the Rabbid Child-Eating Weasle before I vote to reelect Bush. Where do I make my vote?

Without knowing how a war goes (if ti happens at all), it’s very tough to figure out who’s going to win. Any prediction made today is all but worthless.

But that’s never stopped me from making predictions before, so I’ll repeat what I’ve said all along: we’re looking at a repeat of the last election. Almost all the states that went for Gore last time are near-locks for the Democrats again, while almost all the states that went for Bush last time are near-locks for Bush. We’re looking, once again, at a VERY tight race in the Electoral College.

Only a handful of states could go either way… and if you live in one of those states (like Florida!), expect to see a LOT of both candidates in 2004.

Maybe at Trivial Pursuit, but not in fundraising.

As OpenSecrets recently pointed out, the candidate with the most money won in 92% of the legislative races held in Massachusetts last year.

Of course, 80% of all MA races were considered “uncompetitive” and two-thirds were completely uncontested.

Nevertheless, money does most of the talking now, and Bush will unquestionably have more money than anyone he faces.

Two years ago I would have said that the American people are not so stupid as to forget that Bush is a minority President who won a controversial election and yet refused to offer any reconciliation or compromise. In the aftermath of the mid-term elections, well, let’s just say I’m not so sure about that anymore.

For months we have heard that he has a high approval rating, true, what it was also true was that for months the pollsters question that was damming was barely published: Would you vote again for him? Those polls lately showed Bush at around 40%, what is happening now, is that someone decided at last to put 2 and 2 together.

True, the Democratic field is fragmented. Can anyone name, off the top of their heads, all the Republican candidates going into the 2000 Republican primary?

Hope springs eternal. I’m hoping that Bush will be sent into early retirement.


If the economy doesn’t improve and if the War on Terror and Iraq are successful enough to move to the back burner, then Bush could be in trouble in 2004.

OTOH the Dems have been actively attacking Bush, while he govererns. Things will change during the campaign, when he counter-atttacks.

With what…the economy is really going well, really…you just haven’t noticed yet. All we need is a few more tax cuts for the rich, more deficit spending, and seagull defense shield.

Seriously, the democratic party has been its own worst enemy. I hold the conviction that a baffoon like Bush never would have been elected had an oily character like Clinton not been such a sleeze in the whitehouse. And the democrats do seem to act like schoolchildren more than leaders.

That is what is truly depression. I look to either side of the aisle and see fools. I hope someone with some skill can rise above this mess. It ain’t Bush. If its another REpublican, then I’m willing to listen (McCain, anyone)…if its a Democrat I’m willing to listen then too. Otherwise I’m sticking with Oscar my rabid weasle.

I would consider our country’s electoral system to be as much if not more of a chaotic system as the weather. Trying to predict the election this far away is like trying to predict if it’ll rain on Arbor day 2010. A politician flapping his lips can cause a political hurricane miles and miles away.

There are three big factors:

  1. The War on Terror, with the subwar of the War on Iraq. If this goes badly, Bush is in trouble. If they go well, Bush does well. It seems to me that if Iraq is invaded we’ll win. But by 2004 we’ll still be occupying Baghdad. If the occupation isn’t a disaster Bush wins votes.

  2. The Economy. If we are still in recession, Bush is in big trouble. If we are in recovery, which seems to me to be likely, Bush benefits. But even a recovery won’t help Bush very much unless it is spectacular, since people will remember the recession and (fairly or unfairly) blame Bush.

  3. The Democrats. Can the Democrats put forward a credible candidate without a destructive intramural catfight? People might SAY they’ll vote for a rabid weasel rather than Bush, but if the Democrats really do nominate a rabid weasel then lots of voters who hate Bush will stay home rather than vote. They probably won’t vote for Nader again, but lots of disgusted Democrats staying home means Bush wins…and is also excellent news for Republicans in Congress. The Democrats HAVE to nominate a decent candidate in 2004 if they want any kind of shot at taking back controll of Congress.

But the catch is, we really have no idea where any of these three variables are going to stand on Election Night, or perhaps more accurately the PERCEPTION of the variables. Might as well flip three coins, heads Bush wins tails Democrats win, and the party to get best 2/3 gets the white house.

Yes this was an interesting poll especially because you didn’t even need a particular Dem to beat Bush. Of course a lot will depend on what happens on the war and terrorism front but the poll shows that that there is a background of fairly weak support for Bush which will damage him in 2004.

My tentative guess is that if the Dems put up a strong candidiate especially John Kerry or John Edwards they will win. If they put up Dean or Lieberman they will lose.

Kerry? Kerry’s got a major weakness (the fact that a large segment of the electorate hates politicians from New England), and the only positive is money, and that could backfire because it’s his wife’s money (imagine the repeated cry, during the campaign, of “Sugar Mommy!”).

Edwards does have a chance, but he seems to be angling more for the VP nomination than the presidential one.

Dean has several problems. One of the biggest (if not the biggest) is that he’s running as a candidate of the left, which comes as a suprise to the Vermont electorate, which remember him as being fairly conservative.

Conservative in Vermont is just like liberal in Orange county-- an object lesson that the political spectrum is awfully subjective.

As a constituent of Kerry’s, I’m not too optimistic on his chances. His main problem is that he’s not pretty enough, and that makes it hard to find his charisma, sometimes. I also think he’s already started to steer towards the center (rolling over on Iraq way too easily)-- not what’s needed to energize the Democrats on primary day or election day.

I think if people will go for an inexperienced and tongue-tied but attractive governor, they’ll also go for a young but well-spoken and authentic-seeming senator. I’m hoping Edwards makes it.

Nine candidates is way, way too many. I hope half of them drop out before Iowa.

In my experience, anytime anyone says “Anyone would be better than the status quo”, the new person is almost certain to be worse. And that applies whether you’re talking about Saddam Hussein or George Bush. If the Democrats can’t field a specific someone who can demonstrate both leadership and vision, I may vote third party, and a lot of people won’t vote at all.

As a sort of hijack, what about 2008, especially if Bush wins in 2004? I’ve seen a couple stories (here, for example) where Hillary Clinton is brought up as a possibility. Now, in my personal opinion, the only person worse for the Democrats than Hillary Clinton would be Al Sharpton. I’ve actually said that the day that Hillary runs for President is the day that I make sure to vote Republican.

It’s not that she’s a woman, it’s that she’s Hillary Clinton. What do you guys think?

Bush is taking too long to attack Iraq that is what is bringing his pole numbers down. It makes his look wishey washy and Republicans hate that. I would like to see a pole against a real person rather than the democratic ideal. How about Bush vs Sharpton?

Only in the strictest genetic sense. :cool: